President

[Loy]

Hmmm.....I always thought people should vote for who they thought was the best person for the job, not who they think will win. But hey, I'm odd that way.

[Jane13]

Unfortunately, most third parties focus on one issue, and then are assimalated into another party. They're like a bee... they sting once and die.

[anti_everything]

Originally Posted by Loy

Hmmm.....I always thought people should vote for who they thought was the best person for the job, not who they think will win. But hey, I'm odd that way.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Not trying to sound accusing (acusing..accusing..something like that), just stating a fact. If there isn't a chance that what you want will happen then it's not much use to put your energies into it, so go for the more preferable of what you don't want to happen.

You're right though, people should do the right thing...But I'm told this is the real world and I hear that the real world sucks. *sigh*

[Bodnoirbabe]

I was always taught to not discuss three things in mixed company: Politics, religion and women. These are things people will never agree on and it is just a waste of time and valuable air.

i don't really think i know enough about any of the canidates to make an educated vote. Most of the information that you get from the media is skewed, either liberal of conservative. All Media outlets are biased in one way or another, no matter how much they claim otherwise, so i don't trust them.

the thing is, peolpe can make as many pretty promises as they want, it doesn't mean it will get done. Elections are popularity contests. Period. they have nothing to do with what the person can actually accomplish in office.

Although i don't know for certain who my vote will go to this year, i know this: Bush has been in office for 4 years now and I am NOT happy with the direction he has steered this country. time for a new captain.....

[Loy]

Bodnoir-the best thing to do is to get all the information you can about the candidates from their most rabid fans and critics. Once you get both sides, it's fairly easy to pick through and figure out who the fuck these people are.

Anti-Everything-If the problem is voting for somebody you think wouldn't change the situation at all, just because you dislike the person in power enough to want them out, how exactly is that being part of the solution? And if what I'd like see happen looks like an impossibility, shouldn't I fight harder for it? Would it change anything this time around? Maybe, maybe not. Could it influence any kind of future change? Good chance of it, if I'm loud enough, passionate enough, and explanatory enough. Would my conscience be clean? Damned straight. See, laying down and giving up (which, if you actually read through your post, is what you are really asking me to do) just to get Evil Spawn-Of-Satan Bush out of office is just fucking wrong, as far as I can see it. I mean, what's the point of getting rid of one puppet just to replace him with another one?

And I think this is why I might leave the "president" space on my ballot blank this year. I have no faith in any of them (Nader included). Let me break down my problems with the candidates for you:

Bush-I actually have fantasies of taking him and all of his corporate-puppet, upper-class-serving, devil-cocksucking collective (see, I'd call them a clan, but that would suggest that they're human beings), stripping them naked, hog-tying them, and placing thirty aught sixes under their chins held by starving Ethiopians who are each paid a quarter to pull the trigger and drag their carcasses into the woods to be eaten by weasels and have the hole where their faces used to be humped furiously by mud-caked, red-haired rampaging baboons with gastrological problems. This man and his family have literally fucked our country up so badly that I'm suprised they haven't been strung-up by their small intestines. He's a shill and a figurehead put there to grease the wheels for the oligarchy. He's somebody who wants to be president, yet has no idea how to BE a president. Fuck him and all of his god-damned Reagan-invoking BS.

Kerry-this ones almost as bad. At least he volunteered for military service rather than sleaze his way out of it. At least he served more than one term in a political office before gunning for the presidency. And at least he's not Bush. However, we're also talking about a guy whose early political career was in worthwhile comitees that could've made a positive change if the members would've gone as far as they should've (one comittee in particular-investigating the CIA's involvement with the drug market). It's as if somebody came to him and said "boy, if you keep going on like this, we'll make sure you'll never come back to Washington again". What's he done since then? Nothing but make a career out of looking busy. Fuck him and his vote-and-money-pandering, chicken-out-to-the-man ass.

Nader-Nader was once a worthwhile hero, worthy of folk-tales and protest songs to be sung the world over. However, let's take a look at what he's done since....oh yeah, he's been living off the image of being the "underdog fighting for the common man". I'm sorry, but I'd buy it a bit more if he would refuse donations from the Republican party. Fuck Nader, and all of his egotistical nepotism.

Everybody else-A bunch of radical kooks from both ends of the spectrum I wouldn't allow near my enemies children. They keep telling me that they know what's best for me without even consulting me about it? Fuck them and their insecure insularity.

(allow me to leave out two former candidates from my ranting-Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. While I don't agree with these guys 100%, the very fact that they spoke from the gut rather than from the statistics makes me have to give a bit of respect)


Now, from the choices I have, can you please tell me how picking ANY of them will actually make this country better than it was before?

[HerGhostInTheFog]

i accidently typed somthing that i already had...
i havn';t been on here for about a week, i think

[HerGhostInTheFog]

TeapotScar wrote:
Not to mention how disgusting the Bush administration is- anyone who sees any Michael Moore films (especially the new one- 9/11 was such an amazing documentary).

