| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Bush vs Kerry: who is your choice? |
| Bush (US-citizen) |
|
21% |
[ 10 ] |
| Kerry (US-citizen) |
|
19% |
[ 9 ] |
| Bush (non-US) |
|
10% |
[ 5 ] |
| Kerry (non-US) |
|
47% |
[ 22 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 46 |
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Well obviously it wouldn't be Clinton and the beloved UN that let Saddam do anything he wanted for 8 years by not enforcing anything... *sigh*
Yes, Saddam was that mischevious neighbourhood menace throughout the middle east that just had to be delt with. The world was in peril dammit!
Seriously, Iraq looks like a horror show now thanks to Bush, although Clinton certainly helped with the sporadic bombings and economic sanctions.
Well, it's great that there's a president who REALLY listens to PNAC.
And yes, the concept of "Al Quaeda" is nothing but an exploited boogey man. |
Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:15 pm |
|
|
titus
Survivor of Hell
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 778
Location: Standing at the Hell mouth |
I am not from the US but I would vote Kerry. Why? worse than bush can't happen or you need to be an dictator.
Al-queada dead? no way, they are the greatest terroristic organisation in every West -European country, was in the news just a few days ago. Bin laden is still not dead just hiding and maybe even restructuring everything.
Iraq: Saddam bad thing, yes!!! dictator is now good!!!
BUT what were the reasons for the attack on Iraq: Saddam had mass destruction weapons and plans to use them. mmmm They never found a single mass destruction weapon, except maybe a chopper or a tank and Bush knew about it, he was just using that propoganda to sweat talk the war.
mmm a Lying president or an unknown factor? I would go for the unknown
ow yeah I really want to know who writes Bush his speeches because with his overpatrionised talks I find hem evne more laughable than Eddy Murphy or Jim carry 
_________________
Want to become a vampire? a warrior in the battle between vampires and werewolves?
http://monstersgame.nl/?ac=vid&vid=12007139 |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:47 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
By dteowner
And this is merely unsupported counterspin. For all your posturing, you're being just as dismissive as you're accusing me of being. And really, if you think about it, this spin argument doesn't really help your cause much. Spin is a scam tool used by talented politicians, yes? Since you claim (and I agree completely) that Kerry is a far better politician than Bush, that would imply that he's more likely to use spin to dodge issues than Bush...
No, that is not spin. I actually heard Rush Limbaugh and and Sean Hannity say that repeatedly on their radio shows. You haven't stated any Bush policy for me to dismiss.
The spin argument does help if it will cause any person to actually look past the ads, interviews, and commentary to actually get to the facts. For example, you still refer to Kerry as someone who flip-flops. Actual examination of his votes and positions says that the "Kerry flip-flops argument" is a lie. You, no doubt, got that info from Republican speeches, ads, interviews and talk shows. If anyone would look at the facts from a bipartisan source they would see that this argument is a lie.
The "Kerry is more likely to spin that Bush" argument is not true either. Bush is not the brains behind his campaign. Whoever is behind his campaign is at least as skilled as Bill Clinton. Look at what they have done. They have you and many others completely sold on a man who, has no charisma, was the President when we got attacked, and lied to you on issues leading up to a war. These things are common knowledge, yet you believe that G.W. Bush is better able to protect us, even though he was the President when we got attacked in the first place. They have you saying things like, "we would probably be bombed or gassed if Kerry is elected."
quote:
By dteowner
Well, chances are fair about half the nation would be bombed, gassed, or infected had we been under the so-called-guidance of Captain Waffle.
when the FACT is that Bush was elected and we were bombed while he was in office. When Bush is before the national audience his numbers start to go down. When Bush is out of the national spotlight, and his campaign can do the work for him, his numbers start to go up again. Whoever is behind Bush's campaign is far better at spinning facts than Kerry or his campaign.
On the healthcare, Kerry did say he would raise taxes on the richest 1%.
On Iraq and Afganistan. My critique and Kerry's are entirely different. I believe Kerry fears a backlash if he says the plain truth that I am about to say...Bush was predisposed to war in Iraq.
