The War On Iraq

[Chris Luke]

Well what are your opinons on the War on Iraq.

DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A FLAME WAR. WE ARE ALL MATURE PEOPLE HERE. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH SOMEONE'S OPINON DISCUS IT IN A MATURE FASHION

[Todd]

My opinion that it's an unjust, illegal war who's sole purpose is to let dubya finish up what his daddy couldn't.

[Chris Luke]

Originally posted by Todd@Sep 18 2004, 12:50 PM
My opinion that it's an unjust, illegal war who's sole purpose is to let dubya finish up what his daddy couldn't.
Couldn't have said it better. What I don't get is that we stayed even after we got Sadam.

[Mark]

It's been a planned war ever since Bush Sr. was in office. What makes me pissed off is how 3000 people die on September the 11th, another 1000 American soldiers die in combat, and it's a massive tragedy. I don't want to say it isn't a bad thing, but I've heard estimates of over 30,000 Iraqi citizens dying from American (or coalition) guns/bombs since the start of the war. This could've all been avoided. When Bush got that memo in August saying "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in US", he should NOT have went bass fishing or golfing. He should have scheduled a meeting with his head of counter-terrorism. Not once did he have a meeting with his head of counter-terrorism in the months between his presidency and 9/11. That's the highest level of incompetence I've ever witnessed. And any sane man with a concious would have scheduled that meeting. It was a blatant disregard for the safety of others, he didn't care. And eventually he knew he would get that war in Iraq for the oil that his country is still abusing the environment with.

American and coalition forces should GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

[Luke]

I reckon the whole thing was to finish off what dear old daddy started and that was taking away Iraqs oil.True enough Saddam Hussain was an evil person but I really don't think removing Saddam was American/coallition proper mission.The war was chaotic itself,I mean allys of America,England etc. were bombing each other in friendly fire! Thats how dumb it was.
The English prime minister Tony Blair ignored the 2 million people who protested against the war and went into Iraq anyway,Blair would follow Bush into the jaws of a hungry great white shark.

P.S hellflame is back!

[Chris Luke]

Originally posted by hellflame Prophecy@Sep 18 2004, 02:53 PM
I reckon the whole thing was to finish off what dear old daddy started and that was taking away Iraqs oil.True enough Saddam Hussain was an evil person but I really don't think removing Saddam was American/coallition proper mission.The war was chaotic itself,I mean allys of America,England etc. were bombing each other in friendly fire! Thats how dumb it was.
The English prime minister Tony Blair ignored the 2 million people who protested against the war and went into Iraq anyway,Blair would follow Bush into the jaws of a hungry great white shark.

P.S hellflame is back!
Well finding Sadam was the objective later on in the war I belive. The first part of the war was to find WMD. Were there any? No. Also, they were still there after we got sadam to "keep things under control" :rolleyes: .

[Luke]

Originally posted by LPStreetFighter666+Sep 18 2004, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LPStreetFighter666 @ Sep 18 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hellflame Prophecy@Sep 18 2004, 02:53 PM
I reckon the whole thing was to finish off what dear old daddy started and that was taking away Iraqs oil.True enough Saddam Hussain was an evil person but I really don&#39;t think removing Saddam was American/coallition proper mission.The war was chaotic itself,I mean allys of America,England etc. were bombing each other in friendly fire&#33; Thats how dumb it was.
The English prime minister Tony Blair ignored the 2 million people who protested against the war and went into Iraq anyway,Blair would follow Bush into the jaws of a hungry great white shark.

P.S hellflame is back&#33;
Well finding Sadam was the objective later on in the war I belive. The first part of the war was to find WMD. Were there any? No. Also, they were still there after we got sadam to "keep things under control" :rolleyes: . [/b][/quote]
Probably just a cover up reason to take away oil and take over Iraq anyway

[Chris Luke]

Originally posted by hellflame Prophecy+Sep 18 2004, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hellflame Prophecy @ Sep 18 2004, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -LPStreetFighter666@Sep 18 2004, 07:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--hellflame Prophecy@Sep 18 2004, 02:53 PM
I reckon the whole thing was to finish off what dear old daddy started and that was taking away Iraqs oil.True enough Saddam Hussain was an evil person but I really don&#39;t think removing Saddam was American/coallition proper mission.The war was chaotic itself,I mean allys of America,England etc. were bombing each other in friendly fire&#33; Thats how dumb it was.
The English prime minister Tony Blair ignored the 2 million people who protested against the war and went into Iraq anyway,Blair would follow Bush into the jaws of a hungry great white shark.

P.S hellflame is back&#33;
Well finding Sadam was the objective later on in the war I belive. The first part of the war was to find WMD. Were there any? No. Also, they were still there after we got sadam to "keep things under control" :rolleyes: .
Probably just a cover up reason to take away oil and take over Iraq anyway [/b][/quote]
The United States of Annexation

[Radical Dreamer]

It&#39;s an illegal war that should never have been started, and now it&#39;s turning into a bloody mess. Every day is the same routine: another car bomb explodes, another foreigner gets taken hostaged, another soldier gets killed. It gets to a point where we can almost predict what&#39;s going to happen tomorrow in Iraq.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Mark@Sep 18 2004, 06:44 PM
It&#39;s been a planned war ever since Bush Sr. was in office. What makes me pissed off is how 3000 people die on September the 11th, another 1000 American soldiers die in combat, and it&#39;s a massive tragedy. I don&#39;t want to say it isn&#39;t a bad thing, but I&#39;ve heard estimates of over 30,000 Iraqi citizens dying from American (or coalition) guns/bombs since the start of the war. This could&#39;ve all been avoided. When Bush got that memo in August saying "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in US", he should NOT have went bass fishing or golfing. He should have scheduled a meeting with his head of counter-terrorism. Not once did he have a meeting with his head of counter-terrorism in the months between his presidency and 9/11. That&#39;s the highest level of incompetence I&#39;ve ever witnessed. And any sane man with a concious would have scheduled that meeting. It was a blatant disregard for the safety of others, he didn&#39;t care. And eventually he knew he would get that war in Iraq for the oil that his country is still abusing the environment with.

American and coalition forces should GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.
Perfect.

[Whimsicality]

I&#39;m not commenting because I sure as hell don&#39;t understand the situation. But I have to ask a favor from everyone--can you backup your facts with a credible source? A nice little URL will work just fine. Most major networks post news on their websites, so it shouldn&#39;t take more then 30 seconds to find.

[Todd]

Originally posted by twicethetrouble@Sep 19 2004, 04:36 PM
I&#39;m not commenting because I sure as hell don&#39;t understand the situation. But I have to ask a favor from everyone--can you backup your facts with a credible source? A nice little URL will work just fine. Most major networks post news on their websites, so it shouldn&#39;t take more then 30 seconds to find.
watch farenheit 9/11. That explains why the war is just a part of the bush family&#39;s personal agenda.

[Mark]

Originally posted by twicethetrouble@Sep 19 2004, 07:06 PM
I&#39;m not commenting because I sure as hell don&#39;t understand the situation. But I have to ask a favor from everyone--can you backup your facts with a credible source? A nice little URL will work just fine. Most major networks post news on their websites, so it shouldn&#39;t take more then 30 seconds to find.
I&#39;d go through "Stupid White Men", "Dude, Where&#39;s My Country" and "Fahrenheit 9/11", but you know, that takes way too much time.

[F-ck Casey]

Here&#39;s one:

something other than Michael Moore :P

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Mark@Sep 19 2004, 05:52 PM
but you know, that takes way too much time.
Yes. lol. I&#39;ll probably read at least one of them eventually, but that doesn&#39;t do much for an internet discussion right now.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Casey@Sep 19 2004, 07:26 PM
Here&#39;s one:

something other than Michael Moore :P
Michael Moore has the most vast concept, and catalog of information on Bush. More than Franken, even though the man&#39;s a genius. You can&#39;t say that unless you&#39;ve read the Moore books. :lol:

I picked up "Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" the other night at the bookstore and just saw many of the same things in "Stupid White Men". They both rip apart the right side of the government together. And Moore doesn&#39;t lie in his book so they&#39;re basically saying the same things. Franken just tends to spend more time on non-government republicans (like O&#39;Reilly/Coulter) then Moore, though. Moore goes straight for the administration.

[Shade]

Here&#39;s my thoughts on the war in Iraq.

We are ####ed. Completely. No way around it. If we leave Iraq, likelihood is, the democracy in it won&#39;t last. Another warlord will just take over, or different groups will battle for control and maybe someone comparable or worse than Saddam will take power. We do not have the resources to do what Bush proposed in rebuilding Iraq, and have come no where close so far. If we leave, we are screwed, because then we will be seen as not finishing what we started, and basically screwing Iraq over majorly, which we have.

But then if we don&#39;t leave, both sides suffer more casualties. We&#39;ll piss off the Iraqis even more, who already want us the hell out.

