Bush/Kerry: Who Won?

[wnkryo]

"Want some wood?" -Bush.


LOL!!!!!!!! Kerry won the second debate hands down.

[quikimpulse]

Originally Posted by wnkryo

"Want some wood?" -Bush.


LOL!!!!!!!! Kerry won the second debate hands down.

I didn't see the first debate but i saw the second one just now. I think that Kerry won also. As for Bush.....................

[MidoriShinobi]

Oh my, president bush is loud. He screamed for much of it.
Also, he didn't answer questions properly, IMO.

The last question was "give three examples"..
and he didn't even give one! How sad~!

I also believe that Kerry won. He's sexy.

[Dauthi]

Originally Posted by wnkryo

"Want some wood?" -Bush.


LOL!!!!!!!! Kerry won the second debate hands down.

ROFL that wasnt even the funny part, it was the look on his face that seemed to be thinking he said something that might be funny or .. dare i say it.. witty. It looked like a mentally disabled person who just amused themselves.

Im sorry.. but to see so many still backing him makes me believe that a lot of people dont even watch or interpret these debates. It makes me sad that my country lets a complete idiot represent our country. Instead of making him president he needs to take some english classes, or at least a public speaking class.

The only thing this war did was remove Saddam, it didnt make us any safer at all. Weve had so many losses.. to say that "well we got saddam" is rediculous. I for one really hope Kerry wins.. and gets a lot more countries world-round to help us out. The fact that Bush told the rest of the world to piss off, and we will do whatever we want even though our (his) opinion was a minority... scares me.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Dauthi

ROFL that wasnt even the funny part, it was the look on his face that seemed to be thinking he said something that might be funny or .. dare i say it.. witty. It looked like a mentally disabled person who just amused themselves.

Im sorry.. but to see so many still backing him makes me believe that a lot of people dont even watch or interpret these debates. It makes me sad that my country lets a complete idiot represent our country. Instead of making him president he needs to take some english classes, or at least a public speaking class.

The only thing this war did was remove Saddam, it didnt make us any safer at all. Weve had so many losses.. to say that "well we got saddam" is rediculous. I for one really hope Kerry wins.. and gets a lot more countries world-round to help us out. The fact that Bush told the rest of the world to piss off, and we will do whatever we want even though our (his) opinion was a minority... scares me.

Yep, what you just said is true... I just watched part of the second debate, and I clearly saw how Bush has a tendency to do whatever he pleases without considering someone's else position; he deliberately interrupted the moderator, someone who is supposed to be the authority on that debate, to just counter attack Kerry with a witty rant that lead to nowhere... Watch the video; "Is military draft possible?" for more information

If we obverse the example that I just gave, it is clearly evident that he did the same with Iraq and the inspectors...

Bush is a very emotional person... That's not a good thing when you are a president...

[Grona]

This is sad, people on CNN are saying Bush clearly came out on top.

Wish I had their job, you can get high on the job

[Avaj]

Originally Posted by MidoriShinobi

Oh my, president bush is loud. He screamed for much of it.
Also, he didn't answer questions properly, IMO.

The last question was "give three examples"..
and he didn't even give one! How sad~!

I also believe that Kerry won. He's sexy.

Bush answered the question right, that question was pretty loaded.

[sarcasteak]

I'm a supporter of Kerry, so I'm probably biased...but did Bush really come out on top?

[Mr. Shabaz]

Ok, I missed the debate in favor of baseball. However I was just reading over some of the comments from the candidates on a news site. Now... this stunned me, did Bush really say this?

Originally Posted by Bush said

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons"

I mean, WTF!!! We found out Iraq had no weapons, and that is supposed to be a bad thing!?

"But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous [if Kerry had been president]."

Well that's lovely. Let's go around the world taking out anyone who makes the world a bad place. I say we start with Bush.

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by Avaj

Bush answered the question right, that question was pretty loaded.

What particularly annoyed me about the question was the way he phrased his answer as saying something along the lines of "their intention in that question" or something along those lines (he clearly said they as if the question was being asked by a group and not just this one person) as if his opponents had put the question down on him. This wasn't his opponents, this was that lady that asked the question. Now Kerry responds to all the questions in respect to the load he gets from the Bush campaign, everything they say about him and he was asked about he responded to, but when it's Bush's turn he still won't 'fess up. Now for one thing answering that way just makes the Dem. party's claim that he won't admit mistakes seem that much truer. He should have came up with at least 3 crappy mistakes that he could admit so it would look like he tried. Instead he said, appointing people to office, which seemed to me like another attempt to say any mistakes made were made by others and not him.