Bush fabricated every reason he gave for going to Iraq. Each reason he gave has now been proven false. Two members of his administration have come out and said that he was looking for ways to go to war against Iraq.
But the remarkable thing about this is that you believe him. Just think about this statement....
Iraq is a material threat to the United States of America.
That is fantastic by itself. I may as well say Peru is going to overthrow China. Iraq had no planes, no ships, no long-range missiles, no WMD's, and no control over its own airspace. They had nothing to attacks us with; not to mention they are on the other side of the world. Bush said that they were a threat to the US. This is a lie. Only in a state of fear can anyone believe this. Sadaam Hussein was not a great man, or even a good man and he deserves to be in jail, but that does not excuse the President's lies and minipulations to get us into a war.
I don't want it "both ways." I am not criticizing Bush for going to Iraq before finishing Afganistan. I am criticizing Bush for not even talking to North Korea at all. Remember, North Korea actually has nukes. I only want it one way. First, don't lie to the people to lead them to war. Second, deal with the rogue nation that actually has WMD's.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:13 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
I'll go with the easy one rather than waste words. Vietnam hero to Vietnam protester. Irrefutable, non-spin, documented fact. How can you say he doesn't tailor his opinions to fit his audience without bursting out laughing?
As for Dubya being on the watch when we were attacked, I believe the 9-11 Commission determined that the attack was planned and "green-lighted" by Osama and his cronies in 1998, right? At that point, we were six years into turning a blind eye (wise policy, right?). The attack was already in process before Dubya even became a candidate, let alone President. But why confuse the issue with FACTS, right?
As for Iraq's threat level... 20 kooks with nothing but time, twisted religion (that refers to their view, not Islam as a whole, folks), and money killed 3000 people, caused billions of dollars in damage, and had a huge part in putting our economy into a tailspin. The fact that you'd mention planes and ships and "other side of the world" tells me you've missed the boat entirely. Just like John Kerry. Now before you gleefully pull out the "no connection between Saddam and terrorists" line, let me say this: terrorists don't generally take out full page ads in the New York Times detailing their organization and associates, and Saddam "walks like a duck and talks like a duck and looks like duck". Is that concrete fact? Nope. Wanna pay the price to find out for sure? Not me.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:53 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Oh, I get it. You are afraid. You think that Sadaam may actually have been in league with Al-Queada even though we have no evidence to support that fear, and you don't want to take any chances. You want your candidate to share your fear. You don't really care about the facts surrounding Iraq because you are still afraid from September 11 and the war makes you feel better because instead of searching for someone, we are fighting someone, even though we have no evidence to suggest that we are fighting the "right someone."
I think I am closer to understanding your point of view. I do think that you are seeing incorrectly. We can not afford to make decisions about war from a state of fear. These are literally life and death decisions and they require the most rational thought from the coolest and most intelligent head we have. (I have to add Kerry having been in a war and having been shot at before gives me more confidence in his ability to deal with fear.) Fear leads to too many mistakes to list them all so I'll just say, It kills innocent people, misses the true target, and still leaves you exposed.
It is foolhardy to go to war as a precaution against a country who MAY be supporting a terrorist. Before you committ lives to war you must see a clear target, have a rational reason for going to war, and have seen facts to support your reason.
When you say that I missed the boat entirely, that tells me that you have let your fear intefere with your logic on this matter. Terrorism can only be defeated through diplomacy. Killing terrorists won't stop terrorism. Terrorists kill themselves. When a man puts a bomb on his chest and goes to a crowded area, HE CAME THERE TO DIE. You could kill every terrorist alive today, and terrorism would only slow down for a short time. To defeat terrorism you have to debunk and undermine the idea that drives it. George Bush tells you he can fight it with the military. He does not even know what he is up against.
Bush is using the fear of Americans like you. First, to get us to fight a war he wanted to fight anyway, and next to get re-elected. Everytime you see him he will remind you of terrorism and say Kerry will leave us exposed or something to that effect. He only has an edge if you are afraid, and are unaware of the need for diplomacy and proper aim.
I'll respond to the rest in another post.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:48 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
I'll go with the easy one rather than waste words. Vietnam hero to Vietnam protester.
What's wrong with that? Vietnam was an utter shambles, the US was misguided to go there in the first place, and they certainly shouldn't have stayed so long (that's another irrefutable, non-spin, documented fact  ). I find the ability to speak up for what is right, despite professional or political pressure, or any misplaced sense of loyalty, is something to be respected.
I don't live in the US, and I don't know much about either parties' policies (although I do know that the idea that your democrat party is left-wing raises a chuckle throughout the rest of the world, just like our labour party  ). I do know that Kerry stated that he wouldn't have sent your boys into Iraq (hey maybe he's flip-flopped on that, I don't know) and I respect him for that, as I respected him when I found out he protested against the Vietnam war.
True, Saddam was a tyrant, and it is good that he is no longer in power. What's not good is that the US (and the UK, following along like a faithful puppy-dog) took on the role of world police and invaded a country that presented absolutely no threat to the rest of the world, creating reasons to gain public support. What's not good is that we, as supposed members of the UN, ignored the rulings of that body - here's another irrefutable, non-spin, documented fact: Bush and Blair, by the international laws our nations willingly subscribe to, are war criminals. But hey, they'll probably get away with it, because they've got far better spin doctors than Saddam. What's not good is that concerns over civillian casualties were dismissed, as if they were somebody else's fault. Fabricating reasons to attack a nation and deliberately eradicating non-military targets is no different to terrorism. The responsibility goes all the way to the top. How do you reward a war criminal? Give him another term in office? 
If you want an outside-US perspective, you should know that your nation's popularity throughout the rest of the world has hit rock-bottom since 9/11, which is perverse, as the rest of the world was up in arms to help you out after that sickening incident. But to an outside perspective, your government has made the wrong decision at every opportunity since then (the apparently xenophobic isolation, the restriction of your own citizens' freedom, the immediate declaration of war, the unjustifiable treatment of prisoners, the unprompted move into Iraq, and the total lack of consideration of how to restore order to that country - which is ongoing and has acheived nothing but a huge body count). It's really hard (even after reading this thread) to see even the slightest trace of a reason why some of you are still supporting this guy. Seriously, the notion of Bush getting another four years is a source of dismay and bewilderment to the rest of the world. If you care at all about your international relations, I'd recommend voting for the other guy. |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:43 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Well, piln, you've hit on yet another touchstone... I don't care in the slightest about our international relations. Turkey (as an example) wouldn't let us use their airspace until we gave them millions in bogus aid programs. A supposed ally, and they made no bones about taking advantage of a chance to squeeze some cash out of us. Oh, and shortly after they cashed the check, they complained that we weren't doing enough to solve their problem with the Kurds.
The French would be speaking German right now without our assistance, and look how they treat us.
Without our resolve, there's a chance there wouldn't have been a West Germany. Without us supplying a competitor that kept the Soviet Union constantly racing until she dropped, there might still be a Berlin Wall. To say nothing of the money we dumped into former East Germany to facilitate the unification. Look at the support we're getting from Germany.
With friends like these...
@Darrius- About a year ago, there was a political cartoon that summed up my so-called-fear. I linked it in the Iraq War thread IIRC, but that link is probably long dead by now. Anyway, the cartoon was a picture of Kerry sitting in the Oval Office. On his desk, doves are flying out of his outbox. In the windows behind him, you see a big mushroom cloud. An aide is leaning over and says, "Guess there were WMD's after all." Do you honestly think these people are going to stop just because you offer them a hug and $20? Entire power structures are based on hating America. Think those "influential clerics" are going to say "My work here is done" and go back to working on an oil rig? These people are completely about hate and power. You're talking about reasoning and discussions, and yet you say these folks are nutty enough to blow themselves up. Either they're rational or they're not, Darrius. I say they're not, which means all the talk in the world gets you exactly nothing.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:49 am |
|
|
DzD
Unknown
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 7140
Location: Sweden |
The very fact that you don't care about your international relations is probably the answer to why most people dislike America, and the answer to why your so called 'allies' treat you like they do.
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
The French would be speaking German right now without our assistance, and look how they treat us.
Are you sure that Germany would speak German if it wasn't for the death of Alexander the Great? Point is, they rise, they fall. Just like Germany would, just like the U.S will. Besides, did you go into Europe to help us Europeans because we needed it or because a united Europe under Germany would cause a threat to you?
