Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105186] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 10:01  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&c=1&s=dugger
Read this article. It's 9 pages, but you must read it. This is how President Bush is going to steal the election to be re-elected this November. By using faulty touch-screen electronic voting machines that leave no paper record so there can be no record. These machines are also easily hackable. All of the data disks that store the votes to be sent to central computers have the same password (1111). All 22,000 of them. And, Diebold [One of the companies that makes these machines] has posted the source code for the machines on an unprotected FTP site.
President Bush can't win the good 'ole fashion way by getting more votes than John Kerry, so he's going to use Republican-controlled voting machine companies and disenfranchise thousands and thousands of black voters.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105190] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 10:13  |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I haven't read the article yet because I don't have the time to at the moment, so excuse any ignorance on my part here:
People seem to think of Bush as someone with a moral code comparable to that of bloody Hitler. I've heard people say that he authorized 911 indirectly by not pre-empting it, and just used it as an excuse to get some black gold overseas.
Personally, when I think of someone who wants to be president of the most "successful" country in the world, I have to believe that he has a moral code that at least respects the humanity of the people around him.
The way this kind of propaganda comes off as is pretty unrealistic, considering Bush is a devout Methodist. Look, I don't know exactly what happened in Flordia four years ago, and I don't think electronic balletting exclusively is a good call. If he wanted accurate statistics, there should be two: The paper ballot, and the electronic one.
I'm sorry, I still believe that people are born with a conscience, just like I believe that Bush earnestly believes that he is doing the right thing in Iraq.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105192] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 10:20 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
But Java, Bush might also earnestly believe he's the best candidate for President. And even if he has a conscience, he might think he's on a "mission from God" or something, and that would probably justify something as extreme as rigging an election.
Bush isn't the only one who might rig an election though. Here's just a few potential culprits:
- Bush
- Kerry
- any member of either campaign
- any member of either party
- foreign countries
- the US military or Secret Service or FBI or whatever
- pretty much any special interest group
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105194] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 10:35 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I know what you mean, but look at the war for example:
I can't speak exactly for Bush, but I would think that he believes that ridding the world of Saddam and liberating the Iraqis as a good thing.
But you know, if someone breaks into my house, threatens my family with lethal weaponary, and I have a chance to actually STOP him, it would be morally right for me to protect my family. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with this morality.
This is the way I see it. I know what happened with the UN might seem minor to many Americans, but being one of the countries being "betrayed" by the actions thereafter, even in the name of mortality, I can't feel safe here. I'm not American, so I can't vote, but I don't want to be on the wrong end (or even a part of) of the next "Moral war" when I'm innocent.
I know what you're getting at when you say he might believe he is the best canditate, but you know, so does Kerry and Nader, and all the rest. Frankly, I trust none of them. But stooping to cheating (and to the Dems, a second time) would not go over well for him. Remember how everyone is saying how polarized this electon is? Well, just think of the massive negative reprocussions that might happen if the Dems thought Bush was cheating. And vise versa.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105205] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 11:43 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Thousands and thousands of people could die, including over 900 of our soldiers...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105223] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 13:34 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable.
|
Iraq is not comparable to WWII. In WWII we went to war to stop a mass genocide across the whole of Europe, while the whole of Europe was being conquered by an evil dictator. We went to war with Iraq to...uh, well, we were going to prevent the imminent threat his WMDs presented us, but then there were no WMDs, so then we were freeing the Iraqi people, but they don't want us there...
And Saddam isn't causing a genocide or conquering the whole of Europe.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105240] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 14:18 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Nodbugger |
Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable.
|
Iraq is not comparable to WWII. In WWII we went to war to stop a mass genocide across the whole of Europe, while the whole of Europe was being conquered by an evil dictator. We went to war with Iraq to...uh, well, we were going to prevent the imminent threat his WMDs presented us, but then there were no WMDs, so then we were freeing the Iraqi people, but they don't want us there...
And Saddam isn't causing a genocide or conquering the whole of Europe.
|
Iraq is comparable to world war 2.
Genocide, evil dictator, invades his neighbors. Took it easy in the beginning.