I just can't see how anyone would think Bush won that. Kerry's answers seemed alot more laid out and explained. His stem cell research stance (no new "lives" will be lost, these are embryos already existing that will be destroyed at a later time), Iraq (not going it alone, yadda, yadda, essentially Bush has no plan except hold an election and hold his breath), abortion (Kerry clearly defended his voting record pointing out instances that would have been hurt had he voted otherwise), and I have no idea what the hell Bush was saying when he was asked about picking a judge. To bring up the Dred Scott (?) case....for crying out loud you're gonna have a pretty hard time picking any judge who supports slavery. Also, I thought Kerry was pretty impressive with keeping up with all the issues at once and showing connections, he at least a couple times I think would point to a previous person who'd asked a question (and refer to them by name! guessing he was taking some damn good notes over there while Bush doodled) and tell them how it relates to what they asked. Also, big props for that bit about Missouri's population being larger than the majority of nations within the "coalition of the willing".

Gotta say I didn't catch what Kerry was talking about with the timber company thing, and neither did Bush, though watching Bush respond was pretty funny. Open with a zinger, and then stutter while impersonating a deer in headlights for 15 seconds...Both of em had some problems sticking to questions, they were both responding to their opponent's answer in the last question during the following question, but Bush most of all when he ignored the moderator.

EDIT: about that timber company thing...off John Kerry's website

BUSH VS. REALITY - Timber

KERRY: The President got $84 from a timber company that he owns that he's counted as a small business…

BUSH: I own a timber company? That's news to me.

REALITY:

“President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)” [Factcheck.org; 9/23/04]

ABC: Peter Jennings, 10.50: Mr. Bush looked up and said ‘I own a timber company? And we all sort of looked at one another and said who was right? Well it turns out Senator Kerry was right.

NBC 10:50-11:00, Brian Williams: Joke about timber – President once owned a small share of the timber business – Bush according to FactCheck.org reported $84 of business, that would have qualified him as a small business owner.

St. Louis Post Dispatch 9:15: At one point, Kerry said Bush's timber company would benefit from economic proposals, and Bush countered: "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

[MidoriShinobi]

Nothing changes the fact that John Kerry is 10x sexier than Bush.

[Mr. Shabaz]

For what it's worth, there is a poll on yahoo.com about who won the debate. So far Kerry is winning 64% to 33%. The other 4% considering it a tie..

[Dauthi]

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

What particularly annoyed me about the question was the way he phrased his answer as saying something along the lines of "their intention in that question" or something along those lines (he clearly said they as if the question was being asked by a group and not just this one person) as if his opponents had put the question down on him. This wasn't his opponents, this was that lady that asked the question. Now Kerry responds to all the questions in respect to the load he gets from the Bush campaign, everything they say about him and he was asked about he responded to, but when it's Bush's turn he still won't 'fess up. Now for one thing answering that way just makes the Dem. party's claim that he won't admit mistakes seem that much truer. He should have came up with at least 3 crappy mistakes that he could admit so it would look like he tried. Instead he said, appointing people to office, which seemed to me like another attempt to say any mistakes made were made by others and not him.

I just can't see how anyone would think Bush won that. Kerry's answers seemed alot more laid out and explained. His stem cell research stance (no new "lives" will be lost, these are embryos already existing that will be destroyed at a later time), Iraq (not going it alone, yadda, yadda, essentially Bush has no plan except hold an election and hold his breath), abortion (Kerry clearly defended his voting record pointing out instances that would have been hurt had he voted otherwise), and I have no idea what the hell Bush was saying when he was asked about picking a judge. To bring up the Dred Scott (?) case....for crying out loud you're gonna have a pretty hard time picking any judge who supports slavery. Also, I thought Kerry was pretty impressive with keeping up with all the issues at once and showing connections, he at least a couple times I think would point to a previous person who'd asked a question (and refer to them by name! guessing he was taking some damn good notes over there while Bush doodled) and tell them how it relates to what they asked. Also, big props for that bit about Missouri's population being larger than the majority of nations within the "coalition of the willing".

Gotta say I didn't catch what Kerry was talking about with the timber company thing, and neither did Bush, though watching Bush respond was pretty funny. Open with a zinger, and then stutter while impersonating a deer in headlights for 15 seconds...Both of em had some problems sticking to questions, they were both responding to their opponent's answer in the last question during the following question, but Bush most of all when he ignored the moderator.

EDIT: about that timber company thing...off John Kerry's website

More lies with smiles on em eh? Not surprised at all, sad to say.

I was also impressed with that information about missouri being the 3rd i believe he said? biggest nation in the coalition, if it was a nation. Pretty funny, and completely discredited bush's "WE HAVE 30 NATIONS OMGWTFBBQ!!" response.

[Keitaro]

Originally Posted by Umbrae

So by that logic we also have the right, and duty to attack Every current dictator in the world.

So you saying it would better if we just didn't invade Iraq and remove Sadam? I'm not saying that we should go out and police the world and remove every brutal evil dictator from power. Bush saw Iraq as a major threat to the world and took action when the U.N would do nothing. Just about all of the U.N.'s major members thought Sadam had or was in the process of creating WMD's. Now with the French, Russian and British intelligence and not to mention the head of the CIA all telling you Iraq had WMD's what would you have done? When Bush asked the head of the CIA that he was positive Sadam had WMD's he said it was a "slam dunk". Now with all this evidence put in front of you I say again what would you have done?

Also, although not a dictator cencoring of the media is classicly one of the first steps to becoming a dictatory. Due to that and other recent reforms I think a pre-preimtive strike aginst Vladimir Putin of Russia is in order. . . Of we could save this one for absolute last and see if he changes his mind due to our wordly activities

Your joking right.

Afterall, removing dictators is the right thing to do, and what the american military should be doing. We are the worlds police, and have a right to tell people in other parts of the land what they can and cannot do. Afterall that is how this nation was founded. . . well that and fighting aginst england telling us what to do, which goes to show you cannot trust the brits to run the show here.

Again I'm not suggesting that but we do have a responsibility as the worlds only super power to look after the world much like looking out over the younger kids on the block and stop the bullies from picking on them. What do you suggest, we stay within our own borders and act like a hermit.

Originally Posted by DekaMaster

Bush wanted a war. He lied to get it,he ignored facts to get it, and now it is still killing young men and women. People that support bush support them deaths of anyone who has died and has yet to die.

Must I say this over and over again Bush did not lie whatsoever. He was misinformed he did not lie to anyone. This is exactly what Kerry is saying and he is wrong to say such things. I support Bush and I am deeply sadden by the 1000+ American soldier deaths. In fact I would've joined the army if I didn't have certain medical reasons. I am very patriotic because of my family's military background.

I'm done I said what I wanted to say. I will not respond to anymore responses to this post.

Bush vs Kerry debate 2. I think Bush came out on top on this one. He was more likable and not as irritated as the first debate, he seemed so eager and seemed to enjoy it. Kerry didn't do too bad also, he was much like in the first debate.

[Dauthi]

Originally Posted by Keitaro

So you saying it would better if we just didn't invade Iraq and remove Sadam? I'm not saying that we should go out and police the world and remove every brutal evil dictator from power. Bush saw Iraq as a major threat to the world and took action when the U.N would do nothing. Just about all of the U.N.'s major members thought Sadam had or was in the process of creating WMD's. Now with the French, Russian and British intelligence and not to mention the head of the CIA all telling you Iraq had WMD's what would you have done? When Bush asked the head of the CIA that he was positive Sadam had WMD's he said it was a "slam dunk". Now with all this evidence put in front of you I say again what would you have done?

Yes, and its alright to invade based on accusations? Thats what america is based on after all, guilty untill proven innocent... right? Its too bad they were proven innocent after they were attacked, we lost innocent lives, they did, and we lost billions of dollars as well, all to "disarm" a country that already was "disarmed".
[quote]

Must I say this over and over again Bush did not lie whatsoever. He was misinformed he did not lie to anyone. This is exactly what Kerry is saying and he is wrong to say such things. I support Bush and I am deeply sadden by the 1000+ American soldier deaths. In fact I would've joined the army if I didn't have certain medical reasons. I am very patriotic because of my family's military background.

Thats great that you are patriotic, but it doesnt mean the president is god.. and is perfect. How much of the population still believes that al queda and saddam have connections? Look it up some time, its quite large, Why do you think this is?

I'm done I said what I wanted to say. I will not respond to anymore responses to this post.

I wouldnt either when your opinion seems to be a minority at the moment

Bush vs Kerry debate 2. I think Bush came out on top on this one. He was more likable and not as irritated as the first debate, he seemed so eager and seemed to enjoy it. Kerry didn't do too bad also, he was much like in the first debate.

Im sorry, but thats just rediculous. Bush may be good to you, that is as a president, but he is absolutely horrible at debating. He just isnt quick enough, and seems to have a hard time gathering a train of thought.