Yes, leave it to Michael Moore to tell you the truth. Man, if I were Bush, I'd appoint Mr. Moore head of Psy-Ops. He's got a real knack for manipulation.

Quote:
What was the percentage of vacation time President Bush took during his first 100 days? 42%? I'll take a full-time president, thank you very much.

Huh, is this what you learned from Mr. Moore's film? Where's the part where he was meeting with Blair durring this vacation to discuss Bin Laden and turmoil in the middle east? Oh yeah... that was left on the cutting room floor for some weird reason. >.>

Quote:
"Flipper"? At least Kerry *has* ideas- he has a plan to get our country out of financial, security, and social crisis, and repairing the damaged image of America.

Ok, tell me his plan. Wait... let me rephrase that. Tell me his most RECENT plan. The guy is just like every other waste-of-space politically obsessed American. Sits on his ass and critizes everything Bush does and has done (even if it's something he has supported). Too bad Bush doesn't do the same for Kerry. Oh wait a minute, what exactly has Kerry done? I can't wait until he gets elected and everyone suddenly realizes the fucker was all packaging and talk

o.k., me and my boyfriends brother just had an argument over this.
welp, since this is america, the american news has been one sided (until recently, it seems) only towards bush (obviously in my opinion). i think michael moore was just pointing out the other facts... criticizing, yes, but oh-well. it's a documentary, it's not like he made this shit up. oh, and it's WONDERFUL that you say michael moore likes to manipulate people... because it seems to me that he actually likes to help the people who have been manipulated by others.... now, this really has harldy anything to do with him manipulating people. but i was pointing out somthing. i think he did SOME good. there are some people who only pay attention to the t.v. Who only think about what the t.v. talks about. What if there arsome people who only became interested in politics because of this movie? isn't that a good thing? or is it bad. because i dont know if i want those people voting or not, but more people should take part in politics, also.
yes, he had a meeting with blair, but was completely surprised to find out that there was an attack. what good THAT meeting did.
i think kerry has some sorta idea of what he is talking about. bush can harly complete any of his sentences, by the way. what COULD kerry do? what GOOD has bush done? he did a real great job... we found "weapons of mass destruction related activities" wonderful... he makes me proud. :roll: bush sits on his ass and listens to what other people tell him to say. NOW, maybe it's not bush's fault. maybe he's not so bad of a president. or maybe he is. no, MICHAEL MOORE WASN'T FAIR. but neither is the media, so fuck it.
when (i hope it's when, anyways) bush looses, i'll feel sorry for him. he's such a preschooler that he'll probably cry and run to his daddy, so i'll send him some good-bye candy. hey, it's the least i can do. poor litttle baby

[.BatteryPoison.]

Most major news networks lean heavily towards Democrats. CBS and CNN are fine examples (CBS especially).

I'm not going to get into Moore too much here, but I'll stick to what I originally said: no one should seek the whole truth in a Michael Moore film. Just a bunch of half-truths that were geared for, and I quote Mr. Moore, "Nothing more than to get Bush voted out of office."

That's all good and dandy, except I don't think many people have actually taken a good look at Kerry.

And what good has Bush done? Iraq is now a better place. Saddam is finally going to see the justice system of the people he has suppressed and murdered for decades. Afganistan is now a better place. Terrorist-supporting regimes are now extinct. The War on Terror is now a world-wide effort. People are actually proud to be American again. The entire world has change alot since 2000. That's the good. There's alot of bad too. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Bush is the best man for the position of the President of the United States. Hell the guy can't even eat pretzels without choking. But Kerry is a whole lot of nothing. Smoke and mirrors.

[Loy]

.batterypoison.-while I'll agree with you about Moore, and somewhat agree about the networks (whilst the reporters are liberal, that doesn't mean the editors are...I'd have to say that the editors range from apolitical to more-than-slightly conservative, but in the end, it's all about pulling in viewers), and people not actually taking a LOOK at Kerry, some of your other points I have to disagree.

Iraq is a better place-I have to throw out another question-for who? The Iraqis? I'm sorry, but I'd rather hear what the Iraqis on the streets have to say about that (most reporters who've interviewed Iraqis have only given lengthy interviews with people from the upper 1/3 of the economic caste there. Any interview with anybody else has been editied to propel one side or the other of our debating populace). As far as what I've seen and heard from the not-so-few Middle-Easterners I know (including quite a few Iraqis), the situation there now is comparable to the Phillipines after WW2-while yes, the bad overlord is out of power, he's been replaced with a puppet government tht's there to make sure their handlers' objectives are pushed forward, damned what the populace has to say.

Sadam is going to see justice from the people he'd been fucking with-Umm, isn't his trial being overlooked by the US? Again, where's the input of the actual Iraqi population?