The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening.
I've always wondered if the anti-war crowd was conscious during the months leading up to the war.
WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons.
To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning. You just tend to hype on the parts that are a little shady at the moment. Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. If you did it would be like saying that there is/isn't a cure for cancer. Just because we haven't found it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. You do not need to tell someone Saddam is an evil bastard that deserves a hell of a lot worse of what he is getting.
I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place.
I know tons of soldiers that have spent a year or more in Iraq. Every Iraqi they have met is very happy about getting rid of Saddam.
There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105255] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 15:03 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
|
Hmmm. The UN, in their infinite wisdom, somehow saw things differently...
EDIT: People want to say that this Iraq thing is like WWII. (I think that's total BS though...) But instead let's look at WWI. Germany was crushed, but the situation wasn't handled properly, and it led to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Destroying Iraq and getting rid of Saddam might just lead to something even worse.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105277] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 16:00 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons.
|
Particularly dangerous in the fact that we have demonstrated that Saddam has no WMDs and was disarmed. He also had practically no army.
| Nodbugger |
To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning. You just tend to hype on the parts that are a little shady at the moment. Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. If you did it would be like saying that there is/isn't a cure for cancer. Just because we haven't found it does not mean it doesn't exist.
|
Using the same argument, check inside your laundry hamper and see if there are any WMDs. Let me know if you find any.
| Nodbugger |
Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. You do not need to tell someone Saddam is an evil bastard that deserves a hell of a lot worse of what he is getting.
|
I assume that you want to go into Darfur, Sudan and resolve that crisis immediately, and that you will then choose to solve the starvation crisis in Africa, which on a humanitarian scale is between 100 to 1,000 times worse than Saddam, including how everyone in Africa will in fact die, instead of just be oppresed.
| Nodbugger |
I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place.
|
Can I ask where you found your data, because reality seems to be quite the opposite.
| Falls Church News Press |
Also prior to Falluja came a scientific CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of the Iraqi people, the results of which were reported last night. The poll shows that a solid majority of Iraqis think the U.S. operation in Iraq has been "unjustified," and that 57% believe the U.S. forces should leave the country "immediately."
|
| Nodbugger |
I know tons of soldiers that have spent a year or more in Iraq. Every Iraqi they have met is very happy about getting rid of Saddam.
|
There are over 900 dead U.S. soldiers who won't agree with that.
| Nodbugger |
There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
|
Well, international law is one way to justify it, seeing as how Saddam was the head of a sovereign nation. The cost of 270 billion dollars for the U.S. is another way to justify it. And if we have to occupy for five years, as some generals believe, let's call it an even trillion. 900 dead and 8,000 wounded would be justification for some others. Some would justify it with 13,000 dead Iraqis.
The near universal condemnation of the civilized world also carries some weight in some places.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105281] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 16:13 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
The French at the time saw it as acceptable.
If they didn't, why did they great us with open arms?
|
No, you are avoiding some key text there, friend. I didn't say all that everyone deemed it unacceptable. Nor did I state that all of them said it WAS acceptable. I said that it differed from person to person. Your logic is flawed, yet again.
| Quote: |
The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening.
|
When did he say he didn't care? I don't understand how you people jump to these conclusions and base entire arguments off them. I don't support this war because it was not legal to begin with. That does NOT mean I do not care. Nor does it mean I condone Saddam Hussein. SuperFlyingEngi has his own reasons for whether or not he supports this war or not. If one of them is that he doesn't care, my sincerest apologies. I somewhat doubt that, though.
| Quote: |
WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons.
To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning
|
I find this funny. Read
this. Where in that speech ANNOUNCING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO WAR does it give mention to ANY other reasons then WMD? He mentions terrorist ties, yes, but that at no point equates to "terrorists in Iraq? GO GO GO!" If there were other reasons to go to Iraq, don't you think your president would be kind enough to tell the world what they are? I mean, what possible harm is there in saying "Well, we want to liberate the Iraq people from this bad guy."
