Author
|
Topic: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread (Read 66574 times)
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
You claim they havn't found any yet you provided a link to a site that says they did, make up your mind.
things they have found but not been reported all that much are, mass graves, video tapes of murder Rape, Components important in make WMDs. Prisons that still reek of all the death that happened in them.
the funny thing is you are trying to only blame bush and blair. the FACT is almost EVERYCOUNTY including the french, russia and germany SAID that they had WMD, even kerry said they had WMD. so how can you say bush lied and no one else?
here are some links to stories.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120345,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
i couldnt find all of the ones i remeber though. like Iraqi scientist going to Libya to make a nuke.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2004, 12:46:21 pm by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
C20. Sure, I'll cede you the point that they are happier now, and that the country is actually being rebuilt in a fashion. Within 10 years, it may well be a stable and functioning democracy, which definetly is a good thing. My reply wwas more angled towards the "Take the fight to them", when you're not actually fighting in "their" country, just some random place. A random place with a cruel leader admittedly, but a cruel leader who has no apparent linkings to "them".
And I hate to bring up an old point, but that once again brings up the point of "Why them?" the North Koreans have admitted that they have Nuclear Weapons. Itran is making probably doing the same. India and Pakistan both violated the nuclear treaty and built them themselves. Darfur is going through a genocide, as are/have many african warzones in the last decade or so. Yet you don't see anyone jumping into the fray there trying to "give the helpless democracy". We've all heard the speculations, and while there is no way to be sure if they are true or not, it does add to the negative PR for the war, and the outsider view of the US.
As for the WMD Bio, did you not listen?
"Fair and Balanced" Fox News may have trumpeted the fact that WMDs were found, but it was a single old, abandoned munition from the Iran/Iraq war, tagged for destruction but lost in the shuffle, and according to the military officials that actually found it, the people who rigged it up likely didn't even know that it contained binary sarin (Associated Press article here) and Fox News' report was pretty much laughed off the stage by everybody except Fox News.
I'm no partisan, and I'm certainly no pacifist, but it is plainly obvious to even a casual observer that the claims by Bush/Blair that Iraq had "massive stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons, capable of being deployed "within 45 minutes" were patently false. To take any other position is to take a position of baseless apologism. The whole thing was ill-conceived and poorly-executed, and now we've got a bloody, costly clusterfuck of an occupation to which the true costs may take decades to shake out.
Read that part again. Fox networks says "Yes they did!", and everyone else says no.
As for the rest of the world thing, remeber France and Germany and those chaps being against the invasion. They suspected there might be nuclear weapons as well, but they felt their suspicions were not satrong enough to base a war on. That'd be the equailent of suspecting someone might have the plans and and weaponry to take oyut a policestatio, and then go in guns flaring, only to found out that what the druggie told you was false, and al he are some old cartridges to a hunting rifle he sold. Well, not the best parallell, but you get the point.
Also, any country were you can be killed for speakign your mind is not a democracy Bio. You can become unpopular, shunned, sure. If you went to a bar soemone might be tempted to beat you up, but outright kill you? I've met loads of nice americans, but never one who wnated to kill me during a debate. Maybe you were just speaking for yourself?
And what do you mean "reveal their true colours" anyway? That sounds somehow sinister and boding. Does the fact that other countries may not always want to join your illconcieved crusade mean that they are evil? Or enemies?
As for the prison thing, I'm nott even going to point out how well that went after the Coalition got contol of them. Or the sudden ban on camera mobiles and the razing to the ground of a prison. denial anyone?
Also, the lists aren't really adding anything, are they.
Now, allow me to make a few things clear. I'm not anti-american. I don't hate the US. I admire the US for their technological breakthroughs, for the large personal liberty, and a bunch of other things. I don't thin kthat all americans are overweight idiots, at least the ones I have met are usually nice, thoughtful people. I'm just criticising the reasons for going to war, and the way the war has been handled. Now wether that makes me nice or not, that's in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you, to stop you from bombing the crap out of their soil?. Oh wait, they already did. Felt good, did it?
these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11.
Also, any country were you can be killed for speakign your mind is not a democracy Bio.
America is NOT a democracy it is a republic. so you can get killed by speaking your mind in the wrong place, to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time. ( i know its a childish reply to a childish remark.)
And what do you mean "reveal their true colours" anyway?
means that alot of countrys dislike america for one reason or another. and this war and bushes plan to wipe out terrorism has more poeple realize this. also alot of countries dislike reflect in their actions.
As for the rest of the world thing, remeber France and Germany and those chaps being against the invasion. They suspected there might be nuclear weapons as well, but they felt their suspicions were not satrong enough to base a war on. That'd be the equailent of suspecting someone might have the plans and and weaponry to take oyut a policestatio, and then go in guns flaring, only to found out that what the druggie told you was false, and al he are some old cartridges to a hunting rifle he sold. Well, not the best parallell, but you get the point.
the fact that france and germany are key suspects in the oil for food scandal, does not make you think they had other reason to be against the war?
