God What An Awsome Speach That Was!

[KSTornado]

I sat back drinking water while listening to our President speak at the GOP Convention last night speak about the past 8 years and what he has done to keep this country safe.

Well, for the last time in our lives President Bush with his presence..


Good evening. As you know, my duties have me here in Washington tonight to oversee the Federal government’s efforts to help citizens recover from Hurricane Gustav. We are thankful that the damage in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast was less than many had feared.

Thank you President Bush for showing us that you indeed do care what happens to people in our country and are trying to help. it is unfortunately that when Katrina hit that Louisiana's Governor said no to you when you offered assistance in getting people out 3 days before landfall for it would of saved many lives. I know seeing all of the school busses sitting in water could of been used to help get people out of harms way but unfortunately a Governor felt your assistance was not needed prior to Katrina's landfall and then tried to cry foul in the aftermath on your behalf. Ignorance is bliss I must say but hey, those who paid attention to what was really going on know you tried and were denied by State Officials to send help.


I commend the Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas for their sure-handed response and seamless coordination with the Federal government. I thank all of the wonderful volunteers who stepped forward to help their brothers and sisters in need.

Yes indeed, thank you to those Governors who this time heeded the warnings and thank you to volunteers who went to help those who could not help themselves. Your service is always needed in times like these.

We know that there is still risk even after the storm has passed. So I ask citizens across the region to listen closely to local officials and follow their instructions before returning to their homes. All of us are keeping the people of the Gulf Coast in our thoughts and prayers.

I completely agree Mr. President. No need for unneccessary health risks during this time. Let's just hope that those who were stupid enough to stay behind and ride it out do not try to loot as well as let's hope they have honest police officers who do not loot either as they did when Katrina hit.

As you gather tonight in Saint Paul, I want to share some thoughts about our nominee – a great American, and the next President of the United States, John McCain.

I agree he has served our country well. Next President? Possibly.

Before I do so, I want to say hello to two people in the hall with you tonight. I could have no finer examples of character, decency, and integrity than my mom and dad

It is nice to see a son respect his parents so much. You just don't see that as much nowadays.

I know what it takes to be president. In these past eight years, I’ve sat at the Resolute Desk and reviewed the daily intelligence briefings, the threat assessments, and the reports from our commanders on the front lines. I’ve stood in the ruins of buildings knocked down by killers, and promised the survivors I would never let them down. I know the hard choices that fall solely to a president.

Yes, you have the burden of the country on your shoulders and if this country didn't feel you were the man for the job after your first 4 years I beleive you wouldn't of won reelection with an overwhelming margin. I am glad we had someone in office such as yourself Mr. President who would go after terrorism in such an aggressive mannor and fight them on their door steps so we would not have to fight them on our own door steps. You understand the true meaning of what terror means and know they will never stop coming after the U.S. and you have done what it takes to protect our way of life. Thank you.

John McCain’s life has prepared him to make those choices. He is ready to lead this nation. From the day of his commissioning, John McCain was a respected naval officer who made decisions on which the lives of others depended. As an elected public servant, he earned the respect of colleagues in both parties as a man to follow when there is a tough call to make.
John McCain’s life is a story of service above self. Forty years ago in an enemy prison camp, Lieutenant Commander McCain was offered release ahead of others who had been held longer. His wounds were so severe that anyone would have understood if he had accepted. John refused.
For that selfless decision, he suffered nearly five more years of beatings and isolation. When he was finally released, his arms had been broken, but not his honor.

Yes, John McCain's service should be an example to everyone for his selfless acts show character. Although I may not vote for him I would still like to see our next Commander in Cheif to show examples of this type of character.

Fellow citizens: If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will.

I agree that John McCain would do what he felt was best for this country. I do however wish both Republicans and Democrats would stop fighting and come together on issues that need to be dealt with instead of wasting our tax dollars on hearings that never resolve anything.

As the father of seven sons and daughters, John has the heart of a protector. He and his wonderful wife, Cindy, are adoptive parents.

That is what I call stamina!

John is a leader who knows that human life is fragile, that human life is precious, that human life must be defended.

I am glad that John McCain understands that sometimes in order to save lives that you have to take life or do what is neccessary to do so. This is not a kind world and will not ever be. To protect our country I know atleast John McCain would do what it takes by whatever means.


