[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by log p

just kidding...wocka wocka...perhaps i was unfair and biased (read: i was being so)...just wanted to show the shoe's on the other foot thing, from titan attacking the french having never been to france most likely or knowing nothing of its glorious history...so i tried to do the same applied to texas, hope it worked...i believe i have a few frenchmen among my ancestors by the by...i guess im truly sullied consequently...and no...i doubt any of us will "get over" four more years of bush for decades at least, though i readily admit its probably gonna happen, lending further to your confident feelings...maybe texas should be a sovereign nation, destroying all that stands in its path?...that seems to be the gist of your statement...how dare you question my pride! (not really angry but rather whimsical in this exclamation)...i have busloads of pride...my great-grandfather fought in the battle of *mumbles*...im very proud of that fact!...and i engage in hero worship in this little personality cult we got going here...my pride is beyond reproach!

I liked that post. If you had written the other one in the same way I never would have replied how I did either. Look, for what it's worth, I wasn't the one that said anything negative about the French. I don't care that you have French ancestors, that's cool as far as I'm concerned. Two French brothers invented cinema, and that's my career passion (note my DVD list, lol). And though I probably wouldn't mind if Texas was a sovereign nation (it's arguably the most self-sufficient state with its agriculture, oil, independent electric grid, and Fort Hood with 40% of the nation's military might and the most advanced military technology on the planet) I don't believe AT ALL that we would want to destroy all standing in our path!

This is not the goal of Texans, I promise you. And we are proud to be a part of America, we take pride in it. We only say we wouldn't mind being our own country, when we are accused of such things. To make a long story short...whether the intelligence was right or wrong, I'm one of those people that believes the decision to invade Iraq had a reason and purpose based on said intelligence. I don't believe in starting wars...no one in their right mind likes war. But one must always be prepared for it, regardless. I wish that WASN'T the case, but it is...

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I don't need to argue. When my man is down big in the polls, then I'll argue. Right now I feel confident about the election, so there's no need. My views don't really matter, nor do yours...because neither you or I will be changing ANYTHING.

This isn't a voting booth. This is a debate on an online message board. It doesn't matter who is ahead in the polls if you can't back up your reasons for supporting somebody. And if you don't think anybody's views matter then there's no point for you to even be posting in this thread.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Anyway, to clarify ever so slightly, these people in the administration who have spoken out against Bush have motives that neither you, nor I, can pretend to understand. Most people have motives that are known only to themselves and a few others. Take, for instance, the latest forged documents about Bush. The guy who it was traced back to lives 20 miles from the Kinko's where they were faxed from, and in the past he has compared Bush to Hitler! Ok so...gee...what was his motive? To smear Bush. So then CBS airs his forgery, and now they are in hot water. That's just the way it goes... Vicious circles and shady motives...

So everybody who has spoken out against Bush is just out to smear him? Including Richard Clarke, who had a distinguished career working for both Republicans and Democrats before his 60 Minutes interview? Including Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill? And former White House Counterterrorism Adviser Rand Beers? And former Intelligence Analyst Greg Thielmann? And the senior U.S. intelligence official known as "Anonymous" who worked on the CIA's al Qaida unit for years? All of these people are just trying to make Bush look bad? That's pretty remarkable.

If that's true, the only question I have is why is Bush hiring so many incompetent people? Because that's your choice. Either they are all telling the truth, or Bush is hiring people who aren't fit to do their jobs. Again, either way it doesn't look too good for Bush.

Originally Posted by Titan

It is strange to hear a Frenchman discuss balls. If America is the new evil empire then France is the leader of wuss nation.

I dunno. I'd say it takes some balls to stand up to the United States.

Originally Posted by log p

maybe its going back too far and all that other, but does anyone currently residing in the U.S. realize without the French aid (finanical and military) it is quite conceivable a little something called the american revolution would have been won by the british and america as we know it would have ceased to exist?

That's the point I usually bring up whenever idiots start talking to me about how France owes us for World War II.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I have never backed down from a fight in my life, and looking back on Texas history...the LAST thing I see is "generations of cowering in fear." I'm sorry that Texans are confident while the rest of the nation wallows in fear of Bush detonating the world...you'll get over it someday.

In my experience, the kind of overcompensation I see coming from so many Texans is little more than bravado. Such people tend to be the most frightened of all.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

In my experience, the kind of overcompensation I see coming from so many Texans is little more than bravado. Such people tend to be the most frightened of all.

