Political Poll
Friday, October 15, 2004 by harrison1701 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Bush or Kerry?
Where is the "None Of The Above" option? That's what I would choose.
Where is the "None Of The Above" option? That's what I would choose.
 |
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
WebGizmos
Reply #62 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:03 AM
I'd have to disagree with you on this...arguing...or as I like to put it...having a heated discussion...is in everyones interest. Everyone has an opinion about this that and another thing. And most times it's based on things you've heard or read. This is how we learn about this and that or another thing. So when we discuss things amongst ourselves, somewhere in there we discover a different truth we may not have known about. In other words we are enlightened.
I will be the first to say I am not always right...but I am until someone proves me wrong or until I am made aware of information I didn't have before. This is why we all need to be more open about what we know and discuss it with everyone else. Other wise you live in a small world.
I myself am always searching for truth...not heresay. So when I hear something about one person or another I ask questions. But unless people are willing to discuss what they know, I can't learn more than I already do.
I personally think these discussion are great.
As far as everything else you said...you were pretty much on the money.
Reply #62 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:03 AM
| #59 by Sir macrobaye - 10/16/2004 2:05:24 AM While I don't think arguing this is in anyone's interest |
I'd have to disagree with you on this...arguing...or as I like to put it...having a heated discussion...is in everyones interest. Everyone has an opinion about this that and another thing. And most times it's based on things you've heard or read. This is how we learn about this and that or another thing. So when we discuss things amongst ourselves, somewhere in there we discover a different truth we may not have known about. In other words we are enlightened.
I will be the first to say I am not always right...but I am until someone proves me wrong or until I am made aware of information I didn't have before. This is why we all need to be more open about what we know and discuss it with everyone else. Other wise you live in a small world.
I myself am always searching for truth...not heresay. So when I hear something about one person or another I ask questions. But unless people are willing to discuss what they know, I can't learn more than I already do.
I personally think these discussion are great.
As far as everything else you said...you were pretty much on the money.
WebGizmos
Reply #63 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:43 AM
Hey NightTrain...how about this for economics...spend 30 million to campaign for a job that pays 400 thousand a year. What's wrong with this picture? Do they teach that in economics class.
Reply #63 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:43 AM
| 16 by Skinner NightTrain2002 - 10/15/2004 1:49:10 PM Personally I like my leaders to be good with economics and social issues. I don't think geography would even make the list. |
Hey NightTrain...how about this for economics...spend 30 million to campaign for a job that pays 400 thousand a year. What's wrong with this picture? Do they teach that in economics class.
WebGizmos
Reply #64 Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:53 AM
I consider myself to be a clear thinking person...and this clear thinking person had no trouble concluding that Bush should be brought up on war crimes. He had no reason to invade Iraq...period. Not one terrorist on those planes were even from Iraq. Saudia Arabia and Yemen to name a few, but not Iraq. And yes, Saddam was a bad man...still no reason to invade Iraq. There are far more dangerous people in the world than him. Some are right in our own government.
But...Bush says he wants to rid the world of evil doers (terrorists)! Ok...what about Korea? They don't even hide the fact that they have WMD's. We don't even need a congressional committee or the CIA to tell us. It's pretty foolproof and a guarantee he won't look like fool for attacking Korea. And the people there are trying to survive on cooking rocks and tree bark and are dying of starvation. So he even has the heartstring tug to play on which plays well with the touchy feely group and would surely get him elected again. But that would take a "real" committment, of which Bush is by no means up to task.
Bush...murders the english language and lies through his teeth every time he opens his mouth, and even forgets his own lies. I can see his handlers now...grimacing every time he opens his mouth and then having to try and do damage control.
