REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bush's America asks: Why us?

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 02:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 14077
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, September 27, 2004 5:53 AM

GHOULMAN



Bush's America asks: Why us?
By Imad Khadduri
Monday 27 September 2004, 3:03 Makka Time, 0:03 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BD2F209D-4C66-4824-96A6-184F23A
C8ABC.htm
As the US presidential elections approach, the American public is facing an important challenge and responsibility as it is confronted by the spectre of a dangerous potential outcome of a second Bush term.

President Bush's public pronouncements and stated efforts to build democracy in Iraq (after failed weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida accusations) are underpinned by a misguided view of America's own democracy.

He [Bush] believes that American democracy works because Americans are innately good people, believing in values of tolerance and respect for others and guided by religious faith.

The Bush doctrine also equates security at home with the spread of freedom and democracy at the point of a gun elsewhere in the world.

"I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century," Bush told the nation in accepting his party's presidential nomination on 2 September.

"I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honourable form of government ever devised by man.

I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."

This president believes that he was placed in the White House by a higher power in order to win the war on terrorism, the pivotal struggle of our time. It is this, more than anything, that divides America, stretches its military, bleeds its federal coffers and has led to the occupation of two states, and the deaths of tens of thousands of humans.

If, in the president's view, the goodness of Americans and the nobility of their mission are self-evident, then the failure of peoples around the world to see the resistance against the occupation in Iraq in the same way, means that they are "enemies of freedom".

Fighters opposing American power, even if they are residents of the occupied country, do not merit the protections of international law, while 20,000 mercenaries in "sovereign" Iraq are still beyond any law.

Institutional restraints on the exercise of power by Americans in detention centres and prisons can, in this view, safely be relaxed. Moreover, constitutional protections can be denied even to American citizens, arrested in the United States, when they are suspected of being "enemy combatants."

In an article by Robert O Keohane and Annie-Marie Slaughter in the IHT on 23 June 2003 titled "Bush's mistaken view of US Democracy", the democratic challenge is stark: "Behind the debate about the conduct of the war in Iraq, and the occupation, is a larger divide - between those Americans who believe that their unique virtues should permit them to act above the law, and those who believe that people in authority, necessarily imperfect, must be constrained by institutions and by law.

Those who understand and believe in the theory of the American Constitution should reject the Bush administration's political theory of personal good and evil. We must continue to insist that the United States is a "government of laws and not of men".

In a recently published book, "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency", the senior senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, perceives so grave a threat to constitutional government that he proclaims: "Never, in my view, had America been led by such a dangerous head of state."

Byrd quotes the advice of Herman Goering to rulers who seek to enhance their power: "Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship ... all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

The American Constitution established a system of checks and balances, by which Congress, the president and the courts each check each other, as do the states and the federal government, to ensure that the power of the government is both limited and controlled.

These are not simply theoretical differences about the core of American democracy. The stage has been reached when they have profound implications for the American people as their bewildered and anxious question is asked: Why us?

A valid response is: Is the public in the US responsible for the actions of its government?

In an article "Fewer Americans choosing to vote" by Ben Duncan on 31 August 2004 on Aljazeera.net, he notes: "Although the United States often bills itself as the world's greatest democracy, voter turnout has consistently fallen through the years and nearly half of the American electorate chose not to vote in the 2000 presidential election as more Americans have disengaged from the political process.

In fact, a smaller number of citizens vote in the US than in almost any western democratic nation."

What is unfolding in front of the American voters, with the alarming increase in dissonance between rhetoric and reality, is the litmus test for American democracy and how the Americans think about and control the role of the United States in the world.

It is a heavy responsibility, with corresponding consequences.

Imad Khadduri has an MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for 30 years (1968-1998). He left Iraq in late 1998. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 6:08 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ I thought this was a well written article. Something Aljazeera manages to do far more often than, well, let's say CBS.

Here is someone pointing out the obvious... the crazy, murdering, fundamentalist, terrorists are well matched by crazy, murdering, fundamentalist, Americans.

Americans simply are so fat, comfortable, and deluded they actually voted that freak Bush into the White Hou.... oh wait.

Americans didn't do that. Bush stole the election.

BUT ... America DID attack a nation for no reason. No, it wasn't an "intellegence mistake". As Bob Woodward and others have pointed out, the Bush White House had plans on Iraq even before 9/11.

Now that this has happened, the USA has shown itself, as it has for decades in Central America as well as Vietnam, to be a nation of murdering corporate profiteers.

After all... can anyone tell me why the USA is occupieing Iraq, torturing civilians and bombing peoples homes? Anyone at all...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 7:06 AM

SUCCATASH


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
After all... can anyone tell me why the USA is occupieing Iraq, torturing civilians and bombing peoples homes? Anyone at all...
Bush gave Americans a Fear Pill and most everyone swallowed it. To quote Yoda, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate..."

Well it's true. I work with a bunch of Christian conservatives and they are all convinced Iraq is Satan's Land and Bush is doing the right thing.

I am appalled at how many Americans, Christians no less, are glad we invaded Iraq. The love of Jesus, turning the other cheek - where did that go?

My non-Christian friends are the ones opposed to the war. It's kind of strange.

"... all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Yup. So sad, isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 8:30 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ well, it's not surprising at all, Christians slaughtering innocents as a matter of faith... kinda like certain other religions that are centered around Jerusalem.

Bush called it a crusade, his message was clear.

Notice the Dali Lama never encouraged anyone to fly a plane into anything or send in troops.

You know, I live in a lilly white piece o Canada and here it's not any different. It's not like Americans have a patent on stupidity and ignorance (though I'll have to check, Microsoft has been all over the patent office lately). The American belief that we live in a democratic nirvana is pounded into our little minds by every TV show and movie ever made, not to mention the usual political baloney as opposed to the Nazi like ideology of the Bushites. Heck, your parents would certainly slap your mouth if you said anything against some American icon like Miss America or some such other sickening fantasy put forth since the frellin' 50s to brainwash people into becomming complacent lumps of consumerism.

(Note: the ideology of the "Bushites" is just for the TV, if not brainless Bush himself - the truth is Dick Cheney and his Nixon creeps are just up to the old tricks... always follow the money).

And we will remain this way until the oil runs out and our industrial age economy is left behind by a world that increasingly sees America as being the enemy of lawful freedom, not to mention simple human rights (like horribly torturing civilians). Oops! TOO LATE!

That's the thing, the people right now have NO CLUE what this all means or what the future will hold. Well, let me tell ya (yet again)...

War for your children, at least another 10 years.

More attacks on American soil. Revenge is best served right after someone totures your Mom and rides her around like a donkey.

No economic change, we remain an oil economy because tptb have no interest in change. And they don't have too.

We will continue to live in a world that looks more and more like the original Robocop movie. A parody of American freedom, law, and values.

All this has been going on since the 50s of course. But it's important to understand that it's the 21st century now. Now, we have to start understanding whats really going on with those who control our lives... fascism.

Don't think it can't happen. Don't think it hasn't already. The current election in the USA is being watched VERY closely by everyone else in the world with just this in mind.

And yes, Bush will "win".

Oh my... hope the boss can't hear me typing furiously like this...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 4:52 PM

DACUTE1


Bush really needs to make the distinction between what's right and what's right for me. He's decided that he's right and therefore he shoves his ideas down everybody elses throats. It's almost humorous that he's decided that Democracy is the best form of Goverment, and that Iraq should be thanking the God almighty for the US coming in and SAVING them. After all, Bush presents himself as the head of a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Granted he isn't as blunt as his vice president who will tell you to F off if you disagree in a senate meeting but he's basically given that message to anyone else that disagrees with him, including the UN. It's also mildly funny that the guy who talks about the gift of freedom has decided to call anyone that says anything about the government having ties to 9-11 a terrorist.

Isn't there also supposed to be a separation between church and state? I really thought that the separation was supposed to prevent National judgements to be based on religious affliation rather than to ban prayer from the classroom. I could be wrong though, but I really think a little quiet time at the begining of the school day is a little less detrimental to our society than asking the pope about medical procedures. (Don't think that I'm advocating prayer in school, it just seems to be used most often in the case of separation between church and state).

And there is a number of people who are thinking about voting in Bush for a second term just because they don't want to change Government in Wartime. It's not just because they are religious right wings. But my problem with that is that if we vote in Bush for another 4 years be sure that we've going to be in either Iran, North Korea, or Seria next.

Just my two cents.

Becki

Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:21 AM

GHOULMAN


I'll take that 2 cents and raise you a dollar! Nicely done.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:11 AM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Why is GHOULMAN always starting political posts about the American election when he lives in Canada? Just wondering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:42 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ because it looks like 1936 Germany down south. The entire world is looking at the USA... and not in a good way.

Of course, the real reason I post here is merely somethng to do at lunch. The fact that I win every arguement while munching curry apple sandwiches just goes to show how easy it is.

Why it's so hard for Americans to do this while I can do it (and I'm a moron! Really.) reminds us of people who had an outside perspective in 1936 Germany. It's very easy for even intellegent, educated people to accept what thier 'culture' tells them. Or thier President.

Here is an article I found that illustrates my point. SAves me from ranting... be thankful I post these articles and have a job. If I didn't I'd be at it allll day. I've killed dragons with mere ASCII text!

Establishment Media Plagued by 'Coincidence Theorists'
Michael Hasty | September 27 2004

In his eyewitness account of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," author William Shirer, who lived in Nazi Germany throughout most of the 1930s, described a phenomenon that will, in 2004, seem disturbingly familiar to Americans who dissent from the policies of the Bush regime.

Click for more...
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2004/270904coinciden
cetheorists.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:59 AM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
The fact that I win every arguement while munching curry apple sandwiches just goes to show how easy it is.


You will always believe what you want to believe. It is that simple. You are one of those people who beleive that President Bush "Stole" the election and ever since have swalowed the lies shoved in the faces of the people who read and watch the news.

If the puplic opinion from canada/france/germany/rusia and more are against us, then that tells me I know we are doing something right. Jsut because most people dont agree, doesn't make it wrong. And don't compare the US to "1930's" Germany. To do so shows ignorance and blind rampage posting.

And you're *not* a moron. I can tell from the composing of your posts. You may be wrong, but that doesn't make you a moron :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:16 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
]And don't compare the US to "1930's" Germany. To do so shows ignorance and blind rampage posting.

And you're *not* a moron. I can tell from the composing of your posts. You may be wrong, but that doesn't make you a moron :)

Well, you better tell Ralf Nader that because that's what he compared the current polemic in the USA too.

You need to understand, we (we of the other countries) have always seen the USA has a fairly fascistic state (since RR for my Gen-X and the Kennedy assassination too I suppose). Right now you're just showing your true colours. You see... it's already happened.

And I am a moron. I'm only pointing out the drop dead obvious... that's why I always win these arguements. Understand, the paid liars who represent the Republicans online (well, some Republicans.. *chuckle*) are well educated. They problably hold philosophy majors or are experienced writers. Me? I'm a Maritimer who barely got through High School! I went to Art School! That's the next best thing to getting a lobotomy!

If I, basically red neck trash, can defeat the rhetoric posted here by liars for the Whitee House... what is the rest of Amricas problem? I'll tell ya... they just aren't on TV. They aren't in the paper. The USA is a fascist state.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:10 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Your countrys actions are not only affecting your country, but the entire world in general.

It is not better we stand against you with words rather than by force of arms, mind you if things keep going the way they are, the latter could happen.

Your President went looking for allies, and found opposition, your forces attacked anyway... Now your government keeps saying they want the help of the international community, dispite the fact that you are trying to establish client puppet states in both Afganistan and Iraq.

Your President once stated " Either your with us, ... " well, we aren't, and by trying to offer information your media is not putting out there, we hope you won't be either

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:43 AM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
that's why I always win these arguements.


Just because you think what you say is truth, doesn't mean you "win arguments". Think what you will, and say what you must. I for one am glad to have a leader of my country stand for what IS right, and has the cahones to stand up to tyrants of the world. America is hated, yes. Do I care? No. The war in Iraq is simply put, the right thing to do. The media says that the Iraqi people dont want us there, I hear different from service men. I for one would choose freedom over oppression. And they would too. The furture generations of Iraq will thank America for what happend now. If people like you ran my country, Saddam Hussein would still be in charge and still committing genocide on thousands of iraqis. Or, rather would that suit you just fine?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:31 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ How are things in Texas?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:36 AM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Sunny and warm with a refreshing breeze blowing across the lake. =)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Jim- Same as you, I don't look for a majority opinion to tell me whether I'm right or wrong. When peole appeal to a majority, I think (but almost never say out loud) "Yeah, and a billion flies eat sh*t".


But just because we deposed Saddam's regime doesn't mean we've put anything better in place. At the very beginning of the Iraq war I thought about natural Iraqi constituencies for a united, secular democracy. Envision that concept as clarly as possible, and then place it against the Iraqi population.

The Sunnis? Why would they want a demoncracy at all? They were top dog, and revenge is such a bitch especially if you're a minority.
Besides, they have no physical control of oil reserves.

The Shiites? As a majority they would fare well in a democracy, and might even have plans to get back some of their own, and they have the southern oil fileds, but have no interest in secularism.

The Kurds? Having run their own territory under the no-fly zone for so many years, why would they want to join up with their hated enemies (Arabs) and give up control of their oil resources?

The only people to gain from the scenario would be Iraqi women- but they are pretty much as brainwashed as the men, and in any case would never be allowed a strong political presence.

Nope- A united, secular democratic Iraq just ain't gonna happen. It's a convenience for finding "someone" to SIGN THOSE CONTRACTS which will then be enforced by international law and international banks. BTW- The CPA has already sold off most of Iraq's previously nationalized industries -including vital services- at fire sale prices. The only thing they HAVEN'T touched is the oil. But even then they siphoned off oil revenues into unaccounted contracts with US companies.

Most likely Iraq is going to end up like Yugoslavia- facing civil war and eventual breakup, while the US hangs like a leech in their neck.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:32 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


As a fat, lazy American, I just wanted to say I'm disgusted with anyone who holds the opinion Bush is right. Oh, and that line about how we're the greatest form of government... I'd laugh if it weren't so sad. I'm finishing up college here and getting the hump outta dodge. It's a sinking ship run by corporate madmen.
Why is it this way?
In my opinion, the short answer is that our "greatest form of government" cripples itself. There are two factions that co-exist in the same govermental seat and neither one allows the other to get anything done... which sometimes I'm in favor of, but not when I'm right. Oh, and you can't even think of running a campaign unless you have tons of money which means you have to cowtow to corporate special interests so really the government exists to keep big business rich and in business.
So, summing up... Bush sucks , America's going down hill, and the corporate system's behind the wheel. It's enough to make a man sing... "Oh, Canada..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:38 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
The USA is a fascist state.


