Senator Kerry

[BigBank_Hank]

It seems that the Senator for Mass. is can never seem to make up his mind. Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118142,00.html) The best part about this whole thing is he's quoted as saying: I threw away my medals and 8 or 9 of them, now he says I never said medals I said ribbons. This guy could be a bigger phony than Clinton.

Here's my favorite part of the whole thing:


"Back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable. ... The U.S. Navy pamphlet calls them medals, we referred to them as the symbols, they were representing medals, ribbons."


And this is far from the first incident where he done this sort of thing. He did the same thing last week.

[muchspl2]

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Image Resized
[img]http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/titlebar.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/titlebar.gif')

[BigBank_Hank]

muchspl2 there are quite a few people who will do just that. Some of which are in my family and we argue about that regally, I just can't understand it.

[Rat Faced]

Kerry has 3 Purple Hearts...


Have they found anyone that met Bush in the National Guard yet?

Its bad enough that he pulled strings to get into a non combat unit to AVOID going to Vietnam, but to not even turn up for that makes him lower than shit in my book...


Thats not counting the actual intense dislike i have for the "man" (used in the broadest possible terms) for his policies....

[muchspl2]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 April 2004 - 16:34
muchspl2 there are quite a few people who will do just that. Some of which are in my family and we argue about that regally, I just can't understand it.
I not political, but look at all these bullshit laws we have
FCC crackdown link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25605-2004Apr19.html)
patariot act link (http://google.com)
among the greatest problems
false info on the wmd, could go on forever but don't want to debate it
neither of us will change anyone minds

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 April 2004 - 16:50
Kerry has 3 Purple Hearts...


Have they found anyone that met Bush in the National Guard yet?

Its bad enough that he pulled strings to get into a non combat unit to AVOID going to Vietnam, but to not even turn up for that makes him lower than shit in my book...


Thats not counting the actual intense dislike i have for the "man" (used in the broadest possible terms) for his policies....
Rat I knew that was coming.

President Bush's military record isn't in question here.

What is in question is that John Kerry was quoted as saying one thing, then he bolded lies to the American public by saying something else. The Kerry campaign cried for the Bush administratration to release his records and they complied, Senator Kerry was also quoted saying that he wasn&#39;t going to do that either <_<

[clocker]

Rat I knew that was coming
As well you should...why is this such a big issue with Bush supporters anyway?

President Bush&#39;s military record isn&#39;t in question here.
What military record?
Inconsistencies as to their ultimate disbursal aside, Kerry at least HAD some medals.
That is beyond dispute...



What is in question is that John Kerry was quoted as saying one thing, then he bolded lies to the American public by saying something else. The Kerry campaign cried for the Bush administratration to release his records and they complied, Senator Kerry was also quoted saying that he wasn&#39;t going to do that either
Hmmm...says he&#39;ll do one thing and then does another....now who does that remind me of?

[vidcc]

When i cast my vote it won&#39;t have anything to do with who served where or didn&#39;t as the case may be.
it will be for the person that i think will run the country in the most beneficial manner. It wouldn&#39;t be a surprise if the victor goes back on his word after but i will remember that in the next election.
I want to know what the candidate will do to help with important things such as healthcare, the enviroment, employment and education (the list goes on).....i care not if he called his medals ribbons or if he didn&#39;t turn up to earn any in the first place.
is it any wonder the rest of the world views us as they do when so much importance is placed on publicity for trivial items.
i do enjoy funny stories about both candidates, however i wouldn&#39;t let mudslinging influence my choice....
i would have taken a lighter view of this if it was in the lounge.

[BigBank_Hank]

Clocker just imagine if Bush was to go out and say what Kerry did today, then imagine the uproar it would have caused in the media.

Why its such a big deal is because he continues to be so inconstant on issues its laughable. Here&#39;s my favorite of all time:

I voted for the 87 million dollar deal before I voted against it

And so what Kerry earned some medal in Vietnam. By winning medals does that qualify to be President of the US? Apparently he seems to think so.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 April 2004 - 21:40


And so what Kerry earned some medal in Vietnam. By winning medals does that qualify to be President of the US? Apparently he seems to think so.
Hmmm. does being a drunken, preppy frat boy qualify one to be President?

Oh wait, yes it does.

[BigBank_Hank]

He may have been a "drunken frat boy" as you say, but that isn&#39;t what his campaign is based on. On the other hand Kerry loves to point out that he served in Vietnam over and over again.

[j2k4]

A few things I find relevant here:

John Kerry complains ad nauseum that the Bush campaign has made an issue out of Kerry&#39;s service in Viet Nam.

What&#39;s true is that his military record probably wouldn&#39;t be an issue at all if he himself hadn&#39;t chosen to remind us of it every five minutes; this trait started as soon as he returned from Viet Nam-he made sure every fucking thing he did was in front of a camera or recorded somehow for posterity, because his ego demanded it.

Now it biting him south of his belt-line; today he is getting hammered on the "medal" issue, not by Bushes campaign, but by ABC NEWS, because he lied about the whole thing to Peter Jennings in an interview, and a cardinal rule of the American liberal press is that you don&#39;t screw around with a Big-Three news anchor.

Peter Jennings is treating John "Effing" Kerry to a political horse-fucking of the first order, which could have the effect of clearing the decks for another candidate (see below).

To the extent that Bushes service record is an issue is a result of Kerry&#39;s insistance that his war record trumps Dubya&#39;s, therefore he&#39;s better suited to deal with terrorists, because combat experience is so important for a Commander-in-Chief.

What has been overlooked are Kerry&#39;s statements from 1992 in defense of Bill Clinton&#39;s status as a draft-dodger; he said at that time that the whole issue of military service was overblown, and mattered not in the least.

I will make here a prediction.....nay, make that two predictions:

1. John Kerry is road kill.

Now, not later-NOW.

Stick a fork in him, &#39;cuz he is done.

2. If the Dems decide to throw him over (excellent chance, in light of the above fact), and try to draft Saint Hillary to run instead, she will be the next Democrat casualty; Bush will beat her like a drum.

File this one, guys; DER PROGNOSTICATOR HAS SPOKEN&#33;&#33; :D

[Busyman]

I&#39;ll go on record and say that they are both boneheads.

Guess which bonehead I;m voting for though.

Keep in mind Bush is a shit for brains speaker as well.

He also has run the country ass-backwards.
Kerry is an idiot as well but he can&#39;t be as bad as Bush.

Bush supporters crack me up. You will blindly support an idiot and have the nerve to say he&#39;s great when it&#39;s plain as black and white that he&#39;s not.

Again I freely admit that the pool of choices is rather small.

I would like to see who Kerry&#39;s running mate is. (in case he&#39;s incapacitated) :lol: :lol:

[MalaDzen]

hey, just wanted to ask a quick question. I don&#39;t live in America so I don&#39;t know what Bush&#39;s policies/beliefs on certain matters are.

Is he an antiabortionist?? What about capital punishment or what are his governments policies on refugees...

Maybe this is not the place to ask, but I was just interested

thanks

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@27 April 2004 - 00:37
Keep in mind Bush is a shit for brains speaker as well.


Bush supporters crack me up. You will blindly support an idiot and have the nerve to say he&#39;s great when it&#39;s plain as black and white that he&#39;s not.


You may say what you like about Bushes abilities as a speaker, B; Eisenhower spoke in a pretty dense and one-note fashion, too.

Nobody could summon the nerve to refer to him as the "epitome of stupidity", however.

