Us presidential election 2004

[Frisbee 0]

details you mentioned regarding international affairs

Details, you say.

Quote[/b] ]because Americans look at everything from one main perspective

Being able to look at things from multiple perspectives is good, not being able or worse, not willing to is nothng to boast about.

Quote[/b] ]We lost many soldiers in Irak, but these are only testaments to our courage and bravery as well as our willingness to selfsacrifice for our country.

At best you went in because there were doubts about WMD's gotten in during a gap in controlling Saddam's WMD-acquirring ambitions. You went to Iraq on that, and "possibly" ulterior motives. People are dying there now, accept the responsibilty now as well.

Quote[/b] ]There is any easy way to resolve this with minimal bloodshed, give up the terrorists.

Moral high road isn't all that much fun huh?

(edited in that last quote)

[denoir 0]

Any death is significant, I haven't seen any figures that would suggest "100,000+"  Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of Americans. Prove it.   More death at the hands of the insurgents, yes.  The insurgents don't seem to share your sympathies with the Iraqi people.

Here's a reference for the 100,000 claim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....es.html

and about who is killing who:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm

Quote[/b] ]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.

According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.

Let's say that it's actually just 10,000+. How do you justify that? How does that go with the "strong moral values" of Bush?

Sure, bin Laden is guilty of 3,000 accounts of first degree murder. Bush on the other hand is responsible for 10,000+ accounts of second degree murder. When you start a war you know there will be civilian deaths. He knew what he was doing.

Now, I don't want to debate the Iraq war - I'm just curious how it all fits together with these so-called Christian values of his. Handing out condoms to high-school kids is bad, while killing thousands of civilians is ok?

I'm a bit confused and I'd love if a Bush supporter could explain it to me.

Furthermore I'm afraid America is stuck in old-school European foreign and military policy. Europe could get away with the nasty things it did around the world because of poor communications. It isn't that way any more. You take a crap in Asia and the smell comes back right home.

The 9/11 attacks were a consequence of the crap coming home to momma. They didn't attack you just for the hell of it. Each global action now has a global reaction. So running off and invading Iraq can only make things worse; make America less safe.

I mean come on - this isn't exactly rocket science.

Bush and his necons, I can understand. They are idealists - utopians. What I'm surprised is how many are willing to follow their dangerous fantasy.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]That is clearly along the line of "reasoning "(if you can call it that) that is proposed by Moores film.

OK the figure of deaths might be wrong, it's around 10-15,000 now. Fact is more deaths in Iraq are caused by coalition troops than insurgents, according to Iraqi health ministry.

Then why was Bin-Laden family flown out of the US shortly after 9/11? Are you saying that is not a fact?

Quote[/b] ]One should ask relevant questions first, then criticize if appropriate. Let me ease your mind, the Bush supporters I know have lively debates on issues of President Bush's policies all the time.

He did and you have said nothing else to those questions and claims other than that they're 'Moore's propaganda'. If you have had so lively debates Bush's election-winning policies please share those opinions here too.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush on the other hand is responsible for 10,000+ accounts of second degree murder.

It is not 2nd degree!!!!!

Quote[/b] ]I'm just curious how it all fits together with these so-called Christian values of his. Handing out condoms to high-school kids is bad, while killing thousands of civilians is ok?

I 'm not a Christian hardcorist (I think I just made that up)...

You really cannot give a simple explanation to it. You really cannot. Stop asking those type of questions. Also, please do not throw up that racist bs.

[llauma 0]

USA has been going towards religious fanatism ever since the 60's. I won't be be hoping for a change in a long time. Just read my signature.. I'll celebrate once America shows some common sense.

And Billybob2002.. Bush is responsible for the deaths just as Hitler was responsible for the killing of millions of Jews.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Bush and his necons, I can understand. They are idealists - utopians.

Utopians with some shareholders in key companies... It's a rewarding utopy.

I don't believe in utopist leaders... There is none, they seem to all run for their own money, nothing else.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]You really cannot give a simple explanation to it. You really cannot.

Then maybe that should make you think.

[shinRaiden 0]

The whole reason for using a 2000-pound bomb is to minimize the chance the target has to escape and to minimize civilian casualties.

The other option is to send in a heavily armed convoy/group and hope that they can cut their way through the resistance and civilian mobs to reach the target before the target has a chance to escape. Unfortuantely civilians are know to do stupid things like run out in front of cars and step out in public during running gun-battles and throw rocks at soldiers who are in the process of returning enemy fire.

In anycase, there will be significant damage to the target's locations, and heavy casualties on both sides. In war, if you have to decide between casualties on both sides, or casualties on 'their' side, which would you choose?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush on the other hand is responsible for 10,000+ accounts of second degree murder.

It is not 2nd degree!!!!!

You suspect your wife is cheating on you and plotting ot kill y you. So you take your Ak-47 and pay a visit to the place she usually has lunch in. You spray the place, killing her but also 50 innocent people.

What do you think that you'll be convicted of?

Quote[/b] ]I 'm not a Christian hardcorist (I think I just made that up)...

You really cannot give a simple explanation to it. You really cannot.

Then explain it to me.

Quote[/b] ]Stop asking those type of questions.

Why? How will I understand if I don't ask?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]The whole reason for using a 2000-pound bomb is to minimize the chance the target has to escape and to minimize civilian casualties.

You are kidding right? A 2000lb bomb to minimize civilian casualties, in a densely populated, flimsily contructed neighborhood? Are you on drugs?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Unfortuantely civilians are know to do stupid things like run out in front of cars and step out in public during running gun-battles and throw rocks at soldiers who are in the process of returning enemy fire.

So to avoid this potential civilian stupidity of walking into line of fire it's just better to drop in 2000lb bomb and forget about the whole thing. Smooth.

[denoir 0]

Bush and his necons, I can understand. They are idealists - utopians.

Utopians with some shareholders in key companies... It's a rewarding utopy.

I don't believe in utopist leaders... There is none, they seem to all run for their own money, nothing else.

I certainly think that there is an economic component to it. I think however that's the "bonus".

I have the impression that Bush truly believes in what he is doing. I think that he believes that by introducing democracy in Iraq (by force if necessary) will have positive effect on the region - that it will spread. The problem is that he doesn't care how many Iraqis get killed for that little project.

It's the same way that Mao Tse Tung believed in the cultural revolution. It didn't matter that millions died because of it, because his conviction was that it was the right thing to do. And that's the most dangerous form of government - one that cares more about some abstract model than about the reality and the human cost.

IMO this is especially bad in the Mid East where you have a lot of people with similar mind sets on the other side.

[Akira 0]

Only thing I know is that every death that follows now is on the head of those that voted for Bush, that gave an "ok" to his policies of alienation. Not mine.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Only thing I know is that every death that follows now is on the head of those that voted for Bush, that gave an "ok" to his policies of alienation. Not mine.

So, anybody in your family who voted for Roosevelt and Truman have the death of german civilians, japanese civilians, and etc on their head.

[red oct 2]

this really sucks.i think im going to move to Australia for a while anybody wana come w/?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]i think im going to move to Australia for a while anybody wana come w/?

Hate to burst your bubble but John Howard got re-elected and there are aussie troops in Iraq.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, anybody in your family who voted for Roosevelt and Truman have the death of german civilians, japanese civilians, and etc on their head.

They declared war on you and attacked you. Iraq did not.

[NavyEEL 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, anybody in your family who voted for Roosevelt and Truman have the death of german civilians, japanese civilians, and etc on their head.

They declared war on you. Iraq did not.

Nothing wrong with taking the initiative for a good cause every once in a while...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]They declared war on you. Iraq did not.

What about the innocent civilians?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Only thing I know is that every death that follows now is on the head of those that voted for Bush, that gave an "ok" to his policies of alienation. Not mine.

So, anybody in your family who voted for Roosevelt and Truman have the death of german civilians, japanese civilians, and etc on their head.

Legal War does not equal Illegal War fyi.

[llauma 0]

this really sucks.i think im going to move to Australia for a while   anybody wana come w/?

Maybe the ones in USA who didn't vote for Bush should start a new country just like Liberia which was found by former slaves from America...

[denoir 0]

Very good speech by Kerry.

[Akira 0]

Least the Daily Show will have 4 more years of material

Quote[/b] ]Maybe the ones in USA who didn't vote for Bush should start a new country just like Liberia which was found by former slaves from America...

Just need to find some space

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]i think im going to move to Australia for a while anybody wana come w/?

Hate to burst your bubble but John Howard got re-elected and there are aussie troops in Iraq.

hate to burst you bubble, but he at least has some competence to run a country. i hate Bush so much i would consider going to Mexico a small step up. after all thats were all of our jobs seem to be heading, not that you care of course.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nothing wrong with taking the initiative for a good cause every once in a while...

Yeah like supporting Contras, Pinochet and capturing one man (Noriega) at the expense of thousands of Panamian Civilians.

No reallly it's pretty refreshing once in a while!

If you really don't have the brain capacity to make a difference between attacking a country and defending your own country you are hopelessly lost.