Afganistan is a better place-First off, for whom? Second off, have you been reading news reports about what's been happening there? It's just as chaotic (if not more so) than before the Taliban took control. Opium crops have become one of the top sources of income again. And now there's building tension between them and their neighbor Pakistan.

Terrorist-supporting regimes are extinct-So Sudan, Turkey, Egypt, and Greece are no longer around? Or is this one of those "as long as they're on our side, they're the good guys" types of things? Another thing to think about-if you've ever done any kind of research about "terrorism", you'll come across the interesting fact that the US does NOT have a single definition for what constitutes a "terrorist organization". See, every one of our little groups (CIA, FBI, Justice Dept, etc) each have their own definitions, and what's odd is how much they differ. So, for example, Greenpeace is considered a terrorist organization by the CIA, it isn't by the ATF. As you can see, this can bring about a lot of future problems. And another side-note-I read a report done by the "Scientific American" (ironically enough, it cam out Sept 9, 2001) about the terrorist threat to american citizens. It used the FBI's def, since it's a bit more comprehensive and less convoluted. Do you know what the biggest terrorist threat to american citizens are? Other americans. Even if one were to add in the 3,000 that died at the WTC, the total number of deaths attributed to terrorist actions still sways towards other americans. Makes one think.

War on terror is now a world-wide effort-yeah, now that WE have entered the fray. See, other countries have been working against terrorism since...well, almost forever. Please give credit where credit is due.

People are actually proud to be american-This is an empty argument. I can bring you to Wisconsin, where people are, or I can show you South Central, where people aren't. And besides that, what does this have to do with making the world a BETTER place?

[.BatteryPoison.]

Iraq - Do you know what this place was like while Saddam ruled? Do you know how many people died for absolutely nothing? Do you remember when he had thousands upon thousands of political prisoners, then said to his country, "I've decided to free them all"? All their families came to the gates and no one came out because they were all dead. A dictatorship was not what Iraq was while Saddam was in power. It was a totalitarianism. You couldn't say something without it eventually entering the wrong ear. And if it did, you'd be dragged out of your home and shot in the street. He has seen to it that nearly a million Iraqis died. Yes, the entire country is a war-zone now and there's chaos running rampid, but at least the people are getting a taste of freedom* for the first time.

Saddam - He sat in an Iraqi courtroom where he was read the charges on which he was being put on trial for. Right now he's trying to seek a neutral country to hold him until his trial in Iraq because he's worried someone is going to smother him in the night.

Afganistan - There's actually a government there and structure to the country. There are civil rights and the nation isn't being run by a bunch of criminals who have helped to fund terrorist organizations. The government is just getting established (like in Iraq), but they're obviously still weak and that means oportunity for regimes and other organizations to enter in an operate. Right now the DEA is in Afghanistan trying to deal with the Opium problem. I'd rather have Opium coming out of that country rather than trained terrorists who know how to infiltrate the US and launch multi-million dollar attacks that cripple the nation.

Terrorist-Supporting regimes - I read this after I posted this morning (right before I had to leap out the door and go to work) and knew the pluralization (which I didn't really mean) was gong to come back and bite me on the ass. What I intended (though didn't convey) is just in refference to the Taliban.

War Agains Terror - the US is a major player in this effort. No doubt that Britain has had to put up with having their airport security carry around loaded sub-machine guns for a long time now. Just has most other European nations have had to battle terrorists long before 9/11.

Patriotism - For a while, it was popular to sit around and do what Moore and Kerry do. Critize the government and march around, stomp up and down, and protest everything they do. But for a nice brief period, most of the nation stood behind Bush and all said, "Let's get these fuckers." We were united in a cause. There was an alarming amount of support for us going into Afghanistan and kicking the shit out of their regime. It didn't make the world better, but I feel at that time, our nation stood more united than it has in a long time.

(They have rights and freedom of speech - which is actually causing more problems FOR the Iraqi government and US troops)

[Loy]

.batterypoison.-some retorting back (and please don't take this to mean any disrespect)

Iraq-I'm actually quite aware of the conditions in Iraq during Saddam's rule. Here's the thing though-it's the thing that people had been complaining about since around 1981 or so, back when we were supporting him financially and militarilly. Which also goes into another way of looking at it-how was it different from such places as Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Greece? I could also bring up my experiences in the Phillipines (I was born during marshall law there). What's the difference? Oh yeah, these countries aren't (or in the case of the Phillipines, weren't) doing anything to ruffle the feathers of US policy in their areas. And as far as freedom, I again ask the question "what good is it getting rid of an evil dictator just to replace him with a puppet that won't consider the interests of the local populace before the interests of their handlers?"....just thinking of another thing a couple friends of mine from the area said to me about Saddam-"yeha, he's an evil son-of-a-bitch dictator, but at least he's not a religious son-of-a-bitch dictator". Their take was that he's nowhere near as cruel as, say, the Turks (who had gassed almost as many Kurds as Saddam has, with the difference that the US has always supported Turkey in this effort).

Saddam-Again, I actually question whether he's being put on trial by the Iraqi people or by thier government in collusion with ours. As far as moving the trial to a neutral country, I'm all for it. He'd still lose the trial, but at least there's no way for him to use the "I was railroaded" line.

Afghanistan-www.afghanistannews.net . You'll find it an interesting and thought-provoking read. As far as the opium thing, an interesting factoid I found out was that all the opium crops were actually destroyed by the Taliban back in 1999. There was NO opium coming out of Afghanistan until after the US invasion. And as far as terrorists, I found this story and thought it was quite interesting http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...587849,00.html . Again, something to think about.

Terrorist-supporting regimes-Again, I'll bring up the Guardian story. And ask to think about it again.

War against terror-While I'll concede that we've become a lot more aware of terrorism, I wouldn't call our actions the forefront of the war on terrorism as much as I'd call them "us waving our dicks around and looking bad ass". Why haven't we waged pre-emptive strikes on other countries, or even on our own citizens (who, as was pointed out by the scientific american, are the #1 wagers of terrorist actions against our own citizens)? If we were serious about getting rid of terrorism, why aren't we trying to make the situation in places where terrorists are springing up from better for the people there? It should be obvious that if you keep kicking a dog, the dog's going to bite back hard sooner or later. And while I hate using that analogy, it's the same thing with people. We haven't really done much to make our presence in a number of third-world countries welcome, so much as we've made them fearful. And as far as I can see it, this actually does more to give rise to the types of feelings that can develop to a psychosis that makes people do dangerous and homicidal things....like flying an airplane into a building in the hopes of killing as many people as possible.

Patriotism-I will say that we were emotionally scarred as a people. And while we were in support of "getting those fuckers", how the whole thing has been used to keep us a population unwilling to question what's going on is, in my opinion, fucking horrible. And the whole thing about questioning the government...ummm, that's kind of the reason the first amendment was put in there in the first place. Questioning things is the ONLY way to get the ball rolling for actually changing things for the better. History shows us this again and again. So while I have a problem with people who protest just to protest, I also understand that it's a neccesary component to the whole human experience.

[anti_everything]

Loy, I can't stand politicans--any of them. I just don't think I'll be able to stand seeing Bush for another four years and would do almost anything to have him gone, even if it means having Kerry in his place. Unfortunately, I can't vote yet and, if all goes well, will be out of this country before the next election..so I can't do anything about him.

Sorry if it sounded as if I wanted you to "lay down and give up" because I really don't wish that at all. Someone needs to make a difference, and it probably won't be me, politics aren't really my area. I try to know what the hell is going on and know more about it than most people I know who are my age, but I won't even pretend to be able to argue with you about it.

[darkersydome]

I don’t post often and if you read this you'll understand why...g'luck understanding this mess of words :oops:

I am too young to vote and was obsessed with the last presidential election. I have tried to limit my intake of the current politics because I had a tendency to get into big arguments and I wouldn’t back down now I have very few opinions but I feel the need to respond to certain arguments (mainly about the war on terror and president bush's actions) :

I don’t like bush. I don’t like Kerry. I know only a little about Nader and well he has a one in a billion chance.
to be honest I have not seen much on Kerry but what I’ve seen hasn’t impressed me much.
I would rather have president bush in the white house because he has strong opinions which have for the most part have varied little.

President bush responded to the request of most Americans for some action. he was supported to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (although his poll ratings did go down though only by a little bit at first) and to those whose opinions swayed after we saw the devastation and loss of our own men and women... you knew what war meant and you knew the risks being taken.
even if we all knew he chose to target Saddam because of the actions against his father or for oil...there are citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan that benefited from bringing down those regimes.
Many Americans supported him in the beginning and once you start a war there is no turning back. if we step out too soon you leave people vulnerable and run the risk of reoccurrence, with the definite possibility the return of whatever you had broken down (in this case Saddam’s regime and terrorism) returning with a vengeance.
people claimed the US had too much control in the countries. well the US started the invasion yes with the support of several countries but the us is ultimately responsible for the outcome. our involvement has declined albeit ever so slowly at the request of other countries.
another argument was made that there are other countries that were worse than Iraq and Afghanistan . that is true we had to start somewhere. after years of inaction the US finally took action. im not sure who said that people had been complaing about Saddam in 1981 yeah and its taken twenty years for someone to do something but its finally getting done.
personally I would have rather started something to get rid of nuclear capabilities throughout the world especially when it was wide on the news that north Korea was going against he un and what not...but I’m not president. and well he was elected by the people...kinda...

I’m so sorry that that was a bunch of gibberish I seriously apologize for al the misquotes and general errors but I’m just not very focused right now.

and on a rather personal note... I know a soldier that’s coming home on Monday... Last I heard he was in south korea but that was a while ago. I wonder if this has affected my opinion…nope not really.