I support leaving, but either way, we&#39;re screwed. There&#39;s no way out as far as I&#39;m concerned. We should have never gone in, but too late for that. Pessimistic I know, but that&#39;s how I see it.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Shade@Sep 19 2004, 09:32 PM
If we leave Iraq, likelihood is, the democracy in it won&#39;t last. Another warlord will just take over, or different groups will battle for control and maybe someone comparable or worse than Saddam will take power. We do not have the resources to do what Bush proposed in rebuilding Iraq, and have come no where close so far. If we leave, we are screwed, because then we will be seen as not finishing what we started, and basically screwing Iraq over majorly, which we have.
I say we get every single US soldier and civilian out of Iraq. Chaos will happen, but it&#39;s not our country, thus, it&#39;s not our problem. That was my main reason for being against the war in the first place. If the Iraqi&#39;s want democracy, they need to step up to the plate and do it themselves. Democracy and freedom wasn&#39;t handed to the US, we fought our asses off for it, so why would we hand democracy to the Iraqi&#39;s on a gold plate?

[Shade]

Originally posted by Todd+Sep 20 2004, 03:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Sep 20 2004, 03:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Shade@Sep 19 2004, 09:32 PM
If we leave Iraq, likelihood is, the democracy in it won&#39;t last. Another warlord will just take over, or different groups will battle for control and maybe someone comparable or worse than Saddam will take power. We do not have the resources to do what Bush proposed in rebuilding Iraq, and have come no where close so far. If we leave, we are screwed, because then we will be seen as not finishing what we started, and basically screwing Iraq over majorly, which we have.
I say we get every single US soldier and civilian out of Iraq. Chaos will happen, but it&#39;s not our country, thus, it&#39;s not our problem. That was my main reason for being against the war in the first place. If the Iraqi&#39;s want democracy, they need to step up to the plate and do it themselves. Democracy and freedom wasn&#39;t handed to the US, we fought our asses off for it, so why would we hand democracy to the Iraqi&#39;s on a gold plate? [/b][/quote]
The reason we should help them is because its very rare a country can enact so great a change on their own. We sure as hell didn&#39;t. If the French hadn&#39;t stepped up to the plate and saved our asses from the British navy we&#39;d still be praising the royal family today.

This is irrelavent however, as the reason we attacked Iraq was not to aid the poor helpless Iraqis. Originally it was "for WMDs" when there weren&#39;t any, then it was to get rid of Saddam (an excuse to try and cover the administration&#39;s ass), then it was to aid the Iraqis. Unfortunately, no country goes through this much effort to help another, we&#39;re not that kind. That&#39;s where the oil comes in.

[Glenn]

Actually, I think the president of Iraq appreciates what the US is doing and how much progress he thinks we&#39;re making.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glenn@Sep 26 2004, 11:41 AM
Actually, I think the president of Iraq appreciates what the US is doing and how much progress he thinks we&#39;re making.
&#036;10 says his speech was written for him by the american government.

Steps to making this better;

-- Kerry in office.
-- Kerry apologizes to UN on behalf of US and asks for help.
-- UN, more susceptible to a new president who doens&#39;t piss them off, may oblige.
-- The responsabilities are shared, many of the American troops go home.
-- Less presence of American forces ceases much of the violence.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Mark+Sep 26 2004, 10:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Sep 26 2004, 10:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Glenn@Sep 26 2004, 11:41 AM
Actually, I think the president of Iraq appreciates what the US is doing and how much progress he thinks we&#39;re making.
&#036;10 says his speech was written for him by the american government.
[/b][/quote]
&#036;20 says it. :lol:

[goso88]

I say we get every single US soldier and civilian out of Iraq. Chaos will happen, but it&#39;s not our country, thus, it&#39;s not our problem. That was my main reason for being against the war in the first place. If the Iraqi&#39;s want democracy, they need to step up to the plate and do it themselves. Democracy and freedom wasn&#39;t handed to the US, we fought our asses off for it, so why would we hand democracy to the Iraqi&#39;s on a gold plate?

Its not our country, true, but we--or shall we say the Bush administration-- attacked Iraq, therefore screwing the rest of the United States over and making it our problem to restore some kind of peace before getting the the hell out of there. I wish every US soldier and civilian could high tail it out of Iraq. But the US attacked Iraq and triggered this whole change (bad or good) so we are very much in deep #### and cannot brush ourselves clean of it simply by saying "not our problem" when we attacked Iraq in the first place.


-- Kerry in office.
-- Kerry apologizes to UN on behalf of US and asks for help.
-- UN, more susceptible to a new president who doens&#39;t piss them off, may oblige.
-- The responsabilities are shared, many of the American troops go home.
-- Less presence of American forces ceases much of the violence.

In this case, we wouldn&#39;t be abandoning Iraq and letting chaos reign. Which is much better.

[Glenn]

Does Kerry think we should get out of Iraq? I&#39;m pretty sure he did but he changes his mind sometimes.

[Jamie]

Originally posted by Mark+Sep 26 2004, 02:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Sep 26 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Glenn@Sep 26 2004, 11:41 AM
Actually, I think the president of Iraq appreciates what the US is doing and how much progress he thinks we&#39;re making.
&#036;10 says his speech was written for him by the american government.

Steps to making this better;

-- Kerry in office.
-- Kerry apologizes to UN on behalf of US and asks for help.
-- UN, more susceptible to a new president who doens&#39;t piss them off, may oblige.
-- The responsabilities are shared, many of the American troops go home.
-- Less presence of American forces ceases much of the violence. [/b][/quote]
Deffinantly...I dont really understand politics and the such, but I can deffinantly see how this happened and what should be done about it. Bush out and then they can get down to the real business of talking with the UN, and arranging some sort of peace deal.

[adelleda]

What gets me about Bush "liberating" Iraq is the fact that after he got Saddam out of office, he didn&#39;t have any: Doctors/Nurses, Teachers, Police (make that a SWAT team with all the insurgence), etc, to help the country back on it&#39;s feet. What was he thinking? That Iraq after being under dictorship for so many years was going to fix itself?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glenn@Sep 26 2004, 05:14 PM
Does Kerry think we should get out of Iraq? I&#39;m pretty sure he did but he changes his mind sometimes.
Kerry may reword things, but he hasn&#39;t changed his stance on this. Sure, Bush flip-flops even more.

Kerry wants troops home, but he also wants to help rebuild Iraq with UN help.

[Today After Tomorrow]

There&#39;s currently talk between the Bush Administration officials that (if re-elected, which won&#39;t happen anyway) next year they need to just yank all the soldiers out of Iraq. They think it&#39;s time for a quick exit and say it would happen within the year 2005. The only problem is that they currently don&#39;t have a plan for that and to be honest I don&#39;t really know if I believe them. Bush and his officials have lied so much over the past 4 years this could just be another one in order to gain some more people&#39;s support. Other than this I haven&#39;t really heard much of a plan from Bush about Iraq.

Kerry&#39;s made it clear - He&#39;s going to restore America&#39;s standing with the world. He&#39;s going to gain back our allies to help with the war so that we&#39;re not paying 90% of the costs. I&#39;ve read that some people say that Kerry won&#39;t be able to do this but I defidently think he can. Right now Bush can&#39;t. He&#39;s ruined his standing with the world and no one wants to be associated with him. But if there&#39;s a new president then everything changes.

Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).

And if you haven&#39;t heard already: We&#39;re running out of troops. We&#39;re already running to Army Reserves and National Guard units. In fact, we&#39;re very close to a draft. Bush says that by raising soldier pay, medicare, and housing that it will attract more recruits and eliminate the need for a draft but the fact that Bush hasn&#39;t said "There will not be a draft" has me a little worried. John Edwards has already spoke on behalf of John Kerry stating “There will be no draft when John Kerry is president.” If Bush is re-elected and his plan for recruiting soldiers doesn&#39;t work - you may be going to war if you&#39;re 18. And no fleeding to Canada. The border patrol will be so strong if a draft happens that you&#39;ll probably have a 5% chance of making it.