If Bush had backed out of Iraq as soon as it was liberated of Saddam he might have been able to save face (he'd still be a putz) and salvage this fiasco...but he was to cowardly to admit he was wrong. And all the time he's sending our young men and women to die for his lies...what's he doing?....he's trying to cut their pay!? Say what!? Tell me it isn't so!!! Excuse me...but these people should be having their butts kissed for that kind of sacrifice. It's shameful what this government does to it's service men and women. As far as I'm concerned these people should never have to pay taxes for that sacrifice and should be given a home so they don't end up living on the streets like some have. What's wrong with this picture?
According to the Waxman report...the Bush administration has told 237 (and counting) lies and misleading statements about why we should be in Iraq. Here it is...read it for yourself... http://www.iflipflop.com/admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
Here's a letter from Henry Waxman to the president "before" the war even started. Telling him about all the lies and misinformation, yet we still went to war. So he knew well in advance the intelligence he got wasn't that intelligent. And in some cases even forged. http://www.houstonjusticenotwar.org/articles/waxman.html
Oh...and Frogboy...even though you say your voting for Bush your still alright in my book.
[Message Edited]
Reply #64 Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:53 AM
| #11 by Frogboy - 10/15/2004 1:11:02 PM This may shock you Paxx but it is possible for clear thinking people to look at both men and conclude that Bush is the better man for the job |
I consider myself to be a clear thinking person...and this clear thinking person had no trouble concluding that Bush should be brought up on war crimes. He had no reason to invade Iraq...period. Not one terrorist on those planes were even from Iraq. Saudia Arabia and Yemen to name a few, but not Iraq. And yes, Saddam was a bad man...still no reason to invade Iraq. There are far more dangerous people in the world than him. Some are right in our own government.
But...Bush says he wants to rid the world of evil doers (terrorists)! Ok...what about Korea? They don't even hide the fact that they have WMD's. We don't even need a congressional committee or the CIA to tell us. It's pretty foolproof and a guarantee he won't look like fool for attacking Korea. And the people there are trying to survive on cooking rocks and tree bark and are dying of starvation. So he even has the heartstring tug to play on which plays well with the touchy feely group and would surely get him elected again. But that would take a "real" committment, of which Bush is by no means up to task.
Bush...murders the english language and lies through his teeth every time he opens his mouth, and even forgets his own lies. I can see his handlers now...grimacing every time he opens his mouth and then having to try and do damage control.
If Bush had backed out of Iraq as soon as it was liberated of Saddam he might have been able to save face (he'd still be a putz) and salvage this fiasco...but he was to cowardly to admit he was wrong. And all the time he's sending our young men and women to die for his lies...what's he doing?....he's trying to cut their pay!? Say what!? Tell me it isn't so!!! Excuse me...but these people should be having their butts kissed for that kind of sacrifice. It's shameful what this government does to it's service men and women. As far as I'm concerned these people should never have to pay taxes for that sacrifice and should be given a home so they don't end up living on the streets like some have. What's wrong with this picture?
According to the Waxman report...the Bush administration has told 237 (and counting) lies and misleading statements about why we should be in Iraq. Here it is...read it for yourself... http://www.iflipflop.com/admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
Here's a letter from Henry Waxman to the president "before" the war even started. Telling him about all the lies and misinformation, yet we still went to war. So he knew well in advance the intelligence he got wasn't that intelligent. And in some cases even forged. http://www.houstonjusticenotwar.org/articles/waxman.html
Oh...and Frogboy...even though you say your voting for Bush your still alright in my book.
[Message Edited]
dabe
Reply #65 Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:03 AM
Paxx, I think you're right on the money. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone can think Bush is anything but an idiot. This campaign, and subsequent election is based on such divisive ideology, that the Bush adiministration's record is meaningless to Republicans means they're gonna vote for their "man" no matter what. I don't get it.
