4 more years

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

I'm not gonna get into stupid arguments.

I wish every adminstration was as "bad" as Clintons.

[enRo]

^^^^Good point

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

I dont think Kerry was great, but Bush is horrible. I was more in the "anyone but Bush" colum.

I liked both Bush and Kerrys personality in running in the election, but I was in the "anyone but Bush and Kerry for president" column... Bush made an excellent choice of protecting our freedom, but also dropped the economy significantly. Kerry seems like the Herman Munster that was gonna pull the plug on the war and stop it right there. Its almost the same as building a big engine, installing it, and adding absolutely NO fluids and expect it to run. He had big ambitions, but didnt seem to me to be the president material to do so. If I went out to vote (was too busy puking and being sick), Nader wouldve gotten mine. Thats honest opinion too... I hope Bush sees a lesson in winning this election slightly, and straightens everything out, the correct way.

[BigAls87Z28]

To think that Kerry would have just packed things up and left is insane, but I think thats the image Bush put into people's minds. Not to mention that somehow having Bush in office will stop another handfull of planes from flying into more buildings.

We are so deep into Iraq that leaving would only cause more trouble. We have no choice but to stay and fix what we broke.

Iraq doesnt need a democracy..it needs a dictator. You have warring factions of a religion that have been fighting for 1500 years. We are gunna be in Iraq for a very very long time, despite who won the election.
Its what we do now that we need to worry about. If we leave now, radical factions will take over Iraq, and we will be back in there with in a decade. We have to be there to oversee elections, and then we need to create a working police dept, not forget other things like Fire stations, and a Military.
We are going on this modern day crusade to try and fight "evil" when we dont know that by doing so, it only creates more evil.
I supported the war in Iraq when this administration paraded in front of the UN and the world about WMD and how they scared us into a war.

[JL8Jeff]

Bush didn't create the economic downturn, the previous administration left it that way. The economy picked up while Clinton was in office and he had nothing to do with it. It was the dot coms that created a false economic boom which deflated quickly when all the dot coms failed. That is Clinton's legacy.

[skorpion317]

the Afghan war is not on the back burner...it only seems that way because the media is so focused on Iraq. the soldiers there are still doing their jobs, still keeping the peace and fighting terrorists. Just because the local newspaper or TV station doesn't mention them doesn't mean that they aren't there.

[Fasterthanyou]

lol, where do you people get your facts? I don't know about you but I'd trust my government's inteligence (that doesn't leak into the media) over rumors that just so happen to make it onto TV.
I don't want to get into a fight here but if you think Bush WANTED to put soldiers in harms way for his own ambishons then please, PLEASE come up with some proof. I think that's just aweful that you think our commander in chief cares more about his own little life (which is already comfortable) than he does about his fellow Americans. He's been going after Bin Laden, who said he has stopped . Spreading too thin, can you say TERRORISTS ATTACKED US, we need to focus on them before Suddan and N.Koria. We have PLENTY of support if N.Koria wanted to attack the States. Going over there would only encourage a war, not prevent one. The Iraq war was inevitable, I think of it as preventive maintenance. Get a government in there that'll be for the people and you'll find it's easier to keep good relations. Removing Saddam should have been done in the Desert Storm war, he's nothing but a modern day Hitler.
What Islamn needs to do if they want the US to stop it's ocupation; DENOUNCE TERRORISM!!! But they don't do it because either a) they believe in it, b) they are weak from fear of a dictator, c) they need us to show them how great Capitalism is for a stagnent 3rd world economy. They would be like Isreal if they had some form or voting.
Why can't they denounce terrorism.... because they've got dictators that have had their lives threatened by terrorists. See why dictators are a bad thing in that area of the world and why we need to go over there if they aren't going to show us they aren't giving weapons to Terrorists! I'm glad we reacted and didn't wait for another 9/11 attack. Saddam is to blame for the war, he didn't keep his end of the bargon with the UN inspectors. We KNEW he had the technology for the weapons because he used them on his own people in the 90's AND we sold them to him in the 80's!!! If we can't find them now I'm still a little worried. Where did the weapons we sold him go? Anybody else a little worried about that? 4 more years of a president that doesn't give me lip service. That's the problem with Kerry, he just gives us what we want to hear and he's too much of a people pleaser. I'd rather have a guy (when we're at war) that knows how to finish what he started. I don't believe Kerry would pull out of Iraq. I just think he'd try too hard to get international support and not lead by example.