Also in case you haven&#39;t heard the Bush Administration are already rigging the election. In defiance of a court order Flordia, under the governship of Jeb Bush(George&#39;s younger brother), is sending out absentee ballots with Ralph Nader&#39;s name on them. The court had previously issued an injunction against printing ballots with Nader&#39;s name because he is listed as The Reform Party canidate. The Reform Party is not recognized as a national party under Flordia&#39;s own laws, so the judge told Flordia&#39;s election officials that they could not issue those ballots pending a hearing on their legality. Jeb Bush and his officials, though, are claiming that because of Hurricane Ivan there is an uncertainty about the scheduled court hearing(afraid it might not happen) on the legality of Nader being listed, thus forcing them to mail the absentee ballots immediatly. In the 2000 election Nader took 98,000 votes away from Gore. Gore lost by 527 votes. The Bush Administration would like to see the same thing happen again except this time to Kerry. Jeb Bush says "Ijt&#39;s up to the judge to determine, based on the law, whether Nader should be on the ballot or not. But while that process goes on, we cannot put ourselves in a position where the ministerial role of the supervisors cannot be fulfilled." So Jeb can go against the law simply because he says so? Once the ballots are printed and mailed the issue on whether or not they were legal seems kinda pointless, don&#39;t you think? And if the votes were challenged later on it&#39;s no mystery how this supreme court(buddies with the bush family) would rule on the decision of who gets presidency. And do you want to know what the strangest part of this whole thing is? The judge who issued the injunction, Kevin Davey, is located in the state capitol of Tallahassee, which is not even in the path of Hurricane Ivan. So there is absolutly no reason that the hearing wouldn&#39;t be able to take place. So it looks like Jeb Bush didn&#39;t do too good of a job with his little lie.

Another way they&#39;re rigging the election is by using the soldier&#39;s votes. This year soldiers will be able to vote by email. And the person in charge of taking those emails and counting them? A strong republican/Bush supporter. It would be very easy for that person to "miss" a few Kerry votes or "accidently" mark a Kerry vote for Bush. And don&#39;t forget about the regular Republican tactics(they often do this in the south): Flordia is sending out police(under Jeb Bush&#39;s command) and FBI agents(under George Bush&#39;s command) out to intimidate old people(African-Americans to be specific) who are involved in getting people who can&#39;t go out an vote on Nov. 2 absentee ballots. And it&#39;s working: People who used to help are not doing so this year, and people who have always voted by absentee ballots aren&#39;t. It&#39;s basically a form of the KKK running around except it&#39;s coming in forms of police and FBI badges instead of white hoods.

Sorry this wasn&#39;t all about the war but I figured I might as well just put all of the information in one post instead of 4 differen&#39;t threads. And sorry it was so long haha.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Bush says that by raising soldier pay, medicare, and housing that it will attract more recruits and eliminate the need for a draft.
Yeah, they&#39;ve already used the retired old timers in Iraq and promised free plastic surgery to families of soldiers.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it.

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by twicethetrouble+Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (twicethetrouble @ Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it. [/b][/quote]
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself. ;)

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America&#39;s war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-084211-7155r.htm)

[Chris(tmas)]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Sep 27 2004, 04:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Sep 27 2004, 04:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -twicethetrouble@Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it.
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself. ;)

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America&#39;s war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-084211-7155r.htm) [/b][/quote]
Touché :lol:

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by Chris+Sep 27 2004, 05:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris @ Sep 27 2004, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Today After Tomorrow@Sep 27 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by -twicethetrouble@Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it.
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself. ;)

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America&#39;s war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-084211-7155r.htm)
Touché :lol: [/b][/quote]
Well, everything I say is a fact. If you want proof...Ask and you shall recieve.

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Sep 26 2004, 10:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Sep 26 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -twicethetrouble@Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it.
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself. ;)

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America&#39;s war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-084211-7155r.htm) [/b][/quote]
From the URLs you posted:

But Perle said the regimes in Iran and Syria could be changed without direct U.S. intervention.


Ghorbanifar says there are Iranians capable of organizing a peaceful revolution against the ruling theocracy.


A Defense official says any discussion that Ghorbanifar had with Pentagon experts about regime change was a "one-way conversation."



There isn&#39;t a single thing on any of those that say we&#39;re invading Iran.

I&#39;ll say right now I&#39;m no Bush fan, but people are way to obsessed with finding the littlest details and turning them into huge conspiracies theories.

[Odaton]

Twicefortrouble......I like your way of thinking man....think for yourself, even mistrust Michael Moore, and try to figure out the facts from what you&#39;ve been told. :)

Anyways, I don&#39;t think Kerry will be much different from Bush. Sure, Bush was aligned with the neo-conservative crowd and in the clutch of big business, but I doubt that Kerry wants to/has the guts to stand up to big business and turn things around. I mean, if Kerry was Prime Minister of Canada, he would be considered a ultra-conservative radical and we&#39;d all hate him :lol: So his policies aren&#39;t too progressive and liberal.

As for the "War on Iraq"...well I think the American have to stay now, the country would go into complete anarchy if they left. Since the Kurds aren&#39;t suppressed they will be in huge conflict with the Sunni/Shiite Muslims if the US weren&#39;t there. Maybe they should get out of there and the UN step in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here&#39;s my thought on Iraq: What gives the right for America to say how people should live? I think Shades touched on this topic earlier. Our "democratic" and market-centred culture is not the way everyone wants to live. Its been forced on the people in the Middle East so they must adapt now I guess. But the native peoples on most continents had a self-sufficient, non-destructive lifestyle. The South Americans/Mexicans built amazing civilizations and the lived for thousands of years in harmony with the land. The Spanish came along and slaughtered them all. The North Americans lived off the land and were amazingly innovative but not thirsty for power and money. We took advantage of them, introduced our capitalist ways and eventually in the US they were mostly all killed (GENOCIDE) and in Canada they were pushed into Reserves.

Traditional Mexican societies would ostracize (shun) any person who tried to amass wealth and it was the greatest honour to do what you could to help the community. So the question arises, is our way of life the best way of life? No, but aggressive as we are, we have forced our way of thinking and basically assimilated the world into one materialistic doctrine on which all these wars are based on. Not that the human instincts of greed/envy have never existed before, but our current system is based on an individualistic, every man for himself mentality and hasn&#39;t helped this problem much&#33;

The more we can do to change this trend, the better. :)

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by twicethetrouble+Sep 27 2004, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (twicethetrouble @ Sep 27 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by -twicethetrouble@Sep 27 2004, 12:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM
Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i&#39;m sure they&#39;re next on Bush&#39;s war list. Iran for sure. He&#39;ll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he&#39;ll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it&#39;s being secretly talked about).
Prove it.
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself. ;)

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America&#39;s war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-084211-7155r.htm)
From the URLs you posted:

But Perle said the regimes in Iran and Syria could be changed without direct U.S. intervention.


Ghorbanifar says there are Iranians capable of organizing a peaceful revolution against the ruling theocracy.


A Defense official says any discussion that Ghorbanifar had with Pentagon experts about regime change was a "one-way conversation."



There isn&#39;t a single thing on any of those that say we&#39;re invading Iran.

I&#39;ll say right now I&#39;m no Bush fan, but people are way to obsessed with finding the littlest details and turning them into huge conspiracies theories. [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s always possible US force won&#39;t be needed(or not needed and go in anyway) but I don&#39;t know if I believe that. Bush seems a little too war-happy to me. He has no regard for solders&#39; lives.

On a different note here&#39;s something to check out:
The Bush Crime Family: Three Generations of Treason (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_041403_bush.html)

[htep.fan]

Originally posted by Odaton@Sep 27 2004, 08:57 PM
Twicefortrouble......I like your way of thinking man....think for yourself, even mistrust Michael Moore, and try to figure out the facts from what you&#39;ve been told. :)

Anyways, I don&#39;t think Kerry will be much different from Bush. Sure, Bush was aligned with the neo-conservative crowd and in the clutch of big business, but I doubt that Kerry wants to/has the guts to stand up to big business and turn things around. I mean, if Kerry was Prime Minister of Canada, he would be considered a ultra-conservative radical and we&#39;d all hate him :lol: So his policies aren&#39;t too progressive and liberal.

As for the "War on Iraq"...well I think the American have to stay now, the country would go into complete anarchy if they left. Since the Kurds aren&#39;t suppressed they will be in huge conflict with the Sunni/Shiite Muslims if the US weren&#39;t there. Maybe they should get out of there and the UN step in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here&#39;s my thought on Iraq: What gives the right for America to say how people should live? I think Shades touched on this topic earlier. Our "democratic" and market-centred culture is not the way everyone wants to live. Its been forced on the people in the Middle East so they must adapt now I guess. But the native peoples on most continents had a self-sufficient, non-destructive lifestyle. The South Americans/Mexicans built amazing civilizations and the lived for thousands of years in harmony with the land. The Spanish came along and slaughtered them all. The North Americans lived off the land and were amazingly innovative but not thirsty for power and money. We took advantage of them, introduced our capitalist ways and eventually in the US they were mostly all killed (GENOCIDE) and in Canada they were pushed into Reserves.

Traditional Mexican societies would ostracize (shun) any person who tried to amass wealth and it was the greatest honour to do what you could to help the community. So the question arises, is our way of life the best way of life? No, but aggressive as we are, we have forced our way of thinking and basically assimilated the world into one materialistic doctrine on which all these wars are based on. Not that the human instincts of greed/envy have never existed before, but our current system is based on an individualistic, every man for himself mentality and hasn&#39;t helped this problem much&#33;

The more we can do to change this trend, the better. :)
Are you South American, dude? Because what you said about our people is the truth. Spaniards came and destroyed Aztecs and Incas and took all the gold they had (they didn&#39;t think the gold had any value, they used it for decoration&#33;). Besides, all those conquistadores (spanish for conquerors) weren&#39;t preachers and religious people like those Pilgrims Americans talk a lot about; they were all criminals, looters, and poor people (and the ironic thing is that their descendants still govern our societies, because most Hispanics are mestizos, indians+spaniards...).

