Bush haters rejoice...

[sleuth]

Yes, I love'em.

Really? Then pancake your a$$ on outta here.


And vote Bush on November 2nd

I've wanted to use that line ever since The Rock said it 2 or 3 years ago.

 

[UrbanPancake]

What?

That's four, and I thought we won the first one also. The objective was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. A large coalation of nations got together and kicked his azz back to Bagdad.

Before Bush was elected we had these two big office buildings in NYC that 3,000 people worked in. The largest standing army in the middle east, lead by a dictator that terrorized his OWN PEOPLE and used WMD on them is surely harmless.


What's a few ballistic misslels among friends.


Yup, the middle east was a safe quiet place before Bush got elected...NOT


You're an idiot.

If Saddam was such a bad and terrible mean person why didn't his Daddy take care of the problem, if we won the war then it sounds like to me we should have finished the job and take him out power then.

It's been said before and I will say it again. Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists! Let me explain this to you. Saddam was a dictator, he tried very hard to keep terrorist out of his own country because the terrorist were against him also, they wanted him out of power. Now you may ask why, well here is the answer; Saddam prevented must Muslims from practicing Islam, and imprisoned muslims who were against him.(That is what made his country very secular compared to Middle Eastern Countries) As a matter of fact you will that most terrorist come from a country that we are friends with, Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. It sounds like Bush was fighting right along with the terrorist, except it back fired on him in the end.

Most of the Middle East can handle there own affairs. If we would butt out of there business there would be less reason for Arabs to hate America. How would you like it Turkey was ordering US officials to enact certain policies because it went along with there belief system, but was totally opposite what you believe? You wouldn't like it.



I'm the idiot? Well if I'm the idiot then I would have been the one that selected to go to war, and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, shoot why not spread our military resources so thin so we wont have enough time to react to a real crisis. Bush is the idiot.

 

[aps45819]

I'm the idiot? Well if I'm the idiot then I would have been the one that selected to go to war, and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, shoot why not spread our military resources so thin so we wont have enough time to react to a real crisis. Bush is the idiot.

We were attacked and over 3,000 people were killed. Following the intelligence trail of those that attacked us led to Iraq. Guess the intelligence available from agencys gutted by Clinton was very good. Guess you think blowing up an asprin factory in Somolia was a better response when Osama made his first attemp at blowing up the World Trade Center.
Why is an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut only a tax cut for the wealthiest people.

 

[UrbanPancake]

We were attacked and over 3,000 people were killed. Following the intelligence trail of those that attacked us led to Iraq. Guess the intelligence available from agencys gutted by Clinton was very good. Guess you think blowing up an asprin factory in Somolia was a better response when Osama made his first attemp at blowing up the World Trade Center.
Why is an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut only a tax cut for the wealthiest people.

I'm not condoning what happened to the WTC. I think we're right in going to Afghanistan and rooting out the terrorist, but we had no right to go to Iraq. Because we went to Iraq we lost sight in Afghanistan and we haven't captured Osama. Even though we're taking out high commanding officials in terrorist groups there replacing them with new recruits faster then ever. I think we should have truely focused on terror causing groups. Saddam may have committed terror but it was in his own country not ours, and against his own people not ours. In time his people would have rised up and rebelled. History tells us that Dictatorships do not last forever. His people would have done a much better job at rebelling, and at installing a new government of there choice, instead of the puppet that we placed as the President. (This is why Terror cells are growing, they see America as Imperalistic, just like the former Europeans who called there countries colonies)

 

[aps45819]

Guess what, they hate us because of the Crusades. They hate us because it's easier then fixing what's wrong with their countries. The only schools available teach them that the reason their lives suck is because we took everything and left them with nothing. We're attempting to set up democratic governments in places that have only known kings and warloards since the dawn of time. It's not going to be quick or easy.
Do you really think the world would be a better place with a man that would film your wife being raped if you stepped out of line and and then give you a copy of the tape as a reminder?