As for the prison thing, I'm nott even going to point out how well that went after the Coalition got contol of them. Or the sudden ban on camera mobiles and the razing to the ground of a prison. denial anyone?
parading prisoners around naked is not as bad as cutting off there hands, torturing prisoners with pincers, killing them with wild dogs, cutting out there eyeballs and tonghts, and using dull knives to extract teeth, thats what went on before the Coalition got control of it.
now you have to understand what these solder go through. they are shot at, car bomb, killed while trying to help pregnent women, alot of them dont get to bathe for weeks on end, some dont get to eat everyday so when they capture some one who may know something that may save their friends lives wouldn't you try to get that information by any means? IT'S war and war is UGLY no amount of accords or conventions will ever change that. this war is far better then having terrorist know they can get away with things like 9/11. because if they think they can control the world through terror they will try even harder next time they get a chance. And the point of this war is to not give these terrorist another chance but death instead.
as for razing it, its one saddams torture prisons and poeple cant stop thinking about that as a symbol saddams power that still insights fear, and it still reeks of blood of the countless poeple killed there.
but since this string is supposed to be one on John Kerry let me list my personal reasons why I dont want him in office.
he lies, and is not very good at it, and i cant trust poeple who lie.
Example: he said he did not throw his medals, after he got back from vietnam, then a video appears of him saying he did exactly that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118142,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html
he wants big goverment, and i dont want that.
Example: at every campain stop he makes promises of a different bill for goverment to fix poeple problems.
He wants to downsize the army and i dont want that.
Explanation: he has consistantly voted agianst any bill to fund the military.
his Priorities are not strait, which is not a good sign to me.
Explanation: during recent votes he was off campaining when his vote would have actualy made a difference.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2004, 06:58:06 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Moronic Maria :D
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 31
Hi sup
|
EDIT: I removed this post just for the sake of preventing a potential flame war. This probably came as offending to some people and nothing more than a mindless attack against against Bio Slayer. I'm tense at the moment, so I apologize for being an idiot. I got a bit offended myself and started rambling off. Thanks for tolerating me, anywho, for those who have already seen the original post. ACK.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2004, 10:35:52 am by funkmunkey »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
Once again, against my better judgement:
these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11. As someone who knew people who were in the Twin Towers on that day, I'd appreciate it highly if you did not presume to say what I would or would not do to a given person on a given day.
America is NOT a democracy it is a republic. so you can get killed by speaking your mind in the wrong place, to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time. Your premise has absolutely nothing to do with your conclusion. Are you at all familiar with how to engage in a debate? By the sheer volume of illogic present in your posts, I'm guessing not.
means that alot of countrys dislike america for one reason or another. and this war and bushes plan to wipe out terrorism has more poeple realize this. also alot of countries dislike reflect in their actions. You know what really pisses other countries off? Bombing them. A close second: asking for their approval to bomb someone, and when they balk and ask for more evidence, telling them to kiss our red, white and blue asses, then doing it anyways.
the fact that france and germany are key suspects in the oil for food scandal, does not make you think they had other reason to be against the war? You mean, reasons other than thinking that the evidence we presented may not have been 100% factual? In hindsight, it's a much more plausible explanation than trying to cover up some shady international indiscretions, and has the added benefit of not ruling that out, either.
parading prisoners around naked is not as bad as cutting off there hands, torturing prisoners with pincers, killing them with wild dogs, cutting out there eyeballs and tonghts, and using dull knives to extract teeth, thats what went on before the Coalition got controll of it Your position is utterly indefensible. I'd prefer to not even dignify it with a response, but since I fear even such simple concepts as these require explaining to you, I'll spell it out for you: we should not have been torturing prisoners at all. Period.
now you have to understand what these solder go through. If I want to know what a soldier is going through, and how it affects their worldview, I'll ask one. I suggest that you do the same; I have a sneaking suspicion that you have not served in the military. At any rate, "they're getting shot at" is not an effective rationale for torturing people. I can't believe that I should even have to make such an assertion; such things should be obvious to every American.
IT'S war and war is UGLY no amount of accords or conventions will ever change that. this war is far better then having terrorist know they can get away with things like 9/11. Ahh, this is very similar to the "we're in a war, so shut your cakehole" defense. To go off on a bit of a tangent, I'd like to point out that I especially enjoy the false dichotomy that people who use arguments such as these present: either you support the invasion completely, or you are against the invasion completely. No room is ever made for the obvious third viewpoint, "I don't like the way it's being handled"
as for razing it, its one saddams torture prisons and poeple cant stop thinking about that as a symbol saddams power that still insights fear, and it still reeks of blood of the countless poeple killed there. Of course. It must be Saddam's legacy. It couldn't possibly be because even after he was removed from power, the torture continued there, under the guise of "liberation"
he lies, and is not very good at it, and i cant trust poeple who lie.
Example: he said he did not throw his medals, after he got back from vietnam, then a video appears of him saying he did exactly that. I see; a "lie" that could just as easily be a man correcting past statements is an unforgivable sin, but lying about whether or not a country is seeking uranium in Africa to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, as a justification for a military invasion in which thousands are killed, is A-OK. Nice logic.
he wants big goverment, and i dont want that.
