[.::Tin Can::.]

Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.

The war in Iraq was something Kerry approved of. He had it spoken all over the place. Now that all the democrats think it sucks, and we have now finally DONE something, like caught this bastard, now he says "Oh, wait! It was a horrible idea! We shouldnt do it!"

When these candidates present themselves accordingly and start coming up with a GAME PLAN PEOPLE!!!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.

question of trust & honour, innit?  Is a man who shirked military duty through family connections fit to lead a country into war?

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
The war in Iraq was something Kerry approved of. He had it spoken all over the place. Now that all the democrats think it sucks, and we have now finally DONE something, like caught this bastard, now he says "Oh, wait! It was a horrible idea! We shouldnt do it!"

When these candidates present themselves accordingly and start coming up with a GAME PLAN PEOPLE!!! [/B]

From what i have read, Kerry's objections were all centered around just how ****ed up the situation in Iraq has become, rather than the reasons for removing Saddam.  

Besides which, if the bloke decided and admits he made a mistake, is that actually a bad thing?

Now, granted - i don;t want to sound like I'm waxing lyrical about Kerry because I don't know much about him or Us politics beyond the odd news story on the beeb / itv / sky and that link above, but given the dmaage Bush has done already, I'd say better the devil you don't.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.

And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.

[Liberator]

Amen

[.::Tin Can::.]

Thank you.

[Kazan]

Although I do agree that the media is overplaying the small collateral damage and the small ammout of remaining resistance

most iraqis are rather happy from what I've heard from the Iraqi LUG via Slashdot

This still doesn't justify bush lying to us

===================


liberator has officially descended into mindless partisan bickering

he acts like most of those position kerry tooks are BAD - most of them were upholding equal rights and a secular state - IE UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION


Libby, give it up dude-  you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics, science, debate and the world in general

[GT-Keravnos]

Dems: +50 Bil.

Reps: -500 Bil.
------------------
What would you vote?

=================

Dems: Were about to make new spacebus

Reps: Left it to fry and burn

================

Kerry: Rich wife

Bush: Rich dad, oil-friends, gun-friends, etc. (everybody's rich)

================
Mil. service

Kerry: Nam

Bush: Dads' backyard

================

Kerry: War on terror (Started by Bush)

Bush: War on Iraq (To be ended by Kerry)


==================
 
Kerry: More taxes for the rich

Bush: Less taxes for the rich

==================

Kerry: Has worked for a living

Bush: Hasn't earned a dime in his life (again rich friends)

==================

Kerry: Will be re-elected (like Clinton)

Bush: Won't (like dad)

==================

Kerry: Been there, done that, got the marks and scars to prove it

Bush: Likes minorities, lets 'em fight wars for him, got the photos to prove it.

==================

Kerry: "No comment" when Bush's "war record" came out.

Bush: "No comment" when some republicans tried to smear Kerry by putting him together with Hanoi Jane in a fake photo op.

==================

Kerry: WILL be elected by popular vote

Bush: WILL lose the popular vote (again) AND the elections (that's a first)

==================

---------> Who's gonna help 'em both win the election?


Kerry : Rich wife

Bush : Naughty brother (Florida was just the beginning)

==================

US: President BUSH

US eurotrash: WTF!

===================

And to conclude, without really mentioning the butterfly vote (effect), the dirty negative campaigns, the money on top of money and other things going for Bush, well,

He helped destroy US economy (any dumb f*ck knows that to win a war you RAISE taxes, not lower them or you WILL run down the economy, but then this is the leader of the free world, isn't it.)

I am a Greek, a European, and retain the right to think. Bush was elected on money, favored big money, and KO'd the US economy.

Clinton was smeared because of screwing a rather ugly girl.
What should happen to Bush for destroying the US economy?

Job loss, unemployment skyrockets, makebelieve growth, EMRON.

On any occasion, I have spent hours thinking how could someonel like him be elected. It wouldn't happen here.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN.

[Stryke 9]

Nothing's so certain. Remember that bit about the hint of part of a booby in the Super Bowl? Remember how many days that was headline news? Care to venture an estimate as to how many soldiers died in Iraq meriting barely a 20th-page mention in passing while the nation was gripped in the crisis of a "wardrobe malfunction"?

Clinton's blowjob far, far outpaced Bush's rape of the country in terms of national interest. Spread the rumor that he was seen ogling some celebrity, he's out- otherwise, anybody's guess.

'Sides, there's always that lovely Diebold wonderfullness to contend with. Are they even up to 50% accurate, yet? Have they at least managed not to get implicated in any shady political dealings with the Bush camp lately? Honestly, those assholes weren't even bothering to pretend last I heard.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Holy **** guys, who give a flying f*** about his military records? You know, a fair majority of our presidents were never military men at all, and wheather he did his duties in the National Guard or not, I couldnt give heads or tails if he didnt.

Originally posted by mikhael
As someone who voluntarily served this country faithfully and honorably in a war zone, Liberator, this IS a substantive issue. Desertion and/or dereliction of duty is neither honorably, nor faithful and should not go unpunished.