Kerry seems to be much more intelligent, calm, and collected. He answers every question thoroughly without lengthy pauses and with many facts.

I think the majority of polls at the moment say kerry won again. The only people backing bush saying he won the debates, are hardcore republicans.

[DekaMaster]

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Must I say this over and over again Bush did not lie whatsoever. He was misinformed he did not lie to anyone. This is exactly what Kerry is saying and he is wrong to say such things. I support Bush and I am deeply sadden by the 1000+ American soldier deaths. In fact I would've joined the army if I didn't have certain medical reasons. I am very patriotic because of my family's military background.

I'm done I said what I wanted to say. I will not respond to anymore responses to this post.

Bush vs Kerry debate 2. I think Bush came out on top on this one. He was more likable and not as irritated as the first debate, he seemed so eager and seemed to enjoy it. Kerry didn't do too bad also, he was much like in the first debate.

Yes Bush has been lying for over two years now about more than just this war. he is the commander in chief this "misinformed" garbage is nothing but a line for people like you. 1000+ deaths in Iraq were caused because Bush and his people wanted a war. You are not patrioitic. If you were you would be able to think for yourself.

[Mcdonalds]

I don't like to blast people but what the hell? Well right now, Tony Blair is having a hard time for the war in Iraq. Was it for the wrong decision? Partly, but because he used CIA evidence of weapons of mass destruction and exagerrated it to make out that Iraq had these WMDs. What would i have done at the time? As Dauthi said, guilty until proven innocent? Thats Never been used before. I would have at the time, allowed the WEAPONS INSPECTORS to carry on trying to find these WMDS that didn't exist in the first place, this could have prevented the invasion in the first place.

Ok so you don't think we should remove every dictator in the world, just Saddam Hussein? or the ones with WMDs like North Korea. In fact North Korea are probably even a bigger threat?, they actually appear to have the blue prints to make an A bomb, and the fact they have nuclear power plants in their country. Should the U.S. go invade North Korea?.

[Umbrae]

Originally Posted by Keitaro

So you saying it would better if we just didn't invade Iraq and remove Sadam? I'm not saying that we should go out and police the world and remove every brutal evil dictator from power. Bush saw Iraq as a major threat to the world and took action when the U.N would do nothing. Just about all of the U.N.'s major members thought Sadam had or was in the process of creating WMD's. Now with the French, Russian and British intelligence and not to mention the head of the CIA all telling you Iraq had WMD's what would you have done? When Bush asked the head of the CIA that he was positive Sadam had WMD's he said it was a "slam dunk". Now with all this evidence put in front of you I say again what would you have done?

First asked for specific clarification as to the nature of the WMD that was avalible, since nuclear devices can be picked up by satalite. Next, since they are sure that Saddam has them, find out where, and who is supplying them. that information is more valuable than taking out sadam. since he cannot manufacture the matierals, and it is dobfull he could refine them. That means he is buying them off the black market, and from who is the important question. Just like in drugs, if you take out the dealer in 5th street then one on 8th will take over. Go in and shoot every thing in site is never a good option untill all other options have been depleated.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Generally in warfare, keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best;
keeping an army intact is best, destroying an army second best;

keeping a battalion intact is best, destroying a battalion second best;

keeping a company intact is best, destroying a company second best;

keeping a squad intact is best, destroying a squad second best.

Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;

to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.

That is from a chinese general who wrote rules of war over 2,000 years ago. His princapals are still as sound today as they were then, and I garuntee thier is not a single general in the world worth his salt that has not read the art of war. According to this set of ideals the war was gone about 100% wrong. To the point that, although techincaly it was a victory, we still lost, and continue loosing every day.

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Your joking right.

Are you not keeping up on recent events, or do you not belive that statement? Honestly that was written in seriousness. Russia is quickly heading tward another dictatorship. After recently releasing them selves from the dictatorship setup by stalin. Although this is not teribly supprising, as my mother used to explain why she always dated guys who stole from and beat her "you may not like the game, but at least you know the rules". Russians may not enjoy having a dictatorship, but they are familure with it. Thus, it is not a huge change, and will not be terribly oposed. Such as current trends would indicate.
If you belived I was joking due to stating cecorship of the media is one of the first indications, show my a single dictatorship that had free press.

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Again I'm not suggesting that but we do have a responsibility as the worlds only super power to look after the world much like looking out over the younger kids on the block and stop the bullies from picking on them. What do you suggest, we stay within our own borders and act like a hermit.

First, we are not the only superpower, how ever you justify a superpower. China has nearly the techology we do, with a larger population to draw manpower from. UK has us matched for techology, but not in manpower, but exceed us in training.
Second, that is NOT our responsibilty. Our goverments responsibilty is to preside over the well beeing and safty of it's citzens. Not Iraqi citizens, not french citizens, not ethiopian citzens. We can, do, and should assist other goverments to provide for the well beeing of thier citzens. As an industrialized nation that can easly produce more of eery vital resorce than we need, not only is it a basic humanitarian ideal to do so, but can severly help stimulate our, and thier economies. But we should not be assisting people that 1) did not ask for our assistance. 2) did not want our assistance.
Stoping a goverment within it's own borders from commiting attrocities on it's own citizens should be the job and responsibility of the UN. To tell a goverment they cannot do what they are doing, does need to be stated by the world at large. Not one man, even if he does lead a world superpower. The UN is heavly backed by the US, and we should lend the UN our full support had they decided that the only resolution to social issues in Iraq was through military invasion.

Now, that said, I still fully supported (note the past tense) the invasion of Afganistan. For several reasons.
1) we made the problem. We supplied and trained the taliban in order to fight off the invading russians. Yet once the russians left we invested nothing further into that country. Basicly giving a big thumbs up the the heavly armed and fanaticaly religious orginization to setup thier own goverment.
2) We supported the taliban right up untill the 9/11 attacks. Because we wanted to run an oil pipeline through afganistan, and we thought the taliban would allow it. Dispite the fact it was known Ossama bin Laden was within the afgani borders. That he had commited terroist attacks aginst the US, and it's citzens previously. The explosion outside the WtC in 1998, killing of us troops in Somolia and Yemen, various other embasy bombings ect. We knew Al Queda was traning the Taliban military, as Al queda had the only military training camps in afganistan at the time.
3) With my above mentioned quote of Sun Tzu, our primary focus was terrorst, as such we are attacking thier allies. Second, the allies of the Taliban were terroist and Muslims. Thats about it. We cannot win a war aginst god, even a muslim god, so attacking the taliban is the better option.
4) The UN should have gotten involved over the humanitarian issues. Religious practices are one thing, but subjgation of one sex involintarly without option to defect is another. Women held no rights in afganistan, and were not even allowed to walk the streets alone. They were not allowed to be educated or hold jobs. Yet the wars with Russia had left millions of single mothers. Most turned illeagly to prostitution, with was often punnished with death. Although by sleeping with soldiers some were able to avoid punsihment.

But we seriously screwed up that invasion. We moved nearly all of our forces to Iraq. Leaving resevest and National Guardsmen in Afganistan to protect and rebuild that nation. We are destroying crops of poppy seeds, but not replacing them with any thing. These farmers have no choice in what they grow as they have no seed, and no $ to buy it. Also not much grows in the harsh afgan climate. Yet we slash and burn fields of poppy seeds every day, that these farmers now not only have lost the income from, but have to pay back druglords for.

So far all we have done is a half assed job of creating chaos in the name of peace and freedom. We need to handle one area at a time, it is difficult to manage rebuilding multiple nations at once.

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Must I say this over and over again Bush did not lie whatsoever. He was misinformed he did not lie to anyone.

Wrong. You are right about beeing missinformed about WMD. But he stated sadam was a threat to the US, this is not, was not, and even if he had 40 nuclear weapons could not be true. He did not have the capability to attack the US. He does not have intercontintal missles, he does not have long range bombers. He does not have an proper navy to lanch any of his short range bombers, or missles. In short, Saddam and Iraq were not a threat to the US. The idea that he might sell a WMD to a terroist that did have such capability was. Yet it was known beforhand that Saddam and Ossama bin Laden were enemies of one another. It was considered very unlikly that he would have any remaning ties with Al Queda. Yet, once agin since Saddom did not have the faccilites nessisary to produce WMD's, who ever sold them to Iraq was the threat, not Iraq itself.

Originally Posted by Keitaro

I'm done I said what I wanted to say. I will not respond to anymore responses to this post.

To bad, I enjoy a decent debate. I hope you keep reading and learn somthing.

In a more general sence. I had to work on friday night (like always) so I did not see the debate live. I recorded it, and will watch it when I arrive home in about another 3 hours. So tomarrow I will begin picking apart the debate.

[roguenoir]

i won.....

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by Keitaro

So you saying it would better if we just didn't invade Iraq and remove Sadam?

How to survive under Saddam: Don't take a government job...
How to survive under Democracy: Don't go outside: you'll get blown up by the insurgents. Don't stay inside: the Americans will bomb you.

Until some actual progress is made in Iraq (and there is still no indication that it will if you ask me) you can't claim the country is better off. A "democratic" deathtrap is still a deathtrap.

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Bush saw Iraq as a major threat to the world and took action when the U.N would do nothing. Just about all of the U.N.'s major members thought Sadam had or was in the process of creating WMD's. Now with the French, Russian and British intelligence and not to mention the head of the CIA all telling you Iraq had WMD's what would you have done?

1) By do nothing you mean they wouldn't agree with the rush to war.
2) Most of the intelligence was American, so it's a matter of which countries believed us the most. Now many of those nations despite "believing" Iraq had weapons disagreed with war.
3) There have been plenty of sources come forward at this point to say that Bush administration rushed to war and pushed for evidence from the CIA to prove their predisposed conclusions on Iraq. (former Secretary of Treasury: O'Neill for example)
4) Much of the "evidence" was "found" by going back through old information and coming to drastically different conclusions from what was initially thought.

5) In 1998, Cheney(now Vice-President), Rumsfeld (now US Defense Secretary), Wolfowitz (now deputy US Defense Secretary), and Jeb Bush (the only Bush that sounds more like a redneck than George W. Bush) all part of the PNAC ("Project for the New American Century" boy doesn't that sound ominous...) urged President Clinton to invade Iraq!

Originally Posted by Keitaro

we do have a responsibility as the worlds only super power to look after the world much like looking out over the younger kids on the block and stop the bullies from picking on them.

Ever occured to you that, maybe we ARE one of the bullies?

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Must I say this over and over again Bush did not lie whatsoever. He was misinformed he did not lie to anyone. This is exactly what Kerry is saying and he is wrong to say such things.

No, Bush did lie and he continues to lie. Even during the debate last night, when he said Saddam did have the materials to create WMD and could have given those to terrorists. No, he didn't have weapons, he lacked the materials to create them, and he had no connections with Al Quade. The president continues to say that Saddam could have given weapons, that he didn't have, to terrorists, that he wasn't connected to.

Originally Posted by Mcdonalds

I would have at the time, allowed the WEAPONS INSPECTORS to carry on trying to find these WMDS that didn't exist in the first place, this could have prevented the invasion in the first place.

A strong point that most people miss, Bush dismissed the weapons inspectors. The very people who could have determined what we now know to be true: there were no weapons.

Originally Posted by Mcdonalds

Ok so you don't think we should remove every dictator in the world, just Saddam Hussein? or the ones with WMDs like North Korea. In fact North Korea are probably even a bigger threat?, they actually appear to have the blue prints to make an A bomb, and the fact they have nuclear power plants in their country. Should the U.S. go invade North Korea?.

We only invade the countries we think have WMD (*wink, *wink) not the countries that we KNOW have WMD. Everything we thought we knew about Iraq we do know about Korea. He's made no secret that he's attempting to create long range missiles capable of crossing the Pacific to reach the US. Hell, wasn't there a news story about him test firing a missile over Japan?

Originally Posted by Umbrae

Are you not keeping up on recent events, or do you not belive that statement? Honestly that was written in seriousness. Russia is quickly heading tward another dictatorship.

Interesting sidenote, in the 1996 elections in Russia, Yeltsin barely beat the Communist candidate and many early polls had Stalin receiving more votes than Yeltsin. Yes, the dead guy... Good movie about it too. Spinning Boris

Originally Posted by Umbrae

If you belived I was joking due to stating cecorship of the media is one of the first indications, show my a single dictatorship that had free press.

We're going the same way if Fox News is any indication. In fact they won an appeal in Florida court, against a wrongfully terminated employee who was pressured to air clearly false information on bovine growth hormone in milk (or something like that), because they claimed and the court agreed:

it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast

Now if that isn't a dangerous idea, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Umbrae

As an industrialized nation that can easly produce more of eery vital resorce than we need, not only is it a basic humanitarian ideal to do so, but can severly help stimulate our, and thier economies.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that if we spent 30% of our military budget on ending world poverty, we'd have the problem licked in ten years. Now just imagine if we're selfish and just focus on ourselves.

Originally Posted by Umbrae

To tell a goverment they cannot do what they are doing, does need to be stated by the world at large. Not one man, even if he does lead a world superpower.

Because that is exactly how it'll be seen. As the actions of one man (country) against the will of the world.