PDA

View Full Version : Village Bush...


tlr online
23-10-04, 01:15
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/m/i/village_bush.jpg

Neteru
23-10-04, 01:58
LOL, check your mail ;)

tlr online
23-10-04, 02:01
Originally posted by Neteru:
LOL, check your mail ;) LMAO!!! Go for it!! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/jumper.gif

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:02
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/silent.gif

*no comment*

tlr online
23-10-04, 02:04
nerdalicious. Welcome aboard. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif Comment away. ;)

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:07
I so hate Bush..and I am a Canadian albeit a hardcore Dem, I just came across this clip of Bush *I so love bashing him-see post about banner*

LMFAO (http://www.skoopy.com/show2.php?id=795&type=VID)

he pretty much lost the entire Native American vote at that conference. hee.

Neteru
23-10-04, 02:10
OK :D Here's another

http://neteru.tombraiderforums.com/images/bush.jpg

tlr online
23-10-04, 02:14
Originally posted by Neteru:
OK :D Here's another

http://neteru.tombraiderforums.com/images/bush.jpghttp://www.tombraiderforums.com/m/i/funnysmilies/smiley_smile.gif

tlr online
23-10-04, 02:17
Y'know. After all we've witnessed, the live debates.. alienating most of the world.... I would be TRULY STUNNED if Bush won another term.

I mean, TRULY STUNNED... and you've gotta wonder at those who put him back in office. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/silent.gif

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:17
http://img.makeupalley.com/9/8/9/2/191317.jpeg

The Bush Gang

tlr online
23-10-04, 02:21
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:23
I am having way too much fun with this http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-5.gif

Neteru
23-10-04, 02:34
LOL nerdalicious!

tlr, you won't be the only one stunned if he wins.

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:39
Here is my Bush joke of the day...

Osama contacts George W. Bush

After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive", Osama himself decided to send George W. Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. He opened the letter and it appeared to contain a coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.

George W. was baffled, so he typed it out and emailed it to Dick Cheney. Cheney and his advisors had no clue either so they sent it to Condoleezza Rice and her staff. No one could solve it so it went to the CIA and then to the FBI, who sent it to George Bush Sr., who then sent it to Jeb Bush. Eventually they asked Britain's MI6 for help. They cabled George W. back: "Tell the President he is looking at the message upside down."

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 02:46
Originally posted by tlr online:
Y'know. After all we've witnessed, the live debates.. alienating most of the world.... I would be TRULY STUNNED if Bush won another term.

I mean, TRULY STUNNED... and you've gotta wonder at those who put him back in office. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/silent.gif Those debates were the best, my coworkers/friends even played the debate drinking game, great entertainment...

You know you're a grown up when your Friday night plan is watching the *debate*, I'm such a loser http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-5.gif

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 03:56
So you guys hate Bush, think that he is stupid, and/or think he is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler....OK, WE GOT IT!!! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-4.gif

FLIPPER

[ 28. October 2004, 02:36: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 04:21
Originally posted by tlr online:
Y'know. After all we've witnessed, the live debates.. alienating most of the world.... I would be TRULY STUNNED if Bush won another term.

I mean, TRULY STUNNED... and you've gotta wonder at those who put him back in office. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/silent.gif Uh oh:

time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,733715,00.html)

realclearpolitics.com (http://realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html)

Clearly you and quite a few others on this website are out of touch when it comes to understanding the American electorate. Apparently there are quite a few Americans who feel differently from you.

Perhaps puting a few more idiotic cartoons on this thread that portray Bush as Hitler will improve the credibility of all the anti-Bush supporters. :rolleyes:

FLIPPER

[ 23. October 2004, 05:27: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

tlr online
23-10-04, 04:25
Flipper. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif It's been a pretty intensive election process so far, we're just having some fun before doomsday arrives...

[ 23. October 2004, 05:27: Message edited by: tlr online ]

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 04:29
Originally posted by tlr online:
Flipper. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif It's been a pretty intensive election process so far, we're just having some fun before doomsday arrives...Portraying Bush as Hitler is "having some fun?"

Whatever you say big guy! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

FLIPPER

[ 23. October 2004, 05:29: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

tlr online
23-10-04, 04:34
Well as you reference above, there are two schools of thought here, one being for and one being against Bush. I'm in the "Bush-the-terrorist" camp. I make no bones about it. If Bush is re-elected, GOD HELP AMERICA, and more fool those who put him back there!

[ 23. October 2004, 05:36: Message edited by: tlr online ]

tlr online
23-10-04, 04:39
Well, apart from the 1% of America's richest. I'm sure they'll be singing in their gold-threaded knickers for joy!

Get a reality check dude. This guy has just raped your country, plunged you into financial crisis and made you the laughing stock of the world!

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 05:03
Originally posted by tlr online:
Well as you reference above, there are two schools of thought here, one being for and one being against Bush. I'm in the "Bush-the-terrorist" camp. I make no bones about it. If Bush is re-elected, GOD HELP AMERICA, and more fool those who put him back there!Well that is the typical, irresponsible opinion that I expect from someone who is anti-Bush & does not live in the U.S. I think anyone who thinks President Bush is a "terrorist" does not possess a clear understanding about the current War on Terror or what the U.S. actually experienced on 9/11. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. People who live in free countries, which now include Afghanistan & Iraq, enjoy such freedoms without vicious retaliation.

I will also remind you that there are a few other despicable individuals in this world who share your negative opinion about President Bush. Any guesses to whom I'm referring to? You are obviously not alone in hoping that President Bush is defeated in November.

FLIPPER - not to be confused with Neville Chamberlain, thank God.

tlr online
23-10-04, 05:15
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Well that is the typical, irresponsible opinion that I expect from someone who is anti-Bush & does not live in the U.S. I think anyone who thinks President Bush is a "terrorist" does not possess a clear understanding about the current War on Terror or what the U.S. actually experienced on 9/11. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. People who live in free countries, which now include Afghanistan & Iraq, enjoy such freedoms without vicious retaliation.

I will also remind you that there are a few other despicable individuals in this world who share your negative opinion about President Bush. Any guesses to whom I'm referring to? You are obviously not alone in hoping that President Bush is defeated in November.

FLIPPER - not to be confused with Neville Chamberlain, thank God.Well that would depend on your interpretation of the situation, and I have never disputed how despicable it was. On whether 9/11 was an act of aggression or retaliation for America meddling in other counties affairs when she should have be putting her own house in order first.

The comparison you attempt to draw in your second paragraph exemplifies perfectly the typical, irresponsible opinion that I expect from someone so ardent a Bush supporter.

Greetings, and goodnight Sir.

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 05:19
Originally posted by tlr online:
Get a reality check dude. This guy has just raped your country, plunged you into financial crisis and made you the laughing stock of the world!The problem tlronline is that I actually live in the U.S. & you don't, yet you act as if you're a seasoned expert of U.S. domestic & foreign policy. Sadly you are not.

The U.S. economy has recovered from the 9/11 attacks, corporate scandals,& the recession Bush inherited. By the way, the U.S. is not facing a "financial crisis." Things aren't perfect here in the U.S. but we're hardly the "laughing stock of the world" as you suggest. In fact the U.S. has overcome a great deal since 9/11.

I applaud you tlronline for running such a fine website; however, I couldn't disagree with you more about your opinions about the U.S. & its current leadership.

FLIPPER

[ 23. October 2004, 07:11: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 05:41
Originally posted by tlr online:

On whether 9/11 was an act of aggression or retaliation for America meddling in other counties affairs when she should have be putting her own house in order first.And pray tell us what the U.S. did exactly, in your opinion, to warrant the wrath of terrorists on 9/11? Please tell all here (in exact terms) why the U.S. deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda & lose nearly 3000 citizens. Did the World Trade Towers deserve to be destroyed? Did the Pentagon & Capitol Hill also deserve to be attacked? Apparently yes, according to you, because we "meddled" in the Middle East.

Also according to your "logic," the U.S. deserved to be attacked NOT ONLY on 9/11/01, but also by Japan at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. After all, we, the U.S., "meddled" with Japan in the 1930s by increasing our financial & wartime aid to China (who was being invaded by Japan), cut back our oil & "s c r a p" metal trade with Japan (which they heavily-relied on), & froze Japanese accounts in U.S. banks. Apparently we must have been the dumbest nation in the world to actually stand up to imperial Japan. Therefore, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (a Democrat) must be a classified as a despicable "terrorist" for hoodwinking the U.S. Congress into declaring war on Japan (after all, we provoked them), and eventually on Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy.

