The 527 video that would never be aired on TV!(HowWouldTheyVote.com)

[No Limit]

So: the ad was made by a Bush supporter,
presented on a pro-Bush site,
dramatically repeating a questionable Bush argument against Kerry,
using Bush tactics,
and is still somehow non-partisan?

I want some of whatever you're taking.

Don't even waste your time, you won't get through to these people. That's like me releasing an ad stating "Is the economy good right now?", on the web site this ad is on I have a message about how Bush is the only president tolose jobs in his term. However, when I release the ad I say that this is only asking a question, it doesn't endorse anyone. Does that make it a non-partisan ad?

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Quoted from Neutrino
Argh, please learn to use quote tags. It makes it really difficult to respond when you don't. I don't know why I'm bothering with this as I'm pretty much done debating politics right now. But I guess I can't help myself sometimes.
I did it so that I could respond directly to each paragraph.


There is more than one city called Moscow you know.
You have to know that the one in Russia is best known, so why not put a ", TN" or something after it?


You didn't really pay attention to what I said. I doubt you or anyone else in the public really knows what those people think. They might have other motivations for publically endorsing one candidate over the other. You don't know.
I am entitled, however, to hold an opinion based on what I think, and act thereon. I think Kerry has a "plan" and I see Bush's action.

As long as we're throwing articles around on terrorist, here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html
Same one as I discredit because of the following quote:

The United States believes the Abu Hafs group lacks credibility and has only tenuous ties to Al Qaeda (search). In the past, the group has claimed responsibility for events to which they were not connected — such as last summer's blackouts in North America and Britain.

The editor of Al-Quds al-Arabi, Abdel Bari Atwan, told The Associated Press the paper received the statement via e-mail Wednesday night. The paper has received other e-mails from this group. On the evening of the Madrid bombings, the paper released an e-mail from Abu Hafs al-Masri in which they made the first claim of responsibility.

Anyone could send an anonymous e-mail.
It's not about a "few percentage points."

I was referring to this:

http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html
It says 75% of Al-Qaeda's leaders at the time of 9/11 are dead or arrested. Really, I doubt if they have a bottom to the pit of potential candidates for recruitment to die for Allah and receive their white grapes.

So you see what I mean by things not being cut and dried. You rarely get the facts by listening to what only one candidate says.

I conceed that you can't listen to a candidate from either side for all the facts.

Like I said, I really don't feel like getting into a serious debate on this. However, my above point was that the idea that what we've done over the last four years has either helped or hindered terrorism can be debated. So I'll just point out a few things:

Some things we've done about terrorism:

1) Let the most dangerous terrorist in the World escape. This is the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil. Yes we have failed to capture him.

If you are refering to Bin Laden, you need to read the rest of
the fact check link you sent to me. it says we didn't "know" he was there. We just had a strong inkling.

2) We invaded a country that later turns out not to have WMD's or credible connections to Al Quida. Oops.

They don't have them in the open now, but let me ask you this: If you can make 380 tons of conventional explosives disappear, what can you not make disappear? Plus, he(Saddam) had YEARS to act upon our warnings.

3) By invading that country we have angered not only the middel east but most of the world. We went from having the world's smpathy to having the world's ire. Not a good idea when there are lots of groups that want to kill you.
So what are you saying? Now that we have done as we have, we now have to fear groups that hated us before the war? What about before? Whatwith the masses of illiterate people awaiting recruitment in the Middle East, I doubt that we could have protected ourselves in a manner that would not anger terrorists. You can't be afraid of terrorists, you just need to be wary.

4) Fighting the war in Iraq took our focus and resources away from fighting terrorists groups that hd actually hurt us.

Who are we currently fighting in Iraq? Citizens? Not by a long shot. There are no doubt terrorists from all the countrys around Iraq flocking in to appose us.

5) The way we went about fighting this war undercut the UN's authority. It's not a good idea in my opinion to hinder this international body in a time of a lot of world turmoil and terrorism.

The same body that gave Saddam 12 years of warnings and did nothing to add force to the warnings given and in fact didn't want the US to act on those warnings and Saddam's thumbing his nose at them and invade. Useless.

6) That war has led to the Al-Zarqawi group to vow allegience to Osaman bin Laden, the person mentioned above whom we failed to capture.So what.. they weren't buddies already?

There's a few examples for you. But like I said, it can be debated. It's a very complex issue that is difficult to judge.

They are running scared? Have you even been reading the news lately? Terrorists groups like Al Quida and Al-Zarqawi are currently gaining strength and forming allegiences. That doesn't exactly sound like they are running scared to me.

Sounds like it when they are gathering into one area to fight us. Scared. Otherwise, why bother?

