Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Information

  • Homepage

OB1 KNOB's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. The point wasn’t really to get into an argument about what constitutes terrorism; I was just pointing out his many attacks against his own people. No matter how you define it, I think Saddam would still be considered to have terrorized the people of Iraq. Why? You don’t consider that a form of terrorism? Also, there were four reasons for the war, one of which was liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, and yet people still protest the war. Another reason for war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat; a preemptive strike. Another was his weapons programs, which included weapons that he currently possessed, weapons that he sought after, and weapons that he was prepared to be able to construct whenever he wanted to. And I believe the fourth reason was because of the support and aid he was lending to terrorist groups. Here are some links providing information for why the Iraq war was legal. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 No matter what, there would be people who wouldn’t be happy. People who want to complain will find something to complain about. Regardless. Here’s a look into some of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31 I noticed some discussion that was brought up regarding issues in other countries where atrocities are being committed, and comparing the importance of those issues with Iraq. If you believe that the crimes being committed in those countries are justifiable reasons for war, then you would have to also hold Iraq to those same standards. I still think you’re reading too deeply into it by complaining about the wording that he used and any implications that might have been implied. That may be your interpretation, but it isn’t necessarily what he meant. Your perceived implication isn’t necessarily their established intention. I think there are a lot of Iraqi people who know the good that is being done over there. They are on the receiving end of it. They see it first hand. The rest of the people in the world are the ones that it’s not being “marketed” to. They can only get the news second hand. If they aren’t shown the truth, they won’t know it. I see what you’re saying about the Iraqi’s, but if the troops are not fighting against the general populace, then the Iraqi’s have no reason to fight back. I think they know that. If these Iraqi citizens are coming from areas that were loyal to Saddam before the war, then they could be Saddam loyalists who are fighting when they are given the opportunity. Again, I think you may be misinterpreting his intentions and presuming deceptions. If insurgents and terrorists from other places are coming into the country to fight the troops then there is a front on the war on terror. That wouldn’t be a lie. Granted some don’t want to see Iraq turned into a democracy, which becomes their motivation, but others that are terrorist groups are going to Iraq to fight would be inclined to fight against Americans anyways. It’s only the location of the fighting that is different. I’m reluctant to consider the sources of discontent that you mentioned the most probable, because they don’t really have motivation to fight against there liberators if the violence and aggression is not directed towards them. They are being freed from an oppressive regime, and see the good things that are being accomplished in their country amidst the fighting. I’ve heard of the growing support over there for the troops and, as a result, I’m reluctant to believe that a large portion of the populace that is not being attacked feels threatened by violence that’s not directed towards them. That seems like you are underestimating their intelligence, to distinguish between the two. I think they lived under Saddam’s oppression long enough to distinguish the difference between violence directed towards them and violence directed towards their oppressors. There isn’t overwhelming evidence or anything to support what you’re saying about sources of discontent. That’s more of a speculation on your part. I’m not saying that it’s impossible that some over there have responded in a manner similar to your claims, but it would be presumptuous to assume such a view was the most likely and doubt the Iraqis understanding of the intentions of their liberators. If the truth is that it is a front on the war on terror, he should be able to say it without it being considered a low, dishonest attempt at increasing approval ratings. If progress is being made and things are being accomplished he should be able to mention them, as should all presidents in any area of improvement. You accuse him of being a liar, but when you believe he’s telling the truth, you say it’s a dishonest attempt to gain support. Effort is still going towards Al Qaeda. They are just making accomplishments in Iraq at the same time. You seem to be saying that since Al Qaeda wasn’t centered in Iraq, that it isn’t a worthwhile cause to be there. Al Qaeda is not the only threat. To only go after Al Qaeda would be narrow minded and short sighted. This article here mentions the war on terror’s effect on al Qaeda: War On Terrorism/Effects On al Qaeda The threat of terrorist attacks on American soil can rise simply by going after any terrorist group. Not retaliating in any way can likewise cause an increase in terrorist attacks. If the terrorists perceive no threat to themselves for their attacks then they would be more likely to consider that an open opportunity to attack more. While I certainly don’t approve of what was done there, everything that was done there wasn’t directed towards the innocent Iraqi populace. Also, when comparing the humiliating and degrading things done there now to captured soldiers/fighters, to the truly atrocious and malicious things Saddam spent years doing to his own innocent people they don’t quite stack up equally. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with what they did there; it seems extremely unnecessary and detrimental, but I think that there is no question as to which was the worse crime of the two. The Iraqis that are fighting against the soldiers would be correct in believing that the soldiers plan to do them wrong; it is war after all. However, the troops are not directing violence towards the innocent people of Iraq, those are the people that the troops are fighting for, and they have no reason to believe that there is any aggression intentionally directed towards them. They are grateful for their liberation and should recognize accidents and collateral damage for what they are: unfortunate side effects of war. The incidents of Al Gharaib have the potential to negate good deeds, if it isn’t made clear that that was an isolated incident. The good things that are being done elsewhere all over the country can testify to the overall good intentions, and again the innocent Iraqis are seeing it all first hand. I’ve said it before but I think it merits repeating, that many service men and women return from service over in Iraq and express their frustrations at the media for their negative portrayal of the war, and not reporting on all of the accomplishments. I wasn’t implying any superiority at all. I was referring to the fact that Al Qaeda had attacked America several times before, including a previous bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993, bombings at an American embassy, etc… I was saying that Americans had just cause to dislike Al Qaeda prior to the events of 9/11, as they also have reason to dislike other terrorist groups as well. My initial response was directed towards America’s views towards other terrorists. Upon rereading toms’s post, if he was talking about America having dissenting views towards Muslims and Islam, that’s obviously a different topic. While some Americans may have adopted that perspective, it would be presumptuous to assume that the reason for going to war was based, even partially, on the nationality and religious tendencies of Iraq. Troops were also sent to Afghanistan to fight terrorism. It’s a war on terrorism, and those who support it. The pretexts that are used to justify attacks on America include their dislike of America’s freedoms and the freedoms and higher status of women. It’s not going to be possible to eliminate everything that they dislike about America, without America conforming to their standards for society. Diplomacy is always an option, but both sides have to be willing to cooperate in order for it to be effective. They won’t stop until everyone is totally submissive to their will. Remember that they came over to America and attacked, not because they were being oppressed unjustly, but because they dislike American society. Again, whose freedoms are al Qaeda, the Saddam loyalists, the insurgents in Iraq, etc… fighting for? They certainly aren’t fighting for the freedom of their own people. They are fighting for power and control. They want societies to be submissive to them and as a result, democracy is their obvious enemy. I’m not sure who, if anyone at all, you were defending there, but the term “freedom fighter” does not apply to this situation. [i merely condensed the links section of the post in order to shorten the overall lenght of the thread. All links are intact -- SkinWalker[/color]
  2. A dictatorship is characterized by a central leader who has absolute power and authority, especially with a more tyrannical nature. No matter which party they belong to, both are given their position of power by the people and likewise can have it taken away. I wouldn’t consider either party fascist based on that alone. I would characterize fascism, as I would other forms of government including democracy, as the approach the government takes domestically. Different approaches will be used when dealing with foreign policy and other nations, which means that many different approaches will be used for many different nations. Forcible suppression of the opposition would include assassinating members of the other party, threatening to use force against them, etc… That includes a militaristic approach towards suppressing the other party and any opposition of the government. That isn’t really an example of the private sector being controlled by the government. The government still doesn’t own the oil companies. Saudi Arabia also lowered the prices during Carter’s election and Clinton’s election (both Democrats.) Belligerent implies more of a hostile approach. While both statements are out of there intended context and therefore subject to a greater degree of interpretation, they are both definitely strongly worded statements. I think the intent there is to get people to think about whose side they are really on. Patriotism can easily be confused with nationalism if interpreted differently. They definitely aren’t taking a nationalistic approach to foreign policy in general. Any hostility is directed towards the terrorists themselves. Both parties redistrict when they are in power. It would appear to be one of the advantages of being in power. Without being familiar with the specific area, redistricting can be done for many different reasons. It would also be relevant to know how the districts became predominantly Democrat in the first place. They could originally been Republican and then redistricted to split up the Republican districts. Racism need not necessarily apply. Perception can be relative. While the Republican Party does stand for a strong, prepared military, it hasn’t been an aggressive stance targeted towards other countries or towards the general populace of America, i.e. ruling with force and threat. They certainly haven’t been threatening to use the military against anyone in America who opposes the war in Iraq or even the war on terrorism for that matter. The central characteristic of fascism is that of having a central leader who expresses and demonstrates the viewpoints that comprise fascism, and that isn’t the case at all. It seems like quite a bit of a stretch to incorporate the American Republicans in that group. I think it should also be noted that “conservative” also represents a cautious approach that’s indicative of thought and foresight. There is still a large stance toward decreasing governmental control within the Republican Party. Individuals who are Republicans may have differing intentions, and as such do not reflect the intentions and beliefs of