PDA

View Full Version : USA - General discussion (Part 1)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Kate
09-10-2004, 04:27
I watched the debate Live on Yahoo! and I music say that Kerry obviously won this one as well as the one before. Bush, on the other hand contradicted himself and even made up a word - "Internets". What the...? Anyway, here's a review of the debate with humor. The comments of the start of the debate are at the bottom, the summary comment is at the top.
_________________________

Paul Begala's Debate Blog

Editor's Note: Paul Begala, co-host of CNN's political debate program "Crossfire," is providing a view from the left on the second presidential debate through this CNN.com blog. Follow along as he shares his observations and send us your own by typing them in the "Share Your Comments" box to the right.

Posted: 10:48 p.m. ET

Good debate. The press will say it's a draw, but I think Kerry bested Bush -- or rather Bush made a few errors. Two words for President Bush: anger management. He spent much of the debate nearly yelling at the audience.

About two-thirds of the way through he calmed down, used a little humor. But overall he hectored more than visited with people. Kerry was much more conversational, certainly not the pedantic, pompous senator some expected.

Bush can't name a mistake
Posted: 10:34 p.m. ET

Kerry's going right at Bush on the issue of mistakes. He's hammering Bush for the way he went to war. Then he admitted he's made mistakes in how he's talked about the war, while Bush made mistakes in how he went to war.

Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't name one. Breathtaking arrogance. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost four years and he cannot name a single mistak. Either he's the Second Coming of the Messiah, or he's so damned arrogant he's dangerous.

Kerry 'heartfelt' on religion
Posted: 10:29 p.m. ET

Missouri has a very strong pro-life movement, well represented tonight. The woman who asked Kerry about federal funding for abortion was poised and clear and strong. A far cry from the hysterics you usually see in the national media when abortion is covered.

Kerry's answer is sensitive. It's one of the few times he's talked about his religion in public -- and it's clearly heartfelt.

Bush says "I'm trying to decipher that." I (obviously) like Kerry. But even still I thought his answer was sensitive, and Bush's attempt at humor was callous.

The Bush litmus test
Posted: 10:26 p.m. ET

Supreme Court: A guy asked Bush who'd he appoint to the Supreme Court. "I'm not tellin,'" he said. Good use of humor. But I cringed when he said, "I want 'em all votin' for me." Is that a reference to Florida? To the Supreme Court case that put him in office?

He says he'll only appoint judges who oppose slavery. Wow, that's a great litmus test. Only anti-slavery judges for Bush. There goes David Duke's vote.

Bush incoherent on stem cell question
Posted: 10:22 p.m. ET

Careful, senator. A woman asked him about embryonic stem cell research from what is plainly a very pro-life position.

Good. Kerry is showing great respect for her values and her religion. And he's plainly energized by the prospects of the research.

Bush just said categorically, "Embryonic stem cell research destroys a life. I am the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research." :bum:

Huh? He said it's killing, but he's funding it? That's incoherent. That's our Bush.

Sneak and peek
Posted: 10:17 p.m. ET

Kerry just said he is against "sneak and peek" searches under the Patriot Act. How much you want to bet Bush thinks "sneak and peek" is a panty raid?

The weird turns pro
Posted: 10:14 p.m. ET

Hunter S. Thompson famously said, "When the going gets tough, the weird turns pro." Bush is definitely a pro.

Kerry referred to a timber company that pays Bush $84. I have no idea what he's talking about -- and neither did Bush. After ridiculing Kerry's argument by asking incredulously, "I own a timber company?" He paused for an awkwardly long time. Then he asked Charlie Gibson, "You wanna buy some wood?"

Definitely weird. (What THE... ?)

Kerry hits on 'Orwellian' language
Posted: 10:08 p.m. ET

Kerry's giving you the sense he's the Man with the Plan. He just ripped through his 3-point jobs plan. Now he's into his health care plan. If voters want a plan, he's there for them. It'll be interesting to see if voters come away with the sense that he's got good ideas.

Kerry clearly cares a lot about the environment, but hasn't talked about it much in the campaign. He nailed Bush for the Orwellian language Bush uses on the environment, education, etc.

In the middle of his answer, Kerry pointed to "Nicki" in the audience and brought her back in. Nice touch.

'Off-road diesel engines?' :laugh:
Posted: 10:06 p.m. ET

Environment: Bush began by simply saying, "Off-road diesel engines." Huh? Where's the verb, sir? He's throwing out a lot of jargon and Orwellian language, like "Healthy Forest Initiative."

The question was about air and water, and he's talking about how chopping down trees is the answer.

Kerry gets honest laugh
Posted: 10:01 p.m. ET

Kerry just got the first honest laugh -- and it was not an attack line. It was an affectionate reference to Charlie Gibson, saying Charlie would be the only person other than Bush and Kerry who'd pay the higher tax rate under Kerry.

Remember when Bush jumped ugly with Charlie? I said the audience wouldn't like it -- the audience identifies with Charlie. Now Kerry has shared a laugh with Charlie -- much more human, much more pleasant.

Kerry soothes voters on spending
Posted: 9:59 p.m. ET

Kerry was asked a very direct question. A guy asked him to look into the camera and promise he won't raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. He said yes. Unequivocally. Can't get any clearer than that.

He also said he's trimmed back on some of his favorite spending programs, which should be soothing to voters worried that he's a big spender.

Bush challenged on spending
Posted: 9:57 p.m. ET

Bush's response to Charlie Gibson's question about how he would cut the deficit in half. He said he'd control Congressional spending. But wait a minute, isn't that the guy who hasn't ever vetoed a single spending bill?

Bush was asked a tough question about why he hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. This is a direct challenge to Bush's vote with his base. Bush is nothing if not in tune with his conservative base. He's blaming everyone but himself for his deficit.

Kerry defended his health care plan against the attack that it was big government by saying, with a chuckle, that it's totally voluntary. He was conversational.

Bush hits the 'L-word'
Posted: 9:52 p.m. ET

Bush is clearly programmed to get on the L-word. Kerry's response is to say Bush isn't a compassionate conservative.

You can bet you will hear Bush repeat the L-Word again and again tonight -- and through November 2.

Bush just said, "The National Journal has rated Sen. Kennedy the number one most liberal senator."

Mr. President, you're not running against Ted Kennedy. You're running against John Kerry.

A woman just put Kerry on the spot over Edwards being a trial lawyer. Kerry's ready for it. Says he has a plan for tort reform, but more important, a plan to lower the health care costs for folks in the audience.

Bush is licking his chops. He truly hates trial lawyers.

This is a strikingly negative debate. I'm very surprised.

Bush just ripped into Kerry, then finished with a wink. He's clearly feeling like a cocky frat-boy.

First domestic question
Posted: 9:47 p.m. ET

Kerry again cited a Bush broken promise from the 2000 campaign, reminding people that he said in 2000 that importing drugs from Canada made sense. Kerry is strong on this one -- it's much more a Democratic issue.

Kerry's on offense. Bush is on defense.

First domestic question: Why, Mr. President, did you ban importation of prescription drugs from Canada?

Bush's answer raised the lame defense that they're not safe. :lol: Sure, that's why all those Canadians are dropping like flies every time they pop a Xanax.

Bush calms down
Posted: 9:42 p.m. ET

Bush has finally gotten control of himself. He cited his Homeland Security budget in response to Kerry's criticism that Bush preferred a tax cut to homeland security. And he's doing it in a conversational way. Maybe his outburst a moment ago got it out of his system.

Kerry not speaking 'Senate-ese'
Posted: 9:41 p.m. ET

Did Kerry just say "we got a whole buncha countries" and, "Lookit..." :D

He's actually speaking American, not Senate-ese.

Kerry launched a guided missile, saying that if Missouri were a nation, it'd be the third largest country in our coalition. Beautiful. Clintonian. Instead of burying us in facts and figures, he had one telling, killer anecdote.

Relax, Mr. President
Posted: 9:40 p.m. ET

Wow. The first moment of the debate.

Charlie Gibson tried to ask Bush a follow-up question, but Bush jumped him, almost yelling. He went right up to the edge of losing it. :rolleyes: (How rude! [- Kate]) People do not like it when politicians hammer nice, pleasant moderators like Charlie Gibson.

Bush needs to switch to decaf. His answer on the draft was desperate and rambling. Relax, Mr. President. Enjoy yourself.

Kerry's response seems much calmer, more reasoned. He ran through a list of generals and admirals who support him.

The 'Internets?' :lol: (When I actually heard him say it, I thought it was an error in the live streamming of the video... but it turns out that he really really said it. OMG!!! What a &*^%#* moron. He doesn't even know what internet is! What planet is he from? :rolleyes: [- Kate])
Posted: 9:37 p.m. ET

Bush just said: "I hear there's rumors on the Internets." Is there some secret second Internet I don't know about? Perhaps that's where Bush gets the information that tells him things are so peachy in Iraq and the economy's strong. He's living in his own Private Idaho, apparently reading things on his own private Internet.

Kerry is walking closer to the audience than Bush is. There's a piece of red tape that the candidates are not supposed to cross. You can't see it on TV, but if Kerry's ignoring it in order to get closer to the audience, good for him.

The town hall format requires the candidates to actually have a conversation -- not with each other, but rather with the audience members.

Bush pleased with himself
Posted: 9:31 p.m.

Bush seemed extremely pleased with himself to be able to tell you about how the generals said, "Yes, sir Mr. President." But he didn't respond to Kerry's point that Bush ignored the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, who said they'd need 200,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq. Because the truth is, he ignored Gen Shinseki, despite his comment that he always listens to his generals.

Lower your voice
Posted: 9:28 p.m. ET

Bush really needs to lower the register of his voice. He's pleading, trying to hard, almost yelling. He bit off and spat out the name of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi like it was a stale piece of garlic bread.

Kerry's counter was more calm than he was a few minutes ago. And a lot more calm than Bush. All over America people are asking, "Who is this angry man, and what have they done with that pleasant Mr. Bush?"

Kerry on fire
Posted: 9:22 p.m. ET

Kerry's using comments from GOP Senators Lugar and Hagel against Bush. His quotes are accurate, and they hurt Bush. What do you suppose Bush is thinking? Whatever it is, you can imagine it's not publishable on a family blog. :lol:

Kerry is on fire. He's putting the wood to Bush like a wayward pledge at the Deke house. Bush just said the Iraqi finance minister was optimistic, but then he turned on the TV and it made him pessimistic. Huh? If he's that big a weenie, what's he doing in Baghdad?

Angry responses
Posted: 9:17 p.m. ET

The first question to Bush was, like the one to Kerry, right at his vulnerability. Bush, too, has his answer down pat. But he's too angry, he's speechifying, his voice is rising. He shouldn't be hectoring and yelling at these people. Why isn't Bush connecting like the genial governor I knew in Texas?

Kerry's response to Bush is just about as angry as Bush's. Both of these guys need to be more conversational. They're jacked up on adrenaline and, to tell you the truth, looks like they just don't like each other.

Kerry prepared for flip-flop question
Posted: 9:12 p.m. ET

The first question went right to Kerry's greatest weakness: Are you wishy-washy? Kerry seems to want it -- he obviously has prepared this one many times. He's going through issues quickly: Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind. Even more than the specifics, he's trying to project a sense of strength and certainty. He doesn't seem at all nervous.

Bush, too, wants this question. He's gone through his litany of Kerry flip-flops. But there's great risk in being too negative. I think he'd be better off doing fewer specifics on Kerry's flip-flops and instead telling the questioner what he stands for.

He said his tax cut is "right up the middle class." If I were a more scatological person I might take it the wrong way.

Sox win a good omen
Posted: 8:33 p.m. ET

We're 30 minutes before the debate, and I can tell you, John Kerry is one happy man. No, not because the latest Time magazine poll shows the race tied. Not even because the latest Associated Press poll shows Kerry up by 4. No, Kerry's happy because his beloved Red Sox just defeated the Anaheim Angels with a dramatic, 10th inning walk-off home run by David Ortiz.

Both Kerry and Bush are huge baseball fans, and baseball fans are superstitious. I'm sure Kerry sees the Sox win as a good omen.

Source: CNN.com

More laughs: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/blog/10/08/klein.blog/

Unplugged
09-10-2004, 05:29
I think americans have some sort of disfunction. After such humiliating, vague, cynical answers from Bush, they say "it's a tie"!!! WHAT?! :eek: You know, I live in a small european country where people have less access to information, and still everytime our president or prime-minister lie or explain things vaguely or contradict themselves, they are immediately kicked out of their position as soon as the nation votes! And we only have 30 years of democracy! So America must have some serious problems, its citizens are obviously very easily manipulated.
And what was up with the audience watching the debate on location? Were they paid not to show any emotions? They all looked like rocks, and even when the candidates were talking about controversial issues, they just sat there like they were hipnotized.

Kate
09-10-2004, 06:10
And what was up with the audience watching the debate on location? Were they paid not to show any emotions? They all looked like rocks, and even when the candidates were talking about controversial issues, they just sat there like they were hipnotized. Exactly my opinion, too! I expected them to clap for Kerry, cuz he was brilliant most of the time, and to "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" Bush who's answers were bullsh1t (excuse my French). :rolleyes:

How can anyone support Bush is beyond my understanding.

spyretto
09-10-2004, 08:02
tskk tskk, you're obviously too biased. Didn't watch a minute of the debate but I'm sure the president did fine. And if it's a tie then Bush is still ahead. :coctail:

Kate
09-10-2004, 10:23
spyretto, are you kiddin'? Bush sucked. Just read the blog above! Jeez. The ignorance is what will get Bush re-elected. :rolleyes:

spyretto
09-10-2004, 11:00
Well, honestly, I watched half the debate just a while ago and I didn't see that much of a difference. Bush didn't stagger much and wasn't exactly incoherent when answering the stem cells question. He just said that he wants to balance ethics with scientific research and that was it.
Not to mention that for the most important aspect of the debate - the Iraqui war, and the war on terrorism - the viewers in America were swayed towards Bush. ( according to CNN ).
So basically Kerry has to cover a lot of ground before he can emerge as favourite. There's of course the argument that Bush is a dumbass who is not liked by anybody; Well, for a dumbass he did pretty good. Nobody would ever sustain that Kerry is dumber than Bush; it's just a matter of convincing some of the conservative voters to stray from the path and vote for Kerry on the grounds of being a better choice for a president... and, so far, he hasn't been that convincing...

Unplugged
09-10-2004, 17:26
Yeah, yeah, yeah :blabla:

spyretto do you have any personal saddistic pleasure that Bush wins?

Just because he raises his voice tone and acts like he's the saviour of America, sure that gets him more votes from dumb people that are easily manipulated

spyretto
09-10-2004, 17:39
Yeah, yeah, yeah :blabla:

spyretto do you have any personal saddistic pleasure that Bush wins?

Just because he raises his voice tone and acts like he's the saviour of America, sure that gets him more votes from dumb people that are easily manipulated

In short: 1) yes I do :D 2) maybe, we'll have to wait and see how dumb Americans can really be.

Kate
09-10-2004, 20:38
In my opinion, any intelligent person can see through Bush - he went to Iraq for oil and other personal benefits, he put all his good "friends" to lead Iraq so that they will come visit him in America everyday and drink tea in the White House while people in Iraq are being slaughtered, he always sides with big companies to make sure they get all the profit, he doesn't care about the Americans, he cheats, he plays dirty, he's stupid, he can't carry himself like a president.

thegurgi
09-10-2004, 20:51
They all looked like rocks, and even when the candidates were talking about controversial issues, they just sat there like they were hipnotized.

hehehe, most of the time that i watched the debate, i just sat there and made fun of how bored the people were.... i was rather impressed with Kerry during this debate, especially with how well he handled the abortion and stem cell questions.... but I honestly don't know how you decide who "Wins" these thingers

Kate
09-10-2004, 20:57
I think that the audience was specially trained not to show any emotion... :rolleyes:

spyretto
10-10-2004, 17:00
I think you're all missing the point...Bush is so bad he just has to be re-elected...that's how life goes...

And when he does i'll enjoy it with a nice port. :p

goku
10-10-2004, 17:42
hello...

Well first, that article Kate gave is obviously biased. Which is fine, most everything is, but you have to recognize it.
Second, staringelf, you need to think before you speak. I've seen a few of your previous posts; what you say often makes you look arrogant, and worse, ignorant.

As for the debate, I will go with a slight win for Kerry. He can speak, and maybe knows a thing or two. That always helps. As for the elections, I believe Bush will win, but it will be a close one, similar to the 2000 elections. The American people, on the most part, have taken to Bush, for how he lead the nation after 9/11. Bush still wins the vast majority of security polls. And in a time like this, security is crucial.

spyretto
10-10-2004, 17:58
The article only had opinions from the left-wing perspective. Kate never bothered to show us the opinions from the other side. ;)
Bush wins the security polls because the war on Iraq was his own thing, so it's obvious voters would believe he's better equipped to get the US out of this mess . How Kerry will deal with this issue is a mystery, we'll see after he's elected ( if he ever ).
As for my prediction, I hear that Kerry might just clinch it - although I close my ears and stand by my initial prediction of a landslide victory for Bush - maybe by a few thousand votes. :gigi:

spyretto
10-10-2004, 18:22
by the way, I'm sure yahoo.com is a Democrats endorsing website, so don't take what they write for granted. ( I have no problem with that at all though; nor with the fact that the Sisters of Mercy is a "left-wing institution" )

coolasfcuk
10-10-2004, 18:51
all i have to say is:

the voting system in USA is f*cked up yo!

Here i found a bbc page on how the USA elections work, presented in a very 'american' way :laugh: ... anyways... the whole thing is so weird, but the last - #4 step - when they count the votes, if a state has voted 51% to 49% for one of the candidates, he/she gets ALL the electorial points. Each state has different number of electorial points ...and the others get NONE, even though it was so close! funny I just found out from that article that the CONSERVATIVE state i live in - Nebraska - awards additional votes to candidates who win the states' House of Representatives Districts. Wonder how true that is....

here is the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/us_election/election_process/html/default.stm

spyretto
10-10-2004, 19:24
it's the exact opposite of the "direct proportional" system, and let me tell you, it's anything but democratic. But it's in line with the American motto "the first is first, the second is nothing" :D

Kate
10-10-2004, 19:48
If Bush will win, it'll only be by cheating. :) I don't believe American people are that stupid to re-elect him again. But a lot of big companies benefit from Bush being the president, and that will probably make him win.

luxxi
11-10-2004, 20:46
Can people participating in this debate who are actually entitled to vote in this elections (or at least Americans) raise their hands? Thank you. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

coolasfcuk
11-10-2004, 21:06
Can people participating in this debate who are actually entitled to vote in this elections (or at least Americans) raise their hands? Thank you.
eh, what do you mean 'at least Americans'? Only... and only americans can vote, not even permanent residents of the country :gigi:

oh, and about you people commenting about the audience.. the whole thing was very strictly moderated.... what did you expect? jungle yelling and screeming? couldnt you see that 90% of the people asking questions had trembling voices and couldnt speak right out of embarrasment/worrying/whatever else... and were reading from a piece of paper... in the worst possible way :lol: ....besides if you ask me.. some of them did show emotions while asking the questions, as much as the situation permited. I think they said those were ramdomly selected by the Gallup organization.

My favourite one was the White Trash Woman with the AMERICAN FLAG Sweater! :laugh: :flag:

luxxi
11-10-2004, 21:31
eh, what do you mean 'at least Americans'?


Yes, but not all Americans can vote. There is age threshold when you can vote.


Only... and only americans can vote, not even permanent residents of the country :gigi:

Which makes one wonder why are american elections debated by Swede, Potugese and New Zealander.

:newyear:

coolasfcuk
11-10-2004, 21:46
Which makes one wonder why are american elections debated by Swede, Potugese and New Zealander
:spy: WHO is the swede? :gigi:

If you are talking about me, I am Bulgarian, who has lived in USA for 7.5 years

luxxi
11-10-2004, 21:58
:spy: WHO is the swede? :gigi:

If you are talking about me, I am Bulgarian, who has lived in USA for 7.5 years

OK, my mistake. So why are American elections debated by Bulgarian, New Zealander and Portugese?

:newyear:

coolasfcuk
11-10-2004, 22:14
OK, my mistake. So why are American elections debated by Bulgarian, New Zealander and Portugese?
no prob. and why not? why do you debate about the Wars and you are a Slovene? besides you are forgetting a Greek too :heh:
and esp about me - why not? I live in the country ... maybe for the next elections I will be still here and will be able to vote :heh:

luxxi
11-10-2004, 22:19
no prob. and why not?


Because that is american internal matter.


why do you debate about the Wars and you are a Slovene?


Because I study history.


besides you are forgetting a Greek too :heh:


I was going fromt he top of my head here.


and esp about me - why not? I live in the country ... maybe for the next elections I will be still here and will be able to vote :heh:

But I guess not these ones.

:newyear:

coolasfcuk
11-10-2004, 22:21
maybe we all study politics :heh: so I guess that makes it ok, eh? :coctail:

spyretto
11-10-2004, 22:48
oh gosh, I think luxxi is an American muslim voter who's also a EU citizen with Turkish nationality :p

Relax, my friend, have a glass of wine or something :)

Unplugged
12-10-2004, 03:39
Second, staringelf, you need to think before you speak. I've seen a few of your previous posts; what you say often makes you look arrogant, and worse, ignorant.
Well, resorting to personal insults, are we? What a fine example for a moderator.

Obviously I am not going to respond in the same way, but I will clarify my position.

Yes, I think Americans are disfunctional when it comes to politics. No matter what you say, the truth is George W. Bush, due to the decisions he made, is responsible for millions of deaths, in the name of false weapons of mass destruction, and in the middle he got lucky and caught Saddam Hussein. All this of course, because he is SUCH a nice man who now only wanted the Iraqui people to have a free land - especially if the 'democratically' elected government can give him more oil than Saddam would. And because he is SUCH a nice man, why doesn't he invade Saudi Arabia where people are tortured if they badmouth the government, women have no rights and people live in repression? Oh, maybe because Saudi Arabia gives him enough oil, so that way people can live opressed, in fear, with few to non-existent rights. The truth is, as long as oil keeps coming in, Bush doesn't care how many people get killed, tortured, humiliatied or have their rights removed. The truth is, Bush prefers that women don't have the right to choose, he would prefer abortion to be ilegal, and by doing so he would be leading to clandestine abortion, where women could die from lack of conditions. I am completely against abortion, but if a woman thinks she should do it, I am not more than her to judge her, especially in the name of God like many do. The truth is, Bush is against gay people and wants to ban them, starting with gay marriages and ending God knows where. Americans may be about to re-elect this man, which proves many Americans are easily manipulated by populist speeches by this politician, which in my opinion shows that many Americans don't take full use of their huge access to information to reflect on how this hedious human being affected America and the World in the past few years, but prefer to be fooled and be the laughing stock (or hated, which is much worse) in the rest of the world. There are societies that have much less access to information are more aware politically and socially and would never allow such a prepotent man to rule their country once, let along twice. So, yes, I am criticizing America regarding their political awareness. Not all America. The America that voted for Bush and is still going to vote for Bush, which I hope is not the majority. I am not anti-American. I have been there and I appreciate many, many things about the American people and culture. I just don't appreciate that many are ruining their country and putting it far away from being "the land of the Free", allowing to become a land ruled by hypocrisy.

The people on the forum who have read more than just "a few" of my posts, know this is my position and know that I am not a xenophobe. If you don't know me, mr. moderator, maybe you should also think before you speak to insult me.

Kate
12-10-2004, 04:11
goku, I don't think that resorting to personal insults will resolve any of your personal issues and/or political issues in America. On this forum we respect other people's opinions, even if you don't share some of them. Chill. OK?

thegurgi
12-10-2004, 06:12
I wonder how many people will realise we get more oil from Mexico than we do any Middle Eastern Country... At least that's what all the text books and figures i've seen are telling me (up to date).