I do wish Bush knew the correct pronunciation of the word "nuclear", but as I remember, your Nobel-prize-winner Jimmy Carter had the same difficulty, plus the the ignoble problem of "lusting" in his heart, as well as an inordinate fear of rabbits (Hobbes, are you there? :) ).

BTW-Carter was (and still is) often referred to by a fawning media as one of the most intelligent men to ever hold the office.

Besides which, on a personal level, none of you has heard me say or contend that Bush is infallible; quite the contrary, I have many, many problems with him.

If anyone wants to quibble about my support of Dubya, I can also cynically blame that on Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle, and Jamie Gorelick for lowering the bar so far that I&#39;d accept less than stellar personal qualities or job performance in the Oval office. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MalaDzen@27 April 2004 - 03:35
I don&#39;t live in America so I don&#39;t know what Bush&#39;s policies/beliefs on certain matters are.

Is he an antiabortionist?? What about capital punishment or what are his governments policies on refugees...


Maladzen-

From what I&#39;ve seen of your posting so far, I think you can safely assume he takes positions opposite your own, at least on your first two questions. ;)

As to immigration, I&#39;m not so sure. :huh:

[clocker]

As soon as Cheney explains to Dubya what immigration is ,Bush wil be against that too.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@27 April 2004 - 06:30
As soon as Cheney explains to Dubya what immigration is ,Bush wil be against that too.
Morning, Clocker. :)

Seriously, you may be right. :lol:

In all actuality, Cheney might advise Bush why his doofus "hands-off" policy re: Mexico is, well...stupid.

BTW-I&#39;m sure, at some level, you and I could both be described as "drunken frat boys"; do you feel any less competent for having been?

Come on now, don&#39;t be facetious-I know how accomplished you actually are.

(Please excuse gratuitous use of old-fashioned conservative charm.)

[ilw]

Why was Bush chosen as the candidate for the Republican&#39;s all those years ago? He doesn&#39;t seem an obvious choice to me, i would think he would suffer badly in a debates with any reasonable accomplished politician and his public speeches aren&#39;t particularly impressive imo. I realise that being his father&#39;s son would ensure some votes, but surely not enough?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by ilw@27 April 2004 - 08:58
Why was Bush chosen as the candidate for the Republican&#39;s all those years ago? He doesn&#39;t seem an obvious choice to me, i would think he would suffer badly in a debates with any reasonable accomplished politician and his public speeches aren&#39;t particularly impressive imo. I realise that being his father&#39;s son would ensure some votes, but surely not enough?
...but that&#39;s a huge start in America.

Then the great American Hype machine begins.

It&#39;s the same with alot management within private industry.

All you have to do is carry yourself well and you are considered intelligent even though you are hiding the fact you are clueless.

Look at Bush and Gore in the debates.

Most said that Bush seemed more of the statesmen. Gore came off as an ass due to his facial expressions. Forget what was actually said in the debate <_< .

[Chevy]

Originally posted by Busyman@27 April 2004 - 13:25

Look at Bush and Gore in the debates.


Just reminded me about, and now I&#39;m going to download and re-watch that West Wing episode with the debates. :D


http://img57.photobucket.com/albums/v175/ChevyC/2WESas02debate.jpg


If only you had the real Bartlett over there&#33;

[MalaDzen]

j2k- I was actually interested to getting some FACTUAL information and no i do not know if he is a STRONG antiabortionist or what his immigration policies are.

We&#39;ve had a few debates on the war in Iraq in my philosophy class, and somehow our discussions lead to bitching about his views, so i just wanted to clarify some things.

AND just because I disagree with what he has done in Iraq and Israel doesnt mean i disagree with him on everything...

[Chevy]

@MalaDzen - Found this guide. (http://www.thekcrachannel.com/politics/2653073/detail.html) which is a basic summary of Bush policies/stances. No idea about the agenda of the source* though (me not being from the US (it&#39;s a US TV station&#39;s site)).


*edit- just read it -
Source of information: These issue statements were collected from the candidates Web sites and campaigns, from speeches and public statements, and news articles.

[MalaDzen]

Thanks Chevy ;) Appreciate it &#33;&#33;

[Chevy]

Originally posted by MalaDzen@27 April 2004 - 14:12
Thanks Chevy ;) Appreciate it &#33;&#33;
No problem - was interesting to me too to see it laid out like that. Remember though (it being statements from the candidate), that it&#39;s what he SAYS he supports not what he actually does* (would need a better source to sum up that).


*applies to any political organization although I guess on occasions it may tally

[MalaDzen]

thanks for the site again &#33;&#33; it gives me a good summary of their views on issues. I wonder how much of it Kerry would live up to if he became the President :lol:

He sounds like an angel compared to Bush :lol:

[Chevy]

From the same site: Compare Candidates On The Issues (http://www.thekcrachannel.com/politics/2653202/detail.html)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MalaDzen@27 April 2004 - 07:42
j2k- I was actually interested to getting some FACTUAL information and no i do not know if he is a STRONG antiabortionist or what his immigration policies are.

We&#39;ve had a few debates on the war in Iraq in my philosophy class, and somehow our discussions lead to bitching about his views, so i just wanted to clarify some things.

AND just because I disagree with what he has done in Iraq and Israel doesnt mean i disagree with him on everything...
I apologize for assuming you would be pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty, or pro-immigration, although by your subsequent posting I see that you think of Bush as the proximate opposite of an "angel"; in light of this, I&#39;m not sure what to think.

If you do not agree with his policies as re: these issues, I don&#39;t see how any "factual" presentation of his views might change your mind or be of any benefit to you.

Be aware that I am not choosing you off here, and am not presenting an attitude; I likewise do not wish to be on the receiving end, OK?

Just to be clear: My intent is a civil discourse.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@27 April 2004 - 08:25
Most said that Bush seemed more of the statesmen. Gore came off as an ass due to his facial expressions. Forget what was actually said in the debate <_< .
Everyone forgot what Al Bore said during the debates because we all fell asleep.

@MalaDzen: Kerry&#39;s stance on issues depends on who he is talking to. So today if he talking to Vietnam vets he&#39;s supports the war in Iraq and our troops, then tomorrow he talk to anti war groups and he calls the war a waste. So if he seems like an angel today, tomorrow he just might be the devil if its hot enough.

[j2k4]

I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.

To vote in a fashion that is totally devoid of reason or rationale, just to be rid of Bush?

Ever heard the phrase, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"?

Just the same-feel free: The election is Bushes to lose.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by muchspl2@26 April 2004 - 16:30
Image Resized
Image Resized
[img]http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/titlebar.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> (http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/titlebar.gif)
:rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.

To vote in a fashion that is totally devoid of reason or rationale, just to be rid of Bush?

Ever heard the phrase, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"?

Just the same-feel free: The election is Bushes to lose.
I think that.

Ive said before, and a lot of people all over Europe and The World appear to agree with me on this (hell even a lot of Americans)....

In my opinon; Bush is the most dangerous man in the world at this moment, and as long as he is (nominally) in charge, the USA will remain the greatest threat to world peace.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+27 April 2004 - 11:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 27 April 2004 - 11:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.

To vote in a fashion that is totally devoid of reason or rationale, just to be rid of Bush?

Ever heard the phrase, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"?

Just the same-feel free: The election is Bushes to lose.
I think that.

Ive said before, and a lot of people all over Europe and The World appear to agree with me on this (hell even a lot of Americans)....