[Phantasm]

:!: To those of you that plan on voting for Nader: :!:

He isn't going to win anyway. He really isn't, and you know it.
Kerry has more in common with Nader than Bush does, so do yourself a favor and vote for Kerry. Otherwise, Bush is closer to winning.

[TeapotScar]

Phantasm... I could kiss you

As for Afghanistan and Iraq... I'm not as big a critic of Afghanistan as I am of Iraq. Iraq was clearly a son's revenge that his father wanted him to take... take for oil, take for power, take for money. I hate to say it, but I'm glad that there was only a teensy fraction of the oil Bush predicted he'd find in Iraq- who cares about gas prices, I care about justice. It's just another empty promise of the Bush administration- I hope America is paying attention.

About Kerry not being that great: I know, he's not who this country needs, really. I haven't seen the person who this country needs, but I know what the country *doesn't* need- more of the devastation brought on by the Bush adminisration. Our nation's citizens can't and should not have to pay for more of his stupid greed-wars with justification that he pulled out of his father's wrinkled little red-neck ass.

Bumper sticker I saw that made me smile:
"Somewhere a village in Texas is missing an idiot."
:twisted:

[.BatteryPoison.]

Iraq - It may be a puppet government with the US pulling all the strings, but it's a better government than the former that we ousted in the war. Picture perfect? A good government? Far from it. But better.

Saddam - Whether it's the puppet or the people, he'll find Iraqi justice through all of this.

Terrorist-Supporting Regimes - They may not have been happy with him there, but they sure did block the door when we tried to get in. Considering the CIA helped put the Taliban in power, these guys not only didn't lift a finger to help us, but they actually refused to allow us to come in and remove him. That's blatant harboring. Maybe not finacially, but they did offer him protection, knowing he had terrorist training camps all over the northern half of their country.

War on Terror - Right now we're in the process of building two nations up, so we can't really handle a third or fourth like Iran or Sudan. Although we did come close to entering Iran a little while back.

Patriotism - When there really is an issue that should be changed like civil rights and whatnot, I agree, it's quite appropriate. But now-a-days, you'll see people who protest every god damn thing that goes on. Why? Half of them don't understand what's going on in it's entirity most of the time. Ah well... I just felt that everyone being united in a cause was nice for a change.

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

take for money.

What do you think this country was founded on? Freedom? Yeah... financial freedom. Saving a buck is, and always has been, America's first interest.

If there were any man right for the job as President of the United States, it was probably John McCain. John Kerry's whole campaign is just, "Bush isn't doing this... So I'll do it." Which is a bunch of bullshit. He keeps playing off of people's distain for Bush without actually having a real campaign made up of anything other than Bush-Bashing. The few snipits of actual campaigning he has really aren't well thought out and sometimes outright stupid. Like using all of our oil reserve so we don't have to keep buying from Saudi Arabia. And what happens when Saudi Arabia can't fill our quota down the line? Oh yeah, we're fucked.

[Loy]

.battery.-(appologies for not responding quicker...rough couple of days)

Iraq-Better government than before? Hmmm. As far as it's looking, the only major difference is that these guys aren't going to go out and start blasting its citizens anytime soon, and it's not because they have any higher view of people than Saddam did, but because you've got international eyes all over the place. That many reporters around tends to get people to be on their best behavior, especially when said reporters would have no qualms showing physical proof of the governments illegitimacy (which, violence against its own people tends to do). I think this article pointed out the many questions I myself had over the legitimacy of this government http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1880.cfm , and strangely enough, these were arabs (including Iraqis) that were throwing these questions out. (For a more western POV, here's http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...c30e1f373.html )

The thing a lot of people over here don't understand is that we (the US government under Reagan) helped put Hussein in power. We (US Government) gave him financial and military aid throughout his rule until they invaded Kuwait....actually it was a few weeks after the invasion (which, btw, we either directly or indirectly OK'd. The state Depratment has never commented on the accuracy of a transcript of a meeting between Glaspie and Hussein that made the journalistic rounds, but the implication is that the US was told of the invasion, and said "OK. We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts". This article discusses the whole shebang http://www.fact-index.com/a/ap/april_glaspie.html ). And the US is now handpicking the new government? How good of an idea is that, especially since we've already broken any trustworthiness with the actual citizens?

(BTW, the Iraqis I talk to have no qualms with most Americans. They understand that what's happening to their country is not being done out of some spite that we inately have against "sand ******s". And I'm sure, if you go up and speak with them in a non-desulatory manner, they'll be as open with you as they've been with me. Trust me, it's not that hard. And you also get to learn more about another culture, which is always a reward unto itself).

