Mind made up (sorta) and sour taste in mouth

[MSUICEMAN]

Anyone else see GW's "stand up" at his campaign fundraiser the other night? making fun of himself for not finding weapons of mass destruction and the seamingly absent vice president.

That made up my mind, I am going to vote for anyone other than Bush, exactly who is yet to be determined. Keep in mind these jokes come from someone that has been portraying himself as serious since he is a "war president".

I don't find humor when the basis for your war (WMD) is all but proven untrue and 600 people have died in this war that we are now in the middle of (or beginning, god only knows how long this will drag on for). Bad taste, no class, I know who I'm NOT voting for.

steve

[jpollman]

And how do you think that Kerry will handle a 9/11 situation ?
God forbid anything like that ever happens again.

[MSUICEMAN]

That isn't the issue at all, but I do think Kerry would have handled it somehow, possibly similarly. That is NOT the issue here though, I doubt he woulda joked about being caught in a lie that in a round about way lead to the death of 600 servicemen and women so far. Especially since he has been in combat and knows how that is. I doubt he finds much funny about war.

steve

[ytlabs]

MSUICEMAN,
I am not about to try to sway you or tell you who to vote for. I am not a die hard anything except reform of the current political scene as it swirls down the bowl.

I myself am unsure of Bush. My reasons I could list are mostly related to other issues.

What I will ask you though is this, Also please remember I am a vet and have lost family members in conflicts.

We have lost 600 people in Iraq in a wartime environment as bad as this is. Do me a HUGE favor. Contact your congressman or Senators office and ask them how many military personel die in the line of duty every year during a NON WAR environment.

You will be totaly amazed.

Remember we loose helicopter crews in crashes, Pilots and crews in crahses, personel in Gernade accidents and gunfire accidents in training and excersises.

We lose men and women in the military on the flight deck of air craft carriers and we even lose them in dive training school.

With all of this you will be shocked to find out how many personel die in the line of duty in the military when we are not at war or even in a hostile environment

Next I would like you to contact the Secretary of State in Michigan and ask them how many people died last year on our states highways. Then do the same for the other states.

I know to many this is a joke, My point is simple the 600 being thrown around is a number to the people who want to try to shock you and others into thinking this is a horrible number of people to lose. In fact this is considered to be less people than we lose in a non active combat military.

Now as far as who to vote for, I will be honest if Edwards had won I probably would have voted for him. Kerry couldn't get a vote for me if he offered me anything in this world, I do not know why.

I HATE kerry as much as I HATE Granholm, I trust neither of them. with that did anyone see how she earned her money today?

She sat there looking at her friend Kerry and hugging him and supporting him. Hmm I thought we had some serious budget issues, She should give back her pay for today to the State budget.

This is not just about Jenny the Joke either. I feel anyone in the state who is on the tax payers pay roll should be forced to work or deduct the pay for the day. I would LOVE to get ahold of the budget for them all and make the cuts and adjustments to the whole budget for them.

Now MSUICEMAN when we decide who is worthy let me know because we will need to get behind this person and really get a boost to their campaign. Unfortunatly though if it comes down to it and there is not a serious third party candidate who could win I will vote for Bush because I am terrified of the alternative. :mad:

[MSUICEMAN]

even if kerry did the "stereotypical" democrat thing and spent money, how is that ANY different than what is going on now? Bush and the other yahoos in power right now are spending more money now than ever in history. The fact that taxes haven't been raised is just because we borrowed the money. Borrow money from a bank....... they don't forget about it, eventually they're gonna want their money back or its gonna bite you in the butt with interest.

As far as defense, most republicans people think the world would crumble if a non-republican was in power when a war is waging. Well, I don't find that true, and neither does history.

Tax and spend is the same as spend spend and spend, the taxes are just delayed in coming. They gotta come from somewhere, and its not from downsizing when you are making programs bigger.

steve

[Bluegill Bob]

.[/QUOTE] By ytlabs; My point is simple the 600 being thrown around is a number to the people who want to try to shock you and others into thinking this is a horrible number of people to lose. In fact this is considered to be less people than we lose in a non active combat military.

ytlabs; if you feel that the 600 persons that died and the thousands of mamed US Troops is not a horrible number of people to lose for a personal war of Geo W Bush so he can say "I got him for you daddy" . And you feel that those dead troops are no big deal to lose in a war that had nothing to do with 911 or WMD.(It was for OIL OIL OIL and the controll of OIL.)

If you think it's no big deal then you should vote for Bush. You sound like you deserve him . It's not horrible just "Bring em on we got plenty more young people where they came from just make sure you save the oil fields"

[Neal]

.(It was for OIL OIL OIL and the controll of OIL.)

Yep, we're sure raking in that oil, prices are dropping like crazy:rolleyes:

Steve, you are making a deal out of a joke? Tastless? maybe. I didn't hear the total context of the joke. From what I heard it was humor at himself.

So that turned you off.....Yet you would vote for a guy who rallied and protested against the troops in Viet Nam. While thousands of our troops were being killed, he sat amongst the rest of the "baby-killer", "murderers" crowd? :confused:

You lost me on that one man

Neal

[Freestone]

Does that mean you are leaving the republican party? Come on man you hammer bush at every opportunity but you don't have the intestinal fortitude to just come out and say who your candidate is. I say "GO BUSH!" Now you say "GO KERRY!" come on it's not that hard.

With all the info out there on the candidates for anyone not to pretty much know who they're going to vote for by now is a cop out. Obviously you watch political events closely.

[lostmale]

May have been in bad taste but it only made fun of himself.


Kerry in the photo cover of his book The New Soilder ridicules the Marine Corps Memorial disgracing 6,821 Marines who died at Iwo Jima.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chips in negotiations for a peace agreement.

While testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry said U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." He said this while U.S. troops were still fighting and dying in Vietnam – while many were still imprisoned and being tortured by the North Vietnamese communists

He did not care about the troops then what would make him feel different for the troops today.

[MSUICEMAN]

Originally posted by lostmale
While testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry said U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." He said this while U.S. troops were still fighting and dying in Vietnam – while many were still imprisoned and being tortured by the North Vietnamese communists

I don't doubt he said that, and at the same time there are several documented cases of that actually happening. If he said that he saw it happen, maybe he did and he was saying the truth. Taking things out of context can make anyone look stupid.

In regards to someone saying why don't i say who Im voting for:
1. I don't know who that will be yet.
2. I don't have to tell anyone, let alone someone that is trying to egg me on like you (look it up, I have that right.)

I just have a huge problem with those jokes being of very poor taste. Between saying that there was a smoking gun link between Hussein and Al Qaeda (yeah, i know he withdrew that later, which is little more than admitting a lie), and the statements of the possession of WMDs, do I feel like I've been lied to? Ya damn right.

As far as how many servicemen die each year even when not during wartime, show me the stats. No doubt people die in accidents, but that still doesn't excuse our servicemen's deaths.

On another note, our closest allies are now shying away from us. We got the Spanish guy in hot water, now his party is no longer in control. Blair, well, i don't doubt that he's gone next time around also. whos replacing em? a more hardlined not so american friendly party/candidate no doubt. want proof? look whats going on in Spain right now.

was this war about oil? i doubt it. Does GW know exactly what this war is about? i doubt that also. I think it was more of a fishing operation to see what he can find more than anything based on fact or so-called intelligence. What has happened sorta bears this out. Do we really want this precident on the books?

Question everything you see and hear, people put spins on things (especially in politics). I can't fault anyone who makes an informed decision for either side. I can fault people that do the "follow the leader" and fall in line.

steve

[lostmale]

Here is the complete record of Kerry's statement. This was during a time when we still had troops in Nam and had MIA's and POW's.
Kerry's statements in this record were used by the vietnameese for propagation and torture of our pow's.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony


Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press"

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):


MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?


KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


(End audiotape)

[maxemus]

I think Bush was at the yearly press dinner which is attended by every president . I remember clinton doing the same thing. It's poking fun at one's self. Taken in quotes or soundbites it can sound different than in its entirety. Like i said its a tradition . Sorry that you find it offensive.

Bush 2004

[kingfisher 11]

MSU , your mind was made up a long time ago. You just needed something more tangible to hang your hat on. And that is OK, everyone usually votes against someone or party more then for some one.

