Who are you voting for in November, and why are you voting the way that you are?

[Mitchell]

This thread is meant to be a non judgemental thread. What I woould like to know is who you plan to cast your vote for in November, and why you are voting for him? In college, I had a professor who said:"If we dont know why, we dont know anything." I personally agree with that statement. I have tried to implement it in situations in my life. The important thing to me in this thread is that you state reasons why you are picking the candidate you are voting for, and please dont just say. "Iam voting for Kerry because Bush sucks or Vice versa. Let's try to come up with explanations of why we are voting the way that we are. Iam going to finish this post, post it, and then give my answer. Thanks. I hope we can stimulate good discussion from this thread.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

Okay, Iam going to start. The following are my reasons for voting for John Kerry in November, and I have several.

1. For starters, the economy, while they say it is "getting better" has greatly suffered in Bush's term. More than 2 million jobs have been lost, people are suffering, and things are greatly worse than when Bill Clinton left office. I also tend to think that Bush and the administration are fabricating the number of jobs created, merely for political gain. The fact is, that the economy was in better shape on the day Bill Clinton left office then it is now, and then it probably will be in November.

2. The war, the amount of money spent, and the lives lost. While I do not deny that Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man, the cost of lives and money in this war was simply more than the Americans can afford to lose. We have gone from a huge surplus to a deficit in this war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and it was never proven that Saddam ever had any, intended to use them, or was responsible in any way for the 9-11 attacks. Bush in short gave us this war because he wanted to avenge his father's not dealing with Saddam in 1991, and wanted to gain oil and contracts for Haliburton, Cheney, and his cronies. It is apparent that he told outright lies for the purpose of justiying his course of action.

3. Bush's tax cuts: They have benefited the wealthiest Americans the most, while doing little more than provide mufflers or such for the middle class. Simply put, Bush does not care about the middle class. It is only the wealthy and those who are privliged who benefit most from him and his policies.

4. The Supreme Court: With nothing to lose, this is a very serious issue. Many of the justices are getting aged, and could at any time pass away, or retire. Another four years of Bush will almost guarantee that he will have to appoint justices. With nothing to lose, and no election to win, he will likely put in pro life justices, which would seriously endanger Roe V Wade being overturned, and deprive women of personal rights that should not be mandated by the government.

These are the reasons I will be voting for John Kerry in November. In short, because of these reasons, I feel that Bush is probably one of the worst presidents in this country's history. In addition, while spending billions in Iraq, it is apparent that he has not secured our country's borders adequately. Bush wants this country run as if he were a sovereign king, and not under the republic established by the forefathers. He is extremely delusional, and for the above reasons, I shudder to think of what the country will look like in 2009 if we have another term of him. This is why Iam voting for John Kerry in November.
There is one other very important reason I want to add. Due to the war, Bush has seriously damaged our reputation and credibility with our allies. Countries that were with us at the beginning of the war have pulled out of Iraq, and I see from some UK members posts on here that many in the UK are extremely unhappy with Tony Blair and their government for joining in with Bush's war. In short, this man Bush has done damage that will take years to repair, both economically, politically, and internationally. In all reality, as I examine the state of our economy, our relationships with other countries, and our agenda in general, I feel that this country has hardly if ever been in worse shape on all fronts then we are today.

Mitch

[drew70]

I'll be voting for George W. Bush in November and here are my reasons:

1. For starters, the economy, while they say it is "getting better" would no doubt take a spiral plunge under John Kerry, given the democrats' policies of spending and big government. Democrats are quick to take credit for the technology boom during Clinton's administration, but I believe it is precisely this period of unrealistic assessments of profit and gains that caused the economy to collapse the way it did.

2. The war. John Kerry now boasts of his military service during Vietnam, but at the time he was writing anti-military books and basically took up the same position as Hanoi Jane. In short, he's a sort of chameleon who changes his stance and position depending on his audience. I think since Bush got us into this war, he should be the one to clean it up.

3. Bush's tax cuts. He said he would cut taxes and he did. He's one of the few politicians that actually kept his promises. Taxes are way way way out of hand. The IRS is more insideous then the KGB or the Gestapo ever thought of being.

4. The Supreme Court. If Kerry gets an opportunity to appoint justices of the supreme court, he'll no doubt appoint liberal democrats who will vote to continue the daily wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies under the innocent sounding euphemism of "a woman's right to choose."

These are the reasons I will be voting for Bush in November. After all, if you don't know why, you don't know anything. :rolleyes:

[venray]

Well spoken Drew.

I for one am not wealthy by any means and finally benefitted from the tax cuts. It is about time that being married isnt a liability.

As far as the courts go, no matter what party appoints the next supreme court justice, Roe V Wade will never be overturned. A civil war would ensue in this country if that ever happened.

As far as Kerry goes, he votes one way and then comes out against what he has voted for on a REGULAR basis. He is in Ted Kenedy and the other Deocratic fat cat's pockets and will be nothing more than a puppet President if elected.

I will be voting for Bush, unless the Dems get smart and dont actually pick him at the convention...

;)


Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Puppet president? Bush would qualify as one as well. Then again, most of this society and the media are puppets of the various special interest groups anyway.

Oh yeah, and Drew, don't you enjoy the slaughter of unborn babies? I love the taste of them very much. There's nothing quite like a poached egg. Oh wait, you're talking about human babies. Well, as far as they're concerned, I prefer Bush's approach in withdrawing funding from humanitarian and contraceptive programs in the Third World. That way, these prospective mothers in India and Africa can give birth to children that are likely to die of starvation and disease. Let us not forget that every sperm is sacred and that the Pope is infallible (even when he's looking the other way during the reign of fascist regimes and the practice of child molestation by clergy).

[Mitchell]

I agree with one point you said Ray, but disagree on another.

I agree with you about Kerry and his stance on certain issues. I have already said I believe he is a Washington insider, and would have hoped Edwards would have been the nominee. I do question his strength on certain issues, but still feel he is a better option than Bush.

I disagree on this point. You mentioned thinking that Roe V Wade will never be overturned due to the fact that it will stimulate civil war. In all honesty, I dont think Bush gives a hoot about anything or anyone as long as he gets his way. He is controlled by the pro-lifers and many religious groups have his ear. I feel there is sufficent cause to think that it may be overturned. Also, another point I didnt mention which is very important, is if he gets in again, he will also go about privatizing important government programs like social security and medicare and such. He keeps talking about his "private investment plan" and keeps using the phrase "your money" to describe his economic policies. Think of what would happen if people paid their money into the stock market rather than to pay government social security taxes. While the market has been high, it can always crash. Banks pay no interest, so where are people to put their money? The government, while royally messed up, needs to have some system to take care of its elderly and its poor. With Bush, everything is for the rich. I just feel his economic policies are too radical and wealth geared to benefit the middle class very much. Obviously, we all have differing opinions, and that is why I started this thread. It is what makes the American system of government so interesting, and why I enjoyed that I was a history and politics major. I love this stuff.

Mitch

[kurchatovium]

Barring any unforseen developments I will vote for Georgie.

[venray]

Mitch...It is good to discuss differences of opinion...

Keep in mind there are many of us who personally oppose abortions that do NOT believe the laws should change. We would be on the side of those who want Roe V Wade left alone. I for one do not think that the supreme court will want to change it no matter who is serving as a justice.


Ray

[Mitchell]

On that point I agree with you ray. You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion opposing abortion. That is a very personal thing. I respect that you also believe that Roe V Wade should be left alone. What I have a problem with is when people try to tell others how to live their lives. I agree that everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, but I strongly oppose if a law existed where the government said:" A woman cant ever get an abortion ever" That to me is wrong.

Mitch

[giantfan121262]

But I have to say that, and, like Ray, don't consider myself wealthy by any means, have benefitted from the tax cut. I like the phase out of the marriage penalty, and the credits for having kids, and educational credit.

Looking at the bigger picture. This guy is in the war for one reason. To gain the oil contracts for his cronnies. His family has been in the oil business for generations and to think he is doing it for the benefit of our country seems kind of naive.

If Kerry gets elected, he is coming in with a huge albatross all caused by Bush.

[Mitchell]

I agree with you giant.

Mitch

[jhop220]

I will be voting for John Kerry for a couple of reasons.

1) The economy- sure Dubya gave us tax cuts but I don't think thats the answer right now. We need something to give it more growth. I am happy thatt he economy is doing better under Dubya than Bush Sr.

2) War- It's costing way to much and hurts our image every day it continues. Kerry would push for more involvement from the U.N.

3) I just don't really like voting republican unless the democrat has no real plan for America.

[venray]

Still gotta say that the "albatross" that Kerry carries around his neck is his own voting record and actions after his very short stint in the Vietnam war that he likes to brag about over and over and over and over again..

Oil for cronies...perhaps, but it IS in the best interests of our country and NO politician can argue otherwise....

;)

Ray

[Mitchell]

I agree with all of jhops points.
Let me throw this out to both Republicans and Dems alike. What do the posters think of John Mccain as a candidate? I know he's not going to run against Bush, because Bush is from his own party, but I swear if he were running, even as a Republican, I think I'd vote for him over Kerry. There are several reasons for this.

1. He is very low key. Although he is pro life by nature, I dont see him being as forceful about it as Bush might.

2. He would be a uniter, and would be able to govern from the center, and be able to bring together even the most liberal of Democrats with the most conservative of Republicans.

3. He would be concerned about all the classes, and would not put together policies that give the greatest breaks to the wealthy. Also, his experience as a war veteran would serve him well to enable him to have empathy for all the innocent men that the war put in danger. While he publicly supports the president on the war, I dont know if he would have gone into Iraq without support from the UN if he were president. I truly believe his policies would be a refreshing change, and far different from Bush's

Mitch

[BritneySpears]

I've been personally undecided in the presidential race. Though I've been a Bush supporter, I haven't been pleased with all of his policies, e.g. he can't control spending; the border situation is way out of control; post-war Iraq should have been handled much differently.

I would consider Kerry, but I'd like to find out more about him. We all know he served in Vietnam, he beats us over the head with that time and time again, and I personally don't care if he threw his medals/ribbons, or his lunch for that matter. I'd be more interested in his public service. He was a lieutenant governor wasn't he? Let's here what he did during that. Plus he's been in the Senate for several years, he must have been doing something in Washington DC I would hope. Any bills/legislation go through on his behalf? Give us a little meat to chew on so we can make an intelligent decision.

Okay, I said too much, I'll go back to being quiet again (and who just said "Thank God" :ranty: )

[TklDuo-Drew]

I'm only posting here cause I'm thinking..."Britney Spears KNOWS who Bush and Kerry are?"
Then again, I'm sure the "TMF Britney Spears" is much more intelligent than the actual pop star.


Drew

[kis123]

Originally posted by venray1
Still gotta say that the "albatross" that Kerry carries around his neck is his own voting record and actions after his very short stint in the Vietnam war that he likes to brag about over and over and over and over again..

Oil for cronies...perhaps, but it IS in the best interests of our country and NO politician can argue otherwise....

;)

Ray


I personally dislike both choices myself. But I'm having a huge problem with the killing going on over in Iraq over so-called terrorism. Let's call it what it actually is--we're taking advantage of a country by holding it hostage until we bleed it dry financially as well as physically. Although many seem to have benefited from his tax breaks, who do you expect will be footing the billions of dollars spent to rebuild the same Iraq we're a big part of tearing apart in the first place? It's coming out of someone's pocket, and the oil barons and elite rich are not going to do it. Guess who that leaves? These tax breaks are like credit vs. cash, pay now or pay later, but you're paying for it!

There has to be a better way to handle the oil issues than killing people (even those people that do not share our country or our beliefs). We don't have the right to be in Iraq, plain and simple. If Bush was any kind of man he'd stop hiding behind his so-called religious beliefs and end this war now before anyone else loses their loved ones in the name of making oil companies richer.

Whatever happened to weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to finding Bin Laden? Whatever happened to proving he was responsible for 9-11 in the first place? This was just thrown to the ground in the pursuit of Saddam (who by the way, was accused to having connections to Bin Laden, yet no proof of that was discovered). We have no business being there doing what is being done, not at all!

Besides, anyone know what direction oil prices are going these days? They're using the pump as opposed to the battlefield to win their war. They can't beat us with our weapons, but they're kicking our behinds at the fuel pumps.

I do not believe in abortion under any circumstances. But society has gotten used to the availablilty of the easy way out of the responsibility of taking care of who has been conceived. I know abortion is safe in this country regardless of who would have us believe that Roe v. Wade is in jeporday. Besides, if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to have it either in a doctor's office or in the bathroom with a coat hanger. I cannot assume abortion would ever become illegal. It's bad enough that we're losing children, we don't need to lose the women too.

I think both choices for president absolutely suck. But, I will be voting for Kerry (wishy washiness and flakiness aside) because I hate what Bush has done from stealing the election in the first place, to running over the UN and everyone else to go to war with a man whose family he has been in bed with for years. Let's not forget the over two million jobs lost since he's been in office. The economy's improving just in time for election. After election, will it still be booming, or will it tank in the toilet again?

You know we fall for the same crap over and over again. Promises made pre election never get accomplished post election. Lies over lies. If America started showing politicians at all levels that if they don't keep their promises, they will get voted out the first opportunity, maybe these people will start actually doing their jobs!

[ticklebutton]

I'm supporting John Kerry for these reasons:

1. The Environment

2. Education

3. Domestic issues

4. He is educated, perceptive, diplomatic and courageous. Other leaders in the world respect him, and he them.

5. After he saw first-hand what was happening in Viet Nam he had the courage to take a stand against it.

Button :cool:

[Mimi]

Although I am not overly thrilled with either candidate, my vote this fall at this point will go for Kerry. Reasons I would cite for my choice would be:

My opposition to the war, and especially the direction it is currently taking and the ever increasing cost of the war, both financially and in loss of lives.

The economy. I know they keep saying it's improving, and as each month passes hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being created, but we've yet to see even the slightest effects of those improvements around my area, and in fact, things keep getting worse and worse. You can't even find a job at a grocery store or fast food restaurant around here, and every day more businesses are closing their doors, putting more people out of work.

The gay marriage/equal rights issue. I am a VERY strong believer in equal rights amongst ALL citizens, regardless of their sexual preference, and George W. Bush put the nail in his coffin (in regards to my support of him) when he attempted to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. That's total discrimination in my eyes, and strips many americans of their freedom to find happiness with the partner of their choice.

Mimi

P.S. I do wish to echo Venray though, on the issue of abortion. While I personally am opposed to abortion, I would NOT want to see Roe V Wade overturned. My opposition to abortion has much more to do with poor choices made by sexually active people, rather than any involvement by the government in the issue.

[Mitchell]

You raise a very interesting point about the gay rights marriage issue that others havent yet mentioned in this thread, and you are 100% right,Mimi. If people wish to have same sex marriages, that should be their right, and Bush's constitutional amendment position opposing such is just another example of his controlling and discriminatory behavior.

Mitch

[Limeoutsider]

Im not voting, chalk it up to laziness or the fact that I just dont give a damn, eh


If I do vote, its only going to be because we "found" Osama right around election time, and it wont be for the head hick

[areenactor]

at this point in time, i plan on voting for president bush.
why? because he more closely represents my own views than does the presumptive democrat nomonie john kerry.

steve
p.s. that is how it's done in a non-judgemental manor kiddies.

[BOFH666]

Just to throw in a view from outside the US, this was a topic me and a few mates were talking about a week or two ago and the concensous was simple:

For gods sake get Bush out of office.

Now this had nothing really to do with either his internal or external policies but the simple fact of the matter is in the eyes of many out in the international community (I'd guess it's the majority but can't prove that statement) he's lost all credability. In four years he's managed to take an America that was highly regarded and considered as both a military and diplomatic force and ripped that image apart.

That's not to say it's got to be a democrat in office of course. Maybe it's time to take a leaf out of President Johnsons book when he withdrew from the presidential race in 1968, to avoid "divisive partisanship" and devote his full attention to his duties in a time of war.

Yet, I believe that we must always be mindful of this one thing, whatever the trials and the tests ahead. The ultimate strength of our country and our cause will lie not in powerful weapons or infinite resources or boundless wealth, but will lie in the unity of our people.


And on the subject of tax breaks, is this really a sustanable level of taxation? The American deficit for this year alone is what, $521 Billion? Surely there is going to have to be massive changes to get that figure under control? In fact, when Bush came into office, didn't the US have a budget surplus?

[General Zod]

I raelly don't know which one to vote for I don't really care for our current idiot,but is Kerry really going to be better? How will he create 10 million jobs? What about that 50 cent gas tax he wants to do? How is that going to help out the working class? Also,if he is such a war hero,then why am I starting to see Vietnam Vets Are Not Fonda Kerry?
I guess I will either put in my name or vote none of the above like I have in the past I am just getting sick of the garbage from both parties I get the feeling they are laughing at us:sowrong:

[K-Skate417]

Like many of you expressed, I also don't really like the choices, personally I think Wesley Clark would have been a better candidate than John Kerry. But since the choice is between Bush and Kerry I would have to pick Kerry and here is why:

1. Bush seems to go to war as soon as he gets a chance. He doesn't think of any consequences he just does it for his own personal gain. He claimed the war in Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction and yet none have been found. Although the capture of Saddam Hussein was an accomplishment there has been more damage done than necessary. Also, Bush has completely ignored the fact that his original goal was to capture Bin Laden.

2.Kerry is closer to my style. I am a pretty liberal person and most of his plans I can agree with although there are some I don't like. Also all thr Republicans that I know of all seem to be more concerned with money than anything else.

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by gen.zod
I raelly don't know which one to vote for I don't really care for our current idiot,but is Kerry really going to be better? How will he create 10 million jobs? What about that 50 cent gas tax he wants to do? How is that going to help out the working class? Also,if he is such a war hero,then why am I starting to see Vietnam Vets Are Not Fonda Kerry?
I guess I will either put in my name or vote none of the above like I have in the past I am just getting sick of the garbage from both parties I get the feeling they are laughing at us:sowrong:

Kerry is not proposing a 50-cent gas tax. The Bush commercial that implies he is is based on something he said -ten years ago-. Deceptive, but par for the course for campaign ads.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=165 (http://)

There's really not much I can say to add to what Mimi, Mitchell, and others have already said, except to point out that a vote for Bush is also a vote for the fools, incompetents, and ideological fanatics who surround him, folks like Don "Dr. Strangelove" Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and Dick Cheney. With that in mind, I'm going to be more than happy to vote for Kerry come November.

[natural tickler]

I am voting for Kerry just to get Bush's ass out of there. Like his daddy before him, he has done everything to try to send this country to hell, and even if he is defeated, he will sit back and laugh at the damage he's caused, and be laughing all the way to the bank:sowrong:

[Strider]

I haven't yet decided whether I do the pragmatic thing and vote for Bush,or go my conscience and vote Libertarian.

[Dave2112]

For the first time in my adult life, I may not even vote this time around. Why? Because I cannot, in good faith, give my vote to either without straining the principles I claim to follow.

I cannot vote for Bush, and it really has little to do with the war. This administration is so closed-door about everything that you can never get any idea what's going on in your own government. From the Cheney-contolled energy policy, crafted by Corporate America to suit it's own needs, to the level of secrecy involving anything...they can't be trusted. Take a look at gas prices...the only ones getting rich are Texas Oil, Cheney and Saudis. I can't agree with our Buddy-buddy policy with Saudi Arabia when the terrorist well springs from Riyadh. And I'm not all that nuts about our "do whatever you wan't, we'll back you up" policy with Isreal, who is using this Arab uprising as nothing more than an excuse to lower themselves to the level of the terrorists they claim to defend against. Isreal has our nukes, folks, and Ariel Sharon ain't as level-headed as even Dubya.

However, I do like where Bush is going with the Fetal-Crime Bill and things like that that affect the social lives of the country. I worry about the Dems advancing the cause of the Pro-Choicers with radically liberal appointments. Actually, to be honest, the abortion issue is more important to me than the war issue and would have more weight in my decision.

I just don't trust Kerry, though. I can't understand how a guy who is behind in the polls and not even campaigning hard suddenly wins in overnight upsets when the primaries started. It smells of the same way Bush was hand-placed by the GOP and the Supreme Court or the Illuminati or the Skulls or Satan or whoever rigged up that farce of an election.

Nope, folks. Unless something really comes along to change my mind, I can't put my backing behind either one. Personally, I'd like another choice from both parties. It's kinda lose/lose. If Bush wins, we get four more years of the country being run by Wal-Mart, Halliburton, ExxonMobil and the NRA (brought to you by Who can Survive a High School Reunion with My Big, Fat Apprentice Millionaire who turns into a Swan?)...or we get four years of the country being run by the AFL-CIO, Women Against Everything and the Mafia.

Think I'll just sit back and watch Family Guy reruns on disc. Sounds safer. :cool:

[kis123]

Dave;

I agree with you on every last point you've made. I've even questioned voting myself. It is a lose-lose situation. However, I'm still going to vote if for no other reason than to say to myself, that I didn't allow them to do the voting for me. I represented myself the best way I could whether my candidate loses or not. I hope you reconsider your decision, but I understand if you don't. Try not to give up just yet.

[Dave2112]

Oh, there will be other things on the ballot to consider come November, I just know if I'll cast a vote for president. I'm not "giving up", I just don't trust either of these men to such a degree that I can't vote for one and still look at myself in a mirror.

[kis123]

Originally posted by Dave2112
Oh, there will be other things on the ballot to consider come November, I just know if I'll cast a vote for president. I'm not "giving up", I just don't trust either of these men to such a degree that I can't vote for one and still look at myself in a mirror.


Point well taken. I'm having a similar problem myself. Hard to vote and maintain a straight face, isn't it?

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
Barring any unforseen developments I will vote for Georgie.
You forgot to say why.

[Roseblossom]

*Despite claims by the Administration that the economy is improving and U.S. jobs are being created due to the Bush tax cuts, the country continues to see no net gain in jobs, with only 8,000 jobs created in December of 2003.

[http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040305_238.html]

*The May 28, 2003 Bush Tax cut gives the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans on average $96,634 in tax cuts over the next four years, while it gives the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers on average a total of $350 over the same period.

[http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb03st.htm]

*The federal budget deficit will peak this year at $521 billion, surpassing congressional estimates and shattering records.

[http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2004/01/29/rtr1234607.html]

*George W. Bush is proposing a new council which would let American corporations have a say in governmental policy, including changes in tax law and regulations that could benefit those corporations.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId]

*The Bush Administration recently sent emails to all Republican congressmen containing "talking points" to support George W. Bush on the environment for the upcoming Presidential election.
One such point calls on congressmen to claim global warming remains an unproven theory.

*Longtime members of the EPA are claiming that the new rule on mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was created by political appointees in the department, and that it reflected the position of the industry and White House.

*New mercury pollution rules proposed by the Bush Administration were taken in large part - sometimes verbatim - from utility company memos suggesting changes.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64630-2004Jan30.html]

*The Union of Concerned Scientists has accused the Bush administration of manipulating and distorting scientific facts to create policies in the areas of "climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons" that fit with their political agenda.

[http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html]

*Many of the members of a recent White House roundtable of national "economic leaders" are also Bush financial donors, including heads of Goldman Sachs, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell.

**The American dollar continues to fall against the Euro, sterling and the Swiss franc due to fears about US trade and budget deficits.

[http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2004/02/10/rtr1254893.html]

*US officials now admit that intelligence agencies "could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda" prior to the invasion of Iraq, even though the Bush administration continued to claim such a connection existed.

*The White House repeatedly killed Pentagon plans to hit terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqaw in northern Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. US officials claim the administration was more interested in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein than preemptive attacks against a known terrorist.

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601]

*The new $2.4 trillion budget proposed by George W. Bush does not contain tens of billions of dollars that will be needed for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Upon taking office, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created an ideologically-driven "shadow government" called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), manned by Pentagon analysts whose job it was to look through raw intelligence and gather information that would back the Administration's foreign policy agenda.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html]

*The Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Bush appointee Paul Bremer, has been implicated in the disappearance of 10s of millions of dollars involving post-war contracts.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1017231.htm]

*Bush has appointed John Negroponte to be the new US ambassador to Iraq.
During his stint as Ambassador to Honduras in the early 80s, Negroponte orchestrated the contras fight against Nicaragua and whitewashed human rights atrocities such as political murder and torture committed by the Honduran government.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/iraq/main611673.shtml]

[Mitchell]

Thank you very much for the links to those posts, Rose. They represent hard evidence of the argument against Bush having a second term, and were exactly what I was looking for when I started this thread. Much appreciated.

Mitch

[Roseblossom]

My pleasure, Mitch :)

It's so frustrating to hear folks quote something they heard on tv as the reason they're voting for bush - quotes from a bush campaign ad!

~Rose~

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
My pleasure, Mitch :)

It's so frustrating to hear folks quote something they heard on tv as the reason they're voting for bush - quotes from a bush campaign ad!

~Rose~

I keep meaning to ask, why DOES the American political system only limit election funds to a candidate after they accept the nomination of their party? I mean, I know why it does from the political point of view as more $$$ spent = more air time and therefore more minds being turned to jelly by campaigns on both sides. But why does the public put up with it?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Roseblossom

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601]

*The new $2.4 trillion budget proposed by George W. Bush does not contain tens of billions of dollars that will be needed for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And in fact, this $2.4 Trillion budget has been.... (wait for it folks).... turned down by the Senate! Link and article follows, but note the sticking point was those voter-pleasing tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21budget.html

(Reproduced in full as the site requires registration)


Unable to a squelch a six-week mutiny over President Bush's tax-cutting agenda, Senate Republican leaders on Thursday conceded that they could not muster enough votes to pass a $2.4 trillion budget plan and abruptly postponed a vote until at least next month.

"It's premature to bring it to a vote tonight," said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate majority leader, after spending much of the day trying to persuade a handful of centrist Republicans to abandon their insistence that any new tax cuts be paid for with either spending cuts or tax increases.

The decision, coming on the same day that Mr. Bush made a high-profile plea for approval of the budget on a last-minute trip to Capitol Hill, was a major setback for the president, and reflected growing unease about his goal of permanently extending the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. It was also a sign of bitter rifts between House and Senate Republicans and between House leaders and Senate moderates, some of whom openly traded insults earlier this week.

Democrats wasted little time in using the moment to denounce Mr. Bush's economic agenda.

"Welcome to the big leagues," said Representative Rahm Emmanuel, Democrat of Illinois, a former White House aide in the Clinton Administration. "This is not only an example of their being unable to govern, it's an example of the failure of their economic policies."

Congressional analysts have estimated that the cost of making the tax cuts permanent could total nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. The budget impasse, which began in March, was over whether to impose a "pay as you go" rule that would require Congress to offset the cost of new tax cuts.

Mr. Bush and House Republicans adamantly opposed any such restrictions, as they would have made it almost impossible to make last year's tax cuts permanent.

But in the Senate, a handful of centrist Republicans teamed up with Democrats in March and succeeded in attaching the pay-as-you-go rule to the budget resolution by a two-vote majority. House and Senate leaders agreed on a compromise that would have essentially postponed the major decisions until next year, but all four of the Republican dissenters rejected the deal as unacceptable.

Although Mr. Frist said he still hoped to pass a budget resolution when Congress returns in early June from its Memorial Day recess, Republicans and Democrats said the impasse will not be easy to resolve.

"I would have been surprised if the budget had passed today," said Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "I knew if there were holdouts they weren't going to change at the last minute. "

The battle on Thursday was over a central difference between budget resolutions passed earlier this year by the House and Senate.

Four Senate moderates - John McCain of Arizona, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - had insisted on attaching a provision that would have applied pay-as-you-go-rules for the next five years.

The House budget resolution called only for a pay-as-you-go rule that would apply to new spending programs outside of defense and domestic security. The Bush administration staunchly supported the House approach, determined to permanently extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 rather than let them expire over the next several years.

Senate Republicans needed two more votes to reverse the earlier budget vote in March, but none of the four moderates were willing to give much ground.

"It sounds like an obscure technical issue, but it is extremely important," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonprofit research group that campaigns for lower budget deficits. "It is becoming a major rift within the Republican Party."

Mr. McCain let it be known this month that he would go along with imposing pay-as-you-go rules for three years instead of five, but House Republicans said they would only accept the restriction for one year.

In what seemed like a last-ditch effort at agreement, Mr. Frist and other Senate leaders agreed with House leaders on a one-year plan that would allow Congress to extend for one year three major tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year.

But as the pressure to reach a deal increased, Mr. McCain scathingly attacked the "fat cats" who were not willing to make sacrifices while fighting a war. That prompted an angry retort earlier this week from the Republican House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who said Mr. McCain, a decorated war veteran and former prisoner of war, ought to appreciate the sacrifices being made by soldiers in Iraq.

Mr. McCain fired back on Thursday. "I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility," he said. "Apparently, those days are long gone for some of those in our party."

By Thursday morning, Republican leaders had all but abandoned hope of persuading any of their four rebellious colleagues and tried in vain to find one or two conservative Democrats who might change their views.

Mr. Bush came to Capitol Hill, in part to talk about Iraq but also to appeal for support on the budget.

"I urge the Senate to follow the House's lead and pass this budget so that we can continue making progress on our shared agenda of building a safer, stronger, and better America," Mr. Bush said in a statement after meeting with House and Senate Republicans.

The failure of Senate Republicans to pass a budget resolution does not mean that any of last year's tax cuts will necessarily expire.

Both House and Senate budget plans would have left room to extend those tax cuts without finding ways to pay for them, at least for the next few years.

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Just to throw in a view from outside the US, this was a topic me and a few mates were talking about a week or two ago and the concensous was simple:

For gods sake get Bush out of office.

Now this had nothing really to do with either his internal or external policies but the simple fact of the matter is in the eyes of many out in the international community (I'd guess it's the majority but can't prove that statement) he's lost all credability. In four years he's managed to take an America that was highly regarded and considered as both a military and diplomatic force and ripped that image apart.

With all due respect, you're contradicting yourself. You say that that your desire to see the President leave office has nothing to do with his policies, but rather his loss of credibility. If his loss of credibility was not a function of his policies in your eyes, than what was?

Additionally, America was never highly regarded in Europe. Your assertion that the US was somehow loved on the Continent, or even in the British Isles, is just plain wrong. I speak from authority on this, I realize that you're English, but I have worked with many hundreds of Europeans over the years, and can say quite surely that hostility towards America was as high during Reagen as it is now.

Originally posted by BOFH666
And on the subject of tax breaks, is this really a sustanable level of taxation? The American deficit for this year alone is what, $521 Billion? Surely there is going to have to be massive changes to get that figure under control? In fact, when Bush came into office, didn't the US have a budget surplus?

Judging the US debt on the basis of absolute numbers is misleading. If you compare our debt with that of Germany or France, it's about the same.

To answer your question, yes, we had a budget surplus when Bush came into office, but circumstances changed rather fast, to put it mildly. If you're concerned about changes needed to the American budget, I hope that you're sharing these same thoughts with the French and Germans as well regarding their economies. By most metrics, contrary to what most posters on this board may think and insist upon, the US economy is in fact in better shape that Europe's.

I don't vote based on what others think of the President. I vote based on what I think of the President. I will be voting for W.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by MikeMike
With all due respect, you're contradicting yourself. You say that that your desire to see the President leave office has nothing to do with his policies, but rather his loss of credibility. If his loss of credibility was not a function of his policies in your eyes, than what was?


The fact that, despite what I may personally think of his policies, the way those policies are carried out are a different issue to what they are. Just to give an example here, look at the build-up to war in Iraq, specifically the reaction to the French refusing to back the vote on the evidence presented. Leave aside all the whys are wherefores on both sides, the reaction in the States from the current Administration was sickening. And THAT was not policy, that was atitutde. The idea of "If you're not with us, you're against us" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, nothing is that black and white except, maybe, on the school playground. Again, it is not WHAT you do but how you do it and the way this adminsitration has acted against anyone who dared raise voice against them whether foreign or domestic, has been horrible to watch.


Additionally, America was never highly regarded in Europe. Your assertion that the US was somehow loved on the Continent, or even in the British Isles, is just plain wrong. I speak from authority on this, I realize that you're English, but I have worked with many hundreds of Europeans over the years, and can say quite surely that hostility towards America was as high during Reagen as it is now.


Regan was, what, 15 years ago? I can only go on my own experiences, but during the Clinton administration I can't remember hearing any hostility towards America. Heck, most of my graduating class at Uni where thinking of going to the states at some point after their debts were paid to work, it was that attractive as a country. That didn't change with the new administration, that didn't change with changes in policy, it didn't change with the dot com boom going bust (as we'd all seen it coming and were looking past that anyway). Yet over the last few years it HAS changed, in fact a quick straw poll from a couple of mates that are on-line at the moment showed the general mood being Canada is now a better option.


Judging the US debt on the basis of absolute numbers is misleading. If you compare our debt with that of Germany or France, it's about the same.

To answer your question, yes, we had a budget surplus when Bush came into office, but circumstances changed rather fast, to put it mildly. If you're concerned about changes needed to the American budget, I hope that you're sharing these same thoughts with the French and Germans as well regarding their economies. By most metrics, contrary to what most posters on this board may think and insist upon, the US economy is in fact in better shape that Europe's.


Thanks for the concern, but just for the record, the UK IS sharing those thoughts with France and Germany, it's one of the major reasons we're just a tad reluctant to join the Euro. Okay, a lot reluctant. Okay, fine, we're basically telling them to perch and rotate, happy? :D And while indeed circumstances changed, that's the way of the world and I personaly would be very worried about any economy that went so far into the red so quickly. Just to give an example, when you're experiencing such a budget crunch I would have thought the last thing you should do is give big tax breaks.


I don't vote based on what others think of the President. I vote based on what I think of the President. I will be voting for W.

And that's a fair view but, to echo Roseblossom's question to another poster earlier, may we ask why?

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by BOFH666
The fact that, despite what I may personally think of his policies, the way those policies are carried out are a different issue to what they are. Just to give an example here, look at the build-up to war in Iraq, specifically the reaction to the French refusing to back the vote on the evidence presented. Leave aside all the whys are wherefores on both sides, the reaction in the States from the current Administration was sickening. And THAT was not policy, that was atitutde. The idea of "If you're not with us, you're against us" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, nothing is that black and white except, maybe, on the school playground. Again, it is not WHAT you do but how you do it and the way this adminsitration has acted against anyone who dared raise voice against them whether foreign or domestic, has been horrible to watch.

We'll agree to disagree here. I feel that we're fighting for our very survival, and while the administration's communications may not be perfect, after Clinton's reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing, and his de facto assistance to Osama Bin Laden, I'll take Bush and his abrupt style.

Originally posted by BOFH666
Regan was, what, 15 years ago? I can only go on my own experiences, but during the Clinton administration I can't remember hearing any hostility towards America. Heck, most of my graduating class at Uni where thinking of going to the states at some point after their debts were paid to work, it was that attractive as a country. That didn't change with the new administration, that didn't change with changes in policy, it didn't change with the dot com boom going bust (as we'd all seen it coming and were looking past that anyway). Yet over the last few years it HAS changed, in fact a quick straw poll from a couple of mates that are on-line at the moment showed the general mood being Canada is now a better option.

There is no way to say this without sounding rude, but I have learned over the years that just because 95% of the people in a room think they're right, doesn't mean they're right. And you needn't convince me that most Europeans are irritated with the US. But what you're failing to see is that I, like many of my fellow Americans, do not judge my President, or my country, by your perception of us. Again, with all due respect, whether you choose to visit America or Canada is of little importance to me, nor should it be.

Originally posted by BOFH666
Thanks for the concern, but just for the record, the UK IS sharing those thoughts with France and Germany, it's one of the major reasons we're just a tad reluctant to join the Euro. Okay, a lot reluctant. Okay, fine, we're basically telling them to perch and rotate, happy? :D And while indeed circumstances changed, that's the way of the world and I personaly would be very worried about any economy that went so far into the red so quickly. Just to give an example, when you're experiencing such a budget crunch I would have thought the last thing you should do is give big tax breaks..

Until the dot.com boom, the US had not run a surplus since the Eisenhower administration. It's rare the countries run surpluses. That we did for a short time is little reason to scream when we don't.

Originally posted by BOFH666
nd that's a fair view but, to echo Roseblossom's question to another poster earlier, may we ask why?

Sure. I vote on national security. I agree with Christopher Hitchens, in that if we get this wrong, nothing else matters. I believe that in 5 years, the situation in Iraq will be better, and history will judge Bush to have done the right thing.

Now, the obvious rejoinder to this is, 'why do you think Bush is better for national security?' Really, I can go on and on about this. Ask if you like, but I can promise a free-wheeling debate that has already been hashed out on this board and countless venues like it time and again, and I have come to the conclusion that both explaining myself, or trying to alter another's ideology is virtually impossible over the Internet, thanks to the nature of the medium. Inflection is lost, subtleties are misunderstood.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by MikeMike
Additionally, America was never highly regarded in Europe. Your assertion that the US was somehow loved on the Continent, or even in the British Isles, is just plain wrong. I speak from authority on this, I realize that you're English, but I have worked with many hundreds of Europeans over the years, and can say quite surely that hostility towards America was as high during Reagen as it is now.

Judging the US debt on the basis of absolute numbers is misleading. If you compare our debt with that of Germany or France, it's about the same.

To answer your question, yes, we had a budget surplus when Bush came into office, but circumstances changed rather fast, to put it mildly. If you're concerned about changes needed to the American budget, I hope that you're sharing these same thoughts with the French and Germans as well regarding their economies. By most metrics, contrary to what most posters on this board may think and insist upon, the US economy is in fact in better shape that Europe's.


It's interesting that you chose Reagan as your presidential comparison to Bush as far as European attitudes toward America are concerned. Clinton was, for the most part, an internationally respected president compared to Reagan or either Bush. So yeah, Bush #2 did lose our credibility in their eyes....

Comparing the US debt to Europe's is rather irrelevant. Let's think here: do the costs of reconstructing Europe after WWII mean anything to you? Sure, we funded the reconstruction, but most of that money was loaned out by us, which equalled more debt for these European nations. So yeah, our debt is still proportionately small compared to that of Germany or France, but we never had to reconstruct our own country either.

Oh yeah, our economy is doing better than most of Europe's, but it already was during Clinton's term. As much as Bush has been deficit spending, he hasn't quite managed to lower our economic state below much of Europe's, but if you give him 4 more years, that's a very possible outcome....

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
It's interesting that you chose Reagan as your presidential comparison to Bush as far as European attitudes toward America are concerned. Clinton was, for the most part, an internationally respected president compared to Reagan or either Bush. So yeah, Bush #2 did lose our credibility in their eyes....

No. This wave of Anti-Americanism started in the mid-90s. It began with the anti-globalization movement, and increased with Europe's frustration at their inability to intervene in the Balkans.

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Comparing the US debt to Europe's is rather irrelevant. Let's think here: do the costs of reconstructing Europe after WWII mean anything to you? Sure, we funded the reconstruction, but most of that money was loaned out by us, which equalled more debt for these European nations. So yeah, our debt is still proportionately small compared to that of Germany or France, but we never had to reconstruct our own country either.....

This makes little sense. According to current debt to GDP ratios, our debt is about the same as France's or Germany's. The reconstruction of Europe took place 60 years ago. That debt left their books ages ago.

You can't possibly be telling me that you're under the impression that debt left over from the Marshall Plan is playing a role in today's capital markets?

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
oh yeah, our economy is doing better than most of Europe's, but it already was during Clinton's term. As much as Bush has been deficit spending, he hasn't quite managed to lower our economic state below much of Europe's, but if you give him 4 more years, that's a very possible outcome.... [/B]

The only reason that Clinton had a surplus was because of the large increase in tax receipts that began to flow into Treasury, which started in the early 90s. It is also worth mentioning that it was with a Republican congress and Senate that this took place.

[august spies]

if voting could change anything it would be illegal.

Ill vote for no one, we dont need to choose which member of the ruling class to rob the world blind and kill people.

Mike what do you have against the anti globalization movement. You want to starve more children?

[areenactor]

Originally posted by august spies
if voting could change anything it would be illegal.

Ill vote for no one, we dont need to choose which member of the ruling class to rob the world blind and kill people.

Mike what do you have against the anti globalization movement. You want to starve more children?

omg! is that an imflamatory question or what?!

but i'll take this opportunity to gross you out even more;
i say yeah, starve the little bastards! if it means raising my taxes, and less money in my pocket to provide for my children, then fuck the world! charity begins at home.

by the way, mike was correct, we have never been looked on with favor in europe. another thing, france and germany were re-built by america after ww2. and not one cent was re-paid. the only two countries that repaid their war debt was finland, and denmark.

steve

[the_Baron]

we need a strong leader with nostalgia for the past.

and thats why i say Hirohito in '04

sayonara

[august spies]

i know you enjoy starving children and i wish most capitalists were more honest like yourself. However, you are wrong about it costing you money, on the contrary it costs you money to starve them.

International debt and capital has a goal of stealing as much resources and money from the global south, in doing so it requires force (arms trade, dictatorships, death squads, bribes etc..) all these things cost money, 2 billion to colombia, billion to turkey, 6 billion to israel, billions to egypt, etc..)

Also thats why you have a pork military budget of almost 500billion dollars. Thats also why you have a pork corporate welfare budget in the billions (paying pillsbury 2million to advertise overseas etc..)

I never disagreed with mike on the way "we" are looked upon in europe.

Anyway the point being, even from a purely selfish point of view, it saves you money not to kill people. What you dont seem to realize is that your not a part of the capitalist class and you dont benifit from their exploitation

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by MikeMike
...we're fighting for our very survival, and while the administration's communications may not be perfect, after Clinton's...de facto assistance to Osama Bin Laden, I'll take Bush and his abrupt style.
De facto assistance? From what source are you quoting?

Maybe you mean the Reagan/Bush administration in the 80s, when Osama Bin Laden's "resistance fighters" were backed with American dollars from the Reagan/Bush administration and received security training from the CIA itself.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1162108.stm]

I do wish Clinton had recognised the bin Laden threat earlier; however in response to the bombing of US embassies in Africa in August 1998 he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp hosting a meeting of the al Qaeda leaders.

And in that summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

In 1999 the UN imposed an air embargo and financial sanctions to force Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden for trial.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...004Feb21_2.html]

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by the_Baron
...and thats why i say Hirohito in '04...
*laughing* Yes, Baron! (ha! good one!)

Everyone planning to vote for Bush should instead do a write-in vote for Hirohito!

Button :p

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by MikeMike
No. This wave of Anti-Americanism started in the mid-90s. It began with the anti-globalization movement, and increased with Europe's frustration at their inability to intervene in the Balkans.

This makes little sense. According to current debt to GDP ratios, our debt is about the same as France's or Germany's. The reconstruction of Europe took place 60 years ago. That debt left their books ages ago.

You can't possibly be telling me that you're under the impression that debt left over from the Marshall Plan is playing a role in today's capital markets?

The only reason that Clinton had a surplus was because of the large increase in tax receipts that began to flow into Treasury, which started in the early 90s. It is also worth mentioning that it was with a Republican congress and Senate that this took place.

Ok... Mike... let's see how many partial truths you've thrown in your last message... First partial truth: "This wave of Anti-Americanism started in the mid-90s. It began with the anti-globalization movement, and increased with Europe's frustration at their inability to intervene in the Balkans." While you are correct that anti-American sentiment has arisen due to anti-globalization, most of this anti-globalization stems from things like the EU. A lot of European citizens don't want their countries to become part of an economic union that has little to offer their own wealthy countries and mostly aid their poorer neighbors. At least, that's the way many see it. Others are against it due to the legislative powers that the EU has over them. In any case, Europe has seen its periods of American favoritism and antagonism over the last 50 years. No matter how you measure these feelings though, Bush is undoubtedly less favored by most Europeans than Clinton was.

Partial Truth #2: "The reconstruction of Europe took place 60 years ago. That debt left their books ages ago." Yes, it started about 60 years ago. Whether it's left the books or not, it doesn't matter. The repercussions of having to rebuild set most of Europe behind us economically right after WWII. Given advances in technology, rapid immigration and population growth, and rapid industrialization, we quickly became the world power we are today. I could be wrong, but we've been more economically powerful and resilient than most of Europe ever since WWII. When I mentioned the debts, I really meant the repercussions of the debts.

Partial Truth #3: "The only reason that Clinton had a surplus was because of the large increase in tax receipts that began to flow into Treasury, which started in the early 90s. It is also worth mentioning that it was with a Republican congress and Senate that this took place." Yes, there were many tax receipts. Yes, there was a Republican Congress (which includes the Senate, FYI) during this period. However, the surplus was also affected by Clinton's willingness to work closely with Alan Greenspan, which helped spur economic growth, and also Clinton's willingness to cut government spending in bloated budget items, like the military. Oh yeah, it was also a Republican Congress that proposed many of the military budget cuts that Clinton passed. I thought I'd mention that before you blast Clinton for being anti-military.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by areenactor
omg! is that an imflamatory question or what?!

but i'll take this opportunity to gross you out even more;
i say yeah, starve the little bastards! if it means raising my taxes, and less money in my pocket to provide for my children, then fuck the world! charity begins at home.

steve

Knowing Steve's tendency to yank people's chains (much like my own tendency), I'd guess you're being tongue-in-cheek, eh Steve?

There is a part of me that agrees with you in one respect. Don't help nations that don't want our help. Iraq almost seems to fit this description. Somalia basically became that way back in the 90s. If they wanna kill our soldiers while we're trying to help them, I say, "fuck it." Then again, if the U.N. was there, then maybe they'd be a little less suspicious (or at least more compliant). There has to be some kind of psychological weight attributed to the knowledge that the majority of the world is rebuilding your country, but when a wealthy nation conquers your nation against the will of most of the world, then a very different feeling arises. Add to this feeling the resentment resulting from the Abu Gharaib incidents, and voila, you have some very pissed off natives.

But yeah Steve, charity does begin at home. We need to fix our inner cities before we try to (futilely) rid the world of terrorism.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
..charity does begin at home. We need to fix our inner cities before we try to (futilely) rid the world of terrorism.
Yes, there is so much urgent need right here at home.

Bring our troops home, strengthen homeland security, and fix what's broken here.

~Rose~

[areenactor]

was i "yanking chains" hmm... who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...:p

big suprise for you all; i am quickly comming to the conclusion that we should say fuck it, and load up, and leave iraq. hell with it, let them have their religious civil war, let them kill eachother, instead of our troops. the only priviso i would declare is that we will monitor the borders, and not allow any outside interferance,ie; arms shipments, or forigne involvment.

these animals do't seem to want our help to make them a beautifull country, with unheard of person freedom. so hell with them, they're too damn stupid to waste our troops lives.

it's not that they view us as a rich powerfull invader. they view us as religious enemies. they're culture is totally alien to us, and vise-versa. some people just don't want help.

steve

[Cosmo_ac]

These animals Steve? Ain'tthat calling the kettle black, considering what some American "Saviors and Saints" have been doing in there country to there people. Iraq people are actually very intelegent. Your basing your views on extremists.
Your right about the cultures being very different though, and i have no doubt the Iraqies want help. They just don't want to be dictated to as to how they should run there country, just as Americans wouldn't like being dictated to as to how to run there own country.

[kis123]

Originally posted by areenactor
was i "yanking chains" hmm... who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...:p

big suprise for you all; i am quickly comming to the conclusion that we should say fuck it, and load up, and leave iraq. hell with it, let them have their religious civil war, let them kill eachother, instead of our troops. the only priviso i would declare is that we will monitor the borders, and not allow any outside interferance,ie; arms shipments, or forigne involvment.

these animals do't seem to want our help to make them a beautifull country, with unheard of person freedom. so hell with them, they're too damn stupid to waste our troops lives.

it's not that they view us as a rich powerfull invader. they view us as religious enemies. they're culture is totally alien to us, and vise-versa. some people just don't want help.

steve

Steve;

First paragraph of your post: I agree wholehartedly with sending our troops home. What's going on isn't working. People are dying across the board, and it's time to let the Iraqi people figure it out for themselves. Besides, there is a enough going on at home in the USA to keep Bush busy for the rest of his natural life. We need to remember that while billions of dollars are being spent to rebuild the same country we helped to tear up in the first place.

Second paragraph of your post: Totally disagree. I've heard too many people refer to Middle Easterners as "animals". They're people encased in skin just like us. They have families and loved ones just like us. They have their religious beliefs (as hard as it is for me to understand them) just like us. They love their country regardless of its crappy government just like us. The "animals" in question do not represent the majority of their nation.

Third paragraph: Not every Muslim thinks we're infidels either. That's a lot of media bulls**t fed to us to justify our prejudice and fuel animosity and hate. And don't worry, their media does the same towards us.

[Swimmingbird]

I will be voting for Kerry because I don't want to fight in Iraq. I do believe that Bush is planning on putting the draft back into affect, I was never one to say, "the man's trying to get me down," but I believe the Smart Boarder Declaration of 2001 was a well planned way to catch draft dodgers. As a disclaimer, I would not dodge the draft or attempt to, I think if kids my age are going to be forced to fight, I should die right there by their side. Anyway, back to the Smart Boarder Declaration.. it just seems a little strange to me that Bush gets into office and decides that the Canadian boarder is a threat. I'd never heard of a problem of Canadians sneaking into America, or huge drug shipments coming through the boarder either. I think Bush planned on going to war with Iraq before he got elected. And on a lesser note, it annoys me that Bush mispronounces big words and can't speak more than a sentence without pausing. Our president is representing us all, and I don't like to be represented as unintelligent. Check out the links below if you're interested.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/index-en.asp

[areenactor]

for hopfully the last time; bush IS NOT BRING BACK THE DRAFT!
in fact he said he would veto such legislation! the people who brought up the draft issue were democrates! so there!

kis, and my northern brother, i used the term "animal" in the same way i have used it to speak of nazi's, and kkk'ers.
let's not forget what they did to daniel berg, cut his freaking head off with a dull butchers knife. or how about the 4 CIVILIAN workers that were just there to help re-build their(please note the correct spelling) country. they ambushed the car, and while the 4 men were this alive, they (the iraqis) set the car on fire! being burned to death it a bad way to go! then they kicked the head off of one of them and used it a a soccer ball! then hung up all 4 bodies from a bridge! how about what they did to jesica linch? how about what they did to the other female soldier from linch's unit?

if anything calling "people" that do these kind of vile acts animals, is an understatment!

belittleing a few prisoners, as a form of interigation, is no where near the same thing! and if any can't see the difference, they're an idiot!

steve

steve

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by areenactor
for hopfully the last time; bush IS NOT BRING BACK THE DRAFT!
in fact he said he would veto such legislation! the people who brought up the draft issue were democrates! so there!


It's not a question of policy, it's a question of mathematics. Leaving aside the fact that Bush's record on sticking to his guns policy-wise is, umm I'll be polite, questionable the US is already pulling troops from South Korea to Iraq in order to maintain a military presence there. If things stay as they are, no there should be no need to reinstate the draft. However, if anything else comes along, or if Iraq degenerates any further into a popular uprising against the coalition forces there are problems looming. Don't forget America (and Britain for that matter) have been at war in one way or another more-or-less constantly since Afghanistan and substantial resources are positioned worldwide as part of various peace-keeping missions. There's going to come a time when the question comes down to a simple equation, the need for warm bodies in uniform. I honestly hope it won't happen, and I don't think it will, but neither would I rule out the possibility completly.


kis, and my northern brother, i used the term "animal" in the same way i have used it to speak of nazi's, and kkk'ers.
let's not forget what they did to daniel berg, cut his freaking head off with a dull butchers knife. or how about the 4 CIVILIAN workers that were just there to help re-build their(please note the correct spelling) country. they ambushed the car, and while the 4 men were this alive, they (the iraqis) set the car on fire! being burned to death it a bad way to go! then they kicked the head off of one of them and used it a a soccer ball! then hung up all 4 bodies from a bridge! how about what they did to jesica linch? how about what they did to the other female soldier from linch's unit?

if anything calling "people" that do these kind of vile acts animals, is an understatment!

So these examples justify the abuse and torture of ordinary Iraqi's? Fair enough, that's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it, but lets have a look at those examples:

If it was indeed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who killed Nick Berg (and that hasn't been proved yet) then he's from Jordon not Iraq, so no justification for actions against the people of Iraq. Oh, and if you're going to use a news story that's so recent at least get the victims name right, yeah?

The four people killed in Faluja were shot dead, their bodies were mutilated afterwards. While of course this was a dispicable action, the coalition is hardly blameless here. Just as an example, on the night of 28 April last year members of the 82nd Airborne Division opened fire on a demonstration in Falluja, killing 13 people. Two more were killed in similar circumstances a couple of days later. Local residents said neither march posed any threat to US forces. Later in May and early June, two of the three first lethal ambushes reported against the occupying forces - using rocket-propelled grenades against US military convoys - were staged in Falluja. Scores of American troops have died in such ambushes in and around the town since then and at least three US helicopters have been shot down in the area, including a Chinook with the loss of 13 lives on 2 November. An unknown number of Iraqis have also been killed by the Americans, including resistance fighters, passing civilians and policemen apparently hit by "friendly fire". Those contractors should never have been in an area that's been given all the reason in the world to hate them, and certainly not working without military escort. Again, this does not excuse these acts but there are two sides to every story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3235213.stm

And finally Jessica Lynch. The Washington Post ran a gripping front-page story, citing unnamed Pentagon sources, who described Lynch as the Sgt. York of 2003. The plucky gal had emptied her rifle into the enemy, we were told. She'd been stabbed, and shot, and had other injuries, but kept on fighting. "She didn't want to be taken alive."

It wasn't true. The story began to unravel as soon as Lynch was taken to West Germany for medical treatment. Doctors said there were no signs of gunshots or stab wounds, but she did have injuries consistent with a truck accident, and a terrible one at that. Everyone else in her vehicle was killed.
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20031114.shtml)

In fact, Lynch is telling anyone who asks that she is no hero: "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do ... I'm just a survivor."

Okay so far, modesty and all.

But Lynch is also a mite angry about the Pentagon's manipulation of events and can't seem to stop correcting the record.

She says she never got off a shot because her gun jammed. The Iraqi medical staff were kindness itself. She was out cold for three hours after her Humvee crashed in the grenade attack, so she doesn't remember any sexual assault. And shocked Iraqi doctors deny it.

As for the dramatic, Rambo-style hospital raid on April 1, she says there was no resistance, no Iraqi military in the hospital, and staff even offered the rescuers a key.

The Pentagon "used me to symbolize all this stuff," Lynch told a fawning Diane Sawyer on ABC last week. "It's wrong."

A senior military official tells Time magazine that, contrary to appearances, the Saving Private Lynch story was not, no way, a calculated PR ploy, but more a "comedy of errors," based on patchy battlefield intelligence. The media just ran with it.

(snip)

Critics are pointedly asking why the other surviving woman in Lynch's convoy, Army Specialist Shoshanna Johnson, also injured and taken prisoner, is set to receive only a 30 per cent disability benefit, while Lynch gets 80 per cent

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1116-02.htm

And lets not forget, the PFC part means she was a soldier, in a war zone. Bad things happen to soldiers in war, no matter their sex.


belittleing a few prisoners, as a form of interigation, is no where near the same thing! and if any can't see the difference, they're an idiot!


Well, I'm an idiot then. Let's make this clear, and I'm going to do the short version as this has been discussed to death in another thread on this forum, up to 90% of prisoners at Abu-ghraib were picked up at random and not charged. In fact over 800 of the 3,000 prisoners have been released in the last two weeks and more are soon to follow. 'Belittleing' is an insult to all those who were tortured there, read the reports it's all there. They were beaten, at least one was beaten to death. They were threatened with rape (and some reports indicate it happened). The picutres were taken, partially at any rate, for blackmail purposes. Sensory deprivation, physical pain, mental torture, all were used freely. Today Amnesty International has issued a report condeming the US for human rights violations. "Belittleing" this is not. In fact, to quote Donald Rumsfeld:

"I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military"


"First, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners — acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman. "

[august spies]

uh those "civilian" "contractors" were mercenaries.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by august spies
uh those "civilian" "contractors" were mercenaries.

D'oh! Thanks, I'd forgotten that (see what happens when you don't spend enough time researching folks?)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/mondo6.php

They were employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, a rural North Carolina subsidiary of Blackwater USA, one of several dozen firms taking over the duties of the regular American military in Iraq, protecting buildings and grounds as well as officials.


So, about that "4 CIVILIAN workers that were just there to help re-build their(please note the correct spelling) country" bit... Again, this doesn't excuse what happened, but they were, for all intents and purposes, military personnel and therefore likely targets.

[Cosmo_ac]

Great post BOH. Well done, though i argue the "Debated to death" comment for my post ;) Things are just warming up. I'm just waiting for more info to give further details of things listed. Hopefully people will Read it. If not, it'll disapear again, for a while at any rate ;)

However, since this is about which person to elect for the next presidency, i'll touch on that. Simply put, any person who supports torture (Agressive interogation tactics), Stripping of rights to a defence once accused, violations of human rights, Denying people equal rights, pressing for wars with less then credible evidence, having ties with the people your fighting against, and happening to have friends in large businesses that are gaining business from that war, deffinitly throws some questions as to the person's morality, and motives. Frankly, The US needs a better president then Bush, not just because he's made a mess of so much, and set the US back years in terms of trust, but because with him in control, it could get a hell of a lot worse, for the US and for the rest of the world.

[maniactickler]

its funny how it almost seems like the extreme liberals care more about the enemy that our own. oops, thats right, they do, my bad!

[Cosmo_ac]

hmmm... i'm not sure if thats meant for me Maniac, but please, allow me to retort. Do i care about the troops? Sure. No question there. However, i have a high regard for human life in general. I don't believe in killing as a rule. Now, if by caring for the enemy, you mean comments as to how there treated, then there's at least one important reason for that. personally, i think any form of abuse or torture is a sickening act. However, the most important reason for you, if the enemy see's there soldiers being tortured, then whats to stop them from torturing your soldiers? The whole reasoning behind the Geneva convention was not only to protect the enemies troops, but to protect your own troops as well. The fact that America has seemed to "side step" the Geneva convention, is a serious threat, not only to the rest of the world, but to US soldiers also.

[maniactickler]

not specifically for you. just extreme liberals in general. :O

[maniactickler]

by the way, im all for torturing those vermin. any one of those prisoners wouldnt even hesitate to slit your throat from ear to ear. those creatures are one step above maggots.

[Swimmingbird]

Wow Steve, I don't know you but it kind of seems you need to settle down a little. Typing all those capitol letters is gonna make you pop a vein in your head. No, but seriously, I still wouldn't vote for Bush because of of his obvious lack of intellect. Some say he's just bad at speaking, but the fact that he can't link two sentences together makes me think differently.

Now if I had a choice of anyone, it would be Jackie Chan. Seems like a nice guy, but more importantly he knows Gung Fu. I mean, with Schwarzenegger in California, what if California tries to over run the United States, Bush couldn't help us, neither could Kerry, no, we'd need Jackie Chan.

[TKpervert]

my vote goes to Bush.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by maniactickler
by the way, im all for torturing those vermin. any one of those prisoners wouldnt even hesitate to slit your throat from ear to ear. those creatures are one step above maggots.

I'll say this again, one more time, slowly, so there can be no mistake. Please do try and understand this time:

The majority of prisoners in Abu-Ghraib are innocent.

Innocent

As in "Not Guilty"

The vast majority are held without charge, picked up in random "sweeps" or on tipoffs from people who just want the reward money (or hold other grudges against those they finger). It's estimated that up to 90%, that's 90% of those in Abu-Ghraib are guilty of nothing more than being Iraqi.

As I presume you're putting me in you little "extreme liberals" bubble, let me make this clear. I have no sympathy whatsoever with "the enemy", I just want to be sure that we actually target "the enemy" and not innocent people. Call me crazy, but the thought of torturing civilians simply because of their race or religion turns my stomach. I'd have thought your desire for revenge would have been satisified with the tremendous loss of life in Iraq, the total failure of law and order in Afghanistan and the civilian death toll there but I guess not.

[areenactor]

they were unarmed civilian contractors.

as a matter of fact, one of them was a cousin to a teacher one of my kids have. the guy was ex-military true, but he was there as a construction worker!

mercs my ass! mercs don't travel unarmed!

wanna know what i'd have done to get the prioners to talk? this is a proven method too. i'd just slaughter a pig in front of them then pick the guy i wanted info from and threaten to kill him, and burry him wrapped in the pig skin! they'll sing like cannaries!

steve

[BOFH666]

Any proof of that? And I don't mean the initial news reports that were subsequently proved wrong. Surely any ex-military contractor who's in Iraq to provide security and is going around unarmed in a known trouble area isn't exactly thinking straight. And as the role they were doing was a role that the military would normally enforce they carry the same risks as the military.

From the same source I quoted above:


The private security firms working in Iraq see big salaries as well as plenty of potential danger. Often, they have been seen in military garb but without the insignias that would formally designate them as U.S. military. This situation raises the question of whether or not they can be treated as soldiers under the Geneva conventions—whether they are provided those protections—or whether as irregulars they will get dealt with as spies.

Providing mercenaries is a popular and growing business in part because their use in places like Iraq presumably would release regular military personnel for other work—or allow them to go back to the U.S.

Blackwater USA’s other subsidiaries are Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Canine, and Blackwater Air. The company proclaims: "We have established a global presence and provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century," adding, "Our clients include federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Transportation, local and state entities from around the country, multinational corporations and friendly nations from all over the globe."


Salon.com did an excellent piece on Military contractors a month or so ago that I'd urge everyone to read in order to understand some of the difficulties facing those who take up these roles.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/16/outsourcing_war/index.html


The killing of four American military contractors in Fallujah last week not only touched off a growing wave of violence but also raised concern about just how much of the mission has been outsourced to private firms. Private military contractors in Iraq are present in unprecedented numbers, more than 15,000, and they engage in a range of mission-critical activities -- often armed combat -- contrary to the U.S. military's own doctrine of how civilians should be employed in the field. Everything from handling military logistics and training the local army, to protecting key installations and escorting convoys has been turned over to a literal small army's worth of private troops.

(snip)

These contradictions carry over to critical differences in the field. When contractor units are attacked, they must deal with the situation, in the words of one executive, "completely on their own." The difficulty is compounded in Iraq. One of the very few restrictions that the CPA applies to the firms is an upper threshold on their armaments, limiting them to small arms. So, while contractors in other war zones wield heavy weaponry and call in air strikes from contractor-manned jet fighters and attack helicopters, in Iraq, where they face the greatest risks, they are often outgunned by local insurgents. For instance, while Fallujah was a city that U.S. military units were allowed to enter only if accompanied by an up-armored vehicle equipped with heavy machine guns or more, the contractors were limited to SUVs armed only with automatic rifles.

(snip)

Within the private military industry itself, the killings in Fallujah were shocking but not unexpected. As opposed to the first few months of the war, when contractor attrition was rumored to be as high as 30 percent (comparing quite poorly to the zero percent of U.S. soldiers that are able to decide to return home), those now going into Iraq know that it is an active war zone. Indeed, two contractors working for the Olive Security firm had been killed outside Mosul just days before the Fallujah incident, the main difference being that their deaths were not recorded on film. However, the Fallujah incident, followed so rapidly by the mass violence and the incidents in Najaf and Kut, caused most of the firms to reexamine their procedures, risk factors, and reliance on military support that may not be there. Christopher Bees, a director at ArmorGroup, says, "It'd be fair to say that anyone involved in the business in Iraq is bound to take a second look at what they do."


Face it, they went into a situation they knew to be dangerous, were paid accordingly and got killed. It's a tragedy when anyone looses their life, but they at least had a choice as to whether or not they were there. The thousands of innocent unarmed civilians that have died since the start of the war didn't have that choice, yet I hear no outrage on your part for their deaths.

[gibby59]

I will be voting for Mr. Bush. I believe he is an honest man who does what he says he will do. Unlike our former president who wouldn't go to the bathroom without taking an opinion poll first, Mr. Bush's primary concern is not getting re-elected. He genuinely wants and tries to do the "right thing".

For those who want a realistic perspective on the war in Iraq, please listen to the interview with the Reverend Ken Joseph. Rev. Joseph is an Assyrian Christian who was adamantly opposed to the war before he went to Iraq and talked with the people.

Comment on the murder of the four americans in Fallujah - I get the distinct feeling from the comments here that some people feel that it was no big thing that these men were murdered, they just shouldn't have abused the corpses. Am I the only one who sees a whole lot wrong with that?

As for outrage, where's the outrage over the hundred's of thousands of innocent civilians that Saddam murdered?

[kis123]

Originally posted by gibby59
I will be voting for Mr. Bush. I believe he is an honest man who does what he says he will do. Unlike our former president who wouldn't go to the bathroom without taking an opinion poll first, Mr. Bush's primary concern is not getting re-elected. He genuinely wants and tries to do the "right thing".

For those who want a realistic perspective on the war in Iraq, please listen to the interview with the Reverend Ken Joseph. Rev. Joseph is an Assyrian Christian who was adamantly opposed to the war before he went to Iraq and talked with the people.

Comment on the murder of the four americans in Fallujah - I get the distinct feeling from the comments here that some people feel that it was no big thing that these men were murdered, they just shouldn't have abused the corpses. Am I the only one who sees a whole lot wrong with that?

As for outrage, where's the outrage over the hundred's of thousands of innocent civilians that Saddam murdered?

You have got to be kidding!!!

I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the doing the right thing. Was it the right thing for the Bush's to get into bed with the Bin Laden's and the Husseins, then turn on them when their crimes against humanity (which the government always knew existed) became public? Was it right to say Saddam was linked to Bin Laden and AlQueida to justify going to war? Was it right for Bush to blow off the American public and the UN in order to go to war? Why didn't Daddy Bush get Saddam out of there in the first Gulf War? Let me guess, they couldn't find him? Right!

I haven't heard anyone on this forum say anything about the four Americans that were murdered, or Nick Berg at that matter express nothing short of outrage for the victims. We had one individual say some pretty callous stuff, but everyone else was pretty much on one accord. So I'm not sure where that comment came from.

As far as the people who died at Hussein's hand are concerned, those are people too. The Middle East gets a bad reputation of being extremeist animals. Yes, some of them are, but most are peace-loving Muslim human beings and their lives are just as important to me as American citizens. And our government watched while this happened.

You can vote on whoever you want, but Bush is anything but honest. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. He's a politician and none of them are honest at all! Besides, if he really cared about the American people, he would scrap NAFTA that has taken thousands of jobs from Americans, and he'd start thinking about the needs of the people in his own country. All so-called economic progress aside, a whole lot of people are either unemployed or underemployed right here in the USA. We can keep him busy with our needs instead of him sending billions to rebuild a country he helped tear up in the first place.