Saddam-Whether by puppets or the people, he'll find justice? Umm, if it's by puppets, it'd not justice, plain and simple. See, "justice" is when he's tried using the evidence against him, and punished duly, NOT when he's being tried by people who are being "suggested to" to make sure he suffers. See, our side keeps losing on the philosophical front (not ONE reason we had for invading has held any water), and this Saddam "trial" is being used as a way for us to excuse ourselves for our screw-up (remember kids, we never used the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for invasion, since our Foreign Policy has only distinguished between "bastards on our side" and "bastards not on our side", and thus bringing up questions of "why are you doing this to him and nobody else?" if we HAD tried to use it. Not to mention the fact that Hussein has never made a threat of any kind, direct or indirect, against our country, which, if you follow that fact with the fact that we invaded, puts us in the "Bad Guy" role of this whole thing). Do I think he should be tried and punished? Yes! Do I think we should have any role in it? No, not unless he is being tried for crimes against the United States (which he's not). He should either be tried by his peers (i.e. other Iraqis) or by an impartial court (which the World Court can fill in pretty well). And NOT by opportunists, which is how I'm seeing this new government.

Afghanistan-Look at it as the "abused kid" syndrome. We started firebombing them for no reason (this is before our "invasion" remember), even when it was made clear that they wanted to get rid of this guy. I don't see them harboring this guy so much because they agreed with him as much as it was a big middle finger to their "parents" (i.e. th US). Maybe if we hadn't firebombed them they would've handed him over (which was suggested by the article)? Who knows for sure, but I think this is another in a long list of reasons why we shouldn't be fucking with other countries. Who knows how it's going to bite us in the ass in the end.

Nation-building-Hey, here's a fairly radical idea that could help cut costs-how about letting the local population build their own country, and help out only if they ask us to? It seems a lot better than destroying a countrys infrastructure just to rebuild it the way we want to, and it tends to make the people living there less pissed off at us.

Moron protesters-don't get me wrong. I have a strong dislike for "protesters that protest over nothing" (such as the dipshits that protest outside of restaraunt because they believe that cooking food actually ruins it and makes it bad for our bodies...I wish I were joking....or those whining non-smoking fuckheads that believe that smokers should only smoke in some little room in the middle of Idaho, and not in places they might go to). However, freedom of speech is more important to me than sating my little annoyances. And as far as uniting for a cause (i.e. 9/11), how many people understood the history of our i9nvolvement with the Middle East that caused this whole thing to happen? If you deride some protesters because of their ignorance, you should apply the same standards to others as well. In the name of fairness.

[Loy]

Anti-You said that you try to learn about things, and all I can do is applaude and say "that's the first step towards anything". Remember the quote .batterypoision. has for her signature (BTW .batterypoison., I've been meaning to give you a big smile and thumbs up, but knew it'd ruin my "only says mean/sarcastic things" reputation around here). I think it'll hold well.

Darkersydome-I'd suggest learning about things for you as well. It helps prevent making blanket statements that can be easilly picked apart.

[gingerbreadwench]

Kerry, because he looks like Guy Smiley... and we need a Muppet in the White House.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Iraq - It's a country in transition. Of course there are going to be bumps on the road. First of all you have an Islamic nation (50% radical) that views America as "infidels." Secondly, we're trying to respect their religion and sacred places while still trying to eradicate militias who love to hide out in these shrines. We're not meeting as much opposition as the Soviets did in Afghanistan. They killed indiscriminately, caring little for what the people actually thought of them. America is hard at work trying to avoid this. But reguardless, we've installed a much better government than Saddam's rule. There should be no question mark at the end of that. He would wipe out entire families of traitors and had no problem killing indiscriminately as long as the point came across: "You take an eye, I'll take your head." He ruled with fear, we're TRYING to rule with diplomacy, but that's kind of hard when you're forced into Marshall-Law because some radical cleric is calling to arms all militia-men to kill US forces. They want us out of their country so they can trample the weak government right now and take power.

Saddam - Do you think Saddam's lawyers are Iraqis? I'll bet more than not that they aren't. Not because it's synonymous that Iraqis all hate Saddam, but because there was no trial and jury in Iraq before this. It was just "You pissed off Saddam... have a souvenir bullet." I wouldn't trust a conventional trial in the hands of people who have never been exposed first-hand to one in their lives. I'd rather have America handing over the oodles of evidence and giving them pointers on how to go about the trial-process rather than them winging it on their own and having Saddam get away with a slap on the wrists because they didn't perform it correctly or because international eyes thought it wasn't fair.

Afghanistan - What do you think we were fire-bombing the first time through? Terrorist camps. Bin Laden actually backed the Taliban and helped them to capture key cities through financing and trained forces. The Taliban dislikes the fact that he goes off and publicly claims responsibility with the media for terrorist acts and whatnot. Other than that, the Taliban has actually supplied Bin Laden with armed guards when he visted Khost back in the late 90s to meet with the media over there. He supported them, they've supported him. Bush isn't the first one who came to the conclusion that the Taliban has been harboring him. Cliton is the one who sent out planes in the first time for that very reason.