Kerry or Bush...democrat or republican......none, I don&#39;t vote, I am not American.....(thank god) :innocent:

And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren&#39;t a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)

[Mark]

Originally posted by htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 09:04 PM
And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren&#39;t a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)
I&#39;ve read his last two books and remember no racism. Michael Moore is not racist. Don&#39;t believe everything you hear unless you read it for yourself in his book. ;)

You&#39;re being intolerant to other countries by saying "thank god i&#39;m not american". You know, Americans aren&#39;t corrupt like their leaders. They just elect corrupt leaders from lack of choice. I suggest you start respecting Americans here, they vastly out-populate you.

[htep.fan]

Originally posted by Mark+Sep 28 2004, 01:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Sep 28 2004, 01:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 09:04 PM
And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren&#39;t a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)
I&#39;ve read his last two books and remember no racism. Michael Moore is not racist. Don&#39;t believe everything you hear unless oyu read it for yourself in his book. ;)

You&#39;re being intolerant to other countries by saying "thank god i&#39;m not american". You know, Americans aren&#39;t corrupt like their leaders. They just elect corrupt leaders from lack of choice. [/b][/quote]
Ah, sorry, I don&#39;t know if it was his last book, but I remember hearing that in El Nuevo Herald (The Miami Herald&#39;s Spanish edition), like two months ago. They made an entire article about it, put it in first page and everything, I don&#39;t think they are lying. I&#39;m gonna look for it in the Web and I&#39;ll give the link or post it.

If I said "thank god" is because I don&#39;t like your culture and I don&#39;t get it, either, my culture is way more simple and I prefer it like that. But that doesn&#39;t mean I hate you, that just means I don&#39;t like some of the things you do. :)

EDIT: I didn&#39;t read what you put last, and I just tell you that isn&#39;t it the same thing between whites and blacks? Don&#39;t the white people out-populate blacks, too? Then start showing us some respect, I already started by saying sorry.

[Mark]

Originally posted by htep.fan+Sep 27 2004, 10:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (htep.fan @ Sep 27 2004, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Mark@Sep 28 2004, 01:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 09:04 PM
And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren&#39;t a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)
I&#39;ve read his last two books and remember no racism. Michael Moore is not racist. Don&#39;t believe everything you hear unless oyu read it for yourself in his book. ;)

You&#39;re being intolerant to other countries by saying "thank god i&#39;m not american". You know, Americans aren&#39;t corrupt like their leaders. They just elect corrupt leaders from lack of choice.
Ah, sorry, I don&#39;t know if it was his last book, but I remember hearing that in El Nuevo Herald (The Miami Herald&#39;s Spanish edition), like two months ago. They made an entire article about it, put it in first page and everything, I don&#39;t think they are lying. I&#39;m gonna look for it in the Web and I&#39;ll give the link or post it.

If I said "thank god" is because I don&#39;t like your culture and I don&#39;t get it, either, my culture is way more simple and I prefer it like that. But that doesn&#39;t mean I hate you, that just means I don&#39;t like some of the things you do. :) [/b][/quote]
For one thing, I&#39;m Canadian. And secondly, it doens&#39;t matter how you feel about it, it&#39;s how you&#39;re snubbing people and rubbing them the wrong way.

[Odaton]

Originally posted by htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 11:34 PM
Are you South American, dude? Because what you said about our people is the truth. Spaniards came and destroyed Aztecs and Incas and took all the gold they had (they didn&#39;t think the gold had any value, they used it for decoration&#33;). Besides, all those conquistadores (spanish for conquerors) weren&#39;t preachers and religious people like those Pilgrims Americans talk a lot about; they were all criminals, looters, and poor people (and the ironic thing is that their descendants still govern our societies, because most Hispanics are mestizos, indians+spaniards...).



Nope, I am Canadian, but I know my history enough to know what happened....some try to sugarcoat it but thats essentially what happened. Its a shame those cultures didn&#39;t endure, they could teach us a lesson or two ;)

@ Mark: GO Canada :lol:

[htep.fan]

Originally posted by Mark+Sep 28 2004, 01:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Sep 28 2004, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by -Mark@Sep 28 2004, 01:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 09:04 PM
And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren&#39;t a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)
I&#39;ve read his last two books and remember no racism. Michael Moore is not racist. Don&#39;t believe everything you hear unless oyu read it for yourself in his book. ;)

You&#39;re being intolerant to other countries by saying "thank god i&#39;m not american". You know, Americans aren&#39;t corrupt like their leaders. They just elect corrupt leaders from lack of choice.
Ah, sorry, I don&#39;t know if it was his last book, but I remember hearing that in El Nuevo Herald (The Miami Herald&#39;s Spanish edition), like two months ago. They made an entire article about it, put it in first page and everything, I don&#39;t think they are lying. I&#39;m gonna look for it in the Web and I&#39;ll give the link or post it.

If I said "thank god" is because I don&#39;t like your culture and I don&#39;t get it, either, my culture is way more simple and I prefer it like that. But that doesn&#39;t mean I hate you, that just means I don&#39;t like some of the things you do. :)
For one thing, I&#39;m Canadian. And secondly, it doens&#39;t matter how you feel about it, it&#39;s how you&#39;re snubbing people and rubbing them the wrong way. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sorry, then, I have become a really disturbed and annoying person because of my horrible life.

[htep.fan]

OK I translated the more important part, and to tell you that I&#39;m not lying, I put a link to the original, though is completely in Spanish:

ENGLISH

Moore criticized for writings against Cuban exiliates

GAIL EPSTEIN NIEVES

The Miami Herald


Weeks after Michael Moore&#39;s Fahrenheit 9/11 became the center of attention in the USA because of its controversial content, the movie and its director have generated a new wave of attention on both sides of the Florida Strait.(.....)

In a fragment of a chapter of his book "Downsize This" published on the Web, Moore wrote that the exiliates in Miami are always present in every tormentous political incident from the last decades, including like examples Kennedy&#39;s murder, Watergate, problems with Iran and the high drug abuse in the US. &#092;


http://www.miami.coSPANISH (and complete) (http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/2004/08/06/news/local/9331846.htm)m/mld/elnuevo/2004/08/06/news/local/9331846.htm

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Odaton@Sep 27 2004, 04:57 PM
Anyways, I don&#39;t think Kerry will be much different from Bush. Sure, Bush was aligned with the neo-conservative crowd and in the clutch of big business, but I doubt that Kerry wants to/has the guts to stand up to big business and turn things around. I mean, if Kerry was Prime Minister of Canada, he would be considered a ultra-conservative radical and we&#39;d all hate him :lol: So his policies aren&#39;t too progressive and liberal.

As for the "War on Iraq"...well I think the American have to stay now, the country would go into complete anarchy if they left. Since the Kurds aren&#39;t suppressed they will be in huge conflict with the Sunni/Shiite Muslims if the US weren&#39;t there. Maybe they should get out of there and the UN step in.
I agree with that completely, especially the part about Iraq. Yes, we made a mistake going in, but leaving now won&#39;t undo anything. If we leave the Iraqis fight amongest themselves, probably leading to just as many deaths as if we stay (if not more) and eventually another ruthless dictator takes over.

No matter what it&#39;s not going to be a perfect situation, things are already ####ed weather we stay or leave, but I think staying is the lesser of two evils.

As for having the UN step in, or at least take charge, that would probably be better for the Iraqis but I seriously cannot see that happening.

[Mark]

Originally posted by twicethetrouble+Sep 27 2004, 11:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (twicethetrouble @ Sep 27 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Odaton@Sep 27 2004, 04:57 PM
Anyways, I don&#39;t think Kerry will be much different from Bush. Sure, Bush was aligned with the neo-conservative crowd and in the clutch of big business, but I doubt that Kerry wants to/has the guts to stand up to big business and turn things around. I mean, if Kerry was Prime Minister of Canada, he would be considered a ultra-conservative radical and we&#39;d all hate him* :lol: So his policies aren&#39;t too progressive and liberal.

As for the "War on Iraq"...well I think the American have to stay now, the country would go into complete anarchy if they left. Since the Kurds aren&#39;t suppressed they will be in huge conflict with the Sunni/Shiite Muslims if the US weren&#39;t there. Maybe they should get out of there and the UN step in.
I agree with that completely, especially the part about Iraq. Yes, we made a mistake going in, but leaving now won&#39;t undo anything. If we leave the Iraqis fight amongest themselves, probably leading to just as many deaths as if we stay (if not more) and eventually another ruthless dictator takes over.