Heh. I adore comments like this. Makes me appreciate my heritage even more. These grudges against people who are happy with their history, and take pride in their state. No other state has that pride like Texas. And it makes people jealous. Nothing I can do about that.

EDIT: Oh I forgot to reply to this:

"This isn't a voting booth. This is a debate on an online message board. It doesn't matter who is ahead in the polls if you can't back up your reasons for supporting somebody. And if you don't think anybody's views matter then there's no point for you to even be posting in this thread."

Look, views matter, but your views aren't changing my mind, and my views will certainly not change your mind because if I've learned ANYTHING in my life, it's that facts to a liberal are like water to a cat. I have rolled out posts FILLED with facts (on far more important forums, politically, than those of Adventure Freakin' Gamers), and it doesn't change a thing. People believe what they believe. So all this time you waste backing yourself up, isn't changing anything. The same would be true for me, so I just save my energy...

[Wormsie]

OOOOH!!! Punchline!

[Titan]

mag, some think that France was not standing up to the U.S. but standing up for French contracts with Saddam. There is at least at much credence in that view as the other-way-around hang Halliburton view.

log P, I respect your leavening argument counterbalancing WWII and the American revolution. This was precisely why I made the French comments in the first place, given that the U.S. is mostly talked down on the AG forums by Americans as well as Europeans. France receives much less grief. And Ninth the Frenchman started the ball game in this thread.

I've never been to France and would like to visit someday. I doubt Ninth has ever been to Texas either.

[Sly Boots]

Every country has the politicians it deserves. I'm starting to believe in it more and more every day.
Don't take it the wrong way, it's the same in my country. Although he has done NOTHING to raise Romania's economy, our "beloved" president Iliescu is still #1 on the polls. Luckily this year he can't compete (already has 3 mandates) because he would have still been voted until he reached 100 years old (he's 72 now). Don't let his smile fool you, Ion Iliescu (the president of Romania) is the worst thing that happened to this country in 2000 years of existance (not under this name). Romania is probably the most corrupt and poor country in Europe, and if I were the European Union I wouldn't admit Romania in 2057, if Iliescu and his party (PSD) were in power.
The difference is that while Bush is obviously dumb, Iliescu is much more intelligent, but he's sneaky.

And the irony is that people still vote for him. It's just like in USA. The uneducated people (mostly peasents) vote for him because they're too stupid and uninformed to know what he's really all about. Meanwhile the press is shouting, the people are starving, and the "barons" of PSD are getting rich. ("The rich get richer. That's the law of the land.").

I'm proud of my people, we're not morons, it's just that the peasents (50% of population) don't have the resources or time to go to school. Here in Romania we have a vey good educational system (unlike USA), that is 100% against ignorance (world history and geography have a big part in our timetable). But the peasents are uninformed. In USA, a big part of the urban population lives in total ignorance towards the outside world, they are easy to manipulate. A revolution in the educational system would be the best thing for America that I can think of (they have everithing else).

I would add an IQ test to the voting card. If you're over 100(or more), your vote counts. Maybe that will change things.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

I would add an IQ test to the voting card. If you're over 100(or more), your vote counts. Maybe that will change things.

Awesome plan. Seriously... There should be SOME requirements to vote, besides just being of age. It sounds really bad in your country, as you described it. That would upset me to no end. I understand why you feel the way you do, and frankly...I agree with most of what you said. Except Bush isn't dumb. But I'll overlook that since I like your idea. However, most of what you said applies to if Kerry was in control, not Bush.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

These grudges against people who are happy with their history, and take pride in their state. No other state has that pride like Texas. And it makes people jealous. Nothing I can do about that.

Jealous? Of Texas? Now that's funny.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about people being proud of their state. I'm talking about the cowboys. The people who think they constantly have to prove to the world how tough they are. It's all bravado. Deep down, these people harbor an intense fear that everybody is out to get them. And they respond to that fear by pretending to be the toughest guy around all the time so that other people will be afraid to mess with them. It's quite Hobbesian, actually.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I have rolled out posts FILLED with facts (on far more important forums, politically, than those of Adventure Freakin' Gamers), and it doesn't change a thing.

Well, if this discussion isn't important enough for you to back up your statements with facts then you shouldn't be surprised when I mock you for saying something stupid.

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single conservative argument in defense of Bush that comes anywhere near something that even looks like a fact. So I'd certainly be interested in seeing these "facts" of yours (note that there is a difference between a "fact" and something that the Bush administration says a lot).

Originally Posted by Titan

mag, some think that France was not standing up to the U.S. but standing up for French contracts with Saddam. There is at least at much credence in that view as the other-way-around hang Halliburton view.

