Why I'm voting for Bush

[postaldudeleo]

I vote that all dictators should be shot through political assasinations. Plus palistine should be nuked. Im not saying that america thinks its the wolf and the other countries are the sheep..........................

[sixtofive]

but now back on bush his IQ i dont know if you check the underground sites often but there they have a certificate stating his IQ wich is 80 it was also sayd in numerous music clips like the one from amurika these are all based on true facts

What sites would these stats come from? And what credibility do they have? I am honestly interested

 

The one and only reason both the US and UK went to war was WMD. This is clearly set out in the objectives given for Operation Telic (the British part of the Iraq War, you can see a quote from it in my sig) and the testimony given by Douglas Freith, US Under Secretary of Defense, to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on 11th February 2003.

 

Speak for the UK if you wish, but the cause for action on the part of the US is well documented to have been for the believed threat of WMD as well the countries dealings with and harboring of known terrorists.

[Eiade]

I vote that all dictators should be shot through political assasinations. Plus palistine should be nuked.

 

I have a question for you. Do you ever think? Just stop posting. Your posts have proven to be worthless dribble and immature ideas. I'm sorry for flaming, but when he said 'palastine should be nuked' it really offended me. Either don't post anymore, or only make posts that can be taken seriously.

[Maquissar]

I surely HOPE he's being immature and not being serious. Because if he REALLY thinks that Palestine should be nuked... *shivers*

 

From Epitaph, by King Crimson:

"Knowledge is a deadly friend

If no one sets the rules

The fate of all mankind, I see,

Is in the hands of fools..."

[UberBender]

...I was being sarcastic...

Sarcasm dosn't work well over the internet.

 

And about Bush's IQ, I don't think anyone knows unless he takes a test right in front of them and shows them the score.

[Zmid]

The one and only reason both the US and UK went to war was WMD. This is clearly set out in the objectives given for Operation Telic (the British part of the Iraq War, you can see a quote from it in my sig) and the testimony given by Douglas Freith, US Under Secretary of Defense, to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on 11th February 2003.

 

Speak for the UN if you wish, but the cause for action on the part of the US is well documented to have been for the believed threat of WMD as well the countries dealings with and harboring of known terrorists.

Who said I was speaking for the UN? I never even mentioned the UN. I mentioned what the objectives of the Iraq War were according to the testimony of the US Under Secretary of Defense and the UK Ministry of Defence.

 

The other thing is that, if the war was about getting terrorists out of Iraq, and finding and disarming Iraq's WMD, then it's been an abject failure so far. There are more terrorists in Iraq than ever before, and not a single WMD has been found.

 

Since you brought up the UN, I will add the fact that, despite this war being based on 'broken' UN Resolutions, it actually broke article 46 of the UN Charter.

[sixtofive]

sorry, i mistyped, I meant to say speak for the UK. But i don't agree that there are more terrorists. There is more terrorist activity, but not more terrorists.

[surian]

OH, I think that there are many more terrorists actually. Think about it this way if you will. Osama Bin Laden is very vocal all throughout the Mid East and many people hear his message. Many don't agree with him but they can see all around them that he does have a point, the US isn't making things any better for the Middle East and our embargos, military action, forign policy, and lets not forget or support of Isreal (which I am not going to debate, however you must remember it's a sore point in the arab world) don't make anything any nicer for any of the people in Iraq or any other mid east country. So lets say that you average Iraqi citizen didn't agree with Osama before the war in Iraq, afterwards he has seen his family die in US bombings, his friends arrested and taken to prisons without charge or any chance at an appeal (until recently) and the only real police force keeping the peace (Saddam's guard) destroyed. How do you think he'll feel after all that? Angry at the US? Definately. Angry enough to start to agree with Osama? Probably. Determined enough to join up with a terrorist group and do his part to free his people from a country that he sees as occupying his country and destroying his life? Much more likely than he was before, that's for sure.

 

When 9-11 happened I was living in a Dorm room on campus and I had just gotten back from a class when I walked into my room and there were probably 20 people watching the TV. My room-mate said "Afgahnistan just attacked us with terrorists, we are gonna bomb the f*** out of them" (sorry for the language but it is in context). I remember clearly what I said to him and I still think it's true. I said this even before it became a popular view: Afgahnistan didn't attack us, the people of that country didn't attack us, terrorists attacked us. If we attack the country all that we will do is create more terrorists who will have even more to gain and less to lose from flying more planes into our buildings.

 

Of course I was appalled and I was terrified because I have family in New York and my Aunt works just across the street from the WTC. She actually saw the people jumping out of the windows and after the buildings collapsed her building was severely damaged. Luckly she was out of the building by that time. Yet, given all this I still knew that my anger should not be directed at the civilians of a country that was already so utterly destroyed that anything we did to the people of that country would serve nothing but to make Osama that much more right.

 

Face the facts people, Osama has very good points when he says that America has done terrible things to the people in the Middle East. I'm not an appologist (sp?) for him or the terrorists but I am saying that if we reap what we sow. The right action was not to attack the country but to try to find the terrorist responsible and bring them to justice. Our attack of Afgahnistan was so utterly inept that we had no hope of catching any of the key players and in all probability the key leaders were long gone by the time of the attacks because they arn't stupid. They knew that they were going to be hunted after such a massive attack. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this but the problem was that people were so overwhelmed by what had happened that our country needed to lash out somehow. People had to die because our citizens had died and it didn't matter who or where, just as long as they were arabs from a country known to harbor terrorists.

 

You don't think that our attacks created more terrorists in Iraq or Afgahnistan? You arn't thinking then, because you ask yourself what you would do if the horrors going on in Iraq where going on in America today what you would do to preserve your freedom. Granted that Saddam was a terror in himself, but our presence is generally viewed as worse than Saddam by most of the Iraqi public. Do a search for interviews with Iraqi civilians and you will see this for yourself. The problem is that our media won't report things like that because it's a downer for US moral and in our country today anything that isn't patriotic is instantly branded as not just disagreement but treasonous (no one will buy a treasonous newspaper).

 

Bottom line. Yes, there is more terrorist activity today than before but why? Is it because the terrorists got back from a vacation or could it be that we've pissed them off even more than we had before and that they have gotten many more new recruits? I think the latter is probably more likely.

[_it_]

sites like www.thesmokinggun.com they also have some files about the classified reports of 9/11 and some more things i wouldnt reccomend going to this site if you dont want to know stuff like on how to make bombs

[Scrimshaw]

The one and only reason both the US and UK went to war was WMD.  This is clearly set out in the objectives given for Operation Telic (the British part of the Iraq War, you can see a quote from it in my sig) and the testimony given by Douglas Freith, US Under Secretary of Defense, to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on 11th February 2003.

 

Intelligence reports the world over indicated that Saddam had WMDs, and may have been developing the ability to deploy them. Yes, the US and UK acted based on that information. Anyone who knows the first damn thing about Saddam's 30 year tenure in Iraq, would know that destroying WMDs would be the LAST thing in the world Saddam would ever do. He was a psycho-power monger. How many psycho-power mongers disarm out of free will? Please. If you think Saddam actually destroyed his WMDs, I've got some ocean front property in the Sahara I'd like to sell you.

 

Geeting rid of Saddam was a BY-PRODUCT, nothing more.

 

Really? Then how do you explain that Bush's ultimatum for war was that Saddam and his government was to leave Iraq within 48 hours, or else war would begin??? That fact alone proves that getting Saddam out of power was a PRIMARY objective. If Saddam would have left Iraq when asked, war would have been averted. That sounds like a "primary" objective to me, not merely a "by-product".