4 More Years

[mad pierrot]

whoops... I still think he looks like Tim Meadows!

 

[sgt. Pepper]

Nooo, the world will be swallowed by eternal darkness now! Auugh.

Not really, but damn close.

 

[Mike Cash]

Call it common sense, but I would never support a president who first lied to the american people, invaded a country based on false allegations that have since been disproven, and now is responsible for over 1000 american casualties abroad and 2800 on 9/11 as well as for the death of over 100,000 innocent iraqi civilians.

These are facts that cannot be contested, Bush supporters are simply stupider then the rest of us.

Fill us in then. On what false allegations did the US invade Iraq?

I said I hope it is not true. I never said it was. I said it was the case with many redneck republicans.

You'll be happy to support that claim with statistics, no doubt.

 

[King of Tokyo]

You'll be happy to support that claim with statistics, no doubt.

It's too late to go look for a statistic site. I actually have to go now. But here is something interesting:

Ethnic group:
Certified Redneck

I just find that amusing.

 

[PaulTB]

Fill us in then. On what false allegations did the US invade Iraq?

That is one of those horribly complex, abused, misunderstood and above all highly flammable subjects which anybody with any sense should know better than to get involved in.

Concerning why the (most recent) war with Iraq occurred there are ...
1. Reasons to go to war as actually stated by Bush and co.
2. Reasons to go to war as actually stated by Blair and such like (Loyal followers / Poodles).
3. Reasons to go to war as generally 'taken to be the case' by the American population when the decision was still being taken.
4. Reasons to go to war as generally 'taken to be the case' by the British population, and other (valued allies / providers of minor cannon fodder) when the decision was still being taken.
5. Reasons why it was OK to go to war as explained _after_ the decision was made public, changing somewhat down the years when new facts come to light.
6. Reasons which were never put forward by officialdom for whatever reason but would have actually made sense.
7. Reasons which were never put forward by officialdom, but which are often alleged to be the 'real reasons'.

Given that all of the above differ between themselves and that the value of most of the above will be heavily disputed I'm not even going to try.

For people that do want a slight chance of sensible discussion I recommend sticking to highly specific, referenced, statements, highly specific questions and taking notes.

 

[Flashjeff]

With Shrub having conned the American people into four more years (not me, I voted Democrat), I can't say I expect anything to change. By relentlessly hammering home a message of fear about the turban-headed boogeyman, he frightened enough people into thinking that he's the only one who can save them from terrorism.

Let's call a spade a spade: if it ween't for the nightmare of 9/11 and everything that followed, Bush would NEVER have been re-elected, given his horrendous domestic failures: thousands of lost jobs, an escalating deficit, a worsening healthcare crisis and a country so deeply divided, not even King Solomon could've found a solution to the mess. At the end of the day, the only thing Bush had to fall back on was his so-called "wartime leadership".

Speaking of the Iraq debacle, I've always been of the belief that Bush needed someone to punish for 9/11 in order to save his political neck, and since the military couldn't (and still can't) find Osama bin Laden, he went after the next available target, which just so convieniently happened to be his daddy's old sparring partner, Saddam Hussien, using trumped up if not made up evidence of WMD's and ties to al Queda as excuses for HIS war, not ours which has nothing, nada, zero, bupkus, zip city to do with the war on terrorism.

Well, the only saving grace is that Bush is now officially a lame duck. I only hope the world will still be in one piece in 2008!

 

[Mike Cash]

There was the guy from Oklahoma too... a republican even. J C Watts.

But J.C. Watts was never in the Senate.

http://www.gopac.org/gopac_about_bios.htm

 

[Antifederalist]

With Shrub having conned the American people into four more years (not me, I voted Democrat), I can't say I expect anything to change. By relentlessly hammering home a message of fear about the turban-headed boogeyman, he frightened enough people into thinking that he's the only one who can save them from terrorism.

Let's call a spade a spade: if it ween't for the nightmare of 9/11 and everything that followed, Bush would NEVER have been re-elected, given his horrendous domestic failures: thousands of lost jobs, an escalating deficit, a worsening healthcare crisis and a country so deeply divided, not even King Solomon could've found a solution to the mess. At the end of the day, the only thing Bush had to fall back on was his so-called "wartime leadership".

Speaking of the Iraq debacle, I've always been of the belief that Bush needed someone to punish for 9/11 in order to save his political neck, and since the military couldn't (and still can't) find Osama bin Laden, he went after the next available target, which just so convieniently happened to be his daddy's old sparring partner, Saddam Hussien, using trumped up if not made up evidence of WMD's and ties to al Queda as excuses for HIS war, not ours which has nothing, nada, zero, bupkus, zip city to do with the war on terrorism.

Well, the only saving grace is that Bush is now officially a lame duck. I only hope the world will still be in one piece in 2008!

A Philadelphian voting Democrat? No way...really?

Out of curiosity, are you one of the people that think the bug found in Street's office was placed at GWB's command to try to get Katz elected? Or do you see it as part of an investigation that started prior to the election year that involved drugs and corruption where indictments were handed out on several people close/associated with the Street administration?

Did you not think someone needed to be punished for 9/11? We did punish them. Now the war is expanding. The US Congress didn't just authorize the President to go to war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They gave the authority to fight Terrorism. Liberals, Conservatives, and in-betweens all had a chance to look at the info on Iraq prior to the war. This boards fallen hero John Kerry even felt so. He & others came out in support of Clintons bombing of them, but this time around he saw it would benefit him politically and decided to be against the war on terror, or was it for it, or against it, or....well, it depends on who he is talking to at the time.

When asked by reporters to answer president Bush's challenge, that even knowing there most likely aren't/weren't WMD's would he gone to war even after knowing what we know now (had he been el presidente), and his reply was yes (but I thought he said that the president misled America into a war?). I was really surprised at the first debate when Kerry stated that he wouldn't have gone to war knowing what we know now and said that the president would (which Bush did say he would have).

Kerry's plan on the war--getting our allies back, global test (i.e., permission from France and Germany), a supercoalition, etc.--was shown to not be enough when the first Gulf war came around. He said we rushed to war back then, even though we passed the Global test (the UN and France and Germany gave us the blessing), we had a supercoalition, and everything else that Kerry wants before going to war. I just find it interesting. Even more so when he wrote a letter to one constituent saying he agreed with GHWB's choice to go to war and sent a letter to a different constituent saying how upset he was that we had gone to war.

I don't see how any one could have supported this guy. I know that it is the "any one but bush" mentality that got him the amount of support that he received, but how much can you hate a man to have wanted to put John Kerry in charge of the USA.

Do you people here not see terrorism as a threat? Do you think it is overplayed?

Also, right before the election we learned of a sh*tload of weapons that we destroyed by American troops (it was first reported to try to affect the outcome of the election by saying the weapons were removed by terrorists and that it is Bush's fault). Had what the media and John Kerry suggested been true, that terrorists trucked these weapons out and then hid them somewhere in the desert or moved them to Syria, then wouldn't it also be plausible that Saddam had his WMD's moved to Syria during the build up/UN delay? It is estimated that about 48 dump trucks would have to been used to move these explosives out of the area. Biological agents can be carried in a test tube in someone's shirt pocket. How much easier is it then to move them out of country?

I've finished rambling--let the flaming begin!!

 

[Duo]

A Philadelphian voting Democrat? No way...really?

Out of curiosity, are you one of the people that think the bug found in Street's office was placed at GWB's command to try to get Katz elected? Or do you see it as part of an investigation that started prior to the election year that involved drugs and corruption where indictments were handed out on several people close/associated with the Street administration?

Did you not think someone needed to be punished for 9/11? We did punish them. Now the war is expanding. The US Congress didn't just authorize the President to go to war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They gave the authority to fight Terrorism. Liberals, Conservatives, and in-betweens all had a chance to look at the info on Iraq prior to the war. This boards fallen hero John Kerry even felt so. He & others came out in support of Clintons bombing of them, but this time around he saw it would benefit him politically and decided to be against the war on terror, or was it for it, or against it, or....well, it depends on who he is talking to at the time.

When asked by reporters to answer president Bush's challenge, that even knowing there most likely aren't/weren't WMD's would he gone to war even after knowing what we know now (had he been el presidente), and his reply was yes (but I thought he said that the president misled America into a war?). I was really surprised at the first debate when Kerry stated that he wouldn't have gone to war knowing what we know now and said that the president would (which Bush did say he would have).

Kerry's plan on the war--getting our allies back, global test (i.e., permission from France and Germany), a supercoalition, etc.--was shown to not be enough when the first Gulf war came around. He said we rushed to war back then, even though we passed the Global test (the UN and France and Germany gave us the blessing), we had a supercoalition, and everything else that Kerry wants before going to war. I just find it interesting. Even more so when he wrote a letter to one constituent saying he agreed with GHWB's choice to go to war and sent a letter to a different constituent saying how upset he was that we had gone to war.

I don't see how any one could have supported this guy. I know that it is the "any one but bush" mentality that got him the amount of support that he received, but how much can you hate a man to have wanted to put John Kerry in charge of the USA.

Do you people here not see terrorism as a threat? Do you think it is overplayed?

Also, right before the election we learned of a sh*tload of weapons that we destroyed by American troops (it was first reported to try to affect the outcome of the election by saying the weapons were removed by terrorists and that it is Bush's fault). Had what the media and John Kerry suggested been true, that terrorists trucked these weapons out and then hid them somewhere in the desert or moved them to Syria, then wouldn't it also be plausible that Saddam had his WMD's moved to Syria during the build up/UN delay? It is estimated that about 48 dump trucks would have to been used to move these explosives out of the area. Biological agents can be carried in a test tube in someone's shirt pocket. How much easier is it then to move them out of country?

I've finished rambling--let the flaming begin!!

I would love to contradict your every sentence in this post, but I guess really it's not use until you realize it for yourself how wrong you are and how badly things in America are going now. Global Terrorism, what is that? You think al-qaeda is like some evil organization with an evil villain in charge like in the Bond Movies ? The only thing that unites possible terrorits groups is the fundemantalist ideology, therefore they will gravitate to the others who uphold this ideology. But you can not know who will be a terrorist and who won't until they actually do something. If you want to fight terrorism, you can't do it militarily, it's impossible. Unless you fight it politically with certain policy changes, you will always be the loser. Now in IRaq, the US has created probaply countles numbers of ppl that will hate you forever because you have bombed their brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, and family members. I would feel the same way if it would happen to my family, and you would as well.

Funny, Bush and his administration are getting filthy rich from the war, and who will pay the consequnences ? You and the other american citizens. And the fact that you approve of them, just makes it so sad. I'm getting depressed

 

[Antifederalist]

I would love to contradict your every sentence in this post, but I guess really it's not use until you realize it for yourself how wrong you are and how badly things in America are going now.

I live in America.

Global Terrorism, what is that? You think al-qaeda is like some evil organization with an evil villain in charge like in the Bond Movies ?

Yes. His name is Bin Laden.

The only thing that unites possible terrorits groups is the fundemantalist ideology, therefore they will gravitate to the others who uphold this ideology.

True. And they are organised and have chains of command with a leader. Are there people who do it on their own, I am sure of it. But why are there groups like Islamic Jihad and Al-qaeda and Hamaas? It's because they have organised and have a head honcho calling the shots.

But you can not know who will be a terrorist and who won't until they actually do something. If you want to fight terrorism, you can't do it militarily, it's impossible. Unless you fight it politically with certain policy changes, you will always be the loser. Now in IRaq, the US has created probaply countles numbers of ppl that will hate you forever because you have bombed their brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, and family members. I would feel the same way if it would happen to my family, and you would as well.

Yes, Charlie can be difficult to identify and that's why we have intelligence. So that we can blow them up while they are planning an attack instead of waiting for them to blow themselves up in an attack. And those policy changes would be caving to the terrorists. The terrorists want's the US out of the mid-East, they want us to pull our support from Israel and would like it even better if we turned on them, they want us out of the world. They try to get their point across by killing civilians and, well, causing terror. By changing our policies to appease them, we are in effect saying that what they do works. They will only do it again to get their way. Look at Spain. Spain gets trains blown up and so they elect an anti-war socialist who caves to the demands of the terrorists and pulls Spanish troops from Iraq. Just a week or so ago, Spain foiled a plot that by the terrorists to attack them again, after Spain made some "policy changes."

As for countless people hating us forever, ask some of the elderly in your country how they feel about the Germans. I am sure they were quick to forgive their occupation. And I am sure they hate us and the Brits even more for when Bombs dropped on the Country side and thousands of our troops died liberating Europe. I think it would be safe to say there was a lot more collateral damage back when carpet bombing was the in thing to do compared to the guided missiles we have nowadays. I guess it was okay for us to liberate Europe from a tyrannical dictator but not Iraq.

Funny, Bush and his administration are getting filthy rich from the war, and who will pay the consequnences ? You and the other american citizens. And the fact that you approve of them, just makes it so sad. I'm getting depressed

Sorry to have made you cry into your oatmeal, but I just don't think you have a proper perspective on America. Correct me if I am wrong because I am going to make some assumptions: Most, if not all, of your friends are liberal--whether they be online friends, penpals, from any part of the world, including America. They aren't exactly giving you an accurate portrayal of America. I assume your news organisations in Europe aren't shy about where they lean politcally. The theories concocted on democraticunderground and in films made by Michael Moore are what a fringe of Americans believe to be true. And they really get pissed off when someone disagrees with them due to their elitist attitude.

Maybe I am wrong. After all, I only live in America and can hear with my ears and see with my eyes what is happening around me, and I only have access to World News organisation and liberal and conservative news sources, and weblogs/forums/webpages from America and all over the world that spins the news one way or the other. And I know you have access to all the same thing I do--biggest difference is (drum roll please), I live here. So yeah, you probably have a good perspective to how things are here.

In all seriousness, tell me what you have been told to make you think that things are going badly in America right now.

 

[bossel]

They gave the authority to fight Terrorism.

Oh well, then Bush was definitely going too far by invading Iraq. Since there was virtually no terrorism threat radiating from Iraq.

I don't see how any one could have supported this guy.

Well, Bush has already proven how incompetent he is. At least, Kerry should have the same chance of proving his incompetence.

Do you people here not see terrorism as a threat? Do you think it is overplayed?

Definitely overplayed. It is a threat, but not as much as some want us to believe.

Also, right before the election we learned of a sh*tload of weapons that we destroyed by American troops (it was first reported to try to affect the outcome of the election by saying the weapons were removed by terrorists and that it is Bush's fault).

Wasn't it a letter from Bush's puppets in Iraq which actually started this controversy about the explosives? They claimed that "nearly 350 metric tons of high explosives had disappeared from the al-Qaqaa military site after 9 April 2003 - the day Baghdad fell to the US-led forces - as a result of 'theft and looting... due to lack of security'"!
Interesting that you blame Kerry for this. Anyway, it's not sure if what US troops removed & destroyed was the stuff the IAEA had sealed off.

"However, neither he nor Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could confirm that the material was part of the weapons cache sealed by the IAEA.

Maj Pearson told reporters: "I did not see any IAEA seals at locations we were looking into." "

Yes, Charlie can be difficult to identify and that's why we have intelligence.

Well, US intelligence has been shown to be pretty crappy.

Spain gets trains blown up and so they elect an anti-war socialist who caves to the demands of the terrorists and pulls Spanish troops from Iraq.

Maybe you have as many news sources as you claim, but it's not obvious from what you say.
Spain elected the new government not because of the terrorist attack. They got elected because Aznar led Spain into an unnecessary war & esp. because the old governemnt lied & tried to mislead the public regarding the terror attacks.

I think it would be safe to say there was a lot more collateral damage back when carpet bombing was the in thing to do compared to the guided missiles we have nowadays.

Collateral damage? Carpet bombing was often directed at civilians. I would call that deliberate, not collateral.

I guess it was okay for us to liberate Europe from a tyrannical dictator but not Iraq.

Well, you didn't pay too much attention in history classes, did you? The US liberated only half of Europe, the other half was left in the hands of just another tyrannical dictator (who had at least as much blood on his hands as Hitler).

Anyway, Hitler posed an actual threat while Hussein did not. What's more, Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa.

 

[Timsan]

Fill us in then. On what false allegations did the US invade Iraq?



You'll be happy to support that claim with statistics, no doubt.

Harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Duh. Where the f*** have you been? Making moonshine and rounding up cattle?

www.theboywhocriediraq.com has allot of intersting information.

 

[Glenn]

Harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Duh. Where the f*** have you been? Making moonshine and rounding up cattle?

Those were false? I'm not so sure: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108636/

By the way, it might help if you weren't such a jerk. If you want to dispute issues, then stick to the issues. I doubt there are many moonshine farmers or cattle herders in Japan, anyway.

www.theboywhocriediraq.com has allot of intersting information.

Yeah, and it's pretty biased, too. I guess it's a good read if you really like Marxism.

 

[Duo]

Yes. His name is Bin Laden.

You think Bin laden controls this like huge netowork of secret cells around the world, ready for his word and they will strike? The guy was a friggin construction engenir, he ain't no rocket scientiest to have devoloped this huge underground army of terrorits, al qaeda. I mean really, you think Bin Laden tells the guys in Iraq what to do ? He is a 6 foot man recognized by the whole world on the run, carrying around a dialasys (whatever you spell that) machine. The threat of terrorism is a present one, but is not as huge as the scale that Bush and other politicans here in Europe have mad us to beleive. I still remeber Donald Rumsfeld on sm tv showing a diagram of what the Al qaeda bunkers looked like in Afghanistan. I swear it looked like something of a Bond movie, hidden ammo dumps, air ventilation, hidden entrances, generator rooms, communications center, truck entrances, thick steel and concrete walls. Where is it???? Where are these evil Al qaeda highly trained henchmen of the supervillain Bin laden. Most of those fighters in those camps,were foreign fighters coming to Afghanistan to support the Taliban movement, so they just came and "trained" in terror tactics, by jumping walls and climbing ropes and firing ak-47's. At most they looked like Boy Scouts playing with guns and fundemantalist ideology. The guys on the planes on 9/11 were not dangerous fighters with supreme terrifying skill like these ones, the had a more powerful weapon. Their brain. A bunch of them were University graduates and just had one thing in common. Hatred for the US. You could wipe out the whole of Al qaeda tomorrow, but you are not going to get rid of people who will have hatred for you. Terrorism can not be wiped out by force.

But why are there groups like Islamic Jihad and Al-qaeda and Hamaas? It's because they have organised and have a head honcho calling the shots.

Islamic Jihad and Hamas fight for the liberation of their territories. What do you expect ? If you are going to occopy a nation's land, of course they will organize and retaliate. But it's ok, Israel has the Israeli Army. They both do a pretty good job of terrorizing each other's civilian population.

The terrorists want's the US out of the mid-East, they want us to pull our support from Israel and would like it even better if we turned on them, they want us out of the world.

Of course. That's the whole point. Why are you supporting Israel ? What good does America achieve from this but hate from the Arabs. Wouldn't it be better for the US intererests to have sided with the arabs to begin with ? Eisenhower knew this, but other presidents gave in to the Jewish lobby. So in fact, all the hate and negative aspects of your support to Israel benefit only and only one group, the Jewish lobby. And the American citizen gets the trash, he is the one who is hated abroad, harrassed at times, or maybe even attacked in extreme occassions. Andy why he thinks, why do these ppl hate me, I did nothing to them. It must be their fault. God dammm it , let's blow them to hell, back to the stone age. Also, the US is not liked in the region for its obvious imperialistic attitude and policies. I mean of course if you will depend on cheap oil, you are bound to make some enemies. So my question is why should you be allowed to abuse the ppl in the middle east, but expect no retaliatory action ? Bin laden was your own friend for god's sake. But he turned because he and most Saudis oppose your troops' presence there. Why didnt you take the troops out if you didn't want to make enemies? To ensure the supply of cheap oil of course. I mean c'mon really, you made the Iran-Iran war go on and helped out both sideds so they would destroy each other, you gave Sadam satellite photos and help, you supported him against Iran, then suddenly a couple of years down the road, he becomes your arch enemy ? With such incosistent foreign policy and shady actions in the region you still expect ppl to like you?

As for countless people hating us forever, ask some of the elderly in your country how they feel about the Germans. I am sure they were quick to forgive their occupation. And I am sure they hate us and the Brits even more for when Bombs dropped on the Country side and thousands of our troops died liberating Europe. I think it would be safe to say there was a lot more collateral damage back when carpet bombing was the in thing to do compared to the guided missiles we have nowadays. I guess it was okay for us to liberate Europe from a tyrannical dictator but not Iraq.

Um, my country never really suffered German occupation. Guided missiles? Really? Like the the cluster bombs that drop over fallujah, or like that helicopter machine gun fire that was unleashed on a civilian crowd killing that palestinian reporter on camera ? Concerning Europe, I think most Western Europeans still feel obligagated and grateful to America for liberating them. You don't have to remind me the sacrifices of the young American men in Europe, i been to normandy, I have seen first hand the kind of conditions in Omaha beach and the other ones, and also at St. Maire Eglise. Most Europeans praise the sacrifices that the US did in this war, but having you rub it in is not that enjoyable, well I don't really care actually cuz the US didn't liberate us. But let's just also point out that, the US had an interest in wining the war, I mean better face Germany and Japan in away theaters than at home, or not? Plus, WW2 put America bak to economic prosperty after the Great Depression, and further more, you were one of the leading superpowers after the war. Not that bad actually.
@Sadam, sure now he is a tyrant, but before he was your ally, shaking hands all happily with the current Secretary of Defense, Rumsie, or did you miss that ?

Sorry to have made you cry into your oatmeal, but I just don't think you have a proper perspective on America. Correct me if I am wrong because I am going to make some assumptions: Most, if not all, of your friends are liberal--whether they be online friends, penpals, from any part of the world, including America. They aren't exactly giving you an accurate portrayal of America. I assume your news organisations in Europe aren't shy about where they lean politcally. The theories concocted on democraticunderground and in films made by Michael Moore are what a fringe of Americans believe to be true. And they really get pissed off when someone disagrees with them due to their elitist attitude.

Umm, I dont have any penpals or whatever they are. I am friendly with some ppl online from this forum and that's about it. Most of my Americans and International friends I met here at an American High school I attended during my 4 years. As I met their families, and my American teachers. Also, just to throw it in there, I been 3 times in the US, each time for an average amount of 3 months. Last time I was there was 2002, and I just hated the atmosphere compared 2 before. It was horrilbe, so depressing. DC was barricated, the media just kept on with terrorism, terrorism; I really couldn't wait to leave. But New York was still a lot of fun and Long Island was as good as ever. However, I'll tell you, Canada seemed way way better compared to that horrible atmosphere; I can understand why people would vote for Bush, heck if I had stayed there longer I would have been arguing on your side here. I guess most of my friends might be liberal, whatever that means, I just love it when politicans just throw labels around trying to brand people. Funny though, early liberalism iis very similar 2 what the Republicans stand for today, limited government and more individual freedom. I wonder when it was that it became such a bad thing 2 be. Socialist ideas, they can really be the end of a country. :souka:
Ha, I'll take the European media anyday instead of those marketing monster machines you have there for Networks. BBC is by far the best and most objective news provider I have seen. TF1, and Rai are pretty good themselves. I can't say anything about the German and Spanish media as I don't speak the language and can't tell. However, I sure know that News in the US is just treated as a product, something that you have to market so you can sell. Here it is a bit different, mostly because there are many European countries who still have State-sponsored medias like the BBC.
Much better than networks like Fox, who had Bush's first cousin as a director or smth like that on the night of the elections. I don't get why ppl hate Moore so much. Can you stand here and explicitely tell me that what he showed were all lies?

Maybe I am wrong. After all, I only live in America and can hear with my ears and see with my eyes what is happening around me, and I only have access to World News organisation and liberal and conservative news sources, and weblogs/forums/webpages from America and all over the world that spins the news one way or the other. And I know you have access to all the same thing I do--biggest difference is (drum roll please), I live here. So yeah, you probably have a good perspective to how things are here.
In all seriousness, tell me what you have been told to make you think that things are going badly in America right now.

I can see how things are going bad. Economy suks. People are loosing jobs. People live in a bad atmosphere, being told by the government that terrorist may strike anyday, and having to suffer a huge deficit, war costs, expensive or no healthcare, expensive medications, and an ever rising number of American casualties in Iraq, whose coffins btw, have been censored from showing by the US gov. I mean what more do you want?

I know we will probably never agree on this issue, but for the sake of argument I just posted this. In any case, despite my criticism here, I hope you don't think that I hate or dislike the US in any way. RIght now I'm very dissapointed about how things are going, and unhappy with the current administration, but I still have my highest regards for the US and for the things that it has stood for, and hopefully can continue to uphold.

 

[bossel]

Those were false? I'm not so sure: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108636/

Yeah, and it's pretty biased, too. I guess it's a good read if you really like Marxism.

Well, Slate is not really un-biased, too. I'd always prefer the BBC to Slate.

As I said, there may have been a few terrorists in Iraq, but none of them posed any particular (or recent, before the war) threat to the Western world.

 

[Mike Cash]

Harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Duh. Where the f*** have you been? Making moonshine and rounding up cattle?

www.theboywhocriediraq.com has allot of intersting information.

Lessee......there were terrorists in the Phillipines, check. In Spain, check. In Afghanistan, check. In the US, check. But not Iraq, gotcha. An entirely implausible scenario for there to be terrorists in Iraq.

You need to do a little calm review on the WMD thing. It isn't as straightforward as you seem to think it is.

Did you want to have a discussion? Or did you want to swap insults?

 

[Glenn]

Well, Slate is not really un-biased, too. I'd always prefer the BBC to Slate.

Perhaps not, but the author seemed to be fairly unbiased, and he does seem to show a connection between Saddam and terrorists before 9/11.

I don't get why ppl hate Moore so much. Can you stand here and explicitely tell me that what he showed were all lies?

Check out Dave Kopel's Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 for explicit (and implicit) lies pointed out in that movie.

Also, check out MooreWatch and Bowling for Truth for other Moore movies.

 

[PaulTB]

You need to do a little calm review on the WMD thing. It isn't as straightforward as you seem to think it is.

Well without wasting more of my life than I care to spare tracking down the details -

Saddam was actively trying to develop WMD of all kinds - but with relatively little luck and practically nothing actually stockpiled and ready to go.

Saddam was vigorously putting obstacles in the path of UN Weapon Inspectors to make their jobs harder and the US was ALSO vigorously working to undermine faith in the UN Weapon Inspectors and generally make trouble for them. kashii:

Despite this UN Weapon Inspectors were actually making a bit of progress and had a heck of a lot better idea what was really going on then spin doctors in the UK were about to reel out.

Saddam had what is probably one of the worst backfired ideas ever in 'leaking' false reports that he did have lots of WMD in the hopes that it would get everybody to back off.

Few people (maybe nobody) made barefaced lies but as the scattered bits of 'intelligence' from any and all sources were put together assessments of reliability were ignored with aplomb when it suited them and use of stronger forms of words in reports was greatly welcomed from above (if not /quite/ 'required').

 

[Flashjeff]

A Philadelphian voting Democrat? No way...really?

Out of curiosity, are you one of the people that think the bug found in Street's office was placed at GWB's command to try to get Katz elected? Or do you see it as part of an investigation that started prior to the election year that involved drugs and corruption where indictments were handed out on several people close/associated with the Street administration?

As a matter of fact, I did. But even if a Democrat was in the White House, the probe still would've gone on since the Street administration has been crooked from day one.

Regarding the war, sure, Bush needed to whack someone, but he went after the WRONG TARGET, plain and simple. All our energies should've been focused solely on bin Laden and al Queda, Iraq was a needless detour that's so far cost the lives of over 1,000 military men and woman (as a veteran myself, I feel those loses deeply) and turned that country into one huge quagmire, worse, a recruiting slogan for terrorists. For the record, I was against the war since Iraq wasn't the enemy that needed to be brought down. Did Saddam need to be removed? Sure, but I simply didn't think he was a priority while bin Laden was on the loose.

As for Kerry, sure he was a flip-flopper, but we were faced with a situation no one had ever faced before, but to have gone into this alone without any sort of firm coalition from other world powers just didn't make much sense to me, and while I'm not a political animal as others are here, I simply didn't see any logic in rushing into Iraq like we had.

Do you people here not see terrorism as a threat? Do you think it is overplayed?

I don't think it's been overplayed, but Cheney sure did with his horribly irresponsible remark that a vote for Kerry would've meant another attack. Now that Bush is back in office, should another attack occur, God forbid, won't Cheney look like the worst sort of smacked ass, if he isn't already.

As for the WMD's, that's been a muddle from the start. They had either been hidden before the war, destroyed before the war, moved beore the war, any number of mindnumbing scenarios. Hadn't satellites been trained on Iraq to spy on stuff like truck movements? Moving that much material would've been hard to miss, but I never heard of anything like that. Ahh, what a mess this is, and no end seems to be in sight.