Oh, I have no doubt that there was a certain amount of self-interest involved in France's decision. Regardless, it did turn out to be the correct decision. And it's not easy to stand by such a decision when you're going against a superpower like the United States.

Besides, you kind of have to ask yourself which would be more costly in the long run, giving up some contracts with Iraq or getting on America's bad side? Because now France doesn't have any contracts with Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

Every country has the politicians it deserves.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Certainly there is a measure of responsibility on the citizenry of a country. Much more so in a country such as the U.S. in which leaders are elected by the people. But for instance, it would be hard to say that the Iraqis deserved Saddam Hussein. Or that the Saudis deserve their leaders. In fact, these people attempted to overthrow their respective leaders. And those rebellions were all crushed (thanks in large part to actions taken by the United States).

Even here in the U.S. I'm not sure I would say that we deserve Bush. More than half the country didn't vote for him. And even those that did had no way of knowing he would turn out to be a right-wing extremist warmonger back in 2000. Of course, this time around we have no such excuse. There is ample evidence out there for anybody willing to look at it that shows exactly what Bush is. So the results of the next election will tell us a lot about whether or not America deserves Bush.

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

I would add an IQ test to the voting card. If you're over 100(or more), your vote counts. Maybe that will change things.

There's two problems with that. One is that there's no really good way of measuring intelligence. Try to define "intelligence," and I think you'll see what I mean. The second problem is that even if you could measure intelligence, that's not the way a democracy is supposed to work. It's the same as having a ruling class, only in this case the ruling class is the intelligentsia (which just happens to overlap quite a bit with the wealthy). Less intelligent people have concerns that are just as pressing, but their voices wouldn't be heard because they wouldn't be allowed to vote.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Jealous? Of Texas? Now that's funny.

I couldn't agree more! So quit acting jealous.

Originally Posted by mag

I'm talking about the cowboys. The people who think they constantly have to prove to the world how tough they are. It's all bravado. Deep down, these people harbor an intense fear that everybody is out to get them. And they respond to that fear by pretending to be the toughest guy around all the time so that other people will be afraid to mess with them. It's quite Hobbesian, actually.

Truly spoken by someone who has no idea what life is like around here. I have lived up north, I've lived in Los Angeles as well, I've spent ample amounts of time in New York City...have you lived in Texas? The idea of the "cowboy" is not Texan, first of all. It's American. Wyatt Earp didn't do his gunfighting around here, and the O.K Corral isn't anywhere nearby. Your idea of Texan bravado and thinking everyone is out to get us is absolutely silly, coming from a liberal. Yours is the party that uses scare tactics to get the minority vote. Yours is the party that wants to get rid of guns when talking politics, but OWNS guns anyway because they don't feel safe (for what it's worth, I sleep with my doors unlocked...shows how much I think people are out to get me). That reminds me, heh, look at John Kerry! A few weeks ago he was proudly waving around a gun for photographs, and as it turns out, it's a gun that HE VOTED TO BAN! LOL!

Funny story. A friend of my uncle is a huge liberal. He was saying he doesn't believe in guns, and gave a list of reasons why. So my uncle said, "Ok great! I can tell you sincerely believe what you say. I admire that. I'll tell you what...I'll even make you a sign to put out in your front yard that says, "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE."" And the guy freaked out. "What?! Well...no no...let's not do that..." Apparently, no one really wants other people to KNOW there are no guns in their home, even as they march in left wing anti-gun parades.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, if this discussion isn't important enough for you to back up your statements with facts then you shouldn't be surprised when I mock you for saying something stupid.

The discussion is important as far as the topics are concerned, but the forum is not. In other words, let's look at it this way. Adventure games already have a relatively small group of fans. So here we are engaging in political discussion on ONE adventure game site, buried within the "Chit Chat" section... Does ANYONE really care what we are saying or what is happening here? No.

Originally Posted by mag

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single conservative argument in defense of Bush that comes anywhere near something that even looks like a fact. So I'd certainly be interested in seeing these "facts" of yours (note that there is a difference between a "fact" and something that the Bush administration says a lot).

Oh, well in that case I'll help you out.

FACT: Saddam is no longer murdering innocent Iraqis.

FACT: Iraq is now liberated and no longer ruled by a dictator.

FACT: John Kerry stated just last month that even knowing what he knows NOW, he would have voted for the war in Iraq, so how is this even a factor? Apparently both candidates would have voted the same. But I guess Kerry's vote is more sincere since he's a loyal liberal flip-flopper.