others. There really isn’t very much to comment on there, without listing any specific examples. I was just saying that neither term by itself is derogatory unless specifically implied in its usage. It will all depend on the specific individual using the word and how they say it. They still just represent two opposing viewpoints, similar to Republican and Democrat. “Liberal Media” doesn’t imply anything negative, unless someone takes offense to the word itself. If the media source has a liberal slant, that would be an accurate description. Not all media has a liberal slant obviously, but if they do they shouldn’t really be ashamed of that term. If Bush bases policies on his religion, and Pat Robertson believes in the same religion, there policies will generally be similar, but that doesn’t mean Bush is basing any of his policies on Robertson’s opinions. What I was saying was: Did Bush change any of his policies specifically to get money from any of those groups? Or Did those groups donate to Bush because he represents what they also stand for? The former would be regarded as “being bought”. The latter would be merely a contribution. If I’m understanding right, you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t have conferred with Kenneth Lay, from Enron, before the information about the energy company’s fallacies were discovered. Wouldn’t you expect him not to condone such as activities after proof of their existence is released. The large companies also conferred and donated to the Clinton Administration as well. It still looks more like he was talking about the war on terrorism and not his administration as a whole. People can disagree with him on his domestic policies and still support the war on terrorism because of its importance. What specifically do loyalties to corporations and organizations have to do with that quote? He was elected to the Presidency by the American people. They keep him in power. One of the reasons for the war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat. Diplomacy hasn’t been working there. There doesn’t even always appear to be a lot of diplomacy between themselves. For diplomacy to work, it tends to require that both sides are willing to cooperate and, when necessary, compromise. The “weapons inspectors” sounds like an attempt at diplomacy, and that was going on for quite a while, because Hussein wasn’t cooperating. Diplomacy that doesn’t include consequences as a result of, or lack of, actions, won’t instill cooperation because they have no reason to cooperate. Following a lack of cooperation with forceful action is the threat that gives diplomacy validity. It did begin with diplomacy, but it ended in war. I was just saying that over a time period of 20+ years, 26 people from the government and the military, and not necessarily Republican, isn’t a lot of people. That was specifically directed in response to ET Warriors statement about the quantity of the people. I’d have to see more information about what evidence they were basing their statements on because that article only barely mentioned where they feel the deficiencies are. Like I said, the majority of the article was establishing that some of these people served under Republican Presidents, and that doesn’t automatically make them Republicans themselves. Their previous and/or current status can give them credibility, but it doesn’t explicitly mean that there perceptions are entirely correct and impartial. What about other people in the same current or previous positions who disagree with their opinion? I said that I had heard the allegations but that they were just allegations. It seems to me that if there were so much evidence of disenfranchisement that there would be arrests, trials, and convictions for those responsible. Infringing on the civil right to vote is very serious and because of that I would expect to see penalties and consequences for the guilty parties. Lots of things get printed in the papers and told on the news, but it’s not all true. The reporters that were fired recently for making up stories are a perfect example of this. Reporters can put any kind of spin on anything they want. For example: I heard of an allegation that claimed a police roadblock was preventing voters from getting to the polls. The true was that there was a roadblock, and voters may not have been able to get to the polls, but the roadblock wasn’t there to prevent the voters from reaching the polls. There was a robbery that the police were handling and they had set up a roadblock to keep citizens out of harms way. By omitting the true purpose of the roadblock from the story, it takes the appearance of voter disenfranchisement. This story from the New York Post references recounts that took place even after the election had been decided, and they show that Bush still would have won had it been legal for the recounts to continue. Also, there is the issue of the military absentee ballots that weren’t counted. Military Votes Not Counted There were some delivery problems that led to the ballots not being delivered by the deadline. It should be noted that it was not the voters fault that the delivery failed to meet the deadline. There votes could have/should have been counted as well if you want to fight for all the votes to be counted. This would appear to be the report that you were referring to by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Report In Question That report was disputed as inaccurate and biased. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3-Discredits The Linked Report Interesting note there is that the three authors involved in the above links, one author for the first two articles, two authors for the following report, are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and spoke out against that report as a discredit to their own organization and America. An investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that any one in Florida were intentionally denied the right to vote. Interesting also is the fact that the counties where claimed disenfranchisement occurred were Democrat controlled. Those were Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade. Particularly interesting is the fact that the original report recommends immediate litigation against the governor of Florida and other high ranking officials, yet no such litigation has taken place. That leads me to believe that the “evidence” they used to justify those claims was inconclusive and inaccurate. Unless there’s a really good reason that I’m missing for not instigating the litigation against anyone, it makes no sense to complain about it, and make no attempt to discourage such actions in future elections with deterrent penalties. First of all, I don’t believe that the public is always privy to everything that the current administration or the government in general, is doing. Just because it wasn’t mentioned by name, doesn’t mean that it isn’t something that they aren’t paying any attention and looking into. After all, telling something to the public is synonymous to telling your enemies. For that reason alone you cannot prove that she was lying. Condeleeza Rice did mention on Meet The Press, prior to 9/11, that the administration was considering Al Qaeda a priority that required attention. (I don’t have the specific date.) Also, the source you sited mentions that the State Department’s report didn’t mention Bin Laden extensively, which implies that he is still in there. Second, the State Department isn’t even part of the President’s administration. They are their own separate governmental entity. Bush never said that there was evidence linking Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. He had said that there was evidence that Hussein had met with Al Qaeda. Such meetings were mentioned in an article from The New York Times, Nov. 5, 1998. Article The 9/11 Commission is supposed to search into things related to 9/11. They said that there wasn’t clear evidence linking them together for 9/11, but there is evidence that Hussein met with Al Qaeda, and that is what Bush said existed. That 9/11 Commission quote is taken out of context. Here are some links about Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda and some other terrorists: Link 1-Iraq and Al Qaeda Link 2 Link 3-More Connections Between Saddam and Osama Link 4-Iraq Al Qaeda Link Comes In Focus Link 5-More Connections Link 6-Russia Warned US About Iraq, Putin Says Link 7-Salman Pak Link 8-The Iraq Al Qaeda Connections Link 9-Saddam Killed Abu Nidal Over Al Qaeda Row Link 10-The Clinton View of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Link 11-Sabah Khodada Link 12-The Axis of Terror Link 13-Abu Nidal Organization If Bush lied about that, then a lot of other people would have had to lie as well, including: President Clinton, the UN, the EU, Britain, etc… Congress voted on going to war twice. They must have been convinced by the evidence presented to them. The UN voted as well, and over 50 countries concluded that war was legitimate. That seems to be ignored in favor of the three of four that said they wouldn’t participate in the war, including Russia, Germany, and France. And even they were discovered to oppose the war because of the Oil-For-Food programs. Oil-For-Food Links: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 My suspicions on the WMD issue have always landed on Iraq and Hussein. If he no longer had them, why was he so uncooperative with the weapons inspectors? It would have been much more constructive and convincing to cooperate completely if he had nothing to hide. Besides that there is evidence about Saddam’s WMD’s. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Of particular interest in the links above, is the fact that President Clinton considered Iraq a threat because of weapons of mass destruction and spoke on it several times. Information Regarding the Uranium In Africa Issue Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 The following story is also a very interesting look at the Iraq WMD situation. It states what has been found, which have been mentioned in other news sources as well, and points out that everything that has been found hasn’t been of a very dramatic nature and becomes disregarded as small and insignificant, when clearly, when added together, they constitute more as a whole. What's Been Found of WMD So Far Also, from the day that it was originally declared that the US would go to Iraq, to the time that they actually did, a time period of 14 months transpired. 14 months is a long time to hide something if you know that someone is seriously coming to look for it. Hence the information leading to the possibility of weapons being exported from Iraq prior to, and after, the war, and hidden. Link 1-Weapons In Syria Link 2-Weapons Shipped Out Before and After War First of all, you’re implying that Bush specifically knew that such exclusions would take place and then intentionally lied by saying that “everyone who pays income tax” would receive a tax reduction. If he didn’t know that such exclusions were possible, then you can’t say that he lied. That’s circumstantial. I’m not sure about what that source is. It looks like an editorial column based on the fact that the author’s last name is in the title of the article. That sounds like you’re talking about insider trading. If there were such conclusive evidence that he was guilty of insider trading, why wouldn’t he be in trouble? I heard that Bush sold, and afterwards the stock prices actually went up, which would be quite contrary to insider trading. If he knew then he could have waited to sell and made more money. To lie here, Bush would have had to have intentions to run for President, and then specifically stated otherwise. If, in 1997, he didn’t plan on running for President, then that wouldn’t be a lie. Deciding to run for President at a later date, doesn’t take away from the validity of his statement when he made it. He has the right to change his mind, when opportunities present themselves and situations change. You yourself have specifically defended John Kerry, and politicians in general, on “flip-flops” by stating that they can change their minds. Currently four posts up from the bottom here. Granted you’re talking more about policy decisions, but the core issue still applies. John Kerry’s “flip-flops” seem designed in telling people what they want to hear in order to gain support. It’s not really him changing his mind in light of new evidence as much as it is just that he’s trying to avoid alienating potential voters. He most likely has an opinion but just doesn’t want to take a stand with his opinion. George Bush on the other hand, has been very straight forward about where he stands on issues and hasn’t been afraid to say what he believes in, rather than do what’s popular for the sake of being popular. Politicians are elected to represent the people; however, they represent the group of people that was responsible for their election. A politician who only does what would be “popular” by current standards in recent polls rather than sticking to the principles that they were elected on, would become a “flip-flop” politician who is only doing what they need to in order to stay in power. And remember, what’s popular isn’t always right. Also, your above analogy is totally relative to the politician and the issue. Every time a politician changes their mind it is not considered a “flip-flop”. That is entirely dependant on the circumstances under which they changed their mind: why, what new information there is, etc… This is what I meant when I asked what you believe he lied about. With all these issues you are choosing to believe that he knew about information at the time of his statements and chose to be intentionally deceptive at the expense of the truth. There isn’t proof that he lied, but you believe that he did because it’s possible. You seem to be giving Kerry all the benefit of the doubt and Bush none. Your perceptions of dishonesty seemed to be based more on speculation than actual conclusive proof, and also seem to have been affected by your established personal detest of the man. You want to find things wrong with Bush to complain about to justify “firing” him. That basically goes along with the “Anybody but Bush” mentality where you wouldn’t be voting for Kerry as much as you would just be voting against Bush. Another interesting fact is that you want Bush fired for lying, yet Kerry has been proven a liar many times over from his claim that foreign leaders told him they want him to be elected, which was false, to lying about owning SUV’s, which he does, and many other lies mentioned in various other places. By your statements you want to replace one accused, speculated liar, with a proven, established liar, and you would consider that an improvement. It makes more sense to vote on the issues, than for the person as an individual, which becomes nothing more than a superficial popularity contest. If you vote on the issues it would be enough to say that you will vote for one candidate over the other simply for their positions. You wouldn’t need to constantly seek justification for your vote; you could just vote.
  3. I would think that the Iraqi people would still be better off now. Under Saddam's rule they had little hope, if any at all. With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation. About the reporters: I think it would still depend on the reporter. Someone who is adamantly against the war could provide negative news no matter where they are. Considering that it is harder to hear about the good news versus the bad it seems that there is a large bias against the war. (And I don’t think that is because the good news isn’t there. Like I said, I’ve read/heard about soldiers returning home who are upset about the media coverage and its negative appearance.) I think the possibility of anybody providing a totally impartial view is slim to none anyways. No matter where they are they still have an opinion.
  4. I was talking more specifically about the coincidence that people with the same names as convicts would primarily vote for Gore. That doesn't make any sense. If they are criminals themselves, they would have lost the right to vote already. That has nothing to do with Florida. Are you saying that people in poor black areas are more likely to share the same name with a criminal than anyone else in any other areas? This seems to be kind of mute point any ways, because I don't know of any evidence suggesting that anything like that actually happened. I know there were allegations about voter disenfranchisement, but those were nothing more than allegations. If something had happened I'm pretty sure that it would be very well known. I don't know where you got your information, but it looks like it's mixing several different things together to make something that appears more "serious".
  5. I don't think Bush was talking in the past tense when he said that, so that means he was talking about current Iraq. Did Bush give that impression, or did the media imply that he was giving that impression? Are you saying that all countries are currently doing it, or that all countries have done it at one point in history? (Just trying to clarify.) I'm not even sure if all would be an appropriate word there, but I'm not familiar with the histories of every nation that has ever existed. The word nasty seems like a large understatement to describe the torture and fear that the people of Iraq lived in. I was just pointing out the definition of the word. Are you saying that you don’t define the things that Saddam, and other nations around the world, did/do as terrorism? Are you saying that that is justification for what he and others have done? Are you talking about in America or abroad? Either way, that’s more of an extremist attitude that not everyone did/would take. Intelligent and/or logical people know that just because some terrorists happened to be Muslim, not all Muslims are terrorists. How many Iraqi’s were killed, or even just disabled in some way, under Saddam’s rule? I don’t know how much sympathy people actually had for terrorists even before 9/11. The terrorists who attacked the US acted the way they did in contempt of America, and intentionally targeted civilians. America, and its allies, in Iraq are fighting to save the people of Iraq and are only intentionally targeting terrorists, Saddam loyalists, etc… (Basically anyone who attacks them.) To my understanding the people of Iraq are glad to be freed from Saddam’s oppression. That’s just not something that you’ll hear about from a news source if they are intentionally holding back that information because they want to give the war a negative outlook and appearance.
  6. Sorry about the quote. What I meant to say was: Sorry for any confusion. Would all of those people, then, not have received a sample ballot prior to the election if they had been removed from the list? Wouldn't that have been a problem in prior elections rather than just, coincidentally, the 2000 presidential election? Like I said, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that name complaint. I believe registering to vote requires more than just your name. Also, that seems a little odd that those 10's of thousands of people would not only happen to have the same names as convicted felons and as such, not be allowed to vote according to what you said about the names, but also, coincidentally, be predominantly black and poor, and would have voted considerably more for Gore.
  7. The definition of terrorism as in Webster's New World Dictionary is First of all, that sounds an awful lot like the things Saddam was doing would be considered terrorism, even if it was primarily towards his own people. So that would make Saddam loyalists terrorists as well. Second, in those quotes, he doesn’t mention anything about Muslims. You inserted the Muslim assumption in your statement. Someone from any religion can be a terrorist and that doesn’t necessarily reflect on their “religion” and what it stands for. Also, you’re arguing that since he doesn’t include all the possibilities, even the ones that are least likely or less common, he is intentionally being deceptive. If the majority of those being fought in any given location are terrorists, then that would make that location a front on the war on terror, especially if terrorists from other countries/groups are traveling to Iraq to fight the American presence. By not including a list of all the possibilities, that does not automatically mean he was implying anything that became the basis of your assumption. This seems to be more of a “nitpick” at the wording of his speech than anything that Bush has specifically done wrong. It just seems more like you’re looking for something to complain about by reading more into the wording of the speech than was necessarily meant or implied. Not everyone who losses a loved one is immediately going to turn around and fight with the opposition. That sounds like it would be more of a rare case. Also, those people who are recruited could very well have been Saddam supporters prior to losing a loved one, in which case they would have been inclined to fight against America already. Losing a loved one, perhaps, just gave them more justification and incentive to become a suicide bomber or whatever the case may be. Besides, under Saddam’s rule, it was very easy for people to lose someone just because they looked left or right while crossing a bridge and Saddam would have them killed. Losing a loved one in an accident is definitely a sad consequence of war, but it was an accident versus losing a loved one because of Saddam’s oppression and lack of compassion. You yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror? That doesn’t mean that terrorists and terrorism aren’t being fought elsewhere, just that there is a much larger percentage of fighting occurring in Iraq. America isn’t fighting against those in Iraq who are not fighting them. Those are the people that America is fighting for.
  8. I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Gore asked for the recounts after Florida was called for Bush because he said there were problems with the voting machines. How is that Bush asking for recounts?
  9. First of all, it's a nation wide law in the USA that convicts can't vote. I can't remember at the moment if it's just people who have been in prison or what, but I do know that is nation wide and not just Florida, and certainly not just specific counties in Florida. Secondly are you implying that the majority of people with the same names as convicts would vote Democrat? I believe that the reason Gore kept pressing for recounts, even after some recounts had been completed, was because Bush was gaining more votes than Gore, and he wanted to keep recounting until it tipped in his favor (i.e. the “intention” of the voter on ballots that did not have a vote for president specified). I’m not sure about the accuracy of the complaint about felon name confusion, but even if that were true that wouldn’t specifically favor one candidate over another because having the same name as a felon does not immediately mean that you would vote for Gore. Also, when people register to vote, I believe they use their Social Security number to register and since that is unique for every individual, even if you did have the same name as a felon your SS would still be different. Having the exact same name as a felon seems like it would be incredibly rare anyways, and as I said, it wouldn’t favor one party over the other if people with the same name weren’t allowed to vote.
  10. From far away it looks kind of like she has a goatee. I like the skin. It looks great. Keep up the good work!
  11. I can't really tell what time line you're going by there but, yes, on election night, Florida was originally called for Gore. That was due to the media releasing their projected winner before the rest of the state had voted. Florida is in two time zones and therefore the west most portion of the state had not closed the polls yet. That was an irresponsibility on the media’s part. Even Gore himself originally called Bush and conceded that Bush won and then later called back to say that he wasn't conceding yet. As far as the recounts go, I can't see how anyone can see that as anything other than one sided in the manner that it was being done. Gore only wanted to recount certain counties within Florida, not the whole state, and "coincidentally" they happened to be predominantly Democratic counties. Who stands to gain more votes if they only recount in democratic counties? Originally Bush's people were saying that if any recount were going to take place it would be state wide, not just selected counties. You mention three specific recounts before saying that Bush won. If those recounts only counted more votes in Democratic counties, then Gore would gain more votes, but, again, it was hardly a formal recount. The justification for the whole recount thing was also based on a margin of error for the counting machines. Both Bush and Gore stood to loose votes because of a margin of error, but it's not like the machines would favor one over the other. I don't think the recount could have progressed without personal biases leading towards tipping the votes. There were just too many people handling them to say that no one could have changed anything on any of the ballots. The original count was done by impartial machines. Putting humans into the mix only introduced a greater chance of interference. Those who were handling the votes knew that the election was riding on Florida. It just seems too easy for temptations to set in for those directly involved in any recount. I fail to see how anyone can consider any part of that unfair for anyone other than Bush. In that article the person who objected to the report was a politician. Again that article says that the 2003 number is in question, and makes no mention of any inaccuracies for the 2001 and 2002 numbers. Seeing as how the numbers from 2001 to 2002 did go down, how is that not a victory? I would agree with that. Especially the "unfair degree" part. But it's not like people in other countries outside of America aren't subject to receiving biased reports by those who don't agree with Bush's politics. Challenging his intelligence makes a convenient target for them rather than just focusing on the issues. I was merely saying that neither of these articles alone is enough evidence to warrant any justification of “firing” him. It makes much more sense to just say that you want him fired because you disagree with his politics rather than continually looking for reasons to have him fired.
  12. Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as: In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism? Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these. By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas. So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone. Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board. People from both sides can look at either word as negative or positive based on their beliefs. Some one who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions. Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support. Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired? I’m not totally sure, but by your wording it sounds like your “liberal” represents America’s “conservative” and your “conservative” would likewise represent America’s “liberal”. If so, that’s another example of the interchangeability of the terms based on what both sides believe should and should not be changed. On the topic of “Bush Bashing”: People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other? In response to the articles: The first link has nothing to do with President Bush. It just says that some clerical errors were made in that report that need correcting. It should also be noted that the number that is mentioned as needing correcting in this quote: is the 2003 figure. I haven’t read the whole report, but from this quote there was a very noticeable and significant decline from 2001 to 2002. (Down 148 to be precise.) The purpose of that article wasn’t about any decline in terrorism. It was just reporting the clerical errors that admittedly slipped through. The second seems to make the assumption that because these people were appointed to high level jobs under Republican presidents that they were/are Republican themselves. A president can appoint someone that they disagree with politically, or otherwise, to a high level position simply because that person was the best for the job. As an example of this here is a quote from that article: I don’t know whether she is Republican or Democrat but she did serve under two separate presidents of opposing parties. Others are admittedly democrats and therefore can simply be making an attempt to make their political statement. The article only briefly mentions at the very end what they are basing their complaints on and doesn’t really site any specific examples and their ramifications and how much of an effect they really have on American security. I don’t know their reasons specifically, but I think it’s interesting that the article spent a large amount of space establishing that many of these people served under Republican presidents when a)if they are military they really didn’t have a choice and b) they could have been appointed to their position based on the merit of their qualifications. You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not. I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they? Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines. What specific loyalties are you referencing between President Bush and his “pals”? Also, how does a quote about terrorism have anything to do with said “pals”? 26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush. Likewise, what specifically do you believe that he lied about? How are either of those articles directly related to Bush? How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed? (Not to get off topic or anything, but it was brought up.) The title of this thread is even presumptuous in saying that both these articles are absolute proof of anything. Even the Democrat who challenged the report said that he accepts that it was unintentional. And again, the second isn’t really proof of anything either. Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it”.
  13. I was talking more about the good things that are being accomplished over there and the direct benefits that the people of Iraq are receiving now. They can see the happiness and the hope these people have now. If that isn’t shown to anyone outside of those who see it for themselves, then they are not getting the whole picture. I'm not sure I understand. What would make them impartial if they're not imbedded with the troops? They would still have an opinion on the war. I'm not sure about that. For example, I heard about a bridge that was in between Saddam's palace and his son's palace. When crossing this bridge, the Iraqi's weren't allowed to even look left or right, because to the left was one palace and to the right was the other. If they were caught looking either way they could be pulled aside and shot once they got to the end of the bridge. That would affect anyone and everyone who had to use that bridge. That still depends on the source and who they talked to. If they go to an area that is specifically loyal to Saddam, they could make it look like people are dissatisfied even if there are more areas that support the liberation. I don’t doubt that there are some people upset over there, but who they are and what they have to gain if the troops were to pull out becomes an important factor. If a civil war is likely if the troops pull out, why would the Iraqi’s who disliked Saddam, and are seeking freedom, want the troops to leave? I think the Saddam loyalists would have the most to gain from that situation because they would have a greater likelihood of regaining power. I know it was just an example, but the American Civil War was a war that Americans started. In this situation it would be a civil war that America helped start in another country and then abandon them to fight for themselves. I agree that it is sad when soldiers are killed, and I never thought it wasn’t. However, you’re implying that all the soldiers who have died would consider the entire war a waste of effort. If they are fighting for something they believe in, then their sacrifices are not a waste.
  14. I just wanted to clarify that I was not criticizing people who commute. If they want to commute it's their right as well, and their choice. Thanks for the diesel info. I know of other vehicles that run on diesel as well, but not all gas stations have diesel pumps, so that would be a bummer for anyone to get stranded because they couldn’t find a diesel pumping gas station. I agree that public transportation can cut back on pollution. It’s just not always a reasonable choice. For example: if someone wants to shop for groceries they have to get to the bus stop and wait for the bus, then ride the bus till they get to a bus stop near the store. Then they have to shop and finish their shopping in time to catch another bus, whether it is the next one or a later bus. They would then need to wait at the bus stop for the bus with their recently purchased groceries, depending on how long it took them to shop and how much time is left until the bus arrives. Then they need to load groceries onto the bus, and ride around on the bus until the bus gets to their bus stop. After that they need to get off of the bus with their groceries and carry them home. That doesn’t even directly take into account that someone can only carry so many bags of groceries. They might have to make a whole day out of just making round trips to the supermarket. (I don’t really know if public busses have any sort of refrigeration on them that could be used to keep frozen items cold until the passenger gets home. That was a serious question, so if someone knows, I’d like to know. ) If people take the bus to and from work, they need to be there for the bus. If they have the opportunity to work overtime, for example, they would need to either catch a different bus, if there is one, or refuse the overtime. I’ve also known of people going to college via bus transit that would have to leave class early to catch the bus. They can miss a lot of valuable information if they aren’t there in the class, but they really need to catch that bus. Plus, sometimes college classes can run over their time schedule, which could be difficult as well. If the class is running over, it’s probably for a good reason and most students wouldn’t want to miss it. Fitting one’s life into the confines of a bus schedule could be extremely difficult for lots of circumstances. I’m not saying busses are bad. They just won’t work for everyone. Also, just because someone owns an SUV, they don’t necessarily use more gas than someone with a smaller car. The commute scenario was one example, but someone who likes driving, and owns a smaller car, and goes out driving just for the fun of it, uses gas as well. I think that they should be able to do that too, because it’s still their money and their right. I do think that pollution can be a problem, but getting rid of SUV’s wouldn’t solve that problem by any means. The people who would have been driving SUV’s would then drive cars that still pollute. At best, it would just be a temporary postponement and reduction of the inevitability of pollution. If the estimate of the fuel supply only lasting for around 20 years or so is correct, the world would still run out of oil no matter how it is used. It would either be a problem that the generations of today would have to deal with or the generations of tomorrow. However, I believe that such estimates have been made before that didn’t prove correct, so I don't really know how accurate that figure is as well. And as a quick comment on the tax discussion: Taxes are really another necessary evil. People don't really like having to give up their money, but it is important to pay taxes to the fund the government and the military etc... who in turn protect and serve the people. However, wasted money that leads to tax increases is unacceptable. That can become a punishment to the people who work hard to earn their money and now have to give more of it up because of wasteful spending.
  15. From what I've heard the majority of Iraqis are pleased with the American presence and their help. I know someone serving over there and they have mentioned that more and more Iraqis are supporting America and very thankful for their intervention. I’ve also heard stories of soldiers who have returned from Iraq and have expressed their frustration with the negative image the American media has portrayed of the Iraq situation. If anybody has a right to complain about the war, I think these people do, because they are the ones who have had to make all the sacrifices to defend America, not only in Iraq but all other countries abroad as well. Basically, the negative Iraqi response shown on the media can be likened to the images the media showed of people in the middle-east celebrating over the destruction caused on 9/11. The media showed people dancing in the streets and celebrating but that didn’t represent the opinion of the majority of people over there. I remember seeing representatives making specific comments regarding those images and the fact that they did not reflect how everyone felt about the attacks. Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just can’t be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who don’t want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesn’t mean that that information isn’t out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story. I think pulling out of Iraq at this point would be a bad idea. The Iraqi people were left relatively exposed by the US leaving in the early 90’s when the job wasn’t done. It wouldn’t be right to leave those people left open like that again.
  • Create New...