StaringElf, i don't like Bush, but he didn't make any decisions alone, it's true. And i HATE HATE HATE when people say that "he caused thousands of deaths" because, i'm sorry... my brother served in Iraq and everyone he knew was killed by the Iraqis... it's not him who's technically killing them, My brother was giving children clothes, giving them food, that's what most of the soldiers are doing over there... and yet we're the evil still because of George Bush. I don't think that the war in Iraq is a bad thing... because, if you weigh it all out, should ANYONE be ruled in such a way? Why won't anyone just stand up and go "you know, this isn't right"

I know, should anyone have the right to police the world, i'm not sure... but i think we can all agree that no man in power should all of sudden deside to gas bomb an innocent village of Kurds in the middle of night...


So OK... am i horrible person? I'm american and i support this war. I'm not voting for Bush because of his"born-again-higher-than-though-christian-anti-pro-choice-screw-stem-cell-research" campaign... and well, i'm so sorry our system is messed up, and i wish we could change it. I think we just need to start new, completely new people, new ideas, new idealogy... but i'm afraid it won't happen... It's the one flaw in our system... BUT, i'm sorry... don't act like you know all the answers, NONE of US do, and WE won't know REALLY what's happening over than for a long while, probably when it's over... and who knows how it will be....

i find it funny being criticised for our political awareness, cause i dunno... everywhere i turn i see something political... everyone supports someone and shows it, and no one is afraid to speak their mind. We're pretty aware of our faults, and we DO try to fix them...

:: i'm sure this made no sense, but i'm getting sick of pointing fingers ::

Unplugged
12-10-2004, 08:28
know, should anyone have the right to police the world, i'm not sure...
In the cases where it can be done in a right and fair way. This was/is definitely not one of them.

don't act like you know all the answers
Where did I say I know all the answers? Just because I'm against war, intolerance, discrimination and hypocrisy, it doesn't mean I hold all the answers.

We're pretty aware of our faults, and we DO try to fix them...
I don't know if you use "we" as in "people like me" or "we" as in "absolutely every American". If it is the 2nd choice, I don't see how anyone would try to fix a country's faults by voting for a dumb hick. And yes, no shit he didn't do the decisions alone, he wouldn't even have the brains to do so, he's weak and greedy.

Your brother served in Iraq, I am very sorry to hear that. He gave clothes to children, that's good, though. And of course you can't expect to invade a country and try to manipulate its culture and then wait for everyone who lives there to say "Oh, thank you so much for bombing us and telling us what to do with our society, you are so welcome here". Obviously there would be resistance. This war wasn't even supported by the UN, for me it is a shame for humanity and a shame for America. And so you get more oil from Mexico? Well but all the oil you can get is good, isn't it? At least for Mr. Bush. There is a certain strategy that is something like this: "We'll do EVERYTHING that we can to become richer", even if it means being a hypocrite, contributing for war - not only deaths, but also a cultural war, and being the country which most pollutes the world just so it can be the one to produce more and get more profit, no respect for nature. I don't agree with this. I don't agree with this blind greed.

I criticize the political awareness because when more than 40% of such a huge nation still sees Bush as "mr. Right" there is clearly something wrong, and some questioning urgently needs to be done.

That is my opinion. Only. I do not hold all the answers. I am not anti-American. And I wouldn't be half worried if America wouldn't be such a powerful nation as it is - I find it sad that such a country thinks it has the right to do whatever it wants and get what it wants at whatever cost, even going against the UN. America is bringing people and cultures even further appart this way, and this is not the brave America that should be, a country that stands for freedom, instead of feeding war, greed and injustice. On Sep 11th I was surprised that such an attack was possible - not only because of the security issues, but because I wouldn't expect so much hate towards America. Now, I would expect it, it wouldn't surprise me, after all the damage and greedy, hypocritical image America has due to its president. Of course I would and will never tolerante any kind of terrorism or hate, but right now it doesn't surprise me anymore, since those people are very traditional and fundamentalist and everything that disturbs their environment, every change, is very hard for them to face. And face it: even if you dislike them, you can't eliminate them, you can't just manipulate their society and tel them what to do and who to be. It can't work that way.

You think the war is a good thing, I respect it, but I could never agree with that. And one thing would be finding it to be necessary for a certain period, another thing is saying it's good. Anyway, I respect it, but I could never agree to something like that, it's disturbing and selfish.

Once again: this is MY opinion. ONLY. There are no absolute truths, especially coming from me. So don't put words in my mouth, please.

Kate
12-10-2004, 09:21
I wonder how many people will realise we get more oil from Mexico than we do any Middle Eastern Country Bush aimed to own the oil companies, or to help other large organisations own them. The oil doesn't have to go to USA. They can sell it to elsewhere and gain huge profits.

By saying that Bush is evil, people mostly mean that it's the Bush administration that is. Bush is just a Barbie doll that is operated by people who profit from him being the president. Bush chose to listen and act in favor for those people. If he was a patriot or had just a little brain of his own, he would have stepped down or refused to help the companies. Or maybe he can't do that, cuz those companies helped him cheat and win the last election.

Kate
12-10-2004, 10:41
No single country should decide upon the fate of the world according to its own personal interests. Exactly!! I totally agree. We call ourselves civilised and we should act accordingly.

On November the 2nd, the fate of Siria, Iran and North Korea will be decided. Oh, and the rest of the world's fate as well.

thegurgi
12-10-2004, 22:06
umm... we never bombed the areas that my brother passed out food...

TRUE STORY... they would be on a convoy to some different town, and they would be driving through nothing but desert all around, and all of a sudden there would be children, abandoned children right smack dab, no adults, no one to take care of them... THAT'S who my brother helped. And when parents would push their children into american trucks, hoping they would stop to avoid hitting them and hopefully crash or just stop so they could ambush the americans... you know. They were told while being there never to harm ANYONE unless they are shooting at you... so, maybe you just don't understand... but being against the war means to completely undermine what my family and country have SACRIFICED... would you all be happy for me to sit and here and cry because i lost my brother over a war you're all against... would his life (and the lives of those already lost) have been for absolutely NOTHING?! ... thanks, thanks SO VERY much for your support

spyretto
13-10-2004, 12:35
It probably hasn't been for nothing. We'll probably get to see the "democratization" of Iraq, eventually... that's always a good thing....can also take Bush's and his administration's logic for granted - that Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have gotten the help to develop weapons of mass destruction and would have posed a serious threat to US's security sometime in the future, etc.etc. That's all there is for now. No connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda has been established as yet.
I think Bush might come up with something more should he decide to invade Iran next year.

goku
13-10-2004, 22:50
I apologize staringelf, I was a little out of line. It came out not the way I meant it to. katebeidar is right as always, your opinion is just as good as anyone elses. This is a forum of tolerance, after all? There is a line though, and as a moderator I need to decide when someone crosses that line and if it needs to be corrected. In this instance, I was looking to see if you were insulting a particular nationality (i.e. Americans are stupid, Russians are ignorant, etc...). We have no need for insults, as we said earlier. This goes for everyone. However, I did misinterpret your intentions, and I'm sorry I came after you. But there had been a history of your posts, that at least I felt were insulting or degrading to people, and I felt the need to speak up. I should not yell or act brashly; rather, mention that people may be offended by what you say, it is always important to be delicate.

As for my opinion on the issue, this is coming from a Russian standpoint. I agree and disagree with what you said. One thing we have to remember is that America is the sole super power in the world. A byproduct of this is jealousy from foreign nations. It is much easier for a less powerful nation to say they could do better, differently, morally, but it hardly turns out that way. I believe that many nations, if given the information accessability of the US, could do a better job with running their country. But if they also recieved power, wealth, hatred, status, etc.. they would crumble. Corruption is present in every country, but it's very hard for new nations with wealth to handle it. I also believe that the American public is manipulated by it's leaders. As is every nation. They are no different from everyone else, who eat propaganda and are lied to every day. And if other countries are such NICE nations, why don't they provide aid to Rwanda, South Africa, the Balkans... The world is reliant upon America to some point. Thats why we're talking about this in the first place. No one debated about the South African presidential elections that took place a few months ago. It's lonley at the top, and vulnerable. However, I feel that the American people, along with any people, have the right to do whatever they please with their country. If they want to elect someone who takes away their freedoms, they should be able to.

Unplugged
13-10-2004, 23:19
As is every nation. They are no different from everyone else, who eat propaganda and are lied to every day.
Well I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you can speak for your country, but not for every nation.
Want an example? Our prime-minister here in Portugal has been suspected to pressure a very popular political analyst who was mysteriously fired from a TV station. In response to this scandal and huge drop in (what was left of) his popularity, the prime-minister came on TV to say he is going to lower taxes, raise retirement wages and raise public workers. More than 85% of our nation is against him and consider these statements pure propaganda, there are protests everywhere. Because we know our finances will not allow those raises and he will only do that to hide the rotten side of his ruling here. And NO I am not speaking for myself or for my circle of friends, I am talking about an attitude which corresponds the huge majority of people in Portugal right now. So even with such propaganda and raises, people know this man is being a hypocrite and people are demanding for the President of the Republic to set new elections asap. My nation is not manipulated by politics' propaganda.
Want another example? Spain. The 11th March scandal. The PP government blamed ETA for the bombings in Madrid, manipulated TVE (the public broadcasting network) so it would just show reports of how ETA was to blame and not Al-Qaeda, but the people knew something was very strange and badly explained, everybody knew ETA wouldn't operate like that. It was Al-Qaeda, and the spanish government wanted to ignore this, because it meant that Spain was turned into a target of international terrorist by having supported Bush in the war against Iraq, and this few days away from elections would mean a loss for PP, so did they everything they could to manipulate TVE and many newspapers even. It didn't work, the people got united in protest, and after being caught they admitted there was evidence of Al-Qaeda after all and of course lost the elections. Nobody needed to make movies and write books for them to realize their government was lying to them and not explaining what it should explain, they just thought and came to that OBVIOUS conclusion, giving PSOE [the opposite party] its best result in spanish history, in a clear sign of disapproval for the lies of the PP admnistration.
And I have no doubt that our portuguese prime minister will have the same fate, because the ones who take the privileges they have to manipulate the media to serve their propaganda are punished by the people who always have their eyes open.
So don't tell me every nation is manipulated by its leaders and their propaganda. Speak for your country [whatever country it is], don't speak for every nation. It is very unpolite and unconsiderate.

There is a line though, and as a moderator I need to decide when someone crosses that line and if it needs to be corrected.
I have already made an official complaint about your little 'decision', we will see if it is right for a moderator to insult an user just because he couldn't interpretate the message in the right way. Cause if it is, then moderators lose all credibility and we all might as well insult everyone just out of the blue everytime we think something is not right or our opinions don't match. If you think me having a different opinion from you is 'crossing the line' and you feel the need to insult me, no wonder it doesn't bother you that Americans plan to vote for such an intolerant man named George W Bush.

freddie
14-10-2004, 00:34
Boooo. I come back and all the interesting subjects have been discussed to death without me already. Everything's been said already.

I'd just like to reply to Luxxi about the elections being an USA internal matter. It's all about USA being a super-power and it's great influence it has on the world, not only politicaly and economicaly, but also socialy. The world politics these last few years has been hugely effected by the US as a sole superpower left in the world. So I guess American elections are an interest of all of us. At least as far as the international politicies are concern.

coolasfcuk
14-10-2004, 01:03
yeah, freddie, I think its just that luxxi seems a bit strict.. and i think he meant its none of non-american business because non-americans CANT vote - so in a way, in a very strict manner, its pointell to discuss it since we cant participate.

But if you ask me, we can discuss anything we want :coctail:

and dont worry, more is to be said, tonight is the last debate.. .on internal matters ... but how much do you wanna bet its still going to revolve around Iraq and the War :heh:

goku
14-10-2004, 04:42
lol staringelf, you're just asking for it.. Anyways, I already said it wasn't my intention to insult you, I wanted to warn you. No moderator or admin purposely insults a user; we have other ways of dealing with it. And using your logic, just because you don't agree with me, I am wrong? Maybe I felt insulted by what you said, whether you meant to or not.
Speak for your country [whatever country it is], don't speak for every nation. It is very unpolite and unconsiderate. This is how I should've said it. Rather, don't make absurd generalization. As for your point about propaganda, I don't even know where to start. You just seem to be completely ignoring history. Nevertheless, I am done with this discussion. I hope you don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you, or make an enemy.

Back on topic, I see what you are saying coolasfcuk, and luxxi as well. Who the American people choose as their president has a large impact on the rest of the world. But as non-voters technically we don't get to choose what happens. As for the debate tonight, it was President Bush's best one so far. I might even go as far to say as he beat Kerry. Certainly the closest. Now how these debates will imapct the votes will be interesting.

thegurgi
14-10-2004, 06:28
Thanks Goku... i'm very glad you have a head on your shoulders :D

Not to say i don't think that about anyone else, i just preferred Goku's point of view.

Anyhow, i'm not sure i understand what on earth you're talking about Propaganda but the American people aren't anymore manipulated by PPG than anyone else. And there are campaigns against the way that it is used in the states... I just don't really pay attention to them... it's all fodder, hahaha.

Kate
14-10-2004, 08:11
Yet again, Bush was in denial during the third and final debate. Pathetic.

spyretto
14-10-2004, 13:18
Bush was, is and going to remain in power. There was never a question about it, and those who cast doubts were only expressing a wild hope. Nothing more or less to be said...

Unplugged
14-10-2004, 13:25
Bush was, is and going to remain in power. There was never a question about it, and those who cast doubts were only expressing a wild hope. Nothing more or less to be said...
Boooooooooooooooo :bebebe: :p You just want him to win so you can say your stubborn predictions were right ... Ts ts ;)

Joha84
14-10-2004, 17:38
In my opinion, Kerry should be the next president of the United States. He seems very prepared to do this task not only because he has defended this country in war times as Vietnam, but because he has been a senator for 20 years. This gives him vast experience on how to do a great job as a president because he started from scratch and, i believe, he could lead this country to what it was before Bush illustrated the ugly side of America by invading Iraq. As Kerry said: "America should go to war because it has to, not because it wants to." I mean, what rights did Bush had to attack Iraq? The U.S. main objective was to find Osama Bin Laden, and Osama Bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq. Why did he decided to attack Iraq after 9/11 and not before? Iraq was so much harmful back then, but not in these last years.

Because of Bush choices, Americans have been losing their jobs, the cost of things are going higher, seniors have to choose between drugs and food, this is just wrong...

I just hope the American people do the right decision because i can't vote yet... I just have to hope.. let me hope Kerry would win...

luxxi
14-10-2004, 18:34
I'd just like to reply to Luxxi about the elections being an USA internal matter. It's all about USA being a super-power and it's great influence it has on the world, not only politicaly and economicaly, but also socialy. The world politics these last few years has been hugely effected by the US as a sole superpower left in the world. So I guess American elections are an interest of all of us. At least as far as the international politicies are concern.

OK, since a lot of us here are from Europe let's debate following matters:
1. Rise of far right in Germany
2. Different gov't in Spain and it's reorientation from US-UK toward Germany-France
3. Strenghtening of position of Russian president
4. Belorussian dictatorship

Those things concern Europe more than US elections but do you see posts about them around here? I don't.

:newyear:

spyretto
14-10-2004, 19:29
OK, since a lot of us here are from Europe let's debate following matters:
1. Rise of far right in Germany
2. Different gov't in Spain and it's reorientation from US-UK toward Germany-France
3. Strenghtening of position of Russian president
4. Belorussian dictatorship

Those things concern Europe more than US elections but do you see posts about them around here? I don't.

:newyear:

Why don't you start a thread about it and maybe if there's any interest we can discuss it. This is a thread about the US Elections 2004.
Hey, we can also discuss the role of the American government in the military coup of 1967 in Greece - for that matter :p

luxxi
14-10-2004, 19:44
Why don't you start a thread about it and maybe if there's any interest we can discuss it. This is a thread about the US Elections 2004.


Because I thought this site is about music group.


Hey, we can also discuss the role of the American government in the military coup of 1967 in Greece - for that matter :p

Why stop with Greece? We could discuss several other involvements. Or we could discuss new advances in biochemistry. either has same to do with original intent of this site.

:newyear:

Kate
14-10-2004, 20:06
Bush was, is and going to remain in power. There was never a question about it, and those who cast doubts were only expressing a wild hope. Nothing more or less to be said... Well, according to the record, no presidential candidate who lost 3 debates in a row went on to win the White House. :) Let's home the record holds truw this November. luxxi, US presidential elections are not just an American issue. The events of the past few yuears have clearly shown that the leaders of America can have a huge inpact on the world in terms of economy, peace, politics and other such matters.

spyretto
14-10-2004, 21:27
Because I thought this site is about music group.

Well, it's about everything also, that's why there's the general forum. You can start a topic about anything here, from evolution theory to the latest trends in fashion ( i.e. butt bling )
The group in question is not much active anyway...

Kate
15-10-2004, 08:56
Look at this: http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20041008/ltt041008.gif :lol:

spyretto
17-10-2004, 15:13
I guess starting WWIII will be even harder :D

ypsidan04
18-10-2004, 00:15
Intertesting article sent to me:

John Eisenhower:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary

EDITORS NOTE: This commentary was originally published Sept. 9, 2004.

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

Kate
18-10-2004, 00:55
ypsidan04, an interesting article, indeed. Thank you. Let's hope Americans will actually read it and use their brains. :)

spyretto
18-10-2004, 23:54
look! weapons of mass destruction here (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) :lol:

Kate
19-10-2004, 00:04
After less then a week of being in the lead by 1%, Kerry is now behind again, with Bush's approval at 52% and his at 44% according to the CNN poll. :rolleyes: This is beyond ridiculous!! Seems like Americans didn't watch those debates at all!

freddie
19-10-2004, 01:07
OK, since a lot of us here are from Europe let's debate following matters:
1. Rise of far right in Germany
2. Different gov't in Spain and it's reorientation from US-UK toward Germany-France
3. Strenghtening of position of Russian president
4. Belorussian dictatorship

Those things concern Europe more than US elections but do you see posts about them around here? I don't.

:newyear:

Uuum. Like I said. USA is politicaly much more important to all of us then any specific European country on it's own. We're talking about the global issues here. And as far as I remember, despite this being a musical forum you discussed The Chechnian War, fire-arms, social problems... all of these variety of topics yourself as well. :p
It's much more then a forum about a music group these days, I'd reckon.


This (http://community.webshots.com/photo/200189259/202479326dGrmeZ) is a photo I made in Boston. A banner urging people to vote. They had them all over the place. In colleges, churches, restaurants... the whole Boston has the election vibe to it. Well I guess it's no question who the Bostonians will vote. ;)

I think that one advantage Bush has over Kerry is that he has more human warmth... as in... he looks more like an everyday American, one of them. While Kerry's face just SCREAMS elitist snob. :d

coolasfcuk
19-10-2004, 02:05
But freds, Bush's face screams: 'Im a f*cking MONKEY!' :laugh: ... and you know what i CANT stand.... they WAY he speaks and his ACCENT! It drives me insane!

Kate
19-10-2004, 04:39
Okey, tell me if the following poll results make sense to you:

Source (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/election_ratings/poll_figures.html?SITE=YAHOOELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling Iraq?

Published Oct. 7th Approve 44% Disapprove 54% Other 0% Error 3% Associated Press-Ipsos

Approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?

Published Oct. 7th Approve 57% Disapprove 37% Other 0% Error 3% CBS News/New York Times

Approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the economy?

Published Oct. 7th Approve 47% Disapprove 52% Other 0% Error 3% Associated Press-Ipsos

Things are heading in the right direction, or are on the wrong track?

Published Oct. 7th Approve 40% Disapprove 56% Other 0% Error 2% Associated Press-Ipsos

Approve or disapprove of President Bush's performance?

Published Oct. 7th Approve 46% Disapprove 53% Other 0% Error 3% Associated Press-Ipsos

If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush or Kerry?

Published Oct. 7th Bush 48% Kerry 47% Error 4%

What the...? :ithink:

Lux
19-10-2004, 05:36
vote Bush because of this: "i own a timber company? i didn't know that. got any wood?" LMAO what a moron. :blabla:

spyretto
19-10-2004, 08:05
Kerry's only chance is if all the undecided voters are swayed his way...so fat chance for you boys and girls.
even Putin endorses Bush and you better prepare to drink another sorrow cup, you unbelievers.

After Putin's statement, I endorse Bush as well. Go go go, the president!
The world will be a safer place with GW for a second term. If Kerry is elected we'll have another 9/11 and you know it ( am I flip-flopping? :D )

( oh, Marylin Manson also endorses Bush - and the whole Church of Satan for that matter ).

Kate
19-10-2004, 08:29
Putin endorses Bush I read that article, and Putin didn't endore Bush at all. He even said that Russia always was and always will dissaprove the war in Iraq. Putin just said that terrorists will get out of control if Bish doesn't get re-elected (aren't they already?), but we don't yet know how Kerry will deal with the terrorists.

luxxi
19-10-2004, 08:46
After less then a week of being in the lead by 1%, Kerry is now behind again, with Bush's approval at 52% and his at 44% according to the CNN poll. :rolleyes: This is beyond ridiculous!! Seems like Americans didn't watch those debates at all!

Or that they choose differently than you. Which is one of the beautiful things about democracy.

And as far as I remember, despite this being a musical forum you discussed The Chechnian War, fire-arms, social problems... all of these variety of topics yourself as well.

Because those things concern me. And IIRC I didn't start those threads.

:newyear:

Kate
19-10-2004, 09:35
Which is one of the beautiful things about democracy. A Bush supporter, are we? ;) Have you killed any innocent children in Iraq for oil lately? Joking. Ignore me.

spyretto
19-10-2004, 11:45
MOSCOW, Oct. 18 - President Vladimir V. Putin said Monday that international terrorists in Iraq hoped their attacks would unseat President Bush in the election next month, and that such an outcome might embolden their efforts and lead to more terrorist acts.

Mr. Putin spoke at a news conference at a regional meeting in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. A transcript was provided here by the Kremlin. He was asked how the war in Iraq would influence the election, and which candidate - President Bush or Senator John Kerry - would be better for him personally.

Mr. Putin's answers were oblique. He quickly pointed out that Russia opposed the war in Iraq and that "today our views with President Bush differ significantly on this question."

But then he presented an opinion he had not publicly expressed before, saying, "The attacks of international terrorism in Iraq are directed today not only and not so much against the international coalition forces as against President Bush personally," and that terrorists have "the goal of preventing Bush's election.''

He later said, darkly, "We must understand that in this case this will give international terrorism an added impulse in their activities, will give them additional strength and may lead to their growing activity in the various regions of the world."

Iraq has been plagued since last year by attacks from insurgents of various nationalities, faiths, ethnicities and insurgent groups. They are generally not thought to be alike in their thinking or ambitions, although American officials have said they have detected signs of collaboration among some of them.

Mr. Putin, who lumped the attacks under one label, offered no support for his claim to know their goals.

Although he said that "we, without a doubt will respect any choice of the American people," the sum of his comments was regarded here as a signal that he preferred Mr. Bush.

"This is the hidden message, but not very well hidden," said Masha Lipman, a political analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

She described Mr. Putin's remarks as "odd," but said they might naturally reflect his satisfaction with his personal relationship with Mr. Bush, which both men have characterized as comfortable.


Yeah, he didn't endorse Bush, just said that terrorists will be "safer" under Kerry, when security has been the number one issue to decide these elections. :p

luxxi
19-10-2004, 11:50
A Bush supporter, are we? ;)


What a great knee-jerk reaction. :rolleyes:

Personally I don't give a rat's anus about who wins. Iraq? One wants to keep troops there for a long time, other one wants to increase their numbers. Palestine? One gives Sharon unconditional support, other one is for giving Sharon unconditional support. Oh yes, such fundamental differences. :rolleyes:


Have you killed any innocent children in Iraq for oil lately? Joking. Ignore me.

Yes, just before lunch. the little fcuker wouldn't want to give up his can of gasoline so I shot him. That will teach those stupid IRaqis a lesson. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

freddie
19-10-2004, 11:56
Luxxi how does the Chechnian War concern you MORE then the US elections? :p

luxxi
19-10-2004, 11:59
Luxxi how does the Chechnian War concern you MORE then the US elections? :p

1. Closer
2. More empathy
3. There is a small possibility I can influence events there
4. That war is part of my diploma thesis

:newyear:

freddie
19-10-2004, 13:43
1. Closer
2. More empathy
3. There is a small possibility I can influence events there
4. That war is part of my diploma thesis

:newyear:

Lol... I see your point but still...

1. Closer... still VERY far and VERY unsignificant to Slovenia AND the EU. In that respect USA id ECONOMICALY and SOCIALY much closer to us then Chechnya.

2. More emphaty? I feel equaly emphatic to all the people too all people, though. As do many.

3. Really? Now you got me wondering :p

4. Fair enough. Still... some people like discuss general topics that influence world events even if it's NOT their diploma thesis.

luxxi
19-10-2004, 14:17
Lol... I see your point but still...

That's why I put it in the middle of room. so everybody can see it. ;)


1. Closer... still VERY far and VERY unsignificant to Slovenia AND the EU. In that respect USA id ECONOMICALY and SOCIALY much closer to us then Chechnya.


Perhaps.


2. More emphaty? I feel equaly emphatic to all the people too all people, though. As do many.


But did several thousand die due to US elections?


3. Really? Now you got me wondering :p


You can put pressure on country to stop slaughtering people. You can't put pressure on country to elect somebody (or at least you shouldn't)


4. Fair enough. Still... some people like discuss general topics that influence world events even if it's NOT their diploma thesis.

But increasingly this is about US.

:newyear:

Kate
19-10-2004, 20:14
luxxi, if you don't want to discuss US elections, and would rather discuss Chechnya, create a thread about it and I'm sure you'll find people who are interested and will join you. Don't ruin this thread for others, please. :)

freddie
19-10-2004, 21:29
But did several thousand die due to US elections?

Millions might, indirectly.


You can put pressure on country to stop slaughtering people. You can't put pressure on country to elect somebody (or at least you shouldn't)

YOU will put the pressure on them? :spy:

luxxi
19-10-2004, 22:44
Millions might, indirectly.


How?


YOU will put the pressure on them? :spy:

Not me. Well, I might burn another Russian flag but that's another story. No, what I said was one can put pressure on countries to stop slaughtering people. One can't and shouldn't put pressure on country how to vote.

:newyear:

Kate
19-10-2004, 23:38
How? If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.

Plus, we are not putting pressure on anyone. We're just discussing. Please, change the tone you write your messages in, cuz you're ruining the atmosphere.

luxxi
20-10-2004, 00:03
If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.


Dead from terrorist attacks in this century don't go over 5.000 mark.

Dead from US wars in this century don't go over 100.000 (and probably not over 50.000 either).

Barring use of nukes I doubt any war US launches in next 4 years will top 100.000 dead. And that is well short of millions


Plus, we are not putting pressure on anyone. We're just discussing.


Did I say you are putting pressure on people? If so where? :spy:


Please, change the tone you write your messages in, cuz you're ruining the atmosphere.

What tone? I merely pointed out that it's amusing how non-americans debate Us elections. then you people were all over me like I made Yulia pregnant. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

forre
20-10-2004, 00:37
If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.

At least Bush has made his mistakes and learned something. Kerry may go on over again. There's no guarantee that Kerry's line will be cleaner. Me - I don't trust Kerry a piece. Just a feeling. At this point I think Bush will be a better choice for the rest of the world.

To all:
Normally hot issues cause hot debates but there's no need to insult neither each other nor the involved countries. Try to conduct the discussion on a more impersonal leve, please.

Kate
20-10-2004, 00:39
luxxi, so basically a million people should die before you oppose Bush? Because the people and children who got killed as of today don't have families, people that love them, that care about them and so on, is that what you're saying? Terrorism needs to be fought, but US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraqi war was for oil, Bush mentioned invading it even before he became president.

Like Kerry said during the second debate, "The world is more dangerous today because the president didn't make the right judgments. [...] The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. [...] [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror." :done:

Well said, Senator Kerry. God bless him, and may this smart man win the US elections.

P.S. I agree that the world in better off without Saddam Hussein. But this is not the kind of thinking that leads to peace. The world will be better off without many people, should we start a war on every country whose leader we will be better off without? I don't think so, because in the process innocent people loose their lives. Kerry is right, deplomacy is how things should be settled. We call ourselves civilised as human beings, and we should act accordingly and not rush to war when out left buttock tells us to.

forre, obviously, you didn't watch the Presidential debates. I recommend you do that.

forre
20-10-2004, 00:56
forre, obviously, you didn't watch the Presidential debates. I recommend you do that.
Oh well, actually I do but I don't buy all so-called populistic crap that both candidates come with. To turn the question about Iraq's war over to the matter that for those money Usama could be cought is merely populistic and nothing more. Terrorism is not about one person only, it's a whole system. Then, most of the TV-watchers catch some bright phrases and go with them. So we'll see how it will turn. I cared last elections as I thought Al Gore was a better choice, this time I do not care a lot as it's a game of choosing between two devils.

P.S. Kate, keep your recommendations on what I shoudl watch and shouldn't for yourself, please.

Kate
20-10-2004, 00:59
forre, I didn't get the point of your post. :dknow: Can you rephrase or something?

I didn't mean to offend you by recommending you to watch the debates... you just seem to be a bit out of touch with the facts, that's all.

forre
20-10-2004, 01:12
Sure,
The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. [...] [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror."
Here, he speaks about the war that wasn't necessary in that scale that took place. That is not important. The important thing for the TV-watchers is that the country could have saved 200 billion bucks to catch Usama. It's how the phrase is interpreted in the mind. So we have WAR - > 200billions -> Usama. Those are the key words. Bush could come with the counter phrase as "to spend 200 billion bucks on a project of catching one person is irresponsible. It's like throwing money for probably nothing". Etc. So at this point we see that Kerry's argument is empty in itself but it may work on the voters as it seems have worked on some of you. It's was a good strategy to gather some points from Kerry's side.

I know you didn't mean to offend me, it's just an example to show that it's easy to get over to a personal level without making a point.

Kate
20-10-2004, 01:20
First of all, it's Osama bin Laden. I thought you made a typo in the first post, but you did it twice so I had to correct you.

Here, he speaks about the war that wasn't necessary in that scale that took place. That is not important. The important thing for the TV-watchers is that the country could have saved 200 billion bucks to catch Usama. It's how the phrase is interpreted in the mind. That's not how it was interpreted in my mind. They could have used the 200 billion for their health and education issues. The U.S. were very close to catching Osama bin Laden, when Bush suddenly said that he is, and I quote, "not worried about him [Osama] so much".

Bush could come with the counter phrase as "to spend 200 billion bucks on a project of catching one person is irresponsible. It's like throwing money for probably nothing". Etc. I'm sorry, you lost me here.

So at this point we see that Kerry's argument is empty in itself but it may work on the voters as it seems have worked on some of you. It's was a good strategy to gather some points from Kerry's side. And how did you get to this conclusion?

Olga, you're confusing me. Aaaaaahhh. :( I want to understand you so I can respond, but you're making it really hard for me to understand what you're saying. :(

Ok, let's make it easier. Why do you support Bush and don't support Kerry? Give me reasons with quotes. I'll do the same. :D That should be simple and logical.

luxxi
20-10-2004, 08:48
luxxi, so basically a million people should die before you oppose Bush? Because the people and children who got killed as of today don't have families, people that love them, that care about them and so on, is that what you're saying? Terrorism needs to be fought, but US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraqi war was for oil, Bush mentioned invading it even before he became president.

Where did I say that? Freddie said that millions might die as a result of US elections (i.e. if Bush is elected). I asked him how. then he responded that by invading other countries. To which I pointed out that in wars Bush launched in this century less than 100.000 people died. So I don't see how millions could die in next 4 years. :rolleyes:

If anybody has any idea how millions could die as result of Bush being elected please enlighten me.

First of all, it's Osama bin Laden. I thought you made a typo in the first post, but you did it twice so I had to correct you.

Not necessary. When translating non-latin script into latin you can get several variants. None is more correct (or wrong) than other.

:newyear:

forre
20-10-2004, 09:03
Ok, let's make it easier. Why do you support Bush and don't support Kerry? Give me reasons with quotes. I'll do the same. :D That should be simple and logical.
Of course not. None of them is good enough. Kerry just has a very good initial position as he can play on Bush's mistakes but Bush can't do that as Kerry didn't make any yet. Kerry's mistakes are still to come if he wins.

Kate
20-10-2004, 09:13
None of them is good enough. True. But Kerry is better then Bush, IMO. Both of them are liars, both want to win for reasons that we might never know, but Kerry's politics are more suitable in today's world. Not necessary. When translating non-latin script into latin you can get several variants. None is more correct (or wrong) than other. "Osama" is more widely excepted, so I think it's better to use it. Of course, use whichever, I don't really care. :)

luxxi
20-10-2004, 11:29
"Osama" is more widely excepted, so I think it's better to use it. Of course, use whichever, I don't really care. :)


More widelly accepted yes. But that doesn't make it more right.

:newyear:

spyretto
20-10-2004, 18:59
oh common, it's Usama & Osama, it's the same thing. Don't "filter out a mosquito yet shallow a camel."

Don't pretend u care about Iraq, nobody cares about Iraq. And if u were a victim all u'd see is a light and nothing else.
Bush is as bad as Kerry and US policy won't change, that's the bottom line. Whatever the Americans wanna do they do it, we don't have a say about it. ( that is Bush's re-election, by the way )


peace :)

Kate
20-10-2004, 21:23
spyretto, we don't know for sure that Bush will get re-elected. Yes, there's a high chance, but nothing in this world is for sure.

freddie
20-10-2004, 22:30
It's fate I tell you! Fate! Kerry's initials are JFK. And he's from the same state as the real JFK even.

What I've seen in the US (of course I've seen less then a 100 people out of 200 million so it's not like it's important, but anyway) is that people are uterly clueless regarding who they're gonna vote. They simply don't care enough. I've seen the debate being shown on a big screen at the Downtown Crossing in Boston and no one even looked up. They just went about their errands. Some colledge girls assured me that they'll vote on a whim... whoever they like better on that day. Then there was this girl who said she'll vote for Kerry cause he's cute. :eek:

Kate
20-10-2004, 22:42
freddie, that's exactly how I imagined the situation in the U.S. The whole world is holding it's breath until the elections, but the majority of the Americans couldn't care less. As long as they themselves are not being killed, who cares who leads, right? Ignorance is bliss.

Having lost a my dad this year, I can just imagine what kind of pain the relatives and loved ones are feeling when their children, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands etc are being blown up to pieces for no other reasons then "peace". Like the quote in my signature says, "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity." If you think about it, it's exactly like that. The only way to reach peace is by patiently and diplomatically discussing the issues.

Kate
21-10-2004, 10:16
kirillov, WW2 had a stupid cause to it. There's never a good reason to use force and take lives.

Kate
21-10-2004, 10:29
kirillov, Hitler was a mentally challenged person, he attacked first with his stupid Nazism, of course people fought back. But that's not the point. No body would have started WWII just because someone decided to attack Germany because Hitler supposedly was a Nazi! :blabla: And that's exactly what Bush did - killed millions of perfectly innocent people just because his left buttock suggested that there might be WMD in Iraq. He was doing it for the oil, a guinea pig can see that.

Kate
21-10-2004, 10:35
kirillov, the quote assumes that if you lost your virginity you can't get it back by having sex with someone.

marina
21-10-2004, 13:58
They simply don't care enough. I've seen the debate being shown on a big screen at the Downtown Crossing in Boston and no one even looked up. They just went about their errands

Because they would just like to see what each candidate is going to do, and not what each candidate thinks the other did wrong, or what they are going to do wrong .
They are very sick of all the negativity of these stupid campaigns, people on both sides have faults. Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot .
Should be something better than what they have to choose from.

luxxi
21-10-2004, 15:17
No body would have started WWII just because someone decided to attack Germany because Hitler supposedly was a Nazi! :blabla:

So you would oppose attacking Germany on the basis of Nazis killing one group of people because they belonged to certain religion?

:newyear:

haku
21-10-2004, 19:51
Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot.
I agree that Bush and Kerry are both bad. Their international policy will be the same.

Today in Ohio, Kerry showed what a gun lover he is, something any candidate must do in the US.
Yeah! I killed something with my cool gun! (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/kerry.guns.ap/vert.kerry.ap.jpg)
Oh yeah, that guy is all for love and peace. :rolleyes:

Kate
21-10-2004, 21:23
haku, he was hunting there. For your information, invasive species that were brought to America are destroying their natural habitats, like possums in NZ. So these animals are allowed to be hunted and killed. So basically, Kerry showed that he cared for U.S. natural environments and biological conservation.

luxxi, let's not go completely offtopic. :)

forre
21-10-2004, 23:27
When it comes to the finals in the elections of the US President, both Kerry and Bush will claim they even care about mosquitos in Arctics.

Excuse me my sarcastic tone, but when I watch them debating, I can only smile. They are both uber-pathetic. :blabla:

Kate
22-10-2004, 01:25
forre, well tell me what would you do if you were one of the candidates? Tell them that you're a liar and that you have no plans for USA at all? I hardly think that will win you any votes.

The issue at hand is not who is pathetic, but whose ideas for the America are right in general - and that's Kerry's.

coolasfcuk
22-10-2004, 04:08
Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot .
Should be something better than what they have to choose from.
:done:

Exactly. There is not much more to be said... its just too bad that it wasnt Gore the one who won 4 years ago, because it is very clear that Kerry is the WORSE when comparing them (Gore and Kerry)... and of course Bush is ALWAYS bad! :blabla:

Kate
22-10-2004, 04:37
Kerry isn't very charismatic, so there must be a reason why his party decided to sacrifice that quality and still choose him. And I think it's because he is very qualified. The way he carries himself, so presidential.

Bush doesn't carry himself -- he yells during debates, interrupts the moderator etc... he doesn't even know what "internet" is for god's sake. :rolleyes: I just can't see why people support him! During the debatres he only put down Kerry, he didn't defend his decisions and mistakes... And when during the second debate a woman asked him what his three big mistakes were during his presidency, he didn't name a single one! The arrogance!!! :mad:

haku
22-10-2004, 15:27
Apparently Eminem is not a big fan of Bush either, he's about to release an anti Bush song. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004490984,00.html)

Kate
22-10-2004, 21:05
Apparently Eminem is not a big fan of Bush either, he's about to release an anti Bush song. Good. Hopefully it'll change some minds, too.

Kerry has good support among collage students and women. Here are the latest polls from AP: http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/college.poll/index.html

The findings:

The 10-point lead that Kerry held over President Bush in a March survey has grown to 13 percent.

While Bush's support among students has remained consistent, many undecided voters have moved into the Kerry camp.

In swing states, Kerry's lead is even higher, about 16 percent. Swing-state students also are saying they are more likely to vote than students in non-swing states.

Women are far more likely to support Kerry. The race is about even among males.

Students are divided in the way they rank the candidates' personal attributes. Bush, for example, scores higher on "takes a clear stand on issues." Kerry ranks higher on "understands the problems of people like you."

More students believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. And support for the war is slipping.

David King, associate director of Harvard's Institute of Politics, said the intensity of feeling among students is significant.

"The energy level is way up, and cynicism is way down. Students are choosing sides now," King said.

More often than not, the side they choose is Kerry's. About 52 percent of students say they would vote for Kerry today, compared with 39 percent for Bush. (Chart: Voter Preferences)

While 87 percent of college students say they are registered to vote today, King says that number can't be trusted.

"It's self-reported. But it's also true that the [registration] levels appear to be much higher."

thegurgi
22-10-2004, 21:17
i learned that 85 percent of my campus is voting for Kerry... i was surprised by this... and wondered, "why wasn't i asked?"... most kids have already voted for Kerry actually, through absentee ballots. You can only vote in the county you are registered... and since so many aren't going to be able to go home on Tuesday and miss class (like they wouldn't want to... hahaha)... they've voted. It seems so great that my peers are actually getting involved unlike 4 years ago.

luxxi
22-10-2004, 21:52
The issue at hand is not who is pathetic, but whose ideas for the America are right in general - and that's Kerry's.

And on what do you base this statement? Why are Kerry's ideas better for Americans?

:newyear:

Kate
22-10-2004, 22:30
luxxi, I based my opinion on hundereds of news articles, quotes from compaign appearances of both candidates, and the three debates etc. There's no point in listing all of them now, since you don't agree with me anyway. :chupa:

And on top of that, I have to prepare for my exams. :dead:

luxxi
22-10-2004, 22:34
luxxi, I based my opinion on hundereds of news articles, quotes from compaign appearances of both candidates, and the three debates etc. There's no point in listing all of them now, since you don't agree with me anyway. :chupa:


Neither of which indicate why Kerry's ideas are better for Americans. All state what authors and candidates think is better for Americans.

:newyear:

Kate
22-10-2004, 22:36
Fine, I'll list Kerry's better ideas later. :rolleyes:

luxxi
22-10-2004, 22:55
Fine, I'll list Kerry's better ideas later. :rolleyes:

Excellent. Just don't forget to explain why they are better.

:newyear:

Kate
22-10-2004, 23:31
Hey! I just came to realize that President Bush's maths and biology and language skills (as in how many languages he can speak) are worse then mine!! Haha! He has lived over half of his life and he's more stupid scientifically then me. :gigi:

coolasfcuk
22-10-2004, 23:57
Hey! I just came to realize that President Bush's maths and biology and language skills (as in how many languages he can speak) are worse then mine!! Haha! He has lived over half of his life and he's more stupid scientifically then me.

Kate, you are making me laugh with such statements. :laugh:

this is like 3rd grade 'debate' .... besides ...... what does biology have to do with usa presidency??

and also.... dont let other people shape your oppinions so much ;) .. so far all ive heard you say about these elections is what ive heard/read the critics/journalists/cnn/etc say - I mean word-to-word. give some personal view - its much more fun to read... oh wait, the last one was a personal view... but it is just too humorous.

Kate
23-10-2004, 00:06
coolasfcuk, I didn't say it had anything to do with Presidency, I was just making a note of the fact. Lol. It wasn't even part of the debate from my side. :rolleyes:

dont let other people shape your oppinions so much .. so far all ive heard you say about these elections is what ive heard/read the critics/journalists/cnn/etc say - I mean word-to-word. give some personal view - its much more fun to read... oh wait, the last one was a personal view... but it is just too humorous. I have my own opinion. :chupa: Yes, I base my opinion on the debates and stuff, but I don't copy them. Opinions have to be based of things, and not just exist without any logical support. I quote articles, yes, but I indicate that I quote them. Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion! :blabla:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 00:08
Bush or Kerry, Kerry or Bush. :ithink:
I couldn't care less...but between us, it's gonna be Bush :yes:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 00:28
coolasfcuk, I didn't say it had anything to do with Presidency, I was just making a note of the fact. Lol. It wasn't even part of the debate from my side. :rolleyes:

I have my own opinion. :chupa: Yes, I base my opinion on the debates and stuff, but I don't copy them. Opinions have to be based of things, and not just exist without any logical support. I quote articles, yes, but I indicate that I quote them. Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion! :blabla:

I, for one, could not watch more than 10 minutes from all the debates. It was as forre said it, those two would claim that donkeys fly if it were to help their campaign. I felt my intelligence seriously insulted so I couldn't stand it and turned them off. Sorry

Kate
23-10-2004, 00:40
spyretto, well, that's your opinion. I know that some, and maybe even most of the stuff the condidates said during the debates was false, but it was entertaining and I watched all three from the beginning until the end. This way you know exactly where the two of them stand. :) The I read all kinds of critica reviews, favoring Bush and Kerry alike, and based my opinion on those. I even watched "Feirenhype 9/11", a documentary that points out all the errors in Moore's original "Feirenheit 9/11".

spyretto
23-10-2004, 01:08
I'd do all that too...if I got paid enough for it and didn't have to do it for extensive periods of time - in danger of being overcome by manic depression and suicidal tendencies.

Then I'd think that no matter what I think it doesn't concern me; not to mention that my enthusiasm :bum: for Kerry would be all in vain ( in light of his rival's imminent re-election...)

simon
23-10-2004, 01:17
Bush or Kerry, Kerry or Bush. :ithink:
I couldn't care less...but between us, it's gonna be Bush :yes:

You couldn't care less? Is that because you don't actually live on Earth at all, but on Mars or somewhere? Or are you just so exceptionally bored by politics (as indicated by your 'I couldn't watch it more than ten minutes' comment) that you haven't quite realised how much is at stake (like those stupid people who don't vote because they say 'it doesn't affect me')?

The choice between Bush and Kerry affects us all. It's about the relationship between the United States (the hegemonic power) and the rest of the world - do they want to be respected or just feared? It's about the relationship between the West and Islam - how can we defuse the threat of Islamic fundamentalism? It's about nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea - can we stop it? It's about the environment and whether the Americans are going to do anything about global warming and other issues. If you live on this planet, these questions and the differences between the candidates are going to affect your life in the future. You don't realise it, but they will. You think it's terribly cynical and sophisticated (and a good way to wind up Kate) to not care, but it's faux-sophistication. If you understood, you'd care. Saying you don't care shows that you don't understand and you're not as clever as you think you are.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 02:06
No, the real reason is that I understand my opinion don't mean shit - and so does yours - and this is the essence of modern democracy. If we lived in a totalitarian system it might make a difference - that's why they censor everything because they know what's at stake - but under what we call "democracy" the system doesn't give a damn of what you think simply because your pathetic little existence can't make any difference at all. So you can express your pathetic little opinion and the system tolerates you and if you get too agitated the most you can achieve is to be taken for a fool.

Now for the elections in question: those who think that electing either leader will make any difference at all are simply deluded. Not to mention that non-US citizens who have not even the right to excercise the pathetic and insignificant little action we call voting, should not even attempt to get into a serious discussion of the matter simply because it doesn't concern them. For the rest go cast your vote every five or odd years but don't pretend to make any difference. If the system felt threatened by your actions you'd be obliterated, believe me.

I'm under the impression that you know I'm right but don't want to admit it. As for Islamic fundamentalism, nuclear ploriferation and all that jazz, they have little or no relevance with the election procedure. Unless you think that the leader's "social contract" with its people is something more than linguistic imagery. Then you're further deluded.
And finally, if you have the slightest clue of what either leader will do for the Iraq issue by watching those debates I'd like to know, please. According to Bush, Kerry does not have a clear plan for Iraq and according to Kerry Bush does not have a clear plan for Iraq. I'd rather ask Texaco or Shell, they might have a clearer plan for Iraq. Global warming? Gimme a break :bum:

I wouldn't want to be part of that parody even if I could.

Kate
23-10-2004, 02:28
spyretto, you're being narrow minded, in my opinion.

You have to looks at the bigger picture. If Bush was not elected during the 2000 election, Iraqi war would not have happened, and all subsequent deaths and terrorist attacks would not have happened at today's frequency either.

Kerry said he will train the Iraqi military and get the US out of Iraq, and I think that's what should happen. The only reason people are still dieing out there is because of the U.S. presence. So what if those people will go back to following a dictator? It's their culture, it's the way they are used to live their lives, it's the way their religion functions best - leave them alone.

And what concerns me personally is the scientific development of the United States. Bush has been quietly safficating the scientific world there. Kerry's campagne promises increased funding in the Stem cell research etc, and that's in my personal interest, too, as I view U.S. as a potential career place for myself in the future.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 02:40
spyretto, you're being narrow minded, in my opinion.

You have to looks at the bigger picture. If Bush was not elected during the 2000 election, Iraqi war would not have happened, and all subsequent deaths and terrorist attacks would not have happened at today's frequency either.

This is pure speculation. Unless you claim that Bush is the reason for every calamity and every terrorist action prior to and after 9/11. How can you speculate that under Gore the US would not invade Iraq or Afghanistan or it would not retaliate at all? The response of the US after 9/11 was to go against regimes that according to their intelligence harboured terrorism. What makes you think that the Democrats would react in a different way? Or perhaps you think that 9/11 wouldn't even happen under Gore? :bum: Lets be realistic...As far as I recall the Democrats voted for a US invasion as well...and unanimously ;) Mr Kerry did too.

Kerry said he will train the Iraqi military and get the US out of Iraq, and I think that's what should happen. The only reason people are still dieing out there is because of the U.S. presence. So what if those people will go back to following a dictator? It's their culture, it's the way they are used to live their lives, it's the way their religion functions best - leave them alone.

This is exactly what Bush said as well. He said it clearly the other day, he doesn't see a long-term presence of the US and coalition forces in Iraq. His aim is to train Iraqui forces as well. So in what respect is his plan any different?
First they have to isolate the terrorist elements there, who are aiming at driving the US out of Iraq prematurely then turn the country into an Al Queda haven. Is it what we want?

And what concerns me personally is the scientific development of the United States. Bush has been quietly safficating the scientific world there. Kerry's campagne promises increased funding in the Stem cell research etc, and that's in my personal interest, too, as I view U.S. as a potential career place for myself in the future.

Now that makes a bit more sense :D

Kate
23-10-2004, 02:46
spyretto, because Bush talked about invading Iraq before he became president. And he obviously benefits from all the oil that he found there - he couldn't wait until Iraq was secure to send people over to get oil. Lol.

The invasion of Afganistan is justified. Bin Laden should be cought cuz he is the head of a huge terrorist group. But invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified.

And who knows, 9/11 might not have happened under Gore! He maybe would have paid a little more attention to the threats that Bush chose to ignore.

This is exactly what Bush said as well. He said it clearly the other day, he doesn't see a long-term presence of the US and coalition forces in Iraq. His aim is to train Iraqui forces as well. So in what respect is his plan any different?
First they have to isolate the terrorist elements there, who are aiming at driving the US out of Iraq prematurely, then turn the country into an Al Queda haven. Is it what we want? Give me the quote of Bush saying that and a link to the source. I find it hard to believe. Bush clearly indicated during the debates, as far as I remember, that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is important for security and other such blah-blah.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 03:04
Give me the quote of Bush saying that and a link to the source. I find it hard to believe. Bush clearly indicated during the debates, as far as I remember, that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is important for security and other such blah-blah.

That was in the news a couple of days ago. I thought you're following both candidates :D

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/bush.interview.ap/index.html

Or did Kerry say he's gonna take the troups off Iraq in the 3rd of November? :p Maybe after a week? two weeks? a month? If so, he's lying.

Unjustified or not, people died in Afghanistan too. Did Kerry and the Democrats cast their positive vote for the US envasion in Iraq? Yes they did. Now they say they didn't have the full picture? They should know better. Nothing indicates that they'd have reacted any differently.

Kate
23-10-2004, 03:11
Unjusified or not, people died in Afghanistan too. So they did in those Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't think that U.S. would ignore the attack, did they?

Kerry and the Democrats casted their approval for the US envasion of Iraq? That was back when Bush said there was a threat of WMD. Now it is just an excuse... they could well have said that they send the troops to Iraq for exercise (I read this comment somewhere on CNN.com).

Nothing indicates that they'd have reacted any differently. In fact, there are quite a few things that do indicate that. Most important indication of all, Kerry said that he would have been more diplomatic and investigated around to find the weapons to make sure they existed before he make any serious decisions.

Edit: I finished reading the article you gave link to.

"I think the Iraqi people want us to leave once we've helped them get on the path of stability and democracy and once we have trained their troops to do their own hard work." He doesn't say when the "helping" out will finish. I guess that goes hand in hand with the availability of oil - once the oil's gone, Iraqis won't need anymore of Bush's helping out.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 03:25
So they did in those Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't think that U.S. would ignore the attack, did they?

But the attack was not conducted by the Taliban. How was the US retaliation justified in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. To me it's the same. Bush rhetoric included the suppression and atrocities committed by both regimes which were not directly related to the attack. That's why the regimes fell like crumbling castles but the terrorists "live and prosper". They went on a speculative basis, did not have the evidence that the network was based there. By the same token they could have invaded Iran or Syria, or any other country of the "axis of evil" for which they had indication but not apt proof they harbor the pepretrators of the attacks.

That was back when Bush said there was a threat of WMD. Now it is just an excuse... they could well have said that they send the troops to Iraq for exercise (I read this comment somewhere on CNN.com).

In fact, there are quite a few things that do indicate that. Most important indication of all, Kerry said that he would have been more diplomatic and investigated around to find the weapons to make sure they existed before he make any serious decisions.

Maybe yes, maybe no. As far as I'm concerned he gave his unanimous support for the US invasion in Iraq.

He doesn't say when the "helping" out will finish. I guess that goes hand in hand with the availability of oil - once the oil's gone, Iraqis won't need anymore of Bush's helping out.

Did Kerry say when it will finish? Show me the article, then. I think you may not want to see it but it's plain that the two candidates have little or no difference in their approach, the American people see little reason for a perilous change so they'll go for the safe and tried method, that is GW Bush. The masterplan for the oil must be the long-term plan then, at the moment the price gravitates at around $60 a barrel and the global oil crisis continues.

Kate
23-10-2004, 03:27
spyretto, I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself? :ithink:

As far as I'm conerned he gave his unanimous support for the Us invasion in Iraq. As I said, only because he was mislead like most of us were at that time. He was told there was a threat, and he voted for it, just like the rest of the people who allowed George W. to start the war.

Btw, see my post above, too, I edited it with a little comment.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 03:43
spyretto, I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself? :ithink:

As I said, only because he was mislead like most of us were at that time. He was told there was a threat, and he voted for it, just like the rest of the people who allowed George W. to start the war.

Btw, see my post above, too, I edited it with a little comment.


If he can be mislead so easily then the Americans are right to go for the tried and safe way. But, seriously, I think he genuinely believed Iraq had wmd and was a threat, and so did Blair and so did Spain, Italy, Australia and the 30 other leaders of the coalition force. And as a matter of fact Iraq was indeed a potential threat and the situation over there proves just that. The action against Iraq was preventive and it may have prevented another 9/11. The number of Iraqui civilian casualties was extremely low taking into account the circumstances of a full scale war.

Kate
23-10-2004, 03:52
And as a matter of fact Iraq was indeed a potential threat and the situation over there proves just that. Well, so are a lot of other countries, like North Korea. Should the U.S. go kill some people there, too?

Like I said, there's no excuse for misleading the senate and getting permission to go to war only to find out that the "cause" doesn't exist. A lot of people died because of those non-existant WMD! Be it 10 lives that were lost, or 10 million, it's all the same - people suffered.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 04:03
North Korea is not a real threat. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalism and global terrorism here. What do you say about the other countries who have participated in the coalition? It's not only the Twin Towers. It's Bali, Madrid, Chechnya. It's a global phenomenon which threatens our very existence and it's the responsibility of the civilised world to eradicate it. If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Instead we have whole cities conspirating with the terrorists, who have made it clear they have no respect for the lives of the innocent and would do anything to achieve their goals.

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 05:44
oooo! that was good spyretto! you sound like my mom! (strange as that my sound, it's a good thing)...

North Korea. Should the U.S. go kill some people there, too?
It's statements like these that REALLY piss me off. We aren't the ones killing people in Iraq... the Iraqi's are! at least the extremist fundamentalist terror crazy ones are... but the Soldiers of US are told specifically not to harm anyone else they are being attacked. Any offensive is on known locations of those places where the terrorists are. (i know we've made mistakes, but no one is perfect, and we take complete responsibilty for it... unlike other groups)

This is something i'm not sure i've said yet, but make sure you remember that the war of the leaders aren't necessarily the war of soldiers... and, ahem, it's the soldier over there, and i for one think they're doing a good thing

(responding to things on the page previous:)
i find it funny that people who aren't even eligible to vote do more research on the election than most of the people who WILL vote. Most of us just do it based on a gut reaction, which i actually think is better. Your insticts don't usually lie to you ... at least, for the most part.

Kate
23-10-2004, 05:46
thegurgi, instincts are based on your knowledge and life experience. If you don't have neither, then your guy instinct will most likely be wrong. It is good to know all information available, process it and then form your own opinion. My that's just my point of view.

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 05:52
if you don't think that people don't make gut judgements of people as they see them, i don't think you're human. hahahahaha.

and i thought that insticts were things you were born with, you like what you like and you don't like what you don't like and you do what's logical for you to do (fight or flee kind of things) simple as that. and that's how most people vote and decide things...

Kate
23-10-2004, 05:58
thegurgi, gut judgements are always made, but they should be refined by information that is available. :)

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 06:01
well yeah, but usually, not matter what you try to feed yourself you'll go with your instinct. I find it hard to go against what my gut tries to tell me, and whenever i do, it's wrong (as it always goes for tests) ... i really think that this is how humans work... i mean, i even wanted to vote for Gore in 2000 (but i was too young)... even back then i didn't like Bush, it wasn't just this war thing, but just him, something i didn't like.

Kate
23-10-2004, 06:06
thegurgi, well, I think that sometimes it is best to do what logic tell you to, and not your gut. Cuz gut instincts can hurt other people etc, and you have to take that into account. I made a fair share of mistakes using my gut instincts, so I use logic and careful consideration now.

Anyway, back to topic.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 08:40
And who knows, 9/11 might not have happened under Gore! He maybe would have paid a little more attention to the threats that Bush chose to ignore.


:eek: Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House?

As for ignoring warnings. Who ignored them in 1993-2001 period? And who was vice president then?

But the attack was not conducted by the Taliban. How was the US retaliation justified in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. To me it's the same.

Taliban were harbouring Al Qaida and refused to hand them over. If police is looking for a murderer and they see him in a house where people living there treat him like a guest than it's safe to assume they are cooperating with him.

I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself? :ithink:

No. Al Qaida never took responsibility for their actions. The only thing that links OBL to 11.9. is some tape where he talks to some Afghan cleric and he says some things only people who planned attacks could know.


North Korea is not a real threat. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalism and global terrorism here. What do you say about the other countries who have participated in the coalition?

Which countries? Only meangfull partners were Brits and Aussies. Brits will do what US asks them and Aussies contributed due totheir old alliance with US. Other coutnries are either contributing small contingents or US pays for the cost (as in case of Poland).


It's not only the Twin Towers. It's Bali, Madrid, Chechnya. It's a global phenomenon which threatens our very existence and it's the responsibility of the civilised world to eradicate it.


But why did US ignore global terrorism phenonmenon? That is around since 1960s


If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Instead we have whole cities conspirating with the terrorists, who have made it clear they have no respect for the lives of the innocent and would do anything to achieve their goals.

Did you think for a second that not everyody is as thrilled with our system of democracy as we are? Or that insurgents are simply people p/o at Americans killing their clan members, kicking in doors, cuffing them etc. Or simply normal reaction of anybody who occupies your country?

It seems US made every possible mistake in post-war Iraq. As if they were actually trying to provoke insurgency.

:newyear:

Kate
23-10-2004, 10:04
Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House? Well, according to some sources, Bush recieved some papers that indicated that there was a terrorist attack planned three months before 9/11. Bush ignored those papers. Who knows, maybe Al Gore would have handled the threat differently, increased security etc, and 9/11 would never have happened. It sounds a bit far fetched, but you never know. ;)

luxxi
23-10-2004, 11:43
Well, according to some sources, Bush recieved some papers that indicated that there was a terrorist attack planned three months before 9/11. Bush ignored those papers. Who knows, maybe Al Gore would have handled the threat differently, increased security etc, and 9/11 would never have happened. It sounds a bit far fetched, but you never know. ;)

Seeing how warnings and such were ignored under clinton I doubt they would be treated differently under Gore.

:newyear:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 14:27
Taliban were harbouring Al Qaida and refused to hand them over. If police is looking for a murderer and they see him in a house where people living there treat him like a guest than it's safe to assume they are cooperating with him.

Point noted. But then again the invasion of Afghanistan did not lead to a breakthrough and the eventual collapse of the terrorist network. Though the US are greatly in control of that country, the perpetrators of 9/11 have got away. ;) The US intelligence still believes that Bin Laden may be somewhere in Afghanistan.



No. Al Qaida never took responsibility for their actions. The only thing that links OBL to 11.9. is some tape where he talks to some Afghan cleric and he says some things only people who planned attacks could know.

I also thought so but it seems that they did.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/sep/09ny.htm

Which countries? Only meangfull partners were Brits and Aussies. Brits will do what US asks them and Aussies contributed due totheir old alliance with US. Other coutnries are either contributing small contingents or US pays for the cost (as in case of Poland).

Meaningful? What do you mean by that? Each country contributed what they can. The war is led by the US, and it was started without the UN approval. Some provide troops as well as humanitarian aid, others just humanitarian aid. Humanitarian workers and people who are trying to rebuild Iraq are also under the risk of getting captured and killed, purposely. Does this make any sense to you as a kind of reaction to somebody who occupies your country? Have those French journalists anything to do with the conflict or is it simply what the insurgents can get their hands to?
Apparently it's a tactic that pays off.

Did you think for a second that not everyody is as thrilled with our system of democracy as we are? Or that insurgents are simply people p/o at Americans killing their clan members, kicking in doors, cuffing them etc. Or simply normal reaction of anybody who occupies your country?

No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext. As with any terrorist group, they have an ideological agenda, in this case it seems to be jihad and the perpetuation of a fundamentalist islamic state. I also don't think they're simply resisting an occupation, at least not the ones who are mercenaries of the terrorist network and fight wherever there's a need. They're still fighting in Afghanistan, they're fighting in Iraq, they'd bring the jihad over to the US, or even to France and Germany if they could. I don't think we as Westerners can have a grasp of the situation, sitting in the coziness of our homes. Nor understand their way of thinking.

It seems US made every possible mistake in post-war Iraq. As if they were actually trying to provoke insurgency.

I hope they learn from their mistakes. They simply underestimated the enemy.

i think we're getting off topic in a thread that's about the US elections

luxxi
23-10-2004, 16:10
Point noted. But then again the invasion of Afghanistan did not lead to a breakthrough and the eventual collapse of the terrorist network. Though the US are greatly in control of that country, the perpetrators of 9/11 have got away. ;) The US intelligence still believes that Bin Laden may be somewhere in Afghanistan.


Though a lot of high and middle ranking AQ folks were captured or killed.


I also thought so but it seems that they did.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/sep/09ny.htm


I think we are talking aobut same video. He doesn't claim responsibility directlly but talks about things only organisers could know.


Meaningful? What do you mean by that? Each country contributed what they can.


Compare the numbers, will you? US contributes some 90% of troops.When countries like Azerbaijan contribute 20 troops they are not contributing anything menigfull. they are there because US pays for them and US can then claim more ocuntries are contributing troops.


The war is led by the US, and it was started without the UN approval. Some provide troops as well as humanitarian aid, others just humanitarian aid. Humanitarian workers and people who are trying to rebuild Iraq are also under the risk of getting captured and killed, purposely. Does this make any sense to you as a kind of reaction to somebody who occupies your country?


Yes, it does. They want foreigners out.


Have those French journalists anything to do with the conflict or is it simply what the insurgents can get their hands to?
Apparently it's a tactic that pays off.


Apparently they were taken by mistake. It seems kidnapers didn't know who they captured until later. After that they couldn't let them go so they made some impossible demands. Ever wondered why they are still alive? Other hostages were kileld fairly quickly but these are alive for more than a month. Think about it.....


No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext.


Or maybe they are jkust p/o at foreigners occupying their countries. Ever thought of that?

And it's so easy to dismiss them as criminals, terrorists and such. That way you don't have to recognise that they might have legitimate complaints.


As with any terrorist group, they have an ideological agenda, in this case it seems to be jihad and the perpetuation of a fundamentalist islamic state.


Didn't you claim they are just criminals couple of sentances ago? So now they are religious fundies, eh? :rolleyes:


I also don't think they're simply resisting an occupation, at least not the ones who are mercenaries of the terrorist network and fight wherever there's a need.


And how many of them are foreigners? What percentage?


They're still fighting in Afghanistan, they're fighting in Iraq, they'd bring the jihad over to the US, or even to France and Germany if they could. I don't think we as Westerners can have a grasp of the situation, sitting in the coziness of our homes. Nor understand their way of thinking.

Of course they are fighting. Their countries are occupied, aren't they? Or they don't have right to resist occupation?


I hope they learn from their mistakes. They simply underestimated the enemy.


And you obviously do as well. Packing everything into nice cliches. Nevermind that they aren't correct, but that's much simpler....

:newyear:

haku
23-10-2004, 16:11
If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein.There was never going to be any "democratization process" in Iraq, even without the involvement of terrorist networks. Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, if there was a real "democratic" election, they would be in full power and would immediately install an Islamic Republic, just as in Iran.

Terrorist networks have moved a part of their operations in Iraq because Iraq has become the front line between the US and the Muslim world, just like Korea or Vietnam were the front line between the US and the Soviet block. This front line was already open in Afghanistan, now it's been extended to Iraq, and it will further extend to Iran, Syria and ultimately to Saudi Arabia which are the obvious next targets for the US.

It's statements like these that REALLY piss me off. We aren't the ones killing people in Iraq... the Iraqi's are! at least the extremist fundamentalist terror crazy ones are... but the Soldiers of US are told specifically not to harm anyone else they are being attacked. Any offensive is on known locations of those places where the terrorists are. (i know we've made mistakes, but no one is perfect, and we take complete responsibilty for it... unlike other groups)Well, the US have invaded a country that did not attack the US, so US soldiers did harm people who did not attack them. The US army is a powerful army that uses powerful weaponry, it uses massive bombings on civilian areas to eradicate its enemy. I have no doubt that a few enemy fighters are killed in each bombing, but how many collateral damages is there for each enemy killed? We will never know of course since once people are dead it's easy to say that they were all terrorists.

I don't doubt that most US soldiers are decent guys, but the main problem is that almost none of them speak Arab or have any knowledge of Arab culture. For example, i remember seeing US soldiers searching civilian houses for weapons with *dogs*. This is a mortal insult in Arab countries. US soldiers probably don't know it, but Arab people don't know that US soldiers don't know it, so Arab people think that US soldiers are doing that on purpose to humiliate them, and of course that create resentment.

In the end, this war remains an illegal invasion by the US of a foreign country, there was no WMD, it was all a lie, and the US army is now just an occupying force.
The way this war has been led by the US administration is appalling, now Ben Laden has become a hero for many Arab people (he was barely known before), Al Qaeda is considered as a noble organization that "defends Muslims against the invasion of Crusaders" (Bush saying several times on TV that this war was a new "Crusade" was such a *stupid* thing to say, that's unbelievable!).
Even here in northern France, i have seen several times messages praising Ben laden and Al Qaeda painted on walls, they have become quite popular among the French Arab youth and some of them have actually gone to Iraq to fight with the Iraqi resistance.

Like i've said several times, there is indeed a war going on between the West and Muslim fundamentalists, but opening a front line right in the center of the Middle East was such a strategic mistake, and we have Bush to blame for that. The war against Muslim fundamentalists should have been led like the Cold War was led: infiltration of enemy networks, targeted assassinations, special forces striking precise locations, etc.
Instead we have that giant mess that is Iraq, a mess that is going to spread to other countries. I don't trust Kerry more than Bush in that area though, i don't think Kerry has a good comprehension of international matters either.

Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House?We'll never know. Al Qaeda agents had been dormant in the US for years, i do think that Al Qaeda was waiting for a Republican president to strike the US, Al Qaeda knew it would get a more violent response from a Republican (Bush was a perfect president for Al Qaeda's plan, not only he's a Republican but he has that dumb Texan cowboy attitude, just perfect) and Al Qaeda wanted a violent response, it's goal was to start a Holly War with the leader of the Christian world. It succeeded.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 16:17
We'll never know. Al Qaeda agents had been dormant in the US for years, i do think that Al Qaeda was waiting for a Republican president to strike the US, Al Qaeda knew it would get a more violent response from a Republican (Bush was a perfect president for Al Qaeda's plan, not only he's a Republican but he has that dumb Texan cowboy attitude, just perfect) and Al Qaeda wanted a violent response, it's goal was to start a Holly War with the leader of the Christian world. It succeeded.

Do you honestly beleive Aq would terminate operation that was planned for several years just because democrat would be in White House?

As for waiting for republican president.... How do you explain first WTC attack, USS Cole bombing and bombing of embassies in Africa which were all done under democrat president?

:newyear:

freddie
23-10-2004, 16:50
No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext. [/size]

That's exactly what I think they are. I think we've become used to bitch over americans so much that we forget that the extremists rebeling in Iraq and Afganistans aren't freedom figthers fighting against foreign occupation, nor are they martyrs giving their lives for Allah. They're a bunch of vicious, careless people who decided to take as much from the situation at hand as they can. They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO. Don't make any mistake here. They want chaos and destruction. They want fear. Nobody should feel safe. Those are the perfect conditions under which they operate. And the only means of them ever getting to power. By wester forces retreating cause of the fear of terror. And when they'd get to power they wouldn't be any better then Sadam was.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all. That'd make all the lives of people that have died till now in vain. I'm just sick and tired of some people saying it's RIGHT for extremist groups to rebel by kiddnapping and decapitating foreign businessmen and reporters on camera. NOTHING can justify that.

haku
23-10-2004, 17:18
I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all.There are no good solutions left, the occupation of Iraq is causing death and destruction, but the withdrawal of the occupation forces would cause the same thing.

The invasion of Iraq has started a war that should have never been started, a war between Christians and Muslims, but it's too late now. This war is going to be fought, because the US wants it and because Muslim fundamentalists want it.

Originally, i think the US thought it could do with Iraq what it did with Germany and Japan after WWII, but that reasoning was *so* flawed. Germany was a democracy before Hitler's dictatorship, so it was easy to restore a democratic regime over there. Japan was not a democracy of course, but Japanese are one single people with an undisputed monarch, it was quite easy to reorganize a new state around the emperor.
There's no such thing in Iraq, there's no such thing in most Arab countries for that matter, they are still organized around dozens of tribal chiefs. Thinking that you could just invade those countries and install democracy everywhere was *so* naive and deluded.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 17:28
Though a lot of high and middle ranking AQ folks were captured or killed.

Point noted, as I said.



I think we are talking aobut same video. He doesn't claim responsibility directlly but talks about things only organisers could know.[/quote

We're playing with words. Yes, Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 and if you don't want to admit it don't.

[quote]Compare the numbers, will you? US contributes some 90% of troops.When countries like Azerbaijan contribute 20 troops they are not contributing anything menigfull. they are there because US pays for them and US can then claim more ocuntries are contributing troops.[/quote

Actually I'm surprised a country like Azerbaijan contrivuted that much.

[quote]Yes, it does. They want foreigners out.

They want foreigners out. Are we talking about the terrorist organization? They want foreigners out to reinstate the regime of their choice ( eg Taliban ). It's similar to what the US want to do with Iraq, reinstate a democratic ( ie harmless to their interests ) regime that would do business with them, be an ally etc. The terrorists want a fascist Islamic state that would enable them to act for their own goals. If we're to believe them, their struggle will be until the end of the world - or until they succeed in converting the whole world to Islam, destroy those who are "infidels" or die in the process. Every suicide bomber who becomes a martyr goes to paradise, the more infidels you kill the better seat you get next to Allah.
I somehow prefer the earthly - corrupt or not - American cause.



Apparently they were taken by mistake. It seems kidnapers didn't know who they captured until later. After that they couldn't let them go so they made some impossible demands. Ever wondered why they are still alive? Other hostages were kileld fairly quickly but these are alive for more than a month. Think about it.....

They're still doing it, they captured a Brit/Iraqui humanitarian worker who happens to be a woman. Or is it not the same? The French should have been released already. You know what all that is? It's bullshit. That's what the average Iraqui citizen would think if they were allowed to think freely.

Or maybe they are jkust p/o at foreigners occupying their countries. Ever thought of that?
And it's so easy to dismiss them as criminals, terrorists and such. That way you don't have to recognise that they might have legitimate complaints.

I think this is actually what they pretend to be in order to get people on their side. That they're fighting for the Palestinian cause is also bullshit. The fact that they're not bothered by the loss of Iraqui civilian life proves just the opposite. If we claim the Americans don't care about "collateral damage", the terrorists would rather use it for their own purposes.

Didn't you claim they are just criminals couple of sentances ago? So now they are religious fundies, eh? :rolleyes:

I said I'm not convinced their motives are not those of common criminals. Unless you think those acts are according to the law of Islam, and their motives are religious, which is highly debatable.



And how many of them are foreigners? What percentage?

Go there and count them. Osama and Al-Zarqawi are not Iraqui, that's for sure.

Of course they are fighting. Their countries are occupied, aren't they? Or they don't have right to resist occupation?

You remind me of those Arabs who after 9/11 stormed the phone radio shows to claim that the terrorists were right for what they did. You claim it's occupation, where in fact, the Americans claim it's liberation. I haven't made up my mind what it is exactly. The country was not invaded to be occupied. And it seems that the cause of the Iraquis for resistance is left to foreign-led terrorists. Interesting concept , innit?

spyretto
23-10-2004, 17:50
That's exactly what I think they are. I think we've become used to bitch over americans so much that we forget that the extremists rebeling in Iraq and Afganistans aren't freedom figthers fighting against foreign occupation, nor are they martyrs giving their lives for Allah. They're a bunch of vicious, careless people who decided to take as much from the situation at hand as they can. They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO. Don't make any mistake here. They want chaos and destruction. They want fear. Nobody should feel safe. Those are the perfect conditions under which they operate. And the only means of them ever getting to power. By wester forces retreating cause of the fear of terror. And when they'd get to power they wouldn't be any better then Sadam was.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all. That'd make all the lives of people that have died till now in vain. I'm just sick and tired of some people saying it's RIGHT for extremist groups to rebel by kiddnapping and decapitating foreign businessmen and reporters on camera. NOTHING can justify that.


Absolutely. Bitching over America is perfectly ok, getting so deluded that one can't see the full picture is another matter. The Americans decided to go to Iraq, whether it was absolutely necessary or not is debatable, but now that they're there they should finish the job. Bush goes so far as to say that "If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy.If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."
No matter how much I dislike the guy, he's not the Antichrist and will not the lead the world into WWIII. And I doubt the US policy on Iraq will change much should Kerry come into power.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 17:54
They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO.

Then why aren't Iraqi people turning agaisnt them? Why aren't they informing US troops where they are hiding, where they hid weapons, where they planted bombs? Maybe because they agree with what insurgents are doing?

:newyear:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 18:04
Then why aren't Iraqi people turning agaisnt them? Why aren't they informing US troops where they are hiding, where they hid weapons, where they planted bombs? Maybe because they agree with what insurgents are doing?

:newyear:

I think they're torn between two different camps, they see the American forces as occupying forces and they're brainwashed to this purpose as well. But there's a great distinction between the Al Qaeda and Tawhid and Jihad terrorism and the Iraqui resistance, which is legitimate. The Al Sadr section will hopefully come into reconciliation and consequently be allowed to be part of the political process. Al Queda and their associates will not stop unless they're obliterated.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 18:08
We're playing with words. Yes, Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 and if you don't want to admit it don't.


No. I said he didn't directly claim responsibility. I said there is a video in which he indirectly claims responsibility. Claiming responsibility was never Al Qaida MO. Not for first WTC attack, not for Cole, not for embassies.

For the record, I'm sure AQ is behind them.


Actually I'm surprised a country like Azerbaijan contrivuted that much.


So we agree US is contributing most of troops?


They want foreigners out. Are we talking about the terrorist organization? They want foreigners out to reinstate the regime of their choice ( eg Taliban ).


Complete BS. How many groups have actually announced their goals beyond "Yankees out"?

And isn't installing regime of your choice one of things democracy is about?



It's similar to what the US want to do with Iraq, reinstate a democratic ( ie harmless to their interests ) regime that would do business with them, be an ally etc.


Basically puppet regime that will do US bidding. We saw what happens when groups that don't bow low to west are democratically elected. Results are ignored and pro-western dictatorship is installed.


The terrorists want an Islamic fundamentalist state that would enable them to act for their own goals.


BS. Who wants that? Which group said they want this?


If we're to believe them, their struggle will be until the end of the world - or until they succeed in converting the whole world to Islam, destroy those who are "infidels" or die in the process. Every suicide bomber who becomes a martyr goes to paradise, the more infidels you kill the better seat you get next to Allah.
I somehow prefer the earthly - corrupt or not - American cause.


BS. AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.


They're still doing it, they captured a Brit/Iraqui humanitarian worker who happens to be a woman. Or is it not the same? The French should have been released already.


Looking at how other kidnapings enede they should be dead by now. But they aren't. Doesn't that seems a bit odd (not that I'm complaining)?



You know what all that is? It's bullshit. That's what the average Iraqui citizen would think if they were allowed to think freely.


And if they are agaisnt what insurgents are doing why aren't they turning agaisnt them? Remember what Mao said about guerillas and fishes.


I think this is actually what they pretend to be in order to get people on their side. That they're fighting for the Palestinian cause is also bullshit.


Which group siad they are fighting for Palestinian cause in IRaq?


The fact that they're not bothered by the loss of Iraqui civilian life proves just the opposite. If we claim the Americans don't care about "collateral damage", the terrorists would rather use it for their own purposes.


From what I see not that many civilians are killed by them. They mostly target US troops (or occupiers) and Iraqi police (or occupation puppets-depending on your POV)


I said I'm not convinced their motives are not those of common criminals. Unless you think those acts are according to the law of Islam, and their motives are religious, which is highly debatable.


No need to drag religion in this. Most insurgents aren't religious fundies but natinalists (so to speak).


Go there and count them. Osama and Al-Zarqawi are not Iraqui, that's for sure.


OBL is not in Iraq. So that's 1 out of soem 20.000. WOW!!!! :rolleyes:


You remind me of those Arabs who after 9/11 stormed the phone radio shows to claim that the terrorists were right for what they did. You claim it's occupation, where in fact, the Americans claim it's liberation.


Germans claimed they were invading Poland after Poles attacked them. UK and France saw it differentlly.


I haven't made up my mind what it is exactly. The country was not invaded to be occupied. And it seems that the cause of the Iraquis for resistance is left to foreign-led terrorists. Interesting concept , innit?

If country was not invaded to be occupied why wasn't there exist schedule announced?

:newyear:

luxxi
23-10-2004, 18:10
I think they're torn between two different camps, they see the American forces as occupying forces and they're brainwashed to this purpose as well.


Brainwashed by who? Us controls media, schools... everything.


But there's a great distinction between the Al Qaeda and Tawhid and Jihad terrorism and the Iraqui resistance, which is legitimate. The Al Sadr section will hopefully come into reconciliation and consequently be allowed to be part of the political process. Al Queda and their associates will not stop unless they're obliterated.

Yes there is. In your past post you didn't make that distinction.

:newyear:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 18:30
Brainwashed by who? Us controls media, schools... everything

I'm talking about the "freedom fighters" not the common people. You wouldn't expect common civilians to take up arms and fight against Al Queda, would you?

Like i've said several times, there is indeed a war going on between the West and Muslim fundamentalists, but opening a front line right in the center of the Middle East was such a strategic mistake, and we have Bush to blame for that. The war against Muslim fundamentalists should have been led like the Cold War was led: infiltration of enemy networks, targeted assassinations, special forces striking precise locations, etc.
Instead we have that giant mess that is Iraq, a mess that is going to spread to other countries. I don't trust Kerry more than Bush in that area though, i don't think Kerry has a good comprehension of international matters either.

Maybe, but they've cleared up the terrain for the crackdown of international terrorist and they've moved the fight over there, rather than in Europe or New York.. They also got rid of a vile dictator who had lost his way a long time ago, had gone against his own people and was willing to go against anyone who might have been an obstacle to his self interests and he should have been taken down in 1991.The analogy between the Cold War and the War on Terrorism is not the best, the terrorist network are much more difficult to be identified, because they're not regimes. The US need more allies in the Arab world, otherwise it'll be impossible to crack terrorism down. If Iran and Syria regimes harbour terrorism and Al Queda, they ought to be dealt with as well. That is not the case with Saudi Arabia though.

And not to forget: WMD might have been the excuse but the fact of the matter is that Saddam refused to comply fully with the UN demands. If he did he would have remained in power for awhile and the switch of the country towards democracy would have taken place without any intevention.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of Bush's war but we can't backdown now...before there's some kind of breakthrough.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 18:37
I'm talking about the "freedom fighters" not the common people. You wouldn't expect common civilians to take up arms and fight against Al Queda, would you?


Why not? They are picking up arms agaisnt strongest military in the world which is occupying their country.

:newyear:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 18:41
Why not? They are picking up arms agaisnt strongest military in the world which is occupying their country.

:newyear:

Are they? :rolleyes:

Even if they do, they're soon to stop.

Observers said last week the surrendering of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars and machine guns was a sign an agreement between al-Sadr and the Iraqi government was being implemented as announced.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 18:48
Are they? :rolleyes:

Even if they do, they're soon to stop.

Don't count on it. Insurgency is growing.

:newyear:

spyretto
23-10-2004, 19:02
No. I said he didn't directly claim responsibility. I said there is a video in which he indirectly claims responsibility. Claiming responsibility was never Al Qaida MO. Not for first WTC attack, not for Cole, not for embassies.

For the record, I'm sure AQ is behind them.

oh do you? Then what's the point of discussing that?



So we agree US is contributing most of troops?

As the greatest military power in the world, we agree. Each contribute what they can.



Complete BS. How many groups have actually announced their goals beyond "Yankees out"?

And isn't installing regime of your choice one of things democracy is about?

oh yeah, I guess they want Yankees out and then they'll retire and become farmers.


Basically puppet regime that will do US bidding. We saw what happens when groups that don't bow low to west are democratically elected. Results are ignored and pro-western dictatorship is installed.

That is relative. For you any regime not hostile to the US might be considered a "puppet regime".


BS. Who wants that? Which group said they want this?

What do they want then? Enlighten me, coz all you do at the moment is reacting to my comments without providing a clear stance.


BS. AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.

How do you know?


And if they are agaisnt what insurgents are doing why aren't they turning agaisnt them? Remember what Mao said about guerillas and fishes.

cause the insurgents are Muslims, as simple as that.



Which group siad they are fighting for Palestinian cause in IRaq?

al Qaeda claims that all the time. In fact it's the ideological backbone of their organization.


From what I see not that many civilians are killed by them. They mostly target US troops (or occupiers) and Iraqi police (or occupation puppets-depending on your POV)

40+ Iraqui civilians were killed today, as a result of a suicide bombing that claimed 16 Iraqui police.


No need to drag religion in this. Most insurgents aren't religious fundies but natinalists (so to speak).

Really? In that case we agree. Why do they claim they are Jihad fighters against the infidels?



If country was not invaded to be occupied why wasn't there exist schedule announced?

I believe it was. I believe it has to do with the hand over of power to the elected Iraqui government as a result of democratic elections , and the gradual removal of US forces relative to security issues. They didn't say "we're annexing Iraq under US rule, did they?" What kind of occupation is that then?

Isurgency is growing? Perhaps it's your wishful thinking, I hope it's not true. So are you going to Iraq to make a difference?

spyretto
23-10-2004, 19:11
AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.

Tawhid and Jihad made an announcement of pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, as you very well know. They're the number one enemy in Iraq right now. Who are the others? You're talking in general terms but never become specific.

haku
23-10-2004, 19:22
Do you honestly beleive Aq would terminate operation that was planned for several years just because democrat would be in White House?Maybe not, but when you have dormant operatives in a country, you can choose to activate them at the most convenient moment. The attack on the WTC is the biggest terrorist attack ever made, it's not like any other attacks made before. It was being prepared long before Bush came into power but i don't think the date of the attack was set from the beginning. I think (only my opinion) that Al Qaeda decided to attack once Bush was in power because Al Qaeda knew this guy would retaliate without thinking what he was doing. Exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.


No matter how much I dislike the guy, he's not the AntichristWell, no. he's the Christ's warrior, lol. Bush may not be as bad as Muslim fundamentalists, but he is a Christian fundamentalist, and the daily tortures of prisoners in the Guantanamo camp shows that he doesn't shy away from totalitarian methods.

will not the lead the world into WWIII.Actually, Bush's military advisors consider that WWIII has already been fought and won. It was the war against the Soviet Union and communism.

Those advisors are calling the war against terrorism WWIV. They have convinced Bush (and the US military) that this war has to be led now on a global scale.
At some point in the future, this war will spread from Marocco to Indonesia, so this is a World War, it's just the first stage of it.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 19:23
oh yeah, I guess they want Yankees out and then they'll retire and become farmers.


And why do you care what they do after US is out? Isn't that whole point of sovereignity? Freedom of choice?


That is relative. For you any regime not hostile to the US might be considered a "puppet regime".


And for you any regime not doing what Us wants is hostile.


What do they want then? Enlighten me, coz all you do at the moment is reacting to my comments without providing a clear stance.


I told you. "Yankees out." Beyond that they don't have goals.


How do you know?


Statements by insurgents.


cause the insurgents are Muslims, as simple as that.


So you are now saying insurgents have support of population?


al Qaeda claims that all the time. In fact it's the ideological backbone of their organization.


WRONG!!!!! Main Aq beef with US was US presence in Saudi Arabia. Palestine became issue much later.


40+ Iraqui civilians were killed today, as a result of a suicide bombing that claimed 16 Iraqui police.


40 were wounded , not killed. And it remains to be seen if they were civilians or police.


Really? In that case we agree. Why do they claim they are Jihad fighters against the infidels?


Because smaller jihad is defence of your home from invasion.


I believe it was. I believe it has to do with the hand over of power to the elected Iraqui government as a result of democratic elections , and the gradual removal of US forces relative to security issues. They didn't say "we're annexing Iraq under US rule, did they?" What kind of occupation is that then?


No, everything was open ended. After elections, after situation clears.... And there were never palns for compelte withdrawal. there was to be US presence in several bases.


Isurgency is growing? Perhaps it's your wishful thinking, I hope it's not true. So are you going to Iraq to make a difference?

One more person fighting occupiers woun't make a difference.

:newyear:

luxxi
23-10-2004, 19:25
Tawhid and Jihad made an announcement of pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, as you very well know. They're the number one enemy in Iraq right now. Who are the others? You're talking in general terms but never become specific.

Who are others? Sadrists (Mehdi army) for one. And others who aren't as organised. In case you didn't notice US isn't facing united opposition like they did in Vietnam. It's a lot of different groups with different agendas and little if any cooperation.

:newyear:

coolasfcuk
23-10-2004, 20:11
Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?
ha science 101 .... that statement which i quoted in my previous post here... is one big reciting of a cnn article ;) ... but who cares anyways, RIGHT?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion! :blabla:
Why cant you take criticism? Criticism is a good thing ..... and you want my opinion?
Ok... its been said by people already... its a bunch of horse shit! I myself also cannot watch those debates - id rather go watch some theatre/movie - at least even the worst actor does a better job. And as Kerry might be just annoying by politicians default... Bush is just .... disgusting - I cant stand looking at the guy - let alone trying to hear what he says... i get in a rage and start yelling at the TV :laugh: ...

Of course it matters who its going to be... but the fact of the matter is - both are BAD. it just happens that Bush is the worst case in the world!

Besides... do you realize that those people .... those debates you watch...are 2 marionettes in front of your eyes. do you think the one that wins would be the ONLY one in charge of USA? absolutelly NOT.. and i just find it hard to understand how are people supposed to vote for a single person when they (the chosen one) can pick whoever he wants for his/hers office after they have been elected :confused:

and we can go one and on...

see... its not as easy as night and day...or as you put it... not a direct quote but something in the lines of: Bush is dumb and Kerry present himself as a politician....

thats why I hate politics... so I give it a rest lol ... I cant vote right now in america anyway... so i will just watch :)

spyretto
23-10-2004, 20:17
One more person fighting occupiers woun't make a difference.


I think it would. One suicide bomber can claim another dozen with him. Preferably "enemy traitors" but it could be collateral damage as well. If you can't live in peace, better die in war. It makes a lot more sense than voting.

Kate
23-10-2004, 20:29
luxxi, I think you should drop the attitude and debate calmly like spyretto and I did yesterday. He and I share different views, but when he expressed his opinions, I didn't feel offended. But your wording just crushed the atmosphere, I'm sorry to say. Please try to be careful with the words and phrases and tones you use. This is a political thread, and even though I know it's hard to stay out of fights here, I don't want it to turn ugly.

spyretto
23-10-2004, 20:29
And why do you care what they do after US is out? Isn't that whole point of sovereignity? Freedom of choice?

All that would make a lot of sense if there was no terrorism and the terrorists were really noble fighters resisting an occupational conflict. In your mind you may think it is so

And for you any regime not doing what Us wants is hostile.

You got that right! :lol:

I told you. "Yankees out." Beyond that they don't have goals.

I find it hard to believe.


So you are now saying insurgents have support of population?

when did I say that?


WRONG!!!!! Main Aq beef with US was US presence in Saudi Arabia. Palestine became issue much later.

Whatever takes their fancy.


Because smaller jihad is defence of your home from invasion.

Was 9/11 "defense of your home from invasion" too?


No, everything was open ended. After elections, after situation clears.... And there were never palns for compelte withdrawal. there was to be US presence in several bases.

There will be a US force, of course, working in collaboration until this whole mess is sorted out. We don't want psychos jeopardise the security of the whole world, and if that requires US forces in Iraq for a while, as they are in other countries, so be it.

Kate
23-10-2004, 20:38
ha science 101 .... that statement which i quoted in my previous post here... is one big reciting of a cnn article ;) ... but who cares anyways, RIGHT? So? I said it was a CNN article, didn't I?

Why cant you take criticism? Criticism is a good thing ..... and you want my opinion?
Ok... its been said by people already... its a bunch of horse shit! I myself also cannot watch those debates - id rather go watch some theatre/movie - at least even the worst actor does a better job. And as Kerry might be just annoying by politicians default... Bush is just .... disgusting - I cant stand looking at the guy - let alone trying to hear what he says... i get in a rage and start yelling at the TV :laugh: ... People only say it's "horse sh1t" when they don't have an opinion at all. So, obviously you have nothing constructive to say at all since "you don't care" about this debate. Maybe it's better that you keep out of this thread then, and not upset people with your useless comments.

Of course it matters who its going to be... but the fact of the matter is - both are BAD. it just happens that Bush is the worst case in the world!

Besides... do you realize that those people .... those debates you watch...are 2 marionettes in front of your eyes. do you think the one that wins would be the ONLY one in charge of USA? absolutelly NOT.. and i just find it hard to understand how are people supposed to vote for a single person when they (the chosen one) can pick whoever he wants for his/hers office after they have been elected :confused:

and we can go one and on...

see... its not as easy as night and day...or as you put it... not a direct quote but something in the lines of: Bush is dumb and Kerry present himself as a politician.... Are you quoting the encyclopedia of common sense to me? Why? Why would you do that? :lol: Don'y you have better things to do with your time then say what everyone already knows?

thats why I hate politics... so I give it a rest lol ... I cant vote right now in america anyway... so i will just watch :) Most of us hate politics, so cry me a river. We are all stand-by observers, but at least we are speculating, sharing news articles and expressing opinions. You, on the other hand... I don't even know what you're doing... Whatever it is, it's better that you quit now.

luxxi
23-10-2004, 20:47
luxxi, I think you should drop the attitude and debate calmly like spyretto and I did yesterday. He and I share different views, but when he expressed his opinions, I didn't feel offended. But your wording just crushed the atmosphere, I'm sorry to say. Please try to be careful with the words and phrases and tones you use. This is a political thread, and even though I know it's hard to stay out of fights here, I don't want it to turn ugly.

And what did I say that offends you?

:newyear:

luxxi
23-10-2004, 20:50
All that would make a lot of sense if there was no terrorism and the terrorists were really noble fighters resisting an occupational conflict. In your mind you may think it is so


And it would be a lot easier for you if yo could dismiss insurgents as some wackos and terrorists without lgitimate complaints.


I find it hard to believe.


Blinders can be b*itch. :rolleyes:


when did I say that?


You said they don't inform ont hem because they are muslims. So are they having support of Iraqis or not?


Whatever takes their fancy.


You are right. Why studying things in details when some stereotypes can save a lot of time. :rolleyes:


Was 9/11 "defense of your home from invasion" too?


No. Did I say it was?


There will be a US force, of course, working in collaboration until this whole mess is sorted out. We don't want psychos jeopardise the security of the whole world, and if that requires US forces in Iraq for a while, as they are in other countries, so be it.

No, not until this mess is sorted out. Indefinatlly. Those were the plans. Invade, install puppet gov't and withdraw most of forces and keep rest in few bases.

:newyear:

Kate
23-10-2004, 20:51
And what did I say that offends you? It's not what you said, by how you said it. :) "Offended" is probably a bad choice of words, it was more like "upset". :hmmm: Never mind, just treat people's opinion with respect in the future.

freddie
23-10-2004, 21:37
OK I won't reply to anyone. There's WAY to much replying going on around here and I get confused. :p

The basic dispute here seems to be wheter the Iraqe people themselves consider the fundamentalist as legitimate freedom fighters or not. My opinion is that they don't. Maybe they have then the fight was still sitiated on the battle-grounds, but now when they're starting to behead inocent civilians... no civilized human being, doesn't matter if his family was killed, his country invaded or freedom taken would EVER approve of something as hideous as the fundamentalists are doing.
Furthermore I do belive that Iraqis are stupid. They KNOW what awaits for them if the fundamentalists take power. Maybe it'd be even worse than Sadams regime. We could have another Afghanistan on our hands. Despite of their hatred towards America or Christians they have to think about their own well-being first. And I don't belive the majority in Iraq thinks they'd be better of under the extremist Islamic regime. Especialy since Iraq has a large Christian popultion which would be DOOMED under such a regime (Sadams regime wasn't radical islamist in it's nature. I think Osama Bin Laden even labeled him as "an infidel".)

The answer to the question why Iraqis don't expose the radical groups and give leads to the US soldiers (I bet they do, but not as often as one'd like), might be in the fact that they are simply intimidated. The groups might as well have local people living under a constant fear of immediate execution at slightest suspicion of treason. 2 Iraqis were accused of giving out information to the US sources and were beheaded in the usual manner and their videos put online. For future intimidation. Very effective I'd say. It's the same reason for which no one wants to testify against the mafia. :p

coolasfcuk
23-10-2004, 21:49
So? I said it was a CNN article, didn't I?
Obviously we arent on the same page on the issue, (or maybe you just dont wanna hear what im saying) so we will drop it, yeah?

People only say it's "horse sh1t" when they don't have an opinion at all. So, obviously you have nothing constructive to say at all since "you don't care" about this debate. Maybe it's better that you keep out of this thread then, and not upset people with your useless comments.
No dear, think about it in your 'conctructive' way... or at least read it somewhere or have your mom tell it to you ... 'it's horse shit' is an opinion :heh: ....just as valid opinion as 'it's the most important issue in the world right now' ... yeah?
I do care about the debate... but i guess i will have to say it in simple words for you to get it: for me, debating with you is like debating with the newspaper!

Are you quoting the encyclopedia of common sense to me? Why? Why would you do that? :lol: Don'y you have better things to do with your time then say what everyone already knows?
:laugh: If i quote something i put it in " " ... it is up to me what things I want to do and not, dont you think, dear? for someone as insecure as you ... that really doesnt have any opinion about anything of their own, but bases absolutelly everything on someone else's view or expectations.... it is perhaps good to say and repeat what 'everyone knows' anyway, dont ya thank? we can then be on the same page.... and even maybe.. if i do say something that youve already read on a piece of paper or off the internet, maybe i will even get some respect from you! hurrah! :10x: ..... or maybe i should list extensive background check.. on what and who my father is.... and then i will get the respect from you.... :laugh:

Most of us hate politics, so cry me a river. We are all stand-by observers, but at least we are speculating, sharing news articles and expressing opinions. You, on the other hand... I don't even know what you're doing... Whatever it is, it's better that you quit now.
Im sorry ... what do you want me to quit? I am doing exactly what I want to be doing ... im sorry it is not explained in a book what im doing so you arent understanding it... do you want me to do that so that you can understand?

Today is not a day to argue with me, dear ... so maybe it was about time i also said it to you... like others have.... just because you come from an educated family doesnt make you a genius, yeah? it is not the thing that is going to make me 'WOW' and respect you tremendously, and take anything you say as a very educated opinion - is that what you expect... because why else remind us every 5th day about it....we've read your comments x amount of times ... and even though most of the time i do feel bad about how insecure you are, it does reach a boiling pont, and you should be reminded to step down from your cloud. - that of course having nothing to do with the topic in here... but i just felt it was about time I said it out loud... for that, a mod's duty...

1 warning

Kate
23-10-2004, 22:01
Obviously we arent on the same page on the issue, (or maybe you just dont wanna hear what im saying) so we will drop it, yeah? No, let's not drop it. Do explain yourself.

As for the rest, now you're just being rude. Take a chill pill.

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 22:16
i've always believed in peoples right to debate... but usually when i feel it's going to lead to something or change something. But in this case, this whole topic seems to be getting more and more closer to something completely inane. I read every comment here, and as probably one of the few born americans speaking on this thread (as far as i can assume)... they just anger me. None of it seems very educated cause they only go by the statute of "i read, or heard or saw" which i don't think is very filled with wisdom (cause you can't really trust the media). In fact, nothing said has come from any bit of that (haha, and neither is this)... all i'm saying, is maybe we should talk about, the ELECTION or maybe the issues that are driving the voting patterns of the people who will be voting. and may i just say that "the war" isn't the biggest issue. It's the economy and jobs.

Unplugged
23-10-2004, 22:20
coolasfcuk, I'm sorry, I like you and all, but you're acting in a really unnecessary way. Kate has her own opinions, and concerning other quotes or material, she always mentions the sources. So just because you're having a bad day or something, doesn't mean you can just accuse someone of being false, especially without proof.

Kate
23-10-2004, 22:23
None of it seems very educated only on the statute of "i read, or heard or saw" which i don't think is very filled with wisdom. Well, tell me which other way we can structure our debate? Hhhmmm... the only media available to us with information about what's going on is the articles and videos on the Internet. We don't even get the coverage of the U.D. elections on TV news here in New Zealand. :rolleyes: What else do you expect?

may i just say that "the war" isn't the biggest issue. It's the economy and jobs. To people outside the U.S., "the war" is the bigger issue. Well, to me science is slightly bigger, but in general it's about "the war". :)

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 22:32
Well, the people outside the States aren't the ones voting for. We're going to vote for our own well being. We don't really want to be in this war either, but we also want to keep our jobs.

To me, as well, science is the issue for me, i'm voting for social issues, not economic. Stem Cell, Abortion, Gay Stuff, the rights of, you know, people.

Just have faith in the people to do the right thing. Those voting for the economy will probably vote for Bush, but those who are voting for social reasons will most likely vote for Kerry. It's as simple as that.

Kate
23-10-2004, 22:36
Well, the people outside the States aren't the ones voting for. Doesn't mean we can't debate about it. :)

Anyway, this is supposed to be fun. Let's take it easy, y'all.

thegurgi
23-10-2004, 22:52
you can... but it's completely pointless, especially if you're going to upset people

Kate
23-10-2004, 23:08
but it's completely pointless, especially if you're going to upset people Well, what's the point of discussing Tatu? Lol. It's fun. I don't know about the others, but I'm trying not to upset people.

spyretto
24-10-2004, 01:37
we started so we'll finish

And it would be a lot easier for you if yo could dismiss insurgents as some wackos and terrorists without lgitimate complaints.

And why should I take heed of the alleged "complaints" by someone like Al-Zarqawi ( who defies all laws of warfare, shows no respect for innocent human life at all and would go as far as to abduct children and behead them as "enemies of "Islam" were he able to ( we've already seen worse in Chechnya, haven't we? ). Such barbaric acts pertaining to the Middle Ages have no place in the civilised world. The problem is how you fight such wackos and psychos - oh yeah they're wackos and psychos alright. You don't drop a bomb and blow everything to smithereens, that's for sure. That would be a wacko reaction, indeed.
Who can deny that Islamic fundamentalism and extemism fuels such inhumane practices, while hard-line muslim law encourages acts that are simply barbaric and anachronistic?

You said they don't inform ont hem because they are muslims. So are they having support of Iraqis or not?

What kind of evidence do you have that the Iraqui people back the terrorist groups? Where? In Basra? Mosul? Badgad? Or in some areas that are not under the US and interim government's control yet? Who may be supporting the terrorist groups? Apparently those who have a reason to support them, those who must have lost the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. I doubt whether the vast majority of Iraquis oppressed and imprisoned under Saddam Hussein would want to help either side. I gather they are simply intimidated by the continuing violence and I can't imagine they would side with either the Americans who they have every right to see as occupiers - that's what they appear to be in their eyes - or the insurgents.


No, not until this mess is sorted out. Indefinatlly. Those were the plans. Invade, install puppet gov't and withdraw most of forces and keep rest in few bases.

Gross stereotype. You see, one can't refrain from using stereotypes just to maintain one's arguments, innit??

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 01:48
but it's completely pointless
Why is it pointless? Debating is never pointless, even if you can't change events, it is good to exchange ideas and express yourself.

So, if Americans are the ones who are voting, it's pointless for others to talk about it? So Americans can even invade a country and tell them how to create a society, but we should just watch the whole thing silently and shut up? Do you think this is strictly America's business? Unfortunately, it is not. It is a World issue.

ypsidan04
24-10-2004, 01:59
Has this been posted before?

Global Vote 2004 (http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/)

Basically a way for people outside the US to voice their opinion on the election to the American public, which will learn of how this vote went 48 hours prior to the election here.

Kate
24-10-2004, 02:04
ypsidan04, thanks. :done: I voted! :D No need to guess for whom. :gigi:

Interview with Eminem, if any of you are interested. It's about his anti-Bush song. Lol.

Eminem Slams Bush
Source: RollingStones

RS: You get deep into your feelings about President Bush and Iraq on “Mosh.” Do you think the Iraq War was a mistake?

E: He’s been painted to be this hero and he’s got our troops over there dying for no reason. I haven’t heard an explanation yet that I can understand. Explain to us why we have troops over there dying.

RS: There is no good answer.

E: I think he started a mess. America is the best country there is, the best country to live in. But he’s f**kin’ that up and could run our country into the ground. He jumped the gun, and he f**ked up so bad he doesn’t know what to do right now. He’s in a tailspin, running around like a dog chasing its tail. And we got young people over there dyin’, kids in their teens, early twenties that should have futures ahead of them. And for what? It seems like a Vietnam 2. Bin Laden attacked us and we attacked Saddam. We ain’t heard from Saddam for ten years, but we go attack Saddam. Explain why that is. Give us some answers.

RS: Are you voting?

E: This is the first year I’ve registered to vote. And I’m gonna vote. Bush is definitely not my homie, but I’m still undecided. Kerry has been known to say some things that’s caught my attention, made a few statements I’ve liked, but I don’t know. Whatever my decision is, I would like to see Bush out of office. I don’t wanna see my little brother get drafted. He just turned eighteen. I don’t want to see him lose his life. People think their votes don’t count, but people need to get out and vote. Every motherf**kin’ vote counts.

RollingStones interview with John Kerry, HERE: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6562106

haku
24-10-2004, 02:09
Global Vote 2004 (http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/)
Wow, there is a Socialist Party in the US? I thought that was illegal or something, lol. :gigi:

That would be good for the US and the rest of the word if that country was run by socialists for some time.

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 04:54
So Americans can even invade a country and tell them how to create a society, but we should just watch the whole thing silently and shut up? Do you think this is strictly America's business? Unfortunately, it is not. It is a World issue.

This is EXACTLY what i'm talking about... first, i said it's pointless cause in these cases it's nearly impossible to change peoples minds on the issues. Everyone has a very myopic view on it...

but you know... why is it that the world doesn't do anything about it? Why is it that the United States gives out more foriegn aid than any other country (maybe other than Japan)... why is it that when one country has a natural disaster or civil unrest that we try to help out, but when something wrong happens here we get nothing. Where was the immediate aid from YOUR countries when these things happen (even abroad)? i'm sorry, but i think it's SO rude to completely bash the people who just want to help. That's what the soldiers want to do... i know SO many people who have served over in other places trying so hard to do something good, but instead everyone HATES us, we sacrifice SO MUCH and you aren't doing anything about it except TALK, but there's very little action... you're all so against this war cause what? You think Iraq was better off? Under a DICTATOR?! It may have not been the right time and it may not have been for the right reasons, but, it's going on, and the lives of the people in Iraq are improving, if but a little and it's not the fault of us or the people, but the group that's still supporting Saddam, the fundamentalist, even if we left do you think everything would be perfect?! They'd take control again and the people would once again live in a subservient world... i guess it was such a horrible thing to try and help them... yeah it is a world issue, but apparently, WE'RE the only ones doing it (that is, the coalition, but it seems like even the countries also involved have no support, which seems pretty shameful)

But this is about THE ELECTION

Kate
24-10-2004, 05:30
kirillov, 2nd of November. :)

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 05:34
november 2nd (which also just so happens to be my birthday)

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 05:47
you aren't doing anything about it except TALK
My country has military forces in Iraq. Not that I agree with it, because this war was not even aproved by the UN, so it doesn't surprise me it doesn't have much support.

You think Iraq was better off? Under a DICTATOR?!
Why don't you go invade other countries that have dictators or fake governments who repress their people and don't give them rights? If that's your logic, then the world would be in permanent war for the next 200 years or more. And it wouldn't even happen anyway, because as long as your country has good relations with those countries and money keeps coming in...

And I'm glad the EU has not decided to take similar actions to invade countries just like that. I'm proud of that. Because people can come together and fight for their rights too, here we had a dictatorship until 1974, but the people came together and fought, and there was a revolution - we also had a secret police controlign everyone's every move and word, but it was possible. Of course foreign power can also help through many ways, but one thing is *helping*, pacifically, the other thing imposing and invading and bombing everything. Because the reason given to you wasn't that USA was gonna invade Iraq for a question of human rights, but because it "had" weapons of mass destruction. You went there out of specific selfish interest. Now that that bullshit is finally done with, you come and say "Oh, but see, we are so good, because there's no Saddam anymore, and the people will be happy, what would be of Iraq without us?!".

And stop talking about the soldiers. No one here is bashing the soldiers, they are just peons on a despicable plan, of course they are not to blame.

And suggesting only the US helps people when natural disasters occur.. I'm not even gonna comment on that, cause it's so silly it's absurd.

Anyway, thegurgi, I don't hate anyone or any country, but looking at your speech makes me understand how people can hate America, or a large part of Americans. Sorry. It's the typical "We're the best and we can do anything we want" arrogant attitude.

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 06:11
And stop talking about the soldiers. No one here is bashing the soldiers, they are just peons on a despicable plan, of course they are not to blame.

Trust me, when you blame the plan, you're blaming the soldiers... cause they absolutely hate it that people don't support the war, it makes them feel awful.

I know that everything isn't perfect, but every one constantly insults where i'm from, and i tried to say something good about it, i hate it that no one is with us, that no one else supports it. Cause i think the world SHOULD be involved. and i DO think we should be taking care of the other dictators, cause everyone SHOULD be free. But it'd be impossible for our army to take on more than one war now-a-day, hahaha, we don't have the leader for it or the army. The only way for us to do that would be to have a draft, for our volunteer army to take on all the dictators of the war, well... it WOULD be impossible.

You're last comment hurts my feelings beyond anything i've ever read or had someone say to me (and i've been followed by people shouting "cripple") HOW DARE YOU! i've tried nothing to prove that american's aren't as ignorant as the rest of the world pegs us, i have nothing but compassion for the people of the world i just want everything to be ok, but i've learned from my life that nothings perfect, and that just because you're flawed doesn't mean you can't make a difference. It's not easy supporting this war, especially with nearly EVERYONE around me not, and well... i'm just so sick of this. It's already happened, there's really nothing you can do about it, so just TRY to see the silver lining, something good can happen from something bad, We can't just walk away, we need to concentrate our efforts on helping the people. We don't bomb as much as we feed and cloth and shelter... and if you can't see that, you're well, not worth discussing with, it's obviously nothing but negativity and... well, i'm not going to deal with this anymore. Just feel really happy about yourself, it's like i REALLY needed to feel worse about myself.

Kate
24-10-2004, 06:40
Trust me, when you blame the plan, you're blaming the soldiers... I don't mean to get in the middle of it, but I think when a person says he's not blaming the soldiers, he knows that he's not blaming the soldiers. This is not a thread where people tell each other who they are blaming. :rolleyes:

every one constantly insults where i'm from No one's insulting the U.S. We're just expressing our opinions about the current administration, that is George W. and his "gang".

i DO think we should be taking care of the other dictators, cause everyone SHOULD be free Have you considered the fact that maybe people don't want to be free? That maybe the way things are suits them fine, and goes hand in hand with their religions and beliefs? Who gives America the right to "free" people? Planet Earth is not "Hollywood" for you. People actually die and actually suffer. Plus, America has plenty of it's own problems to sort out within its borders, likes education, economy, science, human rights, conservation... etc etc etc.

It's not easy supporting this war You don't have to support it if you don't want to, or if common sense tells you that this war is plain wrong. Have you thought about WHY everyone around you doesn't support the war? There might be a few reasons... :heh:

we need to concentrate our efforts on helping the people Yeah, of course America needs to sort out it's mess in iraq, but Kerry will do a better job at it. At least I hope he'll leave Iraqi people some of their oil so they won't go hungry. :rolleyes:

it's like i REALLY needed to feel worse about myself. No one's trying to make you feel worse. ;) We all love you for your contributions to this forum. :rose:

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 06:44
Planet Earth is not "Hollywood" for you. People actually die and actually suffer.
You said that to the WRONG person, you do realise i spent half my life in a hospital. I've seen people die (including 2 of my best friends), i've seen people suffer. In fact, i have suffered, i know life isn't hollywood, i know life isn't perfect, and i don't want people to live that way. No one should. absolutely NO ONE, even if they don't know anything else, they should have a right to be able to BE that. I wasn't given that choice but i'm well off despite what i've been given, but they could HAVE that life, they should have the right to it, and they would if we would all DO something about it.

luxxi
24-10-2004, 08:32
And why should I take heed of the alleged "complaints" by someone like Al-Zarqawi ( who defies all laws of warfare, shows no respect for innocent human life at all and would go as far as to abduct children and behead them as "enemies of "Islam" were he able to ( we've already seen worse in Chechnya, haven't we? ). Such barbaric acts pertaining to the Middle Ages have no place in the civilised world. The problem is how you fight such wackos and psychos - oh yeah they're wackos and psychos alright. You don't drop a bomb and blow everything to smithereens, that's for sure. That would be a wacko reaction, indeed.
Who can deny that Islamic fundamentalism and extemism fuels such inhumane practices, while hard-line muslim law encourages acts that are simply barbaric and anachronistic?


And is Zarqawi only one who is fighting Americans? Far from it, he and his group is one very small part.


What kind of evidence do you have that the Iraqui people back the terrorist groups? Where? In Basra? Mosul? Badgad? Or in some areas that are not under the US and interim government's control yet? Who may be supporting the terrorist groups? Apparently those who have a reason to support them, those who must have lost the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. I doubt whether the vast majority of Iraquis oppressed and imprisoned under Saddam Hussein would want to help either side. I gather they are simply intimidated by the continuing violence and I can't imagine they would side with either the Americans who they have every right to see as occupiers - that's what they appear to be in their eyes - or the insurgents.


I didn't say tey support terrorist groups. They are supporting insurgents. Where is proof? By the fact that insurgency is stil alive and kicking. If guerillas don't have support of population they loose quickly. If poplation is suporting them they thrive.

As for where. Sunni triangle (specially Faluja, Ramadi), Najaf, Sadr City. Basically everywhere where are no-go areas for occupation forces.



Gross stereotype. You see, one can't refrain from using stereotypes just to maintain one's arguments, innit??

What sterotypes? One invasion. can you deny that was part of the plan? Two. Puppet governemnt. What was Chalabi and his INC if not "government-in-exile" that was flown in to take control of country? Chalbi, the favourite of various neocons. Three. Bases. there were plans that US will retain control of several (air)bases to allow them to compeltly move out of Saudi Arabia.

:newyear:

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 08:49
just a little thing about the election, or rather an observation, well, more about the electees:

I think that bush and kerry are in essense the same person. Bush is that person squashed into a short little man, and kerry is the streched out tall, gangly man. Now, all we have to do is find the average man in between... hehehehe.

(i usually take this further, that bush and kerry have him tied up and locked in a closet in their shared apartment in Seattle, where they live together, for some reason)

luxxi
24-10-2004, 11:44
It's not what you said, by how you said it. :) "Offended" is probably a bad choice of words, it was more like "upset". :hmmm: Never mind, just treat people's opinion with respect in the future.

Excellent. Make some general remarks to which I can't properly respond instead of being specific. How mature.... :rolleyes:

:newyear:

spyretto
24-10-2004, 14:31
And is Zarqawi only one who is fighting Americans? Far from it, he and his group is one very small part.

In numbers it may be small but in influence it may be large, judging from copycat terrorist groups who try the same methods. Al Zarqawi said he's taking orders from Al Qaeda, maybe the others can go and pledge their alliegiance too?


I didn't say tey support terrorist groups. They are supporting insurgents. Where is proof? By the fact that insurgency is stil alive and kicking. If guerillas don't have support of population they loose quickly. If poplation is suporting them they thrive.

As for where. Sunni triangle (specially Faluja, Ramadi), Najaf, Sadr City. Basically everywhere where are no-go areas for occupation forces.

I think you're making a hasty generalization and you base it on the fact that Iraq is diverse, and some areas influenced by insurgents are still resisting the American and Iraqui forces. As a matter of fact I believe that the majority would support the ensuing elections as long as they're conducted freely, and I wouldn't imagine Iraqui people in their majority would like to see another dictatorship - whether islamic fundamentalist or pure military - reinstated. Who knows, I might be wrong, and they still might prefer to live under the gun and under repression. It just base my view in commonsense but perhaps the commonsense of the Iraquis are different to our commonsense?

What sterotypes? One invasion. can you deny that was part of the plan? Two. Puppet governemnt. What was Chalabi and his INC if not "government-in-exile" that was flown in to take control of country? Chalbi, the favourite of various neocons. Three. Bases. there were plans that US will retain control of several (air)bases to allow them to compeltly move out of Saudi Arabia.

The stereotype consists in viewing all coalition efforts in Iraq as an attempt to control the area militarily and install their own "puppet" government, as you repeat time and again. Perhaps you should go back and read the statement by Bush I posted above. I prefer to see America's role as aiding in resolving crises around the world, not use the same ol' stereotype I find in your argument coz it's trite and anachronistic. If it wasn't for America's efforts the world would have degenerated into global anarchy and constant war some fifty years ago. And then, things like multinational coproration interest and globalization would count for very little.
You may all enjoy slamming America because you can, because they're always in the centre of attention and every action they do is scrutinised - unlike your beloved third-world regimes - but if you haven't realised already, America may be the reason for your well-being. I've come to realise It's so easy to blame America for every problem in the world cause they're an easy target and you can cover your own ass that way - I don't mean you, personally. :)

freddie
24-10-2004, 14:42
Wow, there is a Socialist Party in the US? I thought that was illegal or something, lol. :gigi:

That would be good for the US and the rest of the word if that country was run by socialists for some time.

Maybe a communist party is. But the socialists are a regular part of the world politics. There are socialists in European Parlament as well.

haku
24-10-2004, 15:47
There are socialists in European Parlament as well.I knew that. ;) The biggest party in France is the "Parti Socialiste". :D

By "good for the rest of the world", i meant that it would be a good thing for everyone if the US could have a *real* political alternative, instead of just Republicans and Democrats which are no alternative at all. In European countries, Republicans and Democrats woud be in the same right wing party. It seems that noone is left wing in the US. Socialists would make big improvements in social and environmental issues.


And I'm glad the EU has not decided to take similar actions to invade countries just like that. I'm proud of that. Because people can come together and fight for their rights too, here we had a dictatorship until 1974, but the people came together and fought, and there was a revolution - we also had a secret police controlign everyone's every move and word, but it was possible. Of course foreign power can also help through many ways, but one thing is *helping*, pacifically, the other thing imposing and invading and bombing everything.I agree with that. It's always better when people free themselves.

When Portugal was under the dictatorship of Salazar (or the Generals that followed him, i don't know their names sorry), i'm sure a few European countries could have easily invaded Portugal and "free" the people. But at what price?
Invading the country would have required massive bombings of cities, causing thousands of civilian casualties. The country should have been occupied and run by foreign military forces for years, causing resentment in the Portuguese population.
What good would have come out of that?

Instead, Portuguese resistance groups ("secretly" supported by European democracies) have fought the dictatorship from the inside and have managed to overthrow the military dictators. It may have taken longer to overthrow the dictatorship that way, but in the end it caused less deaths for Portuguese, and most importantly, Portuguese people got the pride of freeing themselves, which is important for a nation.

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 16:22
Yeah, haku, exactly! What pride can any nation have in having some outsiders come and bomb the place and then "free" the country?

Sure, it did take a long time for us to achieve the revolution, but it's possible, we did it, so can others, and it's much better for a country to free itself and have proud in its revolution and its people than being run by outsiders :bum:

haku
24-10-2004, 17:07
why is it that the world doesn't do anything about it? Why is it that the United States gives out more foriegn aid than any other country (maybe other than Japan)...Here's some numbers from the OECD concerning the foreign aid given by the 22 most industrialized countries in the world.

The first number is the amount of aid (in millions of US dollars) given in 2003 by each country, the second number is what percentage of its GNP this aid represents.

United States - 15,791 - 0.14
Japan - 8,911 - 0.2
France - 7,337 - 0.41
Germany - 6,694 - 0.28
United Kingdom - 6,166 - 0.34
Netherlands - 4,059 - 0.81
Italy - 2,393 - 0.16
Canada - 2,209 - 0.26
Sweden - 2,100 - 0.7
Norway - 2,043 - 0.92
Spain - 2,030 - 0.25
Belgium - 1,887 - 0.61
Denmark - 1,747 - 0.84
Switzerland - 1,297 - 0.38
Australia - 1,237 - 0.25
Finland - 556 - 0.34
Ireland - 510 - 0.41
Austria - 503 - 0.2
Greece - 356 - 0.21
Portugal - 298 - 0.21
Luxembourg - 189 - 0.8
New Zealand - 169 - 0.23

So yes, with almost 16 billion dollars, the US is the largest contributor, but it only represents 0.14% of its GNP, which is actually the lowest percentage of all 22 countries. The US is in fact the country which makes the least effort comparatively to its wealth.

Norway at the opposite gives "only" 2 billion dollars, but it represents 0.92% of its GNP, a much bigger effort than the US.

Portugal, staringelf's country, gives 298 million dollars (which you may find ridiculous compared to the huge amount the US gives) but it represents 0.21% of its GNP, again a bigger effort than the US comparatively to its wealth.

Countries like France, Germany, and the UK, give almost half as much (in billion dollars) as the US, even though they are obviously far from being half as rich as the US.

So yes, the US is the largest contributor in raw money, but comparatively to their wealth, all other industrialized countries are more generous than the US.

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 18:24
Yes, haku that is true. And not that I need to prove anything, but Portugal also had a major contribution to help Timor Loro Sae become the nation that is today, Portugal was the main contributor who joined forces to stop East Timor people from having their freedom and human rights violated - and we didn't need any bombings. Portugal colaborated with the UN and with Indonesia so they would withdraw their military occupation from Timor, helped independence movement leader Xanana Gusmão to come out of prision and help in the creation of an independence plan, and through hard negotations between Portugal, the UN and Indonesia, a commitment was established to give back independence to Timor Loro Sae if the people voted for that in a referendum, which they did. And all of this was established through peaceful negotation.

And the US role in this? The saviour of the world's role, the World Police's role?
I quote:
"The United States -- as well as Australia and Britain -- has been complicit in this terror. The US has coddled Indonesia as a valuable ally in the war against communism and as a lucrative trading partner, providing Indonesia and its military with funding, training, and weapons. Despite the end of the Cold War, increasing international criticism of both Indonesia and its western supporters, and growing dissent in Congress over US policy on Indonesia, the relationship remains intact. "

more info here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/east_timor/dossier/

So, other countries do contribute for peace too, even small ones like mine who have fewer resources. We are far from being the best, but does it really matter which country is "the best"? Not for me. Maybe for America it does, it needs to reaffirm itself constantly at any cost, God knows why. I think it's sad because it has everything to be a great nation, but it loses itself with greed and arrogance.
Personally, I am proud of my country's behaviour in this particular situation, but we also did many bad things in other situations and I will never be blind to say "Oh, can't you see we were only trying to help?" :rolleyes: And I'm not using this example as a flag, as I said, but since thegurgi wants to play the poor victim which country is so fair and good and only tries to help, while the other ones are "all talk", I found it was important to mention this, just like haku found it was important to show those numbers, which speak for themselves. Showing "trophees" is certainly not my attitude nor my country's, as for America I'm not sure, but maybe the hollywood-like press conference with a guy saying "Ladies and Gentlemen: We got him!" and then the later footage of Saddam's medical examinations in humiliating condition speaks for itself. I am no way trying to generate hate against America, I think any kind of hate is wrong, but I will not shut up when I see arrogance and badly explained premises either.

spyretto
24-10-2004, 18:25
Speaking of Portugal, I had a nice port to celebrate the inevitable re-election of George W Bush. It's a fine wine, as sweet as the Greek sweet wine but with a touch of sourness for an aftertaste, and without the hangover effects. Apperitif wine still, wouldn't go with any food as far as I'm concerned.

Very nice indeed... cheers


If regimes like the Indonesian were in the position that the US are right now they would be 10 times worse...sorry, correction, 100 times worse. You can keep on pretending you split mosquitos yet swallow whole camels but that would never change the facts.

That goes for all anti-Americans out there like my friend luxxi, who's trying to pretend he's "fair", and see only "facts" but has something else on his mind. Get a grip on reality, dear.

As for the elections G. W. Bush is the best choice of the two. Kerry cannot guarantee Iraq's post war prosperity, and the world's security and he surely has no clue about domestic issues either. America didn't vote for Gore, there's no way they'll rectify that mistake by voting for someone as incompetent as John Kerry. Forget about it...capiche?

luxxi
24-10-2004, 18:38
In numbers it may be small but in influence it may be large, judging from copycat terrorist groups who try the same methods. Al Zarqawi said he's taking orders from Al Qaeda, maybe the others can go and pledge their alliegiance too?

If they pledge their allegiance than you will have a pont. Untl then no.


I think you're making a hasty generalization and you base it on the fact that Iraq is diverse, and some areas influenced by insurgents are still resisting the American and Iraqui forces.


And how big are those areas? Take for instance sunni triangle. Sunni resistance. Then you have Sadrists, shi'ias. Who had no love for Saddam yet went up in arms agaisnt US. Wonder why? And wonder why shi'ias in the south (where Brits are) was quiet all this time? You had insurection in Njaf yet Basa (second largest city) was quiet.


As a matter of fact I believe that the majority would support the ensuing elections as long as they're conducted freely, and I wouldn't imagine Iraqui people in their majority would like to see another dictatorship - whether islamic fundamentalist or pure military - reinstated. Who knows, I might be wrong, and they still might prefer to live under the gun and under repression. It just base my view in commonsense but perhaps the commonsense of the Iraquis are different to our commonsense?

Too bad that woun't happen. Look at Rumsfelds statements that elections might not be held in entire Iraq, but only in pacifies areas. Basically where people don't like US and make their displeasure show they woun't be allowed to vote.


The stereotype consists in viewing all coalition efforts in Iraq as an attempt to control the area militarily and install their own "puppet" government, as you repeat time and again.


So far little was shown this isn't a goal.


Perhaps you should go back and read the statement by Bush I posted above.


Because we all know that politicians never, ever lie in order to achieve their goals. :rolleyes:


I prefer to see America's role as aiding in resolving crises around the world, not use the same ol' stereotype I find in your argument coz it's trite and anachronistic.


Crisis like brutal and nuclear armed dictatorship in North Korea, Balkan slaughterhouse in 1990s, civil war in Tajikistan, Armenian-Azerbaijan war, opressive rule of Taliban in Afghanistan, Rwandan massacres....?

Give me a break, US gets involved where there are interests to protect or gain, not where people suffer.


If it wasn't for America's efforts the world would have degenerated into global anarchy and constant war some fifty years ago. And then, things like multinational coproration interest and globalization would count for very little.


So because they did a good thing back then they have a blank cheque to do whatever they please now?


You may all enjoy slamming America because you can, because they're always in the centre of attention and every action they do is scrutinised - unlike your beloved third-world regimes - but if you haven't realised already, America may be the reason for your well-being. I've come to realise It's so easy to blame America for every problem in the world cause they're an easy target and you can cover your own ass that way - I don't mean you, personally. :)

If you put yourself in spotlight you will be scrutinised. If you claim you promote freedoms and democracy your support for opressive regimes like Saddam's and Pinochet's will be thrown at you.

:newyear:

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 18:57
but since thegurgi wants to play the poor victim which country is so fair and good and only tries to help, while the other ones are "all talk",

I love it when my words are twisted, i didn't say that other countries didn't do anything. Just that we did the most, and i don't understand why we are hated. Why do people hate Us? Shouldn't the world hated be the Chechyans or the Terrorists groups? I feel that everyone just focuses on the enemy. It's hard to justify this war, but you kind of have to cause it's happening. When we first invaded Iraq i was completely against it, but there's nothing that we can do about it NOW except hope for the best instead of focusing on the negative. That's all i've really been trying to say. The United States isn't the greatest country on the earth, and i'm sorry that it's influence pisses you all off so much, but i feel that this is the most fruitless arguement ever, what's done is done. Is everyone still pissed off about the Crusades or the Inquisition? Cause i think those events were a hell of a lot worse than what we're doing. And probably in 200 years this war will probably only be a paragraph or two in a high school text book.

Obviously, in this thread it seems more important to slander and hurt other people for HOW the argue and not the arguement itself. I've tried really hard to defend something despite my cold, stress from school and got nothing but what i feel to embarrassed. And i'm SEVERLY dissapointed in StaringElf, i can't believe he'd say those things to me... and i can barely think to handle this much longer. I think i'm a good moral person and it's just not fair for me to be treated this way because i think that something good can come out of this. Call me an optimist, i don't care, but i know from my life that even when things aren't perfect you can make the best of it all. Why am i the only one who cares about that?

spyretto
24-10-2004, 18:59
If they pledge their allegiance than you will have a pont. Untl then no.

Oh common. Their brutal/copycat methods shows that they would. Lets watch this space. So which ones do you classify as freedom fighters and which ones as terrorists? Lets say Al Queda/Jawhid & Jihad are terrorists. How about the other copycat groups?

And how big are those areas? Take for instance sunni triangle. Sunni resistance. Then you have Sadrists, shi'ias. Who had no love for Saddam yet went up in arms agaisnt US. Wonder why? And wonder why shi'ias in the south (where Brits are) was quiet all this time? You had insurection in Njaf yet Basa (second largest city) was quiet.

Sunni resistence? The Sunnis will support the elections and not you or anybody else can change that. Iraq will be a free country, whether you like it or not. Iraq will eventually be pacified.


Too bad that woun't happen. Look at Rumsfelds statements that elections might not be held in entire Iraq, but only in pacifies areas. Basically where people don't like US and make their displeasure show they woun't be allowed to vote.

His statements are directly related to the security question in Iraq. If such areas are not secure, election might not take place there. Nothing to do with what you claim. Elections will be free and legitimate give or take a few mishaps, in the same fashion they were held in Afghanistan.



Because we all know that politicians never, ever lie in order to achieve their goals. :rolleyes:

Pure speculation. So far the US/coalition forces are acting for the benefit of the Iraqui people. If you think they want to control Iraq for their own interests it's your prerogative. Time will tell.



Crisis like brutal and nuclear armed dictatorship in North Korea, Balkan slaughterhouse in 1990s, civil war in Tajikistan, Armenian-Azerbaijan war, opressive rule of Taliban in Afghanistan, Rwandan massacres....?

Give me a break, US gets involved where there are interests to protect or gain, not where people suffer.

The US have not been idle as far as the North Korean issue is concerned. But as I said they do not pose a serious threat to world security at the moment. Their efforts are more towards putting pressure on the US/ South Korea for their own intererests. I don't think the North Korean regime poses a thread, if you do, well, it's your right. But you can't ignore the facts, nor deny reality.
NATO's intervention was vital for the Balkan issue, and they didn't even have a visible goal other than to stop genocide. Are you going to blame the Us for that too? What other country would make such sacrifice now? France? Germany? gimme a break. They don't want to be involved.


So because they did a good thing back then they have a blank cheque to do whatever they please now?

No, but why are you always critical of America's good-natured intentions? US soldiers are losing their lives as we speak for the freedom of the Iraqui people. Are you not greatful for that?

If you put yourself in spotlight you will be scrutinised. If you claim you promote freedoms and democracy your support for opressive regimes like Saddam's and Pinochet's will be thrown at you.

So what's your point? When did the US support the Saddam regime? Are you referring to the Iraq/Iran war? Are you aware of the fact that Homeini's regime posed a 10 times greater threat than Saddam's at that time? Are you now going to blame the US for the fact that Saddam Hussein later turned against his own people with mass murders, tortunes, genocide and posed a threat for the security of the whole region?

Find me a free Iraqui who can claim Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq and I'll rest my case. You won't find them.

haku
24-10-2004, 19:16
Iraq will be a free countryIraq won't be a free country, come on. The future elections will be a farce.

Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, if the elections are really "free", Shiites will gain power and create an Islamic Republic just as Iran.

The US won't let that happen, it doesn't want *two* Shiite Islamic Republics.

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 19:21
No, but you why are you always critical of America's good-natured intentions? Us soldiers are losing their lives as we speak for the freedom of the Iraqui people. Are you not greatful about that?

thanks for that spyretto, you said something that i've been trying to say in a sentence. (i'm really bad at on-line debating, can't you tell?)

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 19:30
everyone HATES us, we sacrifice SO MUCH and you aren't doing anything about it except TALK, but there's very little action... the United States gives out more foriegn aid than any other country
I love it when my words are twisted, i didn't say that other countries didn't do anything. Just that we did the most
I didn't twist anything, that was quite clear: "Everyone hates us [America], we sacrifice so much [...] You [other countries] aren't doing anything except TALK, but there's very little action".

You do "the most" because you have the most. At what cost you have the most, that is another story, and it's not a pretty one.

And I don't hate America or Americans. I love America for all the good things it has created, but I cannot ignore the bad ones, which are horrifying.

When did the US support the Saddam regime?
Hello, the US gave weapons to Saddam so he could fight his war against Iran. If that's not support, than what is? :eek:

Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, if the elections are really "free", Shiites will gain power and create an Islamic Republic just as Iran.

The US won't let that happen, it doesn't want *two* Shiite Islamic Republics.
I absolutely agree!

His statements are directly related to the security question in Iraq. If such areas are not secure, election might not take place there. Nothing to do with what you claim
How the hell do you know? He has lied in other situations, why wouldn't he give the excuse of it not being secure enough to allow voting in those areas? I'm sorry my friend, but stating "it has nothing to do with that" is pure speculation as well.

spyretto
24-10-2004, 19:58
How the hell do you know? He has lied in other situations, why wouldn't he give the excuse of it not being secure enough to allow voting in those areas? I'm sorry my friend, but stating "it has nothing to do with that" is pure speculation as well.

I don't think you have a grasp of the efforts America is putting towards securing peace and prosperity around the world. I'll give you an example. In two situations - one in the late 80's, the second in 1999 - Greece was in the brink of war with Turkey; US intervention prevented the war in both cases. In 1999, the prime minister of Greece, leader of the socialist party came into parliament and declared word by word that he'd " like to personally thank the government of the United States of America for their intervention in defusing the crisis". Yes, there were wild protest from members of the communist party. He had no bloody interest in expessing those thanks, he later said however that he felt a sense of responsibility on the fact that the the United States government used diplomacy to do everything they could on their part to prevent a catastropic war.
Now if you want to say that GW Bush is a liar and Clinton was not, is your own right. I do not personally think that US policy in general differs considerably. according to what party is in power.




And I don't hate America or Americans. I love America for all the good things it has created, but I cannot ignore the bad ones, which are horrifying.

Not as horrifying as it would be if America wasn't there to save your butt all the time, then give you the luxury to criticise them freely. :lol:

Kate
24-10-2004, 20:28
spyretto, I wanted to ask you about your exact stand-point on this metter. Do you support Bush or Kerry? I know you think Bush will win, but I got the impression that you don't really support him...

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 20:34
Not as horrifying as it would be if America wasn't there to save your butt all the time, then give you the luxury to criticise them freely. :lol:
What do you mean with that exactly except to provoke me? :D

America didn't give me luxury to have freedom of speech, I have it because my own people did a revolution and stopped a dictatorship. The democracy and freedom I have is 99,9% because of my own people.

America is not good to everyone and the World doesn't owe freedom of speech to America. That's insulting and I hope you were joking.

spyretto
24-10-2004, 20:40
spyretto, I wanted to ask you about your exact stand-point on this metter. Do you support Bush or Kerry? I know you think Bush will win, but I got the impression that you don't really support him...

But I don't think the current situation in Iraq would change much should either one were to come in power. As for domestic US issues, they really don't concern me; and as to who I like better, I slightly prefer the pacifying physiognomy of Kerry over GW; that doesn't mean it makes any difference as to who will be more suitable for a president.
As to who I think will win, well, I made my point clear from the start, didn't I? :lol:

Kate
24-10-2004, 20:44
As to who I think will win, well, I made my point clear from the start, didn't I? Yeeessssssssssss, you Bush-mocking avatar says it all. :D

spyretto
24-10-2004, 20:46
What do you mean with that exactly except to provoke me? :D

America didn't give me luxury to have freedom of speech, I have it because my own people did a revolution and stopped a dictatorship. The democracy and freedom I have is 99,9% because of my own people.

America is not good to everyone and the World doesn't owe freedom of speech to America. That's insulting and I hope you were joking.

To tell you the truth, I haven't heard of a country named "Nippleland" before :lol: If I knew where that is, I'd tell you what America has done for you. Perhaps that must be the reason, Americans are also unaware of the exact location of "Nippleland", that's why they couldn't help you....btw, did we beat "Nippleland's ass in the Euro? Or is it not that "Nippleland"?

The port was nice tho... :coctail:


Yeeessssssssssss, you Bush-mocking avatar says it all. :D

what mocking avatar? oh you mean the one that shows the true nature of the two candidates? just kiddin... :p

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 20:53
Spyretto, was that supposed to be funny or offend me? Oops, sorry, you'll have to try better next time :D

spyretto
24-10-2004, 20:56
Spyretto, was that supposed to be funny or offend me? Oops, sorry, you'll have to try better next time :D

I think it was funny, but we wouldn't expect you to admit it, would we ? :p
So how's things in Nippleland?

Kate
24-10-2004, 20:58
Update on the current poll!

If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader?

Published: Oct. 21

Bush 46%
Kerry 49%
Nader 2%
Error 3%
Polled 976
Source: Associated Press-Ipsos

Unplugged
24-10-2004, 20:58
So how's things in Nippleland?
If you're so interested, why don't you create a thread about Nippleland and maybe I'll tell you all about it. :D

Kate
24-10-2004, 20:59
So how's things in Nippleland? I betcha there're lots of nipples around! :laugh: Right, Miguel?

spyretto
24-10-2004, 21:02
Update on the current poll!

If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader?

Published: Oct. 21

Bush 46%
Kerry 49%
Nader 2%
Error 3%
Polled 976
Source: Associated Press-Ipsos

Bush will have the last laugh, not to worry :)


I betcha there're lots of nipples around! :laugh: Right, Miguel?


I bet Nippleland is not the only country where America don't have influence. There's also Jupiter, Harmonia and Middle Earth ( amongst others )


spyretto, please edit your posts instead of double posting, thanks.

Now, let's get back to the topic of the US Elections (or at least US international policy), shall we? Thank you.

thegurgi
24-10-2004, 21:46
but I cannot ignore the bad ones, which are horrifying.
You actually think what we're doing is horrifying? HORRIFYING?? wow. you obviously have no clue what horrifying is... maybe you should take a train to Poland and visit Auschwitz to get a good grasp on the word you're comparing us to. THAT was horrifying.

As for what i meant, i meant that if what we're doing is so bad, why don't you ACTUALLY do something! Take up arms against the united states, intervene in Iraq, Help the insurgents and restore Iraq to how it was before we arrived. If what we're doing is horrifying, than do something about it. But i guess that'd just be getting involved, and that'd be too much work, now wouldn't it?

luxxi
24-10-2004, 21:52
Oh common. Their brutal/copycat methods shows that they would. Lets watch this space. So which ones do you classify as freedom fighters and which ones as terrorists? Lets say Al Queda/Jawhid & Jihad are terrorists. How about the other copycat groups?

Germans used combined arms doctrine in WW2. Germans were nazis in WW2. Israelis use combined arms doctrine. Ergo Israelis are Nazis. :rolleyes:

Just because you copy somebody's MO it doesn't mean you copy everything they do.

As for freedom fighters. I don't like to use that term because it's subjective. I prefer term insurgents. Insurgents are peopel who target occupation troops, representatives of Iraqi regime and infrastructure (which are legitimate targets in war). Those who target civilians are terrorists.


Sunni resistence? The Sunnis will support the elections and not you or anybody else can change that. Iraq will be a free country, whether you like it or not. Iraq will eventually be pacified.


Doy ou even watch the news? Sunnis are main force in insurgency. Until recently it was onyl sunnis that fought US. Now shi'ias are joining as well, but it's still mostly sunnis.


His statements are directly related to the security question in Iraq. If such areas are not secure, election might not take place there. Nothing to do with what you claim. Elections will be free and legitimate give or take a few mishaps, in the same fashion they were held in Afghanistan.


even f they will be held only in parts of Iraq? Like holding US elections only in Texas and inowhere else. But hey, at least there were elections in parts of US, right?


Pure speculation. So far the US/coalition forces are acting for the benefit of the Iraqui people. If you think they want to control Iraq for their own interests it's your prerogative. Time will tell.

The statement that politicians lie is speculation?


The US have not been idle as far as the North Korean issue is concerned. But as I said they do not pose a serious threat to world security at the moment. Their efforts are more towards putting pressure on the US/ South Korea for their own intererests. I don't think the North Korean regime poses a thread, if you do, well, it's your right. But you can't ignore the facts, nor deny reality.

:rolleyes: So country with bunker mentality, totaly isolated formt he world, possesing long range ballistic missiles and up to 10 nukes is not a threat to world peace? Well, if you say so....


NATO's intervention was vital for the Balkan issue, and they didn't even have a visible goal other than to stop genocide. Are you going to blame the Us for that too?


No, but they fact that US didn't do anything for 4 years doesn't exactlly agree with your statement that US cares for people, does it?


What other country would make such sacrifice now? France? Germany? gimme a break. They don't want to be involved.

Ah, so that's why they are increasing forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because they don't want to get involved. Thanks for clearing that one.


No, but why are you always critical of America's good-natured intentions? US soldiers are losing their lives as we speak for the freedom of the Iraqui people. Are you not greatful for that?


And which actions would that be?

As for US troops dying for Iraqis.... Us is doing a lot of killing there and a lot less dying than Iraqis.


So what's your point? When did the US support the Saddam regime? Are you referring to the Iraq/Iran war?


Yes.


Are you aware of the fact that Homeini's regime posed a 10 times greater threat than Saddam's at that time?


How?


Are you now going to blame the US for the fact that Saddam Hussein later turned against his own people with mass murders, tortunes, genocide and posed a threat for the security of the whole region?

To a degree. When Iraqis began using gas on Iranians (peopel who were defending their country from Iraqi invasion) US president sent envoy to meet with Saddam and assured him of US support. that envoy was Donald rumsfeld.

In 1988 when Iraqis gassed Kurdish town of Halabya US increased agricultural aide to Iraq by 100%. In previous years Iraq purchased crop spraying planes with this aid. When those planes arrived in Iraq they were given to military which used them to spray CW, with full US knowledge.


Find me a free Iraqui who can claim Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq and I'll rest my case. You won't find them.

No. But that doesn't mean they are thrileld with US being there.

:newyear:

luxxi
24-10-2004, 21:55
Iraq won't be a free country, come on. The future elections will be a farce.

Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, if the elections are really "free", Shiites will gain power and create an Islamic Republic just as Iran.

The US won't let that happen, it doesn't want *two* Shiite Islamic Republics.

Not necesarry. Shi'ias aren't solid block and majority don't want islamic republic, specially not one modelled after Iran.

:newyear:

spyretto
24-10-2004, 22:18
Germans used combined arms doctrine in WW2. Germans were nazis in WW2. Israelis use combined arms doctrine. Ergo Israelis are Nazis. :rolleyes:

Just because you copy somebody's MO it doesn't mean you copy everything they do.

As for freedom fighters. I don't like to use that term because it's subjective. I prefer term insurgents. Insurgents are peopel who target occupation troops, representatives of Iraqi regime and infrastructure (which are legitimate targets in war). Those who target civilians are terrorists.

You said it very well.



Doy ou even watch the news? Sunnis are main force in insurgency. Until recently it was onyl sunnis that fought US. Now shi'ias are joining as well, but it's still mostly sunnis.

My bad. That doesn't change the fact that US forces will prevail in Iraq, and democracy will be installed. I know it, and you know it. You may prefer anarchy, or the law "you use hand to steal, I cut hand" but unfortunately that won't happen.



even f they will be held only in parts of Iraq? Like holding US elections only in Texas and inowhere else. But hey, at least there were elections in parts of US, right?

If there's a risk that your highly-esteemed insurgents carry out blind and deadly attacks just to disrupt the elections, it's preferrable not to take place in those areas. Security comes first.

The statement that politicians lie is speculation?

No, just the fact that you take for granted that Bush is lying in that particular situation.

:rolleyes: So country with bunker mentality, totaly isolated formt he world, possesing long range ballistic missiles and up to 10 nukes is not a threat to world peace? Well, if you say so....

Absolutely, as there are no links of North Korea with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit.

No, but they fact that US didn't do anything for 4 years doesn't exactlly agree with your statement that US cares for people, does it?

Ah, so that's why they are increasing forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because they don't want to get involved. Thanks for clearing that one.

What did your country do about it? As thegurgi very rightly said, better do something as well rather than bitching about the US not doing enough...or not doing anything...or if they do enough it's for their own self-interest. You can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs.


As for US troops dying for Iraqis.... Us is doing a lot of killing there and a lot less dying than Iraqis.

Does this mean that if there were more American casualties than Iraqui casulaties, that would be ok, and now it's not?

How?

How...lets see how. By adopting a hard-line anti-Western, anti American stance, collaborating with terrorists, further repressing their people with the implementation of extreme islamic law, killing and torturing, pretty much what Saddam was doing.

To a degree. When Iraqis began using gas on Iranians (peopel who were defending their country from Iraqi invasion) US president sent envoy to meet with Saddam and assured him of US support. that envoy was Donald rumsfeld.

In 1988 when Iraqis gassed Kurdish town of Halabya US increased agricultural aide to Iraq by 100%. In previous years Iraq purchased crop spraying planes with this aid. When those planes arrived in Iraq they were given to military which used them to spray CW, with full US knowledge.

There have been many errors in terms of American foreign policy in the past. Does this mean we are to accuse Rumsfeld for carrying out these attacks personally? And what did the rest of the world do about it...and finally...do you expect the US intelligence to have knowledge of everything that Saddam Hussein was doing? If you accuse them of incompetence or wrong decisions, that's another matter.

No. But that doesn't mean they are thrileld with US being there.

I don't blame them.

:newyear:[/QUOTE]

Unplugged
25-10-2004, 06:11
why don't you ACTUALLY do something!
I have demonstrated peacefully against this war 3 times and I also wrote a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs criticizing the Portuguese Government's ass-kissing position of support. For someone who is concentrating hard on his studies and profession, that is what I could do. Nonetheless, I do not have to do justify myself to you, and neither do you to me, because the topic is not your actions or my actions, we are discussing politics and politicians' work and policies. Maybe for you the temptation is high, but please do not take this personal and start with personal attacks on other members just because they don't agree with you. It is childish and leads the discussion to nowhere.

thegurgi
25-10-2004, 06:42
i'm glad you did that then. you should have stated that before. But it's hard for me to not take things personal when you say things like what you said, especially in the way you put things with my name so well placed. I know that people don't agree with me, but i like to see people rationalise. I can easily see your point of view, but i wonder if you can see mine at all... i thought that's what debates were all about, getting a grasp of BOTH, not just one side of it all, cause i've heard very little understanding, just more and more arguments.

luxxi
25-10-2004, 07:42
My bad. That doesn't change the fact that US forces will prevail in Iraq, and democracy will be installed. I know it, and you know it. You may prefer anarchy, or the law "you use hand to steal, I cut hand" but unfortunately that won't happen.


US might prevail. And democracy might be installed. And if new gov't asks US to leave? then what?


If there's a risk that your highly-esteemed insurgents carry out blind and deadly attacks just to disrupt the elections, it's preferrable not to take place in those areas. Security comes first.


And not risking peopel electing peopel US might not like.


No, just the fact that you take for granted that Bush is lying in that particular situation.


He lied about Iraq before.


Absolutely, as there are no links of North Korea with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit.


So? They have nukes, they have missiles, they have heavy arty in rangeof Seoul. They are a big threat.


What did your country do about it? As thegurgi very rightly said, better do something as well rather than bitching about the US not doing enough...or not doing anything...or if they do enough it's for their own self-interest. You can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Sent help, sell weapons, took in refugees.


Does this mean that if there were more American casualties than Iraqui casulaties, that would be ok, and now it's not?

No.


How...lets see how. By adopting a hard-line anti-Western, anti American stance, collaborating with terrorists, further repressing their people with the implementation of extreme islamic law, killing and torturing, pretty much what Saddam was doing.

If Iranians did pretty much what Saddam did how were they 10 times worse?


There have been many errors in terms of American foreign policy in the past. Does this mean we are to accuse Rumsfeld for carrying out these attacks personally?


No. But taking responsibility for past actions would be good start.


And what did the rest of the world do about it...and finally...do you expect the US intelligence to have knowledge of everything that Saddam Hussein was doing? If you accuse them of incompetence or wrong decisions, that's another matter.


Yes, Us knew perfectlly well what Saddam was doing. Iran kept providing proof about gas being used. US had military ties with Iraq. they knew what was going on.


I don't blame them.


But you do blame them for doing something about it.

:newyear:

Kate
25-10-2004, 19:51
Nearly 400 tonnes of explosives go missing in Iraq: IAEA

VIENNA (AFP) - Nearly 400 tonnes of powerful explosives that could be used in conventional missiles, or as a trigger for nuclear devices, has disappeared from a military installation in Iraq (news - web sites) left unguarded by the US army, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. [...] "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site." More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041025/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_iaea_us_explosives&cid=1514&ncid=1480)

Hhmmm... what was that Bush said about making the World and the U.S. safer? Now those explosives could be half-way to bin Laden's place for all we know. Let's hope they are not planning to show us the fire-works anytime soon.

freddie
25-10-2004, 21:47
Well right now would be just the right time for another attack, if they are planning one. At least if they want Bush re-elected. More attacks mean more fear. And fear is after all the foundation of the whole Bush campaign.

spyretto
25-10-2004, 21:52
US might prevail. And democracy might be installed. And if new gov't asks US to leave? then what?

If new government asks for the US forces to leave, I gather they wouldn't be a puppet government which means that either the US' plan to install a puppet government would have failed or that their intention was not to install a puppet government in the first place. What will happen, we will see, I don't know..do you know?

And not risking peopel electing peopel US might not like.

This is one way to see it, and I've already stated the other way. Lets hope the US administration won't repeat the alleged mistakes of the past. Other than that there's nothing we can do, unless we want the war and misery to be prolonged indefinitely.

He lied about Iraq before.

He didn't lie per se, the intelligence info he was receiving about wmd was inconclusive. That doesn't mean Iraq's regime did not pose a threat. Wmd could still be found.

So? They have nukes, they have missiles, they have heavy arty in rangeof Seoul. They are a big threat.

I don't think they have the intention of using it. They're just trying to put more pressure on the US and its allies.

Sent help, sell weapons, took in refugees.

Who are you referring to?

If Iranians did pretty much what Saddam did how were they 10 times worse?

They were worse coz Chomeini's regime posed a direct threat back then, while Saddam became a thread afterwards. After he was helped by the US, if you like.

No. But taking responsibility for past actions would be good start.

That's right, but I'm not a defender of the US foreign policy. THe American people will make their decision in November 2nd. If the majority votes for Bush it seems that Rumsfiled's has done something right. No excuses...

Yes, Us knew perfectlly well what Saddam was doing. Iran kept providing proof about gas being used. US had military ties with Iraq. they knew what was going on.

I think they had an indication of what was going on but did not have the full picture. The full extent of what Saddam was doing was discovered later. And as I said US foreign policy is susceptible to many errors of judgement, some of which have been acknowledged but it's not easy when you have to decide which evil is the least evil.


But you do blame them for doing something about it.

It depends on what they do about it. Targetting their own people, kidnapping and murdering the innocents is not exactly what they should be doing , is it?

:newyear:[/QUOTE]

spyretto
25-10-2004, 22:22
Well right now would be just the right time for another attack, if they are planning one. At least if they want Bush re-elected. More attacks mean more fear. And fear is after all the foundation of the whole Bush campaign.

Even now that Vladimir Putin has said the terrorists' aim is to prevent Bush's re-election? :D

luxxi
25-10-2004, 22:22
He didn't lie per se, the intelligence info he was receiving about wmd was inconclusive. That doesn't mean Iraq's regime did not pose a threat. Wmd could still be found.


And the peopel who provided that itelligence kept their jobs. So I guess Bush doesn't see they did anything wrong.


I don't think they have the intention of using it. They're just trying to put more pressure on the US and its allies.

Then look at their statements.


Who are you referring to?


My country.


They were worse coz Chomeini's regime posed a direct threat back then, while Saddam became a thread afterwards. After he was helped by the US, if you like.


Direct threat to who? Name one country that Iran attacked.


I think they had an indication of what was going on but did not have the full picture. The full extent of what Saddam was doing was discovered later. And as I said US foreign policy is susceptible to many errors of judgement, some of which have been acknowledged but it's not easy when you have to decide which evil is the least evil.


What part of the picture were they missing? They were shown evidence Iraq is using CW. So what part of the picture US didn't have?


It depends on what they do about it. Targetting their own people, kidnapping and murdering the innocents is not exactly what they should be doing , is it?


No. But attacking occupation troops, colaborators and infrastructure is.


:newyear:

spyretto
25-10-2004, 22:32
And the peopel who provided that itelligence kept their jobs. So I guess Bush doesn't see they did anything wrong.

Did they? Don't you read the news?

My country.

Which country is that? You sent troops and sold weapons? ;)


Direct threat to who? Name one country that Iran attacked.

Who did North Korea attack? South Korea in the 50s? Are you using double standards or not?


What part of the picture were they missing? They were shown evidence Iraq is using CW. So what part of the picture US didn't have?

The mass murders and atrocities Saddam was comitting, I don't think they had full knowledge of the situation.


No. But attacking occupation troops, colaborators and infrastructure is.

Yes it is. They should focus in those attacks and stop killing innocent people, purposely.


:newyear:[/QUOTE]

denial
26-10-2004, 07:17
Nearly 400 tonnes of explosives go missing in Iraq: IAEA

VIENNA (AFP) - Nearly 400 tonnes of powerful explosives that could be used in conventional missiles, or as a trigger for nuclear devices, has disappeared from a military installation in Iraq (news - web sites) left unguarded by the US army, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. [...] "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site." More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041025/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_iaea_us_explosives&cid=1514&ncid=1480)

Hhmmm... what was that Bush said about making the World and the U.S. safer? Now those explosives could be half-way to bin Laden's place for all we know. Let's hope they are not planning to show us the fire-works anytime soon.


hmm....sound impossible .. can we even believe that news? I checked the date is Mon Oct 25, 4:01 PM ET

Kate
26-10-2004, 07:36
I checked the date is Mon Oct 25, 4:01 PM ET So? Yahoo mostly publishes credible news, in fact I think Yahoo only publishes credible news. And this piece of information was cofirmed by the U.N. and is all over major internet news websites, check for yourself. :)

luxxi
26-10-2004, 09:47
Did they? Don't you read the news?

I do. How many people were fired for provding wrong inteligence to Bush?


Which country is that?


Slovenia.


You sent troops and sold weapons? ;)


No. we did other things I mentioned.


Who did North Korea attack? South Korea in the 50s? Are you using double standards or not?


Yes, N Korea attakced South Korea. And no, I'm not using double standards. YOu still failed to name single country Iran attacked. I'll make it easier for you. Name one country Iran attacked in this or previous century.


The mass murders and atrocities Saddam was comitting, I don't think they had full knowledge of the situation.

But they could punish Iraq for using CW. Of which they had full knowledge.

:newyear:

haku
26-10-2004, 13:49
hmm....sound impossible .. can we even believe that news?Yeah, it's true, it's been confirmed by the IAEA.

It's not even really "news" actually, it did not happen a few days ago, it happened months ago.

When the US invaded Iraq, the US army did not secure the military installations of the Iraqi army. During the period of pillage that followed the invasion, the weapons stored in those unguarded military installations were stolen.

Since Iraq was under UN scrutiny, the IAEA had a complete listing of all weapons stored on Iraqi military installations, now those installations are totally empty, so the IAEA can say precisely that almost 400 tons of explosives are missing.

The daily bombings in Iraq are probably done with explosives coming form those stolen stocks.

spyretto
26-10-2004, 19:29
I do. How many people were fired for provding wrong inteligence to Bush?

I far as I know, the head of the CIA on wmd was fired. What is your take on the subject anyway, do you maintain Saddam should have stayed in power?

Yes, N Korea attakced South Korea. And no, I'm not using double standards. YOu still failed to name single country Iran attacked. I'll make it easier for you. Name one country Iran attacked in this or previous century.

No, they didn't attack anybody but declaring themselves as enemies of the West and collaborating directly with terrorist groups must mean something, don't you think?

South Korea has been named part of the "axis of evil" by GW Bush ( along with Iran and Syria ). I don't think the US can open another front now that the Iraqui conflict has not been resolved yet. As I said, North Korea does not pose a direct threat for the time-being.

But they could punish Iraq for using CW. Of which they had full knowledge.

I think they did publicly condemn the use of CW and suspended diplomatic relations with Iraq as a result of it but if you expected them to have taken a more active role in supporting Iran in the the conflict, no that did not happen. So? The reason that Iraq ceased to be an ally to the US was the use of CW against the Kurds and the situation escalated until the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait.

:newyear:[/QUOTE]

Kate
27-10-2004, 20:27
Bush Chides Kerry for Iraq Explosives Talk

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush told supporters at an airport rally. "The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," Bush said. [...] The president told the crowd that there was no way to know when or how the explosives — last seen by U.N. weapons inspectors in early 2003 — vanished. More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041027/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798)

Kerry hits right back at Bush on explosives row

"Mr President, for the sake of our brave men and women in uniform, for the sake of those troops who are in danger," Kerry said in Rochester, Minnesota sports arena packed with at least 10,000 supporters. "Because of your mistakes, you owe Americans real answers about what happened, not just political attacks. Your administration was warned, you were put on notice but you didn't put these explosives on priority lists, you didn't think it was important. You didn't give the troops the instructions they need, you didn't guard the ammunition dumps and now our troops are at greater risk." More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041027/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry&cid=1506&ncid=2043)
_________________________

Interesting how Bush side-steps from straight answers... he's so full of lies. :blabla: While the weapons just tend to be lying around in Iraq for terrorists to grab whenever they stumble upon them, the oil is guarded very well for sure - no one takes Bush's oil.

spyretto
28-10-2004, 01:40
oh you're gonna be oh so p.o. when Bush wins, won't u? :D

freddie
28-10-2004, 02:08
Even now that Vladimir Putin has said the terrorists' aim is to prevent Bush's re-election? :D

I don't know about that. One might even say that Bush was the best thing that happened to radical groups all over the world in a long time. George Bush is to extremist islamic groups what Richard Nixon was to Guerilla Viet-Cong fighters in Vietnam.

spyretto
28-10-2004, 03:15
I don't know about that. One might even say that Bush was the best thing that happened to radical groups all over the world in a long time. George Bush is to extremist islamic groups what Richard Nixon was to Guerilla Viet-Cong fighters in Vietnam.

Yeah, his statement suprised me too, since it's no secret that the terrorists need Bush as much as Bush needs the terrorists. ;)

Kate
28-10-2004, 04:48
oh you're gonna be oh so p.o. when Bush wins, won't u? Oh yeah. :cool:

denial
28-10-2004, 04:50
So? Yahoo mostly publishes credible news, in fact I think Yahoo only publishes credible news. And this piece of information was cofirmed by the U.N. and is all over major internet news websites, check for yourself
..interesting .... new threat .. I guess...

Interesting how Bush side-steps from straight answers... he's so full of lies. While the weapons just tend to be lying around in Iraq for terrorists to grab whenever they stumble upon them, the oil is guarded very well for sure - no one takes Bush's oil.
hmm .. I think his weakness is his concern about US economy .... to be the No 1 country in the world you need to be strong and rich.. and the pride.. the weakness ..

Yeah, his statement suprised me too, since it's no secret that the terrorists need Bush as much as Bush needs the terrorists. ;)
hehehe.. cute one spy.. ever wonder whats make them need each other? ..or I mean .. who? or "whoS" actually?


:none:
sorry .. don't mind me .. tonight is my first school test after many years.. I'm a bit panic .. I just come to chill a bit.. go ahead guys! :done:

:bum:

Kate
28-10-2004, 07:03
An interesting survey for the press, http://survey.pollingpoint.com/survey/welcome.php?sn=96&cid=113&rid=2426797 :)

Kate
28-10-2004, 20:20
A good reply from Kerry:

Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."

Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."

"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."

More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=8&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/campaign_kerry_dc_71)

I just love Kerry's replies... If only I can argue in style like he does. He's my American Idol. :gigi:

Kate
29-10-2004, 01:35
Sorry for triple posting. :gigi: But I found an interesting website that allows people to vote from all over the world, and sorts the results by country. I'd say Kerry is on the safe side with 88% of the vore. :D

http://www.betavote.com

Results:

http://www.betavote.com/results/

Have fun.

By the way, a quote that kinda made sense and made me think: "At least half Kerry's constituency thinks that once he wins we'll be out of Iraq in three months. This isn't going to happen. When all the electoral balloons have floated away, Kerry will face the same dilemma George Bush now faces -- a hostile Middle East, an indifferent Europe, a fragile democracy in Iraq, and a world where rogue nations are acquiring nuclear weapons as fast as possible." Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7314

spyretto
29-10-2004, 08:35
On a more serious note, Kerry is catching up. :eek:

luxxi
29-10-2004, 08:59
I far as I know, the head of the CIA on wmd was fired.


No, he resigned.


What is your take on the subject anyway, do you maintain Saddam should have stayed in power?

Wow, nice attempt at dodging the issue. It alk about failure of intelligence and original reasons to invade Iraq, you start talking about soemthing else. Nice. :rolleyes:


No, they didn't attack anybody but declaring themselves as enemies of the West and collaborating directly with terrorist groups must mean something, don't you think?


So? They didn't attack anybody, even you admit so. As for terrorism, Iraq did same. I still fail to see how Iran was 10x more of a threat than Iraq.


South Korea has been named part of the "axis of evil" by GW Bush ( along with Iran and Syria ).


North Korea ;)


I don't think the US can open another front now that the Iraqui conflict has not been resolved yet. As I said, North Korea does not pose a direct threat for the time-being.


They pose bigger threat than Iraq did in March 2003. Due to bigger WMD arsenal, means to deliver them and regime's threats to use them.


I think they did publicly condemn the use of CW and suspended diplomatic relations with Iraq as a result of it


Nope. actually quite the opposite. Diplomatic relations were restored in mid 1980s and US prevented UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW. they did everything possible to protect Iraq.


but if you expected them to have taken a more active role in supporting Iran in the the conflict, no that did not happen. So? The reason that Iraq ceased to be an ally to the US was the use of CW against the Kurds and the situation escalated until the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait.

Wrong again. after Kurds were gassed in Halabya US doubled agricultural aid to Iraq.

And relations deteriorated because of invasion of Kuwait, not because Saddam was "bad".

:newyear:

thegurgi
29-10-2004, 21:48
I'm restating my stance on the war, i've decided that the way i put things don't really reflect how i feel about it, so:

I believe and know that nearly everything we've done in Iraq was completely wrong and perpetuated by the selfishness of the current establishment. However, i do support the reformation of the Middle East and the end of instability in the world's countries. I hope, that in the end of our involvement that this can become a reality that maybe there will be peace and i don't care how long that takes. Call me niave and optimistic, but i just want the end of suffering.

The instability of this region isn't just our fault remember, if we look back to the end of World War 1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the region was controlled by the British, French, Russians and others. They created borders for themselves but not the people who actually lived there, boundaries between peoples and such. As such the middle east has been sectored off not by themselves, but by those in power. Maybe if these nations had treated this area better and sectored everything to have made more sense, a united area with stronger support, rather than how it's still treated. But it's just so unstable, they have more civil wars than any other region in the world. The palestinians want a country, the kurds want a country, but the turks don't want to lose territory, the iranians don't want to lose territory, the israeli's especially don't. This could all be ended with a pencil on the map... well not all of it. Iraq is just one of the problems, but i do understand part of the problem.

Oil. one of Bush's agenda's had to be oil, probably his fathers as well. But in the next 40 years the oil is going to be gone. So many scientists believe this and if it proves to be true, this isn't just the State's problem. Oil is an issue, i think we should all agree, and we're all going to be affected by the end of this problem, except countries where they've solved the problem for themselves (like Brazil). But it's the states problem more than any one else just cause we USE more oil than any other countries. It's rather ridiculous, this country is more concerned about the price of oil, and yet they don't think of how to really conserve it. Other countries have, and yet you get a tax cut if you buy an "SUV" (aka, gas guzzler) and not if you by a fuel efficient one, it should totally be the other way around. I think that we should all, (all countries), need to focus on a new system of energy, and i'm sure some are, at least the scientists. and hopefully something renewable.

But, above all this, i still do support a war on militant extremist terrorists and the freedom of all people. I support what my brother's group did and the others he's told me of, i support COMPLETELY what they are doing. I do agree that in the offensive, we definitly need to go about it in a different way, and we need support, and maybe if we did, it WOULD go differently. So this is how i feel, i'm rather indifferent, but i won't take a completely against stance like everyone else, because some good will come out of this, eventually.

This is why i'm voting for Kerry, maybe with him things will go differently. And there's a part of me that really thinks he might win

spyretto
29-10-2004, 23:27
No, he resigned.

Yeah he resigned or was resigned. Nothing to do with the fruitless efforts to locate wmd, it was just a coincedence :rolleyes: I guess it's like saying that Bin Laden never admitted 9/11 openly, etc. etc. :blabla:

Wow, nice attempt at dodging the issue. It alk about failure of intelligence and original reasons to invade Iraq, you start talking about soemthing else. Nice. :rolleyes:

No, it's obvious I'm not dodging the issue as I'm trying to debate and refute all of your arguments the same way that you try to refute mine. But to say that I'm dodging the issue while you avoid answering at the same time, well it might be taken by some as an attempt to dodge the issue as well. :p



So? They didn't attack anybody, even you admit so. As for terrorism, Iraq did same. I still fail to see how Iran was 10x more of a threat than Iraq.

" 10 times worse" - was tongue-in-cheek as you very well understood but pretend you didn't. That doesn't mean that at the time, the US-friendly, westernised Saddam regime was seemingly at least - more dangerous than the anti-western, terrorist-friendly islamic fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. The US was not the only western country that decided to back the Saddam regime. Anyway, what is your point in going 20 years back, in the midst of the Cold War to prove what exactly? We have a current situation in Iraq right now, different to what it was 20 years ago. But I suppose if you think that the best solution for the current state of Iraq and the world is to let the insurgents win and withdraw the troops in the midst of chaos and anarchy, well, then I suppose it wasn't.



They pose bigger threat than Iraq did in March 2003. Due to bigger WMD arsenal, means to deliver them and regime's threats to use them.

Do they really have nuclear weapons ready to launch, or do they have a nuclear weapons program? It's a different thing. All they could do would be to launch their missiles against South Korea, and create havoc in the area, and then, naturally, you'd have to blame the United States for their possible involvement.
But allow me to maintain my position that a small isolated communist state is less dangerous than global terrorism.



Nope. actually quite the opposite. Diplomatic relations were restored in mid 1980s and US prevented UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW. they did everything possible to protect Iraq.


Wrong again. after Kurds were gassed in Halabya US doubled agricultural aid to Iraq.

And relations deteriorated because of invasion of Kuwait, not because Saddam was "bad".


Interesting. How did they singlehandedly prevent the UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW exactly? If the US can lobby UNSC like that, then I suppose they would have also authorised the use of force in Iraq? But apart from that, I think that State Department and National Security Council also issued reports that showed Iraq was developing CW, sponsored terrorism and eventually, used prohibited weapons like CW against the Iranians and the Kurds. So basically it was a decision of the Reagan administration to disregard evidence; after all, Iraq was a US ally during the Iran/Iraq war. It was the Cold War, a different ballgame all together. Still, I'm not trying to find excuses for them, cause they don't have any excuses. As all countries do, they placed their own interests above the rest, in what they thought it was right. It was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, while you're so meticulous in pointing out all liabilities on the US part, you should also take the time to investigate the involvement of other suppliers of weapons to Saddam Hussein thoughout the war - how about your beloved Soviet Union, France, and (West) Germany - any particular similarities between those three? Also, the selling of weapons to Saddam from Arab countries like Kuwait. I suppose they sold the weapons and the technology but they wouldn't imagine Saddam might turn them against them, right?...politics, politics.
Yeah I know America is such an easy target and some people can't help it but single out everything that involves them while discarding everything else on their minds. But a better approach would be to try and see things a bit more objectively.
So much about ancient history...

Kate
29-10-2004, 23:49
thegurgi, I totally agree with your opinion. Very well written. :done:

spyretto
30-10-2004, 00:16
thegurgi, I totally agree with your opinion. Very well written. :done:

I gather you liked the "I'm voting for Kerry" part, the best. Just kidding :D

Kate
30-10-2004, 00:33
spyretto, :gigi:

A new Bin Laden tape surfaced recently, here a quote from an article on Yahoo! news.

In the tape, Bin Laden accuses President George W. Bush of "misleading" the American people and of "hiding the real reasons" behind the September 11, 2001 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any state which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security," he said.

More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041029/pl_afp/qaeda_binladen_us_vote&cid=1521&ncid=2043

What do y'all think? Is bin Laden trying to influence U.S. elections?

spyretto
30-10-2004, 02:40
Actually, I was more interested in some other excerpts from Bin Laden's tape, namely the ones where he presents himself as a freedom fighter in the name of all Islam:

" We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours"..."God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind"...

inspiring stuff, luxxi, innit? :rolleyes: