K
KidRock
Guest
CptStern said:
Are you an idiot? do you even read posts? I said not in AMERICA.. as in a country.. a piece of land.. and I said not on innocent people in the states..
Death.Trap
Tank
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,301
- Reaction score
- 1
CptStern said:
He didn't say that. He said that attacks are not occuring in America, aka on american soil, or on innocent american civilians.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
let me spell this out for you
83 attacks a day on american soldiers = dead americans
btw: why do I have to spell everything out for you? why cant you read between the lines? Why must you be so literal? seriously, why do you even get into political discussions if you cant think laterally?
83 attacks a day on american soldiers = dead americans
btw: why do I have to spell everything out for you? why cant you read between the lines? Why must you be so literal? seriously, why do you even get into political discussions if you cant think laterally?
K
KidRock
Guest
CptStern said:
yeah american SOLDIERs..who are FIGHTING in iraq..not innocent people in the states going about there daily buisness. What do you expect during a war? Let me spell it out for you sterny boy.. no terrorist attack has happened in the states since the war.
Also those soldiers know the risk they take going to iraq.. a janitor going to work in a skyscraper shouldnt be taking the risk of getting killed in a terrorist act.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
KidRock said:
that has little to no bearing on the security of the US ..how many attacks on american soil happened before 9/11? half a dozen, maybe, in the last century . Do you want me to dig up the quote where collin powell apologises for lying about the fact that the US is safer since the war in iraq?
KidRock said:
ahhhh but they went under false pretenses didnt they? they were lied to
K
KidRock
Guest
I still see no proof why the US isnt safer? Throw all the facts you want out.. There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war..why should I worry about facts
Some of you guys make it out like re-electing Bush has started the apocolypse. Not everything the man has done is completely horrible. He has benefited this country, otherwise more than half of the votes wouldn't have gone his way. Here's some examples:
1. Turned a post 9/11 recession around in to one of the strongest economies we've ever had.
2. Cut taxes for most people who actually pay them (which is arguably the reason for #1).
3. Disabled and/or captured 70% of al Qaeda leadership.
4. Removed one of the most despotic dictators in history from power.
5. Disrupted the Taliban, and brought democratic elections to Afghanistan.
Now granted not all of his actions have been recieved with smiling faces. He has also:
1. Increased the national deficit
2. Expanded government faster than Clinton did
3. Created one of the biggest and most nebulous govt entities in Homeland Security
4. Funded faith-based substance-abuse programs
However, IMHO, this is a one-issue campaign: who will be tougher on terrorism. And I think Bush is the obvious choice there. Apparently the rest of the country felt the same way.
1. Turned a post 9/11 recession around in to one of the strongest economies we've ever had.
2. Cut taxes for most people who actually pay them (which is arguably the reason for #1).
3. Disabled and/or captured 70% of al Qaeda leadership.
4. Removed one of the most despotic dictators in history from power.
5. Disrupted the Taliban, and brought democratic elections to Afghanistan.
Now granted not all of his actions have been recieved with smiling faces. He has also:
1. Increased the national deficit
2. Expanded government faster than Clinton did
3. Created one of the biggest and most nebulous govt entities in Homeland Security
4. Funded faith-based substance-abuse programs
However, IMHO, this is a one-issue campaign: who will be tougher on terrorism. And I think Bush is the obvious choice there. Apparently the rest of the country felt the same way.
Q
qckbeam
Guest
KidRock said:
You make it sound as if we were being attacked on a daily basis before Bush and now everything is perfectly fine and peaceful. From what I can gather, there are simply not enough al Qaeda operatives in the United States to carry out suicide bombings on a daily basis; so they wait, gather their strength, and carry out one really large attack when they're ready. You're making an incredibly premature statement saying we're safer now than in the past, not to mention common sense would say our presence as invaders in a Middle Eastern country would only strengthen enemy resolve and numbers.
K
KidRock
Guest
CptStern said:bush is responsible for the invasion ..he should bear the brunt of responsibility ..I say you guys impeach him for lying
heh if only you had a say in American affairs eh canadian? :E
hasan
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,134
- Reaction score
- 0
"terrorist" attacks don't happen overnight. They take a long time to plan and excute.
There hasn't been one since 9/11, this doesn't mean the planning stopped. There is DEFINETLY a plot for a next attack in the works, or it might have entered excution phase.
We won't know untill it happens. then , try to tell me you bush made you safer. ok?
edit:
I don't give a whit about what Iraq has to do with america's security.
a Q for all you liberals: If everything in Iraq stays the same .. EXACTLY the same as it is now, except for one thing: it indeed makes america safer.
will you support it then?
There hasn't been one since 9/11, this doesn't mean the planning stopped. There is DEFINETLY a plot for a next attack in the works, or it might have entered excution phase.
We won't know untill it happens. then , try to tell me you bush made you safer. ok?
edit:
I don't give a whit about what Iraq has to do with america's security.
a Q for all you liberals: If everything in Iraq stays the same .. EXACTLY the same as it is now, except for one thing: it indeed makes america safer.
will you support it then?
CptStern said:bush is responsible for the invasion ..he should bear the brunt of responsibility ..I say you guys impeach him for lying
What about Britian, Denmark, Australia, and the other countries who provided troops and supplies to the Iraq war effort? Should their leaders be impeached as well? Do you honestly think Bush single handedly invaded Iraq with no support or evidence what-so-ever? He recieved information from his advisors, intelligence communities, and allied nations. He inturpretation of that data showed reason to remove Hussein from power. How do you know Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done the exact same thing, based on the exact same intelligence?
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Steelwind said:
The difference is that Bush wanted his people to find any connection to Iraq after 9/11 took place. Usually, you're supposed to follow the evidence until you reach a conclusion. Bush started with a conclusion and then tried to stuff it with evidence afterwards. That is majorly unreliable. Even still, the evidence was considered to be very questionable by A LOT of people. Even Colin Powell was quoted as saying "This is bullshit" when it came to the documents regarding Iraq.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
KidRock said:
KidRock, you're pretty ignorant. You have no proof that America is safer due to Bush being in office.
"BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH THERE HASN'T BEEN A TERRORIST ATTACK SINCE..." could have been the same case with Gore, so I suggest you shut your trap and quit making a mockery of not only politics, but yourself as well.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Steelwind said:
In case you didn't catch this before:
Bush did not win due to his stance on terrorism nor his plans for the economy. The large percentage of votes that went to him were from voters concerned with moral issues, such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion.
The safety of America was not at the forefront of most peoples' minds on election day.
Absinthe said:
I don't ever remember hearing that Bush tried to connect Iraq to 9/11. The only connection that I could see made, was probably taken out of context by those who feel Bushed lied to go to war with Iraq. I was under the assumption that Al Queda was responsible, which was why we were in Afghanistan and hunting down Osama Bin Laden. My understanding for Iraq was that Hussein was a theat to not only our nation, but the rest of the world as well. The actions he took against his own people and country were only second to another dictator that was overthrown so many years ago. Action was taken against a man who had the power and desire to strike at America just like Al Queda did. He needed to be put down before something like 9/11 happend again. Bush was the man for the job, and he's the man to finish the job. The only connection there is that he was capable and more than willing to attack us on our home soil. After 9/11 the major focus in the US become Homeland Security. However, I never felt that we as a nation were led to believe that Hussein was linked to Al Queda themsevles.
burner69
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 0
Why didn't he overthrow Saddam earlier?
It seems to me and many people that the only reason he invaded when he did was that he needed some kind of trophey on this 'war on terror'. There is no proof of this, because for this he would need to admit it, which he never will, but answer me this. Why didn't he overthrow him before?
KidRock, you SHOULD be worrying about the facts. You do know how much money is now being put into anti-terrorism? That's because you now have A LOT more terrorists targetting your country than there were before. Innocent people never deserve to get killed by terrorists, nobody does, but by pissing them off Bush has got many of them who were previously quite happy to steer clear, targetting you. It's costing you money to keep the attacks at bay, which is hammering Federal spending up, and it means you're more likely to be attacked.
Also I found it sick that you disregarded the attacks on American troops. Those are attacks, by terrorists, on Americans.
And don't say bush had a 'right' to invade iraq because of terrorists. He didn't. He had a right to capture OBL, what he did was evil, he did not need to invade the entire country of Afgan.
He had no luck there so he moved on to Iraq with the emphasis on making the world a safer place. As it turns out they were NOT a threat, and the world is now a much more DANGEROUS place.
Although it would be stupid to say removing Saddam from power (who America put there in the first place) was not beneficial to the country, by doing it WHEN they did it proves they have other agendas.
9/11 was a backlash from previous American policies which involved pissing off other countries, all that's happening now is that Bush is doing it again. Why couldn't he just hunt down OBL and have done with it? And by the way if you think the war on Iraq was to get terrorists either you are wrong or Bush went about it the wrong way. Saddam would not tolerate terrorists in his country, they were a threat to his power, he would have happily helped America get rid of them.
Your economy is dwindling. Where are you people hearing that your economy is booming? It's not! You've spent $400bn that you don't have. Your minimum wage is sliding down, down, down. Unemployment is up. The number of people below the poverty line has increased substantially. And it is predicted that at the rate it is falling Japan will over take the US as the world super power.
How is this a booming economy?
To cope with this 'war on terrorism', rightly phrased as a war on a concept, Bush, and indeed Kerry, were having to take seriously the idea of a draft. Don't you find that scary? He's thrown you into unnessesary wars which he can't get out of, so he has to strip what I believe to be basic human rights and thrust you into the army. Okay so it may not happen, but he wants it to.
And on the matter of congress. yes, it must be passed through there. But don't you know how much influence Bush and his friends have there? If a member of congress votes for what Bush wants they are likely to get little 'extras'. You did read what I said about Bush giving certain of his buddies $145bn this year alone. To put that in perspective that could pay a years minimum wage to all Americas unemployed almost 6 times over. And also there is immense pressure on congressmen and women who are in his party to vote for what he wants.
And on the subject of the countries who are fighting in Iraq now, my own included. I do NOT agree with the war. But Blair and other countries have both a duty to help - which you should be grateful for, considering America tossed aside pleas for help in WW2 until Pearl harbour - but also Blair can gain a lot from being friendly with the (soon to be ex) world's super power.
And in helping you fight the war, which you were going to do anyway, it means it can be over with quicker - I hope.
Steelwind - thank you for being pretty much the only person in opposition to my views with some evidence for your case.
Many of you seem to base your pro-bush argument on slagging off others for not believing what you do, laughing because we actually DON'T have much of a say, and baseing arguments around personal experience: "My boss has had more recruits = unemployment is down" "There have been no terrorist attacks in the US so the terrorists have gone away." Do what Steelwind has done, try and lay some foundation to your argument.
It seems to me and many people that the only reason he invaded when he did was that he needed some kind of trophey on this 'war on terror'. There is no proof of this, because for this he would need to admit it, which he never will, but answer me this. Why didn't he overthrow him before?
KidRock, you SHOULD be worrying about the facts. You do know how much money is now being put into anti-terrorism? That's because you now have A LOT more terrorists targetting your country than there were before. Innocent people never deserve to get killed by terrorists, nobody does, but by pissing them off Bush has got many of them who were previously quite happy to steer clear, targetting you. It's costing you money to keep the attacks at bay, which is hammering Federal spending up, and it means you're more likely to be attacked.
Also I found it sick that you disregarded the attacks on American troops. Those are attacks, by terrorists, on Americans.
And don't say bush had a 'right' to invade iraq because of terrorists. He didn't. He had a right to capture OBL, what he did was evil, he did not need to invade the entire country of Afgan.
He had no luck there so he moved on to Iraq with the emphasis on making the world a safer place. As it turns out they were NOT a threat, and the world is now a much more DANGEROUS place.
Although it would be stupid to say removing Saddam from power (who America put there in the first place) was not beneficial to the country, by doing it WHEN they did it proves they have other agendas.
9/11 was a backlash from previous American policies which involved pissing off other countries, all that's happening now is that Bush is doing it again. Why couldn't he just hunt down OBL and have done with it? And by the way if you think the war on Iraq was to get terrorists either you are wrong or Bush went about it the wrong way. Saddam would not tolerate terrorists in his country, they were a threat to his power, he would have happily helped America get rid of them.
Your economy is dwindling. Where are you people hearing that your economy is booming? It's not! You've spent $400bn that you don't have. Your minimum wage is sliding down, down, down. Unemployment is up. The number of people below the poverty line has increased substantially. And it is predicted that at the rate it is falling Japan will over take the US as the world super power.
How is this a booming economy?
To cope with this 'war on terrorism', rightly phrased as a war on a concept, Bush, and indeed Kerry, were having to take seriously the idea of a draft. Don't you find that scary? He's thrown you into unnessesary wars which he can't get out of, so he has to strip what I believe to be basic human rights and thrust you into the army. Okay so it may not happen, but he wants it to.
And on the matter of congress. yes, it must be passed through there. But don't you know how much influence Bush and his friends have there? If a member of congress votes for what Bush wants they are likely to get little 'extras'. You did read what I said about Bush giving certain of his buddies $145bn this year alone. To put that in perspective that could pay a years minimum wage to all Americas unemployed almost 6 times over. And also there is immense pressure on congressmen and women who are in his party to vote for what he wants.
