The War On Iraq

$10 says his speech was written for him by the american government.
[/b][/quote]
$20 says it.

 

Its not our country, true, but we--or shall we say the Bush administration-- attacked Iraq, therefore screwing the rest of the United States over and making it our problem to restore some kind of peace before getting the the hell out of there. I wish every US soldier and civilian could high tail it out of Iraq. But the US attacked Iraq and triggered this whole change (bad or good) so we are very much in deep #### and cannot brush ourselves clean of it simply by saying "not our problem" when we attacked Iraq in the first place.

In this case, we wouldn't be abandoning Iraq and letting chaos reign. Which is much better.

 

Does Kerry think we should get out of Iraq? I'm pretty sure he did but he changes his mind sometimes.

 

$10 says his speech was written for him by the american government.

Steps to making this better;

-- Kerry in office.
-- Kerry apologizes to UN on behalf of US and asks for help.
-- UN, more susceptible to a new president who doens't piss them off, may oblige.
-- The responsabilities are shared, many of the American troops go home.
-- Less presence of American forces ceases much of the violence. [/b][/quote]
Deffinantly...I dont really understand politics and the such, but I can deffinantly see how this happened and what should be done about it. Bush out and then they can get down to the real business of talking with the UN, and arranging some sort of peace deal.

 

What gets me about Bush "liberating" Iraq is the fact that after he got Saddam out of office, he didn't have any: Doctors/Nurses, Teachers, Police (make that a SWAT team with all the insurgence), etc, to help the country back on it's feet. What was he thinking? That Iraq after being under dictorship for so many years was going to fix itself?

 

There's currently talk between the Bush Administration officials that (if re-elected, which won't happen anyway) next year they need to just yank all the soldiers out of Iraq. They think it's time for a quick exit and say it would happen within the year 2005. The only problem is that they currently don't have a plan for that and to be honest I don't really know if I believe them. Bush and his officials have lied so much over the past 4 years this could just be another one in order to gain some more people's support. Other than this I haven't really heard much of a plan from Bush about Iraq.

Kerry's made it clear - He's going to restore America's standing with the world. He's going to gain back our allies to help with the war so that we're not paying 90% of the costs. I've read that some people say that Kerry won't be able to do this but I defidently think he can. Right now Bush can't. He's ruined his standing with the world and no one wants to be associated with him. But if there's a new president then everything changes.

Back to Bush and wars. Another reason for the quick exit from Iraq talks might just be apart of the big plan. Iran, North Korea...i'm sure they're next on Bush's war list. Iran for sure. He'll probably yank all of our soldiers out of Iraq making everyone extremly happy then he'll just throw them into Iran for another regime change(it's being secretly talked about).

And if you haven't heard already: We're running out of troops. We're already running to Army Reserves and National Guard units. In fact, we're very close to a draft. Bush says that by raising soldier pay, medicare, and housing that it will attract more recruits and eliminate the need for a draft but the fact that Bush hasn't said "There will not be a draft" has me a little worried. John Edwards has already spoke on behalf of John Kerry stating “There will be no draft when John Kerry is president.” If Bush is re-elected and his plan for recruiting soldiers doesn't work - you may be going to war if you're 18. And no fleeding to Canada. The border patrol will be so strong if a draft happens that you'll probably have a 5% chance of making it.

Also in case you haven't heard the Bush Administration are already rigging the election. In defiance of a court order Flordia, under the governship of Jeb Bush(George's younger brother), is sending out absentee ballots with Ralph Nader's name on them. The court had previously issued an injunction against printing ballots with Nader's name because he is listed as The Reform Party canidate. The Reform Party is not recognized as a national party under Flordia's own laws, so the judge told Flordia's election officials that they could not issue those ballots pending a hearing on their legality. Jeb Bush and his officials, though, are claiming that because of Hurricane Ivan there is an uncertainty about the scheduled court hearing(afraid it might not happen) on the legality of Nader being listed, thus forcing them to mail the absentee ballots immediatly. In the 2000 election Nader took 98,000 votes away from Gore. Gore lost by 527 votes. The Bush Administration would like to see the same thing happen again except this time to Kerry. Jeb Bush says "Ijt's up to the judge to determine, based on the law, whether Nader should be on the ballot or not. But while that process goes on, we cannot put ourselves in a position where the ministerial role of the supervisors cannot be fulfilled." So Jeb can go against the law simply because he says so? Once the ballots are printed and mailed the issue on whether or not they were legal seems kinda pointless, don't you think? And if the votes were challenged later on it's no mystery how this supreme court(buddies with the bush family) would rule on the decision of who gets presidency. And do you want to know what the strangest part of this whole thing is? The judge who issued the injunction, Kevin Davey, is located in the state capitol of Tallahassee, which is not even in the path of Hurricane Ivan. So there is absolutly no reason that the hearing wouldn't be able to take place. So it looks like Jeb Bush didn't do too good of a job with his little lie.

Another way they're rigging the election is by using the soldier's votes. This year soldiers will be able to vote by email. And the person in charge of taking those emails and counting them? A strong republican/Bush supporter. It would be very easy for that person to "miss" a few Kerry votes or "accidently" mark a Kerry vote for Bush. And don't forget about the regular Republican tactics(they often do this in the south): Flordia is sending out police(under Jeb Bush's command) and FBI agents(under George Bush's command) out to intimidate old people(African-Americans to be specific) who are involved in getting people who can't go out an vote on Nov. 2 absentee ballots. And it's working: People who used to help are not doing so this year, and people who have always voted by absentee ballots aren't. It's basically a form of the KKK running around except it's coming in forms of police and FBI badges instead of white hoods.

Sorry this wasn't all about the war but I figured I might as well just put all of the information in one post instead of 4 differen't threads. And sorry it was so long haha.

 

Yeah, they've already used the retired old timers in Iraq and promised free plastic surgery to families of soldiers.

 

Prove it.

 

Prove it. [/b][/quote]
This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself.

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America's war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm

 

This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself.

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America's war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm [/b][/quote]
Touché

 

Touché [/b][/quote]
Well, everything I say is a fact. If you want proof...Ask and you shall recieve.

 

This information is all over the place, twicethetrouble. All you really had to do was do a little research for yourself.

The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

What was international man of mystery Manucher Ghorbanifar up to when he met with top Pentagon experts on Iran? In a NEWSWEEK interview in Paris last month, Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian spy who helped launch the Iran-contra affair, says one of the things he discussed with Defense officials Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin at meetings in Rome in December 2001 (and in Paris last June with only Rhode) was regime change in Iran.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0

President Bush stated in his September 2002 national security Strategy that America's war on terror is with those who conduct terrorist acts and with those who support terrorists. Iran, as many experts will tell you, does both.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040107-08...84211-7155r.htm [/b][/quote]
From the URLs you posted:

There isn't a single thing on any of those that say we're invading Iran.

I'll say right now I'm no Bush fan, but people are way to obsessed with finding the littlest details and turning them into huge conspiracies theories.

 

Twicefortrouble......I like your way of thinking man....think for yourself, even mistrust Michael Moore, and try to figure out the facts from what you've been told.

Anyways, I don't think Kerry will be much different from Bush. Sure, Bush was aligned with the neo-conservative crowd and in the clutch of big business, but I doubt that Kerry wants to/has the guts to stand up to big business and turn things around. I mean, if Kerry was Prime Minister of Canada, he would be considered a ultra-conservative radical and we'd all hate him So his policies aren't too progressive and liberal.

As for the "War on Iraq"...well I think the American have to stay now, the country would go into complete anarchy if they left. Since the Kurds aren't suppressed they will be in huge conflict with the Sunni/Shiite Muslims if the US weren't there. Maybe they should get out of there and the UN step in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my thought on Iraq: What gives the right for America to say how people should live? I think Shades touched on this topic earlier. Our "democratic" and market-centred culture is not the way everyone wants to live. Its been forced on the people in the Middle East so they must adapt now I guess. But the native peoples on most continents had a self-sufficient, non-destructive lifestyle. The South Americans/Mexicans built amazing civilizations and the lived for thousands of years in harmony with the land. The Spanish came along and slaughtered them all. The North Americans lived off the land and were amazingly innovative but not thirsty for power and money. We took advantage of them, introduced our capitalist ways and eventually in the US they were mostly all killed (GENOCIDE) and in Canada they were pushed into Reserves.

Traditional Mexican societies would ostracize (shun) any person who tried to amass wealth and it was the greatest honour to do what you could to help the community. So the question arises, is our way of life the best way of life? No, but aggressive as we are, we have forced our way of thinking and basically assimilated the world into one materialistic doctrine on which all these wars are based on. Not that the human instincts of greed/envy have never existed before, but our current system is based on an individualistic, every man for himself mentality and hasn't helped this problem much!

The more we can do to change this trend, the better.

 

From the URLs you posted:

There isn't a single thing on any of those that say we're invading Iran.

I'll say right now I'm no Bush fan, but people are way to obsessed with finding the littlest details and turning them into huge conspiracies theories. [/b][/quote]
It's always possible US force won't be needed(or not needed and go in anyway) but I don't know if I believe that. Bush seems a little too war-happy to me. He has no regard for solders' lives.

On a different note here's something to check out:
The Bush Crime Family: Three Generations of Treason

 

Are you South American, dude? Because what you said about our people is the truth. Spaniards came and destroyed Aztecs and Incas and took all the gold they had (they didn't think the gold had any value, they used it for decoration!). Besides, all those conquistadores (spanish for conquerors) weren't preachers and religious people like those Pilgrims Americans talk a lot about; they were all criminals, looters, and poor people (and the ironic thing is that their descendants still govern our societies, because most Hispanics are mestizos, indians+spaniards...).

Kerry or Bush...democrat or republican......none, I don't vote, I am not American.....(thank god)

And for all those Michael Moore adorers, in the last book he released he made extremely racists commentaries about Hispanics, telling us that we were sissies because we emigrated (you lived like I lived, you aren't a sissy, you are a freaking survivor), and that we were the ones that made America a drug-fest (we consume less drugs than you do, goddammit, and yes, there are narc-Hispanics, but they are not the freakinlishly poor immigrants!!!!!!And btw, you are the ones that want the drugs, and those dudes are so poor they have to get in the dirty business........)

 

I've read his last two books and remember no racism. Michael Moore is not racist. Don't believe everything you hear unless oyu read it for yourself in his book.

You're being intolerant to other countries by saying "thank god i'm not american". You know, Americans aren't corrupt like their leaders. They just elect corrupt leaders from lack of choice. [/b][/quote]
Ah, sorry, I don't know if it was his last book, but I remember hearing that in El Nuevo Herald (The Miami Herald's Spanish edition), like two months ago. They made an entire article about it, put it in first page and everything, I don't think they are lying. I'm gonna look for it in the Web and I'll give the link or post it.

If I said "thank god" is because I don't like your culture and I don't get it, either, my culture is way more simple and I prefer it like that. But that doesn't mean I hate you, that just means I don't like some of the things you do.

EDIT: I didn't read what you put last, and I just tell you that isn't it the same thing between whites and blacks? Don't the white people out-populate blacks, too? Then start showing us some respect, I already started by saying sorry.