No matter what it&#39;s not going to be a perfect situation, things are already ####ed weather we stay or leave, but I think staying is the lesser of two evils.

As for having the UN step in, or at least take charge, that would probably be better for the Iraqis but I seriously cannot see that happening. [/b][/quote]
Well, I say your chances of getting UN help would increase if Kerry was the new president. The whole UN is pissed off at Bush because hew ent against them, I think if Kerry apologized on behalf of Americans and asked for help, he would receive it.

[Mark]

Originally posted by htep.fan@Sep 27 2004, 11:20 PM
OK I translated the more important part, and to tell you that I&#39;m not lying, I put a link to the original, though is completely in Spanish:

ENGLISH

Moore criticized for writings against Cuban exiliates

GAIL EPSTEIN NIEVES

The Miami Herald


Weeks after Michael Moore&#39;s Fahrenheit 9/11 became the center of attention in the USA because of its controversial content, the movie and its director have generated a new wave of attention on both sides of the Florida Strait.(.....)

In a fragment of a chapter of his book "Downsize This" published on the Web, Moore wrote that the exiliates in Miami are always present in every tormentous political incident from the last decades, including like examples Kennedy&#39;s murder, Watergate, problems with Iran and the high drug abuse in the US. &#092;


http://www.miami.coSPANISH (and complete) (http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/2004/08/06/news/local/9331846.htm)m/mld/elnuevo/2004/08/06/news/local/9331846.htm
Nothing in that quote you posted has anything to do with him being racist. Kennedy was assassinated by either Lee Harevy Oswald or the CIA, Watergate was commited by Nixon, Iran was Bush Sr giving weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians. The only thing I can see there that has truth is the drug part. Hispanics and Cubans are stereotypically drug traffickers and consumers. That doesn&#39;t mean all Hispanics are, but Moore was saying the truth.

[htep.fan]

Nothing in that quote you posted has anything to do with him being racist. Kennedy was assassinated by either Lee Harevy Oswald or the CIA, Watergate was commited by Nixon, Iran was Bush Sr giving weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians.

Then why did he blamed and/or associated exiliated Cubans about that stuff (because he wrote that, maybe you couldn&#39;t understand my translation)??????????????


Hispanics and Cubans are stereotypically drug traffickers and consumers.

WTF&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I said he wrote that the exiliates from Castro&#39;s brutal regime (that are so freaking poor that they emigrate in rafts made of wood, even with hurricanes and storms) were the ones that had made America drug-addicted, most of them don&#39;t even have money and time for a passport (that&#39;s why so many illegals), how could they be drug lords?????????...and I guess Michael Moore knows better than to follow stereotypes...

Besides, black people are also stereotyped as druggies and druglords......why didn&#39;t he wrote about them?......

Land of freedom........of my drugged as#####...........

[Today After Tomorrow]

I don&#39;t think you have to be totally rich just because you&#39;re bringing drugs into the country. They&#39;re poor, they get drugs where they live for cheap, smuggle them into the US, sell them for big bucks &#036;&#036;.

[htep.fan]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Sep 28 2004, 07:53 PM
I don&#39;t think you have to be totally rich just because you&#39;re bringing drugs into the country. They&#39;re poor, they get drugs where they live for cheap, smuggle them into the US, sell them for big bucks &#036;&#036;.
Then I must be high or something....

[Mark]

Originally posted by htep.fan@Sep 28 2004, 05:13 PM

Nothing in that quote you posted has anything to do with him being racist. Kennedy was assassinated by either Lee Harevy Oswald or the CIA, Watergate was commited by Nixon, Iran was Bush Sr giving weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians.

Then why did he blamed and/or associated exiliated Cubans about that stuff (because he wrote that, maybe you couldn&#39;t understand my translation)??????????????


Hispanics and Cubans are stereotypically drug traffickers and consumers.

WTF&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I said he wrote that the exiliates from Castro&#39;s brutal regime (that are so freaking poor that they emigrate in rafts made of wood, even with hurricanes and storms) were the ones that had made America drug-addicted, most of them don&#39;t even have money and time for a passport (that&#39;s why so many illegals), how could they be drug lords?????????...and I guess Michael Moore knows better than to follow stereotypes...

Besides, black people are also stereotyped as druggies and druglords......why didn&#39;t he wrote about them?......

Land of freedom........of my drugged as#####...........
Those things are common fact, Michael Moore seems smarter than to blame everything on "exiliates". "Exiliates" isn&#39;t even a word in the English dictionary, maybe you meant "Exiles" or "Immigrants". Unless he said that, which I highly doubt; he was either misquoted, taken too seriously (he jokes in his books, you know), or had everything blown out of proportion on him.

Enough of your America bashing. One last chance.

[htep.fan]

Exiles.....that&#39;s what I meant to say. I knew that you couldn&#39;t understand what I wrote, that&#39;s what I meant to say......and yes, he wrote that, and people in Miami are still really pissed off about it.......

Besides, I&#39;m not bashing America, I&#39;m telling the truth about Moore.

[Mark]

Originally posted by htep.fan@Sep 28 2004, 05:34 PM
Exiles.....that&#39;s what I meant to say. I knew that you couldn&#39;t understand what I wrote, that&#39;s what I meant to say......and yes, he wrote that, and people in Miami are still really pissed off about it.......

Besides, I&#39;m not bashing America, I&#39;m telling the truth about Moore.
Then how do you explain the "land of freedom" remark?

[htep.fan]

That stereotype really pissed me off, I lost it for a moment, I apologize, sorry.

[Link04]

Not to be insensitive, but everyone is stereotyped, I highly recommend you get used to it.

[htep.fan]

Originally posted by Link04@Sep 28 2004, 08:21 PM
Not to be insensitive, but everyone is stereotyped, I highly recommend you get used to it.
I am. I just couldn&#39;t hold it anymore. I have thousands of problems outside and inside me, so I have to have some strength to at least look normal. But many times it is not enough.

[heartfullofgold]

Originally posted by Personal Jesus@Sep 18 2004, 04:04 PM
Well what are your opinons on the War on Iraq.

DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A FLAME WAR. WE ARE ALL MATURE PEOPLE HERE. IF YOU DON&#39;T AGREE WITH SOMEONE&#39;S OPINON DISCUS IT IN A MATURE FASHION
my opinion on the war is probably similar to the rest of the posts. I hate it&#33; War in my mind is evil and wrong. People die and are injured and it ruins countrys&#39; economies. War in general is just no good. I am comparing the war in Iraq to all war. It&#39;s a mistake and always will be. :angry:

[Mark]

Originally posted by heartfullofgold+Sep 28 2004, 07:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (heartfullofgold @ Sep 28 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Personal Jesus@Sep 18 2004, 04:04 PM
Well what are your opinons on the War on Iraq.

DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A FLAME WAR. WE ARE ALL MATURE PEOPLE HERE. IF YOU DON&#39;T AGREE WITH SOMEONE&#39;S OPINON DISCUS IT IN A MATURE FASHION
my opinion on the war is probably similar to the rest of the posts. I hate it&#33; War in my mind is evil and wrong. People die and are injured and it ruins countrys&#39; economies. War in general is just no good. I am comparing the war in Iraq to all war. It&#39;s a mistake and always will be. :angry: [/b][/quote]
There was no flaming. Just peaceful debating. And by peaceful I mean, rule-abiding.

[Ryan]

I would ahve to admit that at the beginning i was all for the war. But now I really don&#39;t support the americans and wish it would just come to an end, but obviously that isn&#39;t any easy thing to do. My only question in this whole issue is, when the UN was doing inspections for weapons of mass destruction, why did the irai&#39;s not allow the UN to go into certain areas at times then later on allow them to go and search. If you ask me this is a classic example of the Iraqi&#39;s trying to pull some kind of BS.

[Shade]

Regardless of what the UN did or didn&#39;t find, the point&#39;s moot. We should have never gone to war regardless. We launched a first strike initiative against a third world nation because we were afraid of them. There is nothing more cowardly than that. What if we had used similar policies in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Likely many of the world powers wouldn&#39;t exist today, or would be a shadow of their current power. War should never be taken so lightly, its a last resort. Many americans have become so terrified that they think we were justified in killing civilians and other Iraqis because of our fear, and that&#39;s bullshit. This first strike policy will ruin us, and should we continue it I can only hope we don&#39;t take out too many other countries along the way. I fear for those who support it, which is one of my main gripes with Kerry.

[Boo]

good in some ways, bad in others

[Mark]

What pisses me off is that Bush keeps saying Kerry flip-flops over the war. He says Kerry voted to go to war, then he voted against the &#036;88B.
Of course Kerry voted to go to war, Bush lied to all of congress that he was positive Iraq had WMDs. If there&#39;s anything Kerry flip-flopped on, it was trusting the president, then losing trust in him.