Goodnight to you as well. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-4.gif

FLIPPER

[ 23. October 2004, 07:05: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Olvidarse
23-10-04, 06:52
youforgotpoland.com

rumorsontheinternets.com

"I hear theres rumors on the internets." http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

andromeda_eats
23-10-04, 07:13
I just cant resist! I have my own personal reasons for disliking Bush, one being soaring petrol prices, the other the unnecessary deaths of my fellow country men in that so-called war on terror.

Flipper, just quietly, America IS the laughingstock of the world. You can deny Bush's actions all you want, but the whole world is laughing at America because of a single man. Its the truth, sorry mate. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

However comparing Bush and Hitler is completely irrational and makes no sense. Hitler was a psychopathic meglomaniac. Bush is just an idiot.

Thorn
23-10-04, 07:41
If America is a laughing stock then are you laughing at the public here? I agree that America has turned into **** since Bush took over btw. I can't believe the prices for groceries and gas today. Everything increases except my pay check. Those, money grubbers. :mad:

Olvidarse
23-10-04, 07:58
I come from a middle-class family in the US, and the tax cuts only allowed us to buy SIX FREE CANS OF SOUP!

Ohmyluckystars! What ever shall I do with all this soup?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif

I don't think you've really felt the burn of Bush's inability to rule as President. Thanks to his "No Child Left Behind" policy, for example:
- I've lost my library
- Had my high school increase by nearly one-thousand more students.
- There has been an increase in the amount of on-campus fights due to the lack of faculty. One brawl a day, to be exact.
- I've lost three of my government funded clubs. Now my college application will be set back three fundamental extracurricular spots.
- We have lost music in our elementary schools. Thankfully the high-schools will keep the program. However, that means that the future of the whole music program will be cut from the source.
- The amount of AP classes that are available is dwindling. I now have fewer options than my sister had a few years back when Clinton was in office. Less amount of AP classes taken + Need to be in the top 5% of class = Harder to even be considered by a UC college (I live in California) & Lower class rank = Less options for a worthy college = Limit on successful position in future occupation.

Fortunately I have supportive parents - as well as a spotless GPA. But what will happen to the average Joe or Jane?

Apofiss
23-10-04, 08:22
LOL!!! :D That is so so .... hmm ... paradoxal.. :D

[Whoever wins - we lose] Taken from AvsP http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/whistle.gif

nerdalicious
23-10-04, 12:45
This election is clearly a hot topic, everywhere...

On another forum I frequent, they had to create a "sub-board" for politics talk. It just gets out of hand.

I think people should be allowed to express their opinions, but more often than not, the posts regress into personal attacks and name-calling, which are neither productive nor effective. I'd like to continue having political posts (here and elsewhere), but not at the expense of hurting my feelings or other posters' feelings.

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 18:54
Originally posted by Olvidarse:
I come from a middle-class family in the US, and the tax cuts only allowed us to buy SIX FREE CANS OF SOUP!

Ohmyluckystars! What ever shall I do with all this soup?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif

I don't think you've really felt the burn of Bush's inability to rule as President. Thanks to his "No Child Left Behind" policy, for example:That's cute but completely inaccurate. First of all, all federal taxpayers, including middle class families, received tax cuts because all of the marginal rates were reduced (in fact many people have been completely removed from the federal tax rolls). Second, I'm guessing, Olvidarse, that you are 18 or under. In that case your parents can claim a Child Tax Credit.

Child Tax Credit (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edit/basics/Tax_credits/basic_3a.asp)

If you have other siblings, that means your parents can apply for additional cuts. The savings add up to just a little bit more than 6 cans of soup.

By the way, the "No Child Left Behind" program increased funding for public schools by 49%. It's a shame that your school is experiencing some difficulties right now. Perhaps you should ask the superintendent of your school district to see why your school is experiencing such difficulties when federal funding for public schools has increased dramatically.

In response to your comment:

"I don't think you've really felt the burn of Bush's inability to rule as President."

First, I completely reject your premise.

Second, the only people who have the ability to suggest such a thing to me are people who actually know who I am, what I do for a career, and how closely I follow American politics. You are not one of them.

Good luck in school this year.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
23-10-04, 19:10
Originally posted by andromeda_eats:
Flipper, just quietly, America IS the laughingstock of the world. You can deny Bush's actions all you want, but the whole world is laughing at America because of a single man. Its the truth, sorry mate. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

However comparing Bush and Hitler is completely irrational and makes no sense. Hitler was a psychopathic meglomaniac. Bush is just an idiot.Well if the entire world feels that liberating the oppressed people of Afghanistan & Iraq from despotic rule makes the U.S. look like the "laughing stock of the world," then I'm all for it.

Also, if the fine people of Australia feel the way that you do, then they probably want to politically defeat some of Bush's closest allies on the War on Terror like your prime minister, John Howard; however, Howard's administration was recently re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term, while apparently his coalition party has increased their majority in Parliament. Cheers Australia! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

Looks like you are in the minority, mate. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

FLIPPER

Draco
23-10-04, 19:36
I voted for Bush. I made an informed decision.

I'm tired of politically correct administrations, if your skin is that thin, oh well.

Thorir
23-10-04, 19:59
I really want to encourage all Americans to vote!
Against Bush!

Remember, the President does not only control USA, but has huge worldwide power!
For the sake of the world, do not vote Bush!!

Thorir
23-10-04, 20:01
No offence, Draco. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/hug.gif
One should vote for what one belives in. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Draco
23-10-04, 20:05
Originally posted by Thorir:
Remember, the President does not only control USA, but has huge worldwide power!If that is the case, than it is your own leaders you need to worry about.

Power is given, not taken.

[ 23. October 2004, 21:07: Message edited by: Draco ]

Isabella
24-10-04, 00:06
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:
Well as you reference above, there are two schools of thought here, one being for and one being against Bush. I'm in the "Bush-the-terrorist" camp. I make no bones about it. If Bush is re-elected, GOD HELP AMERICA, and more fool those who put him back there!Well that is the typical, irresponsible opinion that I expect from someone who is anti-Bush & does not live in the U.S. I think anyone who thinks President Bush is a "terrorist" does not possess a clear understanding about the current War on Terror or what the U.S. actually experienced on 9/11. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. People who live in free countries, which now include Afghanistan & Iraq, enjoy such freedoms without vicious retaliation.

</font>[/QUOTE]I apologize for butting in this way but I feel someone has to speak up on John Kerry's behalf. Flipper I do live in the U.S and I am a citizen. I respect that we as Americans are split down the middle atm as far as all the issues are concerned.

True, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant ( to put mildly ). What I've always had a problem with, along with my fellow Kerry supporters, is that we were led into the war under false beliefs. One of the main reasons for going into Iraq was because there were weapons of mass destruction. If this was such a huge concern then why did we not do something about North Korea? They were practically waving the fact that they had nuclear weapons on our face. If the answer is that Saddam and Osama were connected then where is the hard evidence? The findings show that Saddam had no hand in 9/11.

It's very hard for some of us to swallow what Bush is telling the public. True, I may be biased since I've always been way to the left. But Bush and his administration seem to keep digging themselves ( along with the nation ) futher and further into this dark hole. The price of human lives has been far too high on both sides.

What makes me very uneasy is that Bush refuses to admit that he is capable of making a mistake. During the last debate when someone asked him to name 3, He couldn't give a clear-cut answer. In my opinion one of the measures of a true leader is if they can admit to doing wrong. It's never easy to do so, but if you are the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world then you shouldn't expect things to be simple.

The rest of the world no longer views the U.S with as much respect as it used to. On CNN it showed a pole in which our approval rating has gone down drastically ( I can dig the figures up online if need be ). Personally I think we need our allies and I feel much more comfortable knowing that we are looked on with smiles rather than scowls. Being such a rich and powerful nation should make us admirable instead of feared. This power shouldn't mean that we get to act like the class bully.

As mentioned earlier, I respect that you may feel as strongly about your stance as I do about mine. In the end I guess we'll just agree to disagree agreeably. ;)

[ 24. October 2004, 01:10: Message edited by: Isabella ]

nerdalicious
24-10-04, 00:35
Even my Bush supporter friends will agree that he completely FUBAR'd his term http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/violent.gif

I would also like to say that just because we are not American does not mean we should not care of have interest, (not necessarily the views on this forum) this election will ultimely effect the world...

