Election USA 2004 - HL2.net community Vote

[seinfeldrules]

You really like that quote don't you? Sorry, I prefer the actual intelligence reports at the time over one comment. That comment does not reflect the opinion of the intelligence community at the time so it is mostly irrelavant.

He is the director of that intelligence community, how does it not reflect their views again? Who should he listen to, PFC Shaw over Tenet?

 

[SidewinderX]

Involved with in what manner? Why do you think Saddam kicked them out for nearly a decade?

A decade? I belive they were there in '97....

And it's not as if they were kicked out, and then said "ok, we'll completley ignore them."
No matter what you say, there was evidence that Saddam had NO WMDs. Besides, Bush has changed his reasoning on invading Iraq a few times already.

Edit: Eh, you've only addressed 2 of my point (kinda)

 

[seinfeldrules]

No matter what you say, there was evidence that Saddam had NO WMDs. Besides, Bush has changed his reasoning on invading Iraq a few times already.

Just because he points out the positive results of the invasion doesnt mean he is changing his reasoning.

 

[SidewinderX]

Just because he points out the positive results of the invasion doesnt mean he is changing his reasoning.

positive results?

"They were involved with 9/11" - not true
"They have wmds"- not true
"They have oil and halli...." - left unsaid
"We're freeing the people" - kinda true. We control less than half of the country now, and more Iraqis are afraid of thier saftey more now than with saddam. AND there were better targets if our goal was the free people from a dictatorship.

 

[Neutrino]

Just because he points out the positive results of the invasion doesnt mean he is changing his reasoning.

Yes he is. The reasons we went to war turned out to be not true. But he still says he made the right decision. In effect he changed the reasons for going to war after the fact.

 

[seinfeldrules]

"They were involved with 9/11" - not true
"They have wmds"- not true
"They have oil and halli...." - left unsaid
"We're freeing the people" - kinda true. We control less than half of the country now, and more Iraqis are afraid of thier saftey more now than with saddam. AND there were better targets if our goal was the free people from a dictatorship.

"They were involved with 9/11"- Bush never said that. He said they were involved with Al Qaeda, and some links have been discovered.

"They have wmds"- He said it based on the Intel he had at the time.

"We're freeing the people"- We control less than half? Not true. The pocket of resistance is getting smaller and smaller. It is focused in a few areas of Iraq and thats it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes he is. The reasons we went to war turned out to be not true. But he still says he made the right decision. In effect he changed the reasons for going to war after the fact.

I dont see how that is changing his position. He went in saying "Iraq has WMD and is a threat". That is what his intel told him. Now he is saying "I was told Iraq had WMD based on the intel I had". They are the same reason, he is just explaining it currently.

 

[SidewinderX]

"They were involved with 9/11"- Bush never said that. He said they were involved with Al Qaeda, and some links have been discovered.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

"We're freeing the people"- We control less than half? Not true. The pocket of resistance is getting smaller and smaller. It is focused in a few areas of Iraq and thats it.

Is that why we can't cross the country right now? Why more and more people are being captured? Why forces are refusing to go through areas that are too dangerous to contemplate corssing?

 

[Neutrino]

I dont see how that is changing his position. He went in saying "Iraq has WMD and is a threat". That is what his intel told him. Now he is saying "I was told Iraq had WMD based on the intel I had". They are the same reason, he is just explaining it currently.

No, he's saying that we did not make a mistake.

We went to war for very specific reasons. Those reasons turned out not to be true. But the fact that Bush maintains that we didn't make a mistake means that he is changing the reasons that we went to war.

Now if that doesn't bother you fine, but I have a big problem with the President justifying wars in hindsight. It's an incredibly dangerous precident.

 

[Steve]

so apparently, people outside the US don't like bush... when did that happen?

 

[MadHatter]

so apparently, people outside the US don't like bush... when did that happen?

What? Naaawwwwwwwwwwwwww. Who told you that? Psshhhh, that's absurd.

 

[Tr0n]

What? Naaawwwwwwwwwwwwww. Who told you that? Psshhhh, that's absurd.

Yea...just stereotypes man. :thumbs:

Edit:You have the same sig as me steve... :O Southern representin.

 

[Steve]

What? Naaawwwwwwwwwwwwww. Who told you that? Psshhhh, that's absurd.

heh heh...guess i should think twice before i believe the polls, ya? damn it, i don't get tomorrow off from classes! how stupid is THAT? luckily, i don't have to be in class until 10:30...

 

[Steve]

Edit:You have the same sig as me steve... :O

yeah, we were both involved in that, dude. remember? i was gonna drive...

 

[Tr0n]

yeah, we were both involved in that, dude. remember? i was gonna drive...

Damn straight and ya got the grill bloody to...I had to clean it... :|

 

[Steve]

Damn straight and ya got the grill bloody to...I had to clean it... :|

but dude, you KNOW it was worth it...

 

[MadHatter]

Seriously though, thank god internationals can't partake in our elections. Bush, or any republican party member, would be fawked.... Prison b¡tch style.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, he's saying that we did not make a mistake.

We went to war for very specific reasons. Those reasons turned out not to be true. But the fact that Bush maintains that we didn't make a mistake means that he is changing the reasons that we went to war.

Now if that doesn't bother you fine, but I have a big problem with the President justifying wars in hindsight. It's an incredibly dangerous precident.

In a post 9/11 world where we ignored evidence too late i would rather be safe than sorry. The intel told him it had to be done, I think it is better than the alternative scenario.

 

[jaguar_987]

Im a mix! lol Well Anglo American (Dual Nationality English/American) if you wanted to be politically correct and would vote for Kerry but I can't be bothered to register. There both as bad as each other anyway.

 

[Korgoth]

In a post 9/11 world where we ignored evidence too late i would rather be safe than sorry. The intel told him it had to be done, I think it is better than the alternative scenario.

Well if you remember pre 9/11 bush also ignored some intellegence (bin laden determined to strike within the united states I believe was the name of the report.)

Thats the one thing I can't understand for the life of me. If Bush is so strong on national security, how the hell did 9/11 ever happen?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well if you remember pre 9/11 bush also ignored some intellegence (bin laden determined to strike within the united states I believe was the name of the report.)

Thats the one thing I can't understand for the life of me. If Bush is so strong on national security, how the hell did 9/11 ever happen?

He was only in office for like 8 months.

 

[othello]

Oh and btw you contradict yourself when you say nbc is liberal media and then sight an article on msnbc to back up another one of your claims... So uh, why don't you try again kthnx

uhhh... not at all. if anything it strengthens my argument with proof from a liberal media source. my bet is that you didnt even read the article, just saw the 'msnbc' in the url and thought you'd make a completely invalid 'point'. gg on that one.

 

[othello]

Awww...someone needs a hug...or a chill pill.

no thanks, a little dose of reality would serve you well though

Clarification, Bush didn't properly fund and equip our troops the first time, which was bad enough and reason why we needed that $87 Billion. Furthermore, half of that money was going to a no-contest contract to Halliburton. It also contained a bunch of uselessness such as funds to create an Iraqi postal service with zip codes.

Kerry voted against the $87 Billion to contest the no-contest contracts to Halliburton. No-contest creates higher prices and lower quality. He voted against not giving our coalition and allies a chance for their own businesses to go into Iraq. Do you honestly think Kerry wouldn't protect our soldiers? Do you honestly think anyone would deny our troops body armor?

yes of course i do... he DID vote against their funding. it doesnt matter what was in the bill that he didnt agree with, the main factor of that proposal was to 'fund the troops'. and he voted against it. plain and simple. you cant possibly defend that (although i see you are attempting to). halliburton has been our country's largest contractor for over 30 years, they would've received a no-bid contract in iraq no matter who was in office, just as they did in bosnia under the clinton administration.

your defense of kerry is fairly weak.