So you think we should just ignore every domestic issue that affects the lives of everyone in this country and just focus on terrorism? I'm sorry, but I happen to care about little things like the economy, healthcare, and jobs. If you don't that's fine, but I can introduce you to a few hundred million people who disagree with you.
I never said that they weren't worth action on; You seem to think I did. I said that before we worry about what we will do while we're safe, we should make sure we're safe.
This brings up another thing I've noticed recently. A lot of people seem to think that the world is less safe after 9/11 and that terrorism is more dangerous. I think this is completely false. It stems from a lack of perspective. For example consider a person who gets in a major car wreck. The car accident itself doesn't change the statistical danger of the roads and highways. They were equally dangerous before the wreck as they are after the wreck. However, the person involved in the accident is likely to see them as more dangerous afterward. This is a common psychological reaction. I've even experienced it myself when someone in my family almost died in a car accident. I found myself taking more precations and in general viewing the act of driving to be much more dangerous. But was it? No, not at all.
True, we just weren't "aware" of it during Clinton's administration.
One car wreck does not change the danger of driving, yet this what many people and some politicians seem to think or tell us. One act of terrorism does not make the world more dangerous. In fact it can be argued that before that right before that tragedy the world was far more dangerous than afterwards.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about terrorism. We should be. But I think to justify anything on the basis that the world is more dangerous today than it was before 9/11 is wrong. It is not more dangerous. We are just more aware of the danger as we've now personally experienced it.
And should, as such, take action now that we are aided with the more widely spread knowledge of the danger.

There is a large difference between being concerned about national security and fear mongering or scare tactics. As I said before, a reasoned look at the issue is a good idea of course. People of course have a right to be concerned about it. That doesn't mean you do it by intentionally trying to scare the public. No, you should do it by giving the public the facts on the matter and let them decide for themselves. You shouldn't do it by making a video showing terrorists wreathed in flames and trying to scare people using disturbing imagery. That's not about facts, that's about fear.
I think people are less concerned than they should be if they are considering Kerry seriously. But, that's just me and my 'lil ol' opinion.
The day people start voting purely on fear is the day that the terrorists win and democracy loses.
Agreed, but, correct me if I'm wrong, you sound as if we should be apathetic about it. I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Don't even waste your time, you won't get through to these people. That's like me releasing an ad stating "Is the economy good right now?", on the web site this ad is on I have a message about how Bush is the only president tolose jobs in his term. However, when I release the ad I say that this is only asking a question, it doesn't endorse anyone. Does that make it a non-partisan ad?

I wouldn't mind the question at all, just the anti-President quotes could hang themselves for all I care because I believe they are baseless. I say believe because I don't know all the answers ATM(is that arrogent or what? ;-]). I don't even profess to know all the questions.

But, I would say that the economy is good, considering what can be done about it and what can't.

Good, because the rich and/or small businesses are now free to employ more people with the lessened tax burden they get.

Not so good, because it's a resession that, by the way, started months before the current president took office.

 

[No Limit]

I wouldn't mind the question at all, just the anti-President quotes could hang themselves for all I care because I believe they are baseless. I say believe because I don't know all the answers ATM(is that arrogent or what? ;-]). I don't even profess to know all the questions.

But, I would say that the economy is good, considering what can be done about it and what can't.

Good, because the rich and/or small businesses are now free to employ more people with the lessened tax burden they get.

Not so good, because it's a resession that, by the way, started months before the current president took office.

I attacked you because I provided proof for how the ad was partisan but you still denied it without giving me any proof. Every time I showed you how something was inaccurate you ignored me and just moved on to something completely different to see if that would work against me. You would be amazed at how many pro Bush people I talk to do this (almost everyone of them, though I'm sure most Democrats are similar). My economy claim was just as baseless as the quote from that web site about terrorists dancing in the streets if Kerry is elected because I didn't provide any reasoning behind it. I could go into a huge debate on the economy (and win :naughty but that is completely off topic in this thread. Frankly, I am getting sick of these political threads. Every single one uses the same old talking points and nothing new is ever brought up.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I attacked you because I provided proof for how the ad was partisan but you still denied it without giving me any proof. Every time I showed you how something was inaccurate you ignored me and just moved on to something completely different to see if that would work against me. You would be amazed at how many pro Bush people I talk to do this (almost everyone of them, though I'm sure most Democrats are similar). My economy claim was just as baseless as the quote from that web site about terrorists dancing in the streets if Kerry is elected because I didn't provide any reasoning behind it. I could go into a huge debate on the economy (and win :naughty but that is completely off topic in this thread. Frankly, I am getting sick of these political threads. Every single one uses the same old talking points and nothing new is ever brought up.

I don't agree with you, but that is ok.

I am tired of the political threads, as well. They don't accomplish anything. I'll bury my hatchet till Nov3 if you will. ;-)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I am entitled, however, to hold an opinion based on what I think, and act thereon. I think Kerry has a "plan" and I see Bush's action.

Bush's action was once a "plan" too.
I guess watching Bush's plan see action would convince many people that plans are bad.

Anyone could send an anonymous e-mail.

Okay, so what proof do you have that anyone else in the world wrote that? Or even what possible motivation?

It's not about a "few percentage points."
I was referring to this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html
It says 75% of Al-Qaeda's leaders at the time of 9/11 are dead or arrested. Really, I doubt if they have a bottom to the pit of potential candidates for recruitment to die for Allah and receive their white grapes.