In my opinon; Bush is the most dangerous man in the world at this moment, and as long as he is (nominally) in charge, the USA will remain the greatest threat to world peace. [/b][/quote]
Then I hope you will allow me to express, with the utmost respect for your opinion, my belief that your view is misplaced, Rat. :huh:

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.

To vote in a fashion that is totally devoid of reason or rationale, just to be rid of Bush?

Ever heard the phrase, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"?

Just the same-feel free: The election is Bushes to lose.
This is a common phenomenon. By the mid 90s the UK population would have voted for performing seals in order to get rid of the Conservatives (wait a minute.... :( doh&#33;&#33;)

Even by the second term I frequently heard people say "I don&#39;t like Blair, but at least he isn&#39;t a Conservative". Next year the UK will probably be faced with a choice between Blair or Howard. Howard is, put simply, the ghastlier. The political cartoons have him resplendant with bat wings hanging upside down and his voice echos down through the decades decrying all who disagreed with Thatcher. *shiver* - need some strong apple just thinking about it.

Know very little about Kerry and his medals. I presume he was in Vietnam and did acquit himself reasonably well. As I gather he joined the early 70s protest against the war in that country and was pleased that the US withdrew from same shortly afterwards. Presumably, Bush wholeheartedly supported the war and was desperately disappointed at its end because he was very keen to go over and show those rascals a thing or two.

It springs to mind that perhaps this not an area of debate that Bush&#39;s campaign would have chosen to fight over. I take it this is not his doing, but is actually a bit media help he wished had stayed at home?

A more suspicious mind would suggest that it was in fact a Democrat that kept raising these issues on the pretext that there was a "problem" here - but not me. B)

[clocker]

J2,

I can think of no President in recent history ( recent = my lifetime, I suppose), who has so quickly and drastically reduced America&#39;s status in the world as Bush has.

IMO he is a complete and utter disaster as a player on the world stage as well as the domestic.

Given that I can see not one redeeming feature of his past administration, then yes, I suppose you are correct in your assessment, the fire would be preferable.

[Rat Faced]

Of course your entitled to your opinion j2...

On this one, you are in a minority (in global terms)...although most of the people in that minority are at least in your own country ;)

[Busyman]

Even Bush&#39;s tax cut were disasterous too everyone.....but the rich.

He said the cuts were to spur job growth. :lol: :lol:

Everyone knew it wouldn&#39;t work..

Cuts taxes while we are in big deficit
and funding a war...that he played the biggest part in getting us into

The man is ass backwards


The only thing, the onnnnly thing that Bush can credited with...and it would be in hindsight IF it works, would be bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Even if it&#39;s due to force or a bullshit reason, he will credited ....if it works. ;)

(and it may take another 20 years)

Other than that possible "future shock" event, he has no redeeming highlights to his term here.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker@27 April 2004 - 20:01
J2,

I can think of no President in recent history ( recent = my lifetime, I suppose), who has so quickly and drastically reduced America&#39;s status in the world as Bush has.

IMO he is a complete and utter disaster as a player on the world stage as well as the domestic.

Given that I can see not one redeeming feature of his past administration, then yes, I suppose you are correct in your assessment, the fire would be preferable.
Clocker I think that your wrong on this one. President Bush inherited a big time problem when he took over office from Clinton. Each and every time that Clinton got into some kind of personal scandal he would attempt to divert attention from that by lobbing cruise missiles at a country. Then to make it look good he would give some bullshit speech and talk in circles.


And just so you know in 1998 Senator Kerry hand wrote a note to Clinton stating that Saddam and his regime needed to be overthrown. So its not just this administration that wanted Saddam out, the only difference is this administrating had the balls to do something about it.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+27 April 2004 - 22:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 27 April 2004 - 22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@27 April 2004 - 20:01
J2,

I can think of no President in recent history ( recent = my lifetime, I suppose), who has so quickly and drastically reduced America&#39;s status in the world as Bush has.

IMO he is a complete and utter disaster as a player on the world stage as well as the domestic.

Given that I can see not one redeeming feature of his past administration, then yes, I suppose you are correct in your assessment, the fire would be preferable.
Clocker I think that your wrong on this one. President Bush inherited a big time problem when he took over office from Clinton. Each and every time that Clinton got into some kind of personal scandal he would attempt to divert attention from that by lobbing cruise missiles at a country. Then to make it look good he would give some bullshit speech and talk in circles.


And just so you know in 1998 Senator Kerry hand wrote a note to Clinton stating that Saddam and his regime needed to be overthrown. So its not just this administration that wanted Saddam out, the only difference is this administrating had the balls to do something about it. [/b][/quote]
...and didn&#39;t have the balls to tell us all the truth about why he was doing it.

That&#39;s called a lie btw.

You have a picture of a fictional soldier as your avatar but there are real soldiers giving their life for a lie.

Nice going. <_<

[BigBank_Hank]

Busy you still don&#39;t believe that the WMD&#39;s were ever there? What about the terror attacks of recent that were stopped where the terrorist were planning to use chemical weapons? Where do you think they got these weapons?

The character in my avatar is from a my favorite movie of all time and doesn&#39;t have anything to do with the current situation in Iraq.

The brave young men and women in our military know what they are getting into when they sign up. If they didn&#39;t believe in the cause they wouldn&#39;t sign up. No one if forced to go off to war its 100% volunteer.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@27 April 2004 - 22:49
Busy you still don&#39;t believe that the WMD&#39;s were ever there? What about the terror attacks of recent that were stopped where the terrorist were planning to use chemical weapons? Where do you think they got these weapons?
Explain?

[BigBank_Hank]

Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack. It was on the front page of CNN&#39;s website but I can&#39;t find a link for you ATM, but I&#39;ll keep looking.


Edit: Found it. Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118349,00.html)

[j2k4]

There are too many things to respond to here just now; I think I&#39;ll wait for some thoughts to coalesce before I post. :blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@27 April 2004 - 20:15

Clocker I think that your wrong on this one. President Bush inherited a big time problem when he took over office from Clinton.

Hank,
Every President inherits big time problems...it&#39;s the nature of the beast.
Just try to imagine the morass that Bush&#39;s successor will wade into.

Each and every time that Clinton got into some kind of personal scandal he would attempt to divert attention from that by lobbing cruise missiles at a country. Then to make it look good he would give some bullshit speech and talk in circles.
Oddly enough, Clinton was generaly liked and respected around the world.
Still is, actually.
Pretty galling, eh?

Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
And this proves what?
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.


There are too many things to respond to here just now; I think I&#39;ll wait for some thoughts to coalesce before I post.
Trying to channel Cheney, j2?

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.
Yeah, Bush must have fucked up big time for that to happen.

Oh, wait a minute...

:D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+28 April 2004 - 01:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 28 April 2004 - 01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.
Yeah, Bush must have fucked up big time for that to happen.

Oh, wait a minute...

:D[/b][/quote]
Actually, those of us old enough to remember Ronald Reagan are struck by the similarity of the level of hatred and polarization evoked by Bush.

Conservatives, amongst themselves (this is a secret, don&#39;t tell anybody) have the opinion that Bush (although he doesn&#39;t begin to approach Reagan&#39;s brand of Conservatism) is very clearly perceived as a threat to liberalism in America, vis a vis the fact they are so "exposed" in their efforts to unseat him.

The fact of his having co-opted certain issues (education, prescription drugs, etc.) and done so in the manner of your standard-grade liberal has the effect of depriving them of the Democrat establishment&#39;s bread-and-butter (witness the eye-popping vitriol exhibited by such liberal stalwarts as Edward Kennedy-he&#39;s scared&#33; :lol: ).

The media has gone off it&#39;s nut, too:

Witness the spanking ABC news is giving Kerry right now; it is happening because they are punishing him for lessening his viablity by making such a hash of this "medal" thing; it&#39;s not "much ado about nothing", otherwise they&#39;d be giving him a pass on it, as is/was their habit with Democrat candidates.

That is actually how things work in this country; the media exerts it&#39;s influence by ruining a candidate it deems unelectable, just in time to consider other prospects-and let&#39;s face it, all you Americans: Absent FOXNEWS, talk radio, the New York Post, and the Washington Times, the entire media package domestically is NOT Conservative.

The plain fact of the matter (as regards the upcoming election) is that Bush drives the Libs right up the fucking wall with the fear that a continuance of the Republican majority through the next election cycle will further cement their status as a retrograde party, and will render them as ineffective and feckless as the Republicans were for 40 years prior to the &#39;98 and &#39;02 mid-term elections.

Democrats fear nothing quite so much as being condemned to suffer the embarrassment of belonging to the political second-class, where their "message" (to the extent they can claim to have one) will die the horrible death it deserves.

They are not aided by their unexplainable aversion to re-assessing their message or methods, and if they fail to adapt to a different reality, they will gradually fade until their mere existence will come to signify triviality.

BTW-The above sentiment has been expressed by many, many Democrats; it is not a conservative rant against Liberalism, but a considered assessment of the real situation; the fact is, if the Democrats don&#39;t retrieve their party from the pervasive Liberal influence, they are toast&#33;

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker@28 April 2004 - 01:01

Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
And this proves what?
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.

What this proves is that the terror threat is real and is very dangerous. That fact that they were planning to use chemical weapons scares the shit out of me. What&#39;s even more freighting is estimates of how many were going to die.

So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?
this my friend is what&#39;s known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.

i have no doubt that saddam did have a certain amount of weapons at some point but not the amount that we have been told he had.
Here&#39;s a question. If Saddam had all these weapons and was such a threat, why didn&#39;t he use them to defend against the invasion ?. If a hostile force is telling you that they are going to invade (we gave him plenty of warning) your country what would you do ?

a) put your army on high alert and equip them with the best weapons you have

B) send all your weapons away or hide them in a hole in the middle of nowhere

Something just doesn&#39;t seem right.

I support our troops, may they all return home safely, and i am glad to see the back of Saddam, but i feel this war is more about oil than any other thing.
Bush told us Saddam had to go because of WMD...none were found, he does actually admit now that the intelligence was flawed ( i will give bush credit for not trying to cover up that one). To save face the war changed it&#39;s reason to being the fight to liberate the Iraqi people ( the jury is out as to if we made things better or worse).
We (our troops) went in. We can&#39;t change that, but why are you clinging to a reason that even Bush has admitted was based on flawed intelligence?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 April 2004 - 16:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 28 April 2004 - 16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@28 April 2004 - 01:01

Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
And this proves what?
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.

What this proves is that the terror threat is real and is very dangerous. That fact that they were planning to use chemical weapons scares the shit out of me. What&#39;s even more freighting is estimates of how many were going to die.

So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming? [/b][/quote]
As Al Queda hated Hussain as much as the USA (They were reportedly fighting alongside their allies The Kurds during the invasion, btw .... ie on the Side of the Coalition) its not very likely he gave them the weapons now is it?


There is no shortage of places in the world unfortunatly; where they could get hold of these, or even Nuclear, weapons. Its reportedly quite easy to get hold of a lot of Russian equipment, as an example.


J2k4,


Actually, those of us old enough to remember Ronald Reagan are struck by the similarity of the level of hatred and polarization evoked by Bush

Not internationally.

Reagan was good for a laugh mainly as he was obviously senile in his 2nd term, which although not funny in itself, came just after the release of an awful lot of comedy talk/satire shows from the USA calling the Russian Premier the same...

"Pot calling the Kettle Black" sort of thing.

He might have had few friends in places like Libya and other places that usually dont like the USA anyway, but he didnt cause the same distrust in his Allies...


Bush is unique in turning the Sympathy of a planet (less some very minor players) into the largest anti-US feelings worldwide ever, in less than 1.5 years.

He has not recovered any of that anti-US feeling in the following year, indeed he managed to make it even worse.


You really feel safer now?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@28 April 2004 - 11:15

You really feel safer now?
To the contrary, Rat; I fear I shall never feel safe again, though I attribute the fact to parties other than George Bush.

That you feel differently is clear.

Let me try to clarify something.

Bushes (and therefore the U.S.&#39;s) stated mission is to fight terrorism of any and every stripe.

Associations (other than the "passive" support provided by the likes of Saddam, which benefitted Al Qaeda, no matter what the status of their relationship) between the various terrorist groups notwithstanding, the U.S. wants to eradicate terrorists, and mitigate any inclinations (such as exist) to support them in any way.

Some of the fruit of this tactic can be seen in the unilateral move by Libya to give up WMD and forego the harboring/sheltering of terrorists; this didn&#39;t require a single soldier.

That is the kind of success that will breed more of the same.

You, in the U.K., are more at risk from terrorists than from any collateral event resulting from the Israeli/Palestine conflict, for example.

I don&#39;t think you are at risk due to your proximity to Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Iceland.

You might be considered to have primacy in your geographic corner of the world, then, although France being just across the way might give you pause, or even Germany, for that matter, but, hey-the E.U. is burgeoning, right?

So: No real worries, eh?

Terrorism is the biggest threat, and the practitioners of that particular art are our targets.

What exactly is it that you are afraid of?

[Rat Faced]

Thats simple.

A Lunatic and Moron that doesnt give a fuck for anyone or anything except profit, in charge of the largest and deadliest Nuclear Arsenal in the world.

In addition to the best armed conventional forces in the world.

Who blatently lies to his own people and the rest of the world, in order to achieve his own ends...


The question should be: "What are you NOT afraid of?"....

Edit:

Libya..

They have been making moves to come back on the world stage for years, it was Lockerby and a certain shooting in London that was the biggest obsticles (for the UK) those matters are just about cleared up, they have re-joined the International Community. Timing is coincidence there... they were trying before 9/11...

Iran was making moves to Democracy, before a certain Dickhead named them as part of "The Axis of Evil"...and made them throw any plans they had out the window..

[Biggles]

Re the chemical attack in the ME, it seemed to me that the bulk of the items as shown on TV were "off the shelf" 5 litre containers of standard chemicals.

The nasty thing about WMD is that all you need is a bucket, a couple of hoses and few hardware stores to buy the right mix of chemicals from. This is not rocket science. It was first suggested by a RN captain (Scottish I am afraid) during the Napoleonic wars. The British did not do it because it was considered a tad unsporting (and the French might do it back to us).

The main weapons Saddam had in the 80s were basically of 1914 and 1930s vintage. These can be produced quickly and easily by anyone with basic chemistry training.

Other than nuclear, WMD is a pretty spurious term. There are chemicals which are outlawed by international treaty (although many countries continue to play with them). Iraq had mustard gas and some nerve agents and used them in the Iran Iraq war to stop Iran&#39;s superior numbers (being a much larger country) and against a Kurdish village on the Iran border that Saddam was convinced had changed sides.

The evidence would appear to support the view that Iraq has done little in this field since the 1980s and most of their stock has long since life expired.

Chemical attacks are of interest to AQ and they clearly plan to use them. What Iraq had or did not have is not particularly relevant. Regime change appears to have been the primary concern, but as that is not actually legal under international law, a ruse was needed.

Afghanistan was different because 1) only about three countries recognised the regime and 2) they were harbouring individuals who had attacked another country first. Consequently UN approval was given to move against the Taliban.

[Rat Faced]

My i say sorry now for the use of the "F" word in my previous post..

I wont edit it, as i do feel that strongly about the subject...

[j2k4]

Rat-

Time does not permit a comprehensive response, but as re: the nukes, treat yourself to a refresher of Cold War politics, and mull that for a while.

Would you indulge me please by stating precisely what it was that Bush "blatantly" lied about, to his own people or otherwise?

Just very simply a simple recounting of the lie proper, without any adornment?

I think I&#39;ve heard them all. but I&#39;d like to hear your version; forget the links, and all the cumbersome reading-at this point, a quick version should suffice.

I must go to work, now, but I&#39;d appreciate the opportunity to discuss this stuff, one point at a time-make it easier for others to participate also, by limiting the scope of the topic.

If you feel starting a separate thread appropriate, let me know; that might be a way to go. ;)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc+28 April 2004 - 12:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 April 2004 - 12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?
this my friend is what&#39;s known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.

[/b][/quote]
Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 April 2004 - 17:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 28 April 2004 - 17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@28 April 2004 - 12:07
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?
this my friend is what&#39;s known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.


Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from? [/b][/quote]
Good lord man, that is not "slap in the face" evidence as you make it seem.

Just like the intel on Iraq&#39;s WMD wasn&#39;t. <_<

On another note, I felt pissed initially when the Republican congress voted to name an airport after Ronald Reagan and a building on Pennsylvania Ave after him.

I thought, "What did he do so great." "Is it sympathy for Altzheimers?"

Then there was one thing that I tried to rationalize.

He served as President during the Cold War.

Nuclear Armageddon was some shit that everyone was scared of.

Bush on the other hand is stirring some different shit altogether.

Terrorism is number one on the agenda so why is Bush up Iraq&#39;s ass.

It seems severely off focus.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 13:14
Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from?
in your words...."it has been said"

well that&#39;s hard evedence indeed, perhaps we should use that in our homeland courts.
" members of the jury, it&#39;s obvious that the accused is bang to rights guilty...just look at the evedence....we don&#39;t have the weapon, but someone said the think he had a gun and the victim was obviously shot"

just a question to play devils advocate, not an opinion.... why are the fighting forces (non coalition) called terrorists, yet (as an example) the french resistance were called freedom fighters. i am not talking about acts outside iraq. i am talking about attacks against our troops within iraq (i do know that civilians have been killed in these attacks but then they were in the coalition invasion).
I suppose it all depends on which side of the fence one sits...attack me you are a terrorist..attack my foes, you are a freedom fighter. I&#39;m sure if a group in cuba tried to blow up castro they would be called freedom fighters. I wouldn&#39;t be asking this if they were called resistance forces instead of terrorist groups.

what was the thread topic about again??????? :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@28 April 2004 - 14:32
Good lord man
now there are words i never expected to read on a busyman post :lol: :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Ok we&#39;ll leave the whole WMD&#39;s and war talk for another thread because were way far from the topic&#39;s description. I would love to continue the discussion in another thread.

@vidcc: Freedom fighters fight for just that freedom. Freedom fighters don&#39;t use women and children to hide behind when the shoot at Marines. They also don&#39;t hide huge piles of weapons (not WMD&#39;s :P )in mosques,schools, and hospitals. These people are called terrorist because they are trying to cause trouble and disrupt what we&#39;re trying to do.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+28 April 2004 - 18:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 April 2004 - 18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@28 April 2004 - 14:32
Good lord man
now there are words i never expected to read on a busyman post :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
You mean hobbes, vid.

I am Christian. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 19:04
Ok we&#39;ll leave the whole WMD&#39;s and war talk for another thread because were way far from the topic&#39;s description. I would love to continue the discussion in another thread.

@vidcc: Freedom fighters fight for just that freedom. Freedom fighters don&#39;t use women and children to hide behind when the shoot at Marines. They also don&#39;t hide huge piles of weapons (not WMD&#39;s :P )in mosques,schools, and hospitals. These people are called terrorist because they are trying to cause trouble and disrupt what we&#39;re trying to do.
If firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? :lol: :lol:

On a serious note Hank, I must agree.

There would be an outcry if we stooped to their levels.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@28 April 2004 - 18:17
On a serious note Hank, I must agree.

Busyman I&#39;m taking a screen shot of that so I have proof that we agreed on at least one thing :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 15:04

@vidcc: Freedom fighters fight for just that freedom. Freedom fighters don&#39;t use women and children to hide behind when the shoot at Marines. They also don&#39;t hide huge piles of weapons (not WMD&#39;s :P )in mosques,schools, and hospitals. These people are called terrorist because they are trying to cause trouble and disrupt what we&#39;re trying to do.
but the french restistance did just that. they hid their identity within the comunity and their weapons in all those types of places ( i am assuming that you aren&#39;t saying that they actually stand behind a child as they shoot, if you are then it is more a lack of morals and cowardice ) during WW2 neither side stopped fighting because civilians where in the way, in fact both sides dropped bombs on civilian occupied cities. The french resistances&#39; goal was to cause as much disruption as possible to the occupying force and this is still a state of war.

Freedom fighters fight for just that freedom.

well what is freedom? is it freedom from saddam ? could it also be freedom from an occupying force such as we are ? Again it depends on which side of the fence you sit.
i don&#39;t agree with these people shooting at our troops, but then i don&#39;t think we have totally justified our being there in the first place

@ busyman...it wasn&#39;t a comment on your beliefs i am fully aware of them :) ...it was i am just so used to you using more "colourful" expressions :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

I don&#39;t know if its just me but I see the invasion of France by the German army and what we&#39;re doing in Iraq to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.

The French used gorilla tactics to fight of the Nazi&#39;s but it didn&#39;t included strapping bombs to their chest and using human shields.

I fail to make the connection between the French fighting off a regime invading their country to rape and pillage, and a group of thugs trying to fight off an army who invaded the country to rid them of a tyrant and global menace.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 16:47
I don&#39;t know if its just me but I see the invasion of France by the German army and what we&#39;re doing in Iraq to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.

The French used gorilla tactics to fight of the Nazi&#39;s but it didn&#39;t included strapping bombs to their chest and using human shields.

I fail to make the connection between the French fighting off a regime invading their country to rape and pillage, and a group of thugs trying to fight off an army who invaded the country to rid them of a tyrant and global menace.
that&#39;s why i said it depends on which side of the fence one sits....to the rebels in iraq they are trying to repel an invading force..to us the invading force is repelling what we see as a tyrant. Who better to make a decision as to if he was a tyrant than the people of iraq themselves?
the difference you make is tactics.....what is the difference in end result of strapping a bomb to your chest and running into the enemy or standing under the cover of a wall and throwing a grenade...do you think that the latter shouted "look out" before they threw the grenade ?
of course i am just playing devils advocate here. I realise my point will never be considered valid becaue the "terrorists" are killing our troops.

just go along with this one....
The usa is invaded because bush is seen as a "danger to world peace" and just for the sake of arguement ...we got our butts kicked and a banner was raised saying "mission accomplished"
how would you view any american that strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a checkpoint of the invading force?..he/she would be a hero in our eyes...a freedom fighter...not a terrorist.
i am not condoning the tactics...i wish this whole thing had never happened and man stopped trying to destroy each other...what i am doing is playing devils advocate and trying to show that there are other viewpoints in the world that even if wrong to us are right to others

[BigBank_Hank]

that&#39;s why i said it depends on which side of the fence one sits....to the rebels in iraq they are trying to repel an invading force..to us the invading force is repelling what we see as a tyrant. Who better to make a decision as to if he was a tyrant than the people of iraq themselves?
the difference you make is tactics.....what is the difference in end result of strapping a bomb to your chest and running into the enemy or standing under the cover of a wall and throwing a grenade...do you think that the latter shouted "look out" before they threw the grenade ?
of course i am just playing devils advocate here. I realise my point will never be considered valid becaue the "terrorists" are killing our troops.