Not to mention a huge liar. You have to feel some real pride in stupidity to vote for a man that requests a Purple Heart after getting a self inflicted wound. It's even worse when it can't be disproven because Kerry's own writings during the war are dated, and TEN DAYS after he recieved the Purple Heart, he stated that there was no sign of action yet. LOL. What a winner.

[Marek]

Maybe this all needs to be taken in a different direction. Why are you talking about Vietnam? Or about being a Texan? Or the French? These are all ridiculous charicatures that don't actually matter to how your country is being run.

Let's see. The US is on the losing side in a war. Iraq is a cesspool of violence, breeding new terrorists every day.

The US maintains torture camps on Cuba (oh, the irony) where people are being abused and beaten. The same thing happened in Abu Graib, yet people have somehow been led to believe this was an error somewhere low in the chain of command. However, the torture techniques being used in Cuba were authorized by Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush administration is using 9/11 sentiments to push their agenda. Meanwhile, a lot of things that probably shouldn't have been changed were changed for the sake of "fighting terrorism" or "being American". The "war on terror" has led to more instability instead of security.

Why can't these things be discussed? Is the US really safer? What are these terrorists you keep hearing about? Why does the US own ****ing torture camps? The US isn't soviet Russia, right? So why is no one red with anger by the fact that people are being shipped off to prison camps, getting refused any sort of rights and getting tortured every day, leading most of them to want to commit suicide? Because what you don't see on TV isn't there? Because it's been decided that it's no longer an "election issue" or a "talking point"? Tell me, cause I'm lost here.

In effect, if you vote Bush in the coming election, you're voting in support of torture and against human rights. Puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it?

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Truly spoken by someone who has no idea what life is like around here. I have lived up north, I've lived in Los Angeles as well, I've spent ample amounts of time in New York City...have you lived in Texas? The idea of the "cowboy" is not Texan, first of all. It's American. Wyatt Earp didn't do his gunfighting around here, and the O.K Corral isn't anywhere nearby. Your idea of Texan bravado and thinking everyone is out to get us is absolutely silly, coming from a liberal.

I'm not talking about Texas. I'm talking about people like Bush who are trying to be cowboys. Certainly that's a stereotype associated with Texans (it applies to quite a few of the Texans I've heard from, but I'm no expert on Texas). But really, what I said applies to the United States in general more than any one state.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yours is the party that uses scare tactics to get the minority vote. Yours is the party that wants to get rid of guns when talking politics, but OWNS guns anyway because they don't feel safe (for what it's worth, I sleep with my doors unlocked...shows how much I think people are out to get me).

Wow. When did the Democratic Party become my party? Don't you try blaming them on me.

I'm actually against all of these gun control laws. But I do find it funny that a Bush supporter is talking about Democrats using scare tactics. Wasn't it your boy Cheney who told us that we would be attacked by terrorists if Kerry won the election? And just what is the terror alert level right now? I lost track.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Does ANYONE really care what we are saying or what is happening here? No.

I think the people who post here care.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

FACT: Saddam is no longer murdering innocent Iraqis.

FACT: Iraq is now liberated and no longer ruled by a dictator.

These are both true. They are also conveniently irrelevant. If Bush had said that the purpose for the war was to liberate the Iraqi people from the beginning I might have been able to get on board with him. But he didn't. Instead he gave us a story about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al Qaida that were just obviously not true. That's the problem with how Bush handled the war.

And ask yourself this. If the war really was about freeing the Iraqi people or defending America from weapons of mass destruction or any of the other dozen or so reasons that the Bush administration has come up with to make us look oh-so-noble, why was it such a problem to bring in the United Nations after the war was done? If there were no ulterior motives, why was Bush so unwilling to let the UN help with the reconstruction?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

FACT: John Kerry stated just last month that even knowing what he knows NOW, he would have voted for the war in Iraq, so how is this even a factor? Apparently both candidates would have voted the same. But I guess Kerry's vote is more sincere since he's a loyal liberal flip-flopper.

I can't defend Kerry much on this one because I disagree with his views on the war. But he has been quite consistent in those views. He supports the war, but he disagrees with the way Bush went to war. And even though he supports the war, this still puts him a step up from Bush. I said before that Kerry and Bush are very similar, but where they do differ is what makes all the difference. First, Kerry stands a much better chance of rebuilding respect for America around the world--the respect that Bush has tried so hard to trash. The second key difference is that the Bush administration is looking to expand American control in the Middle East. Kerry probably isn't. Meaning that with Kerry, you don't have to worry as much about your kid being sent to die in Iran.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Not to mention a huge liar. You have to feel some real pride in stupidity to vote for a man that requests a Purple Heart after getting a self inflicted wound. It's even worse when it can't be disproven because Kerry's own writings during the war are dated, and TEN DAYS after he recieved the Purple Heart, he stated that there was no sign of action yet. LOL. What a winner.

Interesting. May I ask where you read that? Because everything I've read about Kerry's medals (with the exception of stuff written by crazy idiots like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) shows that all of Kerry's Purple Hearts were received for wounds inflicted in action. But I do still have certain questions about Kerry's Vietnam record. It just happens that I have yet to see anybody sufficiently prove that he did anything wrong.

Regardless, this is also completely irrelevant. And I find it absolutely amazing that somebody who dodged the draft by using his daddy's influence to get into the National Guard and then couldn't even be bothered to show up for duty would criticize somebody who was actually in Vietnam. That takes balls.

Originally Posted by Marek

Tell me, cause I'm lost here.

I'm with you.

That was a great post though, Marek. It really sums up everything wrong with Bush quite eloquently.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

[QUOTE=Marek]Why are you talking about Vietnam?

Very simple. Because John Kerry is a presidential candidate who has insisted on making Vietnam his entire campaign. That line of thinking has since been injured, and he has moved on. But even Bill Clinton had to tell Kerry to drop Vietnam! His record there is so pitifully poor that it was turning Americans off.

Originally Posted by Marek

Let's see. The US is on the losing side in a war. Iraq is a cesspool of violence, breeding new terrorists every day.

Losing the war? And by the way, ANY country that has been so repressed will become a cesspool of SOMETHING when the order they have grown used to disappears. But if there are so many terrorists, where are they? Waiting for Kerry to get elected I assume. You know what they say... "9 in 10 Terrorists Want Kerry!"

Originally Posted by Marek

The US maintains torture camps on Cuba (oh, the irony) where people are being abused and beaten. The same thing happened in Abu Graib, yet people have somehow been led to believe this was an error somewhere low in the chain of command. However, the torture techniques being used in Cuba were authorized by Donald Rumsfeld.

I assume you are referring to Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta? This is where they keep "high-level terrorism suspects". Abu Graib was a bunch of young American hoodlums doing stupid stuff without proper supervision (or supervision that didn't care, and should be given the boot). Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta are different. These are high-level suspects from whom the U.S. has learned the following according to a 60 Minutes interview: "they've provided wealths of information … Keys to the network, how it works, who was involved, how it fundraises, how it recruits, how it travels. Ongoing operations, imminent attacks on a number of occasions."

Ok, so it's pretty clear that most of these "suspects" are guilty enough to know the terrorist organization inside and out. And what are the tortures spoken of by those released? Bad food, bad water, hard uncomfortable floors, and only three showers a week... In other words, the same thing friends of mine have "suffered" through when arrested on a DUI or a slightly longer arrest. The other complaints are hearsay. "One guy said this to another guy, and he passed it along to another, and that guy told my friend, and my friend told me...and guess what?! The Americans tortured him! I'm ao glad I'm free of that awful place!" Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some beatings, but it's so hilarious that you and others pretend to KNOW what is going on in that prison. Have you been there? Who is to say the guards or interrogators weren't attacked? Order has to be maintained in a prison like that, and certainly it's not always pretty.

Another complaint I've heard is that when some of the prisoners would need limbs amputated, they claimed the U.S. doctors "cut off too much". Give me a break... Also, I believe the prisoners do think they could be executed if they don't tell the interrogators the true extent of the information they know, but hey, apparently it works.

Originally Posted by Marek

Why can't these things be discussed? Is the US really safer?

They CAN be discussed. And should be. And I will answer your question with one of my own... Have their been any attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? No.

Originally Posted by Marek

Why does the US own ****ing torture camps?

They don't. They own prisons and detention camps.

Originally Posted by Marek

So why is no one red with anger by the fact that people are being shipped off to prison camps, getting refused any sort of rights and getting tortured every day, leading most of them to want to commit suicide? Because what you don't see on TV isn't there? Because it's been decided that it's no longer an "election issue" or a "talking point"? Tell me, cause I'm lost here.

It's not an election issue because it's not an issue, period. These people being shipped off are high-level terrorist suspects who have given incredible information to the U.S. about the terrorist networks. But I understand your views since you are a liberal, and liberals always side with the criminal (terrorist) before the victim (world).

Originally Posted by Marek

In effect, if you vote Bush in the coming election, you're voting in support of torture and against human rights. Puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it?

If you vote for Kerry, you vote for terrorists to have free reign, no defense, and a requirement to ask France, Germany, and other countries whether WE have the right to disarm a maniac dictator who had been defying the U.N. for over a year and half with no punishment. He refused to allow weapons inspectors. This looked VERY much like World War II. World War II didn't have to happen, but all those countries over there turned a blind eye to what Hitler was doing. He was going against all the treaties and NO ONE did anything. So millions died. The U.N. is still turning a blind eye to everything, they are just asking for WW3. The U.S. doesn't turn a blind eye, and for that they should be commended, not despised.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Certainly that's a stereotype associated with Texans (it applies to quite a few of the Texans I've heard from, but I'm no expert on Texas).

No expert? Yes, you've made that clear.

Originally Posted by mag

I'm actually against all of these gun control laws. But I do find it funny that a Bush supporter is talking about Democrats using scare tactics. Wasn't it your boy Cheney who told us that we would be attacked by terrorists if Kerry won the election?).

Yes, but...that stands the chance of actually being TRUE.

Originally Posted by mag

I think the people who post here care.

Possibly, but how is that interesting? You are preaching to the choir. The VAST majority of people who post here are liberals or Bush haters... That leaves you with a simple job, and me with a tough one. I make one post, I get two or three replies, and then I have to reply to EACH ONE. It keeps multiplying...

Originally Posted by mag

These are both true. They are also conveniently irrelevant. If Bush had said that the purpose for the war was to liberate the Iraqi people from the beginning I might have been able to get on board with him. But he didn't. Instead he gave us a story about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al Qaida that were just obviously not true. That's the problem with how Bush handled the war..

But that WASN'T the purpose of the war. It's simply a factual result, that IS relevant. The goal was to disarm Saddam. And U.S. AND British intelligence showed that Saddam had the WMDs, and possible links to Al Qaida. This intelligence was good enough for Bush, good enough for Blair, good enough for Kerry and most of the other Senators, etc. It might have even been good enough for you had you seen it. Gathering intelligence isn't an exact science, but it has saved our ass before...times you and I don't even KNOW about. It is necessary, if imperfect. And it told us there were WMDs, and it told us CLEARLY enough that almost everyone voted for and supported the war.

Originally Posted by mag

And ask yourself this. If the war really was about freeing the Iraqi people or defending America from weapons of mass destruction or any of the other dozen or so reasons that the Bush administration has come up with to make us look oh-so-noble, why was it such a problem to bring in the United Nations after the war was done? If there were no ulterior motives, why was Bush so unwilling to let the UN help with the reconstruction?

Are you joking? The UN wanted nothing to do with it. They wouldn't support Bush, despite being mocked incessantly by Saddam (typical liberal attitude), but then they want to come in afterward and help pick up the pieces... No thanks.

Originally Posted by mag

First, Kerry stands a much better chance of rebuilding respect for America around the world--the respect that Bush has tried so hard to trash. The second key difference is that the Bush administration is looking to expand American control in the Middle East. Kerry probably isn't. Meaning that with Kerry, you don't have to worry as much about your kid being sent to die in Iran.

He stands the chance of making us look wimpier. Which is what liberals want. They think the U.S. has no right to be any stronger than any other nation... And I'm not going to swallow that crap about not sending kids to die in Iraq. These "kids" are volunteers! There hasn't been a draft...

Originally Posted by mag

Because everything I've read about Kerry's medals (with the exception of stuff written by crazy idiots like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) shows that all of Kerry's Purple Hearts were received for wounds inflicted in action. But I do still have certain questions about Kerry's Vietnam record. It just happens that I have yet to see anybody sufficiently prove that he did anything wrong.

LOL! I love your selectiveness. You read liberal takes on the war and American "torture camps" (I assume since you agreed with Marek) and believe them wholeheartedly, but when the very men who actually served with Kerry in Vietnam say he was pitiful, you call them "crazy idiots". Hilarious.

Originally Posted by mag

Regardless, this is also completely irrelevant. And I find it absolutely amazing that somebody who dodged the draft by using his daddy's influence to get into the National Guard and then couldn't even be bothered to show up for duty would criticize somebody who was actually in Vietnam. That takes balls.

Uh... There are documents that prove Bush was on 120 days ACTIVE duty.

[Sanjuro2]

And now I must take a break from this left-wing circle jerk lovefest... I'll be back later on to see 40 replies, just don't expect me to reply to ALL of them... I'm only human.

[Wormsie]

Ahaha, dear sir, as with most arguments here, the always tend to end with mag & someone else, hmm, discussing. This is happening at the moment, too. So don't worry, nobody here cares enough about you to want to kill you.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

So don't worry, nobody here cares enough about you to want to kill you.

Heh. Lucky them, eh?

[Mattsius]

First of all, great post, Marek. You really hit the nail on the head. Although some people apparently don't want to listen to reason.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Losing the war? And by the way, ANY country that has been so repressed will become a cesspool of SOMETHING when the order they have grown used to disappears. But if there are so many terrorists, where are they? Waiting for Kerry to get elected I assume. You know what they say... "9 in 10 Terrorists Want Kerry!"

I would say that they're losing the war when more Americans have died after the war was said to have ended, than before that. The terrorists that Marek probably spoke off are in Iraq, killing people every day. But hey, they are there and I'm here, so who cares.

I assume you are referring to Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta? This is where they keep "high-level terrorism suspects". Abu Graib was a bunch of young American hoodlums doing stupid stuff without proper supervision (or supervision that didn't care, and should be given the boot). Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta are different. These are high-level suspects from whom the U.S. has learned the following according to a 60 Minutes interview: "they've provided wealths of information … Keys to the network, how it works, who was involved, how it fundraises, how it recruits, how it travels. Ongoing operations, imminent attacks on a number of occasions."

I wouldn't believe a word what 60 Minutes is saying if my life counted on it.

Ok, so it's pretty clear that most of these "suspects" are guilty enough to know the terrorist organization inside and out. And what are the tortures spoken of by those released? Bad food, bad water, hard uncomfortable floors, and only three showers a week... In other words, the same thing friends of mine have "suffered" through when arrested on a DUI or a slightly longer arrest. The other complaints are hearsay. "One guy said this to another guy, and he passed it along to another, and that guy told my friend, and my friend told me...and guess what?! The Americans tortured him! I'm ao glad I'm free of that awful place!" Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some beatings, but it's so hilarious that you and others pretend to KNOW what is going on in that prison. Have you been there? Who is to say the guards or interrogators weren't attacked? Order has to be maintained in a prison like that, and certainly it's not always pretty.

According to those who have been released, it's not only bad food and bad water; it's almost no food and water at all! And during the days it's hot like hell in those small cages they are forced to be in. During the night they instead freeze their asses off. Their also forced to sleep in uncomfortable positions and are kept awake for long periods of time. I would call that torture.
Here's a question for you: If there's nothing weird going on in those prisons, as you call them, why aren't they open to the international media?

They don't. They own prisons and detention camps.

Yeah, riiiiight.

If you vote for Kerry, you vote for terrorists to have free reign, no defense, and a requirement to ask France, Germany, and other countries whether WE have the right to disarm a maniac dictator who had been defying the U.N. for over a year and half with no punishment. He refused to allow weapons inspectors.

Excuse me, but there actually were weapons inspectors in Iraq when USA decided to start a war with Iraq. These weapons inspectors hadn't found any traces of weapons of mass destruction before the war started either. But when you want a war, you want one.

This looked VERY much like World War II. World War II didn't have to happen, but all those countries over there turned a blind eye to what Hitler was doing. He was going against all the treaties and NO ONE did anything. So millions died. The U.N. is still turning a blind eye to everything, they are just asking for WW3. The U.S. doesn't turn a blind eye, and for that they should be commended, not despised.

I'm sorry, but you don't have your facts straight here. Hitler didn't do anything directly wrong before he invaded Czechoslovakia and not long thereafter the other big countries in Europe declared war on Germany. The millions dead that you are talking about didn't die before the war, but rather during the war. If you were talking about the concentration camps then no one outside of Germany knew how big scale the operation actually was. That was realized when the Allied forces made it inside the German borders. Not even the majority of the Germans did know what was going on in the concentration camps.
Could WWII have been prevented? Perhaps, but you can't start a war without a damn good reason. And there wasn't a good enough reason to start a war with Germany back then, just like there wasn't a valid reason to start a war with Iraq now.

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And I'm not going to swallow that crap about not sending kids to die in Iraq. These "kids" are volunteers! There hasn't been a draft...

A very large percentage of those kids are not Americans, but people from other countries that are promised American citizenship if they fight for America in Iraq. They don't end up being American citizens though, they end up dead.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Waiting for Kerry to get elected I assume. You know what they say... "9 in 10 Terrorists Want Kerry!"

I really doubt many terrorists want Kerry to win considering that Bush has done more for their cause than any president in history. Not only has Bush solidified support for al Qaida and transformed them from a ragtag bunch of rebels into a legitimate army, he has also taken out one of their biggest enemies and granted them access to a country full of potential new recruits that was off-limits under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Saying 9 in 10 terrorists want Kerry is insane.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Abu Graib was a bunch of young American hoodlums doing stupid stuff without proper supervision (or supervision that didn't care, and should be given the boot).

Just because all evidence shows that they were following orders doesn't mean anything. These were just a few bad apples.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

The other complaints are hearsay. "One guy said this to another guy, and he passed it along to another, and that guy told my friend, and my friend told me...and guess what?! The Americans tortured him! I'm ao glad I'm free of that awful place!"

Yeah. That, plus any person who has actually been there.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some beatings, but it's so hilarious that you and others pretend to KNOW what is going on in that prison. Have you been there? Who is to say the guards or interrogators weren't attacked?

Yeah, and what if there's no such place as England? And maybe we're not really alive at all. Maybe this is all just a big dream...

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Have their been any attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? No.

This is the most ridiculous defense of Bush's policies I've ever heard. This proves absolutely nothing. How long was it between 9/11 and the last terrorist attack in the U.S. before that? The 9/11 plot had been in the works for years. Al Qaida is nothing if not patient. And all inidicators show that the "War on Terror" has only made them stronger.

Besides, terrorist attacks in other parts of the world have increased. They don't need to come to America any more. Bush has put us in firing range.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

This looked VERY much like World War II.

That I can actually agree with. Except I think you got the roles mixed up a bit. Because Hussein wasn't the one launching unjustified wars against other countries.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

The VAST majority of people who post here are liberals or Bush haters...

Hey, it's not my fault adventure gamers tend to be intelligent people.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And U.S. AND British intelligence showed that Saddam had the WMDs, and possible links to Al Qaida. This intelligence was good enough for Bush, good enough for Blair, good enough for Kerry and most of the other Senators, etc. It might have even been good enough for you had you seen it. Gathering intelligence isn't an exact science, but it has saved our ass before...times you and I don't even KNOW about. It is necessary, if imperfect. And it told us there were WMDs, and it told us CLEARLY enough that almost everyone voted for and supported the war.

This is just a lie that's been propagated by the Bush administration. They may have found enough intelligence to cobble together a flimsy case for going to war. But in reality all of the intelligence showed that Bush was wrong. Heck, I knew enough to know Bush was lying. It doesn't even take a whole lot of classified information to figure out. Furthermore, the Bush administration was told repeatedly by several people in the intelligence community that there were no WMDs and that there was no link to al Qaida. This was not a failure in intelligence. This was a failure in leadership.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Are you joking? The UN wanted nothing to do with it. They wouldn't support Bush, despite being mocked incessantly by Saddam (typical liberal attitude), but then they want to come in afterward and help pick up the pieces... No thanks.

Funny. I thought the point was to do what's best for the Iraqi people regardless of who fought and who didn't. But then I guess we would have had to share our spoils too.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

He stands the chance of making us look wimpier. Which is what liberals want.

Now I can see that I must have been wrong about Bush trying to be too macho.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And I'm not going to swallow that crap about not sending kids to die in Iraq. These "kids" are volunteers!

Well, I guess that makes it okay to kill them then.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There hasn't been a draft...

...yet.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! I love your selectiveness. You read liberal takes on the war and American "torture camps" (I assume since you agreed with Marek) and believe them wholeheartedly, but when the very men who actually served with Kerry in Vietnam say he was pitiful, you call them "crazy idiots". Hilarious.

The difference between my "liberal takes on the war" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that the sources I read are actually reputable sources. What they report are proven facts. The Swift Boat Veterans for Their Own Bloated Egos, on the other hand, are just throwing around a lot of baseless allegations. When they tell you that they "served with Kerry in Vietnam," what they mean is that they happened to be in Vietnam at the same time. As John Stewart said, it's the same way that Snoopy served with the Red Baron.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Uh... There are documents that prove Bush was on 120 days ACTIVE duty.

You mean like these documents?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And now I must take a break from this left-wing circle jerk lovefest... I'll be back later on to see 40 replies, just don't expect me to reply to ALL of them... I'm only human.

You should get Titan to help you. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised. I thought he would be the one I'd be arguing with in this thread.

mag

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Heh. Lucky them, eh?

Ahha, lucky you, rather.