Another Four Years? (2370 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.22 on 143 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Judoka (View user info) at 2004-10-05 09:04:16 EDT
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work. You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loves ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife." - President George W. Bush.
Is there any doubt about who won the debate? Above is an example of a thoughtful and articulate response from our commander in chief. This quote from our erudite President should settle the matter. To be fair as a teacher I deal with learning disabled students everyday. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush has some sort of learning disability, probably aphasia of some sort. So I can understand some strangled diction. I do a unit on public speaking/speeches as part of my language arts curriculum. My students, who have severe learning disabilities, show a greater fluency than our President. That's not right. While it is true that neither of the candidates were perfect in their delivery, that quote is beyond the pale. Content wise it is the incoherent ramblings of a man who doesn't know what to say. It was actually painful to watch.
"The best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year."- President George W. Bush.
Who does he think he is kidding? Our Commander in Chief seems to suffering under the delusion that those figures have a basis in reality. According to Pentagon documents recently obtained by Reuters, only 22,700 Iraqi forces have received enough training to be considered even "minimally effective." Barely 8,000 of the 90,000-strong police force have completed a full eight weeks of training--after a year and a half of occupation. And perhaps most significantly, while Bush promised 200,000 Iraqis would be trained by the end of the next year, the documents state that it will take until July 2006 to train 135,000 Iraqi police officers. Are we prepared to endure another 1,000+ soldiers killed? The death of American service men and women bothers me, but not nearly as much as the impression that Bush doesn't have a clue as to what's going on in Iraq.
Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come. We have made a sensitive and unstable region even more volatile. That is a dubious achievement that is unparalleled in US history.
Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. 87 times. The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it Baathists, disaffected Iraqis and Al Queda are inflicting serious damage. Not so much on our military, but on America's prestige.
While it is true that I was not a supporter of the Iraq war, but I was in favor of military action in Afghanistan. And we did a half assed job there. We should have stomped the Taliban into the ground and established airtight borders while special ops teams hunted bin Laden down and killed him. Once that was accomplished we should have turned around and said, 'if you fuck with America will find you and kill you. Any country that aids and abets terrorists will receive the same treatment as Afghanistan.'
Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is locked up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq (and across the globe)?
The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.
Regardless whether you think Bush has his 'heart in the right place.' He has done an awful job managing and prosecuting this war. I ask you, how can Kerry do worse?
User Reviews
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-01-03 20:12:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:11:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
very VERY well put, Josh.
You've got my vote.
Submitted by Clay Trainum <Clay.Trainum.at.gmail.com> at 2004-10-10 18:03:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very insightful.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-10-09 10:41:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for elections. Is it November 3rd yet?
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-09 10:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jessica_michaele (user info) at 2004-10-09 00:47:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Although I applaud you for your attempt to educate people on this issue...I have to wonder if you have any life at all to type that out for a website...
Jessica darling, I am a teacher. I derive satisfaction from both learning and especially teaching. When you grow up perhaps this will be easier to comprehend.
Submitted by DanielH (user info) at 2004-10-09 01:04:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Bush couldn't have gotten into college without his dad's help, his SAT's were way too low. He's a literally certified moron, and am I'm
suprised his opponent never brought this up. +2 for for the democrats tonight. Bush went into office with an agenda to oust Iraq's leqder, because he had thratebed his dad's life. Bush is easy to see through as glass, and scary. To really know the "news" listen to netural broadcast from around the world, not pre-paid American puppet stations like Fox.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Sepsis (user info) at 2004-10-09 01:00:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hmm. i can't remember if i already rated this.
Submitted by jessica_michaele (user info) at 2004-10-09 00:47:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Although I applaud you for your attempt to educate people on this issue...I have to wonder if you have any life at all to type that out for a website...
Submitted by original_cola (user info) at 2004-10-08 23:53:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the entire middle east is just fucked up from all of their wars and terrorists that like the hang out over there. We need to pull out of there and just nuke the entire place. Once 30 years have past and the radiation is gone we then claim the land as ours. There, it was that simple. haha
Submitted by Perplexd (user info) at 2004-10-08 10:51:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read here.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-10-08 09:24:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Sideburns (user info) at 2004-10-08 03:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess it's time for me to throw my two cents into the ring. Why not? Everyone else has something to say, I might as well say something. Why, you ask? Because I'm on the MVA. On Uber, that's like being a celebrity.
Everybody knows that we all care about the political views of celebrities. So that means Uber will care what I have to say--
If you, for one second, were going to reply to this and berade me because I made the above comments, please meet my best friend-- Sarcasm. He's a nice guy. Quite shy at times.
Why did we go to war? The President said himself that it was because Iraq was harboring WMD's. As the war got underway, he made several speeches inquiring that we were 'this much' closer to acquiring the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now, more than a year into the war-- Oops... no WMD's, huh Mr. Bush?
He suddenly changed his platform on the reason he went to war in the first place. Now he says he invaded Iraq because they had the TECHNOLOGY to manufacture WMDs. Not only that, but his only defense was that "they were an imminent threat."
Let me say this-- HOW MANY FUCKING COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Lots. Inluding North Korea and China. Why don't we attack them? They're alot bigger than Iraq.
If we hadn't gone to war, I doubt we'd read in the newspaper--
''IRAQ CREATES HUGE WMD. WORLD AT RISK."
C'mon, it's fucking Iraq people.
Bottom line-- we went to war. Many of us sit here and pretend like we know what the hell's going on over there and why we should or shouldn't have gone to war. What do I say to that?
Shut the hell up. Stop complaining about something that's already happened over a year ago. Let's start coming up with solutions for the future.
What would have happened if we hadn't attacked Iraq? Who knows.
Therefore, everyone's opinion here-- including mine.... doesn't really matter at all.
Now, does it?
-Sideburns
Submitted by TheMidnight12AM (user info) at 2004-10-07 23:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
w00t. It has a positive rating because it bashes Bush.
Speaking of clones...
Submitted by Freight_Train (user info) at 2004-10-07 23:33:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PIECE OF SHIT BUSH IS BETTER THAN YOU
Submitted by IamNotTheWorldTradeCenter (user info) at 2004-10-07 17:17:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"87 Times a day? Just to clear things up a bit, everytime some dumbass with an AK pops rounds in the air when a convoy rolls through counts as an attack, we aren't getting our asses kicked nearly as much as you say"
Tell that to my fucking cousin-in-law who can't walk any more, faggot.
The fact is, any reason you can use to justify the invasion can be applied to Iran and North Korea as well. And both of those countries have REAL WMD.
