I care about the middle-class, to which my family, and most families, belong to. I care about the economy.

Increasing taxes, for what? Putting more money into Social Security? We won't ever see a dime of that money, and you know it.

As Plaw points out, Bush (as I still do) believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, or the capability to produce them. I'm not going to sugarcoat the fact that I think he was a genocidal maniac, and needed to be stopped.

But Kerry saw the same intelligence as Bush.

If anything, blame the Clinton-era intelligence cuts, the Toricelli Principle, and other things that contributed to terrorism (such as not taking Osama Bin Laden when we had the chance; for that matter, not removing Saddam in the Gulf War).

Okay. He's a genocidal maniac. I didn't realize we were so sensitive.

Last time I checked, terrorism is a world problem, not just centered in Afghanistan.

I hope you remember this quote when you talk about why we aren't going after N.Korea or Iran.

Again, like RB said, I don't anticipate participating in any unit of the military until after school, upon which I would seriously consider applying for a job with one of the branches.

As far as my feelings towards the soldiers, anyone who has bothered to read my posts knows I disagree with how we are using our ground troops, and how I believe we need to be using more tactical strikes with out technology, reducing our level of troop deployment.

Okay, chemical weapons, not WMD's. Nasty nonetheless, though, wouldn't you agree?

I was not in it to compare the two on merit of war - my point is that if we went by the aforementioned logic, that we cannot remove Saddam because he is a genocidal dictator, yet Hitler was also a genocidal dictator.

As the report yesterday outlines, and as the Oil For Food scandal is proving, Saddam was not obeying sanctions. Why did Saddam keep the inspectors out for so long, if he had nothing to hide?

I second that. As I've said in the past, I enjoy debating with Don Marco.


Exactly my point, though I know you mean it differently. France, Germany, et al. They refuse to get off their elitist European asses, partly because they are involved in this whole Oil For Food scrum, and also because they hide behind the EU and the UN.

Europe, besides Britain et al, is going to need to accept some responsibility, and soon. Because Russia's recent terrorist activity is an unfortunate sign of things to come, especially if the middle east problems between Israel and Palestine are allowed to boil over further than they already are.


Again, where is the world community that John Kerry says will be the key to restoring America? If this idea doesn't clearly express how, and pardon my french, fucked up Europe is, I don't know what does.

So you wouldn't call the attack on Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, acts of war?

Did I ever emphatically say that Saddam was connected? No. I did say that I think there is a strong likelihood Saddam has terrorist ties? Of course.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Because Castro knew he would never win in a war against the United States. The United States army was vastly superiour, especially considering the unrest in Cuba at the time.

It's in yesterdays report. The Times and Today outline it.

I don't go around telling people I'm the fucking Godfather or something. I'm not.

Nicknames are fine. I just thought that it was funny to insinuate that you were a Doctor of something, especially when our opinions contrast so greatly.

My posts are my opinion.

I'm not rationalizing it for anyone. Clearly there are people here who fully agree with what I say.

I don't need to make you look bad; in fact, it's not my intent. I hope to push some sort of sense into this whole entire argument about a film that is basically senseless in it's entirety.

So I will continue with my unabashed and "desperate" rebuttles as long as you continue to stick your opinion out on this board.

Calling in John Locke. I commend you.

Why is it a mistake? Because we removed a genocidal, anti-American dictator?

I think that mistakes have been made tactically, and I won't beat around the "Bush." However, I don't see how trying to keep our nation safe is a mistake.

Why can't liberals admit opposing the Patriot Act is farcical, silly, and essentially making America less safe.

It's like President Bush said about the Lackawanna Six terror cell (which, btw, is about 20 minutes from my house...so...) would not have been captured and stopped if it hadn't been for the tools provided by the Patriot Act.

It was used in the 80's to catch drug dealers and mobsters. Why not terrorists?

Right...those same inspectors that had been mysteriously shut out of Iraq for years...must be very effective.

They requested more time...and intelligence suggested he had weapons.

WMD's? No. The capability to produce WMD's, conventional weapons, and biochem labs and such? Yes, there were.

