pub crawler
New Yorker
Dick Cheney is a tiny-brained, lying little fuck. He's a small man.
pub crawler said:Dick Cheney is a tiny-brained, lying little fuck. He's a small man.
nbcrusader said:
Tiny brained, eh? He made it to the White House - will you get there?
STING2 said:
John Kerry is not a hawk when it comes to working to give the military everything it asked for, and most people know that.
sharky said:
Wait, why is it wrong to not be a hawk? At this point, we've probably killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We went into Iraq with no clear way to get out. We had our own soldiers repeatedly disobey the Geneva Convention. We've had 1,000 soldiers die in Iraq but our biggest enemy -- Osama bin Laden -- is still on the loose. Why is it wrong to not be a hawk?
As for those '84 voting bills, are you saying he voted against the Star Wars idea proposed by Reagan? Because it was a bad idea, which is why it failed and never got off the ground. And in '84, we were trying to encourage the Soviet Union to open up. Five years later, the Cold War was over and we didn't win the Cold War with weapons.
STING2 said:I think you are forgeting the accomplishments of those 1,000 troops who died in Iraq. They did amazing and incredible work which has made this country, Iraq and the world safer! They have helped to change the world and make lives of Iraqi's and people around the world, better! The United States does not have the body of UBL yet, but what exactly has UBL been able to do since 9/11?
Why is it right to be a dove on these issues? What does being a Dove accomplish on these issues? The fact is, a dovish policy would not have removed Saddam from power and a dovish policy would not be able to catch Bin Ladin or remove the Taliban and Al Quada from Afghanistan. War unfortunately is sometimes necessary.
STING2 said:
Being a Hawk on defense spending is good because it provides the military with the resources needed to deter and prevent war, or if war becomes necessary, to win it as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible.
Klaus said:Mr. Powell
Why can't you be the Presidential candidate of the Republicans for the 2004-elections?
Klaus said:nbc: you could do a poll like the "kerry vs. gore" thing - "bush vs. powell" i'd be curious if anyone prefers mr. bush over mr. powell
ps. i'd support mr. powell if he'd start his race against mr. kerry
nbcrusader said:Bush wouldn't be eligible in 2008 (two term limit)
sharky said:
What has bin Laden done since 9/11? Two bombs in Jakarta -- one at an international hotel and one at the Australian embassy. Over 200 people dead in a bombing in Bali. Over 150 dead in Madrid -- the worst terrorist attack in that country's history. And have you not been paying attention to all the warnings from Homeland Security? Everyday I get on the subway and worry it's going to be bombed because we haven't taken the head off the snake.
And if we take it a step further, what did bin Laden do after the first Trade Center bombing? The USS Cole, two embassies in Africa bombed. And yet, when the Bush administration took office, Ashcroft severly cut spending to fight terrorism even though the Clinton administration suggested they increase. Osama bin Laden was never mentioned in public by this administration even though less than a year before they took office, bin Laden had attacked a U.S. target.
Those 1000 troops have made a sacrifice that I would never be able to make, have put their lives on the line in a way that I honestly would never be able to. It was right for us to go into Afghanistan to find a man who killed 3000 people on our soil. It was not right to divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, even though Iraq did not pose the direct threat to this country that Afghanistan did. A dovish policy would not have been correct in Afghanistan.
President Bush has said we need to be sensitive to the international community when dealing with these issues. John Kerry has said this as well. But you see Dick Cheney whining that John Kerry would have sat around and done nothing -- would've been reactive even though the president, cheney's boss, has said the same thing. We should have been more thorough in the lead-up to the Iraq War -- getting allies, giving more time to weapons inspectors, having a cohenrent exit strategy. We didn't have that and that was wrong.
Hawk269 said:
And isn't it great that we have such a wise leader to tell us when war is necessary? What does it mean when we use these military resources to fight a war that based on false pretenses? And fighting in Iraq is definitely not fighting the war on terror, so let's not go down that road (I already have Fox News for that type of propaganda, thanks). I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that Saddam had no connection to the 9/11 plot.
If you want to argue that the U.S. did the world a big favor by ousting Saddam, who was obviously an atrocious violator of human rights, then wouldn't it have made sense to have the patience to get a coalition together? So, then the rebuttal usually goes that we tried to get the coalition and no other countries were willing to go along (and why would they, with Bush's bogus WMD information). Besides, if we unilaterally went into every country with a horrible human rights violator like Saddam, I think we would need the type of beefed up military spending that you are referring to. The general public only knows about Saddam because our government and media exposes us to their atrocities, with little focus elsewhere. I'm sure Amnesty International can tell us all about the wonderful deeds of other madmen around the world. Let's go get ALL OF THEM!
Sting - I think you need to see the movie Team America - World Police . It should be right up your alley.
AJ
STING2 said:
The war to remove Saddam became a necessity because of his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Thats not a false pretense, but a fact!
The war to remove Saddam was a necessity independent of any of Saddam's alleged or real connections to any sort of terrorism.
The United States did have a coalition together, as large as the one that occupied Germany at the end of the second World War. Now there are dozens of countries from all over the world in Iraq helping to develop the country and protect the people.
Hawk269 said:
If this were a true "coalition" right now, then why have the deaths BY FAR been AMERICAN SOLDIERS?! Here are the stats of your "coalition":
UNITED STATES 1,028 DEAD
ALL OTHER COUNTRIES 134 DEAD
Let's do the math, shall we? That's 88% of the dead! Call it a hunch, but WWII's coalition was not so lop-sided. So, let's not make the mistake of equating the two.
Klaus said:STING2
Kofi Anan repeated this weekend again that he thinks that the War against Iraq was illegal.
It's interesting that many countries of the security council and many employees of the UN (including "the boss" of the UN).
And please sting, do you remember any country which has bin invaded by Mr.Hussein since the last iraq war?
as are you reallySTING2 said:Kofi Anan is one person with an opinion.
Salome said:as are you really
and I'm quite sure Anan could provide about as many reasons as to why he sees this war as being illegal as you can to why it is legal
to regard Kofi Anan as just "one person" in a UN matter is highly illogical to me though
STING2 said:Perhaps you or Kofi Anan would like to explain why, if this war is illegal, the UN has not condemned it and called for a withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq and the restoration of Saddam's regime?