The problem that I have with the suicide bombers is the method of delivery. What they&#39;re doing is calling out the troops and saying things like we need help or something to that effect, then when the soldiers go to see about them boom. There have even been scenarios where women have said that their baby was sick and needed attention and they did the same thing.

[Busyman]

Recently there were about 3 car bombs that went off.

They killed Iraqis as well as Americans. I think it was something like 61 dead. Mostly Iraqi.

Nice going. <_<

@Hank- That says alot about "evil" America huh.
We go to help and boom.

[BigBank_Hank]

Bingo.

Its not just soldiers that are targeted its innocent civilians also.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 April 2004 - 04:24

that&#39;s why i said it depends on which side of the fence one sits....to the rebels in iraq they are trying to repel an invading force..to us the invading force is repelling what we see as a tyrant. Who better to make a decision as to if he was a tyrant than the people of iraq themselves?
the difference you make is tactics.....what is the difference in end result of strapping a bomb to your chest and running into the enemy or standing under the cover of a wall and throwing a grenade...do you think that the latter shouted "look out" before they threw the grenade ?
of course i am just playing devils advocate here. I realise my point will never be considered valid becaue the "terrorists" are killing our troops.


The problem that I have with the suicide bombers is the method of delivery. What they&#39;re doing is calling out the troops and saying things like we need help or something to that effect, then when the soldiers go to see about them boom. There have even been scenarios where women have said that their baby was sick and needed attention and they did the same thing.
Well, if you dont like these tactics then give them some Helicopter gunships and Jets.

Im sure they&#39;ll appreciate this method of warfare over suicide missions for only a few dead enemy for one of them.


There are casualties in war.

The coalition have killed more Iraqi civilians in the last month than all the rebels have managed in a year..


As has been said, it depends upon what side of the fence your sitting on as to who is in the right..

[Rat Faced]

Would you indulge me please by stating precisely what it was that Bush "blatantly" lied about, to his own people or otherwise?


Which Lies are you after?


WMD?

After all he didnt just say Hussain had them, he knew where they were... and Mr Powell told the world this on his behalf..

Or on the home front... how about knowingly lying to Congress about the cost of Medicare?

Are Congress not the Representitives of the American people?


You really must elaborate which types of lies you wish to discuss in a thread....

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 20:24


The problem that I have with the suicide bombers is the method of delivery. What they&#39;re doing is calling out the troops and saying things like we need help or something to that effect, then when the soldiers go to see about them boom. There have even been scenarios where women have said that their baby was sick and needed attention and they did the same thing.
don&#39;t get me wrong hank, i agree with you 100%..this is a terrible thing and my arguement is more about labelling rather than method when i asked why some call insurgents terrorists when they are fighting in their own country.

it does raise a point about what is considered "moral" in any conflict...is a hidden landmine moral? Is an ambush moral when the attackers jump out from behind a hedge and would it be less moral if they put phoney intelligence out to draw the enemy into that area in the first place. Is it moral to shoot at the enemy with a gunship when all they have is a rifle?
In this case the USA has vastly superior firepower and we use it. These suicide bombers use what they have. I am not condoning it just trying to make sense of it.

To me it&#39;s immoral that man has to kill in the first place. I do realise that the world isn&#39;t a moral place and wars do exist because of immoral acts so nobody needs to put up an arguement about hitler for example (i know why we have wars)

just another point about views...these insurgents (terrorists) will view iraqi nationals that support the coalition as "collaborators"...as i said it depends on which side of the fence one sits (again just playing devils advocate) Do you think any of this would be happening if we haddn&#39;t gone in?

Just to be absolutely clear, i am against the killing of innocent people and am not keen on the killing of soldiers from either side, i support our troops but believe that we went into iraq because of oil and used the WMD and saddam as a cover to do so and that i can&#39;t support.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 April 2004 - 11:52

Would you indulge me please by stating precisely what it was that Bush "blatantly" lied about, to his own people or otherwise?


Which Lies are you after?


WMD?

After all he didnt just say Hussain had them, he knew where they were... and Mr Powell told the world this on his behalf..

Or on the home front... how about knowingly lying to Congress about the cost of Medicare?

Are Congress not the Representitives of the American people?


You really must elaborate which types of lies you wish to discuss in a thread....
Rat-

You have given me precisely what I asked for.

I will address the WMD question first, but I must beg off for a bit, here-I have a business venture beginning that requires I duck out for possibly the rest of the day, and attendence here will be touch-and-go.

Wanted to post to let you know I have been waiting for your response and let you know I&#39;m not overlooking you. ;)

Back when I can.

[BigBank_Hank]

The coalition have killed more Iraqi civilians in the last month than all the rebels have managed in a year


Can you point any of these out to me Rat?

I failed to see instances where US solders have placed bombs in cars then parked them in front of markets for them to explode.

How long have we sat on our hands in Fallujah trying to get these guys to lay down their arms? Then as a slap in the face they end us a truck load of rusty junk that was unusable.We&#39;ve lost many lives trying to do this peacefully and not just level the whole city. Both sides signed a cease fire but they continue to break it every day and we only fire when fired upon.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 April 2004 - 19:43

The coalition have killed more Iraqi civilians in the last month than all the rebels have managed in a year


Can you point any of these out to me Rat?

I failed to see instances where US solders have placed bombs in cars then parked them in front of markets for them to explode.

How long have we sat on our hands in Fallujah trying to get these guys to lay down their arms? Then as a slap in the face they end us a truck load of rusty junk that was unusable.We&#39;ve lost many lives trying to do this peacefully and not just level the whole city. Both sides signed a cease fire but they continue to break it every day and we only fire when fired upon.
You mentioned one place yourself...

So far the Coalition Artillery and Bombing has killed an Estimated 700 Iraqi&#39;s in Fallujah.

When you consider that this is a holy city, will you be surprised to hear that we are creating more enemies and not less throughout Iraq?


Indeed, Iraqi leaders and foreign analysts say the fighting in Fallujah, which has claimed around 700 Iraqi civilian lives and has turned the muddled center of Iraqi public opinion - where people were ambivalent about the occupation but not actively opposed - decisively against the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and its local allies.

"Fallujah has created a major polarization of Iraqi public opinion. There is no middle ground any more,&#39;&#39; says an adviser to the CPA. "Two weeks ago Iraqis wanted to see us make promises and deliver on them - rebuild, improve - but then they saw pictures of US bombs falling on a mosque in Fallujah. Now they want us out."




And i assume that a "Ceasefire" only breaks down when you are attacked, and are not the one attacking in your opinion?

Neither side kept that fully, it just created a lull in relative terms <_<



I was in Fallujah during the recent "ceasefire" – the brief lull in the bloody battle secured by Iraqi leaders who are trying to negotiate a truce. This is what I saw and heard.

Since the "ceasefire," large-scale bombing has become infrequent. The Americans are still using heavy artillery but mainly relying on snipers.

[BigBank_Hank]

What the failed to mention is that the mosques that we are bombing had troops hiding in them firing RPG&#39;s (rocket propelled grenades) at troops. It also didn&#39;t mention that troops were digging in mortar positions there and were planning to start shelling.

We sent in sniper&#39;s into the city to minimize what civilians are left in the city. Most of the people have already fled (around 2/3).


Iraqi leaders and foreign analysts

Also look at the source of the figures. Iraqi leaders and foreign analysts are hardly beacons of truthfulness.

[vidcc]

Hank one thing that seems to be consistant in your post is the theory that we are right and we only attack in response. i believe it was we that invaded the country. now we could go round in circles as to the reasons to justify why we did it however it won&#39;t change the fact that we invaded the country.
What is so surprising about resistance from the citizens of that country or any methods they use? Obviously some iraqi people didn&#39;t want us to do what we did (how many times have i read someone complain that they were ungrateful?) and we see this on the news every day.
They are an entirely different culture, they see things differently than we do, they want us out of their country.
In 2000 Bush stated that the usa shouldn&#39;t be going about nation building....now he says we will do whatever it takes to ensure democracy is taken to the world. Some nations prefer to decide for themselves how to live their lives and resent being told how to by someone else.

Again i state that i don&#39;t like our troops being killed and i don&#39;t like it all the more because i believe they have been put into this situation under false pretences

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 April 2004 - 20:51


Also look at the source of the figures. Iraqi leaders and foreign analysts are hardly beacons of truthfulness.
The Iraqi leaders in question are the ones the USA have put in charge...ie the Pro USA Provisional Government.

Are you suggesting that the US has delibrately put liers into office?

Now that would certainly make a change :rolleyes:

[BigBank_Hank]

What I&#39;m saying is that&#39;s quite a large innocent civilians to be killed and not for any of the news media here to pick up on that. If 700 on either side were lost this would be a big deal and I haven&#39;t heard anything like. And as far left as CNN is they would be showing that statistic over and over again. That&#39;s why I questioned the authenticity of the statistics.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 April 2004 - 21:00
And as far left as CNN is they would be showing that statistic over and over again. That&#39;s why I questioned the authenticity of the statistics.
You think CNN is "far left", eh?.

I suppose that Fox News is "fair and balanced, right?

[BigBank_Hank]

Fox News is conservative but not ultra conservative. At least they take points of view from both sides. Look at Hanity and Colmes for example; Hanity is conservative and Colmes is liberal, and Oreilly does the same thing by inviting guest from both sides to defend their points of view.

Then when someone goes on The Oreilly Factor at least Bill asks tough and important questions. Then you have Larry King who asks powderpuff questions and really doesn&#39;t talk about anything.

Edit: CNN is liberal but they aren&#39;t far left. I may have exaggerated a bit in the earlier post.

[clocker]

Fox News is entertainment, pure and simple.
It&#39;s just a venue to give "dittoheads" something to watch while Rush is in detox.
Bill O&#39;Reilly may ask "tough and important" questions, but he won&#39;t let anyone answer them.
He may be a consumate performer, but don&#39;t kid yourself, as a source for information he is no better than Kurt Loder....

[BigBank_Hank]

Well Clocker I guess this is another one of those instances where it depends which side of the fence you sit on. I think the same way of CNN&#39;s coverage as you do of FOX&#39;s. But the majority of the American viewers tend to agree with me on this one because FOX beats out CNN all time in the Neilson ratings. And with that I&#39;m off to watch The Factor :D

[hobbes]

Just remember Hank, there are a lot more sheep than there are shepards. Popularity reflects the ability to bedazzle the average mind, not the thinking mind.

Based on popularity, Aaron Carter and Britney Spears are putting out the greatest music the world has ever known&#33;

[j2k4]

So, come election time, when Bush kicks Kerry&#39;s (or Hillary&#39;s, or whomever&#39;s) ass, the "sheep" will have carried the day, yes?

What do you libs (or pick your label) think when it turns out you are in the minority; that more people think Bush is just fine, etc.?

Do you still insist that you are the enlightened few, anointed as practitioners of higher, better quality thoughts?

People thought the same thing about Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao and Hitler at one time or another.

I don&#39;t harbor any such thoughts, I just try to tell it like it is; I don&#39;t bother with "how things should be if there weren&#39;t so many stupid Republican conservatives".

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
So, come election time, when Bush kicks Kerry&#39;s (or Hillary&#39;s, or whomever&#39;s) ass, the "sheep" will have carried the day, yes?

What do you libs (or pick your label) think when it turns out you are in the minority; that more people think Bush is just fine, etc.?

Even if you believe Bush won the last election legitimately, the number of people who voted Democrat was slightly greater than those who voted Republican. However, as I&#39;m sure your aware, this "population majority" doesn&#39;t translate into an electoral majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden..._election,_2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)

Nevertheless in real terms, (number of people) the Republicans are the minority.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 April 2004 - 20:37
Do you still insist that you are the enlightened few, anointed as practitioners of higher, better quality thoughts?


i will never vote for bush...i may at some point vote republican but not bush (i don&#39;t hold to any party blindly, i make my choice come election day).
should bush win a second term i will be dissapointed but i will never think that i am one of the "enlightened" few.
for the record i am not overly impressed with Kerry but i am less impressed with bush. Perhaps we need a system that offers more choice on election day that doesn&#39;t require each candidate to spend the national deficit on campaigning...just an idea.
Should Kerry win i will be looking at his performance with the same critical eye as i do with Bush...it&#39;s my duty as a taxpayer and therefore his boss :blink:

[BigBank_Hank]

So vidcc I suppose you&#39;ll be one of the handful that will be voting for Nader?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 April 2004 - 08:11
So vidcc I suppose you&#39;ll be one of the handful that will be voting for Nader?
actually it was just a mis-sight in the post omitting his name :o ...i can&#39;t see myself doing so but as i said i am still chewing things over (even though it might be a default vote). it&#39;s a sad day for us when one makes ones choice of a "lesser evil" than on talent......I was more saying to j2 that i wouldn&#39;t be thinking that everyone that voted bush are less enlightened than i should he win.
one thing that is darn annoying is that tactical voting with nader could be to bushes advantage...it&#39;s a shame such a thing could happen.
my main point about more choice i suppose was about the amount of money needed to run. There should be a minimun "entry fee" non refundable unless a minimum amount of votes are gained to discourage frivilous campaigns, but evey election year my eyes bulge more and more at the amount spent ( and worry about the influence the donators expect to wield should the campaign be successful) :frusty:

Good morning to all by the way

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 April 2004 - 22:37
So, come election time, when Bush kicks Kerry&#39;s (or Hillary&#39;s, or whomever&#39;s) ass, the "sheep" will have carried the day, yes?

What do you libs (or pick your label) think when it turns out you are in the minority; that more people think Bush is just fine, etc.?

Do you still insist that you are the enlightened few, anointed as practitioners of higher, better quality thoughts?


Yes.


People thought the same thing about Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao and Hitler at one time or another.
So?

[MagicNakor]

And I&#39;ll suppose we&#39;ll ignore the good things Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler did for their countries. They aren&#39;t democratic, after all.

:ninja:

[BigBank_Hank]

I think the killing of masses far out weighs the good things that they did for their country.

[ClubDiggler]

Replying to Senator Kerry

"Senator Kerry and his war medals" is the topic...

I think he is entitled to do whatever he pleases with those medals. Eat them, hang them or flush them down the toilet. He&#39;s earned them.

One thing nobody can take away from him is that he has been &#39;war tested&#39; unlike others; say Bush or Clinton (to name not one party).

I will not presume to guess who will win the next election, but may the best man win. :smilie4:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 April 2004 - 19:58
Well Clocker I guess this is another one of those instances where it depends which side of the fence you sit on. I think the same way of CNN&#39;s coverage as you do of FOX&#39;s. But the majority of the American viewers tend to agree with me on this one because FOX beats out CNN all time in the Neilson ratings. And with that I&#39;m off to watch The Factor :D


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/billbingo9.gif




Glick: So what about George Bush?

O&#39;Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O&#39;Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O&#39;Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn&#39;t watching this.

Glick: Well, I hope she is.

O&#39;Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that&#39;s it. I&#39;m not going to say anymore.

Glick: OK.

O&#39;Reilly: In respect for your father...

Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I&#39;m doing?

O&#39;Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.

....

O&#39;Reilly: Cut his mic.

for the complete interview: http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm

mmm, yeah. nothing like seeing a bully tear someone a new asshole just for daring to disagree with his psychotic, extremist views. :)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 May 2004 - 02:29
I think the killing of masses far out weighs the good things that they did for their country.
Ah, the difference then is; its OK to kill thousands and not do anything good for your country... as long as the thousands arent your own citizens.

I think I understand you now.... :blink:

[clocker]

I find it humorous that, when Clinton ran for President, the Republicans made a HUGE issue out of the fact that he wasn&#39;t a veteran, and now we have two guys who either didn&#39;t serve at all ( Cheney, who had "other things to do"), or performed the absolute minimum of service ( Bush, who was apparently AWOL most of the time) ragging on a fellow who did serve with distinction ( THAT at least, is not in question).

Typically, we are now witnessing a bait and switch maneuver, where Kerry&#39;s disposition of his medals is being used to distract us from the horrendous prosecution of Bush&#39;s holy war.
From the stupifyingly arrogant "Mission Accomplished" fiasco ( that flight suit should be preserved right along with Monica&#39;s dress), to the dogged insistence that we will hand over control of Iraq on June 30th ( to whom, I wonder?), the latter half of the Bush Presidency has been one unmitigated disaster after another, so Kerry&#39;s medals are a great distraction for an administration that has very little ( if anything) to crow about.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+1 May 2004 - 08:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 1 May 2004 - 08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@1 May 2004 - 02:29
I think the killing of masses far out weighs the good things that they did for their country.
Ah, the difference then is; its OK to kill thousands and not do anything good for your country... as long as the thousands arent your own citizens.

I think I understand you now.... :blink: [/b][/quote]
The people who were killed in Germany and Russia were civilians. Millions of them were killed just for their religious beliefs. That&#39;s millions with a M.

The people that the coalition have killed while at war in Iraq are military targets. We&#39;re not just lining them up and slaughtering them just for the hell of it. These people are legitimist military targets and we kill them before they kill us. And I know that there are some civilian casualties and the coalition is trying their best to keep this at a minimum.

[Rat Faced]

That&#39;s millions with a M

Maybe you should look up how many Iraqi civiians died because of the US/Uk block on medical supplies in the last decade...

Things like syringes were blocked because they were "dual use"...

I can just picture the Iraqi army attacking the world with their siringes in their hands, ready to inject everyone that comes against them... <_<


You cant say i was being anti-republican etc there... we both had Governments of a different colour for a lot of that time ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 May 2004 - 08:47
we kill them before they kill us.
And that was bush&#39;s story to start with :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

I have a liberal idea.

All serving members of a Government have their kids Drafted in times of war, and made to serve in Combat units in the theatre.


Its unfair on the kids, to be sure, however we can then all know that when they go to war it is actually necessary, and the politicians are actually taking some sort of risk themselves... <_<


Thought id copy this post from another site; im sure we can all see the humour of it ;)


"You won&#39;t hear anything about President Bush or Vice President Cheney throwing their Vietnam medals away&#33;&nbsp; That&#39;s why I support Bush/Cheney in &#39;04&#33;" - Monroe Eeks - Bakersfield, CA

[clocker]

Ah, good ole Monroe.

The very epitome of the "informed American electorate".
Bill O&#39;Reilly would be so proud.

[BigBank_Hank]

Rat you brought up the draft and it got me wondering if you were drafted would you go? I know that you firmly appose the war but if your country needed you would you go even though you don&#39;t agree with the cause?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@2 May 2004 - 01:58
Rat you brought up the draft and it got me wondering if you were drafted would you go? I know that you firmly appose the war but if your country needed you would you go even though you don&#39;t agree with the cause?
I have served.

I was in Bosnia, and was quite willing to go to the original Gulf War.

I was in the TA (our version of the National Guard) when this all started and received a phone call saying i was going to be called up... I told them straight then, i&#39;d rather go to jail. I never received any call up papers.

I did not then, and do not now, believe that this war was justfied on the grounds given. Further I believed then, and still believe, it was illegal under International Law.


The figures for the UK are that 30% of the TA soldiers called up, told the Government to F*ck Off.... that compares to an average of 6% that dont go, mostly for legitimate reasons, in any other conflict.

Not one of these TA soldiers is being taken to court for not going.... They know it would be laughed out of court.

The Government is doing everything possible NOT to go to court over anything to do with the present Iraq conflict.


I&#39;ve also put my money where my mouth is.

I havent attended the TA since halfway through 2002 over this, and i wasnt discharged until late last year (as i wouldnt re-engage).... for me that equates to a 25% drop in disposable income (more if the annual Bounty is taken into account).

At the moment im fighting to keep my house, so that maybe puts it into perspective for you.

I was very active in the TA prior to all this, however i couldnt take their money when I didnt believe in what was happening. I joined up to Defend my country, and maybe fight for Humanitarian Reasons....not attack an independant Sovereign Nation that we had already been bombing the crap out of for the 10 years previous, despite them doing everything asked of them by the UN...although slowly and under protest.

[BigBank_Hank]

Well that&#39;s something that I never would have assumed that you were in a branch of the armed service.

I myself have never done any time in the military but if called upon to go I would do my duty.

Now don&#39;t get me wrong I&#39;m not saying you are wrong for what you did,you should have gone ect. That&#39;s your decision to make.

I do however find it interesting that you were willing to go to serve in the gulf war but so firmly oppose this one.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@2 May 2004 - 02:29


I do however find it interesting that you were willing to go to serve in the gulf war but so firmly oppose this one.
Its very simple.

1/ We werent the aggressors in the original one.

2/ We were asked for assistance by an ally that had been attacked.

3/ We had UN sanction for it.

4/ We also had the backing of the entire Middle East, Moderate and Fundamental both.


I wouldnt have complained if we&#39;d carried on and "Liberated" Iraq as part of the original one.... that was the time to do it. (although we would have lost some of the Arabian backing then, we could have justified it)

[BigBank_Hank]

It may just be me but I think that the reasoning for pulling out when we did was we were scared that this might happen. And by not taking out Saddam the first go round and leaving he killed thousands in retaliation. I think that has a lot do with what&#39;s going on right now there; they&#39;re scared we&#39;ll just up and leave again like we did the last time.

[Rat Faced]

Its a shame El Jefe is absent at the moment, you could possibly talk to him.

He was definatly in Desert Storm, and i get the impression he may have been in the loop in a small way....