As the UN continued to allow it's Oil For Food program to be corrupted and used for illegal and illicit purposes? Including the death of Kuwaitis and Kurds? If this shows how inept, or more appropriately, disfunctional and corrupt the United Nations is, I don't know what does.

Ok--Now both of you (Lombarzo/Baggins) are putting words in my mouth. I never said Moore wasn't biased, Lombarzo. I also never said I wasn't biased. I obviously lean to the left, but I don't like either party. I'm a Liberal Independent. I believe in voting for the right person. I actually wanted Bush to win the election in 2000. Like I said in another thread, I feel Bush handled 9/11 much better then Gore could've.

Moore does lie about some issues. I said it once and I say it here again. How many times do I need to say it? What does that have to do with supporting him? I can't support a man who lies and is arguably the beat documentary maker of my time?

Baggins/Lombarzo--Why is it ok for you two to like Sean Hannity (who is obviously biased), but I can't like Michael Moore? They both lie too. Hell, last night on Hannity and Colmes, Hannity said:
"Kerry has voted to raise taxes 350 times." Tonight, they come on the air and Hannity says, "Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times." Just because my opinion on a political issue is different then yours doesn't mean that you can criticize it.

Lombarzo--This is now the 2nd thread that you've said I wouldn't reply. It's getting a tad bit annoying. I reply to anyone with questions, but you're growing very old with your constant posts of, "Pat won't reply." I'm replying, so get over your little hissy fit you're having with yourself. -Pat

You still haven't refuted the article I posted.

WOW! Just ignore my post. What do you want me to refute? Do you want me to go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and break down scene by scene? Do you want me to check that article you posted for punctuation and grammar errors? Jesus, kid. -Pat

I'm not refuting anything, I'm just interjecting...

perhaps 350 might refer to other offices held by Kerry, while the 98 refers to his 19 year senate record. I'm not sure of that.

I'm not refuting anything, I'm just interjecting...

perhaps 350 might refer to other offices held by Kerry, while the 98 refers to his 19 year senate record. I'm not sure of that. [/b][/quote]No, last night he said he had voted to raise taxes 350 times during his 20 years in the Senate. Tonight, all of a sudden, we're down to 98. -Pat

Actually, all I want you to do is prove that the facts I posted in that article are wrong (without using Michael Moore as your source ). If you can't do that, admit that Fahrenheit 9/11 is entirely based upon lies and misinformation.

Pat -- I replied and said that you wouldn't reply to the article when you HADN'T. "Annoying" or not, the fact is stands; you were avoiding the refute of the article posted, and I called you out on it. And my posts still stand true. You still haven't refuted them.

We all know you're biased, as is Moore -- we never claimed you stated otherwise. What we DID state, though, was that you disprove of anyone who refutes Moore because they're "biased." OBVIOUSLY someone REFUTING Moore is DISAGREEING WITH HIM. What, do you want someone who supports and approves of him to refute him? That's non-sense.

And, again, it's based off your own implications and statements.

Double J -- once again, beautifully done. Hopefully it's actually refuted with some logic and not brushed aside.

Actually, all I want you to do is prove that the facts I posted in that article are wrong (without using Michael Moore as your source ). If you can't do that, admit that Fahrenheit 9/11 is entirely based upon lies and misinformation. [/QB][/quote]I never said that the article was wrong. I said that article was made by a man who obviously dislikes Moore and wrote a biased article. In other words, you want me to be a conservative, praise Bush, and agree with your opinion? You have a better chance of seeing God. :p

Fahrenheit 9/11 is going to be remembered until the end of time. The movie is impacting who leads the United States of America. I will not say Fahrenheit 9/11 is "based upon lies," but I will say that people shouldn't just turn to this movie for all their political views. -Pat

I assure you, after this election is over, this film (within 5 years) will be cast into the clearence bins of DVD stores everywhere, alongside Mystic Pizza, Beethoven's 5th, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, and just about any movie starring Jim Belushi.

Why is it a mistake? Because we removed a genocidal, anti-American dictator?[/quote]No, because we invaded Iraq based on the assumption that Saddam had WMDs, and he didn't.

You're not suggesting that we remove all of the world's brutal anti-American dictators, are you?

My question, which still hasn't really been answered was (to put it yet another way):

Suppose that the question of WMDs had never come up. Would we have been justified in invading Iraq solely because Saddam was a brutal and anti-American didctator?

Pat, as I've said repeatedly, this article was written by a liberal.

Did intelligence show he was a threat to the United States?

Yes.

Is he anti-American, to the point of shooting down our planes?

Yes.

Has he committed genocide?

Yes.

Has he defied UN resolutions and sanctions?

Yes.

Hmm...I'm seeing a pattern of defiance here.

Did intelligence show he was a threat to the United States?
[/b][/quote]Bush's intelligence showed he was a threat to the US because he had WMD, yes. No WMD, no threat. -Pat

Even though it's been brought up countless times: WMD's were not the ONLY reason Saddam was a threat to the United States. Did you read the rest of his post? Or are you ignoring anything that doesn't have to do with WMD's to keep repeating the same redundent answer?

Yes, I read his post, BUT Bush told us that the reason for going into Iraq was STRICTLY for getting Saddam out of power for having WMD. -Pat

Intelligence showed he had weapons...the same intelligence given to the President and members of congress...and both approved the use of force.

Why don't you blame congress as well as Bush as long as we're going to be specific as to who led us to war and why.

That's a rather interesting generalization, regardless of whether you apply it to Saddam or any other terrorist.

Does this mean, by that logic, Osama Bin Laden is/was not a threat to the United States?

You know I have heard a couple people comment on that intelligent report saying that the President actually receives a more detailed report than the others. I would be curious to see if that's true and wish I'd have gotten these guys names. I'll check to see if I can find out if that is a fact or not.

Anyway, I'd like to ask for you guys to just take off the "tighty righty" hat (made that up )for a moment, and ask you.....had this all happened on Clinton's watch wouldn't you all be saying that "the buck stops with him????"


TIS

I think Clinton is responsible because he did not take bin Laden, despite being offered his head 3 times, and refusing it each consecutive time. Also similar to how Bush Sr. is responsible for not removing Saddam in the first Gulf War.

The item below is a popular e-mail spreading like wildfire across the Internet, something for the undecided crowd to think about, especially since they are all true!:

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad

Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad

No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad

Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad

Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad

Ahh, it's so confusing!

You can't say that! It's the truth!!!

---

Heartily awaits some neurotic Gangster BB liberal pinko who will go item by item on that list with quotes and links to basically prove that the comparisons aren't fair, true, or valid, and that it's still Bush's fault.

:p

Not entirely true. The Iraq war has cost $120 billion so far and it will be at $200 billion soon. Also, not counting the $120 billion already spent, we've spent an addition $87 billion just to give more things to our troops.

Terrorist training in Afghanistan began in the Reagan administration when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The US government, in 1983, trained Al Quaeda and gave them $3 billion to fight off the Soviets. -Pat

Man, just came on here after a while and man this is an interesting post.

To start with, I find it really strange that because Saddam or whoever is "anti-American", is one of his cons? I mean seriously, what does American even mean any more. Freedom? Free Speech? Justice? Bullshit. It doesn't have a meaning any more, considering your freedom involves weapons, soldiers, incredible military spending, and a total unacceptance of anyone giving their statement on your country, your free speech is saying that an American man speaking his opinion in an interesting way is fat + anti-American, and your justice is all those things put into a big free package. You can't kid yourself anymore, there are so many things that is wrong with what is going on, go anywhere, politically, environmentally, human rights... your own people have been killed, thousands of others have been killed, in a war in which the main reason was "misinformed." But that doesn't matter, you got the power-hungry dictator who was an anti-American threat. Good for you. There were no WMD but there could have been. And if there were WMD, a man who is so into violence and war would've been fucking dangerous with a nuke or two. It's not like the USA has any nukes, and it's leader sure is peaceful and smart-thinking. I feel just as uneasy with a USA with nukes as an Iraq with nukes, a North Korea with nukes. And that brings me to the environmental side of it. You can say we don't need the forests, the oceans, whatever. But we need a habitat. We really need a habitat, one world, and the fact that there are weapons in existance that can even destroy a city, let alone a continent or whatever, is a pretty scary thing for this. These are weapons made for WAR, for MASS DESTRUCTION. But thank god someone like GWB has those nukes. I'm sure we can rest easy at night, after all, he's not into war at all.

You probably won't see my point here. I mean, I don't particularly like Kerry, but he'd be better than George. I like Ralph Nader, there's a man with free speech and a whole lot of enemies. I mean shit, don't even bother with the anti-American thing anymore, cos the rest of the world is just that.

I'm tired, so I probably wrote some stuff that makes no sense, but yeah there we go.

Seeya.

Posted by Anton: Nobody cares about your point. YOU ARENT AMERICAN!!!

You don't have to be the smartest guy in the room or even in America to understand that a guy/ country with a nuke is no real problem. That is unless the person with those nukes has shown the world in the past that he can and will use them with his pasted actions.

The dumbest thing in the world is to keep sticking your middle finger up to everyone as he did. Someone just may come a knocking like the USA did and take the moron off his throne.

and by the way. If you think no one can be as bad as the man you have now- Bush. I would not be so sure of that. It is when the fool says that "anything would be better then what we have now" that it seem to get worst. In fact that is almost like asking for the kiss of death.
Murphy's law at its best.

That's not really very fair, Eddie. These are issues that affect everyone on the planet. We don't get a chance to elect the President of the US, but whoever gets the job will still have a massive influence on what goes on in our own countries, and the world in general. I bet a lot of the American people on this board are too young to vote, but they're still entitled to an opinion, because they're affected by the outcome - as are people from countries other than America.

That's not really very fair, Eddie. These are issues that affect everyone on the planet. We don't get a chance to elect the President of the US, but whoever gets the job will still have a massive influence on what goes on in our own countries, and the world in general. I bet a lot of the American people on this board are too young to vote, but they're still entitled to an opinion, because they're affected by the outcome - as are people from countries other than America. [/b][/quote]Very well put. America is the most powerful country in the world. Thus, it's leader is the most powerful man in the world. Everybody lives in the world. Catch my drift?

Doctor Ferro

P.S. Glad to have you around Anton. I was hoping a couple of the old faces would start posting again too.

For the last time. Saddam had no weapons. Stop hinting that he did. That's insane because he didn't. It's been proven. Now North Korea could present a problem, one that must be solved Democratically. The End.

Anybody would be better than Bush. I'm for Kerry because of many of his Domestic Policies and his Iraq policies too. Bush is the only President in 72 years, 11 Presidents, to lose jobs. 1.6 Million of them. He's also got the worst deficit in history. Yeah, he's pretty bad. I think a nice, big, fat lobster would be a better President than him. But I'm voting for Kerry because I believe he's better than the Lobster and Bush.

Doctor Ferro

Vote Kerry

Yeah, Yeah Yeah, then why didn't your super hero Kerry stand up and say that they didn't have them. Just don't blame Bush alone, Blame every son of a bitch in the congress and the senate also.

Sure any moron can Monday Quarterback after the fact. Kerry TOO! Maybe Saddam should have worked harder to make the rest of the world feel safe instead of his bold ass moves.

You Vote for whoever you feel may help you and your lifestyle. Other Vote because they think the other guy may be better for them. But cheap shots and false statements have been proven wrong not just by people here on the boards but by experts.

Of cousre we took a hit after 911 in so many ways, but go ahead and Blame BUSH and the rest of the GOVERMENT'S People who work under him and start giving PINK SLIPS ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Yes things happened under his watch and yes the morons will blame the man at the top for everything, Morons usally do blame others, But if you look a little closer, the brush people paint Bush with should also slap some mud on Kerry and a whole lot of others.

OH, By the way Korea was the point that make ME NOT vote for Kerry. You can't trust that madman over there. That is for sure.

You know come to think of it that may be the reason all these piss ant country think that they can spit all over the USA, because we have always talked, talked, talked instead of kicking butt when we should have. They know if you wait us out over here some shitheads will start crying and want us to go home and stay home. Then they come over here and fly a few more planes into us.

NO matter who wins, go out there and get yourself a big Lobster and enjoy yourself, because neither of these guys are going to solve the worlds problems.