[J-Flex]

i wish that Bush will be elected again,...if kerry becomes president he will remove all troops from there and leaves iraq with terrorists who want to rule the country and make it a radical moslim country like iran,afghanistan etc.

[Link04]

You cannot eliminate terrorism by military action. Bush has no clue what he&#39;s gotten himself into by deeming this "war" on terrorism "winnable." If he gets re-elected he will only plunge the nation further into the black oblivion of debt we&#39;re already starting to see. Terrorism does not only exist in the Middle East, but rather Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and in our own backyard. You cannot eliminate it by force, more people will only spring up against us.

[Todd]

Originally posted by J-Flex@Sep 29 2004, 02:44 PM
i wish that Bush will be elected again,...if kerry becomes president he will remove all troops from there and leaves iraq with terrorists who want to rule the country and make it a radical moslim country like iran,afghanistan etc.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire.

[J-Flex]

Originally posted by Todd+Sep 29 2004, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Sep 29 2004, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--J-Flex@Sep 29 2004, 02:44 PM
i wish that Bush will be elected again,...if kerry becomes president he will remove all troops from there and leaves iraq with terrorists who want to rule the country and make it a radical moslim country like iran,afghanistan etc.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire. [/b][/quote]
Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire.

you know what first pissed off them? first it was palestina matter that usa supported israel,..ow and osama was pissed that americans were in saudi arabia first so he planned attack on us ships....
lets see hmmm o remeber the french hostiges? was that also the present of americans?or support of the americans? it was because of french goverment that didnt allow religious elements at school...
i wont be suprised if they take hostages next time for microsoft because of their dominating position...
how far do you want to accept terrorists requests?

[Link04]

Originally posted by Link04@Sep 29 2004, 07:52 PM
You cannot eliminate terrorism by military action. Bush has no clue what he&#39;s gotten himself into by deeming this "war" on terrorism "winnable." If he gets re-elected he will only plunge the nation further into the black oblivion of debt we&#39;re already starting to see. Terrorism does not only exist in the Middle East, but rather Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and in our own backyard. You cannot eliminate it by force, more people will only spring up against us.
Jesus....listen to what I said before^

[J-Flex]

Originally posted by Link04+Sep 29 2004, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Sep 29 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Sep 29 2004, 07:52 PM
You cannot eliminate terrorism by military action.* Bush has no clue what he&#39;s gotten himself into by deeming this "war" on terrorism "winnable."* If he gets re-elected he will only plunge the nation further into the black oblivion of debt we&#39;re already starting to see.* Terrorism does not only exist in the Middle East, but rather Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and in our own backyard.* You cannot eliminate it by force, more people will only spring up against us.
Jesus....listen to what I said before^ [/b][/quote]
ok
by peace?before this war i think american thought the world is in peace and thats why 9/11 happend...
so you suggest we should not do anything about it and just gasp when more buildings go down...

[htep.fan]

9/11/01. In Bush&#39;s regime. Why not in Clinton&#39;s?

And suppose that what you are saying is right. That war on terror is something that God wants. Then why is it so f***** up? Osama is still on the loose after Afghanistan&#39;s campaign, and that country is still screwed, and Iraq&#39;s war was a complete mistake (yeah Saddam was a bas tard, but you weren&#39;t looking to free Iraq, you were looking for the imaginary WMD), and people in both countries like that they aren&#39;t under tyranny but hate that you are still there...

[Link04]

Originally posted by J-Flex+Sep 29 2004, 08:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J-Flex @ Sep 29 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Link04@Sep 29 2004, 08:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Sep 29 2004, 07:52 PM
You cannot eliminate terrorism by military action. Bush has no clue what he&#39;s gotten himself into by deeming this "war" on terrorism "winnable." If he gets re-elected he will only plunge the nation further into the black oblivion of debt we&#39;re already starting to see. Terrorism does not only exist in the Middle East, but rather Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and in our own backyard. You cannot eliminate it by force, more people will only spring up against us.
Jesus....listen to what I said before^
ok
by peace?before this war i think american thought the world is in peace and thats why 9/11 happend...
so you suggest we should not do anything about it and just gasp when more buildings go down... [/b][/quote]
No, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth. Terrorism can be eliminated by education and tolerance. This is a two way street, one that should be improved on our side and theirs. With the "war" on terror, the best defense ISN&#39;T a good offense...if we had better security in the first place, and if people kept their eyes and ears open for suspicious activity, we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about attacks, IF attempted.

[Mark]

That made no sense, htep.fan. And don&#39;t bring religion into this, that&#39;s ridiculous.

J-Flex: Get real. All you care about is saving America&#39;s asses. You couldn&#39;t care less that by going into this war in Iraq fueled by fabrication, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by stray missiles, random bombings, and gunfire at the hands of American and coalition troops. Plus, you&#39;ve set off a rash of Muslim extremists who suicide bomb busy city streets every day. This war should not have happened.

Let me spell it out for you;

-- THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
-- SADDAM DID NOT PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA (thus, my first point).

I agree that Saddam should&#39;ve been removed, but that could&#39;ve easily been a UN thing. The US went in there because they knew they wouldn&#39;t get lots of oil if the UN went in.

Want to protect America, stop invading Muslim-based countries with no evidence that they&#39;re going to hurt you. Pre-emptive strikes are ridiculous. You&#39;re only pissing them off more. Protect your borders, don&#39;t kill everyone over mass-paranoia.

Funny how this could&#39;ve all been avoided. :rolleyes:

[Link04]

Originally posted by Mark@Sep 29 2004, 09:07 PM
That made no sense, htep.fan. And don&#39;t bring religion into this, that&#39;s ridiculous.

J-Flex: Get real. All you care about is saving America&#39;s asses. You couldn&#39;t care less that by going into this war in Iraq fueled by fabrication, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by stray missiles, random bombings, and gunfire at the hands of American and coalition troops. Plus, you&#39;ve set off a rash of Muslim extremists who suicide bomb busy city streets every day. This war should not have happened.

Let me spell it out for you;

-- THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
-- SADDAM DID NOT PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA (thus, my first point).

I agree that Saddam should&#39;ve been removed, but that could&#39;ve easily been a UN thing. The US went in there because they knew they wouldn&#39;t get lots of oil if the UN went in.

Want to protect America, stop invading Muslim-based countries with no evidence that they&#39;re going to hurt you. Pre-emptive strikes are ridiculous. You&#39;re only pissing them off more. Protect your borders, don&#39;t kill everyone over mass-paranoia.

Funny how this could&#39;ve all been avoided. :rolleyes:
Indeed.

"You will only truely feel safe when everyone else is dead" should not be the philosophy of the government. And what Mark pointed out it why I keep putting quotes around "war." I wouldn&#39;t even call it a war; more of a crusade based on false pretenses.

[htep.fan]

Nevermind what I write then, I just suck writing on English.....

And I was using the God phrase just to make clear my point......and it didn&#39;t worked.....

And I completely agree with you.

Nevermind.....

[J-Flex]

hehehe if i didnt had homework i could have replayed quicker but well i am doing my best :)

back on subject......



9/11/01. In Bush&#39;s regime. Why not in Clinton&#39;s?

do you know how long the operation was planned before they made their strike?


Terrorism can be eliminated by education and tolerance.

maybe you should be elected as the new president and see what you reach with your theory...


You couldn&#39;t care less that by going into this war in Iraq fueled by fabrication, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by stray missiles, random bombings, and gunfire at the hands of American and coalition troops.

in a war there are always victims and mistakes,...dont tell me that american troops are aiming with purpise on iraqis.
and you must understand 1 thing very well
these extremist moslims are not iraqis&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
these came from other regions Al Zarqaui is from jordan


-- THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
yup because they are already in hands of al-qaida the biggest shock is yet to come....and it wont take much longer....

-- SADDAM DID NOT PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA (thus, my first point).

I agree that Saddam should&#39;ve been removed, but that could&#39;ve easily been a UN thing.
dream on with the UN thing besides when he gives up his chair his son Uday (the raper)then i wish in that case saddam there....


"You will only truely feel safe when everyone else is dead" should not be the philosophy of the government.
agreed but humans filosofie seem to be "kill to get your goal"

[Mark]

You couldn&#39;t care less that by going into this war in Iraq fueled by fabrication, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by stray missiles, random bombings, and gunfire at the hands of American and coalition troops.

in a war there are always victims and mistakes,...dont tell me that american troops are aiming with purpise on iraqis.
and you must understand 1 thing very well
these extremist moslims are not iraqis&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
these came from other regions Al Zarqaui is from jordan.
I didn&#39;t say the extreme muslims were Iraqis.

And there shouldn&#39;t have been a war in the first place.


-- THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
yup because they are already in hands of al-qaida the biggest shock is yet to come....and it wont take much longer....
Prove it.


