Presidential Election

[Above_70Percent]

I don't know whether or not that this has already been posted but I was wondering who you guys think should win the Preisdential Election. For me it was between Edwards and Dean. But since the caucuses are now over all I can do is go for Kerry I guess. I do not stand on a specific party. But, recently I do not support George Bush at all, I have to admit during the 9/11 incident Bush proved he can work under pressure. But I don't think he can handle pressure. The Iraqi war in my view is a miniature versison of the Vietnam War. Both were based on lies. Vietnam War= It was said that a Vietnamese Cannon Boat attacked a US Naval Ship. Several years ago the government admitted that the whole thing was a lie. Iraq= Theroies that Iraq currently has Nuclear Weapons (which are yet to be found.)

Oh and yeah there's a poll.

 

[bamthedoc]

Um? No one ever said Iraq had nuclear devices. It was said that Saddam Hussien had WMD (bio and chem), and that was known to be true. The Ba`ath party, however, had money moving in the way of nuclear research. Hussien Saddam said as much in 1996, I believe. He was killed for saying so by Saddam and Uday Hussien.

 

[Forged]

Wasn't the origonal reason for going to war because we believed Iraq had WMD, once that was proven false (or close enough in most peoples opinon) It went to ties to Al Quaedo, and now after that has been proven a lie it was to get Hussein out of control...

As for who I think should get the election, I think either Ralph Nader or Peter Camejo

 

[bamthedoc]

We have actually found, at least, one small stockpile of WMD. If I recall the exact details, this included some newer warheads with no launch devices and a lot more older warheads -- some with launch devices.

 

[shutupandgoaway]

One small stockpile of wmd does not justify an entire war. I am against Bush, but on Iraq, I have more problems with how the invasion and occupation are being carried out. He spends far too much on military and homeland security, and neglects to promote the general welfare, spending far to much time providing for the common defense. He also is working hard on the faith based initiative bill, which brings religious charities far too close to the government. He also allowed the fourth amendmant to be almost abolished by passing the PATRIOT act. I know that congress voted for it, but as president, it is his duty to veto such clearly unconstitutional laws. Now to Iraq. The president of the United States is the commander in chief of the army. Thus,he should know and have control over his army. This means that Bush should be held responsible for some of the breaches of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the targeting of buildings essential and necessary to the welfare of the civilian population. This was broken in the destruction of water purification plants, and to a less degree in the destruction of power plants. I had very few problems with going into Iraq, but breaking the Geneva Convention, especially for a nation that claims to be a civilized as the US does, is inexcuseable.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Well, heres a quote Its a bit oldish but.."#519 - Can't Find WMD? Just Lower the Standard!
From yesterday's Washington Post, "Bush Remarks Confirm Shift in Justifying War":


"We found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush asserted in the Thursday interview, released Friday. "We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

Bush's assertion, one of many recent administration statements shifting focus from Iraq's weapons to Iraq's weapons programs, indicated the president would consider its accusations justified by the discovery of equipment that potentially could be used to produce weapons. But the original charges against Iraq, presented to the United Nations and the American public, were explicitly about the weapons themselves. "

You're right, shut up, hes spending way to much money on defense and military he has increased US's debt to 7$ trillion and the department estimates the sum of america's unfunded obilgations to be 48$ trillion , you'll still be paying that off when you're a grandad.Bush's soloution to debt, tax cuts. Bush's soloution to terrorist threat:

"Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld want to end our country’s ban on research and development of "low-yield" nuclear weapons. They say the terrorist threat requires it, not to mention the nasty nuclear intentions of North Korea. So, the idea is to control nuclear weapons by developing a lot more of our own.

This seems like a very bad plan. Unless, of course, we find a way to make smart low-yield nukes, ones that don’t come with all those pesky side effects like vomiting, hair loss, and bleeding, not to mention death.

Just be ready to duck and cover when Tom Ridge gives us the signal" <--- Obviously a perfect answer :rollie Stop terroists from getting there hands on nukes, "make more!".

 

[bamthedoc]

I'll add only be adding a few quick comments. No critiquing yet

Do you know what one of the biggest complaints Clinton recieved from Muslims and Iraqis living in America? In fact, it was one of the ten most petitioned subjects from this community while Clinton was in office, and also while Bush "Sr." was in his last years of presidency. They wanted him to go back to Iraq and fulfil the promise made.

We have strong allies in the region who are under direct threat, and some who may not be allies but still want some form or protection. Kuwait has already come under attack from Iraq, and we are trying to strengthen ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia and Turkey were both so afraid of Saddam Hussien that they were hesitant to help the allies. SCUDS (illegal, FYI) were launched at Kuwait, and they weren't even involved. We stationed forces there as a precautionary measure.

Humanitarian concerns are also a major issue. Saddam Hussien was using money given by the UN in the oil for food program to build illegal weapons, buy weapons illegally, build mansions, station himself as a god, build torture chambers, kill innocents, fun illegal programs, etc.

I'll end it there for the moment.

 

[shutupandgoaway]

Saddam did need to be removed from power, but the American people deserve to know the truth about the reasons for the war. This and the manner in which the war has been carried out are my only major problems with Iraq.

 

[bamthedoc]

I would have done the same thing to the UN as Bush. It needs a good kick in the pants. It should teach them a lesson, too, in terms of diplomacy. Force can speak wonders and force nations to sit down to speak at diplomatic tables. The US opened a lot of doors, and that, in and of itself, has ruffled a lot of feathers.

And, by the way, the Geneva Convention says we cannot target civilian property in order to purposely cripple the civilian population. I don't recall any that were either not on accident or meant to cripple the Ba`ath loyalists. There were also several civilian "targets" that were sabatoged -- including oil rigs as one example.

The "truth" is that Saddam Hussien was a threat. That being to stability and to nations surrounding Iraq.

 

[JeFfDiddy78]

we found mass graves in Iraq Saddam had torture chambers and committed countless crimes against humanity need i say more

 

[Jenny]

Not to mention he had the capabilities of building Weapons of mass destruction, didn't he? Back to the matter at hand..Everybody knows Bush lied so he has NO chance to get into Office. I'm real bummed out that the Arkansan that was running for President dropped. I really dont have any interest in the other candidates. They're all just telling fluff and lies.

 

[JeFfDiddy78]

but what do you think about his crimes against humanity and the countless innocents he murdered???????? Isnt that a vaild reason to kick a souless dictator out of office? He did gas his own people

 

[Above_70Percent]

lol, Jeff Diddy yes what Suddam Hussain has done to the people in his country is inhuman. But that is not the reason for which we attacked Iraq is it? And yes Iraq does have the capability, so does Japan, North Korea, India, Vietnam, lets just attack all of them.

Random Fact= More soldiers killed in Iraq then Pearl Harbor.

 

[Above_70Percent]

Bump, Jeff DIddy once again I have to say Iraq isn't the only country destroying their people. Most mid-eastern countries are about the same, how bout we nuke em all just to solve what we think is right?

 

[Mark4]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Um? No one ever said Iraq had nuclear devices. It was said that Saddam Hussien had WMD (bio and chem), and that was known to be true. The Ba`ath party, however, had money moving in the way of nuclear research. Hussien Saddam said as much in 1996, I believe. He was killed for saying so by Saddam and Uday Hussien.

" No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil. "

Do you guys ever watch the news?

 

[DB]

Bush and Kerry are both idiots. Nader all the way.

 

[JeFfDiddy78]

Originally posted by Above_70Percent
lol, Jeff Diddy yes what Suddam Hussain has done to the people in his country is inhuman. But that is not the reason for which we attacked Iraq is it? And yes Iraq does have the capability, so does Japan, North Korea, India, Vietnam, lets just attack all of them.

Random Fact= More soldiers killed in Iraq then Pearl Harbor.

Um your random fact is inrelevent of coarse more people were killed in Iraq caseu it was a war Pearl Harbor was a battle

 

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by Mark4
" No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil. "

Do you guys ever watch the news?

Yes, and a lot more than you, apparently. There have been WMD found. It was found by a joint US/UK strike. It was luck, possibly, as it may have been about to be moved. Of course, they aren't done searching, but this find gave a morale boost to troops.

 

[jackalopes]

I would say bush. I dont like that kerry supports gay marrige. I saw in some newspaper that Kerry personally was against gay marriage but for some odd reason would give them rights to be married if he became president. Thats confusing, if he is personally against it then why does he support it in politics?

 

[Forged]

Because he sees how biggoted and retarted his views seem to the normal world outside of the whitetrash and christian population. So as a politian he wants to be supported by people.