MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who will you be voting for, for US President?
Kerry 171 66.02%
Bush 74 28.57%
None. I'm a loser and won't vote. 4 1.54%
Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race. 3 1.16%
Undecided between Bush and Kerry. 7 2.70%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-10-2004, 08:40 AM   #151
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 01:50 AM
The economy still sucks. I know a lot of people---gifted people, going from $15-$30 per hour jobs to $5-10 per hour jobs. That's indicative of most new jobs, so I'm voting for the other guy.


Now, see...that's how simple it is. It's the economy, stupid....remember?

Bush is evil.


__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 09:50 AM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
The Nazi's were not terrorists because the Nazi regime held power over a country, Germany. They are not terrorists - they were evil despots to be sure but not terrorists. The war against Islamofascism is an entirely different fight than WW2, you are battleing a non-state political entity that can operate freely withing the confines of any open society. That is a false analogy and discredits an entire line of your argument.
Oh really? I beg to differ. Webster's Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

And a terrorist is one who employs terrorism. The Nazis were very much terrorists. I agree that the battle against Islamofascisim is very different from that against the Nazis, somewhat for the reasons you said, but they were both terrorists in my mind.

Quote:
You are trying to tell us all that standing by and letting 150,000 innocent people die, leaving a persistent threat to stability in the region and not even trying to intitiate democratic change in the Arab world is more moral than intervening, if that is what you believe then I don't think there is anything I can do to sway your misguided opinion.
But you're overlooking one thing. It wasn't our business. The people of Iraq never asked us to 'free' them, and it's a fact that the lot of them don't feel 'liberated' at all, but rather, they feel about this small *puts fingers close together*. They feel that way because we've made it our business to look down on them and try to be their hero, and they never asked for it. They feel that way because supposedly we're in this so they can have their own democracy, yet all we are doing/have done is to impose our own philosophies and ideals of democracy onto them, and that is really deeply hypocritical on the part of the administration. One one hand they say they want to liberate the Iraqis so they can govern themselves in freedom blah blah blah, but on the other hand, they look down on the Iraqis, they don't think the Iraqis are intelligent, educated, knowledgable, whatever enough to outline, implement, and uphold their own democracy. That's why we've imposed our way of democracy upon them and pretty much appointed a leader. If you think it's ever gonna be a real democracy where everybody goes to the polls on election day and fills out their ballot, you are sadly mistaken. Oh, and let us not forget that the president lied to us. More than once. First WMD. There were no WMD. Then it was that Saddam/Iraq was an immediate threat to us. That's not true. We were not in danger of Saddam or Iraq. Not at all. So, if this war was so right and so neccessary, how come 1)The president felt the need to lie his ass off twice(at least) about the reason for it, 2)Huge amounts of Iraqis don't appreciate us, and 3)Iraq is arguably more dangerous now than it was pre-war???
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 11:21 AM   #153
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
Oh really? I beg to differ. Webster's Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

And a terrorist is one who employs terrorism. The Nazis were very much terrorists. I agree that the battle against Islamofascisim is very different from that against the Nazis, somewhat for the reasons you said, but they were both terrorists in my mind.
You might not realize this, but the Nazis were voted into power.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-10-2004, 11:25 AM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You might not realize this, but the Nazis were voted into power.
Of course I know that, but what difference does it make? They still employed terrorism to try to accomplish their sick goals. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether they were voted into power or not.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 12:59 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Oh really? I beg to differ. Webster's Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

And a terrorist is one who employs terrorism. The Nazis were very much terrorists. I agree that the battle against Islamofascisim is very different from that against the Nazis, somewhat for the reasons you said, but they were both terrorists in my mind.



But you're overlooking one thing. It wasn't our business. The people of Iraq never asked us to 'free' them, and it's a fact that the lot of them don't feel 'liberated' at all, but rather, they feel about this small *puts fingers close together*. They feel that way because we've made it our business to look down on them and try to be their hero, and they never asked for it. They feel that way because supposedly we're in this so they can have their own democracy, yet all we are doing/have done is to impose our own philosophies and ideals of democracy onto them, and that is really deeply hypocritical on the part of the administration. One one hand they say they want to liberate the Iraqis so they can govern themselves in freedom blah blah blah, but on the other hand, they look down on the Iraqis, they don't think the Iraqis are intelligent, educated, knowledgable, whatever enough to outline, implement, and uphold their own democracy. That's why we've imposed our way of democracy upon them and pretty much appointed a leader. If you think it's ever gonna be a real democracy where everybody goes to the polls on election day and fills out their ballot, you are sadly mistaken. Oh, and let us not forget that the president lied to us. More than once. First WMD. There were no WMD. Then it was that Saddam/Iraq was an immediate threat to us. That's not true. We were not in danger of Saddam or Iraq. Not at all. So, if this war was so right and so neccessary, how come 1)The president felt the need to lie his ass off twice(at least) about the reason for it, 2)Huge amounts of Iraqis don't appreciate us, and 3)Iraq is arguably more dangerous now than it was pre-war???
The United States its allies and the rest of the world have had strong political, social, and economic ties to the Persian Gulf Region for decades. Saddam's behavior, invading and attacking four different countries in the region, murdering 1.7 million people, and threatening the planets energy supply with sabotage and seizure, was indeed the business of the United States as well as any other country concerned about the region and how Saddam's actions impact the rest of the world.

Many people in Iraq who were able to,(either by getting out of the country, Kurdish enclace etc) did ask for US assistence in overthrowing Saddam. But to many people in the west forget that Iraqi's live in a police state where they are killed and torture for the most trivial of offenses. Having a rally or conference to ask for aid to overthrow Saddam was impossible inside Saddam's Iraq.

The United States does not look down on any Iraqi's. Iraqi's in the most recent ABC News poll say that their lives today are better than they were before the war, by a majority. The Majority of Iraqi's according to the poll want the coalition to stay! My friends in Iraq are working closely with Iraqi citizens to help develop the country. The vast majority of Iraqi's are kind and friendly to coalition troops and want them to stay and help rebuild the country from the devestation of 30 years of Saddam's rule.

The only way that democracy can come to some countries sometimes is through the removal of the regime that makes movement towards a democratic future impossible. The USA did the same think in Germany and Japan, starting 1945, and it is already ahead of the pace of political development in Iraq, than it was in Germany and Japan at this time.

If you think that Iraq is not going to be democracy where people go to the polls and vote for who they want to be leading the country, get ready to potentially eat your words this January!

George Bush has NEVER lied about anything so far in his administration! The USA and other coalition allies went to war to remove Saddam because it became the only way to insure the VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT of the regime! Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells! Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of these materials per UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement or face renewed military action to enforce the resolution and ceacefire agreement. Saddam did not meet his requirments and the coalition acted accordingly!

Any time someone like Saddam, who is positioned in close proximity to a majority of the planets energy supplies, fails to verifiably disarm of WMD and meet other conditions, they are indeed an immediate threat to the entire planet!

To answer your questions

1) No one in the administration lied, if they had the democrats would have been able to impeach Bush and Kerry would not even have to campaign to be president, he could just walk in. Alleging the adminsitration lied is probably the weakest Democratic or liberal arguement there is.

2) The 140,000 Americans and others in the country have had a very different conclusion than you do. So does the extensive polling that has been done which shows the opposite from what you claim!

3) Saddam helped to murder and torture far more Iraqi's on a monthly basis then the numbers who experience this now at the hands of surviving Saddam loyalist.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:18 PM   #156
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:50 AM
George Walker Bush maybe never lied but i think he misslead the people about what's the war about (remember all the people thinking Saddam was responsible for 9/11 etc) and he was simply wrong sometimes but how to ensure that he knew better without to bug his office?

Ok some comments to iraq.
more than 100.000 US troops serve in iraq while less than 20.000 are in afghanistan (remember - war against terror?)
Aaddam is imprisoned but Bin Laden is still a free man
Mideast is destabilized - ideal for al-quaida to recrute more people. So i'm still affraid that the US won the military battles but in the end al-quaida might have won most in Iraq
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:37 PM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Convenient how you ignore all the other points I made. You said nothing about aid to third world countries or full funding for stem cell research or national healthcare reform or anything else I said. You took one item and wrote five paragraphs about it. Could that possibly be because you know you can't say anything positive about Bush in those other areas?

The military is already getting more money than it needs to adequetly protect us. There is excess money being spent on it that could better be used on other things. The 'Star Wars' thing, that needs to be cut. Military spending just needs to be cut, the Bush administration is putting far too much importance on the military, so much so that it makes it clear to anyone with a two-digit IQ that Bush either doesn't like or isn't good at diplomacy, and either way, that doesn't sit well with me.

And your comment about Bush doing more to fight terrorism than any other president in history is blatantly ignorant. Would you consider the Nazis to be terrorists? I certainly do. They tried to kill an entire race off for no good reason other than that they were brainwashed by a dictator who was probably worse than Saddam ever was. As tragic as the 3000 death toll from 9/11 and the 1000 death toll from the war are, they pale in comparison to the amount of Jews that were killed during the Holocast. Now, who was the president at the time? FDR. And he had a significant part in the events that led to Hitler's death and the collapse of Nazi Germany. And that's just one easy arguement against yours that Bush has done the more than any other president against terrorism.

As for the current election, polls show that the majority of other countries would like to see Kerry elected. Do you understand the implication of that? It means that outside of America, most developed countries feel like Kerry would be better for the entire WORLD than Bush would be. I for one agree. Look what's happened in Bush's term:

The biggest surplus in history was transformed into the biggest deficit in history.

Healthcare rates skyrocketed to the point where our healthcare premiums are by far the highest in the world, and to the point where literally tens of thousands of people travel to other countries, especially Canada, on a regular basis to get their healthcare drugs.

$300 Billion and 1000+ young lives were wasted on an immoral, baseless, pointless, unwinnable war that was presented to the American public under false pretenses, which is just a generous way of saying Bush lied his ass off to the entire country, and as a result the world is now a more dangerous place.

The commander-in-chief actually wanted to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

The commander-in-chief absolutely murdered, destroyed, decimated, the English language on a near daily basis, and proved that he is one of the worst, dare I say possibly the worst, public speaker in the history of politics.

The commander-in-chief has proven himself to be of less than the average intelligence usually desired in a president.

Unprecedent world support for America on 9/11 has disappeared, thanks to GWB, and we are now damn-near hated in the international community, and if that doesn't bother you, you're a fool.

The wealthiest of the wealthy were given the biggest tax cuts.

I could go on and on.

And please, please, stop complaining about Kerry being a flip-flopper. They're all guilty of it, even your guy Bush. When running in 2000, Bush said he'd renew the Assault Weapon Ban. Well, it's expiring, and though it hasn't reached his desk yet, it's a fact that if it did, he'd let it expire, just for the sake of getting the NRA's endorsement and more votes. You don't have a leg to stand on to be talking about Kerry's flip-flopping.

I believe that Bush is a danger to the world and to this country. I don't think Kerry will be great but I do think he'll be 1000 times better than Bush could ever hope to be.
I didn't ignore the other points, I just mentioned the one that was most important. Bush is spending more money in the third world than any other US President has in decades. Billions are being spent every year to help Iraq and Afghanistan develop into modern, stable, democracies. Bush is the first president to have and Aids effort for Africa of its size and scope. EVEN BONO SAYS BUSH HAS DONE WELL ON THIS!

If you think the military is getting more money than it needs to adequetly protect us, please be more specific! What weapon systems would you cut? Which military family and personal pay and benefits would you cut? Who's training would you cut? Do you understand where the money that is spent on the military goes to? What weapon systems that US troops are currently using in Iraq do you NOT want them to have? Are you going to cut back on vital training needed for troops to help them survive on the battlefield?

I find it amazing that you simply say that military spending just needs to be cut, but provide no specifics as to why it needs to be cut, what you would cut and why! You mention "The Star Wars Thing" yet do you realize the investment in that has massively improved Ballistic missile protection for our military personal in the field? Several ballistic missiles in the recent war were shot down by improved Patriot Missiles. The Ballistic Missiles that Iraq fired into Kuwait were aimed at Kuwait City and the US & Coalition command center there. I have friends that could have been killed or injured if the Patriot Missile had not been there! Do you realize that the technology used in the Patriot Missile comes from the research and investment in the "Star Wars" missile defense system? Even if you were to cut it, it is actually only a tiny fraction of the defense budget.

This is precisely my point about liberals simply raiding the defense budget for money with absolutely no thought as to what they would be cutting and how it would impact us and international security, and as a result how it would cost us in lives and standard of living as a result of the global mess that would be created by the US and coalition being incapable of successfully defending the vital regions of the world.

If your going to take this broad view of terrorism than yes, I'll concede there have been larger efforts than Bush's war on terrorism. But if your simply looking at action being taken against non-state terrorism, Bush has done more to roll back that type of terrorism than any President in history.

The United States has dozens of countries that are supporting US efforts in Iraq. This idea that no one outside the United States supports Bush is simply false!

The biggest surplus in history did not become the biggest deficit in history. Adjusted for inflation, there have been many deficits from the past that are larger than the current one. Economic recession starting from the Clinton adminstration as well as a war brought on by others made maintaining a surplus impossible! In both cases, it is not Bush's fault that the surplus disapeared, but rather international events, and the previous adminisration that had the economy heading toward recession when it passed the torch to Bush.

Healthcare is a problem, but it was a problem prior to the Bush Adminisration coming to office.

Bush has NEVER lied about anything in his administration! He effectively responded to the attack on the United States by liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and Killing and capturing thousands of terrorist in the process! He then responded to the grave threat Saddam's failure to disarm posed to the world and in the process liberated 25 million people and made the energy supply of the Persian Gulf more safe and secure than it has ever been in decades.

A presidents public speaking abilities are irrelevant to the office. I don't want a news anchor or simply an actor for president. I want someone who knows what are the best policies for America to pursue given the realities we face today.

This "less than average intelligence president" trained and learned how to fly fighter Jets and is fluent in Spanish. I would not be so hasty to declare another person as being stupid or of below average intelligence.

The United States has over 40 nations helping with the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq. 16 of the 26 NATO allies are involved. Just because Germany and France are not involved does not mean, the world is not allied and supportive of US efforts. Even with Germany and France, they have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, supporting Bush's plans for that country!

Kerry has a life time of flip flopping, Bush has a few things he has changed his mind on since becoming President. That is a huge difference.

Bush has helped remove more non-state terrorism from the world than any other President in history. His actions have removed one of the worlds worst dictators who threatened the worlds energy supply and people with WMD and other weapons. In the process, two countries have been liberated and 50 million people have the chance for a bright future. A President that would be a danger to the world would be one who would cut the military budget there by hurting US security as well as withdrawing from the accomplishments of the first Bush administration. There are many things that indicate that Kerry would be that type of a President. That is one of the reasons why it is important that Bush be re-elected!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:44 PM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
George Walker Bush maybe never lied but i think he misslead the people about what's the war about (remember all the people thinking Saddam was responsible for 9/11 etc) and he was simply wrong sometimes but how to ensure that he knew better without to bug his office?

Ok some comments to iraq.
more than 100.000 US troops serve in iraq while less than 20.000 are in afghanistan (remember - war against terror?)
Aaddam is imprisoned but Bin Laden is still a free man
Mideast is destabilized - ideal for al-quaida to recrute more people. So i'm still affraid that the US won the military battles but in the end al-quaida might have won most in Iraq
No one was misled and the Bush administration was very clear about its reasons for war which were indeed legitimate. Bush is not responsible for people thinking Saddam was behind 9/11. That is simply the result of some being uninformed, and democrats and opponents of Bush attempts to sieze on it as a way to frame the President as a mis-leader or "Liar".

Most of the 100,000 troops in Iraq would not be used in Afghanistan because they are HEAVY ARMOR forces with tanks and Armored Vehicles, not suited for chasing someone in the high mountains of Afghanistan! More importantly, the United States has 7 TIMES the number of troops it had in Afghanistan when the Taliban were kicked out of power, so this idea that this area has somehow been neglected is simply false.

The middle east is not destabilized rather, it has become far more difficult for Al Quada to operate since 9/11.

The insurgency in Iraq is led and maintained by Saddam Loyalist and what remains of Saddam's Special Republican Guard. The number of foreign terrorist in the country is less than 500.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 12:07 PM   #159
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
No one was misled and the Bush administration was very clear about its reasons for war which were indeed legitimate. Bush is not responsible for people thinking Saddam was behind 9/11. That is simply the result of some being uninformed, and democrats and opponents of Bush attempts to sieze on it as a way to frame the President as a mis-leader or "Liar".
Well they did everything they can to support this "legend" that Hussein was linked to 9/11 - and, because only US citizens were "uninformed, i don't think it was "coincidence.


>The middle east is not destabilized
>rather, it has become far more
>difficult for Al Quada to operate since 9/11.

Pardon me? it's more difficult for Al Quaida to operate in Iraq now compared to pre Iraq-war times?

You're right it's more difficult for Al Quaida to operate in Afghanistan now compared to pre Afghanistan-war times but it became easier again after the Iraq war started.

>The number of foreign terrorist in the
>country is less than 500.

We know that Al-quaida can't be catched if we think of them as army or national organized.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 01:23 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


Well they did everything they can to support this "legend" that Hussein was linked to 9/11 - and, because only US citizens were "uninformed, i don't think it was "coincidence.


>The middle east is not destabilized
>rather, it has become far more
>difficult for Al Quada to operate since 9/11.

Pardon me? it's more difficult for Al Quaida to operate in Iraq now compared to pre Iraq-war times?

You're right it's more difficult for Al Quaida to operate in Afghanistan now compared to pre Afghanistan-war times but it became easier again after the Iraq war started.

>The number of foreign terrorist in the
>country is less than 500.

We know that Al-quaida can't be catched if we think of them as army or national organized.
I think this idea that the president misled people is a myth. The Presidents reasons for war against Saddam are consistent with US policy toward Saddam over the past 13 years.

Prior to the war, Al Quada could go any where in Iraq without the fear of being hunted down. Now there are 140,000 American troops, 30,000 other coalition troops and a growing Iraqi military, as well as a civilian population that overall is against the terrorist and Saddam Loyalist, and want any foreign terrorist in the country to be captured or killed.

There is no evidence that Al Quada has had an easy time at all. The organization has had thousands of its members killed and captured, and the only thing that says they are larger and more effective now is a THEORY that many who opposed war in Iraq want to cling to, that the war in Iraq has made Al Quada more powerful.

This is simply not true, and the middle east outside of Iraq is no more unstable than it was years ago. In addition, the Persian Gulf energy supply is more secure than it has ever been in decades.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 04:35 PM   #161
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Well it's a myth that the US invaded Iraq to enforce the UN laws - the administration showed their disrespect to international laws and the UN.
Even Regime change in Afghanistan was a goal which was set after a few days of dropping bombs.

Quote:
This is simply not true, and the middle east outside of Iraq is no more unstable than it was years ago.
Why do you exclude Iraq from the mid-east?

Because of:

* In Ramadi, west of the capital, 10 people died in clashes between Iraqi fighters and US soldiers.

* Gun battles raged in Haifa Street, a stronghold of Saddam loyalists. Fighting broke out at around 0500 (0100 GMT) in the area on the western side of the Tigris River.

A US armoured vehicle caught fire and its four crew members were evacuated with minor injuries.

An American helicopter gunship opened fire with missiles and machine-guns at a crowd swarming around the vehicle who were cheering and throwing stones.

Two children and a journalist for an Arabic TV news channel, al-Arabiyya, were among those killed.

* The huge government compound, which also houses the US embassy, was bombarded by insurgents who oppose the presence in the country of US troops.

* An apparent suicide attack on Abu Ghraib jail, outside Baghdad, was foiled when guards shot at a vehicle which then exploded, killing the driver

* A car bomb in western Baghdad killed two police officers and a young boy

* Three Iraqi national guardsmen were killed around the town of Hilla, south of Baghdad. Three Polish soldiers died in an ambush in the same area

This isn't even the complete newsticker of Iraq today
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 06:53 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
It is not a myth that the United States and other member states of the UN went into Iraq to remove Saddam's regime with the approval of three different UN resolutions, and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. There has never been a war in history that had more authorization from international law and United Nations resolutions that the war launched to remove Saddam from power. The world is a far better place without Saddam and the action taken was absolutely necessary.

I'm not excluding Iraq, but the situation there has indeed changed. The polls in Iraq show that the majority of Iraqi people say that their lives are better now than before the war. In addition, the testimony of the majority of US troops in the region confirms that the situation in most parts of Iraq is improving steadily. Just remember, if the United States and other member states had not removed Saddam, he would still be there as we write these posts. Think about the cost that would entail for the Iraqi people and the rest of the region, if Saddam were still in power.

Nation building is long slow hard work. It would be absurd not to expect the trouble you listed below. But that trouble does not signify instability all over Iraq, or a situation that cannot be rectified. This is an insurgency led primarily by Saddam loyalist who are not going to have power in a future Iraq.

99% of Iraqi's have no interest in randomly bombing people or assaulting soldiers that are risking their lives, in order to make their lives better.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 07:22 PM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Sting

You rely on polls way too much. Polls don't mean a damn thing. If 3 people are polled on a question and 2 of the 3 say yes, that's 66% saying yes. But what if there were also 100 other people that weren't polled, but would have said no. Then that's 101-2 in favor of no. Polls are given to much credence in today's world. Even polls having to do with the election...I give no merit to any of them because they're all biased in one way or another and none are all that accurate. So stop using them and find some other evidence.

And it is an absolute fact, as sure as the sun coming up in the East tomorrow morning, that the people of America were misled into this war. That is not up for debate. Maybe, whether or not Bush intentionally misled them is up for debate, although I don't think there's any question. But the people were mislead, either way, and that is fact. We were told that there were WMD in Iraq, and there weren't. Fact. Only after that were we told we were there to get Saddam. And even then we were told Saddam was a DIRECT THREAT to the USA. Which is a blatent lie. You can yap all you want about all the trade policies we're involved with over there, all the economic reasons, but the fact is that's not a DIRECT THREAT. Saddam wasn't going to attack America. And we were also told that Saddam's regime was connected to 9/11. And that is also a blatent lie. Al Queda is behind 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, I'd have to be deaf dumb and blind to say that, but he was not a DIRECT THREAT to us. Over and over were misled. That cannot be debated. If you want to keep insisting that it is simply the peoples' misinterpretation of what Bush and his administration said, and that Bush is not at fault, go ahead. But you will run into stiff opposition.

I don't care how many UN resolutions there were against Saddam. The fact is that the UN voted AGAINST invading Iraq. And we went in anyway. Bush went against the UN's vote. Even before the UN voted, Bush was saying 'We will go to war, with or without the UN'. No president should be that anxious to go to war. Again, I don't care how many resolutions the UN had, in the end they voted AGAINST the war, and Bush didn't care.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 07:59 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
Sting

You rely on polls way too much. Polls don't mean a damn thing. If 3 people are polled on a question and 2 of the 3 say yes, that's 66% saying yes. But what if there were also 100 other people that weren't polled, but would have said no. Then that's 101-2 in favor of no. Polls are given to much credence in today's world. Even polls having to do with the election...I give no merit to any of them because they're all biased in one way or another and none are all that accurate. So stop using them and find some other evidence.

And it is an absolute fact, as sure as the sun coming up in the East tomorrow morning, that the people of America were misled into this war. That is not up for debate. Maybe, whether or not Bush intentionally misled them is up for debate, although I don't think there's any question. But the people were mislead, either way, and that is fact. We were told that there were WMD in Iraq, and there weren't. Fact. Only after that were we told we were there to get Saddam. And even then we were told Saddam was a DIRECT THREAT to the USA. Which is a blatent lie. You can yap all you want about all the trade policies we're involved with over there, all the economic reasons, but the fact is that's not a DIRECT THREAT. Saddam wasn't going to attack America. And we were also told that Saddam's regime was connected to 9/11. And that is also a blatent lie. Al Queda is behind 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, I'd have to be deaf dumb and blind to say that, but he was not a DIRECT THREAT to us. Over and over were misled. That cannot be debated. If you want to keep insisting that it is simply the peoples' misinterpretation of what Bush and his administration said, and that Bush is not at fault, go ahead. But you will run into stiff opposition.

I don't care how many UN resolutions there were against Saddam. The fact is that the UN voted AGAINST invading Iraq. And we went in anyway. Bush went against the UN's vote. Even before the UN voted, Bush was saying 'We will go to war, with or without the UN'. No president should be that anxious to go to war. Again, I don't care how many resolutions the UN had, in the end they voted AGAINST the war, and Bush didn't care.
Polls are an accurate way to measure what people in the country are doing as long as they are done scientifically. Gallup has successfully predicted most elections in the pasts with its polling data.

The facts in regards to Iraq and WMD are this. Iraq as of November of 1998 had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/Chem shells just to name a few of the things. This is NOT according to the Bush adminstration or any other US administraion, but according to the UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS that were in the country at the time and had just been kicked out.

Iraq did not let those inspectors back in until late 2002 in an attempt to head of the invasion. In letting the inspectors in, Iraq was supposed to account for the above WMD, but they didn't! Saddam was required to hand over the WMD if it was intact, or to show the remains of it if it had been dismantled. Saddam did neither. That is why the invasion of Iraq became a necessity because Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

The fact that WMD has not been found in Iraq yet, is not proof that it does not exist! It is a fact that WMD has not been found yet, but it is NOT a fact that there is not any WMD! The #1 fact that justified the invasion continues to remain in place! It is a fact that SADDAM NEVER VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD and failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable shells.

Saddam was as much a threat to the United States as Nazi Germany was a threat to the United States in World War II. In both cases neither were the "Direct threat" or threat to the immediate physical territory of the United States. But it would be terribly foolish to wait to act until something is simply an immediate threat to the physical territory of the United States. Such thinking might have made sense 200 years ago, but in today's global interdependent world, such thinking is archaic.

The administration mentioned that there was intelligence that showed that there had been some ties between Al Quada and Saddam's regime which is true. It never said though that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

It is very easy to debate this myth that the Bush administration misled anyone.


I'd like for you to do something. Please state for me which UN resolution was voted and passed in opposition to the coalition war in Iraq. Please give the number of the resolution and the date that it was passed on.

There are three different UN resolutions which authorize the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. These are resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. Resolution 1441 was passed on November 8, 2002. The Coalition invasion to remove Saddam from power started 4 months later on March 19, 2003.

Please tell me the resolution where the UN voted against going to war in Iraq. I'd like the resolution number, date, and how each member of the Security Council voted please.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:37 AM   #165
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Sting, I want to thank you for fighting the good fight here, exposing the lies that seek to downplay the good done in Iraq and using simple logic to break down those falsehoods - you do a better job at it than the politicians (or I should say the Mainstream Media).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com