-- SADDAM DID NOT PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA (thus, my first point). I agree that Saddam should&#39;ve been removed, but that could&#39;ve easily been a UN thing.

dream on with the UN thing besides when he gives up his chair his son Uday (the raper)then i wish in that case saddam there....

And I&#39;m sure you know all about the UNs plans. They took out Milosevic, why not Hussein and his sons?

I swear...

[Shade]

J-Flex, you need to work on your typing skills. I can hardly read some of your posts, which makes responding to them even more difficult.


maybe you should be elected as the new president and see what you reach with your theory...

Or maybe you could stop being a smart ass and listen to the points that others bring up. Or maybe you could look at history and realize in situations like say the Cuban Missile Crisis, where our President could have easily assaulted Cuba and brought on possibly another World War, and no one would have even blinked, instead chose to use the path of diplomacy and subtle pressure, and thus avoided such an outcome. Do you really think we&#39;re winning over the hearts of the Iraqis by bombing their country and killing their people?

[J-Flex]

About the weapons neither me nor you can prove it but its a matter of time which deicides who is right...

our points seem to be clear
you believe saddam would be cought easly. i dont believe in that , you cant compare saddam and milosovic,..milosovic didnt even resist...sadddam made clones of him self and stayed in a hole till they took him....
so now lets imagine your way.....iraqi army is there UN tries to get in to get him.....saddam refuses to take over and war will come and same thing what now happend would happen.....saddam maybe taken then dead or alive.....and extremists strike on UN troops like they did before to the UN embassy in Bagdad.
so i dont think the war would be avoided there only the target for the terrorist would be spread and same people would be victims.
i am saying saddam wouldnt give up because i lived there and i know his policy and how he managed his years there..
didnt US+UN warn iraq before they started the war?



Do you really think we&#39;re winning over the hearts of the Iraqis by bombing their country and killing their people?
no but us is trying to do it over ground and when they dont have a choice they use miscles, at least thats what i hope is going on....
you win their hearts when there is a stable stiuation and as long as these terrorist are there there won&#39;t be a stablized situation.

[Today After Tomorrow]

Terrorisim against the United States can&#39;t be stopped when the President of the United States is apart of it.

And if anyone actually thinks the WMD&#39;s do exist you&#39;re absolutly ridiculous. Although I wouldn&#39;t put it past George Bush and the Republicans to fake a "we found WMD&#39;s in Iraq&#33;" before the election. If you think about it it&#39;s a perfect plan to win.

[coheedandcambria369]

Originally posted by J-Flex@Sep 29 2004, 07:40 PM
US+UN warn iraq before they started the war?

Yes, before the Gulf war I think

Well, I am kinda for the war, cause we are trying to capture and kill the people responsible for 9/11. If we didnt capture Saddam, and all those other whatever Taliban people, we would probably still have attacks coming to the US. I think we should capture Osama, who I hate, just for hiding in stupid caves, and get rid of the first 20 of the people on Bush&#39;s hit list (lmao) and retreat. This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people. I dont like the killing of soldiers, unless the ones video taping the beheadings... Those truely disgrace me.

This is my view and my dad&#39;s view on the war

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by coheedandcambria369@Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM

Well, I am kinda for the war, cause we are trying to capture and kill the people responsible for 9/11. If we didnt capture Saddam, and all those other whatever Taliban people, we would probably still have attacks coming to the US. I think we should capture Osama, who I hate, just for hiding in stupid caves, and get rid of the first 20 of the people on Bush&#39;s hit list (lmao) and retreat. This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people. I dont like the killing of soldiers, unless the ones video taping the beheadings... Those truely disgrace me.

This is my view and my dad&#39;s view on the war
There&#39;s a problem with that statement - Saddam had absolutly NOTHING to do with 9/11. So if we&#39;re trying to capture the people responsible then why are we in Iraq? We&#39;re in Iraq because George Bush doesn&#39;t really want to capture Al Queda. He doesn&#39;t care about those supposed "terrorists". He cares about oil and trying to make the US look like even more of a "power house" then it already is. If he really cared about stopping terrorisim he&#39;d try to do a little more here, at home, in America. For less than half of the &#036;200 billion spent so far in Iraq, George Bush could have funded:

1. &#036;7.5 billion to make our ports safe.

2. &#036;2 billion for improved cargo security.

3. &#036;10 billion to protect American commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles.

4. &#036;5 billion for state of the art baggage screening machines.

5. &#036;7 billion for 100,000 new police officers.

6. &#036;30.5 billion to safeguard nuclear material.

If you would like to check the facts:
1. US Government Accounting Report, 1/1/04
2. Senate Government Affairs Committee, 3/20/03
3. Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/03
4. The Manchester Union Leader, 7/23/04
5. Congressional Research Service, 4/6/03
6. Nuclear Threat Initiative, Harvard University, 3/03

"George Bush: Wrong Priorities. Dangerous Choices."

I&#39;m praying George Bush gets asked some serious questions at the debate. Not stupid crap coming from Bill O&#39;Reilly. BILL O&#39;REILLY from FOX NEWS interviews George Bush, claims he was able to ask any questions he wanted to, and says we should respect George Bush for allowing that. For fuck&#39;s sake, he&#39;s the President of the United States and it&#39;s one month untill the election - He should be being asked any questions people want. It shouldn&#39;t be some special thing when it happens. And the fact that it&#39;s coming from FOX news isn&#39;t much to respect anyway. Go on The Daily Show, George, and let Jon Stewert talk to you for 10 minutes. THEN you&#39;ll get some respect. Back to the Bill O&#39;Reilly interview: The look on George Bush&#39;s face after being asked if he got special treatment in the Texas Air National Guard really pisses me off. The fact that he tells straight out lies to millions of viewers gets on my nerves. "No. If I did I wasn&#39;t aware of it." Bullshit. Go the fuck back to Texas.

One more month....

[Link04]

Originally posted by coheedandcambria369@Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM
This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people.
That just set off something in my mind as wrong....we&#39;re eliminating those who don&#39;t agree with us, not just what you call the "bad" people.

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by Link04+Sep 30 2004, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Sep 30 2004, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--coheedandcambria369@Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM
This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people.
That just set off something in my mind as wrong....we&#39;re eliminating those who don&#39;t agree with us, not just what you call the "bad" people. [/b][/quote]
I know you have your choices and beliefs on which presidential canidate to vote for but it&#39;s very different this year. George W. Bush is president. We need to get him out of office no matter what it takes. So instead of throwing your vote away on Ralph Nader(face it, he&#39;s not going to win, ever, it&#39;s a waste of a vote) vote for Kerry and help get someone better into office.

[Shade]

It is truly amazing to me just how successful the Bush administration was in brainwashing the American people into believing Iraq and Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Truly astounding.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Sep 30 2004, 08:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Sep 30 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Link04@Sep 30 2004, 07:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--coheedandcambria369@Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM
This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people.
That just set off something in my mind as wrong....we&#39;re eliminating those who don&#39;t agree with us, not just what you call the "bad" people.
I know you have your choices and beliefs on which presidential canidate to vote for but it&#39;s very different this year. George W. Bush is president. We need to get him out of office no matter what it takes. So instead of throwing your vote away on Ralph Nader(face it, he&#39;s not going to win, ever, it&#39;s a waste of a vote) vote for Kerry and help get someone better into office. [/b][/quote]
Hah. Interesting.


Please tell me how voting for Nader is a waste of a vote, when I see him as the best candidate for the presidency? The only people who are wasting their votes are the ones who support Nader but vote for "the lesser of two evils", a.k.a. John Kerry. The American media has painted this picture in your mind that this election is Bush vs. Kerry, Republican vs. Democrat, and conservative vs. liberal. This is not the only way to look at things. This election is corporate backed party vs. corporate backed party. Take a WILD guess who you think is going to win given that scenario? Nader is your change, your way out from all of this. Kerry and Bush are nothing more than party puppets; their rectums being violated by the oily hands of Halliburton, Enron, or whatever other corporation sponsors them. Do you honestly think John Kerry is going to change any of this? No, of course not. He&#39;s a corporate backed politician just as Bush is. If Kerry or Bush win this election, whatever corporation that supported them will be paid back by what will most likely be tax exemption at YOUR expense. Like I said in the other thread, people all throughout history have gone into battles knowing they cannot/will not win. That, however, doesn&#39;t mean it hasn&#39;t paved the way for ultimate victory in the end. If we do not do anything to change what is in place, how can we ask for changes? What&#39;s the purpose of being politically aware if you&#39;re going to waste your vote on someone who ISN&#39;T who you want to be president? If Nader gets more votes steadily, he will make a louder noise, and gain more popularity, to the point where the government won&#39;t be able to avoid/ignore him any longer. This thing is bigger than one election...it sets the tone for how American politics are carried out, and the corrupt manner in which they&#39;re being done. You&#39;ll say the same thing next election when it comes time to vote again. I want Nader in office, whether it&#39;s this election, or ten elections later; however long it takes for the people of this country to realize they have more than two similar options. And damnit, I&#39;m going to excersise that option.

