Jim
New Member
Wow, that's a lot of info. Thanks.
DV, have you read some of Moore's books?
DV, have you read some of Moore's books?
Bush and Civil Liberties
- Thread starter Que Pasa
- Start date
TheJfreak
New Member
yea and he made that movie bowling for a crapmovie
Dark Virtue
New Member
Nope. I refuse to give that man a single red cent of my hard earned money.
Although I suppose I could go to the library
I've read enough exerpts to know it would be a complete waste of my time.
Although I suppose I could go to the library
I've read enough exerpts to know it would be a complete waste of my time.
Kidan
Moderator
Jim regarding your comments on the war an the UN
Sadam has thumbed his nose at the UN for years. What is worse is that the UN was on the take in the oil for food program. Syria (who argued for longer before taking action) was activly buying and selling to Iraq. The same for France, Germany and a couple ex-Soviet nations. There were nearly 20 UN Resolutions that authorized force. The Security Council had voted that Iraq needed invading. It just refused to actually do it.
Kinda like a parent that always threatens to spank a child but never does. Threats do not work.
As for women and children, where was the uproar and the horror when Sadam and sons were going in raping and killing them indiscriminately? Our armed forces actively strive to not hit collateral targets. For terrorists that are the ones they are aiming for. Need anyone be reminded of the recent attack in Russia? How many school children did they kill?
Sadam has thumbed his nose at the UN for years. What is worse is that the UN was on the take in the oil for food program. Syria (who argued for longer before taking action) was activly buying and selling to Iraq. The same for France, Germany and a couple ex-Soviet nations. There were nearly 20 UN Resolutions that authorized force. The Security Council had voted that Iraq needed invading. It just refused to actually do it.
Kinda like a parent that always threatens to spank a child but never does. Threats do not work.
As for women and children, where was the uproar and the horror when Sadam and sons were going in raping and killing them indiscriminately? Our armed forces actively strive to not hit collateral targets. For terrorists that are the ones they are aiming for. Need anyone be reminded of the recent attack in Russia? How many school children did they kill?
Jim
New Member
Yes, Kidan. I see.
I was stating the reasons why there is unrest regarding the war, not griping about why I didn't like it. Saddam deserved to be removed. That much is obvious.
I simply believe there should have been more planning. Although I believe the war did a good thing by removing Saddam, it was also a disservice: They didn't put enough time and planning into sorting out what would go in his place.
In addition, there WAS some misleading by Bush and Blair, especially Blairs infamous 45 minute speech and the WMD hunt.
Removing Saddam was a pearl amidst crud.
But when did the UN vote to invade? Last I knew, most countries wanted the inspections to continue and either did not specify if they would support an attack, or stated they would only if back by the UN.
Take a look.
I was stating the reasons why there is unrest regarding the war, not griping about why I didn't like it. Saddam deserved to be removed. That much is obvious.
I simply believe there should have been more planning. Although I believe the war did a good thing by removing Saddam, it was also a disservice: They didn't put enough time and planning into sorting out what would go in his place.
In addition, there WAS some misleading by Bush and Blair, especially Blairs infamous 45 minute speech and the WMD hunt.
Removing Saddam was a pearl amidst crud.
But when did the UN vote to invade? Last I knew, most countries wanted the inspections to continue and either did not specify if they would support an attack, or stated they would only if back by the UN.
Take a look.
Kidan
Moderator
Jim - actually the main problem with the war is that the US did not expect the Iraqi soldiers to fold up so fast. as well I retract my statement about the UN S.C. voting for force to invade Iraq.
Now about the WMD's. We know that he has had them in the past. We know that he had use them on his own, as well as other peoples. These are a fact. Yet, what we do not know is what happened to them. He never showed what happened to them (part of resolution 1441, which he failed to met). Hans Blix had said as much. That he was never shown documentation about the fate of those weapons. As such, he could not give an accurate saying as to whether or not the weapons existed still.
The recent Deufler(sp?) Report says that while Sadam did not currently have WMD's. He was actively prepared to restart the WMD programs as soon as sanctions lifted. It also outlines how Sadam was ignoring and outright breaking the UN Sanctions with the help of nations such as Syria, France and Germany.
Yes, Bush has admitted that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Of course that was only 1 of about 20-ish reasons to invade Iraq.
Byblo--there have been what, 4 or 5 different posters in this topic? Out of a membership of nearly a thousand? That hardly constitutes a quorum.
Now about the WMD's. We know that he has had them in the past. We know that he had use them on his own, as well as other peoples. These are a fact. Yet, what we do not know is what happened to them. He never showed what happened to them (part of resolution 1441, which he failed to met). Hans Blix had said as much. That he was never shown documentation about the fate of those weapons. As such, he could not give an accurate saying as to whether or not the weapons existed still.
The recent Deufler(sp?) Report says that while Sadam did not currently have WMD's. He was actively prepared to restart the WMD programs as soon as sanctions lifted. It also outlines how Sadam was ignoring and outright breaking the UN Sanctions with the help of nations such as Syria, France and Germany.
Yes, Bush has admitted that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Of course that was only 1 of about 20-ish reasons to invade Iraq.
Byblo--there have been what, 4 or 5 different posters in this topic? Out of a membership of nearly a thousand? That hardly constitutes a quorum.