[MSUICEMAN]

why does one always equate anti-war to anti-troops? I support our armed forces 110%, but i certainly dont' like this war.

steve

[2PawsRiver]

The attrition rate for war from Vietnam back was 1 in 15. Since Vietnam the attrition rate is 1 in 1,500. The attrition rate for a military exercise is 3 percent. I was in Alaska for a military joint exercise in 1979, in the two weeks I was there 5 soldiers died and there were scores of injuries, but it was below the attrition rate and was considered very successful.

I agree I don’t like war and every life lost is tragic, but as for being unnecessary, tell that to the families of the victims of 911, and we have disagreed before, but the democratic response or lack of response to terrorist attacks on this country and it territories abroad led up to 911.

I think the big dividing line between most opinions is age. This generation has not experienced the hardships and sacrifices of generations past. Could you imagine if the death toll of this war were to be comparable to that of wars such as Vietnam, WWI, WWII, with POWs for years, torture, death marches, etc. There are people in this generation that would pull out, pull the shutters, plug their ears, close their eyes and bin Laden and Hussain could move in next door. Fortunately there are still those that won’t.

Vote for whomever you like, truth be known I don’t care a whole lot for Kerry or Bush, but when you do vote, think about the people who have made, and continue to make the sacrifices to make that possible, and vote for who is going to do the most to support them as President. Like it or not that is Bush.

[tgafish]

MSU
Why does everyone associate anti war with anti troops? I'll give you one hard fact if you're willing to accept it.
By being public about your opposition to the war you are getting troops killed. I know that's a crappy thing to say but look and think about what I'm saying and it may be something you figure out.

Everytime we have a news story about people in the US being against the war it emboldens our enemies. Just like in Spain they know that if they cause enough trouble in the homeland then the country will give up. That means they have won. So that's why they continue to bomb and terrorize our troops. News stories cover it and someone always says we need to bring our boys home. So why in the world would they stop?

If everytime they bombed our people we got together behind the president as one nation and said this only makes our resolve stronger what do you think our enemies would do? They'd stop and cut their losses. Why do you think we haven't had another attack on our soil? These people are not stupid. They saw the reaction of the people as one in the US after the 9-11 attack and do not want that to happen again. They would rather have us at our own throats as we are right now discussing the future of the war they started.

If you want the war to end then that is your right to voice your opinion. Just understand that it does endanger our troops. If you think voting Kerry in will achieve that goal then please vote for him. But do not publicly oppose the war. Oppose it with your vote.

[Moron]

tgafish
Alot of truth in what you say. This makes me think terrorist will probably try the same tactic here when our election gets close as they did in Spain.:(

[tgafish]

I do also Moron. My thought is that they will not attack our civilians again though. I'm guessing a military target or a non-lethal attack. Non lethal would inconvenience people enough to vote for someone who's not pushing the terrorists but not bringing the population together in retalatory anger by killing friends and neighbors

[AceMcbanon]

What the hell does Iraq have to do with 9-11??? It's a waste of money and manpower when the real enemies are still out there. To believe we can move into an Arab country with fundamentalist Muslims and set up a goverment is ridiculous. It's gonna collapse unless we keep troops there untill the end of time, there are just too many factors we can not control.

Afghanistan was the right choice but why go after after Saddam when Al Queda and other organizations continue to terrorize American interests?

All the patriot missles, or battleships, and supersonic jets, tanks aren't gonna stop a car full of bombs

If anything going to war with Iraq created more targets for terrorists and more terrorism overall.

[WILDCATWICK]

And how do you think that Kerry will handle a 9/11 situation ?

This argument is old and lame in my opinion. I don't think there was one American citizen who wasn't outraged by that day. FOr any one to say that a leader of the U.S., or a senate member, or a congressional member would not have stepped up to the plate is speculation and more than likely incorrect. :mad:

It seemed to me that when we decided to go to Afghanastan it was a complety unanimous decision amongst all politicians. That really sums it up doesn't it?:confused:

That decision was necessary! You and I would have probably done it. Kerry would have, Clinton would have, anyone would have. That does not mean for one minuit that any of us would have done the same to Iraq. Some would and some wouldn't. I suspect that if it hadn't been for the current politcal system that we are in we would not have gone to war against Iraq at that PATICULAR time. But with partylining, what Republicans were going to go against their leader?

But pleeeeaaase. Who in america would not have stood up to Taliban and Osma.. The evidence was in...Osama without any doubt did it and the Taliban was harbouring him. Bush wasn't even super agressive with the Taliban. It seemed like he tried to negotiate with them to get them to turn over Osama for a week or two.....Why?

Let say Taliban gave into Bush instead of fighting. Now many of the "rebel' fighter and Taliban supporters would still be in Afaghanastan and it would not have sovled any of the problems. It would have given us instant gratification but in the same trun would have made live under a false sense of securtity. Azhawir would still be runnning the show and there would be more problems in my opion. Food for thought, say we capture Osama, don't you think there will be more hijackings and hostatges taken to try to get him released (remeber the 70's? It was Azhawir's favorite tactic. It will be another loud cry for holy war and Bush has already stated that his God is bigger and better than anyone elses. Maybe Kerry would not have tried to have the Taliban turn over Osama. Maybe he would have bombed from day one? How do we know?

At this point I don't know who I am going to vote for because in my honest opion neither of these people have my confidence to lead our country. But I think statements such as


With all the info out there on the candidates for anyone not to pretty much know who they're going to vote for by now is a cop out.

is wrong and biggoted. There is alot of info out there. Alot of it is rumors, alot of it is smear tactics and it is hard to differentiat trueth from agenda. I feel that if you've already made up your mind and will not change it you may be missing some big things that develope in the near future for both politicians. I also think that you will be closed minded, which unfortunatly is caused by partylining and causes people to vote with out them thinking much.

:( By being public about your opposition to the war you are getting troops killed.
Interesting concept. I did enjoy reading your statements and I beleive them to be true. But unfortunatly If we all decided to keep our mouths shut when we goto war that would tend to leave thing a little out of balance wouldn't it? No dissenters than our leader would not even have to think about what he is doing. Not to mention that it cuts right to the core of what make our country the greatest....fredom of speach and expression. Which every day seems like someone wants to limit those fredoms more and more.:mad:

[kingfisher 11]

I was told that no sitting president has won a re-election during an armed conflict over the last 50 years?

Tells you we have no stomach for war.

[tgafish]

Wildcatwick,
I am a strong beleiver in your last paragraph. Freedom of dissention is a great part of our forefathers plan. I should have omitted my second to last statement saying not to publically oppose the war.

Again I do beleive that is the right of any individual to do so. But I would like anyone who does it to consider the ramification our troops may have to pay for it.

I hate Clinton with a passion. But I would have stood by him arm in arm if he asked me to support his efforts in Bosnia. I still would have voted against him and his kind which I did. Somalia I would not have because I believe our plan was flawed but I would have had him define his goals and accomplish them. Not let the enemies win by pulling out because our troops were getting hurt.

Good comments wildcatwick. They made me think quite a bit

[tony_1]

Originally posted by WILDCATWICK
This argument is old and lame in my opinion. I don't think there was one American citizen who wasn't outraged by that day. FOr any one to say that a leader of the U.S., or a senate member, or a congressional member would not have stepped up to the plate is speculation and more than likely incorrect. :mad:

It seemed to me that when we decided to go to Afghanastan it was a complety unanimous decision amongst all politicians. That really sums it up doesn't it?:confused:

That decision was necessary! You and I would have probably done it. Kerry would have, Clinton would have, anyone would have. That does not mean for one minuit that any of us would have done the same to Iraq. Some would and some wouldn't. I suspect that if it hadn't been for the current politcal system that we are in we would not have gone to war against Iraq at that PATICULAR time. But with partylining, what Republicans were going to go against their leader?

But pleeeeaaase. Who in america would not have stood up to Taliban and Osma.. The evidence was in...Osama without any doubt did it and the Taliban was harbouring him. Bush wasn't even super agressive with the Taliban. It seemed like he tried to negotiate with them to get them to turn over Osama for a week or two.....Why?

Let say Taliban gave into Bush instead of fighting. Now many of the "rebel' fighter and Taliban supporters would still be in Afaghanastan and it would not have sovled any of the problems. It would have given us instant gratification but in the same trun would have made live under a false sense of securtity. Azhawir would still be runnning the show and there would be more problems in my opion. Food for thought, say we capture Osama, don't you think there will be more hijackings and hostatges taken to try to get him released (remeber the 70's? It was Azhawir's favorite tactic. It will be another loud cry for holy war and Bush has already stated that his God is bigger and better than anyone elses. Maybe Kerry would not have tried to have the Taliban turn over Osama. Maybe he would have bombed from day one? How do we know?



Clinton would have?? He had the chance the FIRST time the WTC was attacked. People like to forget that 9/11 was the second attack. Clinton did alot didn't he, thats why it was attacked in a much larger scale the second time. There were many other opportunities to react; the USS COLE, the embassies in Africa, etc were all opportunities missed to defeat this threat. Instead we sat back for years what them get larger, more organized, gain more support. Bush did the best that he could, considering what the logistics of getting into Afganistan are. Striking an attack in less than month and having ground troops was pretty good, the mission isn't complete by any means but it has gotten the enemy on the run.

[WILDCATWICK]

I hear you tony but I have to politly disagree. Many politicians have said in the past andnow that at the time of the first WTC bombing we did not have enough support around the world to go into foreign countries to get these criminals. It took the second event and the death of over 3,000 people to get the support of the rest of the world. I know.....who cares about the U.N. and the rest of the world? But you know having everyone hate us is not any good or productive. It can be effective to wage war and to win the war. But I think the most effective methods are to get the majority of the world to agree with us so they don't resent us, fear us, and eventualy that leads to coming after us:eek:


It really does appear that future warfare will have nothing to do with who has more bombs. But more or less who is more creative in hurting each other. Also without majority support how do you win a war on terrisom. Terrorists do not have have a "residence" you can't bomb them effectively (Afghanastan). You have to have co-operation from the country that they are present. If a country fears us how do you get them to TRUELY co-operate? Afghanastan should prove as a model for this thought. The Government was anti-american they would not turn Osama over and they would not help us in anyway. We try conventional means of warfare and we have had very MINIMAL amount of sucscess. Many of the taliban and Al-qaeda have escaped to Packistan. Now Packistan has on the surface has been trying to help our cause but we have only had one major arrest with the help of the Packistan governement. That is a far cry from the success I would like to see.

Anti-American sentiment is getting stronger every day...part of that is because of our attitude. I'm not saying be weak and let everything go. I'm saying we need a worldwide doctrine that defines terrorism. And that there is some sort of penalty for countries that KNOWINGLY harbour them. Such as no one buys their products and no one sells them products. Now Corprate America might be little more cautious on where they set up shop.

When they said that everything is different in post 9/11 they were right. I just think we are seeing the tip of the ice berg. I remember the first 9 months after 9/11. Government paid alot of money to put up homeland security. They put up all these cement barricads next to the column supports of the BlueWater Bridge. I'm sure it made some feel safer but if a Mcveigh van pulled up next to it those things would not do a thing. I wonder how many other superficial things are being done at our expense? I also remember hearing every network talk about possible future targets of terrorism. There are so many that there is no way we can defend against all.

To sum it up.....The stronger we are = the more others resent.
The more they resent = more problems.


Solution = Try not to have others resent us but to work with us for resolution...Bull Dog or Cowboy tactics will not give us the best results. There is a time and place for eveything. In today's modern society we should be able accomplish these things. It will take a long time because we have to get one group, one country, one individual on board at a time. Unfortunatly we don't seem to be working in this direction.

Unfortunatly now we are in WORLD WAR THREE with not a good idea of who is truely a friend or a foe. No guidlines. Military that is not very well trained in terrorist tactics.. are troops are pretty well trained but the leaders are not. I could go on and on it is an interesting time. But I rather read and your ideas and create new thoughts.;)

[Ranger Ray]

Solution = Try not to have others resent us but to work with us for resolution...Bull Dog or Cowboy tactics will not give us the best results. There is a time and place for eveything. In today's modern society we should be able accomplish these things. It will take a long time because we have to get one group, one country, one individual on board at a time. Unfortunatly we don't seem to be working in this direction
I don’t remember any Cowboy, Bull Dog tactics going on before 9-11. Please inform me of what they were. Everybody has conveniently forgotten we were in a state of passivism when they attacked us. So much for the argument that if we leave them alone than they will leave us alone. Why would someone plant a bomb around railroad tracks in France last week? The French have distanced themselves from us cowboys. Because the fanatics hate them! The fanatics attacked us because they hate us! They will always hate us. They have hated us since I can remember. They want to kill us doesn’t matter if we are offensive or defensive they are coming to kill us.

Since when has offense been defined as cowboy or bull dog? It’s easy to criticize offensive tactics because the evidence of what you prevented is not tangible. Have there been more attacks diverted because we are on the offensive? Who knows? But just the fact that there haven’t been any more attacks on our soil should count for something. Maybe we should give this offensive campaign some time. I saw on 9-11 what passivism gave us.

Anybody who thinks the U.N. has any ability to intervene in a conflict needs a history lesson. I am not talking about the conflicts the U.S. has intervened in and had the U.N. along as a token puppet. Go ask the families of 800, 00 dead Rwandans what they think about the U.N... That was ten years ago and guess what? It’s happening all over again.

[Swamp Ghost]

Kerry's tacky wife passes out pins calling Bush an evil ass, Kerry calls for a "regime change" in America, and once joked that if the first President Bush died in office, the Secret Service had orders to shoot Dan Quayle.

Now, Kerry and the rest of the Dem's has their panties in a wad over some self-deprecating (and funny) jokes told by the President at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner. Why are Democrats such ill-tempered humorless cry-babies?


http://www.dailynewsbrief.com/news/archives/000352.php

[WILDCATWICK]

SwampGhost, I followed the link and I don't understand it? Plus I really don't think the name calling is part of a polite debate. Leave that at home.

RangerRay, I never said be passive. Matter fact I think I even stated that maybe it would have been more effective if Bush had just bombed the heck out of Afghanastan instead of trying to get the Taliban government to hand over Osama.

Bulldog tactics I was referring to was with Iraq. Not Al-qaeda.
I there are many contries now that are less willing to be co-operative with the war on Terrisom because they fear having any relationship with us because of that event. If we would have had majority support then it would have been easier for these countries to coperate.

I wrote:

Anti-American sentiment is getting stronger every day...part of that is because of our attitude. I'm not saying be weak and let everything go. I'm saying we need a worldwide doctrine that defines terrorism. And that there is some sort of penalty for countries that KNOWINGLY harbour them. Such as no one buys their products and no one sells them products. Now Corprate America might be little more cautious on where they set up shop.

Look I agree to take the fight to the terrorist. But how do you fight them. We don't have the resources and a good enough knowledge of the inner workings of the terrorist groups to fight them alone. Agreed? We need the cooperation of many countries. How do you win a war with no plan? Why would anyone want to fight with you with no direction? Why would you want to be grouped with a country that seems to do whatever they want? (we did do what ever we want with Iraq).

French distanced themselves so much that as soon as we defeated Iraq they were first in line to ask for reconstruction contracts. They were all over the media. THe French deemed by many to be arogant stuck on them selves type of country. Wow the same type that terrorist beleive that we are.



Because the fanatics hate them! The fanatics attacked us because they hate us! They will always hate us. They have hated us since I can remember. They want to kill us doesn’t matter if we are offensive or defensive they are coming to kill us.

Come on....they hate us for a reason. It's not because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Our government is viewed as the dominant government are a suppresor of the world (in teir eyes) We float their countries loans, take advantage of their work forces for our profit (they get nothing out of it) then we tell them what to do. My mom use to always tell me what to do and I lashed out against it. Doesn't mean she was wrong but that is the way of human nature. We have so much free choice on our own soil. But our country dictates almost all others. We basicly practice something I'll term corprate colonialism.

I don't have any answers. But I know going blindly forward is not the answer. I respond to these thread in search of ideas.

Couple of rougue thoughts:
When we supplied weapons to Iraq why did our relationship not grow? Will we continue to make these types of deals in the future?

What evironmental or biological warfare has already been launched on us, that we either don't know about or our government won't tell us about?

Is this terrorist war a winable war? I don't beleive unless we create some sort of utopia there will always be the repressed who fight by unconventional means.

Love to here some opinions on these.

[Fishfoote]

Vote for who ever you want to vote for. Base your vote on whatever information you choose to believe. Examine your candidate over a minute, month or lifetime. Just make sure you vote.;)