_________________
There once was a youngster, DzD
Whose avatars numbered infinity
But I must admit
His latest, a hit
Cuz the Little One's a mystery to me
Written by - dteowner |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:27 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Wasn't it Bush who though that Sweden had no army?
quote:
Are you sure that Germany would speak German if it wasn't for the death of Alexander the Great? Point is, they rise, they fall. Just like Germany would, just like the U.S will. Besides, did you go into Europe to help us Europeans because we needed it or because a united Europe under Germany would cause a threat to you?
Or perhaps they saw the tremendous amounts of money they could (and would) make from the war?
quote:
Do you honestly think these people are going to stop just because you offer them a hug and $20? Entire power structures are based on hating America. Think those "influential clerics" are going to say "My work here is done" and go back to working on an oil rig? These people are completely about hate and power. You're talking about reasoning and discussions, and yet you say these folks are nutty enough to blow themselves up. Either they're rational or they're not, Darrius. I say they're not, which means all the talk in the world gets you exactly nothing.
It's so scary, because you don't even try to realize the situation. This isn't some kind of good vs. evil. Terror breeds terror. That's why Iraq looks the way it does, and that's why terror will continue. On both sides. |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:53 am |
|
|
tolgerias
High Emperor
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Location: The Netherlands |
@ dteowner (Well, piln, you've hit on yet another touchstone... I don't care in the slightest about our international relations)
whats this then? America tries to rule the world, does everything it sees fit and they DONT care about international relations? THATS STUPID!!!
If only you would care you would have more allies in Iraq, which results in lower costs for your war. for example the Netherlands have quite a few troops in Iraq and because we are even interested in our relations with iraqi civilians our troops hardly ave any problems down there. My point is your arrogance is mainly the source of hate from your enemies and the lack of cooperation of your allies.
btw why are only americans permitted to vote, the American president rules the world (oh yeah) and yet only americans may vote, in fact thats not very democratic.
I´d say let him americans vote and let him rule america or let the world vote and let him rule the world! (normally international relations are a good solution for this problem but you dont seem to care about those)
_________________
If you can't debate without namecalling then don't bother visiting us. -Myrthos |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:38 am |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
Well this is certainly spiraling out of control 
I would put my two cents in, but I know its not going to make a difference, so I will just close my eyes, hang my head, and shake it side to side while sighing. 
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:00 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
It's so scary, because you don't even try to realize the situation. This isn't some kind of good vs. evil. Terror breeds terror. That's why Iraq looks the way it does, and that's why terror will continue. On both sides.
Let's talk about good versus evil for a moment. I'm not stupid enough to think that our bombings haven't killed innocent people. Now, I would offer that those few "truly innocent" people had the chance to leave (after all, they've decided to stay in a war zone), or to help us get the job done. They chose not to do either. I credit Joe Iraqi with enough common sense to make his/her own decisions about staying or going, and then live with the consequences.
Now let's look at the other side. After 9-11, they were DANCING IN THE STREETS in several Arab cities. Documented on video. No spin, no propaganda. DANCING IN THE STREETS! This is before troop #1 was in Afghanistan or Iraq. More recently, insurgents blew up a convoy on a bridge. Know what? They're fighting a war over there, so manure occurs to both sides. I don't like it, but I don't care for war either. Now, the people in that convoy died. Don't know whether the blast killed them, or the fact that they were left in burning vehicles did, but dead and charred is dead and charred. They pulled the dead bodies out, hung them from the bridge, and DANCED IN THE STREET. Anyone care to explain that away for me? Show me goodness in those incidents and I might even vote for Kerry. And don't tell me how that's just a few bad apples. If it's such a tiny minority, the supposed majority of good people would have done something about it. I certainly never saw a single person at those dance parties saying "This is wrong. Stop."
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:35 pm |
|
|
DzD
Unknown
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 7140
Location: Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
Let's talk about good versus evil for a moment. I'm not stupid enough to think that our bombings haven't killed innocent people. Now, I would offer that those few "truly innocent" people had the chance to leave (after all, they've decided to stay in a war zone), or to help us get the job done. They chose not to do either. I credit Joe Iraqi with enough common sense to make his/her own decisions about staying or going, and then live with the consequences.
Right. An exemple: Lets say Israel would declare war on Egypt, just with words, no military action as of yet. Then they'd give all people in Egypt a choice to stay and risk dying, or get out of there. Now, as in Iraq, many people would have to leave everything behind and try to run through a border control to the neighbouring country, risking getting shot probably, since neither one, two or three countries can take care of all of Egypts population. Nice choices, right? Either stay and die, or run and risk getting shot. They make the decision, and live with the consequences. It doesn't matter if they want to make the third decision, stay and not risking getting shot, right? We trust they have enough common sense to pick one of the two options. That is how what you just wrote looked to my eyes, sorry if I'm mistaken.
quote:
Now let's look at the other side. After 9-11, they were DANCING IN THE STREETS in several Arab cities. Documented on video. No spin, no propaganda. DANCING IN THE STREETS! This is before troop #1 was in Afghanistan or Iraq. More recently, insurgents blew up a convoy on a bridge. Know what? They're fighting a war over there, so manure occurs to both sides. I don't like it, but I don't care for war either. Now, the people in that convoy died. Don't know whether the blast killed them, or the fact that they were left in burning vehicles did, but dead and charred is dead and charred. They pulled the dead bodies out, hung them from the bridge, and DANCED IN THE STREET. Anyone care to explain that away for me? Show me goodness in those incidents and I might even vote for Kerry. And don't tell me how that's just a few bad apples. If it's such a tiny minority, the supposed majority of good people would have done something about it. I certainly never saw a single person at those dance parties saying "This is wrong. Stop."
Just because they danced on the streets it gives you the right to fight them? So just because Russia has killed Swedes, and the other way around, we shall fight? Just because you supported a war versus Iraq, it should give them the right to fight yout? Just because some people do something, and the rest don't care, it gives you the right to go to war with them? Just because some people danced on the streets, it gives you the right to give them choices as; join us and risk getting killed, don't join us and risk getting killed or get out of here, we don't care how? That "an eye for an eye" expression really fits here. Or, you just lost me.
Obviously they don't want you there. How hard can it be to leave, or better, not go there at all? Or is it revenge you want because the people stated their opinion, bizzare or not. If it is the later option, I'm beginning to see a pattern here... after Iraq, you will go to every other Arabic country and do the same? You know, you were already disliked by them, why go there and make things worse?
_________________
There once was a youngster, DzD
Whose avatars numbered infinity
But I must admit
His latest, a hit
Cuz the Little One's a mystery to me
Written by - dteowner |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:11 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
To your first point, I think you've missed the real "correct" choice. The Arab world should have made an effort on behalf of their people to solve the terrorist problem long before the US stepped in. Terrorists aren't going to negotiate with Americans. Not now, not ever. To do so would undermine their entire power structure. Terrorists might negotiate with other Arabs. (before someone gets excited, I'm not saying all terrorists are Arabs- the ones we're talking about are) Haven't seen much help from the Arab world. In fact, by and large, they're doing more to help the terrorists than hinder.
To your second point, Little One, the fact that they attacked us first gives us the right to fight back. Dancing in the streets just tells you what sort of people there are over there. I'm willing to grant that the Iraq War was started on shaky principles (doesn't mean I think it's wrong, but it certainly makes it harder to explain)- maybe Bush really is a war monger as Darrius claims. On the other hand, I haven't gotten my invite to a dance party yet.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:40 pm |
|
|
DzD
Unknown
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 7140
Location: Sweden |
What? Iraq attacked you first?
Besides, it all comes down to how you 'should' be. Who says we should not dance on the streets? Besides, we can't wage war, *killing* people, just because we see them as barbarians.
Also, isn't it what you wanted to bring into Iraq? Democracy? In a true democracy, should you not be able to state your opinion, no matter how 'evil' or 'good' it is?
_________________
There once was a youngster, DzD
Whose avatars numbered infinity
But I must admit
His latest, a hit
Cuz the Little One's a mystery to me
Written by - dteowner |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:55 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