And with shows like "Hannity and Colmes" and "Scarborough County", don't even start with MSNBC being a liberal junket.

well, not as weak as this. citing foxnews as an attmept to dismiss the notion that the media is liberal? what is that... 2 shows v. 147,203??? ya... you're right, 'fair and balanced'. :dozey:

 

[othello]

I know this is completley out of context, but I just posted this up on another forum, and it's fairly well organized, thought I'd share.

---------------------------
Some people are trying to argue that voting for Kerry just because he isn't GW Bush is bad. Why? Like someone said, better to vote for an unknown, rather than a known.

A few reasons why I wouldn't vote for Bush (If I could vote )

1) Gay Marriage Amendment
-The Constitution is a fairly important document. Gay marriage is a non-issue. Amending the Constitiution to ban gay marrige would be devaluing the Constitution.
-I have -still- yet to hear a logically valid argument against gay marriage. If "Jesus" or "the Bible" is mentioned in the argument.. well != vaild.
-Why shouldn't same sex couple have the right to apply for morgages, recive widow/er benifits, etc?
-The Gay Marriage Amendment (well, and the Defense of Marriage Act), is really a devolution to the early 1950s. In essence, they say "It's ok to discriminate against people who are differnt than you."

the majority of the american public are against legalizing gay marriages. if you are in favor of it, vote for kerry. more power to you.

2)Domestic Issues
-No matter what stats you rattle off, what reasons you provide, there are fewer jobs now.

and that's bush's fault how? im sure clinton's failing economy, the dot.com bubble burst, 9/11, etc... none of those could've possibly been contributing factors.

-Bush says that he's increasing. That is true, jobs are slowly on the rise. What he's not saying is thatalot of the jobs that have been lost (partially to outsourcing) are $50,000+ salaried jobs, and the jobs we're gaining are near minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart.
-Bush says "You lost your job? We'll give you money to get an education". Back to the previous point; many of these people who have lkost jobs already have a college education.

i agree, to an extent. we are exponentially creating more jobs every month. we have a lower unemployment rate then the average rate of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. we have the fastest growing economy in 20 years, and a higher GDP rate over the last 4 quarters, then the average every year under clinton.

3)Enviroment
-Again, no matter what you say, you can't argue that Bush has been helping the enviroment. And his "logic" for allowing abuses to continue amount to "Big buisiness tells me they need to deforest this area, and have plants with emission leverls of xxxx. I like buisiness"

the vast majority of environmental proposals have been democratically (as in, NOT republican) backed and supported. so, dems = big business? ya i can concede that.

4)War on Terror
-Detour into Iraq. That turned out to be a brilliant idea.
-"We freed the people from a dictator" Very good idea. But there were other targets where we could have similarly saved the people from a dictator, as well as accomplished more on the war on terror, not encourage it.
-Loosing OBL. I think Jon Stewart and The Daily Show put it well with thier video about Bush and Words. Osama != Saddam. We had opportunities to get Osama, and we let him slip through our fingers.
-And, of course, WMDs. Republicans argue that all signs said that there were WMDs in Iraq, everyone thought it was true. Wrong. The UN, who was physically there, said that there were no WMDs. So you can't argue that.

sure i can, saddam refused to comply with 17 UN resolutions over the last 12 years. when he did allow inspectors in, they were denied access to various facilities and parts of the countries. so, of course they didnt see any WMDs. every respectable intelligence agency claimed saddam had WMDs and planned to use them. the simple fact is, WMDs have been found, just not to the extent we were told. but you can hardly blame bush for that.

 

[othello]

not true? The UN weapons inspectors said that there were not WMDs in Iraq. Do you remember that? Before we invaded?

yeah... the ones who weren't allowed into various facilities and parts of the countries.