You just proved his point. (See bold)
75% of Al-Queda's leaders in 2001 were removed. However, they have been replaced en-masse ever since. Also, no mention is made of Al-Queda troops, or any lower-ranking officers. That hardly accounts for 75% of all Al-Queda like you said before.

1) Let the most dangerous terrorist in the World escape. This is the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil. Yes we have failed to capture him.
If you are refering to Bin Laden, you need to read the rest of
the fact check link you sent to me. it says we didn't "know" he was there. We just had a strong inkling.

he's not talking about Tora Bora. He's talking about the world in general. Osama bin Laden is still at large, and the US has decided to give up on finding him and spend ten times more money on Iraq instead.

2) We invaded a country that later turns out not to have WMD's or credible connections to Al Quida. Oops.
They don't have them in the open now, but let me ask you this: If you can make 380 tons of conventional explosives disappear, what can you not make disappear? Plus, he(Saddam) had YEARS to act upon our warnings.

So, because insurgents managed to steal explosives recently, that is proof that there were WMDs in 2002?

Someone once stole my bike.
Does that mean I am somehow concealing a flying saucer?

3) By invading that country we have angered not only the middel east but most of the world. We went from having the world's smpathy to having the world's ire. Not a good idea when there are lots of groups that want to kill you.
So what are you saying? Now that we have done as we have, we now have to fear groups that hated us before the war? What about before? Whatwith the masses of illiterate people awaiting recruitment in the Middle East, I doubt that we could have protected ourselves in a manner that would not anger terrorists. You can't be afraid of terrorists, you just need to be wary.

You missed the point. Every single iraqi insurgent is a terrorist now, because of the war. The iraqi people had no beef with America whatsoever before, but now they hate the west.

Also, it isn't just America vs. Enemies. Bush has disenfranchised his allies too.

4) Fighting the war in Iraq took our focus and resources away from fighting terrorists groups that hd actually hurt us.
Who are we currently fighting in Iraq? Citizens? Not by a long shot. There are no doubt terrorists from all the countrys around Iraq flocking in to appose us.

Correction: terrorists are flocking into iraq to fund and support the iraqi citizens who initially took up arms against the US occupation. Effect can't precede cause. You went to war against terrorists who only appeared as a result of going to war!

It's like the chicken and the egg, only the chicken hates eggs so much that it declares war against all the eggs in the nest but, finding the nest empty, lays an egg in it and then proceeds to struggle incessantly with the egg, having not commited enough strength to break it.

5) The way we went about fighting this war undercut the UN's authority. It's not a good idea in my opinion to hinder this international body in a time of a lot of world turmoil and terrorism.
The same body that gave Saddam 12 years of warnings and did nothing to add force to the warnings given and in fact didn't want the US to act on those warnings and Saddam's thumbing his nose at them and invade. Useless.

Actually, the UN was the #1 thoig keeping Saddam away from WMDs. You hear the Bush arguments for war: "Saddam was just waiting for the UN sactions to end, and once they did, he would grab as much WMDs as he could." Why would he be sitting there weaponless if the UN didn't work?

6) That war has led to the Al-Zarqawi group to vow allegience to Osaman bin Laden, the person mentioned above whom we failed to capture.So what.. they weren't buddies already?
There's a few examples for you. But like I said, it can be debated. It's a very complex issue that is difficult to judge.

What examples?

They are running scared? Have you even been reading the news lately? Terrorists groups like Al Quida and Al-Zarqawi are currently gaining strength and forming allegiences. That doesn't exactly sound like they are running scared to me.
Sounds like it when they are gathering into one area to fight us. Scared. Otherwise, why bother?

Two words: tactical retreat.
Another two: defensive positions.
Urban warfare.
Consolidated forces.

They are definitely gathering as a way to fight better. And you missed the fact that Al-Queda is now openly allying itself with insurgent groups, while also providing them with manpower and firepower. They are gaining strength every day.

I said that before we worry about what we will do while we're safe, we should make sure we're safe.

Put all aspects of governemnt on hold because counter-terrorism is the chief priority?

Excuse my perplexedness, but if killing terrorists is that much of a concern to you, why do you support Bush?
He spent too little effort on Afghanistan, where Al-Queda was centered, has failed to capture Osama, and spent something like ten times more money on fighting 'terrorism' in Iraq that didn't exist before now, while letting far more terroristic countries get off scot free.

You ought to be rioting in the streets against him.

True, we just weren't "aware" of it during Clinton's administration.

Actually, Clinton was heavily criticised for worrying too much about Al-Queda. Clinton was plenty aware of it, but only managed a few operations before leaving office. He trusted Bush to continue the job. Oops.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about terrorism. We should be. But I think to justify anything on the basis that the world is more dangerous today than it was before 9/11 is wrong. It is not more dangerous. We are just more aware of the danger as we've now personally experienced it.
And should, as such, take action now that we are aided with the more widely spread knowledge of the danger.

I agree that knowledge is a very useful tool for fighting terrorism.
However, if you are saying that adequate knowledge is important while simultaneously supporting war in Iraq, I'm going to have to scoff at you a bit.
It was, without a doubt, the largest intelligence failure in recent history. Even in not-so recent history.

I think people are less concerned than they should be if they are considering Kerry seriously. But, that's just me and my 'lil ol' opinion.

Why? How will Kerry's policy of stronger, farther-reaching alliances and actually having correct intelligence before attacking someone help terrorists?

The day people start voting purely on fear is the day that the terrorists win and democracy loses.
Agreed, but, correct me if I'm wrong, you sound as if we should be apathetic about it. I couldn't disagree more.

The problem isn't apatheticness. It's just general patheticness.
Even with the best of everything in the world at his disposal, Bush still managed to bungle it. He's bungling it now, even.

There's a difference between taking action, and taking effective action.
That's a very important difference to note.

 

[rkef]

I seem to remember the Al Qaeda recruitment videos featuring Bill Clinton quite a bit. They wanted to assassinate him. I'm guessing they wouldn't vote for him for example.

I'm guessing it's the same for Kerry, Bush, or any U.S. president. They'd love to get their claws on any one of them.

This question is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst... well, Bush I think has successfully made American troops the #1 feature in the new recruitment videos. Go figure.

Maybe it is a valid question after all.

Reminds me of a joke. Who hates Clinton more than the neo-cons? Al Qaeda, but only by a bit. Ok, so it's not really a joke.

 

[Neutrino]

I did it so that I could respond directly to each paragraph.

Notice that I do it and still manage to respond to each paragraph? It's really not that hard.

You have to know that the one in Russia is best known, so why not put a ", TN" or something after it?

Because of the fact that everyone automatically assumes I'm from Russia. I suppose it's kind of my way of making a statement about the falacy of assumptions.

I am entitled, however, to hold an opinion based on what I think, and act thereon. I think Kerry has a "plan" and I see Bush's action.

Me too. I think Kerry's plan is far better than Bush's actions.

Same one as I discredit because of the following quote:

Anyone could send an anonymous e-mail.

That's beside the point. The issue is that these are not nice people, even if they haven't done everything they claim. Yet, these people that have many of the same motivations as other terrorists are endorsing Bush.

But I don't consider that to be any more important than some other group endorsing Kerry. Like I said, I don't let terrrorists vote for me.

I conceed that you can't listen to a candidate from either side for all the facts.

Ok. But consider this: if that statistic which you believed was wrong, what other statistics that you believe might be wrong too?

If you are refering to Bin Laden, you need to read the rest of the fact check link you sent to me. it says we didn't "know" he was there. We just had a strong inkling.

I read the whole article, thanks. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. I merely said we failed to catch him, which is true.

They don't have them in the open now, but let me ask you this: If you can make 380 tons of conventional explosives disappear, what can you not make disappear? Plus, he(Saddam) had YEARS to act upon our warnings.

So you are justifying the war on "might have beens"? I guess I have a problem with that kind of position. Also, have you read the latest report by the weapon inspectors which says there were no WMD's? Sorry, but I don't like the idea of fighting a war for one reason and then justifying it for another reason.

So what are you saying? Now that we have done as we have, we now have to fear groups that hated us before the war? What about before? Whatwith the masses of illiterate people awaiting recruitment in the Middle East, I doubt that we could have protected ourselves in a manner that would not anger terrorists. You can't be afraid of terrorists, you just need to be wary.

I was saying that I don't consider the act of pissing off the whole world a good thing.

Who are we currently fighting in Iraq? Citizens? Not by a long shot. There are no doubt terrorists from all the countrys around Iraq flocking in to appose us.

First, there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists. We are not just fighting terrorists by any means.

There are terrorists flocking into Iraq to oppose us? Hmm, might that be because they weren't in Iraq in the first place? I don't agree with any policy of using Iraq and its citizens as bait for terrorists. That's just wrong in my opinion, if you are trying to use that as a justification for the war.

The same body that gave Saddam 12 years of warnings and did nothing to add force to the warnings given and in fact didn't want the US to act on those warnings and Saddam's thumbing his nose at them and invade. Useless.

The UN is useless? I don't think so. If we would have listened to the UN it's likely we would have found out that Sadam didn't have WMD's in the first place. By going against their wishes we instead fought a war on false pretenses. Here's some history about the sanctions, Sadam, the UN, and WMD's:

Iraq quickly agreed to "deal with" the U.N. resolution and to allow inspectors into the country, even while criticizing the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Iraq did not explicitly say it would grant inspectors full access, and indicated that it would supervise inspectors' conduct to ensure that it would be "lawful and professional." It then submitted a 12,000-page declaration on December 7, and allowed weapons inspectors back into the country for the first time since 1998.

The Bush administration immediately cast doubt on Iraq's cooperation and on the ability of weapons inspectors to prove compliance with disarmament obligations. Even as weapons inspectors began their work and gave reports indicating some cooperation and indicated that their work could prove successful with time, the Bush administration continued to make its case for war and gathered its forces in the Middle East.