Invading Iraq only strengthens and enboldens those two countries. It was a strategic mistake.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-07 17:17:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes I wrote this, I used several internet sources to formulate my article.
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-07 16:32:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so hey, did you actually write this?
remember, honesty is the best policy
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-07 16:00:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:38:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:22:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was justified. America was the clear aggressor in both cases.
==========================================================================================
If you're going to smart off to the Heah Nun....you better make damn sure you're out of Yardstick range... "
Can someone explain what the fuck this guy is talking about?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-07 13:44:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-10-07 08:31:54 (#)
Ranking: 1
There's not much of a place for Kerry to go. I imagine Kerry will do the same as Bush with regard to the war in Iraq, but I think our standing in the international community will -- superficially -- improve.
As far as a reason for voting goes, my vote's on domestic issues.
=================================================================
agreed. i'm voting for Kerry for the same reason. i'd like to see some domestic issues looked at.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-07 09:51:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah, whats the difference between a little ass kicking and a major one?
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-07 09:49:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jack- I respectfully disagree, we had bin Laden cornered in the mountains (tora bora)so interdicting the border is possible. The mere fact that we hunted this murdering prick down would, in my opinion, do alot of good on the deterence front.
NotNormal and the other retard-how about I fire one little fully automatic AK 47 in your direction, and we will see how 'minor' you think that is.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-10-07 08:31:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
There's not much of a place for Kerry to go. I imagine Kerry will do the same as Bush with regard to the war in Iraq, but I think our standing in the international community will -- superficially -- improve.
As far as a reason for voting goes, my vote's on domestic issues.
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-07 08:10:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Gillespie <jarretttai.at.hotmail.com> at 2004-10-07 04:33:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
87 Times a day? Just to clear things up a bit, everytime some dumbass with an AK pops rounds in the air when a convoy rolls through counts as an attack, we aren't getting our asses kicked nearly as much as you say.
-Gillespie
Iraq
Thank You Gillespie, I am vindicated.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2004-10-07 06:53:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You make some good points, so I will not -2 this. However:
While it is true that I was not a supporter of the Iraq war, but I was in favor of military action in Afghanistan. And we did a half assed job there. We should have stomped the Taliban into the ground and established airtight borders while special ops teams hunted bin Laden down and killed him. Once that was accomplished we should have turned around and said, 'if you fuck with America will find you and kill you. Any country that aids and abets terrorists will receive the same treatment as Afghanistan.'
We simply can't do this. The ghan's borders are so porous it would take an army twice the size of the one we have to do the job if not more. I should know, as I spent three of my six months there humping the border between ghan and pakistan.
Submitted by Goulash (user info) at 2004-10-07 05:29:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Gillespie <jarretttai.at.hotmail.com> at 2004-10-07 04:33:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
87 Times a day? Just to clear things up a bit, everytime some dumbass with an AK pops rounds in the air when a convoy rolls through counts as an attack, we aren't getting our asses kicked nearly as much as you say.
-Gillespie
Iraq
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-07 02:37:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and again, you say something completely IGNORANT.
Matt, do you know that you have no idea what you are talking about, or are you really this stupid?
"also... hitler and his men were kind enough to go along with geneva conventions in the war. (in the war part of it... not the murderous rampage part of it)
these people are doing nothing of the sort."
Hitler had an army. a real freakin' army. we aren't fighting an army. we are fighting regular Iraqis that picked up a weapon to fight because they don't want us there. if someone invaded your country and made it worse than it was before, wouldn't you want to fight to get them to leave too? anyway, the point is, the geneva conventions doesn't apply. join the military so maybe you can learn a little more about it.
sometimes irony is pretty funny, huh? they are fighting because they want us to leave, and we're there to fight because there's still fighting to do. NEWSFLASH- there will always be fighting to do. it's called an insurgency. Iraq will be destroyed by this. you can change change a country, but you can't change it's people. that's like if you were at church and some army comes in and says, "ok, we decided what's best for you since you couldn't do it on your own. you're all buddhists now!" do you honestly think we can just march in there, kill a bunch of people and blow a bunch of shit up and say "ok, you're a democracy now!" Bush keeps saying "it's hard work. it's hard work." to convince the American people that although things are bad now, it's going to take time and hard work (and more importantly, your tax dollars), but eventually Iraq is going to be some awesome place. what he doesn't understand is that this is Babylonian soil we're talking about. it's been there for thousands of years and things haven't changed much in the ways of the people living there, and it ain't gonna change now.
here's some food for thought- if another country came to America and tried to change it, do you think it would happen? hell no, right? same goes for Iraq. i know a lot of Americans think we are doing the right thing (we're liberating the Iraqis, but we have to kill them to do it), but we are just a country invading another country, plain and simple. this is not altruism. Bush is not some benevolent philanthropist. we are invading Iraq, and the Iraqis are pissed. i know you hear a lot of stories about how awesome we are for helping them, even from the troops that come back from there. but how about the stories from the troops that you don't hear about? like how my buddy said a guy came up to him asking for water for his family, and he shot him dead in front of his family because he was ordered to? man, we are really doing a great job of liberating them, aren't we?
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-10-06 23:53:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OH NOES!!! 1000 people dead!!!
you know in world war 2, there were 35,000 deaths?
every day?
also... hitler and his men were kind enough to go along with geneva conventions in the war. (in the war part of it... not the murderous rampage part of it)
these people are doing nothing of the sort.
Submitted by boredgurl210 (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:48:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Favorite Bushism:
I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
I didn't know we weren't.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:38:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:22:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was justified. America was the clear aggressor in both cases.
==========================================================================================
If you're going to smart off to the Heah Nun....you better make damn sure you're out of Yardstick range...
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:22:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was justified. America was the clear aggressor in both cases.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:17:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I swear, a High School student must have come up with Kurds and Shiites.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:16:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"The war in Afghanistan is one of justified retribution; the war in Iraq is an unjustified invasion."
===================================================================================================
Read the 9/11 report, mook
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
Submitted by amos_olson (user info) at 2004-10-06 17:07:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Here are some facts to mull over while you make up your opinions:
http://icasualties.org
For the past 18 months, about 2 US soldiers have died every single day in Iraq (on average). 15 soldiers a day are injured, more than half of them seriously injured. Before you try to say otherwise, go take a look at the press releases, names, and circumstances...they're all public record.
Members of my family are currently deployed in Iraq. Every day they are less sure of why they are there; Iraq harbored no WMDs, had no connection with 9/11, and certainly could not threaten us in any immediate sense.
The war in Afghanistan is one of justified retribution; the war in Iraq is an unjustified invasion.
Submitted by queensowntalia (user info) at 2004-10-06 16:25:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, its the same with both sides. There are people on both liberal and conservative sides who consider the other side to be complete morons.
And there are people on both sides who acknowledge they just disagree.
Please dont generalize.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-10-06 16:21:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dare I say.........has anyone in here actually READ the 9/11 Commission REPORT...you should if you haven't.....Bottom line......Bush did the right thing.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-10-06 16:18:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NotNormal, did you fail to address what I said because you know I'm right, and you have absolutely no sources to back up your claims, and that you are, in fact, a douchebag?
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-06 16:09:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference being you spouted some spurious claims, and then accused me of hating America. And you wonder why people think your an asshole. It has nothing to do with your conservative beliefs and evrything to do with your idiotic statements.
By the way substitute 'neo-con beliefs' in the staement below and it still holds true.
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-10-06 15:26:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sing it, brudda!
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-06 12:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<man, this guy is an idiot. he should change his name to "NotNormalBrainpower".
just stop, NotNormal. give it up. the things you say keep getting dumber and dumber>
Hidden, I will give it up. But, one more comment. Liberalism is just like Religion. You believe what you believe and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot.
Submitted by WRECKER (user info) at 2004-10-06 11:25:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
AlwaysAnEagle
AND FUCK ALL YOU YANKEES FANS BECAUSE IT'S THE POST SEASON AND I CAN'T HANDLE LIFE RIGHT NOW.
----------------
yeah, damn staight.
as for the post, nice, i like it. i am really starting to change my view and am slowly leaning towards Kerry each and evey day. this was very well- thought and a hell of a lot better than "kerry suxx0rz and likes t3h pen0r bush iz r0xx0rz !!111oneone" thanks man.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-06 10:25:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-06 09:31:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
How's this for a "Fact": 10 out of 10 terrorists agree Anybody But Bush.
I realise my conservative views place me in the minority here in Uberland. The "Fact" is I am twice the age of most Uberers. But, really, Judoka's opinions (based on his fabricated "Facts") are those of a terrorist sympathiser. He is clearly pissed off as hell that the US is fighting back against the milleniums old Islamic struggle to impose Muslim law worldwide.
Judoka, tell us all, why does it make you so angry to see the US fight it's enemies?
==============================================================
man, this guy is an idiot. he should change his name to "NotNormalBrainpower".
just stop, NotNormal. give it up. the things you say keep getting dumber and dumber.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-06 10:16:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NotNormal:
Um, yeah, that must be why jihadists are claiming they want Bush in office. Why?
"The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: 'We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.'"
"The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's 'idiocy and religious fanaticism' because they would 'wake up' the Islamic world."
"The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.'"
"In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.'"
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-06 10:15:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NotNormal you are a shmuck. First, I am a Jew I dont particulary like the Arabic states (plus Iran)nothing would make me happier than to see them reduced to rubble. But unlike you I can allow my frontal lobes to mitigate my base insticts. Second, I doubt you are twice my age. But I am sure that you have half my education if your reading comprehension is anything to go by. Third, As I have staated befor I was in favor of the war against the Taliban controlled Afganistan. I believe that the Iraq war is a waste of resources and contrary to the stated objective of securing our liberty.
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-06 09:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How's this for a "Fact": 10 out of 10 terrorists agree Anybody But Bush.
I realise my conservative views place me in the minority here in Uberland. The "Fact" is I am twice the age of most Uberers. But, really, Judoka's opinions (based on his fabricated "Facts") are those of a terrorist sympathiser. He is clearly pissed off as hell that the US is fighting back against the milleniums old Islamic struggle to impose Muslim law worldwide.
Judoka, tell us all, why does it make you so angry to see the US fight it's enemies?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 23:29:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
**Attacks over the past two weeks have killed more than 250 Iraqis and 29 U.S. military personnel, according to figures released by Iraq's Health Ministry and the Pentagon. A sampling of daily reports produced during that period by Kroll Security International for the U.S. Agency for International Development shows that such attacks typically number about 70 each day. In contrast, 40 to 50 hostile incidents occurred daily during the weeks preceding the handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, according to military officials**
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50259-2004Sep25.html
So well typically number 70 from this source, course it may be more, may be less that's probably what they mean by "typically number".
What is the point? Was the point there that the war on Iraq IS going well? Oh yea, just peachy things are just great there, not too bad in Afghanistan either now that a whole 16,000 troops are on the job.
I think what we're missing here is a vast untapped recourse that perhaps we should all examine more closely, namely THE BOY SCOUTS.
oh yes yes indeed now follow me here
Look here is the Boy Scout pledge, "On my honor, I will do my best. To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. "
AHA they are swearing to do their duty by their county, well I say we take them up on it and send the little fuckers to Iraq. If they are all like the ones in my neighborhood, in days the Iraqis will surrender just to get rid of them.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-10-05 23:14:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:22:41 (#)
Ranking: -2
<Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. 87 times.>
Fabrications like this discredit everything you say. Everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice job backing up your accusations, there, dipshit. I'd like you to please prove to me that this number was fabricated. Go on. What? What's that? You can't? Because you're a moron who likes to pull random falsities out of his ass? Oh. That's kind of what I thought, anyway. Douchebag.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-10-05 22:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 21:53:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
Since everyone here seems to know all the answers, I would like an honest explaination of the differences between Iraq invading Kuwait and the US invading Iraq.
***
The Iraqis had a good battle plan.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 21:53:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Since everyone here seems to know all the answers, I would like an honest explaination of the differences between Iraq invading Kuwait and the US invading Iraq.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2004-10-05 19:06:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is NO efficient way to occupy and democratize a country that in many ways is the polar opposite of our own.
The problem with people is that they are too short sighted - consider this: We defeated Japan and Germany almost 60 years ago, and yet we still have troops there. People need to realize this isn't going to happen overnight - you don't just 'train' people in a matter of months - it takes years of experience. Was the war right to begin with? Maybe, maybe not - but it's too late now for that, the only issue is where do we go from here. I have yet to hear Kerry say how he will do all this faster and more efficient than Bush - except by "bringing the allies back to the table", except of course the ones whom he snubbed by saying their contributions meant nothing (smooth move, ex lax) and also by being a media whore and giving the troops better flak jackets. We all know flak jackets will protect you when a Molotov cocktail is thrown into your Hum-Vee. Maybe Kerry will draw upon his vast boating experience and pilot a boat through the... Iraqi desert?
Submitted by sjmanikt (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:44:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:19:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
What if Kerry brings along a barnyard animal with him to the next election, and fornicates with it on stage? Did you think of that? Wouldn't that be worse? So vote Bush.
----------
Nator: No, it wouldn't. And the probability is much higher that Dubya would do this than Kerry, anyway.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thank you.
I just forwarded that to everyone I know.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:19:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What if Kerry brings along a barnyard animal with him to the next election, and fornicates with it on stage? Did you think of that? Wouldn't that be worse? So vote Bush.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shwartze you forgot didn't. As in you didn't have a chance when you stepped to me.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Slovin its sarcasm you idiot.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:13:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And again.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:13:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HA! Just kidding.
Excellence.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-10-05 17:12:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Above is an example of a thoughtful and articulate response from our commander in chief."
Did you actually watch the debate, or did you just read the transcript?
During no point in the debate could Bush be described as "articulate," and "thoughtful" implies he's saying something new.
He wasn't and he didn't.
Submitted by sjmanikt (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:54:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
One last thing I just had to share here:
"My concerns about the Senator is that, in the course of this campaign I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war on Iraq. It's a -- changes positions on something as ff -- fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts is right for -- in Iraq. I -- you cannot lead if you send mexed miss -- mixed messages."
-- Dubya sending mexed missages of his own in the First Presidential Debate, Coral Gables, Florida, Sep. 30, 2004
For a nearly infinite supply of these to rebut all sorts of blind Bush supporters, take a gander over here:
http://www.dubyaspeak.com
Submitted by queensowntalia (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:44:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Agree.
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:39:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good post...you expressed what a lot of people are thinking.
From my experience (22 years in the military) I'd like to point out that military members are presented a very conservative spin on all world events. This spin trickles down from the top of the command structure and isn't open to discussion as it is presented to the lower ranking members. Of course anyone is allowed to think differently if they so wish, but they will be ostracized by their peers and by their commanders alike.
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:38:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
YOU'RE
an ass.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:23:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:22:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You didnt compare the two wars, right. You only implied that if I had supported the first Gulf War I was morally obligated to support the second. Your analogy was so crude perhaps I didnt completely understand your point. No wait, I did. Youre an idiot.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:20:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:11:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
Hopefully, the debate last week showed not only that Kerry can't do worse, but that he could also do better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, his attacks on the Saudis are sure going to help America. If Kerry is elected you will instantly see a backlash from Saudi royalty. I guarantee this. They will want Kerry's admin to feel the crunch immediately to know "whos boss" when it comes to oil.
Next... North Korea. Bilateral talks? Stupid. Failed when Clinton was in charge, and it will fail now. It's what North Korea wants. Who cares if they don't live up to their end of the bargain? The USA is helpless to respond. Get China involved.... and things are different. China is the #1 key to fixing the North Korean problem. The more pressure you put on China, the more pressure can be put on North Korea. Nobody else can do nearly as much.
Israel? What's going to happen there? Is Kerry going to fix the problems in that region? I wonder why I have not heard much out of the Kerry camp involving Israel. Either one of two things: He will stay with the same course of actions taking place or else he is going to shock Israel. Knowing that the most liberal of democrats hate jews.... It's obvious what would happen if he takes that attitude. Of course, he still has ties to business and such....so who knows.
Economy? Oh yes. Nailing the rich to the wall is going to help us greatly. And having a trial-lawyer as VP is going to send a good message to the pro-lawsuit crowd.
Kerry can do worse.... Much worse.
This is no endorsement of Bush. But anyone who says "anyone but bush" and "kerry can't do worse" is uninformed and ignorant. Now if you believe he can do better, please vote for him. But never just lay out a blanket statement "He can't do worse." because what happens if he does worse? Have you been to the future to see the outcome? It is entirely possible so that statement is worthless.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:15:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well done
Submitted by sjmanikt (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:13:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just a follow up to a comment on here:
---------------
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:51:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
You brought up the debates. I'm interested in your opinion on tonight's vice-Presidential debate. Suppose Cheney CRUSHES Edwards into the ground. How significant do you think that will be. Also, if Bush has done such a rotten job with Iraq, why are military personnel polling for Bush at a 4-1 margin. 4-1, mind you, that's well outside any margin of error.
----------
First, 4-1 is not "outside any margin of error." Unless you use some weird form of statistical sampling where the number four is the symbol of perfection or something.
Next, it's no wonder that the military backs Bush. The military is an inherently conservative set of organizations. You don't go far in the military if it sounds like you don't support the chain of command. And, uh...who do you think sits at the top of the chain of command? God and country, brother. Semper fi and all that.
So what you SHOULD be asking is why did that 1 out of 5 break ranks?! Because another way of looking at your (admittedly unsubstantiated) number is that 20% of the military thinks Bush is a fucking moron and needs to go.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 16:09:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh for fuck's sake. You didn't even read what I wrote. I didn't say the attacks weren't increasing, I didn't COMPARE the first war to the second.
This is what I mean. Judoka, your pathetic attempts to sound intelligent and your temper has hindered your ability to see the subtext of my reply.
Replying to this piece of shit is a waste of time.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:55:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Normally I wouldnt bother repling to such drivel, but in your case Shwatze_Glas Ill make an exception.
1) The insurgency- The number of attacks are not increasing? I found the 87 figure in several reputable sources. No matter how hard you wish it away that figure, and all the other figures will stand up to scrutiny.
2) Again the insurgency- the coordinated car bombs and the targeted attacks dont reveal a sophisticated plan to you? What exactly does it take for you believe?
3) Afganistan- we are there but we have reduced our troop level to the point were we have ceded major portions of the country to warlord and thugs. The same petri dish from whence the Taliban sprang.
4)Again Afganistan- You fool, I didn't even imply that the the war there would be easy. In fact I'm pretty sure it would be a long and adrous campaign. But we neededto finish the job there before looking for another fight.
5) Screw Turkey we have the ability to project force, we should have done it.
6)To compare the first Gulf War with this clusterfuck is beyond stupid. Different time, different place and a different set of circumstances.
If you want to be embarassed further I would be glad to refute any thing else you manage to come up with.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:29:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
your first reply was challenged. anyone can make a broad statement like that without knowing a goddamn about what they are talking about. we wanted to see if you had a real, honest, valuable opinion.
-Understood.
so next time you can just keep your mouth shut and post a -2 like the rest of the herd.
-I will continue to post/review however the fuck I want. Get used to it.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:39:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Efficient??? After ALL of the dictionary reading you do - that's the WORST (and most insensitive) term you could've used.
Listen. I am at work, I cannot really take the time to back this up. If the three of you are REALLY curious, I'll post something a little more solid.
Your entire post is based on negatively charged and biased media reporting.
"The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down" - this is PURE speculation. What the fuck makes you think you can accurately measure this statement? Do you believe everything you're "told?"
"If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day." Ah. Do you work for them or something? I'd assume so, since you know such statements are true (enough to put them to writing). What are US soldiers doing in the meantime - weakening and disorganizing?? Come on.
Afghanistan - I've got news for your pal - we're still there. And we're not doing a half-assed job - no matter what CNN/Kerry tell you. You should be smacked for this fucking statement, you ignorant fuck. When you THINK you weaken our nation.
"Once that was accomplished" - That's right, easy as pie!
"we should have turned around and said, 'if you fuck with America will find you and kill you." - we did - and even TURKEY denied us a fucking landing strip.
Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is locked up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq (and across the globe)?
Lemme guess - you were in favor of the first Gulf War weren't you? I bet you weren't as verbose then.
I will not even grace the rest of this with a response. I haven't the time for such typical, played out, trendy drivel.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:29:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you seem to have plenty of time in your workday, mr. busy. afterall, you had time to read this whole post and give several replies to it.
face it- you have nothing to say, and that is exactly why your first reply was challenged. anyone can make a broad statement like that without knowing a goddamn about what they are talking about. we wanted to see if you had a real, honest, valuable opinion, but so far you have proven you do not.
so next time you can just keep your mouth shut and post a -2 like the rest of the herd.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:22:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*sigh*
You're right - I rated/reviewed this by using a number between -2 and 2 and a sentence. That's all. I don't have to back up anything.
So what happens if I came across something I didn't like at all, yet couldn't make the time in my work day to type a well thought out and lengthy reply? I have to pass it up? I have to leave "no comments?"
Thanks for your advice regarding proper reviewing standards - although I will continue to review these bandwagon posts my own way - however the fuck I want.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:16:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This post was not intended as a referundum on Bush or the war on terror. The point I was trying to make was that I hold the opinion that the war in Iraq was a disaster from the faulty intelligence that provided the pretext to the looting that occured when we rolled into Bagdad to the current low intensity conflict that is ravaging the country. Rather than offer your opinion of Bush as a commander in chief, people have continued to argue if the war is justified. Well regardless it happened and right now American citizens are in harms way. Most placed there by the current CIC. Regardless of yolur political persuasion, do you think that this war is being conducted in an efficient manner?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Schwarzes_Glas, that was pretty funny. hahahah, you kicked my ass left and right.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:11:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"He wrote a post, I reviewed it."
"I just rated it."
no, here's how you "just rate" a post-
====================
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:03:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
no comment
====================
you didn't do that. you offered an opinion without any reasoning to back it up. all we were doing is asking for an explanation. if you don't want anyone to bother you with explanations, then don't offer an opinion. a "-2 no comment" will suffice.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 15:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:53:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
To be frank, I don't really like Judoka. I don't hate him either. What I really hate is when people pretend they are right and cower in a niche of denial.
Show some balls and tell us you are right please. Because if you are, we too want to be enligthened with the verity.
------------
What the hell does like have to do with it? WOW you're SO OPEN MINDED aren't you? So much so, you +2d him! Balls?! ??! By posting. Mm. Tell me, how does one really "show a brass set" when he doesn't even reveal his true name?
No one is cowering in a "niche of denial" (LoL). This wasn't my post - I just rated it. If I gave a shit what any of you thought, I would've posted something a little more in depth about my political beliefs. The truth is, no one here will EVER give the time of day to ANY post titled "I Support this War." This is fact.
Again. This wasn't my post, this was his. If I had a desire to tell uber what I feel is right, I would.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:54:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
post about the debate = http://www.ubersite.com/m/46687
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:53:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I am right, but I certainly don't feel like taking the time to explain my point to anyone here. He wrote a post, I reviewed it."
To be frank, I don't really like Judoka. I don't hate him either. What I really hate is when people pretend they are right and cower in a niche of denial.
Show some balls and tell us you are right please. Because if you are, we too want to be enligthened with the verity.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:35:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
huh?
he just offered a lot more than you did. if you're the one who is right, let's hear your stance on this subject.
------------
I am right, but I certainly don't feel like taking the time to explain my point to anyone here. He wrote a post, I reviewed it.
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:37:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah... still don't care. Well written, but you sounded like a bitch the whole way through.
Bittccccchhhhhhhhhhh.
Kill all them giraffes.
WOO PLUS TWO.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:35:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:18:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
Just another brainless idiot controlled by the media.
====================================================================
huh?
he just offered a lot more than you did. if you're the one who is right, let's hear your stance on this subject.
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:25:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I see the pro-war camp as intolerant, ethno-centrists who believe that democracy and/or "the American way" is really the best way and should be everyone elses' way."
-I wouldn't say that at anytime in my life have I been "pro-war". But I do think that military action was warrented base on the information that we had at the time.
to quote loki's article she linked:
*At the time President Bush went to war, Bremer said, the United States and other nations had intelligence suggesting that Saddam had:
*Provided a safe haven to terrorist groups.
*Used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people.
*Lied about the possession of weapons of mass destruction for almost a decade.
*No weapons inspection teams from the United Nations had been allowed in Iraq for almost four years, Bremer said, so there was a "real possibility" that Saddam might provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups that have vowed to kill Americans.
Why wait when we had that much information.
"If you're pro-war, then you probably think Bush is doing a good job and that the war has little to do with oil or massive reconstruction contracts."
-I think oil had plenty to do with it. And I don't really have a problem with that. It's the blood of our ecconomy. Ensuring it's future availability is important, until we figure out how to restructure the ecconomy away from it. I'll vote for any Rep. or Dem. that can fix that one.
Reconstruction contracts? I don't think that had much to do with it at all. From what I've come accross Haliburton is one of only two companies in the US that had the capacity to do the reconstruction job over there. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"You probably feel that our soldiers are not dying in vain and that most Iraqis are terrorists and deserve to die"
-right on the first one, wrong on the second. Civilians die in wars. It's inevitable. The question is how many inocent Iraqis would have died at the hands of Saddam anyway in the last 2 years? Maybe more, maybe less. But from Saddams history we know it would be plenty.
"You likely despise anyone that holds opinions contrary to yours and you go out of your way to point out just how wrong they are by pouring bottles of wine into the gutters or renaming foods or calling them Communists etc etc. Furthermore, you view contrary opinion as a threat to your security and the security of your country and you're more than willing to give up a slew of your own civil liberties to eliminate those threats."
-No, I thought that was silly.
I do not view contrary opinion as a threat. It's what America was in part founded on. It's why the Pilgrams left Europe and settled here.
The last sentance is just not correct in any fashion. People contrast Bush on a daily basis and do not get thrown in jail. That is way too broad of a statement.
"You believe that the "War on Terror" is a real war and that Iraq is the primary battleground."
I do think it's a real war and at the moment Iraq IS the primary battle ground, because Bush made it that way. Iraq is a magnet for terrorist groups right now. Keeping them occupied there is keeping the battleground from being here.
Have there been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11?
"You probably have a "Proud to be an American" or "God Bless the USA" sticker on your car. You probably watch a lot of Fox News. "
-No. No. and No.
+2 well written post
Submitted by icarus9mm (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:25:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:18:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
Just another brainless idiot controlled by the media.
-----------------------------------------------------
is this c/o Fox News, asswipe?
anyway...
i like the cut of your jib, Judoka. go here some time:
www.whodieswhopayswhoprofits.com
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:18:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Just another brainless idiot controlled by the media.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:08:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Rupert Murdoch baby!!! Seriously, I think every medias in the world are not doing their jobs. They've become more entertaining than informative. It feels like watching wrestling. Both sides talking shit and dumbass viewers rooting in their livingrooms. "U-S-A! U-S-A! w00t!" or "Down down america! Terrorists #1!!!"
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-10-05 14:01:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The thing about protesting here is that we don't get any sort of accurate media coverage. As an example from personal experience, the Women's Rights March in DC had a large amount of volunteers taking attendance basically to make sure their counts were correct. These people with clipboards were everywhere, with only 10 feet in between them and the next one. However, when the count was reported on the news, the figures came from the police who took estimates based on photos from helicopters. There were over a million people at the march, but the reports cut that number in half. Reporting like that takes the wind out of activism here. It gets no coverage. I'm sure the same thing happened with the anti-war protests in NYC, with the RNC protests, with everything like that.
This is a great post. There's more I'd love to comment on but I hate being long-winded.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I fucking hate politics.
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:54:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ain't that the truth!
hmmm...
Imagine if the media did not exist.
you can't - it's impossible to imagine because we're all so caught up in it.
The media is largely the problem here...
Do you think the government controls the media or vice versa?
It's the vice versa that scares me...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:51:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"It's good to know that the Canadian media can be as warped as the U.S. media sometimes :)"
Medias thrive for viewers. What would you show?
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:44:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
Zandy - These were not the images we saw. What we saw is millions of americans pouring wine in the gutters, bashing the dixie chicks and other retaliations against anyone who denounced the war initiative in the US or abroad.
While it was honorable of you to speak up, you were outnumbered by 10.
Just saying it as it was percieved.
--------------------------------------
It's good to know that the Canadian media can be as warped as the U.S. media sometimes :)
It's a shame you didn't see all of the peaceniks (myself included) marching in opposition to the war...perhaps those kinds of images, shown in other countries, would have helped the anti-war effort here in the U.S. But, alas...we'll never know.
The rift between the pro-war and anti-war folks just keeps growing larger and larger.
I see the pro-war camp as intolerant, ethno-centrists who believe that democracy and/or "the American way" is really the best way and should be everyone elses' way. If you're pro-war, then you probably think Bush is doing a good job and that the war has little to do with oil or massive reconstruction contracts. You probably feel that our soldiers are not dying in vain and that most Iraqis are terrorists and deserve to die. You likely despise anyone that holds opinions contrary to yours and you go out of your way to point out just how wrong they are by pouring bottles of wine into the gutters or renaming foods or calling them Communists etc etc. Furthermore, you view contrary opinion as a threat to your security and the security of your country and you're more than willing to give up a slew of your own civil liberties to eliminate those threats. You believe that the "War on Terror" is a real war and that Iraq is the primary battleground. You probably have a "Proud to be an American" or "God Bless the USA" sticker on your car. You probably watch a lot of Fox News.
If you're anti-war, your stance is probably exactly opposite everything described above, but you still might have a "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker.
any pro-war people out there, please refute the above - please tell me I'm wrong - please explain to me why you support the war. I really want to understand. Because, at this point, I feel like the above (or much of the above) is true - and that's some EVIL SHIT!
Submitted by Spiral_Abraxis (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:36:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Amen.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:32:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"We're not a nation of pussies who do what we're told, fuck authority. "
Amen to that.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:19:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Supreme Overlord - I've had plenty of schooling, thanks. But how technical do you want to get with the phrase "anything like?"
You know, all this reminds me of a post I wrote called, "Meh. I got nothin'" You should read it, specifically the part about any untruth in any single word used being made into a tool to attempt to discredit an entire message.
We're both doing it here and now.
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-10-05 13:18:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bush will win simply because he appeals to the unquestioning undereducated masses. He's the easy choice for those who don't want to think too hard. Both Bush and his supporters share the same 'I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do and that's that' attitude that will insure another four years for him regardless of the issues at hand or mistakes he has made.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:52:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:50:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hidden - WTF? Even in the quote you provided Rumsfeld didn't say "with open arms." What are you getting at? That he's only playing semantic games? If so, I've got some bad news for you . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But guess what he did say:
>> You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things
Notice the use of the phrase 'anything like'. This would mean that it wasn't the exact wording he was refuting, but the meaning behind the statement. Please go back to school.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:47:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's right because the President of the United States said it was right.
It's true, what Hidden said about this misplaced loyalty. Since when was it un-American to question our leaders? That kind of thinking in the 1700's and we'd still be under British rule. Look what living under British rule has done to Apollo, it's just not pretty.
We're not a nation of pussies who do what we're told, fuck authority.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Zandy - These were not the images we saw. What we saw is millions of americans pouring wine in the gutters, bashing the dixie chicks and other retaliations against anyone who denounced the war initiative in the US or abroad.
While it was honorable of you to speak up, you were outnumbered by 10.
Just saying it as it was percieved.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:35:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
it's true that a lot of opinion is viewed as dissent. i can't tell you how many times people have called me anti-American simply because i said the US government can be shady sometimes. i say it's more anti-American NOT to question the ones in power. that's the very basis of our entire governing system. you know, that "checks and balances" thing?
i was hanging out with some federal agents a couple days ago and i said something about Bush, and one of them scowls at me and says "that's my commander in chief you're talking about", like he was really pissed off. i said, "i thought this was America. are you saying i shouldn't be allowed to have a negative opinion of the president? he's not my commander in chief anymore, i can say what i want." and he just says "whatever..." and that was the end of it.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-05 12:28:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:22:41 (#)
Ranking: -2
<Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. 87 times.>
Fabrications like this discredit everything you say. Everything
==============================
that number isn't fabricated, retard. current stats are between 70-90 attacks daily, up from 40-50 just a short time ago, which was itself a rise from appx. 20 daily attacks.
and oh yeah, that was real cool of you to go through his old posts, -2ing all of them.
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:22:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
<Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. 87 times.>
Fabrications like this discredit everything you say. Everything.
Submitted by dirtyweedjie (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:20:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:12:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul -
I was part of the protests in NYC just before the war started.
I was there, with a million others.
the biggest problem is: if you live here and you stand up and shout opposition in public, you run the risk of being brought down by law enforcement (yeay Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security).
The U.S. is no longer free, but the internet still is...I hope. That's why you find so much more "dissent" and unrest here on Uber and elsewhere on the internet.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:12:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously Judoka, you must have Rain-man-like abilities then . . . I'm talking photographic memory, because some of this stuff is VERBATIM, punctuation and all.
From the Fas[something] Fassihi article included in the below.
http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=422
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:07:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/05/bremer.rumsfeld/index.html
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:02:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think Rumsfield is stupid. A while ago, I don't exactly remember when, a reporter asked: "Mr. Rumsfield, what are you gonna do now that you've lied to population?" Cornered, Rumsfield replied: "What are YOU gonna do about it?"
He dared the US anti-war population knowing nothing would happen because it has muted itself. Can you explain why medium sized population countries like England, France or Canada mustered millions of protesters for weeks, millions. While in the US, a huge country and the instigator of this war, only a few rose up to voice their opposition.
Sure many americans speak up in internet chatrooms or whisper their opinions but they take no real stance for their OWN country's foreign policy. While here, in Montreal, I can still remember the hundreds of thousands people protesting at -40 degrees.
Of course, we all know protesting won't do much. But the numbers still show that moderate americans have turned away from their responsability as citizens and will follow their government anywhere. Which brings me back to Rumsfield's question. What are americans gonna do about it?
Nothing.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 12:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually that phrase is everwhere, dont believe me google it again. That being said Im sorry if I inadverrtently stole something from somebody. I read alot of political stuff and I have a very good memory.
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:57:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Badlands (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:18:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
--------------------------------------
A good Simpsons reference always gets a +2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:50:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hidden - WTF? Even in the quote you provided Rumsfeld didn't say "with open arms." What are you getting at? That he's only playing semantic games? If so, I've got some bad news for you . . .
Also, my point about googling "despite Bush's rosy assessments" was that Judoka took several portions of this article from someone else without attributing it. In some circles, specifically teaching circles, I believe that is called plagerism.
I even begged him not to make me research this damned thing too.
Submitted by uncanny (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because I didn't think his statements made that much of a case aganist Bush doesn't mean I am a Bush voter.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:33:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by uncanny (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:30:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, Kerry did say that he would still go into Iraq. Most of the items you listed (Iraqi troops
trained, insurgent attacks, no-go zones) would still happen under Kerry.
============================================================
wow....
ladies and gentlemen, here's your Bush voters....
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:32:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good stuff.
Civil war is inevitable now - the cycle of coalition/insurgent violence will escalate until the general populace rise up and expel the US.
Seriously, I cannot understand how anyone, ANYONE, could vote Bush.
But then again, the UK has a free press.
Submitted by uncanny (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:30:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, Kerry did say that he would still go into Iraq. Most of the items you listed (Iraqi troops
trained, insurgent attacks, no-go zones) would still happen under Kerry. Also, most of those that you
listed are unpreventable when going into a war like this and a few of them pertain more to how
the military planned the operations.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:26:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.
====================================================
according to Rumsfeld, it was already an 'imminent' threat- http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
seriously, do you people really want guys like Dubya and Rumsfeld in there for another four years? the thing that really irks me about Rumsfeld is how stupid he actually is, but he speaks condescendingly to you when he doesn't know what to say. he acts like you're the stupid one when he either can't answer a question or to make himself look like he knows what he's talking about by speaking aggressively. here's another instance where he does it (he should really stop challenging people to prove their allegations...)-
Feb. 20, a month before the invasion, Rumsfeld fielded a question about whether Americans would be greeted as liberators if they invaded Iraq.
"Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' "The News Hour."
"There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.
Sept. 25:
"Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.
The defense chief quickly cut him off.
"Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."
Submitted by Badlands (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:18:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:10:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and here's some other information I found regarding the 100,000 troops. Its from Factcheck.org or something like that. Looks like a fairly unbiased site. I think I'll bookmark it.
Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as "shake-and-bake" forces.
Only 8,000 of the total are police who have received a full eight-week course of training, Armitage told the House:
Armitage: It's 100,000 total security forces, and I don't want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier -- could be policemen, and it could be the eight-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake three-week police force, which are previous policemen who are now given a three-weeks course. So it's a mixed bag , but there are about 100,000 total security forces.
________________
I can see how it can be spun both ways.
Of course, this was before I googled "Despite President Bush's rosy assessments."
Sinner.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:10:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well put
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 11:09:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by oddity420 at 2004-10-05 10:02:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh and to answer domenad. The military supports Bush because he wants to pay us more money plain and simple.
=========================================================
yyyyyyyyep.
domenad is a fool. i don't even take him seriously at all anymore.
war is business and business is good. three out of three of my friends that are in the military and support Bush said they only support him because they are in the military and that means more pay raises for them. i was talking to one of them a couple weeks ago and the election was brought up, and i tell my buddy all about how Kerry is someone that will be better for not only the country, but for the world. i layed it all out for him and he even agreed with the things i said, but he said he was still voting for Bush because he was in the military. he said he didn't care what was good for the country, only what was good for him, and since he was in the military, Bush was his choice.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:59:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Cigar, you said you were sorry. Maybe now you could try ranking objectivly instead of -2ing everyone's posts no?"
yeah, right. i gave him a -2 for copying and pasting a HUGE piece of text he did not write, and he goes and picks two of my old posts at random and gives them a -2.
he's a child. it's best to just ignore him.
this post was excellent.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:57:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bad Judoka! BAD!
- Farnaz Fassihi
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:40:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"We have made a sensitive and unstable region even more volatile. That is a dubious achievement that is unparalleled in US history."
Well said. The way he pissed away the tremendous post 9/11 international support within a few weeks was also one hell of an achievment too.
Cigar, you said you were sorry. Maybe now you could try ranking objectivly instead of -2ing everyone's posts no?
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:16:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
another +2 for an excellent post.
You know what's really frustrating to me? Whether or not the Bush administration knew that their intelligence was faulty going into the war, ZERO diplomatic efforts were taken. NONE! Nobody ever said, "Hold on a second...is there a better way to solve this problem?" Nope...instead, we just started bombing the shit out of a relatively defenseless nation.
I know a lot of you will argue that "You can't talk to Saddam - he's a madman!" or "Saddam doesn't deserve a diplomatic chance - he murders his own people!"
Well, besides the fact that the US supplied Saddam with the weapons to kill his own people (and the fact that our goverment ignored the killings, thereby effectively supporting them), I think anyone (or almost anyone) deserves a diplomatic shot.
Before the invasion, even Saddam requested bilateral talks with the US. Obviously, those requests were laughed off by the Bush administration...
But why?
I know why, I'm not that naive. Saddam put a hit out on Bush Sr. - of course Dubya is going to laugh at Saddam when he requests bilateral talks.
Bush loves to hide behind his Bible...so whatever happened to "turning the other cheek?" If he was the holy man he claims to be, wouldn't he have sucked it up and at least made phone call to see what Saddam had to say for himself?
To me, so much more can be accomplished by simply talking and getting shit out in the open. The problem with the US and so many other countries out there (and even a lot of you Uber-folk) is that we're so quick to dismiss any possibility of reconciliation by means of discussion. On the Uber-level, unfavorable views are met with "Fuck you's" or "-2 Die" or "I would kill you if I could" responses. On the world-level, especially with the US, unfavorable views are suppressed and attacked, sometimes violently.
"Negotiation" is a word that so many of us, including our governments, have forgotten...and it's a damn shame.
During the debate last week, Bush poo-pooed Kerry's idea of bilateral talks with North Korea. Why? Is Kim Jong Il the devil that our media has made him out to be? Maybe...maybe not. Why is Bush so quick to discount the idea of sitting down, putting everything out on the table and trying to work shit out?
I think there's only one answer, Bush isn't a statesman. He can't see past his narrowed, ethno-centric views to accommodate or understand anyone elses' views but his own.
So many times in last week's debate, Bush said "I know how this world works..." Really? Why don't you tell us how it works. Why don't you bathe us in your worldly expertise, George...because it's certainly gotten you (and our country) a long way.
Bush rules based on his beliefs, which, in my humble opinion, is not the way to lead. Beliefs are set - they're ingrained and unchanging. Ideas, on the otherhand, change and grow and evolve into more and better ideas.
It's time we had a responsible, wordly, statesman for president - someone who has ideas and beliefs, but knows how to separate the two and manage his/her policies accordingly.
We've been duped by Bush. I hate to use the term, but so many of us have been "brainwashed" into BELIEVING in Bush's beliefs. And that, my friends, is the scariest, most dangerous thing in the world...
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:14:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Careful Judoka, you have insulted their Fuhrer. The Re-pubs are probably circling in on you as I type this. No doubt you will be labeled a terrorist and sent to a special camp where you can be 'watched'.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:12:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-05 10:08:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1p21g, not all of the military is blind. I think Kerry will make a much better Presisdent. I' too' have lost friends in Iraq. I've also been to Iraq, twice. It sucks over there. This war could have went so much more smoothly. I don't know. I'm still voting for Kerry though. Even if he is a fake war hero.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:02:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Also, if Bush has done such a rotten job with Iraq, why are military personnel polling for Bush at a 4-1 margin. 4-1, mind you, that's well outside any margin of error."
Why? Who the fuck pays their salaries? Who gives special treatment to the children of military members? My friend Eric, who was killed in Iraq, isn't HERE to vote against Bush. His mom isn't voting for him, niether is his dad, or his sister, or his friends (me). I don't care what your military personnel polling stats say, the man is doing a terrible job. Open your fucking eyes, man.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:02:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad-arent you supposedly keeping quite until you actually vote?
It doesn't surprise me that the military folks are polling for Bush, its hard to see the forest when you are standing amoung the trees. Additionally, the loyalty of the military should not be discounted.
Submitted by oddity420 at 2004-10-05 10:02:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh and to answer domenad. The military supports Bush because he wants to pay us more money plain and simple.
Submitted by 0ddity420 at 2004-10-05 10:00:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This is the most thought out anti-Bush post I have seen in a while. Good job. I watched that debate, and it made me sick. I've always sort of liked Bush, mainly because he passed raises in the pay for Military members. But, after watching that, I was digusted.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It is scary how stupid he is.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:51:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You brought up the debates. I'm interested in your opinion on tonight's vice-Presidential debate. Suppose Cheney CRUSHES Edwards into the ground. How significant do you think that will be. Also, if Bush has done such a rotten job with Iraq, why are military personnel polling for Bush at a 4-1 margin. 4-1, mind you, that's well outside any margin of error.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
indeed
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:42:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good points, well made.
Listening to Bush speak is enough to make my head explode, and that's
before you even consider that virtually every word out of his mouth is
a lie.
People should realize by now that a vote for Kerry is a vote for
coherency, transparency, and accountability in government. The issues
(almost) don't even matter.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:41:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Here, here.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Bush is ill suited for the job of President. But thats not really my point. Regardless of his 'conservative values' he has mismanaged, or allowed the mismagement of our armed forces. This has directly lead to many unnessasary deaths, both Iraqi and US service members.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:38:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The fact that that man even PRETENDS that he worries about comforting ANYONE TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THIS IS PATHETIC AND TRANSPARENT. EVERY TIME he holds a press conference, he EXPLOITS THEIR PAIN and the pain of EVERYONE who died or lost someone in the attacks on September 11th.
FUCK YOU, BUSH, FUCK every single one of your fucking advisor, fuck you people who think it's okay to erode the BASIC RIGHTS that made this country WHAT IT IS, FUCK you wanting to legislate the inside of my body, FUCK you wanting to send people I love and care about to settle up on your little vendettas, FUCK you for trying to legislate morality, and FUCK you for waking up in the morning.
AND FUCK ALL YOU YANKEES FANS BECAUSE IT'S THE POST SEASON AND I CAN'T HANDLE LIFE RIGHT NOW.
Submitted by planeterik (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:34:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well written and damn, how can we get rid of bush?
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-10-05 09:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment