Sounds to me that you are jealous of Kerry's wealth. Is that a reason to hate someone? Bush is also filthy rich.

Kerry was also in support of Iraq but support does not mean going to war. Bush went into Iraq saying that war is inevitable. He didn't leave any other options open. If the Iraqi people hated Saddam so much, why didn't they take him down? All it would take is one person to assassinate him. With the whole country hating him, I am suprised that someone would not step up. It doesn't make sense. Why would 10,000+ Iraqis give their lives for someone that they hated?

BTW Peter, Kerry is going to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich bastards like him and Bush. You guys complain that he married into wealth. If he married into it, wouldn't he have a better idea of the needs of the common american? Bush grew up rich. How should he know what the common american needs? [/b][/quote]
I am not jealous of kerry's wealth. I think he is a old pompous man who married someone to become more wealthy and powerful. I hate what he says and his extreme liberal views. What does support mean? Mabey you can speak for kerry because he cant. Bush tried every option. He took action. Kerry would of let everyone steam row over him because he is a wussy. Reason iraqi people did not kill saddam is because they could not. Affraid of him. He was a tyrant. Your ridiculous. Anyone trying to assassinate saddam was killed on the spot. Do you really believe iraqi people liked him when he was killing his own people. Plus, the leaders under saddam are far worse then him. What are you talking about when you say, "why would 10,000 + iraqis give their lives". kerry's tax cuts of the rich will never work, it will increase the taxes of the common american. This is a quote by Bush from the debate.

Who cares what the people of Iraq wanted. We are Americans, not Iraqis. Republicans of all people shouldn't take this stance, you do realize you oppose government intervention in your life. Yet you agree with totaly shaping a nation. Not to mention your core base is really upset with the deficit incurred under this president.

Would I rather see more terrorism or more democracy. What do you think I want? But we can't try to exterminate terrorism because it is just not possble. We should have saved the $120+ billion and used it to SECURE OUR COUNTRY, not Iraq.

I hope I see the light, I hope that god can take sometime away from Bush to help me see the truth. Stupid fuck.

What about the 2nd gulf war (Clinton)? He had not invaded anyone. He was just pulling the same BS with the UN inspectors that he was before we went in this time. If Clinton had taken care of it (Saddam/Alqueda) when he was in office we wouldn't be dealing with it now. Air attacks alone will not accomplish anything as he has proven over & over again. If he would have put troops in Afgahnistan instead of cruise missling it there would be no 9/11.

Just because we haven't found WMD's doesn't mean they didn't exsist. We found stockpiles of missles set up for delivering chemical attacks when we first went in after 9/11. There was no chemicals in them but why have weapons like that if you did not have the Chems or are trying to procure them? I think alot of the WMDs were destroyed unknowingly during the 2nd gulf war. They say that weapons bunkers were improperly searched/inspected before disposal (blowing up). It is said that the incineration and inhalation by our troops of those chemicals is the cause of Gulf War Syndrom which has hurt many of our GI's.

Kerry voted FOR the war veiwing the same intelligence that bush had to go on. Just because he changed his mind (imagine that) he is now trying to blame Bush & Bush alone for going to war. [/b][/quote]
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabot...r_Efforts.shtml :naughty:
Nice try, but your wrong, like usual.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabot...r_Efforts.shtml :naughty:
Nice try, but your wrong, like usual. [/b][/quote]
:slap:

And a liberal propaganda columnist proves what?

Quoted from that artical
"In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours."

This article actually validates my point on Clinton.
My point was he never sent troops in to get Osama.
Comprende?


Mike Hersh http://mnracing.org/forum/images/smi...ies/wackit.gif

Who cares what the people of Iraq wanted. We are Americans, not Iraqis. Republicans of all people shouldn't take this stance, you do realize you oppose government intervention in your life. Yet you agree with totaly shaping a nation. Not to mention your core base is really upset with the deficit incurred under this president.

Would I rather see more terrorism or more democracy. What do you think I want? But we can't try to exterminate terrorism because it is just not possble. We should have saved the $120+ billion and used it to SECURE OUR COUNTRY, not Iraq.

I hope I see the light, I hope that god can take sometime away from Bush to help me see the truth. Stupid fuck. [/b][/quote]
Nope, I believe in a republican run government, not democratic. That is not opposing government intervention. Those are your words. I believe in democracy and the iraqis want to have a democracy, not a tyrant. Hello, the 120 billion was used to secure are country. Securing are country costs money. We are at war against terrorists. So from your quote I am assuming you would like to see more democracy in the world. Who ever said extermination of terrorists. Your words again. Why do you have to take the extreme with everything. Saying terrorism will always exist is pesimistic. Bad attitude. Preventing terrorists from another 9/11 is the goal. If they just play with themselves in their country and have no wmd. Fine. That I believe is the goal. Preventing them from having the capacity and money. There is always going to be a bully, I believe in standing up against them and taking action, especially before they can attack us. Hey, out of respect of your opinions I will not call you a stupidfuck!

And a liberal propaganda columnist proves what? [/b][/quote]
Hey, I read this too and it is just liberal propaganda. mike hersh is a liberal columnist. What a joke! :lol:

Actually the 9/11 commision proved that Iraq had no links to Suddam, and just the other day it came out that Iraq had NO wmd's. Wrong again. [/b][/quote]
I assume once again you are reading some liberals interpretation of the report, but if you read parts of the actual report, it states there WERE links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, just not a collaboration between Iraq and Al Quaeda on the 9/11 event.Besides that, it is known a high ranking member of Saddams fedayeen(sp?), Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, was also a high ranking member of Al Quaeda.So I'll sum it up for you,according to the 9/11 commission, there WERE definate links between Saddam and Al Quaeda, but Iraq was not behind 9/11.And no one ever said Saddam was behind 9/11, so you're talking out your impressionable ignorant ass again.

And I can't seem to find the part that states there were no WMDs in Iraq or any other proof there were no WMDs in Iraq, maybe you could point that out?

Here it is.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Yep I have said some wonderful CORRECT things, you can't however say the same.95% percent of the shit you post is fucking rediculously incorrect.And the only thing you have proven is how UNeducated you antiBush people really are.

Wheres CVD with the owned pics??

This it the thing about some of you republicans. You can never seem top look outside of the box on issues. You go to the polling station and mark everybox down under republican no matter who is running. I am sure if Osama Bin Ladden was running as a republican he would show a good amount of votes since some of you idiots cant seem to pull your head out of your ass and look at a different view. Have you noticed what a 3rd party does to elections? It takes votes away from the democrats because of the republicans who will never look outside of the republican party. BEING A REPUBLICAN CANIDATE DOESN'T MEAN THE PERSON IS ANY BETTER.

he cant decide what republican to use them on

Im not a dedicated republican, just in this race I will vote republican because of Bush... so dont generalize crap about "republicans."

I vote for whoever I think is better. I tend to like the republican veiwpoint though becuase its not so wack. But some things I agree with the certain democratic leaders, people.

Regarding the owned pic... Did you read any of the stuff Lightning just posted or did you just fly down to the quick reply button and keep talking?

This it the thing about some of you republicans. You can never seem top look outside of the box on issues. You go to the polling station and mark everybox down under republican no matter who is running. I am sure if Osama Bin Ladden was running as a republican he would show a good amount of votes since some of you idiots cant seem to pull your head out of your ass and look at a different view. Have you noticed what a 3rd party does to elections? It takes votes away from the democrats because of the republicans who will never look outside of the republican party. BEING A REPUBLICAN CANIDATE DOESN'T MEAN THE PERSON IS ANY BETTER. [/b][/quote]
Being a republican canidate tells what a person stands for on issues. I voted for Ross Perot of the Reform party in 1996. I voted for him because I believed he was best canidate and person.

I'm not a republican.And I'm definately not a democrat.I don't share enough views with either party to consider myself one of them.

BTW Democrats are the ONLY people, who have gotten owned in any of these political threads.

I am a conservative independant. Bush is just the better choice this time around.
I voted for Clinton in 96 and didn't vote in 2000 because I didn't like either candidate so don't generalize me please ;)

By the way... Where's Remy :whipped: :lol:

I am not one or the other either, but there are people that only vote republican for everything

He must be getting tired of getting owned on this politics shit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since last night, he's read this thread at least twice with no comment.It usually takes him a couple days to dig up his worthless info though.

Ok, I've let this thread go on for days to see if ppl would grow up.

The next person to directly bash a member will be banned by me. And the person after that, and so on. I realize politics is a hot topic, but you do not need to directly attack members.

He must be getting tired of getting owned on this politics shit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since last night, he's read this thread at least twice with no comment.It usually takes him a couple days to dig up his worthless info though. [/b][/quote]
at least he doesn't sit home all day looking on the internet...

I thought this thread was about the war not how Republicans or Democrats suck? :stick:

I also find it funny that a hardcore non-republican knows exactly how republicans think and what their veiws are. Is that what they are teaching in college now? (know your enemy lol)

PS do you know how ridiculous that voting for Osama comment sounds.

I am not for biased for either side. Last election, I was for bush, but this year I am not. As far as the Bin Ladden thing goes, some people would probably vote for him if he was under the republican ticket.

I know what you ment but it is still ridiculous

Ok Ladies, back to the first question:

Is the war worth fighting.


In speaking to my friend Dave who is spending his SECOND tenure in Iraq, I've found that the news makes it seem a lot worse than it is. Don't get me wrong, IT'S BAD, but they don't all hate us. A few of em' do. For the most part, they need us there. I don't agree with the way that the president went about gaining support for the war, but going was absolutely necessary.

I heard someone say, "Why not wait till he was a real problem, not just a little one"

Isn't that what Clinton said about Osama Bin Ladin?

Kerry does not pull me in his direction at all. There are several key issues for me that Bush will do right on. Many of the issues that you dems are sighting do not mean as much to me such as health care, taxes on the middle/lower class, and outsourcing jobs. I believe in less government wherever possible, though sometimes it is necessary for someone to step in and regulate things a little. I wont sit and tell you that Bush can do no wrong, and that he has never made a mistake, but I'm going to vote for him because my core beliefs have little to nothing in common with Kerry's polices (that I know of??? he's not been very clear, other than to say he "has a plan") while all the most important issues to me are more in line with Bushes policies.

I also like the fact that Bush will follow through. You cant knock down the door to Iraq, poke your head in and go "whoops, my bad." And though I wont say war was an absolute necessity, I most certainly wont condemn it until the final results are seen.

We had an easy chance to do that before we attacked them. The time would have been when the inspectors found nothing as far as WMDs. They found nothing and Bush said so what, lets bomb the shit out of them!

You have no care about the well being of the american citizens? Health car is a big problem today. Without it, many people are going to die. I eighter posted it on this thread or the other (the stats since Bush cam into office). His "new" plan is only going to cover 2-3 million people. Kerrys plan is expected to cover 27 million. Yeah it is going to cost 5 times as much but I feel it is needed. Outsourcing and the economy are also great issues I care about. I have to worry about how I can support myself or a family in the future. If the economy go to shit (well, worse than it is) it is going to be very hard for me to get a job out of school.
I have to start my damn homework now. I will catch up with other posts later.

If you were watching the news before the war Hanz (sp) and his group of UN inspectors were getting nothing but problems/hassles trying to inspect possible sights. They were being refused entry to many places.

When we busted in the door on Iraq we had the entire United Nations going "Yeah, there're deffinately WMD's in there." Now, they may not have wanted to go to war, but they were just as sure as we were when we went in that they were there. Whether they are there or not now makes no difference for the time being. It'll make a difference when all is said and done, but for now we need to stay the course.



And you and I have different ideas of American well being. I dont think Gov't subsidized healthcare is the way to go. I dont even have med ins. right now, but you know whos fault that is? Mine. You know whos gonna fix it? Me.
I'd love for everyone to be able to figure this out. For some it will be a harsh lesson. In the end it will cost us all the same....right? Oh, wait, no. The RICH people should have to subsidize the poor's healthcare.

See, in my mind that isnt right. In yours it may be. This is why you will vote for Kerry and I will vote for Bush. I dont plan on ever being rich enough to benefit from "my way of thinking" but that doesnt matter to me. For me, that's what's right.

I would say that they are trying to defend their country like the rest of us would hopefully do if we were invaded.

[/b][/quote]
An update on your "people just defending their country" (foriegn insurgents)

I guess the REAL IRAQIS are finnally fed up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6229305/

Seems they uncovered a couple of new mass graves in Iraq as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/...aves/index.html

a quote from this article
"Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003."

I hope this opens peoples eyes to what a bad person Saddam really was and why he needed to be removed from power.

And you can find both of these last stories I posted on ALL the major news websites. Not just FOX news ;) :lol:

This just in...

Dont know what this means but you guys can take a look. Maybe I was right about the WMD being in a different country... (they moved them before we got there for the war.)

NOTICE CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/14/...reut/index.html

Here is a great clip of John Kerry's veiw on the Iraq war.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv

It is quite interesting

These two definitely provide a powerful point:
http://www.swiftvets.com/

Not too many Kerry supports are posting in here any more... interesting once real news gets put in here.

I heard that

Misinformed :whipped:

I am a Kerry suporter, but don't agree with everything he says. I am for this war. Is that enough?

:stupid:
The fact of the matter is that saddam did have weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical weapons. ask anyone suffering from gulf war syndrom, they are still feeling the effects of the chemical weapons used by saddams regime in the gulf war. If he had them then and also to gas the kurds I am so sure that he just got rid of them all and could no longer create them, I seriously dobt it. The fact is after we had control in Iraq numerous hidden weapons depots were found inside in many places including inside schools and hospitals. the truth is chemical shells were found. they were not equiped to be fired at the time but how hard would it be to attach them to another shell and fire them, not to tough. The war was not focused only on wmds, (which were found), but also the brutal tactics used to rule in Iraq. did you know that only a week priot the war someone spoke badly about saddam, he was arrested tied to a pole in the center of town, had his tounge cut out and was left to bleed to death in front of all the people as an example. Not to mention the over 3 million people who are mysteriously missing, hmmm.....i wondr what happened to them. Also Iraq was the host nation to a number of large terrorist training camps and was also providing funding to terrorist groups including al queda who if you remeber killed over 3000 americans in the attact of 9/11. Don't even try to pin this war on oil. this war is about removing a tyrant and a terrorist from a powerful and influential postion in the middle east. Had saddam used his head and complied with the treaties of the gulf war in 1991 and complied with the U.N. resolution this war would not be necessary. The reason we attack him more when he burn oil fields is because this is the major source of economy for the nation of Iraq, and without it the people will have no economy and will fall into the same position as many poor african nations that have minimal resources. Without this oil the poeple of iraq have no chance of ever becoming anything. With it they can be a major contributor to the worlds economy. The truth is the oil isnt all that importatnt to the U.S., there is more oil in alaska than in the entire rumala oil field of the middle east. I know alot about this war and have studided it as a political science student at St. John's University, Most people who opose this war are tose that don't understand the real and true reasoning behind as well as the facts that have led to it and arissin from it.

Well put :thumbsup:

Well I'll admit I don't fallow Political stuff to closely.

But since you asked for view points.


1) I'm for the War, but wish we'd get help from other nation's, what we are doing needed to be done. - If you attack our nation you are declaring war, and if it's not the country's isnt' responsible, and they can't hand over the people responsible then they should allow us (seeing as we were the ones attacked) to get justice for what was done.

2) Saddam - is IMO today's Hitler. Saddom/some of these religions believe that if you aren't for them or with them then you are there enemy and are lower then dirt basically. Hitler didn't care about anything other then world domination.

Do you think Saddam wouldn't mind rulling the world if he had the chance? I believe him, and everyone with his views/beliefs believe that no-one other then there Race/Religion is worthy of anything. So basically if they kill you, so what you weren't worth anything anyways.

I mean how would you like to walk outside and live in fear that if you came across one of these people that they have the ability/Right to just kill you for not doing what they say, or for just saying something bad about them. I for one believe my life is worth something. And I for one don't believe anyone else has the right to tell me or force me to do what "they" want.

I mean have we forgotten all the images/story's of how Saddam and his sons brutely killed women/Children/men.

Governmnent - Getting ride of Saddam was definetely the right thing to do. We are trying to let peopel govern themselves (ie: so we can leave) but unfortunetely I think some of you are right. We can't just simply leave. There is a Power Struggle going on, and until that's resolved we have to stay and help these people get there freedom. And Like most of you think it's going to be a long term thing. It sucks that we are in this situation personally I wish it had never come to this. But it did. I only wish we had the backing of the U.N. as well as all the other country's that believe that Saddam and anyone else who does what he does deserves to be punished for there crimes against humanity.


Anyrate like I said I don't like to keep up with politics cause it only agrivates me. But from what I know (which is limited) this is what I believe.

-I believe everyone has a right to life
-I believe everyone has a right to Religion
-I believe everyone has a right to be punished for there crimes
-I believe everyone has a right to freedom of speak
Basically I believe in the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Ten Commandments.

And everyone in the world should have a right to all those things. No-one should have the right to "FORCE" us to do anything, or denie us those rights.

thank you my good man