I'll do you another favour, read this. Now, before you go on one of your trademark emotional tirades, I'll pre-empt that for you:
| Quote: |
Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction as well.
|
I know Bush is beating around the issue there, but terrorism was NOT the reason (or any reason) to go to war. It was a supposed pre-emptive strike into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting weaponary and training, as Bush kindly put it. Now that we know those weapons were never confirmed to have existed (from ALL fronts, mind you), you have some technical problems to deal with.
So I'm going to challenge you; where, ANYWHERE before the Shock and Awe campaign, did PRESIDENT BUSH (the one who'se in question here) give ANY constitutional (legal) reasons to go to Iraq for anything other than WMD. Before you post, I suggest you carefully read what you're reading to understand the context. Remember, there is a difference between a reason and a reprecussion. I'll show you a good example taken from that question period:
| Quote: |
(question): What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?
BUSH: It's a great question.
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
|
^^ REASON.
And the next line:
| Quote: |
In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life.
|
^^ REPRECUSSION
| Quote: |
Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way.
|
You're absolutely right, HOWEVER, when your president says they no doubt DO exist, and use that as a reason for going to war and risking thousands of lives, you have a problem. That's what I mean when I say that Bush went to war on shakey grounds. There was no concrete evidence of Saddam's "stockpiles" of weapons, and the CIA report confirms this. (BTW, have you read it? It's a good read.) Ultimately, regardless of whether or not it was Bush's fault that Iraq had confirmed WMD when they did not (personally, I don't think it is his fault and he was just going off information given to him) is irrelevant. It looks bad for Bush. Welcome to politics, children.
| Quote: |
Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given.
|
No, they are not. If they are, I want to see an invasion into China sometime in the future with no reasons given to the public. Beacuse, you know, you inferred it was a given that communism isn't for everyone.
| Quote: |
I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place.
|
Here you go with your generalizations again. The very fact there was a poll proves my point. NOT EVERY IRAQI CITIZEN WANTS AMERICA ON THEIR TURF.
| Quote: |
There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
|
The international law does not justify it. [/quote]
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105295] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 17:51 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Particularly dangerous in the fact that we have demonstrated that Saddam has no WMDs and was disarmed. He also had practically no army.
|
Prove Saddam does not have WMD. And who disarmed him? Do you seriously think he did it out of the goodness of his heart?
What do you mean he had practically no Army? They all surrendered. At the POW camp my dad was at at one point they had over 10,000k Military prisoners. the British Camp down the road was stocked with over 15,000. And thousands were coming in and leaving every day. I think he said there were over 100,000 total prisoners processed while at his camp while he was
| Quote: |
Using the same argument, check inside your laundry hamper and see if there are any WMDs. Let me know if you find any.
|
What the hell is your point here? My laundry hamper has never gassed its own clothing, or invaded another laundry hamper to steal it's baking soda.
[quote]I assume that you want to go into Darfur, Sudan and resolve that crisis immediately, and that you will then choose to solve the starvation crisis in Africa, which on a humanitarian scale is between 100 to 1,000 times worse than Saddam, including how everyone in Africa will in fact die, instead of just be oppresed.[quote]
Now this is funny, I have mentioned the Genocide going on in Sudan for the past 3 years, And no one on any forum cared about it or looked into it. Yet when the news finally starts reporting on it people come out and say Bush is evil for not going there. Well guess what. The UN was put in place to stop Genocides. 2 Genocides are going on under the UNs watch. And they have not done anything about them. It just proves once again the UN is pointless.
And another point I would like to make. You say the war in Iraq is not justified. And you are saying if you do one you HAVE to do them all. Doesn't that sound stupid do you? you are against any military action, yet you complain when we don't attack other countries? Am I getting this through to you? We don't have to invade them all in a 2 year period to still do something good. We cannot rid the worlds problems in a few years by ourselves. We do our part. We do what we can. Just because we cannot do us all, according to you makes us bad? What have you been smoking.
| Quote: |
Can I ask where you found your data, because reality seems to be quite the opposite.
|
Actually, no reality is exactly what i said.
http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1140856674
http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1403533929
These Iraqi kids look really sad.