Needless to say, I'm for Kerry/Edwards 100%. I have been accused of being uninformed, a troll, etc. on joeuser, because anyone who supports Kerry cannot understand why people don't just love and gush all over our president. No matter that he squandered the budget surplus. No matter that he's unraveling every environmental regulation that interferes with corporate profits. No matter that he's made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with the drug industry, resulting in windfall profits for them. No matter that he's run up the highest deficit this country has ever seen. No matter that more people are unemployed and/or without health insurance than before he took office. No matter that he got the US into a miserable, unwinnable quagmire of a war, resulting in the death of thousands and thousands of people, based on lies and forgeries. No matter that his No Child Left Behind law is meaningless garbage without the budget to back it up. No matter for any of this. And, the idiot cannot string three words together. They're voting for him anyway, just cause he's their republican candidate. I don't get it.
Reply #65 Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:03 AM
| Well, personnally, I consider Bush as an ignorant idiot. Not that I think people who would vote for him are so as well. Probably most of them are republicans and would never be caught dead voting democrat. |
Paxx, I think you're right on the money. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone can think Bush is anything but an idiot. This campaign, and subsequent election is based on such divisive ideology, that the Bush adiministration's record is meaningless to Republicans means they're gonna vote for their "man" no matter what. I don't get it.
Needless to say, I'm for Kerry/Edwards 100%. I have been accused of being uninformed, a troll, etc. on joeuser, because anyone who supports Kerry cannot understand why people don't just love and gush all over our president. No matter that he squandered the budget surplus. No matter that he's unraveling every environmental regulation that interferes with corporate profits. No matter that he's made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with the drug industry, resulting in windfall profits for them. No matter that he's run up the highest deficit this country has ever seen. No matter that more people are unemployed and/or without health insurance than before he took office. No matter that he got the US into a miserable, unwinnable quagmire of a war, resulting in the death of thousands and thousands of people, based on lies and forgeries. No matter that his No Child Left Behind law is meaningless garbage without the budget to back it up. No matter for any of this. And, the idiot cannot string three words together. They're voting for him anyway, just cause he's their republican candidate. I don't get it.
Styl-X Design
Reply #66 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:10 AM
well, there are a few, I personaly liked clinton. Can't remember that there was such a big fuzz here because he cheated on his wife. I personaly see those things as private, so that didn't make him a bad leader.
I don't know very much about kerry... neither about bush... but kerry isn't bush so well, if I had to choose.
The thing is this. Bush scares the **** out of me.
Bush is a very powerfull man at this moment as president of the US, and he das whatever he wants. With the war in Iraq its very simple.
Russia and France used their VETO to stop the war, no matter what bush continued it because he wasn't manly enough to back down or something...
This is what I call attacking another country without any rights to do so. He should be the one on the top 10 wanted people, he is no better than saddam (yes ofcourse I know he is but he das the same thing, attacking another country)
The reasons for the war?
IRAQ HAD WMD's.
Did they find any?
NO.
explain?
He didn't belong in Iraq but he was, and for the reason he might have got the smalles piece of respect from me, finding WMD's, he failed!
Ow, and if somebody is explaining, please explain how the hell you can DEFEND america by ATTACKING Iraq.
What do you think? That the 3 terrorists that were in Iraq will say, ah he attacked us, big deal. No dammit, he pissed them off and if there are any more attacks comming he made that happen!
Reply #66 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:10 AM
| No. Name an american leader that has EVER been popular outside the US. |
well, there are a few, I personaly liked clinton. Can't remember that there was such a big fuzz here because he cheated on his wife. I personaly see those things as private, so that didn't make him a bad leader.
I don't know very much about kerry... neither about bush... but kerry isn't bush so well, if I had to choose.
The thing is this. Bush scares the **** out of me.
Bush is a very powerfull man at this moment as president of the US, and he das whatever he wants. With the war in Iraq its very simple.
Russia and France used their VETO to stop the war, no matter what bush continued it because he wasn't manly enough to back down or something...
This is what I call attacking another country without any rights to do so. He should be the one on the top 10 wanted people, he is no better than saddam (yes ofcourse I know he is but he das the same thing, attacking another country)
The reasons for the war?
IRAQ HAD WMD's.
Did they find any?
NO.
explain?
He didn't belong in Iraq but he was, and for the reason he might have got the smalles piece of respect from me, finding WMD's, he failed!
Ow, and if somebody is explaining, please explain how the hell you can DEFEND america by ATTACKING Iraq.
What do you think? That the 3 terrorists that were in Iraq will say, ah he attacked us, big deal. No dammit, he pissed them off and if there are any more attacks comming he made that happen!
IsabellaD
Reply #67 Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:26 PM
Reply #67 Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:26 PM
The Poll requires at least 2 more options:
O The Devil (I'm an American)
O The Deep Blue Sea (I'm NOT an American)
And, hey, this is not a poke at any country's political machine, because I think these choices belong on the ballots of every country in the world because we all suffer from "politicus jokus in extremis".
P.S. The dough of politics should always be leavened with a dash of hilarity.
[Message Edited]
O The Devil (I'm an American)
O The Deep Blue Sea (I'm NOT an American)
And, hey, this is not a poke at any country's political machine, because I think these choices belong on the ballots of every country in the world because we all suffer from "politicus jokus in extremis".
P.S. The dough of politics should always be leavened with a dash of hilarity.
[Message Edited]
SelfExiled
Reply #68 Saturday, October 16, 2004 1:57 PM
Reply #68 Saturday, October 16, 2004 1:57 PM
So, All Americans are devils now? Hmm, and I guess all Canadians are whimps?
Personally, I support the Bush intention to attack terror in the world by going after Saddam Hussein. Saddam was terrorizing that poor country and its people. And, it is known that he supported terrorism by his own actions against Kawait. Maybe, we should have gone after Hitler before he started invading and terrorizing other countries. France sure loved us back then, didn't they?
From what I've seen, the normal citizens of Iraq greatly appreciate the intervention of the U.S. It's the militants who want to seize control and power, just like Saddam, that are the problem. They don't want to bring stability to that country, they just want power and control. So, they terrorize their own people.
So, who did Saddam go after? He went after Isreal. He sought to terrorize Isreal because they support the U.S.(I.E.-more terrorism)
I believe in global nuclear disarmament too. But, the weak U.N. cannot do anything. Hence, Bush took the reins. I believe that in time, Iraq will become stable. It may take a little while longer. It may take a lot more of the militants to further destroy their own contry until they realize that they are the problem, and sit down at the table and really discuss ways to resolve the degradation and destruction they are causing to their own people.
As a world leader, I think Bush is excellent. As an American President I think he is below par.
[Message Edited]
Personally, I support the Bush intention to attack terror in the world by going after Saddam Hussein. Saddam was terrorizing that poor country and its people. And, it is known that he supported terrorism by his own actions against Kawait. Maybe, we should have gone after Hitler before he started invading and terrorizing other countries. France sure loved us back then, didn't they?
From what I've seen, the normal citizens of Iraq greatly appreciate the intervention of the U.S. It's the militants who want to seize control and power, just like Saddam, that are the problem. They don't want to bring stability to that country, they just want power and control. So, they terrorize their own people.
So, who did Saddam go after? He went after Isreal. He sought to terrorize Isreal because they support the U.S.(I.E.-more terrorism)
I believe in global nuclear disarmament too. But, the weak U.N. cannot do anything. Hence, Bush took the reins. I believe that in time, Iraq will become stable. It may take a little while longer. It may take a lot more of the militants to further destroy their own contry until they realize that they are the problem, and sit down at the table and really discuss ways to resolve the degradation and destruction they are causing to their own people.
As a world leader, I think Bush is excellent. As an American President I think he is below par.
[Message Edited]
paxx
Reply #69 Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:57 PM
Reply #69 Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:57 PM
I believe Rumsfield and his gang (using Bush as a puppet) made the world a more dangerous place now than it was before. Al Qaeda wasn't so present in Iraq before, but it sure it everywhere in Iraq - and everywhere else in the World - right now. Al Qaeda has more than doubled in size since the invasion of Iraq. In power right now are not the traditional Republicans that the country knew before, the country leades right now are the Neo-Republicans, extreme-right almost fascists. They believe in World domination. The Roman Empire beleived that peace could only be possible through the conquest of the whole world, they called it Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Another leader believed the same thing some 70 years ago. That leader was strong, charismatic and very much liked by his fellow countrymen, altough he was seen as dangerous by the rest of the world. Why attak Iraq when it's pretty darn clear that Al Qaeda is mostly funded by Saudy Arabia - an ally in this war against Iraq. "You are either with us or against us" and that's what it comes down to. Has nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quaeda. Iran is next, and North Korea after that. The plan is to have every country terrorized to even want to speak up against the US.
And that's how peace will be brought outside the US. What about inside? Acts such as the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 will make sure peace will be kept inside. Nothing will be private anymore. Your emails will be read, your telephone conversations recorded. Where wil this lead? Will democracy become a burden? When will the Neo-Republicans decide that the American people is ready for the ultimate blow? The abolition of the electoral process. Order can't be kept efficiently when the governement an change after 4 years? Maybe it will be gradual. A temporary suspension for "security reasons".
The current administation is dangerous (again, not specifically Bush, I think he's just an idiot puppet) and it's up to the American people to stop it now before it's too late.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But it's what I believe and if i was American and had a chance to vote in this election, I would not take the chance.
IsabellaD
Reply #70 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:53 PM
Reply #70 Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:53 PM
ChadUGC, you missed my point entirely. I at no point suggested that Americans or anybody is the devil. I am simply suggesting that in politics (no matter what country) the choices for regular voters of any political persuasion are usually between "the devil and the deep blue sea", which is probably why, in so many countries voter participation is low and getting lower. America, leaving aside its politics, is a great country and I salute it. The other point I was hoping to make is that maybe we all need to lighten up and laugh a little.
Frogboy
Reply #71 Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:37 PM
Reply #71 Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:37 PM
However, Bush very well may win the next election. He enjoys widespread support in the US.
It should also be noted that Howard won pretty solidly in Australia despite constant criticism.
I have no problem with someone not supporting Bush. I only have a problem for someone thinking there's something wrong with me because I do support Bush and his policies.
It should also be noted that Howard won pretty solidly in Australia despite constant criticism.
I have no problem with someone not supporting Bush. I only have a problem for someone thinking there's something wrong with me because I do support Bush and his policies.
paxx
Reply #72 Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:56 PM
Reply #72 Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:56 PM
From what I saw, it seems it will all come down to a flaky voting system in Florida. Really strange how may yet again come down to questionable results in the state where Bush's brother is governer...
Brad, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the almost-fascists neo-republicans that Bush follows.
joetheblow
Reply #73 Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:58 PM
Reply #73 Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:58 PM
I do happen to support US action in Iraq, I just REALLY not like how he went about it.
Bush mannerisms also seem to be of issue with me as well as some of his choices of which I will not get into here.
But as others said here, Kerry scares me to no end. I rather have Bush and know what is wrong with him then have Kerry "the anti-Bush" who says whatever is opposite of Bush instead of saying how he feels.
I liked allot of Kerry's votes and some of them were on the same side as Bush.
Truth be told, I do not believe that Kerry can fix Bush's mistakes or handle the current state of world affairs.
This is the only reason why I will vote for Bush. In all my years of voting, this is the first time I am voting for a Republican president and I am sad that both candidates or completely lousy in every way.
As for the world not voting or wanting Bush... They just want him out, but I don't see Kerry being better.
MY honest opinion is that life will be better in 2008 when we can vote for the first woman president, Hillary Clinton.
(Unless I run for president, of which I told myself I do not want to do)
Bush mannerisms also seem to be of issue with me as well as some of his choices of which I will not get into here.
But as others said here, Kerry scares me to no end. I rather have Bush and know what is wrong with him then have Kerry "the anti-Bush" who says whatever is opposite of Bush instead of saying how he feels.
I liked allot of Kerry's votes and some of them were on the same side as Bush.
Truth be told, I do not believe that Kerry can fix Bush's mistakes or handle the current state of world affairs.
This is the only reason why I will vote for Bush. In all my years of voting, this is the first time I am voting for a Republican president and I am sad that both candidates or completely lousy in every way.
As for the world not voting or wanting Bush... They just want him out, but I don't see Kerry being better.
MY honest opinion is that life will be better in 2008 when we can vote for the first woman president, Hillary Clinton.
(Unless I run for president, of which I told myself I do not want to do)
paxx
Reply #74 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:11 PM
Reply #74 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:11 PM
I wonder why the democrats chose Kerry to represent them. He's ugly as sin and it's a known fact that ugly people aren't usually as popular. For some reason, ugly people come out a untrustworthy.
joetheblow
Reply #75 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:12 PM
Exactly... Kerry was on the Iraq bandwagon of WMD's. Sorry Frogboy, but I think most Americans think Bush went into Iraq because of 9/11 and WMD's not the 15 or so UN resolutions on Iraq's WMD's. That is the difference. Nevertheless, Kerry would have done the same thing or totally lied and flip-flopped about it. At least Bush just maneuvered words around. He didn't lie about it.
Kerry sucks major butt cheeks. Bush just sucks. That is why I'm voting for Bush.
Reply #75 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:12 PM
| No, he did not lie........ he was using intelligence that was supported world wide. Kerry said the same thing, so did Edwards, and Kennedy, and many others. Stop buying into the propaganda from the Micheal Moore's (now there's a really liar for you), and think for yourself. Bush said Iraq was a "gathering" danger. Kerry and Edwards both said Iraq was an "Eminent" threat, but now they claim Bush said what they said, but they never said what they said........ they make me dizzy. |
Exactly... Kerry was on the Iraq bandwagon of WMD's. Sorry Frogboy, but I think most Americans think Bush went into Iraq because of 9/11 and WMD's not the 15 or so UN resolutions on Iraq's WMD's. That is the difference. Nevertheless, Kerry would have done the same thing or totally lied and flip-flopped about it. At least Bush just maneuvered words around. He didn't lie about it.
Kerry sucks major butt cheeks. Bush just sucks. That is why I'm voting for Bush.
paxx
Reply #76 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:22 PM
Reply #76 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:22 PM
No, I think Kerry got carried into the fear propaganda following 9/11. After a drama like that, you trust your leader and hope for the best. I don't think Kerry would have went to war in Iraq because Kerry has no interest in Iraq, Kerry has no dream about World domination. The war in Iraq was not about terrorism nor about 9/11. If it truly was, it would have been Saudi Arabia that would ave been attacked, not Iraq. Terrorism and WMP were just the pretext the extreme-right wingers used to touch the sensitive American patriotism.
Great good it did too. Now Saddam doesn't control Iraq anymore, Al Qaeda does.
joetheblow
Reply #77 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:24 PM
I remember Iraq playing games with the inspectors, consistently lying, and over the years after the first Gulf War to totally falsify and lie about whether they did or didn't have WMD
So Iraq saying they didn't is like Bush or Kerry saying that they don't like cheese... who cares?! We will find out for ourselves when we investigate it.
I would have rather gone for Iran though... a major event of 2 way assault Iran then a surprise attack against Iraq. Full troop installment, no lack of troop or early call for 'war over we won' crap. The Iraq war was handled to pretty... and war is not pretty that is why no one wants to have it and everyone wants it to end when it begins.
Then again... I like cheese.
Reply #77 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:24 PM
| #41 by paxx - 10/15/2004 5:44:54 PM Geeh, my memory must play tricks on me. I could have sworn that Irak was ordered to deliver all WMD or it will be attacked. Irak kept saing it didn't have any, so it was attacked. Turned out they didn't have any... |
I remember Iraq playing games with the inspectors, consistently lying, and over the years after the first Gulf War to totally falsify and lie about whether they did or didn't have WMD
So Iraq saying they didn't is like Bush or Kerry saying that they don't like cheese... who cares?! We will find out for ourselves when we investigate it.
I would have rather gone for Iran though... a major event of 2 way assault Iran then a surprise attack against Iraq. Full troop installment, no lack of troop or early call for 'war over we won' crap. The Iraq war was handled to pretty... and war is not pretty that is why no one wants to have it and everyone wants it to end when it begins.
Then again... I like cheese.
paxx
Reply #78 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:41 PM
Reply #78 Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:41 PM
Thing is, Irak never had WMP after "Operation Desert Storm" (not to confuse with the first Gulf war, which is a different story altogeter - although not totally unrelated). A new report just came out confirming that Iraq didn't have any WMP since 1992.
Saudi Arabia is the place that should have gotten hit, and still is actually.
joetheblow
Reply #79 Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:04 PM
Reply #79 Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:04 PM
I think is Saudi Arabia got hit the world would plunge into a depression. Oil is too much apart of America and other industrial and tech nations.
I think this is why USA supports the Saudi so much, but as with helping Iraq against Iran, supporting regimes can be very tricky and bite you in the ass later.
I say 9/11 should have ended all support of Saudi Arabia, make Iraq follow the 15 or so resolutions on the same subject (totally free inspections no restrictions and WMD's) or else, Iran should have been hit by surprise and good old North Korea would be having some problems right about now.
I think Bush gambled that the world would have to help after Iraq otherwise Iraq could become a haven for terrorists and then he could scare North Korea and Iran.
To me history says otherwise that the world could care less that Iraq could plunge into an abyss of war that would spread throughout the region and then the world. Bush was betting on the world seeing that Iraq had to be stabilized, they would help. Nope, not this world.
Bush made some major mistakes and I think he and his advisor's looked at the world from the perspective of the US instead of understanding the cultural dynamics of different world cultures and there possible responses or understand the USA place in world culture. If this was explored maybe there would have been a change of plans.
On another note, I think there were WMD's found in 1994 after a scientist gave inspectors information. So I don't think it ended after 1992.
I think this is why USA supports the Saudi so much, but as with helping Iraq against Iran, supporting regimes can be very tricky and bite you in the ass later.
I say 9/11 should have ended all support of Saudi Arabia, make Iraq follow the 15 or so resolutions on the same subject (totally free inspections no restrictions and WMD's) or else, Iran should have been hit by surprise and good old North Korea would be having some problems right about now.
I think Bush gambled that the world would have to help after Iraq otherwise Iraq could become a haven for terrorists and then he could scare North Korea and Iran.
To me history says otherwise that the world could care less that Iraq could plunge into an abyss of war that would spread throughout the region and then the world. Bush was betting on the world seeing that Iraq had to be stabilized, they would help. Nope, not this world.
Bush made some major mistakes and I think he and his advisor's looked at the world from the perspective of the US instead of understanding the cultural dynamics of different world cultures and there possible responses or understand the USA place in world culture. If this was explored maybe there would have been a change of plans.
On another note, I think there were WMD's found in 1994 after a scientist gave inspectors information. So I don't think it ended after 1992.
Koasati
Reply #80 Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:05 PM
Reply #80 Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:05 PM
| A new report just came out confirming that Iraq didn't have any WMP since 1992. |
That same report states that Saddam still had the capibility, and intentions of producing WMD again, as soon as he could get rid of the UN sanctions. Saddam was manipulating the Oil for Food program to bribe countries to get the sanctions removed. But you don't hear about that part of the report. The news media doesn't report anything that might make George look good..........
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:06 AM