Ah, so sad but true. I'm waiting for our monkey-lookalike of a president to bring it all out into the open with "Facism creates jobs, and that's good for America!" Also waiting for the 2004 election to be suspended in the interest of "Homeland Security."
HOMELAND - there you go, JimNightshade, the last time the world heard "Homeland" uttered so often, it came out the mouth of Adolph Hitler. The comparison is both apt and unavoidable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, I wondered at the choice of "Homeland".

But then, what were the options when trying to build a dictatorship? "Fatherland"? TOO GERMANIC! "Motherland"? TOO RUSSIAN! "National" Too overused and not emotive enough. "Federal"? Oh, THAT would get the Southerners going, wouldn't it? "Apple-pie-land"?

So after all, what could be more cozy and comforting than... home. How nice.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:08 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


One correction.... if you agree

What is US is calling a effort to establish democracy isn't really such,

They want people to vote for a selection of handpicked canidates.... ones who will follow their lead.

If you enjoy popular support, have a chance at winning, and don't really want an American presence in Iraq... you get railroaded like Moktada al-Sadr.

Calling this democracy would be wrong, it is more of a fallacy.

If 911 happened again next year, will anyone outside the US care. If they want to do the " right " thing for themselves, screw them, let them stand alone in the shit storm of their own creation.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, but I LIVE HERE!!!

I care!!

I know that 30% 'muricans are downright crazy, conversing with invisible friends and all that, and another 20% are downright mean and just wanna kick some butt... BUT what about the OTHER 50%??? What about ME???

(ducks while rotten tomatoes come flying over my head)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:00 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Well, if you can't stop the other %50 from running the asylum...

http://www.cic.gc.ca/

Leave that mushroom cloud in the rearview mirror !

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hmmm... worth looking into! Et je parle Francais.
But I'm much better in English!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:10 PM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


Don't get me wrong, I care... but this whole thing is starting to feel like a giant snowball rolling down hill. And even a a Bush-lovin' (and I'm not suggesting anyone is) apple pie-eatin' American would have to agree with what GINOBIFFARONI had to say - if we were all about supporting democracy in Iraq, the election process would have candidates who actually represented public opinion in Iraq, not just candidates who represented American ideas.
For example, let's say the Iraqi favorite was politically similar to Haussein (forgive my horrible spelling). Do you honestly think Bush and his regime would allow that kind of man elected in Iraq even though he represented what the people of that state wanted? So is that democracy?
America is real good at the cowboyin' in and blowing crap up and overthrowing leaders, but we're lousy at sticking around to rebuild. It's the nature of our political system. Any kind of policy has the potential to be overturned come the next election. What needs to be done in Iraq is something like what Britan did with India - not the bad crap, but the ability to stick around long enough and occupy while the disenting population dies out. Take over the education system and teach them "Western ways" or whatever. But we can't. And I'm against that indoctrination crap anyway. People need to decide for themselves. I digress.
I'd just once like to see a candidate who was a little more like me - no doubletalk, no claiming to have all the answers... we don't allow our politicians and especially our president to be a human being. And that's a problem too. This whole thing makes my head hurt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:07 PM

DACUTE1


"I for one am glad to have a leader of my country stand for what IS right, and has the cahones to stand up to tyrants of the world."

Not to rag on anybody but what is right? Is there a universal, right? I thought not killing people is right but apparently it's only right if those people hold the same belief's as you. Who decides what's right? The United States? the President? the church? Our parents?

There is no black and white, especially when dealing with different cultures. This is really something that the President should figure out (which is probably why he has such a bad foreign policy). He has no right to force his beliefs of religion or democracy on other cultures, what's right for us may not be what's right for them. I'll get to Saddam in a moment.



"The war in Iraq is simply put, the right thing to do. The media says that the Iraqi people dont want us there, I hear different from service men. I for one would choose freedom over oppression. And they would too."

I've had two close friends/family members over there and results are mixed. There are Iraqies shooting at us for being there, that's not media contrived. Again, seeing in black and white gets us nowhere.

Yes, I would chose freedom, but I also know how to handle it. They only know what they had, and perhaps that's why they don't want us there. It's still not certain if a Democracy will work over there.


"If people like you ran my country, Saddam Hussein would still be in charge and still committing genocide on thousands of iraqis."

Two comments-

One, how many other nations have leaders just as bad or worse than Saddam that nobody knows about or even cares? I know there are some in Africa, but we're not there, are we? This war wasn't about Saddam being a Tyrant over his people, it wasn't about the Genocide. Apparently it was about weapons of mass destruction, which by the way, we didn't find.

Two, I don't know whether or not this war was right or wrong. In the end Saddam is out of office, but at the stake of how many service men and women's lives? Bush has taken are National Guard over there- by the way National Guard is supposed to Guard our nation...here! To do what? People rag on Kerry for changing his mind about the war but how many excuses did Bush give us for going there? He was digging for one that the citizens would buy- point of fact- he wanted to go to war on Iraq, he had plans on war before
9-11, he didn't care if the UN supported it, he didn't care if the US citizens supported it. And if gets another 4 years he will go to war elsewhere and he will install the draft.



Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:38 PM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
Originally posted by dacute1:
Not to rag on anybody but what is right? Is there a universal, right?


If you don't understand right from wrong we are on the wrong subject.


Quote:
...how many other nations have leaders just as bad or worse than Saddam that nobody knows about or even cares? I know there are some in Africa, but we're not there, are we?


We were not attacked by Africans. They do not have WMDs. Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD, John Kerry thought Iraq had the weapons. He even voted for the war (then he speaks against it, flipflop.)

I still believe they were there. Saddom had weeks to ship them anywhere he wanted to. This is a war on terror. Not a war to occupy Iraq. Anyway, Bush will get re-elected and we will get to hear Bush-bashers for another 4 years, yippe :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm so glad to see people who says the things I mull over, but say it so much better than I ever could. And then say the things I never even thought of !

Way back when I posted a comment that Bush support comes from fear, hate or greed. Boy did that make me a target. I have to add Christian jihad to that list, though I think it might be a subcategory of hate.

I've been considering about the Canada thing. Is it easy to get in? If I had to endure 4 more years of Bush, I think I'd go bonkers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Jim, you took your position in two words: "I believe".

Well, I DON'T believe. I insist on evidence.

Let me aks you a question: Were you surprised, shocked, angered by 9-11?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:15 PM

DACUTE1


"If you don't understand right from wrong we are on the wrong subject."

No really, what is right from wrong? Lots of people have different beliefs. Mine tend to be respect toward others, openness to other cultures and beliefs. I'm not saying that Saddam was right but I'm not going to bow down to Bush praising him for his moral superiority either. Saddam may have hurt his people but lets look at some of the environmental policies that Bush has put in place, clean air act? Is it more right to protect people than it is animals? What about the people oversees that don't believe in the same God or the same form of Government?


"We were not attacked by Africans. They do not have WMDs. Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD, John Kerry thought Iraq had the weapons. He even voted for the war (then he speaks against it, flipflop.)"

Thought!!!! Clinton didn't rush into a war because he "thought" they had weapons of mass destruction. And I thought the reason we were in there was because we needed to get the tyrant out of power? Now it's WMD? You are sounding like Bush.

"This is a war on terror. Not a war to occupy Iraq."

You're confusing me, first is was because of what Saddam was doing to his people. Then it was because they had weapons of mass destruction. Now it's a war on terror?

A war on terror? Is that why he had plans to go into war within days of taking office? I could be wrong but didn't he call the war on terror on after 9-11? Something just doesn't fit here. Besides Al Quida and Iraq don't get along, there is no connection. Saddam wasn't about to go messing with the United States. We weren't defending anything but Bush's ego.

"Anyway, Bush will get re-elected and we will get to hear Bush-bashers for another 4 years, yippe :)"

Can you do me a favor and enlist in the armed forces then, 'cause I really don't want my family memebers to die because Bush started another war. Thanks.

Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:28 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


I have resisted the urge to join in any political discussions here, but. . .

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
We were not attacked by Africans.


We weren't attacked by Iraq, either. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:30 PM

DACUTE1


"We weren't attacked by Iraq, either. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis."

Shoot, I forgot that one. Thanks for the help.


Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:00 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I am appalled at how many Americans, Christians no less, are glad we invaded Iraq. The love of Jesus, turning the other cheek - where did that go?

My non-Christian friends are the ones opposed to the war. It's kind of strange.


It's not so strange. American Christians are so used to having the power of the majority on their side that they forget that the teachings of the Nazarine aren't about getting the biggest hammer to slam your foes with.

Ask any Anerican Non-Christian, especially one who belongs to a small sect. Ask Wiccans, Pagans, Deists. American Christians take it for granted that they're right because there are more of them than anybody else. It's the same reason Americans are so lousy at learning foreign languages, I think. -- Why bother, when 2/3rds of your continent speaks English?

As usual, "The Simpsons" got it right:

Reverend Lovejoy: "You see Homer? You have many friends, be they Chrisian, Jewish, or Miscelaneous."

Apu: "Hindu. There are 350 million of us, you know."

Reverend Lovejoy: "That's just super."



"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:13 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by beenwithawarriorwoman:
If we were all about supporting democracy in Iraq, the election process would have candidates who actually represented public opinion in Iraq, not just candidates who represented American ideas.


As usual, Tom Leher said it best:

For might makes right/until they've seen the light/they've got to be protected/all their rights respected/till somebody we like can be elected.

Of course, he was talking about Vietnam. Nothing to do with our current difficulties, no siree!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Georges Santayana


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:26 PM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
Originally posted by dacute1:
Saddam may have hurt his people but lets look at some of the environmental policies that Bush has put in place...


Wow, You did not just say this. You are more tolerant toward Saddam than President Bush. That's messed up.

Quote:
You're confusing me, first is was because of what Saddam was doing to his people. Then it was because they had weapons of mass destruction. Now it's a war on terror?


There can only be one reason to go to war? All of the above sound like a good reason to me. And it was from the start a "War on terror".


Quote:
Can you do me a favor and enlist in the armed forces then, 'cause I really don't want my family memebers to die because Bush started another war. Thanks.]


I have the utmost respect for the men and women in the armed service. I knew a few myself. But to join the service is a *choice* each and every one of them made. And don't believe Kerry's lies, Bush will not reinstate the draft, it wont happen.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:40 AM

DACUTE1


"Wow, You did not just say this. You are more tolerant toward Saddam than President Bush. That's messed up."

I'm not more tolerant toward Saddam I'm merely pointing out that Bush doesn't seems to give a rats ass about our natural environment. Something that I feel is right- hense conversation what's right to someone isn't necessarily right to another.


"There can only be one reason to go to war? All of the above sound like a good reason to me."

Which is why you bought each one every week Bush decided to come up with a different reason for war. He used all of them, at different times. And none seem to hold up.


"And it was from the start a "War on terror"."

Former workers of the Bush administration will tell you, Bush had plans to go to war BEFORE Sept. 11. It DID NOT start because of the War on terrorism, the war on terrorism started with the bombing of Afganistan, which I'm not so sure I agree with. Someone not gunho probably could have found a better way to retaliate, I'm not sure how. But Al Quida and Saddam are not connected.


"I have the utmost respect for the men and women in the armed service. I knew a few myself. But to join the service is a *choice* each and every one of them made. And don't believe Kerry's lies, Bush will not reinstate the draft, it wont happen."

They've hired for the draft this year for the first time since the 70's, and that didn't come from Kerry.






Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:49 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


Boy, I sure can't wait until this War on Terror is over and we don't have terrorists anymore. It'll be great, just like how that War on Drugs made it so we can't buy drugs now...

Oh, and that draft thing? It's in Congress now. Being voted on. And my guess is, since it's not getting a lot of coverage, it won't matter half a hump who gets elected, both of 'em support it. Here's an article:
http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html
This site's obviously anti-Bush, but Kerry would be making a much bigger stink over it if he planned to shoot it down.
And the part that really kills me is that while all our soldiers are over seas fighting the damn war, Bush is back home cutting their benifits! Does this seem right to you?
And don't get me wrong, I'm not a Kerry supporter, but before you get going on his flip-flop thing (taken DIRECTLY from the Bush camp's vocab book) take a look at the bills in question. Congressional bills have all kinds of things on them, so when Kerry voted against something, you need to look at what else he was voting against. It's conveinient to call it a flip-flop, but in some cases he was also voting against medicare cuts or social security things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:53 AM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
Originally posted by dacute1:

Former workers of the Bush administration will tell you, Bush had plans to go to war BEFORE Sept. 11. It DID NOT start because of the War on terrorism,


If you believe that then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.


Quote:
I'm not more tolerant toward Saddam I'm merely pointing out that Bush doesn't seems to give a rats ass about our natural environment. Something that I feel is right- hense conversation what's right to someone isn't necessarily right to another.


You may not notice it, but by your posts you downplay the atrocities committed by Saddam and speak more loudly about how Bush is wrong than Saddam. That is being more tollerant toward Saddam than the President.

Quote:
They've hired for the draft this year for the first time since the 70's, and that didn't come from Kerry.


John Kerry is using the "Bush will reinstate the draft" in his campaign. I heard it from his mouth.

Update: john Kerry now doesn't believe Bush will reinstate the draft.

Further Update: John Kerry now denied he said anything at all.

If you dont think Kerry is a flip flop, then you are in denial. Even the far left liberals see that in Kerry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 6:09 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


JimNightshade, I'm seeing a lot of opinion here from you... which is good, I'm all about people having strong opinions. But what I'm not seeing is a lot of support. I don't want to have to take your word for it. I want to see it myself.

"Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dacute1:

Former workers of the Bush administration will tell you, Bush had plans to go to war BEFORE Sept. 11. It DID NOT start because of the War on terrorism,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you believe that then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you."

Where do you get that? I've seen articles that say the same thing dacute's saying... so where's your info?
I ask in the interest of political debate and knowledge and all that good stuff... I'm not just ribbing you. I'm interested.

On a further note (and forgive me dacute1 for speaking out of turn) I think Saddam's atrocities speak for themselves. It's not neccessary to debate what he did or did not do and how right or wrong it was - that information is all obvious. Bush, on the other hand, straddles a political line we all like to rip at.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:05 AM

DACUTE1


"You may not notice it, but by your posts you downplay the atrocities committed by Saddam and speak more loudly about how Bush is wrong than Saddam. That is being more tollerant toward Saddam than the President."

I'm going to end with because we can go back and forth for days without saying anything new.

As already mentioned we all know that Saddam is a bad man. He's a horrible person that's done horrible things to his people. I've never disagreed with that which is why I don't feel that we have to keep talking about it. We agree.

But the first post I responded to was about how "Bush is right". Yes, Saddam is very very wrong but I don't see Bush as being right either. One, his foreign policy of "You're either with us or F*!@ you" isn't helping matters, he's going to war under false pretenses (more on that look at earlier posts), he doesn't understand the separation between church and state, and he doesn't care about the environment nearly as much as digging for oil (bills passed include removing fines for not cleaning up).



Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:54 AM

KIRIKOLI


Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:

:If you dont think Kerry is a flip flop, then you are in denial. Even the far left liberals see that in Kerry.


See, I have a problem, and that is that every time people mention "flip-flopping", I see it as just a simple change of mind based on new information. Granted, I don't like all the political posturing, but both candidates are doing it in disgusting amounts, so let's focus on something more real.

I agree with the war in Iraq. I remember watching the news during school, all the things that led up to the decision to go into Iraq without UN support. While I probably wouldn't have done it exactly the same way, if you would have asked me at the time, I would have said yes, we need to go forward with this.

I stand by that.

It's all the things happening now that I disagree with. We went in, we got Saddam, and we made a big mess. The problem is, we're still making a mess. Bush pretends like nothing is wrong. He's announced publically at least once that I know of that we've won the war in Iraq when we clearly haven't. There is no new great democracy in Iraq and soldiers are still dying at an alarming rate. It is time to stop making a mess and take some responsibility. It is far, far past time to go back to the UN and ask for world opinion. To admit we need help with this situation and that it is not our place to be imposing on these people now that they have a chance to be free. And if they choose an un-American future, so be it. As long as they get to choose. That freedom, whatever the end form, will reduce terrorism and it is the purest form of American belief.

This is what I believe and, according to what people say about Kerry, I have done a flip-flop. The thing is, I don't see how that's wrong. Things are different now than they were then and so there has to be room for change. Bush doesn't change. He pretends and he lies to justify his means to a questionable end. He says the same things over and over again and I know (an a non-Christian American) he doesn't respect those different from him, as shown by the blatant religious overtones of the Republican Convention.

When it comes to Iraq, I like this quote, given recently by Kerry in a speech:

"Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared 'we are all Americans now.' But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world." --John Kerry, Speech to NYU Read it: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

I believe it is the current policy in Iraq more than anything that has split America from the world. We cannot continue like we are still justified at this time, whether we were then or not.

So does someone want to tell me why this flip-flop is bad?





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Former workers of the Bush administration will tell you, Bush had plans to go to war BEFORE Sept. 11. It DID NOT start because of the War on terrorism.
dacute1

If you believe that then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
JimNightshade


There you go with that "belief" stuff again. No, I DON'T believe it, but the people who've made these allegations have proof- including 19,000 pages of documents, eyewitness accounts from Department Secretaries, generals, CIA officers, diplomats etc. Since belief seems to play a major role in your psychology and you don't believe left-wingers, how about these assessments? (Compare to Bush's spinning)

President Bush:
"Our strategy is succeeding. Iraq is on the path to democracy and freedom."

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
"The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse. The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
"We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
[T]he situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, [the administration has done] a poor job of implementing and adjusting at times. We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...."

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
[It's] "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point."

General William Odom (ret), former NSA head
"Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost…. Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends." This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."... "I've never seen [tensions] so bad between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster."

General Joseph Hoare (ret), former Marine Commandant, head of US Central Command:
"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options.... The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, Professor of Strategy at the Air War College
"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true..."

W. Andrew Terrill, Professor at Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, top Iraq expert
"I don't think that you can kill the insurgency ... The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed... Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators."

Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty in Iraq
"Everyone supports the troops, and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely.

I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength."

-------------------------------
AND NOW FOR SOME PROPAGANDA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html

The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions (Yeah, it's all a "perception" problem) of the Iraq war... has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country...

USAID said this week that it will restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. (Remember this next time you read about USAID. It's not the innocuous agency that most people think.) ..A USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: "This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts....information will now be "restricted to those who need it for security planning in Iraq." (Which presumably doesn't include Congress... not like they have to vote on funding the effort or anything.)

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office has sent commanders of U.S. military facilities a five-page memorandum titled "Guidance to Commanders." The Pentagon, the memo says, is sponsoring a group of Iraqi Americans and former officials from the Coalition Provisional Authority to speak at military bases throughout the United States starting Friday to provide "a first-hand account" of events in Iraq. (Totally unbased.. uh I mean unbiased.. I'm sure.) ... The presentations are "designed to be uplifting accounts with good news messages." Rumsfeld's office, which will pay for the tour, recommends that the installations seek local news coverage, noting that "these events and presentations are positive public relations opportunities."


TEXAS- It's not a state of mind, it's a state of denial.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:35 AM

SHEWOLF


Didn't the Democrats propose the draft bill?
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Jan. 8, 2003

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:23 AM

KIRIKOLI


I was suprised when I read that the democrats had proposed the bill, but when I found out why, it made sense, even if it's a little extreme for my tastes.

"The decorated Korean War veteran [Rep. Charles Rangel] said he introduced the bill "in hopes that those people who make the decisions to go to war, to attack Iraq, would be better influenced against it if they had kids that would be placed in harm's way, or if they felt closer to the shared sacrifice that we oftentimes talk about."

People "from the lower economic levels of our society" should not be the only ones placed in harm's way, he said.

Rangel has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war." http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/rangel.draft/index.html

and

"The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/index.html

So the point wasn't to install a draft. The point was to make Bush pay more attention to the ramifications of his actions by subjecting even his children to the dangers faced by the willing soldiers.

Don't get me wrong...I would hate it if they tried to install a draft (especially cuz I would be one of the first ones up), but the move makes sense.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:29 AM

KIRIKOLI


Kerry's accusation that Bush might install a draft was based on statistics saying that if we continue the way we've been going, Bush is going to need a lot more troops to bring the war in Iraq to any sort of acceptable conclusion.

For anyone interested, and I would say anyone who's going to vote this November, tonight at 8 P.M. CST, Bush and Kerry are going to go at it. They're calling this debate a "defining moment" for voters. I can't watch it at 8, but I'm definitely taping it. I know CNN is showing live coverage and I'm sure other channels will pick it up too. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/bush.kerry.ap/index.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:35 AM

SOUPCATCHER


(tongue firmly in cheek)
It looks like I missed the debate. Either that or I'm reading too much into the use of past tense in this article.
Quote:
excerpted from http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1184.html
...

Thursday night's meeting at the University of Miami was the first of three Bush-Kerry debates over a two-week period. Neither side was underestimating its importance with a TV audience of 30 million to 40 million expected. Almost a third of people surveyed say the debates will be a deciding factor in how they vote.

The first debate drew the nation's attention to hurricane-battered Florida and its political importance. Florida swung the presidency to Bush in the disputed 2000 election and could determine whether he wins re-election.

The debates were staged under a rigid set of rules negotiated by the candidates' representatives to limit spontaneity and opportunities for back-and-forth exchanges.

What I'm guessing happened here is that ABC has already started writing the after debate article and will add to this as the night goes on. But it sure sounds strange when the thing hasn't happened yet.

* thanks to a friend who pointed me at Eschaton who pointed me at this article

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:35 PM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN


Shewolf -
Democrats did indeed propose the draft bill... with the idea in mind that the Bush regime wouldn't be quite so gung-ho about sending more troops when their own children were at stake. As to how that's panned out in the two years since, I have no idea... if you or anyone else finds anything more concrete and recent, I'm interested in reading it.
However, the Bush administration has since taken steps to facilitate the draft as an eventuality. The point in contention I brought this up for was that Bush wasn't "going to let it happen," I believe was along the lines of the phrasing.
I would like to point out I didn't think it mattered who was elected president, the draft bill is not a hot button issue and as such, both candidates agree.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:11 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I've been considering about the Canada thing. Is it easy to get in? If I had to endure 4 more years of Bush, I think I'd go bonkers.


My wife (German) will be applying for her permanent residency soon. So, if you are serious I could relay our experience to you.


Now, to join this thread.

Some have posted recommended reading. I thought, why not have some recommended watching as well.

Outfoxed
The Corporation

Outfoxed is a wounderful peice of work. The Corporation's main target isn't the media, but it does touch on it. Well worth the time at any rate.

This is for people like JimNightShade so that they can see how they are being manipulated, and for those not like Jim, so that they can see how people like him are created.

Both are availible throught the torrents.


And Jim, Ghoulman (and the rest of us) "win" because every "reason" that was given to go to war was shattered by a little investigation. There is now nothing to hide behind. There is no "But there could be..." sentence that any rational person would believe. There is no clouded vague arguments that once rattled these threads.

You might notice that most of those who spouted these lies are now gone and only those who have the mentality of the fanatically religious still cling to them. Give up, nothing supports you anymore, not even conjecture.

In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"My wife (German) will be applying for her permanent residency soon. So, if you are serious I could relay our experience to you."

If it was a really long, drawn out ordeal, I'm OK if you skip the details. But, yes, I am interested.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:31 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Jim,

The only thing we seem to have in common is a desire to see Saddam tried for his many crimes.

But I would also like to see the Americans responsible for supporting him, while he was commiting these crimes, on trial beside him.

The US, Britian, and France all provided weapons, training, intel support, aircraft... before, during and after these crimes were committed ???

So why not offer the ones who supported this to trial as accessorys to mass murder?

Comments?

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:29 PM

JIMNIGHTSHADE


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.


You only think you "win" arguments because you agree with yourself. Of course you would think that. We have a difference in opinion, that's obvious. Even John Kerry knew Saddam was a threat and thats why in 2003 he voted to go to war. The US is safer without Saddam and with a free Afghanistan.

The only reason I had posted on this thread is because someone on this board seems to only want to start posts on his political beliefs. I am all for expressing what you believe in, but do so in the right venue. Is a website dedicated to a (one of the best, if not the best) TV show the right venue? I would answer no. This thread wont change anyone's mind. The fact is everyone has their own ideals and beliefs.

But I will say that I am glad I live in a country where we have the freedom to all discuss our concerns about our goverment openly with one another, even if we disagree.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 6:29 PM

BOYD


I know this is kinda off topic but:

Does anyone else hate the phrase "War On Terror"

Am I the only one who thinks it should be "terrorism" not "terror"?

Itt kinda makes the phrase vague and unpleasant
Guess thats what its purpose is though anyway.
Gives the republicans a little more wiggle room!
Wooo Hooo!

Go the Propaganda Machine!

Just 2 cents from the southern hemisphere (NZ)




Vote Kerry 2004

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 22:13 - 7498 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:17 - 3 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:05 - 1 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL