Bush or Kerry ??? -1 reply

Please wait...

TucoTheUgly

Poslednji Mohikanec

50 XP

19th June 2004

0 Uploads

32 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

Before I write the real reply... Did French fries really get renamed to Freedom fries?

Now, I can't stop wondering, would all this terrorism or better, attacks agains the US exist if it wasn't for Bush's politics? AFAIK they started when Bush got elected or so.

And I also think it's funny that america accuses ANYONE of massmurdering.

And as last, IMO America poses the biggest danger to the world, as long it keeps force + power = peace mentality. It's generally not wise to have a superpower in the world because it can do what it wants (what's happening now). I dunno how much americans learn about european politics thru history, but we're constantly told that there was always a balance of power - even if it meant that former enemies became allies. Now perhaps the USA just doesn't like it that someone (De, Fr, Ru) stand up against them? I mean, together they could pose a counterweight (or whatever it's called in english) to their power AND force.

And yeah, if Bio, Chem and Nuke weapons were the only reasons (beside Hussein who's gone anyways) to attack Iraq, then I can't see any reason why all other small countries don't get attacked. AFAIK Iraq isn't the only country with nukes (if it has them at all which I doubt)?




Shotglass

I post to get attention

50 XP

10th December 2003

0 Uploads

84 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

Fascinating... The Kobar towers attack, the 93 World Trade center attack, the USS COLE... the African Embassy bombings...(all with Al-Queda ties) All during Clinton's term...jeez.. apeasment worked so well. SO... it did NOT start with President Bush.

Furthermore; the United States was part of a coalition in Iraq. Just not with the French Russians and Germans. Thier kickbacks in the highly corrupt "Oil for Food" program were just too profitable apparently.

"Superpower" is not a bad word. Not our fault much of the EU has overtaxed thier economies for ambitious social programs and reduced thier military/security clout to police force size.




BITE_ME!!

=WW=, WolfTactics

21,700 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

1,925 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

And some more good ones.....

kerry_edwards_inlove.jpg kerry_ambiguouslygay.jpg kerry_ketchup_lies.jpg




Nusentinsaino

A new sense of nuisance.

50 XP

8th December 2003

0 Uploads

12,881 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago

Um... Ok




Shotglass

I post to get attention

50 XP

10th December 2003

0 Uploads

84 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago

I wanted to make another point at the ridiculous notion of these attacks beginning since President Bush took office.

The training, planning and funding for the 9/11 attacks were in motion YEARS before "W" was elected or sworn in. These RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORISTS were entering or in the country on thier student visas and such for some time.... This is another leftist lunacy notion about Bush being the catalyist for anti-American sentiment.. It is patently offensive and intelectually dishonest.

Which begs another point.. President Bush has gone out of his way to portray Islam as a "Religion of Peace" and has kept the rhetoric focused on "Terror", not Islamic terror.. an vaugery that If I were President I would not limit myself too. The IRA or the ETA (Basque separitists) have not attacked the United States... But still the left tries to paint him as a "Crusader" and a bigot.. I'm struck by how strong the language is against the President and the United States. We have liberated the continent and asked only for space to bury our dead in return.. (Colin Powell) Ask the people of South Korea about an unjust war and how the brutal regime in the North would have improved thier lives had it's naked aggresion been unchecked. The left sabotaged the war effort in Vietnam and untold tens of thousands were killed in the "re-education" and subjegation of the South. Then there was the outright genocide in Cambodia's killing fields as the rest of the "dominoes" did indeed fall. (Laos) When America did not "stay the course" millions paid with thier lives.

But enough for now.. I'm sure that's enough to rankle the lefties and Bush haters enough for now... seems to me with all the Bush hate out there.. that the left has the "hate" market cornered...




Ignacio

Slap leather, varmint!!!

50 XP

7th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,364 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

I think what will ultimately happen in the US elections is that those voters who will vote solely based on their opinion of the Iraq war being wrong will vote for Kerry, or more accurately, against Bush.

Those voters who are able to see the Iraq war as just one piece of a much larger puzzle that includes taxation and domestic social programs, Medicare or health care for the elderly, will most likely vote for Bush because Kerry does not seem to be able to produce a clear concise plan of action. Most people I talk to, Democrats included, do not really know what Kerry stands for.




SQUINT

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

162 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago

One day (in hindsight) i believe "W" will be revered alongside presidents of the calibre of a Reagan or Lincoln.




Preacher

Pale FJ1200 Rider

50 XP

1st November 2003

0 Uploads

524 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago
Rudi_alias_RudiAs I said, it just makes me worry that people believing such **** ****, and we all will harvest hate for that.

Rudi, please re-read Ig's first post. Keep it clean please. What makes me worry is that over and over again I hear people that are supposedly for peace being the first to spout language like yours in a discussion. Who is harvesting hate here Rudi?

but its just a LIE that America wanted to catch Hussein in cause of humanitary reasons

Do you really believe that Rudi? Umm, then you would have to decide that France, Germany and the rest of the UN security council also lied. As you can see below:

From Resolution 688 (1991)

Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

Which led to later that year…

From Security Council Resolution 707 (1991):

Gravely concerned also by the evidence in the letter of 7 July 1991 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq to the Secretary-General and in subsequent statements and findings that Iraq's notifications of 18 and 28 April were incomplete and that it had concealed activities, which both constituted material breaches of its obligations under resolution 687 (1991),

…and (also from 707)…

Requires that the Government of Iraq forthwith comply fully and without delay with all its international obligations, including those set out in the present resolution, in resolution 687 (1991), in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Or what?? Finally we come to…

Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Don’t you people get it?? I don’t care what weapons Saddam did or did not have. He could care less if the sanctions went on forever (and for how long when the chorus to remove them even though he was identified by the UN being in material breach was growing louder) – he and his friends were doing just fine. Or haven’t you seen the pictures of the palaces he built while under sanctions? He was willing to kill his own people to stay in power, why would he care if they had heathcare? It was 11 years!!!!! He did not fully disclose according to the UN, and never would! How many would have to die there before action was taken? You want to talk about mothers, how many mothers would be raped before the UN thought it was important enough to send forces? Someone had to put this evil bully down, and more UN talk obviously wasn’t going to do it. Sorry Dragon, I think we are on topic, because obviously the war is going to play a very important role in how the candidates are viewed. Dang, there even more from Rudi I'd like to respond to - but this will become monsterously huge if I do so I will just have to settle with...

USA got nuclear weapons too the bigest war crime in history ever

OK, I understand now. Rudi, have you ever read a history book? The US saved the world thank you very much. And if I was in the same position, having to choose between the bomb and the larger death toll from both sides that would have resulted from invading Japan, then shoot I would probably have done it too. But I wouldn't expect you to know about how the Japanese acted at Iwo Jima. And no matter what is exchanged here, I'll still look forward to playing with you in WW Rudi.:)




Shotglass

I post to get attention

50 XP

10th December 2003

0 Uploads

84 Posts

0 Threads

#29 15 years ago

Good points Preacher. I don't wan't to lecture here but I feel I must respond to the accusation of "Biggest War Crime Ever" I'll try to be brief, but; if you have the attention span of a squirrel on crystal meth you might as well go to the next post now.

I spent a year on Okinawa and shuttled between Korea, Thailand and the Phillipines as well. It seems that the revisionist don't spent much time talking about the "Greater Asain Co-prosperity Sphere" any more. This was the brutal annexation of Korea, Vietnam, the Phillipines, East Indies and parts of China. The barbaric and inhumane treatment under the Japanese of these conquered lands is widely documented but little talked about anymore. Every once and a while there is a "Rape of Nanking" special on the History channel, but otherwise not much. The number of Korean laborers alone that the Japanese worked to death fortifying thier Island strongholds is staggering.

Unconditional surrender was the only soloution in the Pacific war. The Japanese merchant fleet was destroyed, and the population could not be sustained by domestic food sources. (Rice namely). Massive starvation was looming in the home Islands and the invasion and cuncurrent widespread fighting would have killed, maimed and displaced far more Japanese than the use of the atomic weapons. The looming reality of American armoured divisions sweaping across the Tokyo plain was not enough to pursuade the Japanese high command to surrender, as they were resolved to use thier own people to bleed enough Americans to get a negotiated settlement.

The fire-bombing of Tokyo netted more casualties than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Perhaps more than those two atomic devices combined. But since they were nuclear weapons the emotional revulsion is beyond logic. The bottom line is that the atomic weapons saved lives; JAPANESE lives. Like it or not, believe it or not.

Japan is a thriving democracy now, an economic powerhouse even. Quality of life is excellent and they are an close partner and allie of the U.S. They have engineering troops in Iraq that the local Iraqies value and support. Go figure......




Rudi_alias_Rudi

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

29th March 2004

0 Uploads

258 Posts

0 Threads

#30 15 years ago

Iam tired for such a discussion because senseless (and also in cause of my bad english)

Rudi, please re-read Ig's first post. Keep it clean please. What makes me worry is that over and over again I hear people that are supposedly for peace being the first to spout language like yours in a discussion. Who is harvesting hate here Rudi?

See what I mean, on the one hand people complaining about "bad words" on the other hand they are thinking militaristic, nationalistic and wish their soldiers easy kills on their murdering trips. IMO its a false balance. Preacher why you quotate UN-resolutions? USA and above all Bush doesnt respect the UN anyway like you sayed it too:

Someone had to put this evil bully down, and more UN talk obviously wasn’t going to do it." How you can demand that one state shall respect UN-resolutions your own state not?
"Rudi, have you ever read a history book? The US saved the world thank you very much ..."

I dont forget the victims of USA in WW II but for sure the Russians had to carry the main part. - of course you cant read that in american school books. The use of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" was IMO a war crime anyway. You can read an objective article here. http://www.doug-long.com/

Dang, there even more from Rudi I'd like to respond to

Doesnt matter but why nobody replied my 2nd posting? Why the USA (and the other 1st class world!) powerd Saddam during the 80s while he was gassing Irans and Kurds? And why he became an enemy after he made peace with Iran? Ah humanitary reasons I guess....

Shotglass: Japan is a thriving democracy now, an economic powerhouse even. Quality of life is excellent and they are an close partner and allie of the U.S. .

. After the atomic bombings, Japan was allowed to retain their Emperor, anyway. So these bombs are not the cause that they have a democracy now.

They [Japans] have engineering troops in Iraq that the local Iraqies value and support. Go figure......

Ok that makes me glad of course - I see that Japan is on the good axis now! Maybe USA should have used the bomb against the Germans too in WWII - Perhaps we would be better Partners now. IMO you can vote whoever and whatever you believe. Vote for war if you like it. But dont wonder if you get it back like 11.9. - and as I said aleready: there is no other way for your enemys to attack you because you are to strong - so dont wonder about that method of attacking you.

I'll still look forward to playing with you in WW Rudi.

of course ;)