And on the subject of the countries who are fighting in Iraq now, my own included. I do NOT agree with the war. But Blair and other countries have both a duty to help - which you should be grateful for, considering America tossed aside pleas for help in WW2 until Pearl harbour - but also Blair can gain a lot from being friendly with the (soon to be ex) world's super power.
And in helping you fight the war, which you were going to do anyway, it means it can be over with quicker - I hope.
Steelwind - thank you for being pretty much the only person in opposition to my views with some evidence for your case.
Many of you seem to base your pro-bush argument on slagging off others for not believing what you do, laughing because we actually DON'T have much of a say, and baseing arguments around personal experience: "My boss has had more recruits = unemployment is down" "There have been no terrorist attacks in the US so the terrorists have gone away." Do what Steelwind has done, try and lay some foundation to your argument.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
burner69
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 0
Steelwind said:
From Washington Bureau: "WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein"
From BBC news: "Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington"
Thanks for the links, and the numbers. I find it interesting that so many people voted on moral issues. That wasn't the case for myself and many of the people I am associated with here in Texas. But to each his own. However, I did notice that in the percentages that Burner posted 19% noted terrorism and 15% noted Iraq. If we're going on the assumption that Bush led the US to believe we were in Iraq because of their link with terrorists, then those numbers should be combined. Now you have terrorism/Iraq as the number one issue in this election. So which is it? Did we vote on them based as seperate issues or were we led to believe Iraq had a connection with terrorism? Just an observation.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Hindsight is 20/20.
burner69 said:
Again, thanks for the quotes. I'd like to see what dates those were taken. Looking for evidence doesn't mean we didn't find any, or that it become the sole reason we invaded Iraq. As well, just because Bush believed they had connections, doesn't mean it was the sole basis for the attack itself. If intelligence was gathered showing no link, there must have been something else that came to light that would garner support for Bush to go to war.
burner69
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 0
Good point.
This is a year old but still important.
"a recent (Sept 2003) opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks"
See what he did? Tricked his people, who rightly wanted revenge for 9/11, into believing Saddam was behind it.
It's sick.
This is a year old but still important.
"a recent (Sept 2003) opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks"
See what he did? Tricked his people, who rightly wanted revenge for 9/11, into believing Saddam was behind it.
It's sick.
DiSTuRbEd
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,419
- Reaction score
- 0
burner69 said:
Yet again, you seem like you know everything. We're in debt, so about every other country, nothing new. Minimum wage sliding? HA then why is it still $5.50 and 3 years ago it was $5.25, there goes your facts. Unemployment isn't up, infact recently all around NC there has been new jobs opening, I am sure around the company, Dell is building a facility down here in the triad. So obviously that will get more jobs. Yet again we don't care who is the world super power, quit bringing it up. You people from other countries know very little about our economy, I suggest you quit trying to prove the people that live here wrong, because you won't.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Steelwind said:
If you believe Richard Clarke (which I doubt you do), he claimed that Rummy and pals had their sights set on Iraq the day after 9/11. If you don't believe Richard Clarke, then okay. Plans for Iraq still did, however, begin very soon.
Bush had stressed time and time again that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda.
And yes, Saddam was a bad man. But we should have priorities. As bad as he was, the US military still exists for the safety of America. Iraq was not a threat. Even if he was, we still had bigger fish to fry. Osama bin Laden? North Korea? Well, screw that. Bush has already stated that he couldn't care any more about Osama. And North Korea? Psh! We're gonna negotioate with those guys! They actually DO pose a threat!
Take care of your own problems before attempting to be a global cop once more.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Steelwind said:
bush knew saddam had no wmd ...why else draw up plans to invade iraq before 9/11 look up Project for the new American century: an organization whose members include: Rumsfeld, cheney. jeb bush, ari fleischer etc ...they have been pushing to invade iraq since the mid 90's ...blame the neo-cons they were the ones that "manufactured consent
burner69 said:
Fair enough, but where's the documentation, quotes, or actions that would lead people to believe this? We were told Osama was responsible, Osama himself took responsibility, yet 70% of America belives it was Hussein? I have a hard time believing that. I haven't personally seen or heard anything from the Bush administration that would lead me to think Hussein had his hand in 9/11. As I stated earlier, that's not why I feel we are over there.