Why just last week this happened... My brother and sister almost came to blows at dinner (over the US election) when they both just completely unloaded on each other. My brother was yelling, my sister was crying and shrieking and my poor mother was just sitting there shell-shocked. I was just stunned. I had to leave the room. I could NOT believe it.

And we live in Canada, jeesh http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yikes.gif

Flipper1987
24-10-04, 04:43
First of Isabella I want to commend you on the dignified way in which you presented yourself and your viewpoint. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

Originally posted by Isabella:

True, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant ( to put mildly ). What I've always had a problem with, along with my fellow Kerry supporters, is that we were led into the war under false beliefs. One of the main reasons for going into Iraq was because there were weapons of mass destruction. You're absolutely right Isabella. Nearly everybody in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs: Great Britain did, France did, Germany did, Russia did, Jordan did, Egypt did, the CIA did, and the United Nations did. Now have we discovered from the Duelpher Report that Saddam intentionally kept up the deception that Iraq had WMDs in order to keep Iran from invading Iraq. There are some people, however, who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and had them shipped to Syria in the 7 month build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Personally I believe the U.S. had the right to depose Saddam solely on the fact that he violated the 1991 Persian Gulf cease-fire agreement, and he also violated 16 to 17 U.N. resolutions.

If this was such a huge concern then why did we not do something about North Korea? They were practically waving the fact that they had nuclear weapons on our face.We did not find out that North Korea had VIOLATED it's agreement to not produce any nuclear weapons until after U.S. & coalition forces successfully invaded Afghanistan & toppled the Taliban (Al-Qaeda-supported) government in the Fall of 2001. Fearful that the U.S. might invade N. Korea next, Kim Jong Il announced (in 2002 I believe) that his country had 2 or 3 nuclear warheads. Such an admission was in direct violation of the treaty that N. Korea had signed with the Clinton administration during the 1990s. So basically N. Korea lied to two different U.S. administrations.

I believe Bush is following the right strategy: a regional multi-national approach into pressuring N. Korea to abandon it's nuclear ambitions. Senator Kerry feels that we don't need China, South Korea, Japan, & Russia to assist us in convincing N. Korea to live up to its previous agreements. I feel that is a huge mistake.

If the answer is that Saddam and Osama were connected then where is the hard evidence? The findings show that Saddam had no hand in 9/11. President Bush has never said that Iraq & Al-Qaeda planned 9/11. It is true that Vice President Cheney has made some vague comments that imply that there was some sort of connection between Saddam & Al-Qaeda. This is unfortunate & the VP should have chosen different language. What is clear though is that Saddam has allowed terrorists to operate in his country, & Saddam has rewarded terrorists (& their families) in the past.

But Bush and his administration seem to keep digging themselves ( along with the nation ) futher and further into this dark hole. The price of human lives has been far too high on both sides. It is unfortunate that U.S. & coalition forces have lost around 1,100 lives. I'm sure you, as well as I, are thankful for the ultimate sacrifice that these brave, patriotic soldiers have made in the struggle for freedom in Iraq & Afghanistan; however, as we remember these sacrifices, we need to keep in mind one thing (this may shock you):

In 2003, over 43,200 Americans lost their lives on U.S. roads, streets, & highways. Over 43,200! That's an average of 118 deaths per day. That means in the next 10 days, more people will have died on American roads than will have died in the liberation of Afghanistan & Iraq (not counting civilian deaths that are a direct result of terrorist car bombs). The sad thing is that those who will have died on American roads will have died in vain; those who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan have not (unless we turn tail & bolt, which even Senator Kerry has no plans of doing).

What makes me very uneasy is that Bush refuses to admit that he is capable of making a mistake. During the last debate when someone asked him to name 3, He couldn't give a clear-cut answer. In my opinion one of the measures of a true leader is if they can admit to doing wrong. It's never easy to do so, but if you are the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world then you shouldn't expect things to be simple. I think Bush will be better served if he did admit making a mistake; however, this is an election year & Bush knows that if he did make such an admittance, Senator Kerry & his allies in the liberal media would play that soundbite over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over again. Has Senator Kerry been asked if he has made any mistakes in the past 4 years? If he hasn't then why not?

The rest of the world no longer views the U.S with as much respect as it used to. On CNN it showed a pole in which our approval rating has gone down drastically ( I can dig the figures up online if need be ). Personally I think we need our allies and I feel much more comfortable knowing that we are looked on with smiles rather than scowls. Being such a rich and powerful nation should make us admirable instead of feared. This power shouldn't mean that we get to act like the class bully.I agree that it would be nice if the U.S. had more countries supporting our efforts in toppling despotic regimes & bringing democracy to regions that have only known oppression & suffering. Just because France, Germany, & Russia did not support the invasion of Iraq doesn't mean it wasn't a necessary and worthwhile endeavor.

As you know Isabella, the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan & Iraq to expand the commonwealth of the U.S.; We are there to kill terrorists & create democratic governments. We have spent hundreds of billions of $ & have sacrificed hundreds & hundreds of lives to make the world a better place. The question you & others should ask is why haven't other freedom-loving countries joined our coalition? There are many reasons: they made multi-billion $ deals with the Axis of Evil in the past, they have been bribed with funds pilfered from the massively-corrupt Oil for Food program, they would love to see the U.S. fail, etc...

I am not surprised that some American liberals & indignant Europeans are savaging Bush & his current foreign policies. Back during the 1980s, these same people were viciously attacking Reagan & his reckless "cowboy" approach to dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Many predicted that Reagan's policies would lead to World War III & nuclear devastation. Instead the Cold War ended & historians recognize Reagan as one of the most important figures of the 20th century. Critics of Reagan, which included John Kerry, were wrong then & I believe they, once again including John Kerry, are wrong now.

FLIPPER

[ 24. October 2004, 05:51: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

andromeda_eats
24-10-04, 12:58
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by andromeda_eats:
Flipper, just quietly, America IS the laughingstock of the world. You can deny Bush's actions all you want, but the whole world is laughing at America because of a single man. Its the truth, sorry mate. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

However comparing Bush and Hitler is completely irrational and makes no sense. Hitler was a psychopathic meglomaniac. Bush is just an idiot.Well if the entire world feels that liberating the oppressed people of Afghanistan & Iraq from despotic rule makes the U.S. look like the "laughing stock of the world," then I'm all for it.

Also, if the fine people of Australia feel the way that you do, then they probably want to politically defeat some of Bush's closest allies on the War on Terror like your prime minister, John Howard; however, Howard's administration was recently re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term, while apparently his coalition party has increased their majority in Parliament. Cheers Australia! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

Looks like you are in the minority, mate. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

FLIPPER</font>[/QUOTE]I would hardly say Bush "liberated" Afghanistan or Iraq. As far as Im aware, Australian troops are still in combat over there. Thanks Bush and Howard, kill more of our people. Good work.

That however, is not the reason America is being laughed at. First off, Bush's reason for the war was these so called weapons of mass destruction, and the dangerous threat on the world.... Show me the weapons of mass destruction, and Ill get down and sing Halleluigh to Bush. Bush made a call that was so embarrasingly wrong. Second of all, I have two words for you. Got oil?

Oh and thanks I wasnt actually aware who won the election in my own country.... :rolleyes:

I voted for Latham, actually, and not just because he is against the idea of Australia being America's lapdog. And I dont mind being in the minority, mate because my political views are more important then popularity contests.

Isabella
24-10-04, 17:14
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Nearly everybody in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs: Great Britain did, France did, Germany did, Russia did, Jordan did, Egypt did, the CIA did, and the United Nations did. Now have we discovered from the Duelpher Report that Saddam intentionally kept up the deception that Iraq had WMDs in order to keep Iran from invading Iraq. There are some people, however, who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and had them shipped to Syria in the 7 month build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Personally I believe the U.S. had the right to depose Saddam solely on the fact that he violated the 1991 Persian Gulf cease-fire agreement, and he also violated 16 to 17 U.N. resolutions.[/QUOTE]

I won't argue that something did indeed need to be done with Iraq. What I didn't like was the thrusting of the idea that they were an immediate threat to our safety and had to be dealt with or else.... I think the situation should have been handled differently with a more planned out, careful approach. Most of the American public was fearful that there would be another disasterous attack on us ergo the staunch support of the decision to invade Iraq. I believe the Bush administration knew that there was no present danger to us as far as Iraq was concerned but they wanted the momentum of the people's support. Granted the media didn't help matters by driving those fears into the public and we know how unbiased our media is here. ;)

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
We did not find out that North Korea had VIOLATED it's agreement to not produce any nuclear weapons until after U.S. & coalition forces successfully invaded Afghanistan & toppled the Taliban (Al-Qaeda-supported) government in the Fall of 2001. Fearful that the U.S. might invade N. Korea next, Kim Jong Il announced (in 2002 I believe) that his country had 2 or 3 nuclear warheads. Such an admission was in direct violation of the treaty that N. Korea had signed with the Clinton administration during the 1990s. So basically N. Korea lied to two different U.S. administrations.

I believe Bush is following the right strategy: a regional multi-national approach into pressuring N. Korea to abandon it's nuclear ambitions. Senator Kerry feels that we don't need China, South Korea, Japan, & Russia to assist us in convincing N. Korea to live up to its previous agreements. I feel that is a huge mistake.FLIPPER[/QUOTE]

I agree that Kerry needs to clarify this particular issue ( Personally I'd like to see Dean in the place of Kerry ). I think we are in agreement that N. Korea shouldn't be ignored. From my viewpoint though, the attack on Iraq for the reason of WMD seemed like more of a political move when N. Korea made it clear to the world that they did infact have weapons. No matter when this information was discovered, something should have been done if WMD's were indeed the issue.

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
President Bush has never said that Iraq & Al-Qaeda planned 9/11. It is true that Vice President Cheney has made some vague comments that imply that there was some sort of connection between Saddam & Al-Qaeda. This is unfortunate & the VP should have chosen different language. What is clear though is that Saddam has allowed terrorists to operate in his country, & Saddam has rewarded terrorists (& their families) in the past.FLIPPER[/QUOTE]

Harboring terrorists was just one of the many downfalls of Saddam which brough upon his undoing, yes. I do think the vague comments made were again for political gain. Planting those seeds of though that there was a connection wasn't a mistake and it was all it took to rally the public in support of the war.

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
It is unfortunate that U.S. & coalition forces have lost around 1,100 lives. I'm sure you, as well as I, are thankful for the ultimate sacrifice that these brave, patriotic soldiers have made in the struggle for freedom in Iraq & Afghanistan; however, as we remember these sacrifices, we need to keep in mind one thing (this may shock you):

In 2003, over 43,200 Americans lost their lives on U.S. roads, streets, & highways. Over 43,200! That's an average of 118 deaths per day. That means in the next 10 days, more people will have died on American roads than will have died in the liberation of Afghanistan & Iraq (not counting civilian deaths that are a direct result of terrorist car bombs). The sad thing is that those who will have died on American roads will have died in vain; those who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan have not (unless we turn tail & bolt, which even Senator Kerry has no plans of doing).
FLIPPER[/QUOTE]
There is no easy way for this war to come to an end and we have to finish what was started. I agree that the attack on Afganistan was justified for we Knew that the terrorists originated from that country and Osama was somewhere hiding. The hard thing to face now is that we all know that the origional reason for going into Iraq was a false one. This war was not supposed to drag out this long and be this difficult. We've stirred up a hornets nest which can only lead to more death. Things have to be finished now, it's come too far but I can't help but have a stone in my stomach over the reason for it all.

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
I think Bush will be better served if he did admit making a mistake; however, this is an election year & Bush knows that if he did make such an admittance, Senator Kerry & his allies in the liberal media would play that soundbite over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over again. Has Senator Kerry been asked if he has made any mistakes in the past 4 years? If he hasn't then why not?FLIPPER[/QUOTE]
You mention that they would play that soundbite over and over again, and you are right. Just the way they over played and took out of context Kerry's 'Global Test' comment. As John Stewart said, it's a good thing he didn't use the word 'duty' in that speech lest the media come down on him for using something that comes close to 'dooty'. :D

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
I agree that it would be nice if the U.S. had more countries supporting our efforts in toppling despotic regimes & bringing democracy to regions that have only known oppression & suffering. Just because France, Germany, & Russia did not support the invasion of Iraq doesn't mean it wasn't a necessary and worthwhile endeavor.FLIPPER[/QUOTE]

I'll admit that I'm biased on this one. My father was French and I lived there until I was 5. *Ducks any flying tomatoes* ;) In all seriousness though, I like the feeling of unity and those 3 important countries should be at our side when it comes to such grave matters as war.

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
As you know Isabella, the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan & Iraq to expand the commonwealth of the U.S.; We are there to kill terrorists & create democratic governments. We have spent hundreds of billions of $ & have sacrificed hundreds & hundreds of lives to make the world a better place. The question you & others should ask is why haven't other freedom-loving countries joined our coalition? There are many reasons: they made multi-billion $ deals with the Axis of Evil in the past, they have been bribed with funds pilfered from the massively-corrupt Oil for Food program, they would love to see the U.S. fail, etc...

I am not surprised that some American liberals & indignant Europeans are savaging Bush & his current foreign policies. Back during the 1980s, these same people were viciously attacking Reagan & his reckless "cowboy" approach to dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Many predicted that Reagan's policies would lead to World War III & nuclear devastation. Instead the Cold War ended & historians recognize Reagan as one of the most important figures of the 20th century. Critics of Reagan, which included John Kerry, were wrong then & I believe they, once again including John Kerry, are wrong now.FLIPPER[/QUOTE]

Personally I think the reason France Germany Russia ect didn't support the war was due to the fact that they had a better view of what was really happening. They could see the forest for the trees so to speak. The listened to the U.N and wanted more time for the case to build which would warrent an attack on Iraq. I know some people do not put much value on the U.N. I do. I believe we need it's support and I don't like the feeling of not having it behind our desisions.
I was too young during the Regan administration to remember much about what slurs he was recieving for his actions on the Cold War. But based on what I heard following his death, He was at the root, a good, honest man. Seeing clips of him on television I get a sense of sincerity and warmth. When I see Bush I do not feel that kind of genuine attitude. I know some people admire him for his no nonsense attitude but I can't. After the first debate I think we all caught a glimpse him.

Flipper, I am happy that we can discuss this in such a civil manner and it's good to see the bantor kept on friendly terms. I wish our sides could interact this way more often. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

B][/QUOTE

Draco
24-10-04, 20:40
Dean would never have gotten elected, Kerry was about the only shot the DNC had.

Flipper1987
24-10-04, 21:39
Originally posted by andromeda_eats:
I would hardly say Bush "liberated" Afghanistan or Iraq. Really? The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been squashed, Al-Qaeda camps have been destroyed, & Saddam Hussein's barbaric regime has been toppled. People can now speak their minds & choose their leaders. They just held democratic elections in Afghanistan last week, & they're planning to hold elections in Iraq in January. Apparently you & I have different definitions over what the word "liberated" means.

The transition to democracy has been rough in Iraq but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.

As far as Im aware, Australian troops are still in combat over there. Thanks Bush and Howard, kill more of our people. Good work.Actually it's the TERRORISTS who are killing coalition soldiers & Iraqi civilians, including those Iraqi men who are lining up in droves to join police forces & the new Iraqi army so that they can protect their newly-won freedoms which you & I enjoy on a daily basis.

First off, Bush's reason for the war was these so called weapons of mass destruction, and the dangerous threat on the world.... Show me the weapons of mass destruction, and Ill get down and sing Halleluigh to Bush. Bush made a call that was so embarrasingly wrong.I answered this issue in a previous post to Isabella. The one thing that you apparently have forgotten is that EVERYBODY thought that Saddam had weapons of WMD. Even Saddam kept up that ruse because he believed that Iran would have invaded Iraq if Iran believed that Iraq had no WMDs. According to the Duelpher report, Iraqi generals didn't realize that Saddam didn't have WMDs until after the invasion started.

Second of all, I have two words for you. Got oil?I was in college when the first Persian Gulf War (1991) started. I went to a very liberal college in Michigan (Kalamazoo College). When the war started, nearly all of the liberal, anti-war students immediately began comparing the Gulf War to Vietnam & started repeating ad nauseum the phrase "No Blood For Oil."

The funny thing about all of that was that many of them couldn't point out Iraq on a map (initially), nor could they give an adequate description of what actually occurred in Vietnam. It was as if the invasion of Kuwait didn't matter to them at all. They could have cared less if the U.N. agreed that the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait was OK.

Whenever I come across anti-war individuals who spout the "oil" excuse for the invasion of Iraq, I simply smile & shake my head & I think about all that crude oil the U.S. took over after invading Afghanistan (oh wait, there wasn't any :rolleyes: ). And if the US was truly interested in taking over the oil fields of the Middle East, then how come the oil-rich countries of Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, & Qatar are still sovereign nations? The anti-war anthem of "oil" is an empty slogan.

Oh and thanks I wasnt actually aware who won the election in my own country.... :rolleyes: I wasn't implying that you were ignorant of this. If I gave that impression I sincerely apologize. I was just making the point that many Australians do not share your disdain towards Prime Minister Howard.

And I dont mind being in the minority, mate because my political views are more important then popularity contests.I agree. It appears to be quite "popular" with non-Americans, especially on this website, to slam Bush. Apparently "my political views are more important than popularity contests" as well.

FLIPPER

[ 24. October 2004, 22:43: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

shrensh
24-10-04, 22:23
The one thing that you apparently have forgotten is that EVERYBODY thought that Saddam had weapons of WMD. I never thought before the war started that Iraq had WMDs. In fact I would have been extremely surprised if WMDs had been found there. Lots of governments believed what the weapons inspectors said all along, that there were no WMDs. Apparently not EVERYONE believes what you do. I think you watch too much Fox News.

[ 24. October 2004, 23:24: Message edited by: shrensh ]

Flipper1987
24-10-04, 22:27
Originally posted by Isabella:
I won't argue that something did indeed need to be done with Iraq. What I didn't like was the thrusting of the idea that they were an immediate threat to our safety and had to be dealt with or else.... I think the situation should have been handled differently with a more planned out, careful approach....... I believe the Bush administration knew that there was no present danger to us as far as Iraq was concerned but they wanted the momentum of the people's support.The funny thing here is that Bush never said that Iraq was an immediate threat. He argued that the U.S. (& the world) should not stand by and wait for Iraq to become a threat. Sanctions were not working (in fact France & Russia were pushing for the lifting of sanctions) & Saddam skimmed over $8 to $10 billion from the corrupt "Oil for Food" program.

As far as having a "more planned-out, careful approach," none were offered except the status quo: sanctions & "Oil for Food."

The hard thing to face now is that we all know that the original reason for going into Iraq was a false one.It's a shame that intelligence agencies across the world got the WMD issue wrong. Of course, there were many other reasons why coalition forces went into Iraq.

This war was not supposed to drag out this long and be this difficult. We've stirred up a hornets nest which can only lead to more death.You really can't plan any war. Nearly all war plans are thrown out the window when the firing starts. The intensity of terrorist attacks in Iraq is difficult to deal with because these terrorists hide in mosques & behind women & children. Dont forget, the civilized countries of this world are going to have deal with these terrorists sooner or later in this War on Terror. It's best we are confronting them in the Middle East now instead of on the streets of New York, Chicago, London, or Paris.

In all seriousness though, I like the feeling of unity and those 3 important countries (France, Germany, & Russia) should be at our side when it comes to such grave matters as war.....

Personally I think the reason France Germany Russia ect didn't support the war was due to the fact that they had a better view of what was really happening. They could see the forest for the trees so to speak.I could not disagree more. France & Russia had signed multi-billion $ deals with Saddam's government before the invasion (most of these contracts had to do with Iraq's oil industry!) It is also suspected that Saddam took some of the money he skimmed off the corrupt "Oil for Food" program to buy their (France & Russia's) votes on the U.N. Security Council! We'll see if this is actually true in the future.

Flipper, I am happy that we can discuss this in such a civil manner and it's good to see the bantor kept on friendly terms. I wish our sides could interact this way more often. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I agree! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

FLIPPER

Draco
24-10-04, 22:33
Originally posted by shrensh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The one thing that you apparently have forgotten is that EVERYBODY thought that Saddam had weapons of WMD. I never thought before the war started that Iraq had WMDs. In fact I would have been extremely surprised if WMDs had been found there. Lots of governments believed what the weapons inspectors said all along, that there were no WMDs. Apparently not EVERYONE believes what you do. I think you watch too much Fox News.</font>[/QUOTE]The key thing about the inspectors is that Saddam kept messing with them and obstructing them.

So to be blunt: Bush called his bluff...finally.

tlr online
24-10-04, 22:37
Originally posted by Draco:
The key thing about the inspectors is that Saddam kept messing with them and obstructing them.Obstructing them from what? Finding weapons? Draco. Let me ask you a direct question. Do YOU believe WMD exist/existed in Iraq? (And I'm not referring to the armour the U.S. furnished Saddam with to fend of Iran.)

[ 24. October 2004, 23:42: Message edited by: tlr online ]

Thorn
24-10-04, 22:42
What a mouthful. I doubt I'd have all this downloaded in my brain. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

Draco
24-10-04, 22:45
I believe that it is possible they did, but then I sorta predicted most of what happened these last 4 years back in '00. Naturally I didn't know how soon it would all happen.

Even if Iraq didn't have mwds when we went in, there is evidence that they were trying to lift the sanctions that were supposedly working. And Iraq did have much of what is needed to make mwds. They aren't exactly advanced weapons after all.

Draco
24-10-04, 22:47
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
The key thing about the inspectors is that Saddam kept messing with them and obstructing them.Obstructing them from what? Finding weapons? Draco. Let me ask you a direct question. Do YOU believe WMD exist/existed in Iraq? (And I'm not referring to the armour the U.S. furnished Saddam with to fend of Iran.)</font>[/QUOTE]What does Armor have to do with mwds?

Lonely Istari
24-10-04, 22:50
Wow, some of those pictures are extremely rude. :mad:

tlr online
24-10-04, 22:58
The UK government won a vote on proceeding to war with America based on evidence (that has now proven incorrect) than Iraq possessed weapons that would be an imminent threat to the world. This was our "just cause" for our subsequent invasion - and now occupation - of a foreign power.

I do not deny that Saddam's atrocities were despicable. However, Genocide and chronic depravation is occurring the world over. Where is their help? I don't see the U.S. marching into North Korea or “90% of the U.S. military might” aiding to remove rebel insurgents from committing mass murder in Sudan’s Darfur region.

The invasion of Iraq was a diversion, led by a trigger-happy President and a British Prime Minister with no backbone. While I’ve no doubt that so many issues have now been incorrectly amalgamated under this so-called aegis of terror, I believe - not alone - that we were still duped.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:02
Duped by Saddam. All signs pointed to yes for mwds in Iraq.

But the instant we are proven wrong, people turn chicken.

Flipper1987
24-10-04, 23:05
Originally posted by shrensh:
I never thought before the war started that Iraq had WMDs....

Lots of governments believed what the weapons inspectors said all along, that there were no WMDs.Before the actual invasion, there were some former weapons inspectors who believed that WMDs existed in some form in Iraq. I distinctly remember watching some of them on TV giving interviews saying that they believed they existed. Many intelligence agencies around the world also believed that Saddam had WMDs.

Of course the fact that Saddam constantly obstructed weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998 (when he booted them out) didn't help convince others that he was being truthful.

Apparently not EVERYONE believes what you do.And you as well. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif

I think you watch too much Fox News.I see. If I watch Fox News I'm being misled. Yada yada yada.

But you're right. I do watch a lot of Fox News. I also watch a lot of CNN & MSNBC too.

FLIPPER

[ 25. October 2004, 00:19: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Thorn
24-10-04, 23:06
ONE This threaded started as a joke of the U.S.

TWO Now this thread is turned into a serious discussion? Ha! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yuck.gif

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:06
Originally posted by Draco:
Duped by Saddam. All signs pointed to yes for mwds in Iraq.

But the instant we are proven wrong, people turn chicken.So you recognise the possibility that no WMD ever existed? Can you now appreciate why so many of your fellow countrymen - and the rest of the world - are angry at the U.S. atm? Why so many of us look upon America as a school-yard bully, bent on nothing more than America and her future, whether that be detrimental to the rest of the world or not?

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:08
Originally posted by THORN:
ONE This threaded started as a joke of the U.S.

TWO Now this thread is turned into a serious discussion? Ha! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yuck.gif Thorn. This IS a serious issue. There are plenty of threads in General Chat more appropriate for idle banter. Thank you.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:17
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Duped by Saddam. All signs pointed to yes for mwds in Iraq.

But the instant we are proven wrong, people turn chicken.So you recognise the possibility that no WMD ever existed? Can you now appreciate why so many of your fellow countrymen - and the rest of the world - are angry at the U.S. atm? Why so many of us look upon America as a school-yard bully, bent on nothing more than America and her future, whether that be detrimental to the rest of the world or not?</font>[/QUOTE]I recognize the possibility that our 'allies' just want to blame the US and the President for being wrong. Whether or not Iraq ever had weapons makes no difference now. We invaded and our reasons for invading are moot now.

If we find an ICBM in the desert, our 'allies' and our 'enemies' will just say we planted them there.

The UN should have gone into Iraq a long time ago, but some of our 'allies' were busy being underhanded.

So don't mind me when I don't put much stock in our 'allies'.

Thorn
24-10-04, 23:20
Post removed. Again and you're on vacation for 7 days. tlr.

[ 25. October 2004, 00:27: Message edited by: tlr online ]

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:26
For the record, I blame the U.S. no more or less than I blame the United Kingdom (my country of residence) and our British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the illegal invasion of Iraq. I'm not solely pointing a finger at Bush here. However, with the upcoming election, more of Bush's utter failures as President are being highlighted, which is why the focus is on him atm. The same will happen here when our elections are approaching. (read: my reference about incorrect amalgamations of issues and arguments at this time)

In my opinion, Kerry would come to the White House an honest politician (if such things exist) with an impeccable political history, garnering a clean slate, documented policies (http://www.johnkerry.com) and more leverage with international communities. It really is time for a change.

[ 25. October 2004, 00:28: Message edited by: tlr online ]

Draco
24-10-04, 23:29
I already know the rest of the world wants Kerry.

But I'm still voting for Bush, he is just simply better for the America I want.

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:32
Originally posted by Draco:
I already know the rest of the world wants Kerry.

But I'm still voting for Bush, he is just simply better for the America I want.I respect your decision, and I certainly do not mean to rant. I enjoy hammering out opinion with you. You are absolutely correct in your statement that Bush is "simply better for the America you want." This is because ALL Bush cares about IS America.... whether that be detrimental to the rest of the world of not.

This is why internationally he is frowned upon, and himself represents a real danger to world peace.

nerdalicious
24-10-04, 23:33
Quick comment and a question for people who are going to vote for Bush...

After seeing the political debate and watching the president seem pretty damn incompetent-
for example after Kerry pointed out that there was no grand coalition that he promised and that only the Uk and Australia joined with the US he responded with "what about Poland?".

He completely forgot that
a) Kerry's point was that there was no grand coaltion that supported the US
b) that he just proved Kerry's point that They went in there pretty much alone.

Are you voting for Bush because you think he's an intelligent strong leader despite the damning evidence that he isn't very intelliegent or because despite his thickness you agree with his politics?

You can be dry, unemotional depressed or whatever bash you might call Kerry ad still be a great president but you can't be stupid and still be a president.

Fyi, if Lyndon Johnson had stated that he thought going in Vietnam in the manner that he did was a mistake, would he be considered a flip floper?

I think that Bush believes that the end justified the means. In my opinion, he had every intention of entering Iraq from the beginning. WMDs were just the dazzle on the show.



Just my opinion...

[ 25. October 2004, 00:39: Message edited by: nerdalicious ]

andromeda_eats
24-10-04, 23:34
Originally posted by Draco:
[QUOTE]I recognize the possibility that our 'allies' just want to blame the US and the President for being wrong. Whether or not Iraq ever had weapons makes no difference now. We invaded and our reasons for invading are moot now.

If we find an ICBM in the desert, our 'allies' and our 'enemies' will just say we planted them there.

The UN should have gone into Iraq a long time ago, but some of our 'allies' were busy being underhanded.

So don't mind me when I don't put much stock in our 'allies'.You act as if America's allies were actually friends of America and we have somehow betrayed you. Your wrong. Eric you know what allegiances between countries actually consist of. I dont need to remind you of any occasion where America has seemingly abandoned her allies in conflict situtations. Dont act like those who didnt jump at the chance of war arent actually allies at all.

Bush called on America's allies for support. I believe he said: "if you not with us, your with them." (Them being the terrorists.) Bush was trying to bully America's allies into fighting with him. I also blame my weak Prime Minister for bumbling along blindly into the war. Your right. We are blaming Bush for being wrong. Bush was wrong.

America did not do the dirty work for the UN.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:34
World Peace is not going to happen as long as there is more than two humans alive.

Unless we all have a common goal.

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:42
Originally posted by Draco:
Unless we all have a common goal.Agreed. America’s "goal" is for her "own" prosperity, and in her pursuit for strength, she will continue to fragment the international community, A vote for Bush will ensure this continues.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:44
Originally posted by andromeda_eats:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
I recognize the possibility that our 'allies' just want to blame the US and the President for being wrong. Whether or not Iraq ever had weapons makes no difference now. We invaded and our reasons for invading are moot now.

If we find an ICBM in the desert, our 'allies' and our 'enemies' will just say we planted them there.

The UN should have gone into Iraq a long time ago, but some of our 'allies' were busy being underhanded.

So don't mind me when I don't put much stock in our 'allies'.You act as if America's allies were actually friends of America and we have somehow betrayed you. Your wrong. Eric you know what allegiances between countries actually consist of.</font>Betrayed? No you haven't. Reluctant as hell though, but that is to be expected.

I dont need to remind you of any occasion where America has seemingly abandoned her allies in conflict situtations.That is because to my knowledge we haven't.

Dont act like those who didnt jump at the chance of war arent actually allies at all.That is not my position at all on this. We are shouldering the burden which is fine, we have done as much for far less.

Bush called on America's allies for support. I believe he said: "if you not with us, your with them." (Them being the terrorists.) Bush was trying to bully America's allies into fighting with him.I do believe that was his address to the UN, not to our allies.

I also blame my weak Prime Minister for bumbling along blindly into the war.Naturally I am concerned that such a great nation has such a poor leader, but he did get relected.

Your right. We are blaming Bush for being wrong. Bush was wrong.You are blaming Bush because it is easy to blame him. He is the current 'Leader of the Free World', so naturally it makes sense that the state of the entire world is our fault.

America did not do the dirty work for the UN.The UN had no intention of doing any dirty work...other than oil.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:46
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Unless we all have a common goal.Agreed. America’s "goal" is for her "own" prosperity, and in her pursuit for strength, she will continue to fragment the international community, A vote for Bush will ensure this continues.</font>[/QUOTE]That is the goal of every sovereign power on this planet.

nerdalicious
24-10-04, 23:51
Butting in again...

I think Bush is so war hungry...so trigger happy ...not even waiting for the UN and what not to invade a country that didn't have any WMD is the first place....in my opinion ....Bush and his war mongering will start WW3 ...the Patriot Act scares the Hell out of me...Some say he is trust worthy???

He was wrong as Hell about Iraq being a threat and now US troops are mostly all there... taking the manpower and money from terrorism and into rebuilding iraq.

Okay, I am done now

tlr online
24-10-04, 23:51
Originally posted by Draco:
That is the goal of every sovereign power on this planet.No Sir. This is where your argument fails spectacularly, and my point qualifies. Look beyong the U.S. Open your eyes to bigger possibilities.

Draco
24-10-04, 23:56
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
That is the goal of every sovereign power on this planet.No Sir. This is where your argument fails spectacularly, and my point qualifies. Look beyong the U.S. Open your eyes to bigger possibilities.</font>[/QUOTE]I am open to a world government, or even an effective UN.

But I don't want socialism, I will fight it till I can't.

America wastes more money on people who don't care either way, still want to kill us, or just loath us than any other nation in history.

We send billions of perfectly useful dollars to places that don't want it.

I think America and Rodney Dangerfield have a lot in common.

tlr online
25-10-04, 00:13
Originally posted by Draco:
I am open to a world government, or even an effective UN.Do you believe Bush shares this global vision?

You've mentioned on numerous occasions that Bush is working towards a better America for you. Can you be specific about this? How is America better for you while governed under Bush, and why do you think that will differ under Kerry?

tazmine
25-10-04, 00:14
I'm really glad Canada didn't send any of our troops to Iraq. We did support the effort in Afghanistan, & I'm proud of our country for that.

But, I feel the world was misled, & outright lied to about Iraq. I bought Bush's story at the time: I thought: President of the US...he has access to so much more intelligence than we do...he must know more than he is telling us. Turns out: he was guessing, & his guesses were wrong. Not so innocent guesses, either: look how many US & their allies, & Iraqies have died. Sadaam was evil: no question; but we were lied to about WMD.

Bush scares me. I really hope Kerry wins, but I don't realistically think he will.

I've just returned from France, where I visited the grave of my grandfather who was killed in WWI. That was horrible. I just feel so sorry for the children & grandchildren who will someday visit the graves of soldiers who died in Iraq.

Draco
25-10-04, 00:18
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
I am open to a world government, or even an effective UN.Do you believe Bush shares this global vision?</font>[/QUOTE]No I don't, but that is a minor difference of opinion compared to other things.

You've mentioned on numerous occasions that Bush is working towards a better America for you. Can you be specific about this? How is America better for you while governed under Bush, and why do you think that will differ under Kerry?Kerry plans to take our economy and throw it in a Government bin. His programs will drive our debt into a far deeper deficit than Bush's. Unless he lies and raises taxes...again.

I disagree with Kerry on domestic issues, internationally they aren't that much different. Kerry just sounds better. But so does anyone who promises everything.

tlr online
25-10-04, 00:23
Originally posted by Draco:
No I don't, but that is a minor difference of opinion.You've got to be joking, right? This is my WHOLE point, Eric.

nerdalicious
25-10-04, 00:25
Look at what he is even doing to his own country...

Did you know that the Bush administration removed limits on the release of effluent from cattle and hog farms and local residents no longer have to be informed?

Or that polluters no longer have to abide by clean water regulations if they are dumping pollutants in an "isolated" body of water?

He was even tinkering with lowering organic standards, untill people noticed and complained...

So many of the awful things Bush has done has gotten little to no press....Liberal media? hmm....

Draco
25-10-04, 00:26
Your point is assuming Bush has no interest in international relations.

tazmine
25-10-04, 00:32
Originally posted by Draco:
Your point is assuming Bush has no interest in international relations.I don't think Bush is intelligent enough to have any interests other than getting himself reelected.

[ 25. October 2004, 01:32: Message edited by: tazmine ]

nerdalicious
25-10-04, 00:37
Lets talk econimics....

Although the US bad econonmy is not entirely Bush's fault....

Bush himself was not responsible for the market downturn anymore than Clinton...

Economic cycles of boom and bust are normal. It is impossible to have sustained growth ad infinitum... BUT Bush has not helped matters at all. He's made things worse, and he thinks more tax cuts are the solution to everything. His fiscal policies would not stand up to a quantitative analysis. The deficits are the biggest threat to the US.

I really need to get to bed...

Draco
25-10-04, 00:38
Originally posted by tazmine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Your point is assuming Bush has no interest in international relations.I don't think Bush is intelligent enough to have any interests other than getting himself reelected.</font>[/QUOTE]Intelligent enough...hmm.

Well he isn't as arrogant as Kerry, isn't as quick to make other people feel stupid, and isn't willing to compromise himself.

I suppose he is intelligent enough.

Draco
25-10-04, 00:41
Originally posted by nerdalicious:
Lets talk econimics....

Although the US bad econonmy is not entirely Bush's fault....

Bush himself was not responsible for the market downturn anymore than Clinton...

Economic cycles of boom and bust are normal. It is impossible to have sustained growth ad infinitum... BUT Bush has not helped matters at all. He's made things worse, and he thinks more tax cuts are the solution to everything. His fiscal policies would not stand up to a quantitative analysis. The deficits are the biggest threat to the US.

I really need to get to bed...You are under the impression that the 'national debt' is real. Congress can erase it with one bill.

tazmine
25-10-04, 00:43
Draco, we can agree to disagree. (I don't even get a vote, but I will be watching the election with much interest.)

Draco
25-10-04, 00:50
I stand by my opinions, and even registered Republican, figured I would disagree with more Democrats than Republicans...and it's true in a way.

I did vote for my state's Democratic Senator though. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Isabella
25-10-04, 00:59
This election has such a severe split between the 2 parties, more so than the previous one. I think it says something when a president can invoke such volatile emotions. There are actually people who are going to vote for Kerry simply to get Bush out of office. It's that bad. Bush is either a love him or hate him type of person and it's obvious that no matter which light you see him in, you're opinion isn't going to change.

If Kerry looses though, God help us.

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/

And on a lighter note...
http://www.jibjab.com/

[ 25. October 2004, 02:01: Message edited by: Isabella ]

Draco
25-10-04, 01:01
I prefer to get my facts from unbiased sources.

nerdalicious
25-10-04, 01:04
I deal with this election on a daily basis, as a part of my job, and I often discuss with Americans (hardcore Bush supporters) and this is what I tell them: continue being proud of the disastrous Bush record if you like. Just don't cry to me when the economic meltdown occurs in your country.

Some enlightening links from a site run by a Republican:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4687.s

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5458.s

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4796.s

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5462.s

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5434.s

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5391.s

And this book written by a former Nixon administration official will really give you a warm and fuzzy feeling:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374252874/qid=109767

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, but at least I'm confident that my opinions are well-informed and based on facts and reality, not emotion, fiction or jingoistic rhetoric.

These same people (the ones I deal with) always get into Clinton's surplus, and I say to them : feel free to "bring it on." *LOL* But don't cite info from RNC, FOX, Anne Coulter or other "biased" sources. Try the GAO or some other "credible" agency, please.

I respect everyone's opinions and really gained some new insight from these posts, thank you...

Goodnight *hugs*

tlr online
25-10-04, 01:09
An interesting point from above. The argument against the toppling of Saddam to make the world a safer place. "The war has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools [to deal with those threats]"

I really couldn't agree with this more.

Isabella
25-10-04, 01:13
Bipartisan or not, facts speak for themselves and just because they come from Dems. doesn't mean they are fiction. No one wants to dig their own grave and of course lies will be told. And that goes for both sides. There is simply no debating the number of misakes made in the last 4 years.

And it is too bad Howard Dean was not able to be the Dem. choice for president. He isn't afraid to put the issues out on the table and confront them directly. Something which Kerry needs to work on a bit.

Draco
25-10-04, 01:15
Originally posted by tlr online:
An interesting point from above. The argument against the toppling of Saddam to make the world a safer place. "The war has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools [to deal with those threats]"

I really couldn't agree with this more.True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.

Kerry wants unilateral talks with NK which I know for a fact is a bad idea. Iran he wants to do more of the same for now I guess, he wasn't really clear.

tlr online
25-10-04, 01:26
Originally posted by Draco:
True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.But in the meantime, people will live in fear. Imagine going out every evening constantly looking over your shoulder. Look at the ballooning costs in anti-terrorism procedures nations are now forced to find funding for. This is the gift Bush has given the world.

Isabella
25-10-04, 01:29
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:
An interesting point from above. The argument against the toppling of Saddam to make the world a safer place. "The war has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools [to deal with those threats]"

I really couldn't agree with this more.True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.

</font>[/QUOTE]They might believe them if Bush started to be honest with the public, but that would cost him the election.

You and Flipper are obviously well informed so I'm not directing this statment at either one of you. A lot of the Bush supporters ( those I've been in contact with via my work with Moveon.org ) are not so informed and that is indeed scarey. They have a blind faith when it comes to this administration, some didn't even watch the elections. In their eyes Bush can do no wrong. Knowledge is power yet some of the most staunch Bush supporters lack in this department.

Draco
25-10-04, 01:34
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.But in the meantime, people will live in fear. Imagine going out every evening constantly looking over your shoulder. Look at the ballooning costs in anti-terrorism procedures nations are now forced to find funding for. This is the gift Bush has given the world.</font>[/QUOTE]If you think terrorism started with Bush and what he has done since being elected, i won't bother debating you any longer, since it is obviously such a reach in a ludicrous direction as to trump any attempt at respect I may have for your position.

tlr online
25-10-04, 01:38
Originally posted by Draco:
If you think terrorism started with Bush and what he has done since being elected, i won't bother debating you any longer, since it is obviously such a reach in a ludicrous direction as to trump any attempt at respect I may have for your position.I have never implied that. What I'm saying is that by bulldozing into Iraq under false pretence, Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. I hope you're beginning to see the cracks in your argument.

Draco
25-10-04, 01:38
Originally posted by Isabella:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:
An interesting point from above. The argument against the toppling of Saddam to make the world a safer place. "The war has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools [to deal with those threats]"

I really couldn't agree with this more.True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.

</font>[/QUOTE]They might believe them if Bush started to be honest with the public, but that would cost him the election.

You and Flipper are obviously well informed so I'm not directing this statment at either one of you. A lot of the Bush supporters ( those I've been in contact with via my work with Moveon.org ) are not so informed and that is indeed scarey. They have a blind faith when it comes to this administration, some didn't even watch the elections. In their eyes Bush can do no wrong. Knowledge is power yet some of the most staunch Bush supporters lack in this department.</font>[/QUOTE]I have seen the same on the Kerry side.

And if Bush started spouting about an impending attack, what do you think would happen?

Draco
25-10-04, 01:43
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
If you think terrorism started with Bush and what he has done since being elected, i won't bother debating you any longer, since it is obviously such a reach in a ludicrous direction as to trump any attempt at respect I may have for your position.I have never implied that. What I'm saying is that by bulldozing into Iraq under false pretence, Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. I hope you're beginning to see the cracks in your argument.</font>[/QUOTE]That stands to reason, anytime you remove a hornet's nest they will swarm.

Bush has made the world more dangerous in some aspects, but overall more of the world is safer, since most of the problem is concentrated now.

There is no safer way to deal with Iraq or any other nation in that region. Infact we are doing a remarkable job considering more people died in the WTC than have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Coalition forces that is.

I do feel bad for the Iraqis who died and are going to die, but I think they will not regret it in the long run...we didn't.

Isabella
25-10-04, 01:53
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Isabella:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:
An interesting point from above. The argument against the toppling of Saddam to make the world a safer place. "The war has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools [to deal with those threats]"

I really couldn't agree with this more.True as that possibly is, until there is evidence [read: another attack] many people won't believe it.

</font>[/QUOTE]They might believe them if Bush started to be honest with the public, but that would cost him the election.

You and Flipper are obviously well informed so I'm not directing this statment at either one of you. A lot of the Bush supporters ( those I've been in contact with via my work with Moveon.org ) are not so informed and that is indeed scarey. They have a blind faith when it comes to this administration, some didn't even watch the elections. In their eyes Bush can do no wrong. Knowledge is power yet some of the most staunch Bush supporters lack in this department.</font>[/QUOTE]I have seen the same on the Kerry side.

And if Bush started spouting about an impending attack, what do you think would happen?</font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary, when asked about the issues and the stance of both parties, about 75% of the Dems I have spoken to know what's going on. When I make phone calls, I ask why they are voting the way they are. The Kerry supporters are always able to back up their stance. Most Bush supporters admit that they don't know the key issues but are going to vote for him because they 'like him'. I'm not implying that this is the way it is across the board, just that from those I've spoken to, Democrates have thought well through their decision.

If Bush were to spout about an impending attack then of course there would be panic. This scenario is in fact very plausable and it proves that we may feel safer when in fact we aren't. We've managed to stir hatered for us across the Middle East and will have to deal with this for years to come. Who knows where and when the next attack will happen? The point is that nothing will ever be the same and the situation only became worse after 9/11.

Flipper1987
25-10-04, 03:11
Originally posted by Isabella:
We've managed to stir hatered for us across the Middle East and will have to deal with this for years to come. Who knows where and when the next attack will happen? The point is that nothing will ever be the same and the situation only became worse after 9/11.I think we need to remember that many people in the Middle East have hated America for some time, mostly because they view the U.S. as the traditional allies of Israel, and also because the majority of Middle East countries lack an open media that isn't heavily-biased against the U.S. and the West. Even the Al-Jazera of today appears to be somewhat sympathetic towards the terrorists.

Just remember:

Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. before and after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. before 9/11.
Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. AFTER 9/11.

Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. before the invasion of Afghanistan.
Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. AFTER the invasion of Afghanistan.

Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. before the invasion of Iraq.
Many Middle Easterners hated the U.S. AFTER the invasion of Iraq.

The fact is that nothing the U.S or coalition forces do will be met with widespread approval, no matter who's in charge.

I do believe, however, that if successful democratic governments are set up in Afghanistan & Iraq, and you combine them with the strong relations that the West has established with Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, & Saudi Arabia, then you will see a gradual shift away from anti-American & anti-western sentiment. This will obviously not happen overnight.

I think we all know what an open, democratic Middle East will mean to the world & the fight against terrorism. This will be tough but it will be historic if it occurs. That is what the U.S., G.B., & other countries are trying to do. Hopefully the young people of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, & other Middle Eastern countries will see the democratic reforms being created in Afghanistan & Iraq & demand the same.

Here's hoping.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
25-10-04, 03:31
Originally posted by Isabella:
You and Flipper are obviously well informed... Thank you Isabella for the compliment!

A lot of the Bush supporters (those I've been in contact with via my work with Moveon.org ) are not so informed and that is indeed scarey. They have a blind faith when it comes to this administration, some didn't even watch the elections. In their eyes Bush can do no wrong. Knowledge is power yet some of the most staunch Bush supporters lack in this department.I have found in my experience that both parties have an equal mix of ideologues, knowledgeable individuals, & blind followers.

I also think that during a presidential election where an incumbent president is running for re-election, members & supporters of the president's party will tend to be more forgiving of the president's flaws, unsuccessful policies, & other foibles. As a result, most of them probably come across as blind followers. This was true in 1996 when Clinton sought re-election, & the same is probably true today in 2004 with Bush (although I do not feel that Bush is the massive failure that others paint him to be).

And Isabella. You work for/with MoveOn.org? Oi! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

FLIPPER

[ 25. October 2004, 04:34: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

bumb1ebee
25-10-04, 20:18
Originally posted by nerdalicious:
The deficits are the biggest threat to the US.
Can someone please explain to me WHY the deficits are the biggest threat to the U.S.? What will happen if it stays this way or continues to grow?

[ 25. October 2004, 21:19: Message edited by: bumb1ebee ]

Draco
25-10-04, 23:16
Originally posted by bumb1ebee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nerdalicious:
The deficits are the biggest threat to the US.
Can someone please explain to me WHY the deficits are the biggest threat to the U.S.? What will happen if it stays this way or continues to grow?</font>[/QUOTE]Nothing other than an excuse for raising taxes. Which Bush has no plans to do.

bumb1ebee
27-10-04, 03:19
I'm going to bump this thread. I appreciate your answer Draco, but I would also like someone on the "other side" explain to me why they think the deficit is a huge threat.

Draco
27-10-04, 05:01
Good luck with that. Democrats are notorious at not being able to solve problems without throwing money at them.

Olvidarse
27-10-04, 06:23
By the way, the "No Child Left Behind" program increased funding for public schools by 49%. Please tell me where this funding went, sir, because I sincerely haven't seen it. We even went to the state legislature to plead to keep the MESA program (nationally recognized math/science program), but it didn't pass. Ahh, oh well, I've already won enough medals in that club to fill out on my college application. :D

Good luck in school this year.
Thanks - the first quarter has already passed and I still have a 4-point-something. Hopefully I'll be able to keep it up for a few more semesters to earn summa cum laude. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

chloe
27-10-04, 08:27
even know I didn't vote I agree with draco by voting
for bush. plus from what I heard kerry want raise taxes
for the middle class famliy and poor class famliy but wants
to cut taxes for rich class famliy

bumb1ebee
27-10-04, 21:05
Originally posted by Draco:
Good luck with that. Democrats are notorious at not being able to solve problems without throwing money at them.I've noticed that. I hear people bring the deficit up every single time and I never hear WHY. Please someone, explain why!

tazmine
27-10-04, 21:26
Well, my limited knowledge would suggest that the deficit is the accumulated debt (excess of liabilities over assets) that the country owes. This continues to accumulate interest charges on a daily basis, so the debt grows all the time.

At some point, this will have to be paid down, or ideally, paid off: otherwise, social programs will suffer as there will be no money to pay for them, since all the money is being directed toward the deficit. Social programs that would suffer would include Social Security, Education, Medicare, Student Aid, etc.

Hope this helps.

bumb1ebee
29-10-04, 03:59
Hmm... thanks...