This Iraqis blog, which would never have existed without this war, Shows how happy he is.
http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/
Here are some polls.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes%3Bread=34383
| Quote: |
There are over 900 dead U.S. soldiers who won't agree with that.
|
I can guarantee you that every soldier that has gone to Iraq, been killed or injured are very proud of what they have done there.
Ever watch Oprah? She went to a military hospital expecting something completely opposite of what they heard. She interviewed soldiers injured in Iraq. One guy lost both legs, another guys entire body was burned. Another guy lost sight in is one eye. Every single one of them said they would go right back to Iraq if they could and they all said they are very proud of what they were part of.
| Quote: |
Well, international law is one way to justify it, seeing as how Saddam was the head of a sovereign nation. The cost of 270 billion dollars for the U.S. is another way to justify it. And if we have to occupy for five years, as some generals believe, let's call it an even trillion. 900 dead and 8,000 wounded would be justification for some others. Some would justify it with 13,000 dead Iraqis.
The near universal condemnation of the civilized world also carries some weight in some places.
|
11 Security resolutions are international law. International law calls for the removal of Saddam if any of them were broken. Every single one was broken.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105296] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 18:03 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
| Nodbugger |
The French at the time saw it as acceptable.
If they didn't, why did they great us with open arms?
|
No, you are avoiding some key text there, friend. I didn't say all that everyone deemed it unacceptable. Nor did I state that all of them said it WAS acceptable. I said that it differed from person to person. Your logic is flawed, yet again.
| Quote: |
The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening.
|
When did he say he didn't care? I don't understand how you people jump to these conclusions and base entire arguments off them. I don't support this war because it was not legal to begin with. That does NOT mean I do not care. Nor does it mean I condone Saddam Hussein. SuperFlyingEngi has his own reasons for whether or not he supports this war or not. If one of them is that he doesn't care, my sincerest apologies. I somewhat doubt that, though.
| Quote: |
WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons.
To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning
|
I find this funny. Read
this. Where in that speech ANNOUNCING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO WAR does it give mention to ANY other reasons then WMD? He mentions terrorist ties, yes, but that at no point equates to "terrorists in Iraq? GO GO GO!" If there were other reasons to go to Iraq, don't you think your president would be kind enough to tell the world what they are? I mean, what possible harm is there in saying "Well, we want to liberate the Iraq people from this bad guy."
I'll do you another favour, read this. Now, before you go on one of your trademark emotional tirades, I'll pre-empt that for you:
| Quote: |
Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction as well.
|
I know Bush is beating around the issue there, but terrorism was NOT the reason (or any reason) to go to war. It was a supposed pre-emptive strike into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting weaponary and training, as Bush kindly put it. Now that we know those weapons were never confirmed to have existed (from ALL fronts, mind you), you have some technical problems to deal with.
So I'm going to challenge you; where, ANYWHERE before the Shock and Awe campaign, did PRESIDENT BUSH (the one who'se in question here) give ANY constitutional (legal) reasons to go to Iraq for anything other than WMD. Before you post, I suggest you carefully read what you're reading to understand the context. Remember, there is a difference between a reason and a reprecussion. I'll show you a good example taken from that question period:
| Quote: |
(question): What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?
BUSH: It's a great question.
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
|
^^ REASON.
And the next line:
| Quote: |
In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life.
|
^^ REPRECUSSION
| Quote: |
Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way.
|
You're absolutely right, HOWEVER, when your president says they no doubt DO exist, and use that as a reason for going to war and risking thousands of lives, you have a problem. That's what I mean when I say that Bush went to war on shakey grounds. There was no concrete evidence of Saddam's "stockpiles" of weapons, and the CIA report confirms this. (BTW, have you read it? It's a good read.) Ultimately, regardless of whether or not it was Bush's fault that Iraq had confirmed WMD when they did not (personally, I don't think it is his fault and he was just going off information given to him) is irrelevant. It looks bad for Bush. Welcome to politics, children.
| Quote: |
Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given.
|
No, they are not. If they are, I want to see an invasion into China sometime in the future with no reasons given to the public. Beacuse, you know, you inferred it was a given that communism isn't for everyone.
| Quote: |
I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place.
|
Here you go with your generalizations again. The very fact there was a poll proves my point. NOT EVERY IRAQI CITIZEN WANTS AMERICA ON THEIR TURF.
| Quote: |
There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
|
The international law does not justify it.
|
[/quote]
How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest.
Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam?
| Quote: |
This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
|
| Quote: |
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.
|
| Quote: |
As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.
The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.
|
| Quote: |
Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
|
| Quote: |
The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.
|
| Quote: |
Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
|
Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people....
How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist.
What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country.
We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things.
everything down from that is just bull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105304] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 18:45 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Wow, I misjudged your ignorance. I really didn't think that you would not be able to comprehend the difference between LAW and MORALITY.
| Nodbugger |
How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest.
|
Don't speak for the French, or anyone for that matter. Any objecters are entitled to their reasons. You CANNOT just say "Yeah, the French (meaning ALL the French) said it was acceptable" because you do not speak for an entire population. You speak for ONE person, yourself.
| Quote: |
Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam?
|
It was against the law. Read the UN Charter: The Charter of the United Nations
Just because Saddam Hussein violated the 11 Security resolutions you keep bringing up DOES NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. This is a concept that you cannot seem to grasp. When the police pull you over for speeding and decide to give you a warning instead of a ticket, does that mean that a civilian can legally flag you down and force the ticket on you? It might surprise you, but the United States is NOT the legal police authority of the world just because they have the biggest army.
| Quote: |
This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
|
Remember what I told you to watch for when I said context? Can't you read or comprehend? This is NOT a reason for war.
| Quote: |
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.
|
This is NOT a reason for going to war, either.
| Quote: |
As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
|
Remember what the difference between REASON and REPERCUSSION is? This is a REPERCUSSION, not a REASON. THINK, KID!
| Quote: |
In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.
|
These are not REASONS for going to war, either! These are the REPERCUSSIONS of removing Saddam from power.
| Quote: |
The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
|
Should I be surprised? This is a repercussion as well.
| Quote: |
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.
|
My God, THIS PROVES MY POINT INSTEAD!
| Quote: |
Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
|
This too, is NOT a reason for going to war. This is a belief that your government has NO authority to impress on any other nation. As cold as it sounds, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. This is just one example of morality and law conflicting. Even more so, these are REPERCUSSIONS to removing Saddam from power, not justification.
| Quote: |
The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.
|
Where is the reasoning? These are goals, not reasons. There is a key difference.
| Quote: |
Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
|
This isn't a reason for going to war either! Hell, this is just a reiteration of "We are going to protect ourselves". Oh, which by the way is NOT a reason for going to war on shakey grounds.
| Quote: |
Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people....
|
Too bad the challange wasn't to find quotes of reference to the reprecussions of going to war. I asked you to find REASONS for war that were not WMD. You failed.
| Quote: |
How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist.
|
Terrorism is not a reason because it was never stated that terrorism was the reason to go to war.
Oh, and are you enjoying being force fed what FOXnews tells you? Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist. He is a heartless, remorseless, cruel person and dictator, but he is not a terrorist.
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Saddam Hussein, whether to want to believe it or not, was the LEGAL head of the sovreignty of Iraq. Anything he does in the context of "coercing societies or governments" is an act of the government of Iraq, not of "Saddam Hussein" exclusively. Notice how Bin Laden was not the ruler of any nation but used unlawful force and violence against GOVERNMENTS for his own idelogical reasons?
| Quote: |
What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country.
|
The Charter of the United Nations says otherwise. The link is provided for you above. Oh, and it might startle you, but the US is supposed to adhere to the UN Charter. I mean, they DID agree to it, afterall.
| Quote: |
We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things.
|
I am not debating who's to blame for the misinformation. I'm telling you that the action was illegal. And according to international law, it was.
| Quote: |
everything down from that is just bull.
|
lol. And you're the one saying that I skip over facts. Tell you what, why don't you try not bouncing around an issue with your "UR RONG BUT I WONT SAY Y" logic.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
[Updated on: Sat, 31 July 2004 18:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Oct 31 12:15:47 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01906 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