Nation-Building - You can NOT just hand over a government to the people of Iraq at the cost of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. It would all be in vain if some militia immediately took power because they were organized before the war. Or even worse, if Iran moved in to seize control as they were tickering with the idea in Afghanistan (hence the CIA and Pakistan backing the Taliban). The government is just getting on it's feet and it's military is extremely weak. We have an obligation to be the crutch in order to assure their success. We would NOT have bothered with liberating Iraq if we didn't have a compliant, stable government resting in the place of Saddam. And if you think we're just being capitalist bullies, there's a reason we're cleaning up the Middle East and installing allied governments. Pakistan is on the verge of collapse because there is so much terrorist activities and anti-US sympathizing going on in that country that a revolt is on the way. We can NOT afford to lose them right now. But if we do, then we'll have Afghanistan in the distant future or Iraq to look to.

Protesters - I don't think the history had a whole lot of relivance in that. We supported Ho Chi Minh around WWII, but faught like hell with him in Vietnam. Does it matter that we supported him in the past or that he stands in the way of our goals now? We used him, just like we've used other figure-heads in history to do our dirty work. The CIA's support is NEVER genuine. But in this case it didn't really matter. Should we not support the war to overthrow a rebel force that's harboring a guy who gloats in explaining how he orchistrated terrorist attacks on our country just because we aided that same force so Iran couldn't come in and claim Afghanistan? No one knew all the facts, but I doubt it much mattered. It's easier to overthrow the Taliban than it is Iran. We'll always help the little guy in Middle Eastern issues because we know we can come back and stomp them into the ground if they become our enemy. But anyways... people can complain and talk about whatever the hell they want. They can support whatever they want. If pedophilia is your thing, great. First Amendment right is there protecting your interests in molesting children. I have no problem with that because the First Amendment doesn't do you much good when you're being strangled to death in prison for those interests of your's.

Originally Posted by Loy

(BTW .batterypoison., I've been meaning to give you a big smile and thumbs up, but knew it'd ruin my "only says mean/sarcastic things" reputation around here).

Yeah, s'ok. It was in parentheses so it didn't count. LOL. :P

[ChUnKy_CaRaMeL]

Opinions run strong and deep here. Time for me to inject my own. Having been reared for some years in the states before making my great departure back in June of '01, a big chunk of the American pre 9/11 mindset stilll resides in me. (Yes I'm one old fashion chicka)
I do not like Bush, but he is, dispite how people like to make him, very clever and effective. He gets things done, as been pointed out, but the things he gets done are of his own agenda. I remember the 2000 elections and very strongly thinking Gore would become president. Then the whole Florida "scandel." As if it really made a difference because in the end it is the electoral college who vote in the president, not the popular vote. So Bush became president and it seemed every where you looked just about everyone and the media called him, basically, "stupid" and made fun of him saying that he was ineffective and so on and so forth. 9/11 happened and immediately afterwards those same people who were slandering him were now cheered him on as the great leader of a great nation that's been hurt to it's very core.
The turn around of views was so sudden, infact, that I thought and still do think that Bush must have had a hand in 9/11 somewhere. It's a bit conspiracy theorist orientated (but it's my view, not very researched, so I'm not forcing it on people), but regardless, 9/11 happened and Bush became poplular and people followed him. He expertly harnessed the atmosphere in the states in order to get his agendas done - first with Afghanistan. He then preformed a miracle (in my mindset) and invaded Iraq with still unproved claims and totally against the rulings of NATO. Man oh man. And to add to that, in the height of all the Bush [almost religious] following, anyone who disagreed with the view put out there by Bush was labled un American and so on and so forth. The man is bloody incredible. I would say brilliant. Having a nation under his reign - one where he does not even have to defend himself because the nation would do that for him. Some can argue this is how things should always be, but people are human and human beings are not perfect enough to be followed completely in that manner.
People understimated him in the beginning and that only increased people's devotion to him after the emotionally charge air of 9/11 (there is a study in psychology where two very similair men walk across a bridge and encounter the same woman in two different scenarios. One simply walked across the bridge, the other walked across it in an emotionally stressful environment ie a shaky bridge [I believe that's what it was]. Even though it was the same woman and the men were very similair, the one who walked across the bridge in the emotionally charged environment found the woman highly attractive, much more then the other man. I think the results of this study could help to understand why Bush was so highly followed right after 9/11. His attraction level went sky high after an emotionally charge event like 9/11.)
And so, now that it is close to elections, out come all the harsh opinions about Bush that were absent when he was getting things done, but were highly present during and right after his election. Yet again, I would say that this is another plus for Bush. Now he's at the end of his term, what good can criticism do now? He's held it off, some how, til now. - after he's done a lot of big things on his agenda (must be getting something out of Iraq and Afghanistan that the news is not airing other then beating terrorism and getting Sadam and what not. He could have taken care of Kadafe or however you spell the leader of Sudan's name [don't really feel it's important to look up the spelling cause this is just my opinion, not a persuasion piece], but he did not and I always thought he was just as bad as Sadam.). So what if he does not get another term? And if he does, all the better for him. As for the American people, ah well? Bush is an effective president. What more can a country ask for?
So now we have Kerry and people say that he has no opinions. I'm just going to sit back and watch how things unfold, because people said some harsh things about Bush back in '00 and look what happened, the man got things done (albiet in very shady ways on issues which make one ponder. Hitler was an effective leader, doesn't change the fact that the things he did was god awful and evil and are still felt sharply and painfully to this day). Perhpas Kerry shall rip off his mask and reveal who he truly is if he makes it to office? Will everyone cry for Bush back in office - the same people who are criticizing him now?
It would make sense for Kerry to be so opinionless now. Just ride the "Bush must get out of office" fervor towards the White House, maybe stir it up a knotch or few and influence other people to do the same. I mean, come on, he does not have to have a sharp opinion because he does not need one. The opinion of the country has already decided to put him in office. All he needs to do is play it safe and play the opinionless card and he's good to go.
So let me end this very humble and hopefully thought provocking opinion of mines by saying that if I were in the states right now, and since I am an American citizen with dual status, I would not vote. Not like it really matters (that pesky electoral college, because if people could, they would vote in Mickey Mouse). No, I would lead the revolution if Kerry turns out to be a monster. Revolution for what? Well, that stands to be seen if the need arises. Lol. I'll have my curly afro and my one black glove around a fisted hand ready for some revolution action. Black chick power! :P

**note, I have yet to see Ferenheit 9/11. Simply because my country refused to air it. Don't worry, I'm starting the revolution here. It'll get me in jail, but hey, keep my uncle company. There will be two political prisoners in the fam.**




~Trust no one because the only truth out there is your own~

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by ChUnKy_CaRaMeL

it is the electoral college who vote in the president, not the popular vote.



The man is bloody incredible. I would say brilliant. Having a nation under his reign - one where he does not even have to defend himself because the nation would do that for him.

Point 1- In Bush's case, it was neither the popular vote nor the electoral college that got him into office. Essentially it was the Supreme Court.

Point 2- Bush has one of the lowest approval rates of any president. I doubt he'll get defended well by 42% (or whatever it's dropped down to now... that's the only number I'm positive it was at) of a country.

Also... you said "reign"... eh- not so much in America... democracy, remember? He's supposed to be a figurehead of his constituency, not a dictator.

[ChUnKy_CaRaMeL]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Point 1- In Bush's case, it was neither the popular vote nor the electoral college that got him into office. Essentially it was the Supreme Court.

Point 2- Bush has one of the lowest approval rates of any president. I doubt he'll get defended well by 42% (or whatever it's dropped down to now... that's the only number I'm positive it was at) of a country.

Also... you said "reign"... eh- not so much in America... democracy, remember? He's supposed to be a figurehead of his constituency, not a dictator.

Sweet! I've been critiqued! **Feels humbled** Aaah ...

Point 1, hmmm ... thanks for informing me and modifying my opinion.

Point 2 that is true for right now, but a year ago? Two years ago? Right after 9/11? Remember back when if you spoke out about the war in Iraq, you got shot down. That's what I mean about the people defending Bush. They defended his main ojectives (pushing a conflict, not a war, with Iraq to topple it's gov. or whatever he wanted to do with that country), if not the man, and that, in my opinion, means a lot more. It is like saying "I don't defend the man but I defend his actions though."

Point 3 is more of a figure of speech. I'm not the first to refer to the presidential term of a president as a reign. Remember MacCarthyism - a presidential reign in which people were hunted and tryed Salem Witch Trial/ Spanish Inquizition style in fear that they may be unAmerican and communist. Presidents have lots of control - a one man veto power, head of state and head of army, ability to pardon prisoners, ect... Yea, it's a reign, with boundaries, but a reign nontheless. A president is the leader of the country and they have such great power that, with president MacCarthy, can be perverted so easily and are so much like those of a monarch (why, because the founding father of the States modelled some of their government on their prior rulers of Britain and her King and Queen.) All hail the King of America.

[Jane13]

Point 2 that is true for right now, but a year ago? Two years ago? Right after 9/11? Remember back when if you spoke out about the war in Iraq, you got shot down.

I certainly remember that, caramel.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

I doubt he'll get defended well by 42% (or whatever it's dropped down to now... that's the only number I'm positive it was at) of a country.

And what really matters is: How many people who voted in that poll are actually registered to vote? It's like the oodles of Kerry fluff. Most of his young supporters aren't even registered.

To them, I say, "Who cares what you think."