 

[2ndAmendment]

How would you like it Turkey was ordering US officials to enact certain policies because it went along with there belief system, but was totally opposite what you believe? You wouldn't like it.

Isn't that what Kerry wants us to let the U.N. do? Does "global test" ring a bell?

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'm not condoning what happened to the WTC. I think we're right in going to Afghanistan and rooting out the terrorist, but we had no right to go to Iraq. Because we went to Iraq we lost sight in Afghanistan and we haven't captured Osama. Even though we're taking out high commanding officials in terrorist groups there replacing them with new recruits faster then ever. I think we should have truely focused on terror causing groups. Saddam may have committed terror but it was in his own country not ours, and against his own people not ours. In time his people would have rised up and rebelled. History tells us that Dictatorships do not last forever. His people would have done a much better job at rebelling, and at installing a new government of there choice, instead of the puppet that we placed as the President. (This is why Terror cells are growing, they see America as Imperalistic, just like the former Europeans who called there countries colonies)

Are you sure you are not an MPD for Edwards. You sure have the party line down. Any original thoughts you'd like to offer?

 

[Gooseneck]

UrbanWaffle would have been a better handle for a Kerry supporter.

 

[SamSpade]

If Saddam was such a bad and terrible mean person why didn't his Daddy take care of the problem, if we won the war then it sounds like to me we should have finished the job and take him out power then.

It's been said before and I will say it again. Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists!

Two things. I don't know how old you are, but you've clearly forgotten the conditions of the first Gulf War, or have conveniently forgotten them. They were to remove Saddam from Kuwait and erode his ability to threaten the region (George Sr.'s description). I can't tell you how many times it was reiterated that to enter Baghdad and attack Saddam directly would have lost us all of our Arab allies in that conflict. They were specific - do not violate Iraq's sovereignty and do not permit Israel in the coalition - or we will all leave. They were very emphatic about both, and for precisely that reason, Saddam launched Scuds at Israel, to provoke them into entering the war.

We achieved the mission objectives that the United Nations approved. Got a problem with "not getting the job done the first time"? Take it up with the U.N. This is what happens when you go through that organization.

I personally can't stomach listening to Kerry talk about the Gulf War. He voted *against* it. For all of the talk of not getting the job done, he didn't want us there in the first place. (Then he voted FOR this war, which he's now against).

And secondly - geez, where have you been? It's not even disputed that he harbored terrorists. Zarqawi left Afghanistan before the war, and is still in Iraq, presumably in Baghdad. Saddam was paying off Palestinian families for suicide bombers. He had terrorist training camps within his borders. In addition to all that, they've always helped the PKK, Hamas and Abu Nidal. Only Syria is more in bed with terrorists.

 

[UrbanPancake]

OUT of CONTEXT!

Isn't that what Kerry wants us to let the U.N. do? Does "global test" ring a bell?

If you watched the Debate you would have known that when Kerry said "Global Test" that he really said "We must pass a global test with our countrymen first". Not "a global test with other countries". Get your facts straight first. When we went to war with Iraq nobody really knew why were going to war. It was all a big secret the Administration was keeping. They didn't even have proof that WMD even existed. To this day we still haven't found any, it seems like the UN inspectors were doing a pretty good job at what they do.....

 

[Toxick]

Yes, I love'em. Especially when you wrap them around chicken legs. (I'm just kidding)

 

[Toxick]

and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans,

Wow! I'm one of the wealthiest Americans?
It must be true, cause I got a tax cut.



COOL!

Now, if one of you hoi-polloi would be so kind as to wheel-barrow the rest of my moolah to my mansion, there's a shiny nickel in it for you.

 

[SamSpade]

If you watched the Debate you would have known that when Kerry said "Global Test" that he really said "We must pass a global test with our countrymen first". Not "a global test with other countries". Get your facts straight first. When we went to war with Iraq nobody really knew why were going to war. It was all a big secret the Administration was keeping. They didn't even have proof that WMD even existed. To this day we still haven't found any, it seems like the UN inspectors were doing a pretty good job at what they do.....

It was never the inspector's job to FIND the weapons - only to verify their destruction. This has been done in nations around the world complying with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, and new nations such as Ukraine, and recently Libya, have invited inspections to prove they're doing it. It was supposed to be the same in Iraq, but it became a friggin' shell game, and Saddam eventually threw them out.

This is what Kerry said :

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

I see your point, but he extends that to include explaining it to the world - unless your definition of "global" differs with the rest of the English-speaking world. His past actions and remarks strongly suggest he WOULD wait until the UN sanctioned military action - thus nullifying his answer in the debate.

Lastly - if anyone didn't have any idea WHY we were going to war, they must have been sitting in a hole somewhere. It was spelled out in October of 2002. We made our case before the UN and amazingly - they approved it. (They just didn't want to actually fight). And why not? Our intelligence was corroborated by British, Russian and French intelligence.

 

[UrbanPancake]

You said so YOURSELF!

Two things. I don't know how old you are, but you've clearly forgotten the conditions of the first Gulf War, or have conveniently forgotten them. They were to remove Saddam from Kuwait and erode his ability to threaten the region (George Sr.'s description). I can't tell you how many times it was reiterated that to enter Baghdad and attack Saddam directly would have lost us all of our Arab allies in that conflict. They were specific - do not violate Iraq's sovereignty and do not permit Israel in the coalition - or we will all leave. They were very emphatic about both, and for precisely that reason, Saddam launched Scuds at Israel, to provoke them into entering the war.

We achieved the mission objectives that the United Nations approved. Got a problem with "not getting the job done the first time"? Take it up with the U.N. This is what happens when you go through that organization.

I personally can't stomach listening to Kerry talk about the Gulf War. He voted *against* it. For all of the talk of not getting the job done, he didn't want us there in the first place. (Then he voted FOR this war, which he's now against).

And secondly - geez, where have you been? It's not even disputed that he harbored terrorists. Zarqawi left Afghanistan before the war, and is still in Iraq, presumably in Baghdad. Saddam was paying off Palestinian families for suicide bombers. He had terrorist training camps within his borders. In addition to all that, they've always helped the PKK, Hamas and Abu Nidal. Only Syria is more in bed with terrorists.

You said so yourself that we would have lost our Arab allies if we took out Saddam. Well guess what we took out Saddam this time, and now we have hardly any allies, even in the westernerized world.

Even if Saddam financed these operations which is questionable considering most terrorist groups wanted him out of office so they could instill a new Strict Islamic Regime, the countries that where affected by this should have handled there own business. America is not the World Police. Why should our tax dollars go towards protecting other countries interest? First of all Israel should return the Gaza Strip and West Bank, back to the Palestinians. That would solve that problem. Secondly the World doesn't need American Ideology shoved down there throat. What works here may not work somewhere else, due to different belief systems, and cultural differences, plus a democracy doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to evolve from the people that want it. Our Democracy took over 200 years to truely develop, and it's still evolving as American Culture changes. That said we can't force a country to adapt an American Political system because we want it to. Think about it, England tried to do that to us before the American Revolution.

 

[Hessian]

The perspective offered following is NOT from the mind of Hessian...rather from Chuck Colson:......(I have paraphrased)

The hatred toward the US is rooted in a view that freedom and democracy breeds corruption/decadence. We are baffled why people don't seem to embrace freedom that we offer. The reason rests on the fact that Hollywood and the media are in a constant race to shock, stun, exploit more & more vices---and this is seen in the Middle East and they see that we don't just tolerate it...we make $$ off it!

So the Imams & Mullahs preach to their devout men that they must rise up and not accept the promises of freedom, must not support any American regime because of our unending support of Israel, we do not understand or work within their customs which offends them greatly.

and now I quote:
"When we tolerate trash on television and permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet...we are inflaming radical Islam."

So, the fight to liberate Iraq was noble...the push for Democracy is laudable...But we will not defeat radical Islam until we pull the motivation away from their radical Imams and push America as a MORAL force for good, not a cesspool of excess.

 

[UrbanPancake]

The perspective offered following is NOT from the mind of Hessian...rather from Chuck Colson:......(I have paraphrased)

The hatred toward the US is rooted in a view that freedom and democracy breeds corruption/decadence. We are baffled why people don't seem to embrace freedom that we offer. The reason rests on the fact that Hollywood and the media are in a constant race to shock, stun, exploit more & more vices---and this is seen in the Middle East and they see that we don't just tolerate it...we make $$ off it!

So the Imams & Mullahs preach to their devout men that they must rise up and not accept the promises of freedom, must not support any American regime because of our unending support of Israel, we do not understand or work within their customs which offends them greatly.

and now I quote:
"When we tolerate trash on television and permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet...we are inflaming radical Islam."

So, the fight to liberate Iraq was noble...the push for Democracy is laudable...But we will not defeat radical Islam until we pull the motivation away from their radical Imams and push America as a MORAL force for good, not a cesspool of excess.

I agree with you on this. But you can't restrict the right to freedom of expression. When you do this you violate the constitution that our forefathers created many years ago.
What I will say is if Americans don't want to watch filth they should just turn off the TV. It's that easy. We don't need laws restricting what we see, that would be called Communism.

 

[Hessian]

"That said we can't force a country to adapt an American Political system because we want it to. Think about it, England tried to do that to us before the American Revolution."

I'm sorry,...but as I have read your posts I just keep seeing odd analogies or missed comparisons. The above statement epitomizes your confusion.
England tried to force on us their form of government? Um...that is very bizarre. They mismanaged a colonial system that was heavy with patronage and deprived the provincial colonists of the rights of Englishmen. We overthrew a tyranny and created a confederation (later a federal democracy)
I just don't have the patience to explain that further...

Please work on your analogies!(or your arguments will continue to fall flat).

Vote Constitution Party on Novemebr 2nd!

 

[Toxick]

But we will not defeat radical Islam until we pull the motivation away from their radical Imams and push America as a MORAL force for good, not a cesspool of excess.

Er... isn't that backwards.

Correct me if I'm wrong: An accurate paraphrasing of the above statement is: "We won't defeat the terrorists until we surrender to them".





If you turn of your pr0n, the terrorists will win.

 

[Hessian]

"We don't need laws restricting what we see, that would be called Communism."

Here we see another problem...Communism is a totalitarian Economic system, which employs rigid censorship...Censorship shows up in Fascist, Maoist, and certainly many dictatorship societies. And our Founding Fathers actually supported degrees of censorship: Check Hamilton and Adams...support for the Sedition act?

Dig deeper, read more, get better, think harder, convince more!

 

[UrbanPancake]

Your Missing the POINT!

"That said we can't force a country to adapt an American Political system because we want it to. Think about it, England tried to do that to us before the American Revolution."

I'm sorry,...but as I have read your posts I just keep seeing odd analogies or missed comparisons. The above statement epitomizes your confusion.
England tried to force on us their form of government? Um...that is very bizarre. They mismanaged a colonial system that was heavy with patronage and deprived the provincial colonists of the rights of Englishmen. We overthrew a tyranny and created a confederation (later a federal democracy)
I just don't have the patience to explain that further...

Please work on your analogies!(or your arguments will continue to fall flat).

Vote Constitution Party on Novemebr 2nd!

England tried to rule us from afar and they had there puppet governors ruling the colonies and enforcing colonists to follow english tax laws. Now look at it like this; The Americans installed a puppet government that represents American VALUES which creates more Arabs who hate America, which in turn enables them to create more terrorists cells who vow to destroy the American Puppet Government in Iraq, and install there own government in Iraq of there choice.