Example: at every campain stop he makes promises of a different bill for goverment to fix poeple problems. And just what do you call the Department of Homeland Security? Or the PATRIOT Act? Regarding the latter, Kerry has spoken out against it, and has pledged to work to have it repealed, which means that a Democrat wants to limit the scope of government power, and a Republican wants to expand it. I'm sure that a fact such as this must tear your overly-simplistic worldview to pieces.
He wants to downsize the army and i dont want that.
Explanation: he has consistantly voted agianst any bill to fund the military. You might want to actually look at his voting record, rather than parroting what Fox News says about his voting record. He voted in favour of a 4.8% pay raise for the military in 1999. He voted for an increase in veterans' benefits in 2003. And unlike our current commander-in-chief, he has actually seen combat; which makes me more inclined to trust his judgement about putting troops in harms' way, as he has been there himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
|
|
Moronic Maria :D
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 31
Hi sup
|
Sorry about that. I apologize if I came off angry in my first post, as well as in the response, and if I disrespected any of the members here (Bio Slayer and probably everyone else). Thanks for tolerating my stupidity. Considering the attack from guest member "Smarter then you", I feel a bit reluctant to further posting here. Unless some people won't mind having an obnoxious teenager around, which seems unlikely. Kind of embarassed.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2004, 01:41:28 pm by funkmunkey »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moronic Maria :D
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 31
Hi sup
|
I was angry there for a moment and I posted some mindless rambling. I browse through here every once in a while. Don't mind me, I get pretty hotheaded. As I see it, everything is cleared up now, but seems I've attracted a guest poster/weirdo stalker audience due to my stupidity. Yikes.
But anyways, thanks for the reassurance.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2004, 01:05:26 pm by funkmunkey »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
then let this "fool" post you a hypothetical question?
Lets say as the result of grusome torture, of the worse kind, of one terrorist the Coalition learns of a location, and destination of a thermo-nuclear bomb of a 6 Megaton payload, that is on its way to the city of Tokyo, Japan, as the result The Coalition is able to stop a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a roadside car bomb.
now would the torturing of that prisoner be justified? or should the Coalition let 35 million people die, because they are not allowed to extract information the necessary infomation to stop the bomb?
EDIT: made me do it again this thread is suppose to be about john kerry.
Ok, so we had torture, now where are the lives that were saved thanks to it?
I'm not asking for 35 milion. 100 people will be fine. Too much? how about 50? ... 25?
In the example that you provided torture would be justified because it saved many people. But torturing Iraqis didn't accomplish anything.
Also I noticed that you keep evading harder questions. Could you please state your opinion about the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act and (allow me to add something from meself) the "Free Speech Zones"?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Good Grief
|
I believe this thread started as a place to debate
Bush vs. Kerry. However, somehow, it seems to
have gotten _completely_ side tracked by the Iraqi
war, flames, insults and illogical rants.
That being said, I have to admit that I'm not American
and there for don't really care which (Kerry or Bush)
is elected. I think that Bush is likely to win the
upcoming election, but I don't have a stake in it either way.
I believe that Chris Rock summed up the reason for
my indifference better than I could myself. He was
quoted as saying in a Rolling Stone interview:
"Harlem will always be Harlem and Compton will always
be Compton".
Basically, regardless of who wins the election, nothing important will really change as a result.
Last, but not least, I'd like to point out that (democracy or republic) the US of A has a representive government. As such
its elected officals represent a large potion of the population of that country. If its people have a problem with one offical or the other, I think they should closely examine themselves...and their neighbors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What sound does a penguin make?
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
then let this "fool" post you a hypothetical question?
Lets say as the result of grusome torture, of the worse kind, of one terrorist the Coalition learns of a location, and destination of a thermo-nuclear bomb of a 6 Megaton payload, that is on its way to the city of Tokyo, Japan, as the result The Coalition is able to stop a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a roadside car bomb.
now would the torturing of that prisoner be justified? or should the Coalition let 35 million people die, because they are not allowed to extract information the necessary infomation to stop the bomb?
Yes, please do propose a hypothetical, at your leisure. I should point out that the above is not an example of one, it is an example of "begging the question"; assuming that that your conclusions are true in your premise, rather than proving your premise to be true. If you're already torturing people in your hypothetical (indiscriminately, it would seem, since you provided no hypothetical numbers), then there is no choice to be made.
But coming up with narrowly-defined "nightmare scenarios" is utterly pointless, because for every one of those, there would be thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands of cases where the wrong people are tortured, and in your scenario, in the most gruesome manner possible, for no reason whatsoever.
As professional interrogators have said since the Spanish Inquisition, torture is not a reliable means of extracting information from suspects or prisoners. People will gladly tell you anything you want to know if you torture them enough, regardless of whether it's true or not. People who actually know what they are doing will use more proven methods of getting people to talk; and in the case of finding out where the hypothetical 6 megaton nuclear device is located, I'd want that information to be as accurate as possible, especially if the clock is ticking.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
|
Deep Jiffa Owns j00!
