Anything Forums

FloodG8-9595 wrote: THE WORLD HATES US!!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14545

and thats why we need the dancing bannana...

btw just cause it's true don't mean it's right

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14546

fragged one wrote: i'm anti-bush and anti-kerry, and i've yet to have a single person point out to me how they would fundamentally run the country differently.

Oh yeah? Well I'm anti-everything! Try and convince me to like something. Just try it.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14547

sintekk wrote:

MrSelf wrote:

sintekk wrote:
Woah, woah, woah, didn't kerry say he still would have invaded iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

MrSelf wrote: But since we saw the same speak and he said he would still have ‘authorized the use of force as a possibility, but exhausted other sources first’, but you heard ‘kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq.’ Hmmm… Having the power to invade if necessary is not the same as still would have invaded…

Bah! I don't got time to read your uber-long 300+ word posts
(of course, this makes me think "Why did kerry authorize the war in the first place if he believed more work/searching/hob-knobbing/etc. was needed?" But I'm tired, it's midnight, and I could be missing another fact )

Pretty much it comes down to, if Bush was going to address Saddam, he needed to be able to actually make a difference. Without the threat of force, words are meaningless with Saddam, history has shown. So for the president to do anything worthwhile, he has to be able to use force if necessary. Specifically the resolution said:

sec. 3 Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces.

(a)Authorization. - The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-
(1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and
(2)enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This gives the ability to use the military if Saddam attacks his own people, or starts up a chemical or biological weapons program, or violates any other part of the UN resolutions. Clearly this was written when we were sure that he had WMD's, without them he is not a continuing threat, but he was still in violation of what he was suppose to do, and because he invaded Kuwait and used biological weapon on iran and his own people, he has to prove that he isn't in violation, a threat to national secuity. That's why the weapon inspectors were being used, to verify if he was a threat.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14548

Pretty much it comes down to, if Bush was going to address Saddam, he needed to be able to actually make a difference. Without the threat of force, words are meaningless with Saddam, history has shown. So for the president to do anything worthwhile, he has to be able to use force if necessary.

Ah, so basically, Kerry was just planning on using this as an incentive for Saddam to be more cooperative, or else, while Bush was tired of waiting for results and pushed the 'war' button once authorized.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to learn about the whole situation for an upcoming school paper

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14551

That's certainly the way it seems. Kerry was planning on letting Bush use it as an incentive, and if needed, then the force, you have a lot more bargaining power when you can use the threat of force, which otherwise we would not have been able to. Not to skip trying and issue an ultimatum.

He, btw, is Kerry's speech on the Senate floor before the vote for the Authorization to go to war.

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14554

Talk about hitting the nail on the head

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14555

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
- John Kerry, CNN Crossfire, 1997

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), CNN Late Edition, 2002
audio

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14640

I supported the war in iraq, and STILL support the war in iraq.

I'd suggest reading The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge by Laurie Mylroie for a very interesting look on the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as well as the numerous American embassy bombings in Africa. Very good read for anyone interested in some not often reported reasons why Iraq was an imminent threat.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14641

I've supported Iraq as well, just not the way Bush has done it, it's been negligence the entire way.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14664

“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), CNN Late Edition, 2002

I can't believe you of all people would fall back on such standard arguments fragged. A LOT of people supported the war in Iraq. I did. John Kerry did as well. Unfortunatly as you well know politics is a little more complicated that you seem to be looking at it now. I mean no offence and am simply trying to say what I would expect you to say to me if the situation were reversed.

You've given me nothing more in your last few posts than I've heard from President Bush in the last two debates and frankly I'm not buying it. You can focus on the past all you want but, I think the past deserves a review and some thought and then you have to move on to live in the present and the future. I could sit around in any politicians past (including independant candidates with any sort of record) and come up with contridicting opinons.. ya know why? because, with new information comes new ideas comes a CHANGE OF OPINION. This is somthing that the current president looks upon as a bad thing. By the way Kerry still thinks that Iraq and Sadam would have had to have been delt with. He simply would have gone about it in a differnt manner. I can't say that knowing what I know now (like the president WOULD) that I do the same thing. We as a country we have no right to simply remove a dictator because you don't like him. As a world community perhapse we have a little more right... but the UNITED STATES did this... none of this Coalition of the willing stuff.. Because the numbers don't lie there and you've made no attempt to refute it.