Re: Economy
Anything. Something. An effort to better the situation. FDR inherited the Great Depression!

ok. we have the fastest growing economy in 20 years, in the face of clinton's economic failures and 9/11. hows that?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

double posting just retarded.. but triple posting takes a special gift!!!

quad-posting is retared again though

 

[othello]

/sigh

for the last time:

Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor did it have the capability to make WMD's.

This is really getting old.

it sure is... you are just not correct by any stretch of the imagination. whats getting really old is all this ill-founded ,blind hatred of bush.

new news story: nearly 400 tons of explosives are missing in iraq. 400 tons of explosives = WMDs. but wait, saddam had no WMDs! and thats just the most recently reported case.

 

[othello]

double posting just retarded.. but triple posting takes a special gift!!!

quad-posting is retared again though

don't be such an asshat, im responding to everyones post individually.

 

[=)PoLo(=]

What are the 2 most favorite words of Bill O'Reilly...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

thank god i broke up the sextuple post!!

 

[Kschreck]

Remember Boys And Girls, vote Kerry for president or you will be sent away to fight Bush's next war when he starts the draft up if you vote for him.

 

[othello]

Well if you remember pre 9/11 bush also ignored some intellegence (bin laden determined to strike within the united states I believe was the name of the report.)

Thats the one thing I can't understand for the life of me. If Bush is so strong on national security, how the hell did 9/11 ever happen?

ask your precious clinton. the majority of the blame for 9/11 falls on his soldiers. not to mention bin laden in general, saddam hussein, the economy, health care, etc... i agree, bush deserves 8 months of blame, 9/11 happened under his watch. however, clinton deserves 8 years of blame.

 

[othello]

Remember Boys And Girls, vote Kerry for president or you will be sent away to fight Bush's next war when he starts the draft up if you vote for him.

bush has adamently protested a draft. it is the democrats who are pushing for it. so your post = :thumbs:

 

[Kschreck]

LOL, yeah right. Your just one of those Bush Boys. Bush is the one sending everyone to war whereas Kerry wants to stop all this war so why would he start the draft?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i wish there were a draft so that it wasn't 95% the disenfranchised that died for our politicians.

 

[Neutrino]

ask your precious clinton. the majority of the blame for 9/11 falls on his soldiers. not to mention bin laden in general, saddam hussein, the economy, health care, etc... i agree, bush deserves 8 months of blame, 9/11 happened under his watch. however, clinton deserves 8 years of blame.

You seem to be really stuck on clinton.

News flash: Clinton isn't in the election.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Clinton isn't in the election.

don't remind me ;(

 

[Neutrino]

don't remind me ;(

Heh, sorry.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if he ran against Bush though.

 

[h4vvok]

wuss liberals, Bush pwns you

 

[Element Alpha]

I would just like to say to all Americans out there:

VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT, DONT LET SOMEBODY LIVING IN FRANCE 3000 MILES AWAY DO IT FOR YOU. VOTE BUSH IF YOU WANT TO​

1) I don't live in France

2) Stop watching FOX, they show it around here, and it's more propaganda than you would get to see in old Sovjet Russia or in China, or even in the only newspaper sold in Cuba.

3) You are disgusting. You don't know the first thing about war.

4) Iraq never attacked your country. You attacked them for the wrong reasons, and being to proud (read: stupid) to admit you were fooled by your governament, you continue to believe lies upon lies to prove yourself right.

5) What the rest of the world thinks matters, yes even what the french think matters. Stop acting superior. Why would you assume that non-americans opinions are biased, distorted, or less intelligent? Everyone around here (I'm in Belgium) seems smart and educated. We all try to live a peacefull life, to prosper in health surrounded by friends and family. Why can't you agree with this view of life? Why should some people be deprived of these options because "America feels threatened".

5) Seinfeld is funny, I mean the show. You're not. But I understand there are more people who think like you, and it makes me wonder what and how they brain-feed you over there.