[Mark]

Kerry needs a one-liner for this debate., Why not "You lied."?

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by coheedandcambria369@ Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM
Well, I am kinda for the war, cause we are trying to capture and kill the people responsible for 9/11.

If what we want is to capture the people responsible for 9/11, then Iraq was the wrong place to go to. There is NO connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. In fact, bin Laden and Saddam can&#39;t even stand each other. One wants to create a fundamentalist Islamic state, and the other wants secularism for Iraq. Under Saddam, Christianity and Judaism have thrived in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden would never have tolerated this. Lumping Saddam and bin Laden together is about as wrong and misjudged as it can be. The entire Bush administration is barking up the wrong tree.

- No WMD in Iraq.
- No connection with 9/11.
- No reason to invade Iraq.

Period.

[Anthony.]

Originally posted by Mark@Sep 30 2004, 09:36 PM
Kerry needs a one-liner for this debate., Why not "You lied."?
Too easy.

[Ander]

If Kerry is elected and ####s up the next 4 years, he&#39;ll be caught red handed...

With Heinz ketchup all over his fingers. :lol:

[Mark]

Originally posted by Avenger+Sep 30 2004, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Avenger @ Sep 30 2004, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Sep 30 2004, 09:36 PM
Kerry needs a one-liner for this debate., Why not "You lied."?
Too easy. [/b][/quote]
I think it&#39;d be great. "You lied about weapons of mass destruction. You lied when you said you would think this war out carefully. You lied when you said war was a last resort. You lied about links between Saddam and 9/11. You lied&#33;"

I can totally see that as newspaper headlines and tv recap headlines.

Ander: BOO&#33; :lol:

[erasethepain]

Bush has done more destructive than all of the presiden&#39;ts combined. Yet, you want to electe him into office? Let&#39;s see how far "unity" gets us when every nation in this world has plans of blowing us away. It&#39;s easy to sit behind a desk and make everyone else&#39;s decisions. Bush isn&#39;t affected at all. I would like to see him go over there and fight for us.

Bush needs to pull his head out of his ass. I don&#39;t want Bush to run another four years because I don&#39;t want to know what country we will try to female dog around next. What makes you think he&#39;s going to stop with Iraq?

It&#39;s one thing to fight for freedom, but it&#39;s another to invade another nation just because you think they "might" have weapons. Who in the flyin #### gave us the right to be the only country with weapons like these?

[Today After Tomorrow]

Originally posted by Link04+Sep 30 2004, 08:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Sep 30 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Today After Tomorrow@Sep 30 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by -Link04@Sep 30 2004, 07:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--coheedandcambria369@Sep 30 2004, 04:43 AM
This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people.
That just set off something in my mind as wrong....we&#39;re eliminating those who don&#39;t agree with us, not just what you call the "bad" people.
I know you have your choices and beliefs on which presidential canidate to vote for but it&#39;s very different this year. George W. Bush is president. We need to get him out of office no matter what it takes. So instead of throwing your vote away on Ralph Nader(face it, he&#39;s not going to win, ever, it&#39;s a waste of a vote) vote for Kerry and help get someone better into office.
Hah. Interesting.


Please tell me how voting for Nader is a waste of a vote, when I see him as the best candidate for the presidency? The only people who are wasting their votes are the ones who support Nader but vote for "the lesser of two evils", a.k.a. John Kerry. The American media has painted this picture in your mind that this election is Bush vs. Kerry, Republican vs. Democrat, and conservative vs. liberal. This is not the only way to look at things. This election is corporate backed party vs. corporate backed party. Take a WILD guess who you think is going to win given that scenario? Nader is your change, your way out from all of this. Kerry and Bush are nothing more than party puppets; their rectums being violated by the oily hands of Halliburton, Enron, or whatever other corporation sponsors them. Do you honestly think John Kerry is going to change any of this? No, of course not. He&#39;s a corporate backed politician just as Bush is. If Kerry or Bush win this election, whatever corporation that supported them will be paid back by what will most likely be tax exemption at YOUR expense. Like I said in the other thread, people all throughout history have gone into battles knowing they cannot/will not win. That, however, doesn&#39;t mean it hasn&#39;t paved the way for ultimate victory in the end. If we do not do anything to change what is in place, how can we ask for changes? What&#39;s the purpose of being politically aware if you&#39;re going to waste your vote on someone who ISN&#39;T who you want to be president? If Nader gets more votes steadily, he will make a louder noise, and gain more popularity, to the point where the government won&#39;t be able to avoid/ignore him any longer. This thing is bigger than one election...it sets the tone for how American politics are carried out, and the corrupt manner in which they&#39;re being done. You&#39;ll say the same thing next election when it comes time to vote again. I want Nader in office, whether it&#39;s this election, or ten elections later; however long it takes for the people of this country to realize they have more than two similar options. And damnit, I&#39;m going to excersise that option. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t really have a problem with Nader. However, I don&#39;t believe he even has any plan of what to do in Iraq even if he was elected. Not having a plan in Iraq ain&#39;t gonna get you elected.

I don&#39;t believe John Kerry is the lesser of two evils(I don&#39;t believe he is evil at all) and I defidently don&#39;t think people who support Nader but will vote for Kerry are throwing their votes away. They&#39;re being honest with themselves. This is seriously the most important election ever. It is happening NOW. I don&#39;t think voting for Nader in a chance to get him elected 20 years from now is a good idea. Voting for John Kerry gets George Bush out of office and that&#39;s what we need NOW. Ralph Nader is not going to win this election, or any election, ever. At least not for a pretty long time. No third party canidate will. If this wasn&#39;t such an important election I would see no problem with voting for Ralph Nader or any other third party canidate. But with the degree of this election I think it&#39;s truely much wiser to vote for Kerry and get Bush out of office.

What huge company like Halliburton or Enron sponsors John Kerry? I don&#39;t believe he is a corporate backed politician and I don&#39;t recall reading any proof from you. Probably because you haven&#39;t supplied any. I, nor will 98% of Americans have to pay extra taxes to pay back some corporate sponsor. You have not supplied any facts to back all of these accusations against Kerry. Maybe you&#39;re the one with a false image painted into your mind about Democrats? It seems that way to me so far.

Oh, and just for the record 10 elections from now will be 40 years. Ralph Nader will probably be dead in 40 years so good luck getting him in office. :chemist:

[Link04]

Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Oct 1 2004, 04:14 AM
I don&#39;t really have a problem with Nader. However, I don&#39;t believe he even has any plan of what to do in Iraq even if he was elected. Not having a plan in Iraq ain&#39;t gonna get you elected.

I don&#39;t believe John Kerry is the lesser of two evils(I don&#39;t believe he is evil at all) and I defidently don&#39;t think people who support Nader but will vote for Kerry are throwing their votes away. They&#39;re being honest with themselves. This is seriously the most important election ever. It is happening NOW. I don&#39;t think voting for Nader in a chance to get him elected 20 years from now is a good idea. Voting for John Kerry gets George Bush out of office and that&#39;s what we need NOW. Ralph Nader is not going to win this election, or any election, ever. At least not for a pretty long time. No third party canidate will. If this wasn&#39;t such an important election I would see no problem with voting for Ralph Nader or any other third party canidate. But with the degree of this election I think it&#39;s truely much wiser to vote for Kerry and get Bush out of office.

What huge company like Halliburton or Enron sponsors John Kerry? I don&#39;t believe he is a corporate backed politician and I don&#39;t recall reading any proof from you. Probably because you haven&#39;t supplied any. I, nor will 98% of Americans have to pay extra taxes to pay back some corporate sponsor. You have not supplied any facts to back all of these accusations against Kerry. Maybe you&#39;re the one with a false image painted into your mind about Democrats? It seems that way to me so far.

Oh, and just for the record 10 elections from now will be 40 years. Ralph Nader will probably be dead in 40 years so good luck getting him in office. :chemist:
And what are the plans of Bush and Kerry to eventually exit Iraq? I&#39;ve heard nothing but talk. You&#39;re entitled to your opinions, and I&#39;m entitled to mine. I see what you&#39;re saying calling this the most important election ever, but of course it is; it&#39;s the one going on now. Past elections mean nothing to you, nor do future elections. Future elections mean something to me, and that&#39;s why I would vote for Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader most likely won&#39;t win this election, but saying he will never win any election means nothing to me; it&#39;s only your opinion, and only time will prove it true or untrue. What you brought up about 3rd part candidates is partially WHY I&#39;d vote for Ralph Nader; a republic deserves more than two popular choices. You&#39;re absolutely kidding yourself if you think Bush has corporate ties and Kerry does NOT (http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/10308.php)

And just for the record, it&#39;s called hyperbole :rolleyes: