Lets see Bush's chances of winning in SciForums.

Why would you or would you not vote for Bush?

I would vote for Bush, because there is no better cadidate.

I believe that the Republican agenda works and is in the best interest of this country. There are very few of the Republican ideas that I don't agree with. (I am pro-choice, pro-stem cell, and pro-gay marriage/rights to name a few I don't agree with) I think that the Bush Administration has made some mistakes, but that overall the decisions made by the Republican members of senate, congress and the supreme court have been solid. We are better off in many ways with the Republicans in power than with the Democrats in power.

If I could, I would steal his election; what goes around comes around doesn't it? :)

I am a Canadian here, so I can't really vote for either. However, if I had the right to vote in this election, I would most definitely not vote for Bush. This whole attack on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an absolute mess. Why did Bush start a war on Iraq in the first place? he thought there are a bunch of weapons that could threaten the national security, and went there alone over the U.N.'s objection. But did they ever find any "weapons of mass destruction" as of yet? (seriously I want to know, I heard they never have)
so Go Kerry... and Paul Martin:p

DoctorNO, why did you have varying reasons to vote for But just a flat NO for not voting for Bush? You could have put "No, I really like Kerri" "No, I will support whoever can beat Bush" "No, I really like Nader" "No, I really like Kuscinich" Do the poll options perhaps reveal a bias? Perhaps you think there are a few different reasons one might vote for Bush, but devote no thought to reasons somone might not?

Bush is too fucking interested in Iraq!!!!

Yes, I think people have noticed that before and stated it a little more eloquently and with fewer exclamation points.

I vote no because the preemtive unilateral Bush policy toward other religions/nations, kills American soldiers dead.

All for a lie and oil profits for Cheaney/Bush team...and that's nothing to die for.

And don't forget to go see the next Michael Moore movie! :)

The movie got a fifteen minutes standing ovation at Cannes filmfestival!

'Farenheit 911'

I don't like anyone who's running, therefore I will not vote. :)

Its a moral obligation to only vote for people who you feel will do a good job in the position, and I don't really think Kerry, Bush, or any of the other clowns running would be up to my standards.

sooo...maybe I'll write someone in I suppose...

DoctorNO, why did you have varying reasons to vote for But just a flat NO for not voting for Bush? You could have put "No, I really like Kerri" "No, I will support whoever can beat Bush" "No, I really like Nader" "No, I really like Kuscinich" Do the poll options perhaps reveal a bias? Perhaps you think there are a few different reasons one might vote for Bush, but devote no thought to reasons somone might not?
Sorry but I live in Canada & the only candidates I know are Bush & Kerry. Honestly I really dont care whether or not Bush wins. I have no love nor hatred for him. I dont care about Iraq but I do like america.

Let us look at Kerry for just a moment. He voted for the war in Iraq to begin with now he is voting against it ,or so he says. Is that a good way to be a good leader by changing your mind when the situation needs to be helped not done away with?

Kerry wants to increase taxes, which he has voted on many times, do you all want higher taxes?

Kerry wants to help everyone but doesn't say how he can do this, do you want to be lied to more than Bush is already doing?

I do not see many things that different about Kerry that would let me think he was a better candidate only a different one.

Choose the lesser of two evils because they both will do what they want with whom they want. Kery will give out his handouts to his people that vote and help elect him just as Bush does with his people.

i dont mind paying taxes. taxes are what bring forth many of the luxuries we enjoy in this country that are often taken for granted. bush in bankrupted government and civil services by his fiscal irresponsibility.

and kerry voted for the war assuming things wouldnt be handled with such a cavalier attitude as bush's/ you cant blame him for voting for the war when information was manipulated and now being against it because that manipulation has come to light.

So then because Kerry didn't research the reasons for the war we need to put him into the presidency, that does not make any sense to me at all. If we are going to be putting a man into the white house then he should be able to research the most important things himself and not ne led to believe things that are not true. I don't want someone who can be "conned" into believing anything, that shows me he is easily manipulated.

Bush has stuck to what he said and won't let the peoples of Iraq down in the future BUT Kerry will pull out the troops and let whatever happen , happen. I do not think that would be a way to solve the Iraq situation but the way Bush is going , to me, is the best way that we have. Troubles will happen and they will be resolved but don't let the Iraqi people down by leaving them alone.

I wont vote because I'm in the UK but my British perspective on Bush is that he is not really looking at local American issues.
We have the same problem with Blair. They all too interested in the glory of the big stuff to concentrate on local politics.

America was "attacked" by a foriegn nation and is at war with those that were behind the attack. Those terrorists that were sent into America were and are being sent into many other countries to attack them also. Those who fail to see this are blind and want only isolationism to hide their heads in the sand and not seeing the truth as to what terrorists are really up to.

Well, Kerry didnt have the "research" tools like Bush had, Cosmic.

This is stupid-Bush, Cheaney and a very vocal (and hated by the hard Right) Colin Powell has said over and over that Iraq posed no threat at the time.
At least go to googlenews.com and read Powells statements to the press.

It's like you have a filter blocking anything that bucks the standard Bush zombie speech-talk.
When Bush talks to a neo conservative group at $2000 a plate he sounds like he is in bizarro world. "stay the course everythings going great freedom axis of evil liberations for all"
I don't think he could handle a one on one public debate with Kerry.
And I know for a fucking fact that Nader would bust his chops hard and make him look like the FOOL he is.

Btw, I don't mind paying taxes..I'm so glad that I can work and pay those taxes many people can't.....who else will pave the fucking roads?

America was "attacked" by a foriegn nation and is at war with those that were behind the attack.

The only nation we're at war with right now is Iraq...and Iraq hasn't attacked us since we last smacked them down (well, they shot down a predator drone, but meh). If you're talking about terrorism...yea, it's a real good idea to declare war against an idea...

Those terrorists that were sent into America were and are being sent into many other countries to attack them also.]

Hmm...can't argue with you there, though I do believe there is more than one terrorist group, and I doubt they all work together and conspire to "destroy the West" or whatever...

Those who fail to see this are blind and want only isolationism to hide their heads in the sand and not seeing the truth as to what terrorists are really up to.

I think its more of a matter of "why did the terrorists attack us?". The answer is simple; they snapped. This is just a giant response akin to something like Columbine. We poked the "weak" one too many times with the sharp stick and they snapped. I'm not justifying their behavior, but it is understandable based on the things the US and other countries have done...

That being said, isolationism isn't the way to go right now, but neither is total annihilation of everyone who doesn't agree with Bush et al. Instead, what would be best for the US in the long run is to stop being such an asshat in international affairs, if we're going to prop up rebels, we should damn well stick with them until the bloody end, none of this "oh, lets give them weapons now because they happen to dislike someone we dislike" then later make the person an enemy because they won't bend over.

When a nation acts like a bully there WILL be a response and that response probably won't be pretty (as we've already seen).

So then because Kerry didn't research the reasons for the war we need to put him into the presidency, that does not make any sense to me at all. If we are going to be putting a man into the white house then he should be able to research the most important things himself and not ne led to believe things that are not true. I don't want someone who can be "conned" into believing anything, that shows me he is easily manipulated.

Bush has stuck to what he said and won't let the peoples of Iraq down in the future BUT Kerry will pull out the troops and let whatever happen , happen. I do not think that would be a way to solve the Iraq situation but the way Bush is going , to me, is the best way that we have. Troubles will happen and they will be resolved but don't let the Iraqi people down by leaving them alone.

this post is absurd. when the president and all of his lackies come to you and say look we have all of this evidence here, or a slam dunk as cia director tenet put it. the president should be blamed for not doing his research. he was the one claiming the urgency of this crisis. you seem to be the one who has been conned into believing anything. you are easily manipulated if you buy into the propaganda thrown out by by the bush admin on a daily basis

I'm voting for Nader. Kuscinich is along the same lines but he's not as well-known -- not to say Nader is much either, heh.

It's just too bad people only see and vote for Democratic and Republic parties. Go Independant!

- N

well my beliefs are more along those of a third party, but the system kinda sucks. bush is pretty much bringing about the exact opposite of my beliefs. so in order to prevent pure evil i have no choice but to vote for kerry

I could not possibly vote for a man who thinks god wants him in office. This administration has been a disaster. I'm in the "anyone but Bush" crowd.

"Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot."
Let's send him back.

During the last presidential election I was working 70 hours a week and thought anyone would be better than Klinton. That's my excuse for voting for Bush. I don't care for the democrats (and won't vote for Kerry) but my keen sense of the obvious tells me that Bush is treasonous scum.

Maybe this should only include AMERICANS who can vote.

I don’t agree with bush at all. First of all he is a war pig. He has started two wars while in office, with very little reason. I am against war in all forms, but this is off the charts. He started the war for no reason. Furthermore he is not very smart. There are a number of sites out there, like http://home.twcny.rr.com/felicity/dumya.htm, that shows some of the stupid things he has said of done. One such comment is "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully". He actually said that, no joke. I also don’t agree with his policies, such as banned gay marriages, and his support for large corporations. Not that all of them are bad, but he very much bending some rules. He does nothing to help the environment, and in many cases does it wrong. He is definitely not fit to be president.

Americans should learn from the last elections,.....they voted Nadar and got bush instead,...
Now they're gonna vote Kerry and they're gonna get Bush,...

My msg? VOTE INDEPENDENT!!!! PUT THOSE SKULLY AND BONES OUT OF BUSSINESS!!!

Maybe this should only include AMERICANS who can vote.


i vote in this poll and im european, these types of polls always lack a "I'm in luck, I'm not american" option :), its like you[the americans] forget the internet is global

If I was American and I could vote in their elections I would vote NO! ;)

VOTE INDEPENDENT!!!! PUT THOSE SKULLY AND BONES OUT OF BUSSINESS!!!
Although I agree with your sentiments, I suspect the Independent candidates are also members of Skull and Bones or some of the other secret societies....Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, PNAC, Council on Foreign Relations, Bohemian Grove...etc...

The media has protected these secret societies from scrutiny for too long.

Candidates appear to be loyal to your favorite ideology or mine, but their loyalty always lies with the New World Order.

The Skull&Bones society does not care who wins, because both Bush&Kerry are members of this secret society so whoever wins they win, so what gives?.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm

Godless.

I didn't vote for Bush the first time and won't the second but I'm lukewarm about Kerry. He's a local guy though, and it might be helpful to the state's economy to have one of our boys in the White House.

Vote for Bush, i dont think so but im not a yank so its not my decision to make, we get to blame the idiotic poplus of that nation for the crap he's already done in 1 term in office.

To quote a genius, "its not that i disagree with Bush's for foreign policys or his ecconomic policy's its just i think he's the child of satan sent here to distroy the planet Earth."

I siad yes because he's the right man for the job.

Why? Well I'm an athiest who thinks Bushs religious beliefs are crap. I think his stances on alot of things sux, but for the war on terrorism he's DEAD on. This is a kill or be killed world. Dead ppl don't fight back. The terrorist understand this. Bush understands this. The ONLY thing that is important right now is dealing with this. Why? cause if you don't the next 9-11 it might be me/you that is dead. I'd much rather go over to afganistan/iraq/iran/syria and die killing the ppl that are trying to kill me. Instead you want me to sit on my butt and wiat for the other shoe to drop?

Wake up ppl the best defence in this case the ONLY defence is a GOOD OFFENCE. Stop whining about a few soldiers dieing. THAT IS THERE JOB, and THEY KNOW IT.

To all you ppl who say attacking Iraq didn't further the war on terror I say this. If it didn't then why is it that right at this moment there are more terror attacks in Iraq than the whole rest of the world combined? I mean everyone bitchs and gripes and says we were not prepiared for such heavy resistance. I say your right. We had NO IDEA there were that MANY terrorists in Iraq. Isn't it a good thing we attacked them...:) Would you rather they all filter into the US and start blowing up car bombs at your local theater? Wendy's? Owe wiat even better they can blow up some churchs full of infidel christians....:P

Wake up ppl. Look around. Its not a conspiracy. Bush doesn't CARE one little tiny bit about oil. He's not out to make money. HES RICH ALREADY. He's reacting the ONLY way you can to being attacked. He's attacking BACK.

I FIRMLY believe there is one and ONLY one reason he attacked Iraq. CAUSE HE COULD. Iraq made a perfect target because for 10+ yrs it had thumbed its nose at the world by attacking its nieghbors and defying the UN. It had a big target pianted on it siad attack here first. I'd bet my last dallar that Bush WISHS he could attack Iran, Syria and N Korea to. Accept there not stupid like Saddam. Why would he want to attack them to??? Cause they ARE the problem. Closed poor societys full of ppl looking for hope, a dream, or a way out with radical religious nuts preaching that the way out is to blow them selves up attacking the US etc. Why don't we just plant terrorist like trees and wiat for them to grow up and KILL US. Even better with N Korea there just NUTS, or rather there leader is.

Either way they NEED to be delt with. You know why nice ppl finish last? Cause dead ppl don't finish races. Get over this peace love and happyness crap. They hate us. They want to KILL US. They ARE killing us. We ether go kill them or we die. Choose fight? or die?

Sorry for ranting....:)

I FIRMLY believe there is one and ONLY one reason he attacked Iraq.

Try OIL!! and you may get it right!.

Fact is that the war on Irag was first coined at "Operation Iraqi Liveration" later they decide it to change it because of its acronym..

Wake up ppl the best defence in this case the ONLY defence is a GOOD OFFENCE.

Fact is this admninistration had plans to attack Irag way before 9-11. Talk to Bush's leader Dick Cheyney, he'll tell ya all about it.

BTW what was Dick Cheyney's previous job?. RUNNING AN OIL COMPANY!!

Does Halliburton ring a Bell?.

If it didn't then why is it that right at this moment there are more terror attacks in Iraq than the whole rest of the world combined?

This is an ignorant question, the reason that there's more violence attacks in Irag is because there is a war in Irag!! Duh :eek: These people don't feel liverated they feel invaded. BTW Irag had nothing to do with 9-11 and if you think that it did, talk to Bush himself that he has already admited there's no link between Irag and 9-11.

OH!! were are the weapons? Irag was no threat to the US, get your nose off Bush's ass! and wake up yourself!!.

Godless.

This is a kill or be killed world. Dead ppl don't fight back.

You would think that wouldn't you? Dead people are the largest asset the terrorists have against you. Welcome to another world, death is not an issue in that part of the world. Kill them and do them a favor, they receive the coveted Martyrdom status. It is very simple you kill one you get at least 20 more sympathizers and a couple of "soldiers" to fight for the cause. It's very simple human psychology, same thing happened post 9/11 in the US with the increase in enrollment in the US military, and the fanaticism that soon followed.

The terrorist understand this.Bush understands this.

No the former seems to understand how to use death for their own gains. Bush doesn’t seem to comprehend that the more you kill the bigger the hole you dig for yourself is. You do know that Al Q has officially endorsed Bush as their candidate for office; he is their biggest propaganda tool. The terrorists understand how damaging Bush’s policies have been internationally, and how no one cares about the US anymore. You could fail in Iraq, and the whole world would say apathetically; “we told you so, deal with it”.

Why? cause if you don't the next 9-11 it might be me/you that is dead. I'd much rather go over to afganistan/iraq/iran/syria and die killing the ppl that are trying to kill me.

You do realize that the latter causes the former. It has been US policy that has created so much hate in the ME, the same policy that you are exposing right now. It's not cognitive to continue and even exacerbate a policy that has created the conditions in the Middle East for people wanting to kill you. There are reasons why people attacked you, and no it's not because they are jealous of your power. :rolleyes: I urge you to attack Iran and Syria, you will fail horribly and lose this war. So do your worst, because the worst will come back to you. Simple logic, and history dictates as such, and no the US is not independent of historical precedent.

Wake up ppl the best defence in this case the ONLY defence is a GOOD OFFENCE.

The best defense is a good offence that is true, and no one denies that. But you aren't fighting states, you aren’t fighting people, you are fighting organizations that exist within your own country as well as those in others. The more you prove them right by invading and humiliating people. The US war on terrorism would be better served with increased police actions, intel. actions, and covert operations not overt and disastrous policies initiated like those in Iraq.

If it didn't then why is it that right at this moment there are more terror attacks in Iraq than the whole rest of the world combined?

LOL!:D This is the typical Bush supporter! Look at Godless’ obvious answer to this ridiculous accusation.

We had NO IDEA there were that MANY terrorists in Iraq. Isn't it a good thing we attacked them...:)

Actually Saddam was a blood enemy of the people you hate, they hated each other. The people who are attacking US troops are not terrorists; they are fighting in their own country for their own dignity. They are insurgents, they are fighting against a occupation in their own territory, you aren’t immune from colonial hatred. Do you actually expect them sit back and do shit all? You illegally and maliciously invaded their nation on false premises; no terror connections found, no WMD, nada. So please spare me from more unsubstantiated nonsense.

Would you rather they all filter into the US and start blowing up car bombs at your local theater? Wendy's? Owe wiat even better they can blow up somechurchs full of infidel christians....:P

Following the Bush Doctrine, these are certainties.

Bush doesn't CARE one little tiny bit about oil. He's not out to make money. HES RICH ALREADY. He's reacting the ONLY way you can to being attacked. He's attacking BACK.

When you have $4 trillion worth of oil underneath Iraq you better believe that was a factor. I agree Oil is not the sole reason for the invasion; the real reasons are much more sinister. No one is ever "too rich".

Iraq made a perfect target because for 10+ yrs it had thumbed its nose at the world by attacking its nieghbors and defying the UN.

Hey then when are the tanks rolling into Israel, she has done that and more.

It had a big target pianted on it siad attack here first.

Definitively a Bush supporter.

Cause they ARE the problem. Closed poor societys full of ppl looking for hope, a dream, or a way out with radical religious nuts preaching that the way out is to blow them selves up attacking the US etc. Why don't we just plant terrorist like trees and wiat for them to grow up and KILL US.

The exact same indoctrination happens in the US, and you are evidence of this with your ethno-centric ignorance. You are not superior to those people, and to believe you are makes you no better then them. They don't want your help, and they hate the US for very legitimate reasons. There are nuts within your own country, and administration America is not even close to being immune from political extremists.

Even better with N Korea there just NUTS, or rather there leader is.

I suggest you refrain from talking about something you know very little about.

Sorry for ranting

I would say sorry to human dignity that was the only victim here.

The US is on a river of shiet without a paddle, and I can relate to Dark_Man, really when you get bonbarded 24/7 from all forms of pre-war propaganda, and the terrorists are comming warnings, every single time these sob's screw up to keep us scared shietless, (if you buy in to it)! which oviously has worked on Darkie boy, amongs millions of ingnoramous american populace. Now we are in a very dagerous situation, just how desperate will Brush&co, go? perhaps another staged terror attack to keep the emperor in power, or will someone of this administration finally find a bone of morality and not jump this line?.

But then we have Kerry, the democratic hopefull that has not come out all too clear, yea Kerry may pull us out of the Irag scenario, but screw us up domestically beyond repair, of which many believe we are beyond repair allready. Really there's no quick fix here, but IMHO "neither of these sob's care less what happens to the American middle class." We've been getting screwed for decades under both parties, and the shiet will continue, the middle class caries the burden for the rich and supports the poor, we get stuck with the highest tax rate, and yes the middle class has been dwindling since the Regan years. Myself included.

Godless.

If we pull out of Iraq now, we will have disappointed the youth of Iraq, hopelessly plunging us into another 80 years of unsurmountable hatred. In Bagdad alone, we have rebuild 57 elementary and middle schools and rebuilt and enhanced 4 universities. Only 4 of the middle schools and one university were hit by the war, it's just that Saddam let them fall into such sad states that no learning could effectively be had there. Less then 60 percent of the Iraqi population are literate. Now, these children see hope for their future for the first time in their lives. They see freedom from opression, and they see for the first time that other countries do care about their well being.

Right or wrong, we started this war. Right or wrong, we are involved now. To pull out now would ruin all the rebuilding. It would pull the rug of hope out from under generations of youth in Iraq. We broke their system, we should go the distance and finish the job. At least give them the chance to rebuild their nation in safety and without oppression. We offered that to them, we need to keep our promise.

If we pull out of Iraq now, we will have disappointed the youth of Iraq, hopelessly plunging us into another 80 years of unsurmountable hatred.

You invading Iraq have caused another century of hatred, the damage has been done. Do you think building schools will bring back the thousands of innocents who have died at the hands of American bombs? Let's be realistic about the way people think, empires have always claimed to bring "civilization" to these "desperate, and ignorant peoples" otherwise known as the white mans burden. Well the reality is that those schools become symbols of what this occupation is, nothing more then a façade of power. The Brits, the Soviets, even the US has done this "reconstruction" of society to fit their ethos and models of a society. They have always failed in their attempts, and the US is going to be bias in their education of Iraqi’s as well.

Now, these children see hope for their future for the first time in their lives. They see freedom from opression, and they see for the first time that other countries do care about their well being.

I very highly doubt that the large, poor, and disenfranchised youth of Iraq (who are mostly Shi'a) see much in the future. The country is in rebellion, and eventually most likely into a civil war after the election. Most youth in Iraq and the Arab world are sick and tired of promises, and now are joining the swelling ranks of militia like Al-Sadr's, or even terrorist groups. 80% of Iraq's populations have been subjugated by 20% over the last 80 years, and things don't seem to be changing. All these people care about now is to get the US out, and then whatever will be will be.

Right or wrong, we started this war. Right or wrong, we are involved now. To pull out now would ruin all the rebuilding. It would pull the rug of hope out from under generations of youth in Iraq. We broke their system, we should go the distance and finish the job. At least give them the chance to rebuild their nation in safety and without oppression. We offered that to them, we need to keep our promise.

Same argumentation that existed in Vietnam, and you left them was increased cancer rates, and a generation traumatized by war. The more the US stays the worse it will get, especially with this policy. It is a no win situation for a power like the US, if they don’t want you they won’t have you.

All ranting aside this whole argument saddens me. I mean what ever happened to just doing the right thing. Let examine that statement.

Is leaveing human beings to be slautered by the hundreds the right thing?
Is letting a CLEARLY insane leader maintane power the right thing?
Letting him seek ways such as WMD, massive convencinal weapon stockpiles, and HUGE armys to increase his influence the right thing?

No... I mean common forget ALL the propoganda. Forget all this crap about WMD terror links all that crap. Raw HARD facts.

Saddam killed his OWN ppl in mass. We have found the graves. There is ZERO doubt.

Saddam was agressive vs his nieghbors by attacking (HE started BOTH wars) iran and kewait(sp). He also atempted to attack the Saudi's and if the US and UN allies hadn't been there he WOULD have won.

Saddam had chem weapons. We KNOW he used them. We KNOW he wanted biological and nuclear. The safe assumption is if he had those he wouldn't think twice about useing them to. The ONLY thing that prevented him from getting nukes was isreal bombing his plant and then the UN placed restrictions post Gulf War I.

Based on ALL these facts I don't see any choice. This isn't propoganda. Its cold hard absolute irafutable facts. The only thing we got wrong was we believed his WMD capacity was MUCH larger. Fact is if he'd have just come clean we might not have attacked. Why didn't he come clean then? My guess is 2 fold. #1 he wanted to maintian the fear. So when he attacked someone else agian later they were scared of his chem and bio capabilitys. #2 he wasn't completely clean and didn't plan on stayng that way. Which one is correct or if they both are correct DOESN'T MATTER. Ether way hell ANY way you look at it he was not cooperating. He still wanted to attack ppl. That makes him a threat reguardless of his true ability to do it.

All this crap about Bushs polocys making things worse is just non sense. What you think they will kill us deader? or that they will hate us so much more that they will do WORSE things to us than kill us? I mean common they have already proven they will take it to futhest extreems posable.

As far as the idea that it creates MORE terrorists. I just don't see it. I mean we are over there biulding schools restoring power and water food etc. For every 1 person that it pisses off there is probibly 10 that in the end it will turn to our side. Yes its a risk. Yes it CAN backfire, but as of this point in time I just don't see that.

I'll tell you what I DO see. I see a small group of ppl. 10-20k out of 25 million ppl tops. That have had power TAKEN away from them. They were in charge. They had all the guns and toys. They could kill and rape and do whatever they liked. Now they are running hiding fighting and dieing. They don't like it and there trying to fight back. Its up to EVERYONE Iraqs US UK hell even france russia etc to stand up to these power mad bullies yes I siad bullies and put them down like the dogs that they are.

Lets look at this a differnet way. If you were a teenager and you had a rivalry going with another teenager in your nieghborhood. Accept after a few minor fist fights this kid goes out gets a gun and takes a pop shot at you but misses. What happens? The police arrest him and he goes to jial for a VERY long time. Same diff. Saddam had and used chem weapon. I mean hell he did the equivlent of literly killing his own cousin that lived in the SAME house with him. Tried to kill 2 of his own neighbors. I mean common.

Yes I know its more complicated than that, bnut see that just it its NOT. He was a tirant a bully and complete insain. People like that can't be allowed to have that much power. Next you will telling me we should have left Hilter alone. there is noly ONE differnace between Hilter and Saddam and that idiot in N korea (Kim) the differance is Hilter succeeded. In success everyone realized exactly how dangerious he realy was. Yet Saddam was every bit as dangerious as Hilter, and Kim is STILL as dangerious and you refuse to see it. When will you see it? I mean when he's blowing up your house its a bit late to say owe gee this guy sux.

As far as the terrorists go. I mean common. They want to kill us. There is only one responce. Kill them. The REAL problem here is not OUR polocy's. Its the fucking moderate Islamics. They need to grow some balls and call these wacko fundamentalist guys to the matt. Until they raise there hand and say they are tired of the killing. Tired of the terror attacks and conflict your right it won't stop. Who was it? Winston Churchill? Looking this up...

Ooops my bad... "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

This 100% describes them. they are "good men" yet they do nothing about the evil men. So if they won't we have NO CHIOCE but to do it ourselves.

I put to you this simple fact. If we were not attacking Iraq and Afganistan/hunting down terrorists. What should we do? The only other thing I can think of is to seal our borders and make the entirety of EU into a police state with guard on every street. Otherwhise the terrorist will still have the ability to kill. So I say to you this. If you don't like Bushs polocy fine. Ok I'm with that. Give me a solution that WORKS. I mean REALY works. Then we will go with that. So lets hear it whats your solution?

well you want a solution that works. that s interesting since you are praising a solution that just makes things worse. it s not working at all. isnt it fool hardy to implement something that is a complete failure? by the way, we didnt go iraq to liberate the iraqi people. we went there to get WMD which arent there. we went to war under false pretenses, stop trying to change the story.

Is leaveing human beings to be slautered by the hundreds the right thing?

Well wait here, who was the one who supported the slaughter of millions in Iraq prior to the Gulf War? It was the US and her Western allies, who was it who defended Saddam in 1988 saying the chemical attack on Kurds was an action of the Iranians that was the US. So it is completely irrelevant what an American thinks about right/wrong because you have done the latter much more then the former. Also you as a American should not even discuss the disgusting attack on Kurds, you defended Saddam in those attacks.

Is letting a CLEARLY insane leader maintane power the right thing?

Then why buy over 600,000 bpd per day from him prior to the war? You do know that the US’ second largest exporter of oil from the ME was Iraq in 2002! Saddam didn’t present a threat to anyone; if he really did then at least her neighbors would have helped out. This Saddam threat scenario is merely a machination of imaginations, not based on fact.

Letting him seek ways such as WMD, massive convencinal weapon stockpiles, and HUGE armys to increase his influence the right thing?

He had no WMD, secondly he has a right to develop his military as he likes. If you are going to use this argument then the US should have been invaded long ago. The reality is that Saddam by 2003 was meek and some believe so weak that his regime was on the verge of collapse.

Raw HARD facts.

Raw hard facts really don’t exist in this context, raw opinions do.

Saddam killed his OWN ppl in mass. We have found the graves. There is ZERO doubt.

Saddam is the only one who does this? Rightttt… the US has supported murders of millions through their installation of puppet dictatorships from Latin America to the Middle East. No one has doubted that Saddam killed people, but the US didn’t seem to mind in the 80’s. But invading a nation to stop human rights abuses is contradictory, and idiotic. The US did not invade Iraq for this reason, that’s for the intellectually weak to actually believe that BS. Make no illusions this is not a “moral crusade” here, this is one of power and geopolitics.

Saddam was agressive his neighbors by attacking (HE started BOTH wars) iran and kewait(sp). He also atempted to attack the Saudi's and if the US and UN allies hadn't been there he WOULD have won.

Did he threaten any of them today? No, he didn’t even control all of Iraq. If we are to base threats based on actions of a different era then I have a list for you. The reality is quite simple, Iraq under Saddam was a dismal mess, and his military would not have been able to seriously threaten anyone. If the recent invasion of Iraq is anything to go by, Saddam is lucky that people actually believed he still had so much power. Don’t you find it the least bit odd that only Kuwait supported an invasion of Iraq, all other neighbors didn’t?

Saddam had chem weapons. We KNOW he used them. We KNOW he wanted biological and nuclear

Your choice of words is correct..had. He didn’t have anything left, he got rid of them. Yes he got chem.. weapons, he had Bio weapons, he was about one year from having the bomb... in 1991! But lately he had nothing; the UN had destroyed about 98% of his weapon systems, from the recent lack of any cache of WMD in Iraq the reality is that the US invaded on faulty intel. and lying about those WMD even.

This isn't propoganda. Its cold hard absolute irafutable facts. The only thing we got wrong was we believed his WMD capacity was MUCH largerFact is if he'd have just come clean we might not have attacked.

False Saddam did state that he didn’t have any WMD, and the UNSCOM hadn’t found any WMD within the country. Remember prior to the beginning of the war, the UN was in Iraq. It wasn’t Saddam who kicked out the inspectors; he knew they wouldn’t find anything. It was the administration saying that the inspections weren’t finding anything and thus a failure. The reality was that there wasn’t anything to be found, Saddam was doing what he told to do by 1441. It was Bush who kicked the inspectors out and started the illegal war. If the US really did care about WMD in Iraq they would have let the inspections run their course, and would have given the inspectors the intel. they were using to make those grand assumptions, and lies.

Ether way hell ANY way you look at it he was not cooperating. He still wanted to attack ppl. That makes him a threat reguardless of his true ability to do it.

Not only is what you are saying pure propaganda they are unsubstantiated. He was co-operating, as aforementioned, and he had no intention of attacking anyone. Unless you can show me a plan showing Saddam wanting to attack anyone in 2002-03 then we have something to talk about. Saddam was barely holding on to power in Iraq proper, he wouldn’t have been able to start a new war. The country was in shambles after 10 years of sanctions, he presented no such threat.

All this crap about Bushs polocys making things worse is just non sense. What you think they will kill us deader? or that they will hate us so much more that they will do WORSE things to us than kill us? I mean common they have already proven they will take it to futhest extreems posable.

Maybe you can think in a larger scope? You are assuming that the entire Middle East is out to kill you. The reality is that the more you humiliate, alienate, and kill innocents in the Muslim world you create more enemies. These organizations are not countries; they depend on your actions to dictate their popularity. It’s very simple logic here that is presiding over all this. If you support the Bush doctrine, you indirectly support the growth of the same hatred you are trying to stop. This war cannot be fought like those of yesteryear, if you kill them (whoever them is, because you surely don’t know) you will only more of “them”. Didn’t your mother ever tell you “not to play with scabs?” The more you pick at it, the risk of infection and gangrene only increase.

As far as the idea that it creates MORE terrorists. I just don't see it. I mean we are over there biulding schools restoring power and water food etc. For every 1 person that it pisses off there is probibly 10 that in the end it will turn to our side.

Well facts say quite differently, in Iraq 9/10 Iraqi’s see the US as occupiers not liberators. The US can build all she wants, the fact that an illegal occupation on people’s land is going to create hatred. Of course killing one makes more terrorists, because in the Middle East the idea of death is not something that people fear. If they die for a cause, they will become heroes, same situation with that Tillman character. If we have learned anything from the Israeli/Pal conflict you are creating a cycle of violence that just won’t end. Welcome to human psychology, so build your schools they change nothing.

I'll tell you what I DO see. I see a small group of ppl. 10-20k out of 25 million ppl tops

You understand that their popularity with the counties population is rather large. Of course their numbers are small, but they are growing. A successful insurgency cannot win without popular support, which this insurgency has it. It is the US who is being the bully here; you are the ones who are forcibly dictating the lives of millions of ppl who never asked for your assistance. You bring foreign ideas, and culture to a people who don’t want it. You are bound to fail in Iraq if you continue this path of destruction, and cultural alienation.

Its up to EVERYONE Iraqs US UK hell even france russia etc to stand up to these power mad bullies yes I siad bullies and put them down like the dogs that they are.

That is exactly the mentality that makes Americans look so simpleminded, and ignorant. These people are not dogs, you may wish they were. The reality is that the US is illegally occupying a country, those human beings are fighting for human dignity. You may not like the fact that the whole world isn’t the US, but the reality is that Iraq doesn’t want you anymore.

Lets look at this a differnet way. If you were a teenager and you had a rivalry going with another teenager in your nieghborhood.Accept after a few minor fist fights this kid goes out gets a gun and takes a pop shot at you but misses. What happens? The police arrest him and he goes to jial for a VERY long time. Same diff. Saddam had and used chem weapon. I mean hell he did the equivlent of literly killing his own cousin that lived in the SAME house with him. Tried to kill 2 of his own neighbors. I mean common.

But the difference is that the “Teen” has his guns taken away, he is not allowed to “talk to others” freely, and he has been forced to change. He now exists merely to exist he has no power. I’ve always maintained, this war in Iraq would have been totally justified back in 1989, not 2003. You are 14 years too late America, and now you pay the price.

Next you will telling me we should have left Hilter alone. there is noly ONE differnace between Hilter and Saddam and that idiot in N korea (Kim) the differance is Hilter succeeded. In success everyone realized exactly how dangerious he realy was. Yet Saddam was every bit as dangerious as Hilter, and Kim is STILL as dangerious and you refuse to see it. When will you see it? I mean when he's blowing up your house its a bit late to say owe gee this guy sux.

While I was struggling to read that passage, I think I got what you were trying to say. See what you fail to mention was the more accurate comparison btwn Hitler and Saddam with the invasion of Kuwait and Poland. The West in the 30’s allowed Hitler not only to re-arm but to also reconquer land that was Germany’s pre-WWI. Saddam in the 80’s was allowed to arm to the teeth, and allowed to attack Iran for land. No one in the US or Europe cared for either just as long as they were happy. But they went too far, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and the allies couldn’t sit by and let it happen, thus they declared war on Hitler, it took 6 years but Hitler was finally defeated. In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait, and gave a clear message to Saddam that his belligerent actions would be dealt with swiftly and with force. Unlike Hitler, Saddam after his beating understood just what that meant. He did not threaten anyone especially after the mid-90’s. His army has always been “paper tiger”, nothing more nothing less. Impressive on paper, but nothing much on the ground.

They want to kill us. There is only one responce. Kill them. The REAL problem here is not OUR polocy's. Its the fucking moderate Islamics.

No it is your policy that is the problem. The moderates in the Middle East can’t be moderates anymore when you are destroying their efforts by strengthening the poorer classes into fighting against you. Some people in the Middle East want to kill you, and some people in the US want to kill them (like you). I really don’t see the difference in mentality btwn you and an Islamist. If you kill innocents no one will care to bother with the US anymore, and more hatred will happen. The US should be attacking the terrorists but they shouldn’t be invading nations that had nothing to do with that war. You are only creating more problems then you are solving.

If we were not attacking Iraq and Afganistan/hunting down terrorists. What should we do? … I mean REALY works. Then we will go with that. So lets hear it whats your solution?


Good question and I want to you too read very carefully. The US imo was justified for attacking Afghanistan; the US had a reason to get Al Q in Afghanistan. The problem is how the US went about with the Afghan operation. The US transformed the war on terrorism into a war of the worlds. The US should have gone about the situation in Afghanistan in a much more supportive and covert operations. Iraq was totally not necessary you shouldn’t even be there. If you really want to “stop the terrorists” you have to fight their war. The US invading a nation with a huge army, with a huge kick me sign on its back isn’t working, nor is it going to. What the US should have done is work with states in Europe, and the Middle East to get an effective front against “terrorists”. The US should be attacking “terrorists” in states were they exist, not where they don’t. We shouldn’t know about it though. If we know it as does the majority of the Islamic world, and then you get issues like that of Iraq. For instance I don’t think the US should let anyone know that they killed or captured OBL. The US shouldn’t be so obvious in her attempts to get rid of her enemies. The US invasion of Iraq was a perfect example of a propaganda coup for the “terrorists”. The invasion of Iraq proved them right, do you realize this? You proved that not only that you don’t care for innocent Muslim life, you humiliate the Arab world, especially after Abu Gharib, and you don’t care for the people of Iraq, no you care about their oil. If the US really wanted to fight against these people they should fight then on a small basis, with special ops operating at a moments notice around the world to fight these men. The US should begin to look at immigration reform, the US has to increase its co-operation with international intelligence agencies and she has to prop up the police, and FBI. The US should be more wiling to share intelligence with other states, so there is a more efficient war on terror. Wars like Iraq belong in the history books, not in the 21st century.

gimme $5 million and a crapload of stock footage of any of you and I'll make you look like an idiot.

Undecided, your spelling isn't perfect either. Stop trying to bait people.

Well, I'm not voting for Bush because he is being an idiot with his financial policy, and is endorcing blatant discrimnation in his social policy. And since I don't want to throw my vote away, I'll be voting for Kerry. Honestly, I would have rwally preferred it if Clark was the Dem. candidate.

btw I'm dyslexic so don't expect good spelling or grammer.

Undecided I read pretty carefully what you wrote. On some lvls I see what your saying and it sortof makes sense. Accept it doesn't. I mean you say we should work with the EU country's and mid eat country's to fight terrorism but yet in fact that is totaly imposalbe even today. I can anme 20 different examples.

Pakastan... They think they have a "high value target" cornered yet the guy gets away. If they had allowed american special forces to come in and help them boots on the ground. I'd bet they could have captured whoever that was.

Syria and Lebanon... haha plz like they are realy going to help us hell hammas has an office there.

Iran... heh I'm not even going to go here. Frankly I think attacking and deposing the Iranian goverment is FAR more important than Iraq. You and I both know they (the goverment) themselves ARE radicals. they just carefully hide it.

I see a common thread here though. You talk about that we have hurt there pride. Which is probibly true. no I know its true. You know what though. I just can't seem to care. I mean common these guys are literaly killing us and we are supposed to worry about there pride?

Lets go back even further though. When did we "start" this whole deal? I mean I hear you talk about how all we are doing is making it "worse" and that our polocys are what started all this. I know some mistakes were made. Us supporting ether iraq or Iran when they were fighting was just silly.

I mean everything I see always comes back to the US supported isreal. Therefor all islamic ppl should hate to US. At least that is the radical UBL version. Its a classic what came first the chicken or the egg. You can never win that argument. It comes down to one simple thing. Right here right now they are trying to kill us. So we fight. the other islamic ppl aren't stoping them. Don't try to say they are cause they aren't. If the terrorist purely attacked nothing but westerners then no1 over there would care.

I keep coming back around to its a big circle and there is no logical solution. We lose if we attack we lose if we don't attack. By lose I mean we don't "win". The fighting just goes on forever. IMHO I default to attacking. Attacking means balls to walls. If that means nation biulding so be it. So I agree with Bush still. Sitting around wiating on someone else to solve the problem isn't going to work. That is bascialy what your solution is, and its not going to happen.

In the end the real problem is all these stupid moronic religions. A bunch of idiots on both side believeing in some invisable man. Sigh the world is a sad place. Owe well screw this. I have work to do. Been fun.

Undecided I read pretty carefully what you wrote. On some lvls I see what your saying and it sortof makes sense. Accept it doesn't.

:bugeye:

I mean you say we should work with the EU country's and mid eat country's to fight terrorism but yet in fact that is totaly imposalbe even today.

Working with the EU is not impossible at all, if the US is able to work with Russia nothing it impossible. The Europeans have been fighting terrorism since the 70's and they have been doing a relatively good job. They know the tricks of the trade; the US is simply over-reacting to terrorism. You invading Iraq is a blatant example of that over-reaction. The Europeans (and I) objected to the invasion because there was no causis belli for it, and we both realized that this was going to create more terrorism and hatred then it solved. You must remember Europe has been imperial for about 500 years or so, and they know how to do with their colonies, the US doesn’t.

Pakastan... They think they have a "high value target" cornered yet the guy gets away. If they had allowed american special forces to come in and help them boots on the ground. I'd bet they could have captured whoever that was.

That is something that would have only created more trouble for the US. If the US went into tribal Pakistan (the central gov’t has no control of that land) the tribes would have killed the Americans. Those people are armed to the teeth, and as a result it was smart for the US to stay out. Now that “high value target” was not a high value target they found out that no one important was there.

Syria and Lebanon... haha plz like they are realy going to help us hell hammas has an office there.

Syria like Iran has helped out the US, do you understand that the same people you hate they hate? Al Q wants to overthrow all these gov’t so they can establish their Ummah. I strongly suggest you read their manifesto, you will be shocked.

Iran... heh I'm not even going to go here. Frankly I think attacking and deposing the Iranian goverment is FAR more important than Iraq. You and I both know they (the goverment) themselves ARE radicals. they just carefully hide it.

You invade Iran, you will fail it is really that simple. Unlike Iraq, Iranians are nationalists and they have 65 million people, in a country larger then Texas, around 1 million km2. The US is unable to invade Iran, that would involve a draft, and Iran might even have the bomb. Iran could become a very important partner, not an enemy. The Iranians almost went to war with the Taliban in 1998, they hate what you hate.

You talk about that we have hurt there pride. Which is probibly true. no I know its true. You know what though. I just can't seem to care. I mean common these guys are literaly killing us and we are supposed to worry about there pride?

In this war yes you have to care, because Pride is how these people get their fighters. Terrorism is a thing that psychological more then physical. If you kill members of their family, if you shame their country, if you shame their religion, and if you force them to do things that they consider wrong like this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/images/abu-ghurayb-prison-abuse06.jpg) You are setting yourself up for failure. This is a war of ideas, not of guns. You have to get away from that logic; it doesn’t fit in this context. The more invasions, the more attacks you do that kill people. The less and less secure you are as a result.

Lets go back even further though. When did we "start" this whole deal? I mean I hear you talk about how all we are doing is making it "worse" and that our polocys are what started all this. I know some mistakes were made. Us supporting ether iraq or Iran when they were fighting was just silly.

I mean everything I see always comes back to the US supported isreal.

Much of the hatred does come to this central issue; because the US supports Israel and her actions the US pays the price. Most Americans don’t know this, and they simply believe that 9/11 happened for no reason. Wake up America the reality is scary, and it’s in your face.

Therefor all islamic ppl should hate to US. At least that is the radical UBL version.

That is not true, most Islamic people are being radicalized by these elements, you are helping things by proving UBL right by killing innocent Muslims worldwide. It is like me saying that all Americans hate Muslims, that’s not true. You are making them hate you by doing idiotic things like Iraq.

Right here right now they are trying to kill us. So we fight. the other islamic ppl aren't stoping them. Don't try to say they are cause they aren't. If the terrorist purely attacked nothing but westerners then no1 over there would care.

This is the problem with your logic; you attack them disproportionably to their size. They number in the thousands, yet you invade a nation of over 26 million who had no terror connections? That’s illogical and irrational at best; you have to fight at scale. They are individuals and thus you should fight back with firepower, but within small special ops operations. You don’t invade a nation to get one person.

So I agree with Bush still. Sitting around wiating on someone else to solve the problem isn't going to work. That is bascialy what your solution is, and its not going to happen.

Sorry but don’t mischaracterize my position, I never even alluded to that. What I am saying to you is that the world community will help you out more if you understand how to fight this war like you should. Bush is being an idiot, and even top American generals agree with me on that one. The war you are creating are giving the “Terrorists” new havens. Al Q had to install itself in Iraq after your invasion. Think about that will you…

Dark_man educate yourself here you go:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/0,6961,,00.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/

http://www.commondreams.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/



Step one quit looking at US bias media, well, it's changing a bit the lies are just too many to keep them going and the bloody truth is slowly spreading through the networks. You have a computer look for independent news, not cnn,abc,cbs or the worst FOX, hell try reading the BBC, it's not as vias as the us media outlets, the bombardment of propaganda has defenetly warped your perception on this get it cleared.

Godless.

wow you are misguided. fox is half liberal? that is absurd. you must be really conservative to think that conservative biased fox is even partially liberal.

just listen npr

US bashing, guess you don't like hearing the truth?.

We've screwed up man, we've screwed up letting this jackass of president lead us into war with false pretence, and we screwing up again to re-elect the sob.

Fact is if you were to listen to news from around the world, or look it up on the net, you'll notice not only the bbc is "us bashing" but the whole fucking world is US bashing!!!.

Godless.

Let me demonstrate the world's reaction to bush's visits;

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1085944467743

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,12292

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4155964,00.html

And just in case you've missed it, Fmr.vice Pres. Al Gore speech may 26th, not us bashing. However the speech is late in the coming "imo" but it shows that the dems, are not going to go without a fight.

Godless.

I would vote for him because there is no better candidate.

Yes, you can always count on our liberal media.
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW5-14-03.gif