Let's examine the Texas Air National Guard, its values and the ramifications of desertion of thereof:

First, the states values of the Texas Air National Guard

• Service -- if he wasn't doing his guard duty, he's failed on this one
• Courage -- I'll grant him this one. It take some serious courage to stand up and lie in the face of the public record.
• Honesty -- If you swear a solemn oath to do your duty and don't, isn't that dishonest? Bearing false witness is a sin in his faith. Abrogating a sworn oath is the same.
• Integrity -- What kind of integrity can the man have? He deserted.
• Respect -- not doing his duty shows the world how much he respects the Guard and the men and women who serve(d) in it faithfully.
• Loyalty -- desertion of your post, especially during time of war is anything but 'loyal'

Let's see now... where next? How about the Oath of Enlistment for the Texas Guard? Its got a great quote:

I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will bear truth faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully ...

Does desertion during time of war count as serving 'honestly and faithfully'?

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.

And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.

Out of curiosity, when is the last time you were in the Middle East in the military? The military is doing what they were ordered to do. You could say that they're serving 'honestly and faithfully'. However, to characterize the military as 'dishonorable' is indeed, dead wrong.

The dishonorable person is the man that ordered them into Iraq in the first place on a platform of lies and half-truths. The Bush administration has continuously cast and recast this war to try to keep one step ahead of the critics. First it was about disarmament, but no weapons were found. Then it was about the war on terror, but no links to Al-queda have been found. Then it finally, after we had already dropped explosive devices innocent civilians, it became a war to liberate the people of Iraq. This progression is documented: the President's words are part of the public record. The speeches he made are there to read.

Now, let's talk about 'opressed people'. Were the people of Iraq opressed? Absolutely! Have they been freed of the tyrrany of Hussein? Of course.

Are they free and no longer oppressed? Of course not. Instead of Hussein's boot on their throats, its ours. The people of Iraq want to vote for their form of government, and yet the Bush administration is afraid to let them do it because the majority wants theocracy. Imagine that: they want a union between church and state and the Bush administration says no! Instead, the administration is trying to force a democracy down their throats. How is denying the will and wishes of the people anything but oppression?

We may not be making it worse, but we certainly are not making it better.

[Bobboau]

the thing about Diebold, they could at least cheat realisticly, I mean -5000 votes kinda jumps out at ya

you know the UN actualy agrees with the "Iraq is not ready for a vote" thing

[mikhael]

Isn't that a bit hypocritical though, Bob?

I personally don't care what sort of government they end up with. I'm glad that Hussein is gone. I'm happy about my unemployment check, too. I do wish I didn't have to get it by being unemployed.

The ends do not justify the means. The man lied, and he should get his peepee slapped for sending men to die for his own political aggrandizement. (hey, didn't the the Right say that Clinton went into Kosovo for his own political ends? Why is it somehow different when Bush does the same thing?)

[Bobboau]

what you mean me useing the UN to justify the "Iraq isn't quite stable enough to take a vote yet" position, even though I don't give a damn about what the UN says?

well, maybe, I was mostly pointing it out as a sorce that you might consider to be, at the least, a fair body ( )

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage?

http://iraqbodycount.net

[mikhael]

I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, Bob. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I was saying that bombing a country so you can bring them democracy, then not letting them vote democratically is hypocritical.


I dunno about that site, Rictor. Its slanted rather heavily. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying that I'd consider anything I read there suspect. (much like I consider anything on the Democrat or Republican websites to be suspect)

[Bobboau]

yes it is somewhat hypocritical if looked at in such simple terms, but if we alow an election were there could be people with guns standing over anyone who votes, I don't think that would be apropriate.

"hey, didn't the the Right say that Clinton went into Kosovo for his own political ends? Why is it somehow different when Bush does the same thing?"

it isn't. I suported Clinton(braces for Rictor's and Rasor's(if he should show up) slapping), even though I figured he was doing it as a distraction, I agreed that something had to be done, even if the only reason we were doing it was becase Clinton wanted a 'HEY! look at that over there!'.
I don't care why Bush wanted to take out Sadam I just wanted him gone. for the most part I think Iraq is a better place for it's people, and may be a vastly better place in the not to distant future. ends do justify means if you take into acount all ends.

[Flipside]

Tin, I do give a Flying f*** about Bush's military record for one reason. He was expected to perform a duty, whether it was a pleasant one or not. If nobody can prove that Bush was loyal to his country then, who is to say he is being so now?

I don't know any of the other runners, so I can't comment on the race for the Whitehouse personally, if it's the same as the UK, it's same crap, different background anyway. But I think the safest thing for about the entire world is for Bush to go as soon as possible, basing a society on what seems to be defined here as 'Morals' is utterly terrifying, simply because what is being talked about here is not Morals.

The dictionary is pretty blank regarding Morals, and rightly so, because different people have different Morals, so what is being said here is not 'Let's make a society based on the peoples Morals', it's 'Let's make a society based on my petty discriminations and irrational fear of the unknown, and what my mate told me'.
Most countries already have one of those.

Morals is, at a base level, knowing what is 'right'. If you asked a Gay person whether they think that their affection for their partner is 'right' what do you think they would say? If you asked a Liberal whether he thinks homosexual marraige is 'right' what do you think he would say?

So who here has the 'Right' to define Moral and Immoral? I don't see any deities here, except possibly the SCP guys, and I personally would severly doubt a book which has mutated so much that most Churches need to tell you which version they are making a reading from.

[Stryke 9]

There's no guarantee that Iraq will be a better place now. It certainly hasn't gotten better yet (if anything, it's a good deal worse, particularly in terms of crime and daily fatalities), and everyone seems to be awful quick to forget what happened only recently in Afghanistan.

Flipside: I'm considered the Antichrist equivalent of a small church, does that count as deityhood? If so, you're all horrible people and going to hell. Bwahaha.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Damage? Holy hell. We just freed an opressed people and now everyone calls that damage? When is the last time the news has reported anything GOOD about the war? Thats because they dont want anything to be said that might make it look like a good thing. A soldier came back from the war and said that the news is dead wrong and I believe him. He was there, he did all of this, and he comes back to a bunch of ass holes who dare to say the military is dishonorable.

And if everyone thinks that we are making it worse, then screw you.

You haven;t freed anyone yet - you / we've* replaced a tyrant with anarchy and a proto-civil war.   I would never suggest the military is dishonourable - they're just doing their job.

and anyways, with damage I was referring to;
- withdrawal from nuclear non-profileration treaties
- the plan to develop the anit missile shield - using a forward radar base on a USAF base in Britain, but providing us with no actual defense to counteract the fact w'e'd become a prime target
- withdrawal from a pledge to abolish use of landmines by 2006(1)
- illegal steel import tariffs IIRC
- withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty
- the decisions to allow oild drilling in Alaska, in what IIRC is a protected reserve
- the removal of state secularity by introducing various laws (especially regarding the sanctity of marriage)
- illegal tax breaks for large corporations (2)
- launching unjustifiable attacks on european countries like France and Germany for daring to speak their mind and disagree
- requesting that the UK spy on UN delegates before crucial votes RE Iraq(3)
- offering financial support to a military dictatorship (4) in exchange for votes at the above vote (and not even mentioning Musharraf)
- Illegally holding prisoners without trial or legal recourse in Cuba, something which is contrary to the rule of law and due process vital for any civillized nation
- Tax breaks.  For the super-rich only.

And this is just a few thing is remeber coming across the pond.....and i've berely mentioned the dirty tricks used to force through the war with Iraq, or the clinical ****up in trying to force the military to use an even smaller force than the one they went in with.

(1) To be fair, they have pledged to switch to using smart mines 'safe' after a period of about 3months.  But what tech is 100% reliable?

(2) Declared by the WTO as illegal state support (to the like of Microsoft, Boeing, etc).  The EU is beginning to phase in retaliatory sanctions which are capable of collapsing the US economy and - as a consequence - the European one.  There have also been numerous protectionist polocies, like placing tarriffs on Scotttish cashmere over something to do with banana imports

(3)  Allegedly - based on a leaked memo.  The leaker was charged under the Official Secrets Act, but the charges were dropped as unsupportable.

(4) Gambia, IIRC. I've been unable to find the exact nation, but I remeber the hypocracy of this well

Y'know, up till 4/5 years agoi had no real interest in US politics.  Why do you think i would suddenly develop a deep mistrust of Bush  for the hell of it - especially when I've not even cared about previous presidents' actions?  i mean, why should I be so worried about another world leader?  doesn;t that kind of indicate something must be seriously wrong?

[Gank]

Originally posted by mikhael
I dunno about that site, Rictor. Its slanted rather heavily. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying that I'd consider anything I read there suspect. (much like I consider anything on the Democrat or Republican websites to be suspect)

If you actually checked the site you see all casualties reported on it came from from at least two reputable sources, mostly western news reports. Dont see how you could possibly see it as slanted. Yeah its done by anti war people but the pro war people dont give a flying f**k how many Iraqis died and those who didnt care about the war obviously arent going to care enough to start counting the dead.

[Stryke 9]

I always wondered about the mine thing, actually. Given that the US is a rich, high-tech country, wouldn't it be pretty easy to have mines operate in inert mode as a default, and switch on, say, when special sensors detected somebody entering roughly the middle of the minefield? Make the things simultaneously infinitely more lethal to hostile combatants and pretty much completely safe after the conflict's end.

'S the way I'd design 'em, at least. Electrical switch, parallel circuit, activate when the attacking force was deep enough in that moving in any direction at all would be lethal, maybe given time and money even some crude magnetic/radiation IFF tab so that friendlies could go across and shoot the hell out of those hostiles smart enough to stay put when the first cars or whatever start blowing up.