Bush outlined a case for war with Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said Hussein had shown "utter contempt" for the United Nations in terms of his cooperation with weapons inspectors and that the United States would take action to disarm Saddam Hussein if he did not fully do so.

Secretary of State Colin Powell then made a presentation on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations about what Powell called clear signs of Iraq's non-compliance and non-cooperation with inspectors. "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance," he said.

Such efforts did not manage to sway over some longtime allies in the Security Council, such as France, Germany and Russia, which announced on March 5 that they would oppose any new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Such efforts also did not stop worldwide protests against the impending war.

Weapons inspectors reported for what would be the last time on March 7 that Iraq had been cooperating more fully, that even immediate cooperation would take months to verify, and that they had found no indication that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program or had attempted to import uranium.

In apparent recognition that Resolution 1441 had not authorized the use of force, the United States and United Kingdom pushed for a new Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. But given the clear opposition by other Security Council members, Bush decided to withdraw the resolution from the United Nations and issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, calling for Hussein to step down as leader or face military action.

"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it," Bush said.

Two days later, the United States initiated military action against Iraq with a massive bombing attack.

I would also suggest reading these links:

http://www.newsaic.com/f911index.html
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-1.html
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-2.html

So what.. they weren't buddies already?

That is not known:

His relationship to bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership has long been the subject of considerable speculation. Although many experts believe al-Zarqawi had longtime ties to al-Qaida, others suspected that al-Zarqawi considered himself a rival to bin Laden for the mantle of chief defender of the Muslim faith.

Also, this brings up another point. You see, my disagreement with what Bush has done is not with his intentions, it is with his methods. For example consider a hornets nest that you want to get rid of. There are different ways to go about doing this, some better than others. To me, poking a stick into the middle of it and stirring them up is not a good method, like we've done in the war in Iraq. It doesn't accomplish anything other than to piss them off and make them even more dangerous.

Sounds like it when they are gathering into one area to fight us. Scared. Otherwise, why bother?

Like I said before, I disagree with the idea of using Iraq and its people as some sort of bait to battle terrorists. We speak about liberation and freedom yet we don't really care much about the rights of the people there. I remember Bush said in one of the debates something about fighting the war on terrorism over there so it is not fought at home. Frankly it made me sick. What about the Iraqi's homes? Why does their home have to be the place where we fight terrorists who are against us, not them. They have nothing to do with it, yet we use their country for our own purposes. I am strongly against that.

To continue my hornets nest analogy it's like taking a hornets nest that is in your back yard and tossing it over the fence into your neighbor's backyard because you don't want to deal with it. The Iraqi people should not have to endur our war on terrorism in their backyards.

Next of all, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. They are gathering in one area?

al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

I don't know about you, but last time I checked 60 countries was not "one area".

I never said that they weren't worth action on; You seem to think I did.

No, you said that they didn't matter if you were dead. I took this to mean you didn't consider them that important with respect to terrorism.

I said that before we worry about what we will do while we're safe, we should make sure we're safe.

It would be nice if the world worked like that, but it doensn't. You have to deal with all these things at the same time. Just because you have terrorism doesn't mean the economy goes away.

True, we just weren't "aware" of it during Clinton's administration.

Try the first year of Bushes administration too. Bush didn't care much about terrorism at all until 9/11. Then is suddenly became the most important aspect of his presidency. Let's also not forget that the largest terrorist attack on American soil happened under his watch, not Clinton's.

And should, as such, take action now that we are aided with the more widely spread knowledge of the danger.

Of course. But there are different types of "action" one can take. Some better than others.

I think people are less concerned than they should be if they are considering Kerry seriously. But, that's just me and my 'lil ol' opinion.

Frankly, I think you've been brainwashed by the Bush campaign if you buy into that.

Agreed, but, correct me if I'm wrong, you sound as if we should be apathetic about it. I couldn't disagree more.[/b]

No, I'm not apethetic about it nor do I think we should be. I'm merely for examing the issue in a reasonable and factual manner rather than fearing it. As I said before, fear is rarely logical and can easily lead people to false conclusions.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Bush's action was once a "plan" too.
I guess watching Bush's plan see action would convince many people that plans are bad.
I wish you would be more detailed than that. Don't get wrapped up in John Kerry's "I can do a better job than Bush's bad plan" junk. I just wonder what they would have done? By the sounds of it, they say we should have moved sooner.

Okay, so what proof do you have that anyone else in the world wrote that? Or even what possible motivation?
The logic just astounds me.. Your position has a change in, say, 50 million, and mine has 49,999,999 chances in 50 million and you ask me to prove it? Off the wall. Even if it was them, what does it change? It still says an Islamic is telling us that he hopes Bush, the weakling fool, wins, instead of Kerry, the conquerer(!). He sent that e-mail to the press! Why would he inform America he wants Kerry, the conquering hero to lose? Seens counter productive to reveal your fears to your enemy.

You just proved his point. (See bold)
75% of Al-Queda's leaders in 2001 were removed. However, they have been replaced en-masse ever since. Also, no mention is made of Al-Queda troops, or any lower-ranking officers. That hardly accounts for 75% of all Al-Queda like you said before.
I'll admit it. I was mistaken, partially.

he's not talking about Tora Bora. He's talking about the world in general. Osama bin Laden is still at large, and the US has decided to give up on finding him and spend ten times more money on Iraq instead.
where, when, and how did we give up on finding him? Do you think we will search for him with large armys? If so, you're crazy. we bring in the Army after we've found them. We search for him with secret agents, so that is why you don't hear about our search from the media. They don't know, so they don't report on it.

So, because insurgents managed to steal explosives recently, that is proof that there were WMDs in 2002?
You aren't up to date, are you? ;-)
The explosives were gone before we arrived, so what? Do you think we should have gone in faster? ;-) link below.

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

Someone once stole my bike.
Does that mean I am somehow concealing a flying saucer?


You missed the point. Every single iraqi insurgent is a terrorist now, because of the war. The iraqi people had no beef with America whatsoever before, but now they hate the west.
You generalize. The Iraqi people LOVE America. Imagine.. No more Saddam, the right to vote(!), and a democratic system being set up. Great news for us all!
Also, it isn't just America vs. Enemies. Bush has disenfranchised his allies too.
I think you are confused. Bush disenfrachised our allies? Disenfranchised means "deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote". Now, Kerry dissed our allies if that is what you mean.


Correction: terrorists are flocking into iraq to fund and support the iraqi citizens who initially took up arms against the US occupation. Effect can't precede cause. You went to war against terrorists who only appeared as a result of going to war!
I contend that we went to war as a result to there being terrorists there.
It's like the chicken and the egg, only the chicken hates eggs so much that it declares war against all the eggs in the nest but, finding the nest empty, lays an egg in it and then proceeds to struggle incessantly with the egg, having not commited enough strength to break it.
You forget, while the Iraqi militia didn't fight us nearly as much we though they would, we still got the Kingpin. Saddam, a registered Terrorist who had a standing offer of $9k(?) to any family that had a son martryed killing Jews and Americans.

Actually, the UN was the #1 thoig keeping Saddam away from WMDs. You hear the Bush arguments for war: "Saddam was just waiting for the UN sactions to end, and once they did, he would grab as much WMDs as he could." Why would he be sitting there weaponless if the UN didn't work?
It remains to be proven he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. We now believe there to be none in the country, but they have found airplanes buried in the sand, so why not WMDs?

What examples?


Two words: tactical retreat.
Another two: defensive positions.
Urban warfare.
Consolidated forces.

They are definitely gathering as a way to fight better. And you missed the fact that Al-Queda is now openly allying itself with insurgent groups, while also providing them with manpower and firepower. They are gaining strength every day.
Wow, you have a doomsday approach to life. Do you live in fear? Don't worry; The lone super power in the world is here to take out threats. So what if they openly do anything? We know they were doing stuff like that before. Remember: Terrrorists aren't more dangerous when you find out about them, it's when you don't know about them that you are real danger.

Put all aspects of governemnt on hold because counter-terrorism is the chief priority?
Not what I said. Priority means " Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency", meaning we should do it first, as an urgent need.
Excuse my perplexedness, but if killing terrorists is that much of a concern to you, why do you support Bush?
He spent too little effort on Afghanistan, where Al-Queda was centered, has failed to capture Osama, and spent something like ten times more money on fighting 'terrorism' in Iraq that didn't exist before now, while letting far more terroristic countries get off scot free.
You assume by that statement that I agree with your points. As do I not. Afghanistan now has a democratic government(done there), Al-Qaeda is no longer based there(done), Osama may be dead for all we know or care(he could live forever for all I care, as long as we're safe), there was a large difference between Afghanistan and Iraq and we spent accordingly(terrorists based there vs. terrorist ruling there, so null), so you think we should fight against North Korea or Iran? Or will you do a Kerry and say yes, then no, then no, then "we should have arrived sooner"? Democrats confuse me. Probably because I have only talked to the Internet ones, which are a younger set who watch CBS.
You ought to be rioting in the streets against him.


Actually, Clinton was heavily criticised for worrying too much about Al-Queda. Clinton was plenty aware of it, but only managed a few operations before leaving office. He trusted Bush to continue the job. Oops.
Sure he worried. He worried so much that when we had Osama offered to us, and he didn't take him. link below.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/11/115514.shtml

I agree that knowledge is a very useful tool for fighting terrorism.
However, if you are saying that adequate knowledge is important while simultaneously supporting war in Iraq, I'm going to have to scoff at you a bit.
It was, without a doubt, the largest intelligence failure in recent history. Even in not-so recent history.
I wouldn't go that far.. 1, 000+ have died. More people died during Pearl Harbor, and we had warnings from the British that it was coming, but Hoover wouldn't do a thing.

And I meant with our wisespread public awareness of terrorism.

Why? How will Kerry's policy of stronger, farther-reaching alliances and actually having correct intelligence before attacking someone help terrorists?
How? We won't gain any more meaningful allys if he won. The french and germans have said if Kerry was elected, they still wouldn't go into Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229235/posts
Plus then theres his record..
The problem isn't apatheticness. It's just general patheticness.
Even with the best of everything in the world at his disposal, Bush still managed to bungle it. He's bungling it now, even.

There's a difference between taking action, and taking effective action.
That's a very important difference to note.
You have the right to think that, but to pass it off as more than an opinion is wrong.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I think I'm done debating till Nov3rd, so please don't issue any more long retorts; I won't read them.

 

[Neutrino]

I think I'm done debating till Nov3rd, so please don't issue any more long retorts; I won't read them.

You could atleast respond to me as I was the one those comments were orginally directed to. But no matter, I'll just accept that you realize you are wrong.

You generalize. The Iraqi people LOVE America. Imagine.. No more Saddam, the right to vote(!), and a democratic system being set up. Great news for us all!

Ya, great news for us all. We'll just ignore the little unpleasent facts that we just basically destroyed the country, brought large numbers of terrorists into their country, bombed their cities, killed thousands of their civilians, incited a civil war, and still fight daily in their city streets among other things. Oh ya, real great for all.

Seriously, I can't believe I actually just read that. You accuse someone of generalizing in the same breath that you say the Iraqi people love us. Just where exactly are you getting your news form? http://www.georgewbush.com/ ? Seriously, where are you reading stuff like that?

The situation in Iraq is currently a mess and frankly, if I were an Iraqi I would probably hate the U.S.

Here's just some of the problems we're trying to deal with in this war:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6299980/

Now, no doubt some Iraqi's like us, but I bet more of them probably hate us and I don't blame them. I've even seen interviews with some Iraqi's that said they want Sadam back. Iraqi children are even being taught to hate US troops for what we've done. Why don't you ask Hasan, a member here, what he thinks about America and what we're doing in Iraq? He's is an Iraqi and I imagine his answer would probably surprise you in light of your opinion that "the Iraqi people love America."

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think I'm done debating till Nov3rd, so please don't issue any more long retorts; I won't read them.

Well, that's convenient. Both for you and for me.
Now I don't need to bother with all your points, not to mention the constant fear that you might one-up me.

I think you are confused. Bush disenfrachised our allies? Disenfranchised means "deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote".

I use the word for it's "removal of the vote" connotation. By ignoring the UN, and most of the rest of the world, Bush discounted offhand their opinions. Their votes in the matter, if you will.

So I wasn't being confused. I inadvertantly confused you by being a tad creative with my word choice. I'll try to keep things simple in the future. Except that you won't ever respond again. Oh well.

In any case, I think this sums things up perfectly:

The Iraqi people LOVE America.

As I said before, I want some of whatever you're taking.

By the way, the bold, capslock, and underline on "love" are a nice touch.
For added "oomph", make it pink and add some ASCII hearts.
And for bonus irony, make it a link to IraqBodycount.net:

<3 LOVE <3

:O​

 

[Neutrino]

The Iraqi people LOVE America.

Just found something else to add to this. First though, seriously tell me where in the heck you are getting your news from? So far your opinions seem to be based on a very flawed view of reality. Sorry, for being blunt but that's what it looks like.

Just for one example:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam.

Note the bold word. Half think that. Guess what that means? Half of them don't think that.

Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions.

The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City

Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."

In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable.

Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.

58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.

60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.

46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.

"The freedoms they gave us are satellite television, Thurayas (satellite telephones) and mobile telephones. And you can drive a car without a license," says Resha Namir, 20, a computer science major at Baghdad University. But "I can't even go out because I'm afraid that any minute we will die. The war was not worth it."

And the situation there is just as bad if not worse today. The fighting has been getting even worse in the last couple months.


Oh but ya, the Iraqi people sure do love America.

What scares me is that you and others are apparently voting based off opinions like this one.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh jesus...so this just dwindles down to, "Haha! He retreated! Im right. ", and, "omg plz no more comments because I want to be right", and, "Haha! Make it prettier and mixed with the irony I created! Super hearts with lotsa of bodies!"

Wow, another debate gone to waste. So, what were we discussing here? We got off topic very quick, but I guess its hard for angry people (Canadians, Americans, Otherworld people(s) [Bushism]) to get along.

Too bad...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Mission accomplished!


Actually, the topic died once we proved that the video was partisan.
After that, the thread's author changed the topic, and we went with it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh but ya, the Iraqi people sure do love America.

Yep. Some of them sure do. So, after being redudant, what will you do then? Same question to the guy who just dissappeared, what does it do for you?

We've already acknowledged some like America, and that some dont. Where do we get our examples from? Different sources and positions. So, is'int it healthy to acknowledge both?

I think its uncredible for any mans arguement to disavow what another person says, soley, because he carries a different interpretation of the facts.

Its like the bible theory; "Some people interept messages in the Bible, to be for or against certain things. But is'int the one underminding law, that "God loves us all?" ..."

 

[Neutrino]

Oh jesus...so this just dwindles down to, "Haha! He retreated! Im right. ",

I was just joking, sheesh.

Yep. Some of them sure do. So, after being redudant, what will you do then? Same question to the guy who just dissappeared, what does it do for you?

We've already acknowledged some like America, some dont. Just like some Americans dislike Germany for what they did during WWII. Just like some blacks dislike some whites.

This is'int new, ya know...

Some do, but probably a majority don't. What does it do for me? What do you mean? I was only responding specifically to a statement that someone else said. That statement was not correct, so I pointed it out.

I'm not really seeing what your point is.

I think its uncredible for any mans arguement to disavow what another person says, soley, because he carries a different interpretation of the facts.

There is interpretation and than there are facts. If someone says, "that tree is big" then it's true no one can argue with that or disavow that statement. It's an interpretation.

But if someone says 2 + 2 = 5, then yes another person can argue with that and disavow that statement.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I was joking, sheesh too. Dont act like I was being rude or ill-responsive! I was just Joshing ya, c'mon!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

We've already acknowledged some like America, some dont. Just like some Americans dislike Germany for what they did during WWII. Just like some blacks dislike some whites.

This is'int new, ya know...

Well, this actually is new. Iraqis didn't hate the US occupiers when the US wasn't there. This has only just popped up a year or two ago.

Edit, responding to the post below:
I mean Iraqis hating the US in the numbers we see now.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, this actually is new. Iraqis didn't hate the US occupiers when the US wasn't there. This has only just popped up a year or two ago.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some like us, some hate us. I think that this law exist in many other countries--and I dont think Europe or Canada in this respect, or immune from other's misalligned or misobjectivified angers.

Its a truth, that a person needs light to see. He also needs Darkness, so that he knows what light is.

The truth is the in middle, and I'am in the shade. :thumbs:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm not really seeing what your point is.

My addressal, was shared amungst those who honestly believe Iraq has only a one-way street for opinions. Quiet clearly, its a little odd to call heads or tails in the air, but I do know hate is shared, and hate is not always an absolute.

My point was, I wish people could find the truth in the middle, until we find out its a complete and very different extreme.

There is interpretation and than there are facts. If someone says, "that tree is big" then it's true no one can argue with that or disavow that statement. It's an interpretation.

But if someone says 2 + 2 = 5, then yes another person can argue with that and disavow that statement.

This is based upon variable, and interpretation. What was it we were factoring or discussing. The tree was tall right? Amungst with this statement, 2+2=5, correct?

Well, with our current math system, its been doctrinated as fact, we cannot accurately reproduce physics that extend past our own atmosphere. Quantum Theory, Quantum Physics, Quantum Law, and Quantum Space, all have their bases.

But why some graduates, well actually, a good half of them cannot understand the reproductions or theories involving such issues, is because our math system is flawed and still theorized on the basic properties of Newton.

Im not discussing the force, or his later theories, but the identified language of math which is based on our own consorts involving adding and subtracting with applied divided or multiplied variables, up to, including advanced mathematic property.

If we wish to discuss 2+2=5, then I think its legitimate, on the base, our math system is flawed. Who knows? It might be correct.

...

...So yes I see your point, but im way too...hungry...

 

[Johan_Tayn]

come to think of it, I should have stayed on topic, but I don't like listening to obvious ploys. Not that a gaming board matters, but I would perfer it if someone would just say what they thought of the video and leave it at that.

We've done 5800+ hits on that file in 4 hours and rising..

 

[Neutrino]

My addressal, was shared amungst those who honestly believe Iraq has only a one-way street for opinions. Quiet clearly, its a little odd to call heads or tails in the air, but I do know hate is shared, and hate is not always an absolute.

My point was, I wish people could find the truth in the middle, until we find out its a complete and very different extreme.

Oh I agree that not all hate us or all love us. My only point was that a large number highly dislike us for our actions there. This is based of scientific polls, that while certainly not perfect, can give us a good indication of public opinion.

come to think of it, I should have stayed on topic, but I don't like listening to obvious ploys. Not that a gaming board matters, but I would perfer it if someone would just say what they thought of the video and leave it at that.

Obvious ploys? Like what? And I already stated what I thought of the video. After that I just responded to what you said.

We've done 5800+ hits on that file in 4 hours and rising..

Oh joy. There's nothing like spreading fear among the electorate. Heaven forbid you actually try spreading information. No, we don't want that. Fear and scary imagery without any facts is so much better.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Okay, here's a repeat of my opinion on the video, plain & simple.
The ad was made by a Bush supporter,
presented on a pro-Bush site,
dramatically repeating a questionable (at best) Bush argument against Kerry,
using Bush tactics.
Definitely partisan.

As for it's general content, It's just more Cheney-esque terrorsploitation (I coined a phrase!) and fearmongering.
"We will be attacked if Kerry wins!" It's like giving half of America a death threat. Without a single fact to back it up at all.

Why are you so concerned with how many hits the video gets anyways? Are you the guy who made it? Who is "we"?