We went into Iraq to disarm him.. once we got there of course we realized that he didn't seem to have anything in the first place.. so, instead of fessing up to faulty intelligence t othe american public we hide behind the made up reason that we were only there to "Liberate Iraq"... I'll say this one more time... what give US the right to Liberate anyone? especially without an invitation to do so from the people. and even more especially without the support of our allies. This is simply a point that cannot be refuted. The american public has been "herded" like sheep in this war and that's ridiculous. As long as WE pay attention and as long as WE are willing to raise the questions that matter as the EDUCATED public. we can make a differnce. That takes time. Is Kerry gonna be a great president?... probably not. but, neither will anyone else running I feel that he's the best choice in what I've been given. Honestly, a third party candidate will not win in this election and while I do feel that the way to have more independant candidates is to vote for them I think that this is too inportant of a vote for me to spend on an wholy ideological point. While were speaking on the subject we should try to get some third party candidates in the local government before we try to elect one president. Things work better when you have a foundation to build on.

I really think that your thoughts on this matter are skewed due to a stigma on the system fragged. I'm not trying to get you to change your mind as I know that that will never happen, I've known you long enough to know your stubborn, I'm simply trying to get you to see the validity of my thoughts because, you don't seem to.

edit: sentence structure.. I allways have a problem with that

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14667

fragged one wrote: I supported the war in iraq, and STILL support the war in iraq.

I'd suggest reading The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge by Laurie Mylroie for a very interesting look on the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as well as the numerous American embassy bombings in Africa.  Very good read for anyone interested in some not often reported reasons why Iraq was an imminent threat.

Haven't read that book I will check it out though if I get a chance soon... since I'm finished with Dark Tower.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14668

flood, i sincerly believe that saddam hussein had attacked the united states several times in the past by using 'terrorists'. ramzi yousef, i believe, was very possibly an iraqi intelligence agent, but most of us know him better as the 'mastermind' behind the 93 wtc bombing.

i spent too much time and energy trying to be anti-kerry that i lost sight of what truly matters and affects long-term america.

i don't support bush, or kerry, in any manner in this election for various reasons:

they both support the patriot act and the unconstitutional and anti-american provisions within it.

they both support drug prohibition, leading to more violent crime and filling our prisons with non-violent offenders.

they both support international welfare

they both seek to have limited immigration, which is proven to lead to illegal immigrants rushing through our porous borders and actually making it easier for would-be terrorists to enter.

they both support social welfare

they both refuse to allow americans to invest their own retirement savings, instead, they put it into the poorly managed social security system.

they both support the income tax, which by many, including me, is deemed to be unconstitutional...that's besides being costly to manage, difficult to understand with so many codes, and unfair to all americans.

they both support israel and it's sabre rattling, even while they threat attack on nearby nations such as iran.

those are a few reasons why i cannot and will not support either candidate. there are more, but that's just a small laundry list. in summary, they both support a costly and severly inflated government that makes this country more dangerous to live in with increased threats of being persecuted by the government.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14671

fragged one wrote: flood, i sincerly believe that saddam hussein had attacked the united states several times in the past by using 'terrorists'.  ramzi yousef, i believe, was very possibly an iraqi intelligence agent, but most of us know him better as the 'mastermind' behind the 93 wtc bombing.

i spent too much time and energy trying to be anti-kerry that i lost sight of what truly matters and affects long-term america.

i don't support bush, or kerry, in any manner in this election for various reasons:

they both support the patriot act and the unconstitutional and anti-american provisions within it.

they both support drug prohibition, leading to more violent crime and filling our prisons with non-violent offenders.

they both support international welfare

they both seek to have limited immigration, which is proven to lead to illegal immigrants rushing through our porous borders and actually making it easier for would-be terrorists to enter.

they both support social welfare

they both refuse to allow americans to invest their own retirement savings, instead, they put it into the poorly managed social security system.

they both support the income tax, which by many, including me, is deemed to be unconstitutional...that's besides being costly to manage, difficult to understand with so many codes, and unfair to all americans.

they both support israel and it's sabre rattling, even while they threat attack on nearby nations such as iran.

those are a few reasons why i cannot and will not support either candidate.  there are more, but that's just a small laundry list.  in summary, they both support a costly and severly inflated government that makes this country more dangerous to live in with increased threats of being persecuted by the government.

I'll have to look a little further into the specific subjects at hand here but, on a the bits that I do know I agree with you that there is need for change. I appriciate the straight forward list as that helps me understand your point a lot better. I still hold true to my reasons for voting for Kerry this election and sincerly hope that he wins, not because I think John Kerry is the president Im looking for in the long run but, in my opinion he's closer to that than idea than Bush is, and I want to be headed in the right direction even if it means I have to put up with some of the same crap policies we've been dealing with for countless presidents.. Eventually we will change the system ,I'm as for it as you are. I'm no fan of the income tax either man but, its not gonna change completley for a while.. it's the little changes one at a time we need to make. Even if you were to become president (best case senario for you) and you were able to put all your ideas into action. How many of your changes do you think would make it past all the others in DC. point being as I said in my last post lets get some more independates in local government so we can effect these changes from the bottom up.

On Iraq I can see your point but, thats not the point that was made to the american public. Now if there is proof that sadam did these things (like I said I'll check out that book) then we should have gotten him under the pretence that he attacked us or helped someone attack us at an earlier date. The attempt to tie Iraq in with 9/11 was pointless if they had proof that he had attacked us directly before. It was a missjudgment on our part. Maybe we should have gone in but, "I stand firm and resolute" in my opinion that the Bush admin "hosed" the public to make it easier for them to do what they wanted to do.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14686

the way i see it, is that at this juncture, we have three paths to go down. two of which end up at the same place, albiet differing routes, and the other leads to a good place, a better america...the 'city upon the hill' as reagan envisioned.

while most of america is oblivious to the third path, i am not, and choose to continue to urge the other's to look at the map and see that the first two paths do not lead us to the right place.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14687

fragged one wrote: the way i see it, is that at this juncture, we have three paths to go down.  two of which end up at the same place, albiet differing routes, and the other leads to a good place, a better america...the 'city upon the hill' as reagan envisioned.

while most of america is oblivious to the third path, i am not, and choose to continue to urge the other's to look at the map and see that the first two paths do not lead us to the right place.

I appriciate and applaud your stance with third parties and I think that if there were more people supporting them the country would be a better place. The way I see to do that is to vote them into Congress and Judicial positions exct. and allow them to work their magic on the system from the inside. once this is accomplished I feel that we can effectivly and in good will put in a thrid party president, I just don't think that it's a realistic thing to expect to happen on a large scale so quickly. Like I said your ideas Have merit and If i thought it was at all possible to undergo such a change in this nation as you are seeing by simply electing or supporting a third party candidate for president. I would agree with you one hundred precent but, I think it's going to take more time and hard work on a differnt level to get to that point.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14688

i agree with you 100%, and i don't expect big things to happen quickly, although they can...ross perot with 28% of the vote in 1992 comes to mind.

the first stage of the game, getting a strong foothold, is the hardest part, and requires the most aggression and 'sticktoitness' (to quote jim rome) of all stages of the game.

actually, i almost hope that people keep voting rep and dem to screw this country up even more, so that soon they will have no choice but to see what you guys are doing to yourselves by supporting these criminals.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14690

fragged one wrote: the way i see it, is that at this juncture, we have three paths to go down.  two of which end up at the same place, albiet differing routes, and the other leads to a good place, a better america...the 'city upon the hill' as reagan envisioned.

while most of america is oblivious to the third path, i am not, and choose to continue to urge the other's to look at the map and see that the first two paths do not lead us to the right place.

I've been thinking about it, and I don't think that will do anything to help the political system, just trade out one party for another, as happens every 60 years or so. Until the rules are set up to encourage 3rd party's, and not encourage a 2 party system, what you are talking about will just put what ever party is behind that candidate in power and the 3rd party will fade out again, as it has throughout history. More has to be done to change the system than just a 3rd party president, and it all has to do with 3rd party's on a local level. There are a few now, but the system is so slanted towards 2 partys, it's hard to get a foothold. All 3 of these choices lead to the same place, you're fooling yourself if you think this one small event in our political system will drastically change it for the better, even assuming the candidate does take every opportunity to try to change the system.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14930

G W Bush will win for sure

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15168

I completely think Bush is going to win again. And I don't even think it's going to be as close as it was last Presidential election...but I guess we'll find out in a few days. :þ

I actually do not particularly care at this point. Kerry is a complete liar...has absolutely zero credibility with me...and I really do not see how things will be dramatically better with him in office, unless the world is so grateful to us for getting rid of Bush that they actually decide to help us out some.

Then I remember that the majority of the world has always and will continue to hate/be jealous of us, so that's me just dreaming...

I actually hope Bush wins again and really screws things up. That way, Hillary Clinton is almost assuredly going to run in 2008...AND WIN!! <333

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15655

I cannot fathom why anyone would want that demon woman in office.. Now give me Bill back anyday.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15657

She's so loverly.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15658

FloodG8-9595 wrote: I cannot fathom why anyone would want that demon woman in office.. Now give me Bill back anyday.

only if bill has a republican congress to deal with. that way nothing gets done as the executive and legislative branch bang heads...

the government doing nothing is absolutely splendid.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15660

Legend wrote: She's so loverly. 

my god man she's a giant mutant spider wearing a diaper!


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15666

STOP IT, YOU'RE MAKING ME HOT! ;X

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:15696