Why you should vote for Bush...

[prisonermonkeys]

I'd say Chirac for Dumb, Kerry a close second as Dumber but Dubya is easily the Dumbest. As you may have guessed, I'm anti-Bush, anti-America and anti-Iraq war. I think that it was wrong to launch the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is wrong to say they are justified and if it were up to me, I'd force a UN Security Council Resolution through to disarm America (even if they veto it, it can still be done). Bush and Co. cannot say that people like Saddam should not have WMD if they cannot be responsible enough to have their own.

Before I get really started on this, I'll stop because it might get nasty (I have a habit of winning political debates). If anyone wants me to keep going, PM me and we'll keep going there if that's alright with the Mods.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I'd say Chirac for Dumb, Kerry a close second as Dumber but Dubya is easily the Dumbest.

I'll stop because it might get nasty (I have a habit of winning political debates). If anyone wants me to keep going, PM me and we'll keep going there if that's alright with the Mods.

I can see why you have a habit of winning "political" debates with such a well founded argument like Bush is dumber than Kerry, you surely sound like an intellectual.

I'll stop because it might get nasty

I sure all the best negotiators resort to name calling and petty insults when things don't go their way, so carry on...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can see why you have a habit of winning "political" debates with such a well founded argument like Bush is dumber than Kerry, you surely sound like an intellectual.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (and should probably get changed in the basement). Why don't you ask everyone for a bit more justification?

Hmmm, ok, I got it now.

Dumb
(Bush)

Dumber
(Kerry)

Dumbest
(Chirac)

No 'well founded argument' there either ...

I sure all the best negotiators resort to name calling and petty insults when things don't go their way, so carry on...

A) Negotiation never was one of my traits.
B) I didn't say I'd be resorting to insulting everyone, I'd prefer it to be in via PM that way if the debate fires up I won't get lost with other people posting in between.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Why don't you ask everyone for a bit more justification?

I see you picked up on the tone of my post

I've read some of your other posts and I can see now that you have some things to say that are researched. Its just that your first post I read, came across as incredibly arrogant.

I've noticed that you stated in other threads that you are "anti Bush" and "anti War in Iraq". There is nothing wrong with that, as we live in a democratic society (mostly ) But rather than take a negative stance on an issue, wouldn't it be better to say you are "pro Kerry" or "pro Nada" than it is, to say you are "anti" anyone. Its not constructive, you just want rid of Bush but you don't put forward an alternative. This to me, is a negative attitude. Be positive my friend, if you are "pro Kerry", then celebrate it being "anti Bush" is so...so last year

Also I should say...that your sig stretches the six line rule a little bit too far

 

[Ghost C]

I think that it was wrong to launch the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is wrong to say they are justified and if it were up to me, I'd force a UN Security Council Resolution through to disarm America (even if they veto it, it can still be done). Bush and Co. cannot say that people like Saddam should not have WMD if they cannot be responsible enough to have their own.

You're an idiot 👍

 

[Arwin]

You're an idiot 👍

Don't know whether I should send you the Duelfer report or just report you to Neon Duke for breaking board protocol.

(doubt neither'll do much good though)

 

[Solid Fro]

You're an idiot 👍

I agree.

Normal Anti-American babble of Wellyrn proportions.

That kind of logic, to say America has WMD and should be disarmed as well, is flawed. Let's disarm France because they have WMD too. Let's disarm Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Israel, United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Austria, Poland, Canada...

Did I forget anyone?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It seems that the only people who have reacted to what I have to say are those who support Bush ... OK, I don't like the man, I don't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the right things to do and I don't think that the world is better off now because any country that doesn't conform to what the Americans want is blown apart.

This section of GTPlanet is for Opinions (says so in the sub-forums). So if you don't agree with what I have to say, just take it as a grain of salt and ignore it (happens everywhere else). Viper Zero/Ghost C, I don't really care what others think of me. I could say I think Americans are arrogant, but that's my opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. My logic says that a country should be forced to disarm if they can't be considered responisblie enough to have them. Invading another country because they might have them goes down as irresponsible in my book. In fact, WMD are some of the foulest creations of man. No-one should have them. Peple may say the world is safe post-Saddam, but I believe the world will be safe until these things are destroyed.

I've noticed that you stated in other threads that you are "anti Bush" and "anti War in Iraq". There is nothing wrong with that, as we live in a democratic society (mostly ) But rather than take a negative stance on an issue, wouldn't it be better to say you are "pro Kerry" or "pro Nada" than it is, to say you are "anti" anyone. Its not constructive, you just want rid of Bush but you don't put forward an alternative. This to me, is a negative attitude. Be positive my friend, if you are "pro Kerry", then celebrate it being "anti Bush" is so...so last year

Well, then, I'll just change my stance a little. I didn't intend to be arrogant, I just had to get your attention. Sorry if that went down the wrong way. I can't excatly say I'm Pro-Kerry as I don't know much about him. It's just the attitude of some people (and not neccessarily on the internet) who say that Bush is right that just really stumps me. War is not right and a man who uses it as a political tool is not right, which means that our Prime Minister is guilty by association because he sent us to a war which is not ours to fight. If the next President recognised that by trying to sort out everyone else's problems they are just creating bigger ones and left people to sort out their own differences on their own terms, I'd think much more of them.

 

[Ghost C]

This section of GTPlanet is for Opinions (says so in the sub-forums). So if you don't agree with what I have to say, just take it as a grain of salt and ignore it (happens everywhere else).

Or, we could reply with our own opinions. This is, after all, the opinions forum. What, did you think you were the only one who was allowed to state their opinion or something?

Viper Zero/Ghost C, I don't really care what others think of me.

I flag this as bull.

I could say I think Americans are arrogant, but that's my opinion, and everyone is entitled to one.

But, but, it's not an opinion that Americans are arrogant. It's a fact! My statement questioning your intelligence still stands.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Or, we could reply with our own opinions. This is, after all, the opinions forum. What, did you think you were the only one who was allowed to state their opinion or something?

No, but I would like to know why you think I'm lacking in the intelligence department.

But, but, it's not an opinion that Americans are arrogant. It's a fact! My statement questioning your intelligence still stands.

My intelligence is in question because I don't agree with you?

 

[Ghost C]

No, but I would like to know why you think I'm lacking in the intelligence department.

I'll get straight to it, then.

I think that it was wrong to launch the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan

So we should've sat with our thumbs firmly planted in our asses and waited for 9/11 to happen over and over and over? Awesome idea!

I think it is wrong to say they are justified

So terrorists slamming jumbo jets into civilian buildings is justified whereas fighting their military is not justified. I like the way you think.

and if it were up to me, I'd force a UN Security Council Resolution through to disarm America

I'd like to see someone try that. Honestly.

Bush and Co. cannot say that people like Saddam should not have WMD if they cannot be responsible enough to have their own.

Quick question - How many times have we tested the lethality of our chemical weapons on our own people just because we felt like it? We're not responsible, yet...Saddam was? How the hell did you ever come to this conclusion?

My intelligence is in question because I don't agree with you?

I think I just thoroughly pointed out why your intelligence is in question.

 

[TheCracker]

Why should we vote for Gavin Rossdale, is he running in an election or something? - will this make Gwen Stefani the First Lady?

 

[Arwin]

So we should've sat with our thumbs firmly planted in our asses and waited for 9/11 to happen over and over and over? Awesome idea!

So terrorists slamming jumbo jets into civilian buildings is justified whereas fighting their military is not justified. I like the way you think.

I'd like to see someone try that. Honestly.

Quick question - How many times have we tested the lethality of our chemical weapons on our own people just because we felt like it? We're not responsible, yet...Saddam was? How the hell did you ever come to this conclusion?

I supported going into Afghanistan. But I do not support going into Iraq. You can imagine all you like there was a link between Al Quaeda and Iraq, and that there was a legitimate and imminent WMD threat, but in the meantime I hope I never end up a suspect with you on jury duty.

 

[Ghost C]

You can imagine all you like there was a link between Al Quaeda and Iraq

Never said that.

and that there was a legitimate and imminent WMD threat

I'm fairly certain that Saddam had chemical weapons, judging by the fact that he USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. Whether or not he had or intended to have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, since he's been removed from power.

 

[Arwin]

Never said that.

I'm fairly certain that Saddam had chemical weapons, judging by the fact that he USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. Whether or not he had or intended to have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, since he's been removed from power.

Yes, he used them on his own people. Before the FIRST gulf war. Surprisingly enough, if the second proved anything, it was that the UN sanctions proved to have been very successful.

 

[Danoff]

Surprisingly enough, if the second proved anything, it was that the UN sanctions proved to have been very successful.

It proved that the US is a force to be reckoned with. It proved that you'd better comply with our terms when you exit a war with us or we'll be back. It proved that the US does not use its power to expand its territory - that we are not an expansionist country.

... it proved that for some reason we can't find WMD's over there - wether it be because they were leaked out of the country, hidden, or because the sanctions were working.

 

[milefile]

It seems that the only people who have reacted to what I have to say are those who support Bush ... OK, I don't like the man, I don't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the right things to do...

Okay. Let's take this one thing at a time.

Please describe how it was a wrong to invade Afganistan.

 

[Zrow]

Because of course if the US ever takes military action it is for the wrong reasons, and, of course, oil. Duh?

 

[High-Test]

Oh Dear God.


"let's ***** about the US Part MCMLXVII"

The thing that matters about Weapons of mass destruction is not if you have them. Heck, anything could be a WMD, If one were to use it that way. Ex: Billy bob is very agitated at his employer. He drives a tanker truck for joe blo trucking. he drives the truck into the office lobby at full speed, rupturing the tank (the trailer) and then it sets ablaze. That's one Highly unlikely way to use a common object as a WMD.

Back to the topic, The thing that matters about WMD is not if you have them, It is how you use them, if you use them at all.

SAddam Hussein killed 30,000 of his own people.

On Do you race?'s thinking, because we took then away from saddam, we should all get rid of them.

This is really stupid. A 500 pound dumb iron Bomb is a WMD, by the characteristics of what they do. they kill lots of people. a russian torpedo killed 7300 people when they sank the wilhelm Gustloff. That's WMD.

WMD if they cannot be responsible enough to have their own.

That is even stupider. By the theoretical nature of "...Mass destruction." It means things that destroy on a grand scale. Like Armies. aircraft, machine guns, rockets , missiles, tanks, bullets, explosives, etc.

That's great thinking yoko. let's all 6 billion people all disband our armed forces and burn our firearms and all hug and kiss each other. The thing is, W.C. Fields said, "there's a sucker born every minute." well, back 65 or so years ago, one of these suckers was named saddam hussein. He happened to misuse his WMD's , and proved to the world that he was incapable of possessing them. He also defied the UN up till the minute we invaded, and now the UN is supporting him.

Surprisingly enough, if the second proved anything, it was that the UN sanctions proved to have been very successful.

[/sarcasm]Oh yes. they have. The greatness of the UN can be summed up in one word, Darfur.[/sarcasm]

 

[KieranMurphy]

The only CERTAIN method to prevent terrorist attacks is to be sure to kill the terrorist before they attack.

Do you actually believe this? Surely arresting and imprisoning a terrorist will prevent his potential attack as surely as putting a bullet in him. Surely trying to avoid the social, political, military and religous situations that give rise to terrorists in the first place will prevent terrorist attacks.

But how do you know who the terrorists are? It's not like a conventional war and the terrorists and guerilla fighters are wearing uniforms or readily idenfitiable insignia. The line between terrorists, terrorist sympathiser and civilan becomes blurred and the more terrorists you kill, sometimes you end up with sympathisers becoming terrorists and civilians becoming sympathisers.

Killing them may just make the problem worse by pissing off their comrades and sympathisers. Sometimes, you have to negotiate with terrorists and listen to their demands, regardless of the bull**** that politicans come out with - "You can't negotiate with terrorists". Bull****, you can and sometimes should negotiate with them, because sometimes that's the best way for both sides to achieve their aims or some of their aims with the minimum bloodshed.

Northern Ireland is a case in point. The current peace in Northern Ireland was brought about by governments negotoating with terrorists, not by some daft "kill all terrorists" attitude.


KM.

 

[Ghost C]

"You can't negotiate with terrorists". Bull****, you can and sometimes should negotiate with them, because sometimes that's the best way for both sides to achieve their aims or some of their aims with the minimum bloodshed.

Because let's face it, the terrorists we're after abhor bloodshed. They'd never do anything like say, crash planes into buildings to slaughter innocent civilians. Great negotiating, don't you think? Minimum bloodshed my ****ing ass.

The goal of the terrorists is to wipe out the United States because they don't like our freedom. That's all. You know how you negotiate with people hell bent on slaughtering innocents? You kill them. End of story.

 

[slackbladder]

I'm from the Uk but I'm interested in what's going on in the elections in the US. I've been looking around for a few things, going on sites, getting info etc. But when I tried to go on Bush's official site I wasn't allowed to view it (403 forbidden). Seemed odd I thought. I then heard on the news that no one from outside the US can go on that site. I'm wondering why. Does anyone know?

 

[Carl.]

I'm from the Uk but I'm interested in what's going on in the elections in the US. I've been looking around for a few things, going on sites, getting info etc. But when I tried to go on Bush's official site I wasn't allowed to view it (403 forbidden). Seemed odd I thought. I then heard on the news that no one from outside the US can go on that site. I'm wondering why. Does anyone know?

On october 21st, the web site management has been transferred on Edgescape, a service from Akamai that personnalize, or blocks internet traffic according to its source location. Here in Canada, I'm not able to access the site neither. There's no official statement I'm aware of that explains this yet.

But that's great news! Now we're going to have to check through proxies sites located in other countries if we want to get the same information they have access to. "Global" age...

 

[slackbladder]

So who's blocking access and why?

 

[Carl.]

So who's blocking access and why?

Found it. Here

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Not hard to bypass though

I'm looking at it from the UK

 

[Carl.]

Not hard to bypass though

I'm looking at it from the UK

Yup. From the article:

https://georgewbush.com/
http://65.172.163.222/
http://origin.georgewbush.com/

 

[okoj]

The goal of the terrorists is to wipe out the United States because they don't like our freedom. That's all. You know how you negotiate with people hell bent on slaughtering innocents? You kill them. End of story.

What freedom? You're censorship laws are more draconian than some dictatorships, everything is owned by the few and the proletariat have nothing not even a health service.

And talking about slaughtering innocents what about Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, most of South America, Afghanistan, Iraq to name but a few?

 

[okoj]

double post, sorry

 

[milefile]

What freedom? You're censorship laws are more draconian than some dictatorships, everything is owned by the few and the proletariat have nothing not even a health service.

And talking about slaughtering innocents what about Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, most of South America, Afghanistan and Iraq to name but a few?

Proletariat? Are you a member of "The Party"?

That was so cool when we won our war with South America. 👍

*cough*Falklands*cough*