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Fasterthanyou

lol, where do you people get your facts? I don't know about you but I'd trust my government's inteligence (that doesn't leak into the media) over rumors that just so happen to make it onto TV.
I don't want to get into a fight here but if you think Bush WANTED to put soldiers in harms way for his own ambishons then please, PLEASE come up with some proof. I think that's just aweful that you think our commander in chief cares more about his own little life (which is already comfortable) than he does about his fellow Americans. He's been going after Bin Laden, who said he has stopped . Spreading too thin, can you say TERRORISTS ATTACKED US, we need to focus on them before Suddan and N.Koria. We have PLENTY of support if N.Koria wanted to attack the States. Going over there would only encourage a war, not prevent one. The Iraq war was inevitable, I think of it as preventive maintenance. Get a government in there that'll be for the people and you'll find it's easier to keep good relations. Removing Saddam should have been done in the Desert Storm war, he's nothing but a modern day Hitler.
What Islamn needs to do if they want the US to stop it's ocupation; DENOUNCE TERRORISM!!! But they don't do it because either a) they believe in it, b) they are weak from fear of a dictator, c) they need us to show them how great Capitalism is for a stagnent 3rd world economy. They would be like Isreal if they had some form or voting.
Why can't they denounce terrorism.... because they've got dictators that have had their lives threatened by terrorists. See why dictators are a bad thing in that area of the world and why we need to go over there if they aren't going to show us they aren't giving weapons to Terrorists! I'm glad we reacted and didn't wait for another 9/11 attack. Saddam is to blame for the war, he didn't keep his end of the bargon with the UN inspectors. We KNEW he had the technology for the weapons because he used them on his own people in the 90's AND we sold them to him in the 80's!!! If we can't find them now I'm still a little worried. Where did the weapons we sold him go? Anybody else a little worried about that? 4 more years of a president that doesn't give me lip service. That's the problem with Kerry, he just gives us what we want to hear and he's too much of a people pleaser. I'd rather have a guy (when we're at war) that knows how to finish what he started. I don't believe Kerry would pull out of Iraq. I just think he'd try too hard to get international support and not lead by example.

are you kidding? do you read the news or time magazine or watch tv? saddam got rid of all his weapons when we asked him to! he was bluffing with 2 7 off suit! he made us think that he had weapons, even though he said he didn't have them. what happened to bush and colin powell's irrefutable evidence of saddam's weapons? if the "war" is over, why can't they reveal their sources?

you say he hasn't stopped going after bin laden, but the majority of our forces aren't in afghanistan. wouldn't you agree that punishing the man responsible for 9/11 is a little more important then giving the iraqi people the right to vote (and IMO, they'll just elect somebody that we don't want in there anyway). remember what happened in iran in the 70's, when we placed a leader in there? he was overthrown and replaced by the current "government".

and there is NO way saddam was capable of a 9/11 like attack. why can't you just admit that going into iraq at the time we did was the wrong move? there are plenty of other things we could've taken care of (like saudi arabia, which blatantly supports and funds terrorists, not to mention the majority of the 9/11 planners and hijackers were from saudi arabia, including bin laden).

i support our troops 100%, and i think they're doing the best job that they can in a bad situation. the reason the situation is bad is because bush outplayed his hand. history repeats itself.

[SpeakersGoBoom]

Thats honest opinion too... I hope Bush sees a lesson in winning this election slightly, and straightens everything out, the correct way.

He wont. Did you hear his speech? He said something like "I am humbled by how much trust the american people have in me." Where the hell does he come up with that?! He only won by like, 2 percent![/quote]

[SpeakersGoBoom]

Originally Posted by President Bush

"I am proud to shake the hand of an Iraqi citizen who had his hands cut off by Saddam Heusein." "When I think about that real hard, it hurts right here (points to forehead)" "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?'" "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

Is this really who we want to run our contry for another four years?

[Fasterthanyou]

Originally Posted by SilverTransAm

are you kidding? do you read the news or time magazine or watch tv? saddam got rid of all his weapons when we asked him to! he was bluffing with 2 7 off suit! he made us think that he had weapons, even though he said he didn't have them. what happened to bush and colin powell's irrefutable evidence of saddam's weapons? if the "war" is over, why can't they reveal their sources?

you say he hasn't stopped going after bin laden, but the majority of our forces aren't in afghanistan. wouldn't you agree that punishing the man responsible for 9/11 is a little more important then giving the iraqi people the right to vote (and IMO, they'll just elect somebody that we don't want in there anyway). remember what happened in iran in the 70's, when we placed a leader in there? he was overthrown and replaced by the current "government".

and there is NO way saddam was capable of a 9/11 like attack. why can't you just admit that going into iraq at the time we did was the wrong move? there are plenty of other things we could've taken care of (like saudi arabia, which blatantly supports and funds terrorists, not to mention the majority of the 9/11 planners and hijackers were from saudi arabia, including bin laden).

i support our troops 100%, and i think they're doing the best job that they can in a bad situation. the reason the situation is bad is because bush outplayed his hand. history repeats itself.

Keep believing everything the libral media sources tells you . Bluffing my ass, again, even if that were true it's still Saddam that was the instigator. Why do you keep wanting to blaim Bush for things nobody else could have predicted. Remember, Kerry ALSO wanted to go in. Or wait, didn't he also say he wouldn't have given the hind sight... yeah, wouldn't we ALL like to have 100% accurate inteligence and in Kerry's case, foreshadowing abilities, lol.
You make it out as if the media is where Bush gets his inteligence from. PLEASE tell me you don't believe everything you read. Agendias are everywhere, I just think that Bush wasn't going to war because of his. It wasn't JUST Bush that wanted to go into Iraq mind you, it was everybody (democrats included). It just so happened that Bush had to make the final say.
Would I be wrong to assume you believe the 9/11 attack was Bush's fault and not Clintons or hey, maybe Osama himself?

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Fasterthanyou

Keep believing everything the libral media sources tells you . Bluffing my ass, again, even if that were true it's still Saddam that was the instigator. Why do you keep wanting to blaim Bush for things nobody else could have predicted. Remember, Kerry ALSO wanted to go in. Or wait, didn't he also say he wouldn't have given the hind sight... yeah, wouldn't we ALL like to have 100% accurate inteligence and in Kerry's case, foreshadowing abilities, lol.
You make it out as if the media is where Bush gets his inteligence from. PLEASE tell me you don't believe everything you read. Agendias are everywhere, I just think that Bush wasn't going to war because of his. It wasn't JUST Bush that wanted to go into Iraq mind you, it was everybody (democrats included). It just so happened that Bush had to make the final say.
Would I be wrong to assume you believe the 9/11 attack was Bush's fault and not Clintons or hey, maybe Osama himself?

hey, i don't like the democratic party, i consider myself a republican if anything. that doesn't mean bush isn't an idiot, or doesn't have an agenda. give me a break.

and i don't believe everything i hear in the media. i did believe the president and colin powell when they told us that they had irrefutible evidence that saddam had weapons. well, if they had it then, and the war is over, WHERE IS THAT EVIDENCE NOW?

you know what else i believe, that we went to war to disarm saddam. that's what the president told us last march, when the war started. the message was clear: saddam has weapons, he WILL use them, and we have to stop him before they get in the wrong hands. i agree with that 100%. except, when we went in there, did we find any weapons? NO. in fact, a recent report, plus an interview in TIME with one of saddam's advisors, shows that saddam did not have weapons, he disarmed 10 years ago just like the UN wanted.

so what does our president do? instead of saying,

"we all made a mistake, saddam didn't have weapons, but it's a good thing we got rid of him anyway, he was a bad guy. now let's ask the world for help rebuilding a country that could become a key ally"

we get

"our reason for going to war was justified, the people in iraq were in trouble, and now they are free, and iraq will become a democracy because we fight for democracy."

he changed his rationalization for going to war in the first place. he forgot all about the evidence that clearly showed that saddam had weapons.

i'd rather have a man that can admit when he's made a mistake run our country than a stubborn guy who won't admit when he's wrong. and that's why other countries hate us. not because we make mistakes, it's because we can't admit when we made one.

i'm not an idiot, i don't just believe it because it's on tv...

[Tony Danza]

We pessants/citizens/voters/people, will probably never know all of the true motives for any of the government's actions. We only know whats revieled to us, but there's a problem with that; the vast mojority of news given to us is bias (this bias can be called "libral" or whatever you want to describe it as), its objective, in the least, is to get ratings- lets face it, the news is bussiness, and also thats how the country is ran. Bussinessmen are the people who run this country too.

Any action taken by the country is in its best intrests at that time. And keep in mind that no one knows the future. Without us voters being happy, there is no Bush, or his party or any other party.

Any argument between citizens is half-full, especially when it comes to details.

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Tony Danza

We pessants/citizens/voters/people, will probably never know all of the true motives for any of the government's actions. We only know whats revieled to us, but there's a problem with that; the vast mojority of news given to us is bias (this bias can be called "libral" or whatever you want to describe it as), its objective, in the least, is to get ratings- lets face it, the news is bussiness, and also thats how the country is ran. Bussinessmen are the people who run this country too.

Any action taken by the country is in its best intrests at that time. And keep in mind that no one knows the future. Without us voters being happy, there is no Bush, or his party or any other party.

Any argument between citizens is half-full, especially when it comes to details.

i know what you're talking about, but i'm talking about words that have come out of bush's mouth. notice how nobody addressed that...

[BigAls87Z28]

Can someone explain that if you are opposed to Bush, that you are automatically liberal?

Anyway, Pat is exactly right. We have lost focus of going after the TRUE terrorists. There are a lot of other countries, i.e., Saudi Arabia, that need a little investigation.
As for Kerry voting to go with into Iraq, if he didn't, he would have been branded as "Anti-American." Everyone watched as Powell, Bush and Cheney put images into our head that Iraq had these weapons by the metric ton just lying around, then all of a sudden under the eyes of the mighty American military, they suddenly are gone?
2 things happened
1- Big lie by the US Military to get us in to Iraq
2- Iraq snuck all these weapons out from under our spy satellites.
Where are they? Unless they are buried miles under the sand, to which they would be cease to be useful, they had to have either not be there, or not.
Either way, we came up with nada.
We keep throwing troops into any hole, but we have no plan to come back out.
Still no plan what to do with Afghanistan. Still war lords rolling around with Russian and American weapons, still causing problems.
Then in Iraq you have troops getting picked off at check points where they are targets, you have hit and run guerilla fighters, and we have a seems to be a very unorganized military with no plan.
We are walking around on egg shells over there. We have no plan but to force elections. And if you haven't picked up the hints, the population of Iraq are not big fans of America and the West. I doubt they are gunna really vote for a Pro-US leader unless America makes it that way.
Having Bush back in for 4 more years with the ability of electing a possible 2 justices to the Supreme Court combined with his religious right ways is also very scary, but I wont get into that.
Iraq is a messy place, and I think Bush bit off more then he could chew.

[Fasterthanyou]

I agree with all of you even though I'm playing devils advocate right now. My reasons for doing so is not that I'm right, or left, or independant, or somewhere in the middle. I'm just a true researcher that understands things to never be cut and dry.
I don't know where you're getting the feeling that if you oppose Bush you're a liberal. I keep hearing people that feel this way but I don't understand it, where are you getting that feeling from?
I believe the military has plans of getting out of Iraq but the media (hence we) don't know about it.
The media also focus' on the measily few in Afghanistan that are still giving us troubles. I consider both of these wars WAY better than Vietnam where we lost how many compared to the fraction we've lost in these past 3 wars!!!
I hate to say this and don't get me wrong, I hate hearing about soldiers loosing there lives but hear me out. Soldiers jobs are to fight, they are our front line of defense. We the tax payers PAY these men and women to put their bodies in harms way. You can not say that just because we're loosing a few soldiers here and there that Bush is an evil man with no plan. It's a war, it's ugly, people die and there are difficulties. I honestly never believed for a moment that the Iraq war was going to be easy but I still supported it. Knowing what we know now I wish we never had to go but that's behind us, it wasn't a mistake at the time it was Saddam being a dick head with the UN. You could look back on a lot of things and say we shouldn't have but the reality of it is this. At the time it was in our best interest (this is what our government does for a living) but in hind sight it was a bad move. The objective now is to get Iraq on it's feet as fast as possible and let them experience voting and a better quality of life. They can keep their religion but when you sit on a gold mine (oil) you'll have to deal with the western world somehow... dictators rarely express the majorities feelings, hence our occupation.
I can't tell you who would have been better at cleaning up Iraq but I don't see any harm in letting Bush staying in power.
About Bush not saying he was wrong; it's rather simple. We're top dogs, you NEVER admit that you were wrong, you just don't quit until it's fixed. That's my feeling. We don't need a leader that'll try and get international support at this point in time. America went to war with only a few friends and so we deserve the rebuilding effort (which will hopefully give us a stable oil supply and trading relations). France is in deap **** for their conspiring corrupted "food for oil" crap which has been linked all the way to their President. I have a feeling that European opinions will be changing once they deal with there own problems.
I'm glad we all could have a mature debate. I was worried after I made my first reply that people would take it the wrong way.

[Pat]

i agree with you 100% that it is a soldier's job to be put in harm's way. however, why are soldiers dying if it's unnecessary?

so here's what happened:

1. we were told saddam had WMD's and was going to use them on us if we didn't act quick
2. we went to war
3. we took over iraq real quick
4. we still to this day have not found any WMD's, in fact we now have reports that say saddam disarmed when we asked him to.
5. bush changes his tune.

bottom line: BUSH LIED. it's that simple.

and since he lied about it, the loss of soldier's lives, which may pale in comparison to past wars, is completely unnecessary. how would you feel if your brother or cousin died in iraq?

and do you really think that we'll be able to stabilize any country in the middle east in our lifetime?

[Tony Danza]

Originally Posted by SilverTransAm

i know what you're talking about, but i'm talking about words that have come out of bush's mouth. notice how nobody addressed that...

oh ok, i get ya. Yea he isnt the greatest speaker at times....

[Savage_Messiah]

"They would be like Isreal if they had some form or voting. "

As in living their lives in more fear than Bush makes us lead our lives in, withthe necessity or having ALL people born on the country's land return for military service?

The world terrorism situation is much like the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80... as soon as Carter was out the hostages were freed.

[Tony Danza]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Having Bush back in for 4 more years with the ability of electing a possible 2 justices to the Supreme Court combined with his religious right ways is also very scary, but I wont get into that.

That is a very big deal to me too.......but thats just one of the issues that have to be put on the back burnner for now cause of this war.

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Tony Danza

oh ok, i get ya. Yea he isnt the greatest speaker at times....

i was referring to the evidence of WMD's bush was talking about. don't even get me started on his public speaking.

[Tony Danza]

Originally Posted by SilverTransAm

i was referring to the evidence of WMD's bush was talking about. don't even get me started on his public speaking.

So your saying bush knowingly lied about the WMDs?

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Tony Danza

So your saying bush knowingly lied about the WMDs?

is there any other explanation for it? before the war he had solid evidence. where is it now?

[JL8Jeff]

Originally Posted by SilverTransAm

i agree with you 100% that it is a soldier's job to be put in harm's way. however, why are soldiers dying if it's unnecessary?

so here's what happened:

1. we were told saddam had WMD's and was going to use them on us if we didn't act quick
2. we went to war
3. we took over iraq real quick
4. we still to this day have not found any WMD's, in fact we now have reports that say saddam disarmed when we asked him to.
5. bush changes his tune.

bottom line: BUSH LIED. it's that simple.

and since he lied about it, the loss of soldier's lives, which may pale in comparison to past wars, is completely unnecessary. how would you feel if your brother or cousin died in iraq?

and do you really think that we'll be able to stabilize any country in the middle east in our lifetime?

How do you know Bush lied? People told him that we had intelligence showing that Saddam had WMD's. Ask those people why they lied to Bush. Saddam has a past history of using WMD's against the Iraqi people. There were terrorist training camps in northern Iraq with chemical weapons found. Thousands of Iraqi people have now had there lives spared from Saddams militia. More people died in the 9/11 attacks than soldiers that have died in Iraq. Open your eyes and stop paying attention to what the media is forcing down your throat. Majority of the Iraqi people are happy we forced out Saddam. The media only shows you the bad that is happening because that's what they want to show you. And as bad as Saddam was, both of his sons were ten times as evil as him.

[Fasterthanyou]

Poor inteligence isn't the same as a straight out lie.
If you were a reporter in Iraq that was new and trying to get your company the most viewers what would you do in the following scenario; Listen to public announcements by the interm government and report on the actual polling where woman are voting OR you hear an explosion has occured in a city 100 miles away. Do you do your reporting of the good, or the bad? Hence EVERY F-n media company that's in it for profit is going to report BAD news.
As for the poor inteligence.... Bush isn't responsible for the facts he's given. The only thing Bush is responsible for is the economy (which is sucking so please focus on that and not the damn WMDs), the Supream justice rulings (judges he put in power), and the international affairs (again doing a rather poor job). The FBI has since gone through hell since 9/11 and ever since then they've been doing a serious house cleaning. Bush listened to the 9/11 council and done many (but not all) of the things they recommeded. Since 9/11 there hasn't been an attack on our homeland. You'd think that if the Iraq war was SUCH a bad idea and we are spreading ourselves thin that we'd have enraged enough terrorists to attack again.... but it hasn't happened.
I probably unconciously voted for Bush because of the war that I wish had never had to happen. Damn Saddam for being such a moron. The Iraq people deserved a little bit of our occupating their land BECAUSE they never cleaned house themselves. This brings me back to the point of Islam and their overall pathetically weak morals. Why can't they denounce terrorism out-right? WHAT good comes of it? Only more people will die. They say inocent people have died when in reality it's the terrorists that are hiding behind hostages... sometimes hostages get killed, it sucks but 1 life for a few hundred thousands doesn't sound like a bad number. Ideally I'd rather see no lives lost but until Iraq gets a democracy that'll increase the quality of life for Iraq's there will always be terrorists. They have nothing better to do over there. Jokingly; we should do an PS2 or Xbox for guns program over there!

[BigAls87Z28]

So Bush didn't lie, his people just told him information that we had, and it led us into a war that has led to many dead due to hit and run raids.

You can spin it and twist it any direction...Bush and his people lied to America, and the world about WMD. There is not iffs, ands or buts about it, they did. They said something that they were sure of, sure enough that they commited the US Army to invade another coutnry, overthrow its goverment, that btw had nothing to to with 9-11, causing the sensless death of many troops, but when they look for this "sure thing", they come up with just excuses and new motives for having gone into Iraq...

But Bush & Co. didnt lie.....
We invaded another country and toppled there goverment on basis that they had wepons that could cause harm to the US. They didnt, and now we have a huge mess on our hands.
I can name several other countries that have WMD, and they are proud to say it. I dont see us rolling M1's and employing hundreds of thousands of troops to Pyongyang and Tehran.