Thaddius
Member
I only support Bush because he is the lesser of the two evils running for office.
Cory
Cory
Tek7@Work
CGA President, Tribe of Judah Founder & President
Fourth page...no flames I can see...political debate...
*Tek's head explodes*
*cough* I mean, err, keep up the good behavior, sirs. I do believe this is the first time such a thread has existed on the Internet since it went public.
*Tek's head explodes*
*cough* I mean, err, keep up the good behavior, sirs. I do believe this is the first time such a thread has existed on the Internet since it went public.
Dark Virtue
New Member
I second that Thaddius.[b said:
Dark Virtue
New Member
Don't you mean since Al Gore invented it?[b said:
Jim
New Member
Purely out of curiosity, I would like to know why people on this forum like/dislike Kerry/Bush. I know people do not admire Kerry's habit of changing his mind, whereas Bush 'Sticks to his guns' so to speak.
Personally, I distrust Bush. But then, I have never lived under his administartion either. Any comments?
Personally, I distrust Bush. But then, I have never lived under his administartion either. Any comments?
Dark Virtue
New Member
I don't have any problems with Bush. As a Texan, he was also governor of the state. Again, no problems there.
Kerry on the other hand reeks of distrust.
AH, I just remembered something you will especially love Jim.
When asked about whether homosexuality was a choice or genetic, Kerry went OUT OF HIS WAY to mention that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. There was absolutely no need for that. It was a low blow and Mrs. Cheney called him on it. Mrs. Kerry came back claiming that Mrs. Cheney was simply embarrased by her daughter.
It was very very bad.
Kerry on the other hand reeks of distrust.
AH, I just remembered something you will especially love Jim.
When asked about whether homosexuality was a choice or genetic, Kerry went OUT OF HIS WAY to mention that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. There was absolutely no need for that. It was a low blow and Mrs. Cheney called him on it. Mrs. Kerry came back claiming that Mrs. Cheney was simply embarrased by her daughter.
It was very very bad.
Jim
New Member
Yes, I have noticed that Kerry and Bush have a very personal feud. If there is something that turns me off politics, it is when things get dirty.
However, is there any aspect of either candidates' policies you particularly dislike?
However, is there any aspect of either candidates' policies you particularly dislike?
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
the lesser of two evils in 2020 or 2024 you shall not have to worry for i shall run and i dont want to be the lesser of two evils 
anyway.. grass roots campaigning aside.... Bush atleast sticks to what he has decided to do, we know that if he said tomarrow "We are going to invade China for their food" we know he would do it. where as Kerry would say "we are going to invade china for their food" and we would have no idea if we really where going to invade? if he ment a military invasion or a economic? or maybe just a bunch of tourist going to a good chinesse resturant. he offers so many ideas, and never states what he believes this way he can try to please everyone but in the end i really dont think he will please anyone. so no one will vote for him
and that is why everyone likes someone to be no one (word play LOL)
anyway.. grass roots campaigning aside.... Bush atleast sticks to what he has decided to do, we know that if he said tomarrow "We are going to invade China for their food" we know he would do it. where as Kerry would say "we are going to invade china for their food" and we would have no idea if we really where going to invade? if he ment a military invasion or a economic? or maybe just a bunch of tourist going to a good chinesse resturant. he offers so many ideas, and never states what he believes this way he can try to please everyone but in the end i really dont think he will please anyone. so no one will vote for him
and that is why everyone likes someone to be no one (word play LOL)
Jim
New Member
[b said:
Prefer the security of honesty to the mystery of indescision. Does that sum it up?
[b said:
arrgh... Head games... **boom**
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
basicly yes Jim it does
Kidan
Moderator
Jim - we have a hard time truly determing what Kerry's platform is.
He consistently says two things:
1) I have a plan
2) (paraphrasing) I'm going to do what Mr. Bush does, but it will 'work' for me
He never tells us what plan he has, when pressed for specifics one is directed to Kerry websites, where it talks about what a wonderful plan Kerry has, and how pretty that plan is.....of course there are no details about said plan.
The few times that specifics have been dragged out of Kerry, he outlines EXACTLY what Bush has done. An example regarding Iraq, is that he said he would train Iraqis to be soldiers and police. Even though the Bush Admin. has been doing it for months by the time he said it.
LoJ - he does not state what he believes, because he does not believe in anything. He, like Clinton before him, is merely subject to the whims of the loudest of his constituency. I may not agree with 90% of what comes out of Gore's and Dean's mouth, but at least they actually believed it.
He consistently says two things:
1) I have a plan
2) (paraphrasing) I'm going to do what Mr. Bush does, but it will 'work' for me
He never tells us what plan he has, when pressed for specifics one is directed to Kerry websites, where it talks about what a wonderful plan Kerry has, and how pretty that plan is.....of course there are no details about said plan.
The few times that specifics have been dragged out of Kerry, he outlines EXACTLY what Bush has done. An example regarding Iraq, is that he said he would train Iraqis to be soldiers and police. Even though the Bush Admin. has been doing it for months by the time he said it.
LoJ - he does not state what he believes, because he does not believe in anything. He, like Clinton before him, is merely subject to the whims of the loudest of his constituency. I may not agree with 90% of what comes out of Gore's and Dean's mouth, but at least they actually believed it.
Jim
New Member
Thanks, that makes things clearer.