joeking27 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 "The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers and kisses" - last time I checked AKs and RPGs weren't tokens of goodwill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could be a close one, Bush is a known entity but also pretty lame. Kerry is new which both bad and good. Being different could swing it for Kerry Plus dubya cant speak english properly. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 And that makes...how much difference...none... OFMG LOOK HE L00KS LIKE A APE OMFG LOLOLOLOLO HOW FUNNEH IS TAHT??!!1111!!!!11 Link to post Share on other sites
outlaw Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I vote for Govenor Dean! Yes im from Vermont. Link to post Share on other sites
Catchv22 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Havoc Man, there's a difference between the police and those people accusing Bush of 'policing the world'. First, the police are instituted by the will of the people to patrol and stop crimes, whereas we just preemptively went into a country without global support. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and only with a multinational task force should he be toppled, and in the right time, he would be as no one supports him. Being mugged is different than having an outside power come into country, take away the dictator and then screw over the infrastructure. It's good to see Saddam out of power, but is it really worth it at the cost of our lives and tax dollars while Osama Bin Laden is still out there? I full heartedly supported Afghanistan and the movements to hunt down and destroy terrorist cells, but I never bought Iraq. There is no proof Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction and was willing to sell these non-existant WMDs to terrorists. He did not assist them in any way for September 11th. I do not believe that it was smart to invade an altogether unconnected rogue country, when a terrorist threat was looming over our shoulders. In no way do I support Saddam, but now was not the time to topple him. We must stay the course and help the Iraqis back on their feet. Bush has basically isolated the US from the rest of the world. The rest of the world understands there is a terrorist threat, but by us attacking a country without their support, what does that say? It shows we don't really care about what they think, and that we don't respect their ideas, why should they aid us in our war in Iraq? They've assisted us in Afghanistan with troops. They clearly want to fight terrorism, but Bush has muddled relations with them when he pulled the Iraq card. The majority, and I mean large majority of the world want Kerry in the white house. I believe he could restore the friendly relations we had with countries before. I think John Kerry put it very nicely during the debate: 'I remember during the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Kennedy sent over his Secretary of Defense to De Gaulle in France and discussed the crisis at hand. After a short discussion, the Secretary of Defense said, 'Here, let me show you some pictures we have of Cuban Missiles sites.' De Gaulle replies, 'No need. If the president says so, I believe him.' Can we do that today?' Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Um, the problem for Bush isnt that he cant talk (though it doenst help him at all), it is that he has a weak argument. It's pretty obvious that he lied to everyone, and then makes excuses and acts like he is never wrong, and relies on the ignorance of people en masse to get votes. Link to post Share on other sites
Redhawk Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/...port/index.html I knew it all along. Link to post Share on other sites
rhino Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Now ARNIE's got a good way of winning the public over... Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Link to post Share on other sites
BadAssTronaut Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 LOL, nice one rhino Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Someone has to sort out all the scum in the world, and Bush and his allies are the only ones with the balls to do it... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which sounds nice in theory but has immediate practical problems. When "sorting out the scum" means thousands of civilian deaths (which it always will when bombing cities is involved) it suddenly stops being a war against the "Baathists and insurgents" and becomes a war mostly against ordinary Iraqi people who, as far as they are concerned, are fighting for their homes. Something which most of us would do when it came down to it. This has happened already. Also, on a more cynical note, you might question the amount of balls it takes for a draft-dodging President and a "five deferments" VP to send countless Americans into war when it's not them getting shot at. But then I'd say the same about Blair and his mob over here. I think a fair policy would be for any leader who starts a war to automatically have their own children enlisted in the armed forces. Link to post Share on other sites
BadAssTronaut Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I think a fair policy would be for any leader who starts a war to automatically have their own children enlisted in the armed forces. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 then, excellent film, and I have to agree with that statement. Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Funnily enough I haven't What really irks me is that no-one seems likely to face any justice over the whole thing. When Clinton got sprung with Monica Lewinsky he almost lost the Presidency over it. Bush and Blair get caught lying about a war that's cost many thousands of lives and untold misery and they're still smiling like the cats who got the cream. There's a very good chance both of them will have another full term in office. Strange priorities. Link to post Share on other sites
KWP Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hello Fellow Airsofters, That's an odd question in an Airsoft Forum. We all like Airsoft, don't we? We don't want to be discriminated as freaks and we don't want our hobby banned or restricted, right? If so, how could anybody of us vote Kerry? He and his entire party is nothing but a pacifistic fringe club of notorious naysayers and Billy boys. Link to post Share on other sites
joeking27 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Its much closer in the US than here. The only reason Blair is safe is because there is no viable alternative. Being in office you can see the effects of Labour policies, and although there is a lot of bad press about it, it is possible to see that some of them are working. The opposeition have to make up ground as the unkown. When you Tory you think Thatcher and the picket lines. One issue is not enough to lose an election, indeed Blair has been critised about ignoring issues that affect the people back home. Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Its much closer in the US than here. The only reason Blair is safe is because there is no viable alternative. I think we need an alternative to Blair. Whenever any individual stays in power too long they start going a bit wobbly. Labour on the whole haven't done too bad a job admittedly (although pensioners and students are getting a pretty crappy deal) but you just can't lie about things as important as 45-minute claims and all the rest and not get sacked when you get caught. Otherwise it's a case of making decisions but not being responsible for them, which is a ludicrous way to run anything, let alone a country. Link to post Share on other sites
BadAssTronaut Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Funnily enough I haven't <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, coincidence then, its just that you make a very similar point to Michael Moore: FAHRENHEIT 9/11: "Out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." “Only four of the 535 members of Congress have children in the military; only one, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a child who fought in Iraq.” Kevin Horrigan, “Hired Guns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 11, 2003. At this point in the film Michael Moore is waiting outside Congress for each of the members to leave at which point he confronts them with armed forces information leaflets and the relevant forms needed for their children to sign up just to see if any of them do. None of the members of Congress do. Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hello Fellow Airsofters, That's an odd question in an Airsoft Forum. We all like Airsoft, don't we? We don't want to be discriminated as freaks and we don't want our hobby banned or restricted, right? If so, how could anybody of us vote Kerry? He and his entire party is nothing but a pacifistic fringe club of notorious naysayers and Billy boys. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your generalization of Democrats is wrong. I'm a democrat, I like guns. Link to post Share on other sites
Dafool Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Look i dont think any politics are any good today. I think we should bring back winston churchil from the dead. Anyways vote for "Sledge" Link to post Share on other sites
CountDoom Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 They both SUCK!! In America it depends how easily corrupted you are and how much of a 'classic hard working American' you are! Have any feelings towards Isreal or anything that doesnt directly involve the US then HELL! DONT VOTE FOR HIM! Most people are judged by how many cows they own on their ranch and how much oil they will be pumping out of the most beutiful and unique places on earth! I think i have become a hard-line USA goverment hater, sorry i like american people though, just i wish the most powerful country in the world has a bit more sense to give full control of a state the size of England to a movie star with the ful IQ of a chipmunk! Please world just think! Xander On a possitive note Tony Blair is doing a great job and i hope he gets through this year! He is a better politition than snoby smerk faced tory blokey... and i think the the world is a better but more dangerous place without saddam husain. 1000 dead US soldiers! To think of that amount in this day and age is awful... and it hasnt ended yet. Unlike vietnam, they cant pull out of this one... I praise their courage... Xander Link to post Share on other sites
rhino Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I never said i'd VOTE for Arnold Sweatyknickers... *Ahem!* Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I would. He's a good speechmaker from what I've heard, isn't afraid to crack jokes about himself and his acting career, and he does know something about polotics. Remember, Ronald Reagan was an actor, and look how well he did as the President... Oh, and just because his 'acting' skills are a little lacking doesn't mean he's stupid - far from it in fact, from what I've heard... Link to post Share on other sites
Catchv22 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 He isn't stupid, although his 'economic girly men' comment was a bit... politically incorrect. Farenheit 9/11 is very biased. Moore leaves out things that will purposely make Bush look bad. For example, the whole Afghanistan oil pipeline thing for Bush. That deal was made in the Clinton eras, and had little to do with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan. Rhino, great pics. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Wow, it's nice to see someone else who thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a fair view of Bush's actions... ...god I hate easily-manipulated people... Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Kind of off topic, but responding to other posts already made... I'm sorry, but I just don't get this "Tony Blair / Labor is doing a good job" thinking. I mean, he / they have banned most handguns from legal ownership, increased a lot of other shooting legislation, increased the overall tax burden to the highest it's been in recent memory, banned many activities / sports / posessions because they did not approve, priced transport companies out of business, persecuted farmers, increased red-tape, taken us to war based on several lies, allowed health services to go down hill, had essential public services out on strike (underground, fire / health workers, council unions, etc...), have had more protests marching through London than I've ever known, squeezed our Armed Forces to breaking point while increasing their commitments, given themselves more powers to squash people / movements / events / organisations that they don't approve of, seen house prices rocket to a level where people can't afford to buy any more, seen interest rates rise continuously (hardly the stable economy they inhereted), etc, etc, etc.... Where is all the good we were promised? Is this really the history of a party working for Our benefit or doing a good job? Sorry, but I normally avoid political discussions on these boards, but I'm very confused as to why the members here seem to be giving them the "thumbs up" after all this? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.