We have seen John McCain’s commitment to principle in our Nation’s capital. John is a steadfast opponent of wasteful spending. As president, he will stand up to the high-tax crowd in Congress and make the tax relief permanent. He will invest in the energy technologies of tomorrow and lift the ban on drilling for America’s offshore oil today.

I know John McCain has his political past and I know he has voted on both sides of the party lines but I am glad he sees that tax releif is needed in todays economy and that in the past we didn't need to drill for oil much offshore but we must in today's world become more oil independant.

John is an independent man who thinks for himself. He’s not afraid to tell you when he disagrees. No matter what the issue, this man is honest and speaks straight from the heart.

We need a leader who is not afraid to tick people off and doesn't just agree with people for he does it for he truly cares about issues. I like that he is fiery for it shows me he cares.

Last year, John McCain’s independence and character helped change history. The Democrats had taken control of Congress and were threatening to cut off funds for our troops. In the face of calls for retreat, I ordered a surge of forces into Iraq. Many in Congress said it had no chance of working.
Yet one senator above all had faith in our troops and the importance of their mission, and that was John McCain.

I'm glad John McCain understands the importance of supporting our troops which means verbally, financially and neverending. I am glad that he understands our presence in the Middle East is needed to help detour rogue nations who want to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I am glad he understands that the Iraqi's thought we would abandon them like we did in the Gulf War which in turn took them longer to come together. I am glad that he wants to help those who cannot help themselves which is what our country stands for.


Some told him that his early and consistent call for more troops would put his presidential campaign at risk. He told them he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. That is the kind of courage and vision we need in our next commander-in-chief.

Again, I am glad John McCain puts this country first before the Presidency and must care quite a bit about this issue in oputting his presidency bid at risk. It takes a lot of courage to do that in todays government. He has my respect.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I couldn't respect Bush, ever again.

The man is a mouthpiece anymore.....

He abandoned every principle, every value he RAN ON to get in office.

I see him as a criminal waiting for a trial.




I fail to see anything better in McCain.....based on his voting record.

[KSTornado]

My fellow citizens, we live in a dangerous world. And we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again. The man we need is John McCain.

I am glad we have had a President such as yoruself who has done what it takes to protect the freedoms we have. I never will have a problem if you want to listen in on my phone conversations for I have nothing to hide from my government. I am glad that you do what it takes to get info that could and does save lives. I am glad that we are fighting terrorism on their door steps and not my own.

When he takes office next January, John will have an outstanding leader at his side. America will have a strong and principled vice president in the governor of the great state of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Not enough info on her for me to make a valid post on the issue.

In the time the Oval Office has been in my trust, I have kept near my desk reminders of America’s character – including a painting of a West Texas mountain lit by the morning sun. It reminds me that Americans have always lived on the sunrise side of the mountain.

Character means a lot to those who still have it and respect it. You have great character Mr. President.

We are a nation that looks to the new day with confidence and optimism. I am optimistic about our future, because I believe in the goodness and wisdom of the American people. I am optimistic because I have faith in freedom’s power to lift up all of God’s children and lead this world to a future of peace.

I am glad you still understand that the people are what make this nation great and that peace for the whole world is the ultimate goal but first you have to rid it of those who want to disrupt peace at every glance.

And I am optimistic about something else: When the debates have ended, and all the ads have run, and it is time to vote, Americans will look closely at the judgment, the experience, and the policies of the candidates, and they will cast their ballots for the McCain-Palin ticket.

Voting day will be different for me as I am unsure as to who I want to vote for. I could vote for someone who has proven to love their country and is willing to do what it takes to keep it safe or I could vote for someone who in the past 20yrs has had a spiritual guider who basically hates white people and America or I could vote Independant or just not vote at all. Tough choices for this man.

While I am not with you in the Twin Cities on this wonderful night for our party, with Laura Bush speaking, you have clearly traded up.

Yes, your wife has clearly put class in the First Lady's Office. She has done her country proud as First Lady just as Hillary, Barbara and those before her have done.

I am so proud the American people have come to know her gracious presence, her determined spirit, and her loving heart. Laura has been a fantastic first lady. Thank you, Laura, and thanks to all of you in the hall tonight.
God bless you, and God bless America.

Thank Mr. President for your service for the American people. Although Democrats do nothing but bash you those who have supported you know what you have done for the American people even when you ticked off your own party, we knew it was because you were doing what you felt was right for America. God bless Mr. president.

[NIOSA]

What part of Bushs' speech was not true?

[KSTornado]

All of it was true expect for possibly McCain being the next President. I was not being sarcastic as I do feel Bush is a good President. This thread is mostly in retort to the thread despising Bush's speach. i felt a Republican's view on it was warranted so I gave it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

NIOSA said:
What part of Bushs' speech was not true?

Off the top of my head....

My fellow citizens, we live in a dangerous world. And we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again. The man we need is John McCain.

Here is the criminal advocating more pre-emptive war on his way out of office, after NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS OWN ACTS......

Due process would prescribe a noose for his actions.

[KSTornado]

Off the top of my head....



Here is the criminal advocating more pre-emptive war on his way out of office, after NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS OWN ACTS......

Due process would prescribe a noose for his actions.



So you want the U.S. to stop going after terrorism and nations who promote terrorism so that the terrorist can revamp and grow back to the strength they were at prior to 9/11 and give them a chance to attack us again on our own soil?

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

So you want the U.S. to stop going after terrorism and nations who promote terrorism so that the terrorist can revamp and grow back to the strength they were at prior to 9/11 and give them a chance to attack us again on our own soil?

So let's truly go after the Terrorist that where involved in 911! The Saudis !
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda, but the Saudis did ! That's where Osama is from !!!!

You have been so brainwashed about terrorist you wouldn't know one if he were the
president of your country !

[Osborn F. Enready]

KSTornado said:
So you want the U.S. to stop going after terrorism and nations who promote terrorism so that the terrorist can revamp and grow back to the strength they were at prior to 9/11 and give them a chance to attack us again on our own soil?

No, I want my government to live up to, obey and understand the laws of the land... which prevent NON-DEFENSIVE WAR.... and the war in Iraq was NOT defensive.

The argument about a necessity of "pre-emptive" war demands EVIDENCE THAT IS TANGIBLE EXIST to vet that argument, BEFORE actions are taken.

The Constitution does not authorize "pre-emptive" war.


You are constructing your question in a way that attempts to say this is the "only" way this problem could have been handled, which is simply false.

[KSTornado]

So let's truly go after the Terrorist that where involved in 911! The Saudis !
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda, but the Saudis did ! That's where Osama is from !!!!

You have been so brainwashed about terrorist you wouldn't know one if he were the
president of your country !



Not brain washed, sorry. I remember back in '98 when our unit in the 82nd was called up by President Clinton to go to Iraq and the intel briefing we received back then had stated that Al Qaeda was going to be in the area we were going to and we were given many pictures of how they dressed and what certain things to look for so we could distinguish Iraqi troops from Al Qaeda troops as well as civilians. We were also briefed on the route that Saddam was using to help fund terrorism to Pakistan and that we were to close that route down. Clinton decided to turn the planes around before we got half way across the ocean but Clinton had the same intell that Bush did. Iraq needed to be dealt with in order to try and get a long lasting peace afterwords in that region. If you are so blind to think that Saddam never supported the terrorism then I guess ignorance is bliss.

[bishop]

we stopped going after terrorism the second that we stumbled into iraq. there are also bigger threats to our country in the forms of dependence on foreign oil, unsustainable budget deficits that threaten to destroy our entire economy in the long run, and the resurgence of russia and ascension of china as global powers..

[KSTornado]

No, I want my government to live up to, obey and understand the laws of the land... which prevent NON-DEFENSIVE WAR.... and the war in Iraq was NOT defensive.

The argument about a necessity of "pre-emptive" war demands EVIDENCE THAT IS TANGIBLE EXIST to vet that argument, BEFORE actions are taken.

The Constitution does not authorize "pre-emptive" war.


You are constructing your question in a way that attempts to say this is the "only" way this problem could have been handled, which is simply false.



Actually that is exactly what I am saying which is this IS the only way to deal with terrorism. Terrorist will never stop in trying to destroy our way of life and that is something many just do not seem to understand. It needs to be dealt with and there is only one way to deal with it. you can let it go and let it grow bigger but I garuntee if you do that within 10-15yrs we will be fighting it on our door step instead of overseas.

[KSTornado]

we stopped going after terrorism the second that we stumbled into iraq. there are also bigger threats to our country in the forms of dependence on foreign oil, unsustainable budget deficits that threaten to destroy our entire economy in the long run, and the resurgence of russia and ascension of china as global powers..



If the Democratic Congress would of dealt with issues they said they were going ot deal with to help the economy 2 years ago instead of doing nothing but try to investigate pointless issues in which nothing ever happens then our country would not be in the economic situation we face today.

[Osborn F. Enready]

KSTornado said:
Actually that is exactly what I am saying which is this IS the only way to deal with terrorism. Terrorist will never stop in trying to destroy our way of life and that is something many just do not seem to understand. It needs to be dealt with and there is only one way to deal with it.

The only way to deal with terrorism is to stomp it out when its found, IF IT IS WITHIN OUR POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

Our national defense FAILED on 9-11 because our troops are stationed in 155 countries around the world, instead of manning the fucking post in this country.

We have no right to invade sovereign nations based on the notion that some radicals may be living within it.....

KSTornado said:
you can let it go and let it grow bigger but I garuntee if you do that within 10-15yrs we will be fighting it on our door step instead of overseas.

Who is saying not to fight it? Not I.

I am saying we are LIMITED in how we can fight it, as are all nations who demand respect for their sovereignty.....

Our Constitution does not allow us to be "world policeman", nor is it our duty, in our intrests, or beneficial.

It only causes blowback....

[KSTornado]

The only way to deal with terrorism is to stomp it out when its found, IF IT IS WITHIN OUR POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

Our national defense FAILED on 9-11 because our troops are stationed in 155 countries around the world, instead of manning the fucking post in this country.

We have no right to invade sovereign nations based on the notion that some radicals may be living within it.....



Who is saying not to fight it? Not I.

I am saying we are LIMITED in how we can fight it, as are all nations who demand respect for their sovereignty.....

Our Constitution does not allow us to be "world policeman", nor is it our duty, in our intrests, or beneficial.

It only causes blowback....



Everyone has their own opinion on the subject. I respect yours.

[I Like Beer]

So you want the U.S. to stop going after terrorism and nations who promote terrorism so that the terrorist can revamp and grow back to the strength they were at prior to 9/11 and give them a chance to attack us again on our own soil?

Would you consider any leader who harboured or provided safety for a terrorist to be a criminal?

[KSTornado]

Would you consider any leader who harboured or provided safety for a terrorist to be a criminal?


Hmmm, is this a trick question?

[I Like Beer]

Hmmm, is this a trick question?

Of course :)

I just like to know if you think those who give Presidential Pardons to convicted terrorists (even when they're implicated in the killings of Americans) should be, I guess seen in a negative light.

You seem quite willing to go after other world leaders and countries who do it. I wouldn't want you invoking some kind of double standard, that's all.

[bishop]

If the Democratic Congress would of dealt with issues they said they were going ot deal with to help the economy 2 years ago instead of doing nothing but try to investigate pointless issues in which nothing ever happens then our country would not be in the economic situation we face today.

please spare me this partisan noise.. the republicans had 6 years of control and piled the debt sky high, with active help from the democrats. stop blaming other people for your party's dismal failures - be a man and hold them accountable.

[KSTornado]

Of course :)

I just like to know if you think those who give Presidential Pardons to convicted terrorists (even when they're implicated in the killings of Americans) should be, I guess seen in a negative light.

You seem quite willing to go after other world leaders and countries who do it. I wouldn't want you invoking some kind of double standard, that's all.



I think it depends on the situation. I would not think that a President of our country would give a Pardon to a terrorist who still continues terrorism therefore not making them a terrorist anymore. Do I agree with Pardons? No. There have been many Pardons I disagree with on both sides of the party lines and I do see it in a negative light but I think your original question has nothing to do with Presidential Pardons. Countries who harbor terrorism are usually terrorist nations in which the terrorist they are harbouring did nothing to their country. Completey 2 different subjects and ideas.

[KSTornado]

please spare me this partisan noise.. the republicans had 6 years of control and piled the debt sky high, with active help from the democrats. stop blaming other people for your party's dismal failures - be a man and hold them accountable.



Oh trust me, I do hold my party accountable when I see them do wrong. I hold my party accountable right now with who we have running for the highest offices in our land. I don't agree with any of the choices and personally I do not beleive in our system of government in today's age. I do not feel the people have a real say anymore in our government but that is just my personal opinion.

But if we are going to speak on partisan terms than I beleive what I said is true. Our economy in the last 2 years is much worse than it was the prior 6. Our Congress has a lot to do with that. if it were a Republic ran Congress right now I would be saying the same thing about them if oue economy was in this shape with them in control.

[bishop]

pray tell, do you continue to vote for these establishment politicians who continue to drown the country into debt while they continue to fail in fixing our many problems (social security, medicare, illegal immigration, etc..)? if you do, then you don't hold your party accountable - you reward them with reelection while paying them mere lip service about "accountability".

and on pure economic terms, rather than partisan drivel, the economy was never in great long-term shape. following the recession, the fed created the housing boom, enabled the bubble in the bond markets, greatly expanded money supplies to permit the government to pile on record levels of new debt, etc... anyone who knows one iota about economics knows full well that the policies enacted following the recession were not sustainable and would eventually result in big issues with regard to inflation and monetary instability.

[KSTornado]

I continue to vote for those I feel will keep war away from my door step as that is an important issue with me.

I find it hard to beleive though that Bush is the reason our economy is the way it is today but then again that is what most Democrats do is bash Bush for every single thing there is instead of look within their own party and find faults. Honestly if both parties could STFU and sit down and discuss the real issues when it comes to our economy instead of bickering then we would not be in this situation and I blame both parties for the partisanship we see today.

[Osborn F. Enready]

KSTornado said:
I continue to vote for those I feel will keep war away from my door step as that is an important issue with me.

I find it hard to beleive though that Bush is the reason our economy is the way it is today but then again that is what most Democrats do is bash Bush for every single thing there is instead of look within their own party and find faults. Honestly if both parties could STFU and sit down and discuss the real issues when it comes to our economy instead of bickering then we would not be in this situation and I blame both parties for the partisanship we see today.

I agree... I can't vote for either party though, for the reasons you just mentioned.

This man deserves my vote, but my bi-partisan state has rigged ballot access laws so badly I can't even write him in......

I will be voting for Bob Barr this election, against the two party monopoly.
http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=17638

[I Like Beer]

Countries who harbor terrorism are usually terrorist nations in which the terrorist they are harbouring did nothing to their country. Completey 2 different subjects and ideas.

Once again, terrorist states are in the eye of the beholder, right?

Don't you think the people of Iran in the 1950s or the people of Chile in the 19070s thought the US was a terrorist country when it helped to overthrow democratically elected governments to install brutal dictators who were pro US?

How about the people of Cuba when the US harbours Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carrilles, men who blew up a civilian airplane with over 70 innocent people aboard?

In 2005, Posada was held by U.S. authorities in Texas on the charge of illegal presence on national territory before the charges were dismissed on May 8, 2007. The U.S. Justice Department had urged the court to keep him in jail because he was "an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks", a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Look at the date - 2007!

By releasing Posada, the U.S. government has violated Security Council resolution 1373, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. That resolution mandates that all countries deny safe haven to those who commit terrorist acts, and ensure that they are brought to justice. These provisions of resolution 1373 are mandatory, as they were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The U.S. government has also violated three treaties that require it to extradite Posada to Venezuela for trial or try him in U.S. courts for offenses committed abroad.

Rep. William Delahunt has called for a congressional hearing to examine the U.S. government's role in promoting impunity in the Posada case. Delahunt sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting an explanation as to why the Justice Department did not invoke the USA Patriot Act to declare Posada a terrorist and detain him, stating, "The release of Mr. Posada puts into question our commitment to fight terrorism."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0510-08.htm

What do you think? Is the US really committed to fighting terrorism? Or, just when it's convenient?

In the case of Posada, Bush is definitely withthe terrorists. Wouldn't you say?

[bishop]

I find it hard to beleive though that Bush is the reason our economy is the way it is today but then again that is what most Democrats do is bash Bush for every single thing there is instead of look within their own party and find faults. Honestly if both parties could STFU and sit down and discuss the real issues when it comes to our economy instead of bickering then we would not be in this situation and I blame both parties for the partisanship we see today.

our economy is the way it is because of decades of foreign dependence on oil, decades of deficit spending on big government and decades of corporate welfare/government infringement on the economy. it is a product of the two-party establishment. most people, unfortunately, "think" in extremely narrow and short-sighted terms - and this prevents them from being able to connect the dots.

the problem with the actual members of the parties isn't their ideological differences, which i believe only exist based on their voting bases - it's the fact that they're primarily corporate shills pretending to represent we the people. the two parties win their power by encouraging partisan divisions, which is why comments like bush's "angry left" comments weren't all that surprising to hear. and on that note, it's interesting how you're chiding the establishment for the partisanship they created, despite posting a thread calling bush's speech "awesome".. makes me feel like i'm reading some hollow hot air.

[KSTornado]

Once again, terrorist states are in the eye of the beholder, right?

Don't you think the people of Iran in the 1950s or the people of Chile in the 19070s thought the US was a terrorist country when it helped to overthrow democratically elected governments to install brutal dictators who were pro US?

How about the people of Cuba when the US harbours Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carrilles, men who blew up a civilian airplane with over 70 innocent people aboard?

In 2005, Posada was held by U.S. authorities in Texas on the charge of illegal presence on national territory before the charges were dismissed on May 8, 2007. The U.S. Justice Department had urged the court to keep him in jail because he was "an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks", a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Look at the date - 2007!



http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0510-08.htm

What do you think? Is the US really committed to fighting terrorism? Or, just when it's convenient?

In the case of Posada, Bush is definitely withthe terrorists. Wouldn't you say?


First off I would never say that Bush is with the terrorists. Secondly, this could be conditional as in he gave a lot of info that has helped the U.S but honestly I am uneducated in that matter so I should just not make an uninformed comment on it.

As for what past Presidents have done all I can say is that we can only hope the future is brighter but I can say that the U.S. is not the only nation to help topple other governments or regimes. Do I condone it? Depends on the situation and if it makes for a better world.

[KSTornado]

the problem with the actual members of the parties isn't their ideological differences, which i believe only exist based on their voting bases - it's the fact that they're primarily corporate shills pretending to represent we the people. the two parties win their power by encouraging partisan divisions, which is why comments like bush's "angry left" comments weren't all that surprising to hear. and on that note, it's interesting how you're chiding the establishment for the partisanship they created, despite posting a thread calling bush's speech "awesome".. makes me feel like i'm reading some hollow hot air.



Apparently you did not understand the reason why I made this thread. It's original purpose was to parody another thread in which does nothing but bash Bush. I for one like a lot of what Bush has done. There are some things I don't like that he has done as well. Not every Republican shares the complete Republican views on issues. I for one feel I am a mix of Republican/Independant.

I do however completely agree with your statement on how the politicians are basically corporate shills which is why I do not like our way of government anymore for the people really do not have a voice anymore which is why I personally feel we should get rid of delegates and make it a true vote of the people on many issues such as Health Reform, Immigration issues and other issues that face our economy. Something that effects the country as a whole should be decided by the people of that country, not just one person. Unfortunately that would take up a lot of people's time in having to vote constantly which is why we have the system we have now. So what can you do? Get rid of the career of being a politician and make it a service of the people the way it was intended to be. Give term limits to all offices. Just an idea that would never take hold but in my personal mind, it would be a start in the right direction in giving back for the people, by the people and of the people.

[bishop]

first off, apologies for the misinterpretation.. i didn't read the content and ignorantly responded solely to the thread's title.

second, i have completely given up on the two-party system as the only thing that can be counted on from them is more of the same. and in that regard, to borrow some mud from obama's campaign, mccain has voted with bush 90% of the time - and therefore does represent more of the same. if one thinks that the country is headed in the wrong direction, why vote for someone who's partially the reason why we are where we are?

[KSTornado]

Honestly I don't feel I am going to vote for McCain or Obama this year. This may be the first year I chose to vote None of the Above and just not vote. McCain voted towards Bush policies most of the time because he would tie in military issues which McCain will always support the military. I like that he tries to work with both parties but there are a lot of things I disagree with him on and one of the is the immigration stance he poses. I just cannot bring myself to vote for Obama because of his past so that leaves me in no mans land for I cannot vote for Ron Paul because well, I think he is just plain nuts. If McCain would of picked Romney as his VP I would of probably voted for him mostly because I feel he would of leaned on Romney for econmic issues which we are in dire need of and I just do not feel Obama knows what to do with that either.

Voting the lesser of two evils is just not valid anymore in my mind as well. I feel that is how we got where we are today after people have been voting the lesser of 2 evils for over 60 years.

[I Like Beer]

First off I would never say that Bush is with the terrorists.

Why?

Read this again....

By releasing Posada, the U.S. government has violated Security Council resolution 1373, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. That resolution mandates that all countries deny safe haven to those who commit terrorist acts, and ensure that they are brought to justice

How can you sit there with a straight face and say 'Bush would never be with the terrorists'? They released him over the objections of their own Justice Department. The violated the very international law the US helped to forge. How can you defend that?

Secondly, this could be conditional as in he gave a lot of info that has helped the U.S but honestly I am uneducated in that matter so I should just not make an uninformed comment on it.

What information?

I realize you don't know much about issues like Posada and Orlando Bosch... That's because you have to dig for these things. It's examples like this that make me laugh when the right complains of some kind of anti-American liberal media. If that were the case, Posada's release would have been EVERYWHERE. Would that not be so?

What about when Madeline Albright apologized to the people of Iran? Or when Colin Powell apologized to the people of Chile? Were those events widely covered? By the way, the both apologized for the US's role in toppling their democratically elected governments and installing murderous dictators. I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard about these public acts of contrition.

As for what past Presidents have done all I can say is that we can only hope the future is brighter but I can say that the U.S. is not the only nation to help topple other governments or regimes. Do I condone it? Depends on the situation and if it makes for a better world.

You'd be right about that - other countries like Britain have done it. Does that make it alright? Is it forgiven now?

Well, ask yourself this.... why did the Iranians capture the American embassy in the late 1980s? Would they (Iran) be so anti-west now, if we had recognized their democratically elected government 50 years ago, and instead of crushing it, had tried to work with it? Is the world better now because of those actions?

[theoutsider]

Voting the lesser of two evils is just not valid anymore in my mind as well. I feel that is how we got where we are today after people have been voting the lesser of 2 evils for over 60 years.

This is something I seem to have read a few times on these forums now - and it strikes a chord with me.
As an idealist of some sort, or at least as a person who values principle - this is probably my more natural response to the current election campaign. Yet, I can't help but think that the stakes really are too high this time. Screw the media and the usual hype: just looking at history - this is a fairly decisive election - if you're willing to look beyond the United States.
We're at one of those moments in history, where your country will decide on a path that will determine what the rest of the world makes of it, for many years to come. It's hard to describe to people quite how extreme the shift in opinion has been over the last 6-7 years. While the policies of its nation should be separated from the character of its populace, the middle class seldom does that. It's fair to say, the middle class across the middle-east, continental europe and asia is of the opinion that america has failed the world. that is has no moral standing in the world, that its a nation of hypocrites and superficial folks who don't understand the depth of human history or the consequences of their actions. Of the two candidates, neither will change an awful lot: but, Obama will change how your country is perceived.
Does this matter? In today's world, I'm convinced it does. It's of profound importance really, because the middle classes of today form the politicians of tomorrow and a world with such hatred for all things American is sure to lead to politicians who start to represent this anti-americanism. As an outsider, I can only suggest that this does appear to be a moment of profound historical importance and McCain getting elected would take us (the whole world) down a very painful path.

[KSTornado]

Why?

Read this again....



How can you sit there with a straight face and say 'Bush would never be with the terrorists'? They released him over the objections of their own Justice Department. The violated the very international law the US helped to forge. How can you defend that?



What information?

I realize you don't know much about issues like Posada and Orlando Bosch... That's because you have to dig for these things. It's examples like this that make me laugh when the right complains of some kind of anti-American liberal media. If that were the case, Posada's release would have been EVERYWHERE. Would that not be so?

What about when Madeline Albright apologized to the people of Iran? Or when Colin Powell apologized to the people of Chile? Were those events widely covered? By the way, the both apologized for the US's role in toppling their democratically elected governments and installing murderous dictators. I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard about these public acts of contrition.



You'd be right about that - other countries like Britain have done it. Does that make it alright? Is it forgiven now?

Well, ask yourself this.... why did the Iranians capture the American embassy in the late 1980s? Would they (Iran) be so anti-west now, if we had recognized their democratically elected government 50 years ago, and instead of crushing it, had tried to work with it? Is the world better now because of those actions?


I just feel that way. Every American has a right to think and feel what they want. As for what happened 20 yrs ago I could care less because you cannot change it. Only thing you can do is learn from it. But as for International Law we see how well that actually works as other nations, not just the U.S., violate International Laws daily.

[KSTornado]

This is something I seem to have read a few times on these forums now - and it strikes a chord with me.
As an idealist of some sort, or at least as a person who values principle - this is probably my more natural response to the current election campaign. Yet, I can't help but think that the stakes really are too high this time. Screw the media and the usual hype: just looking at history - this is a fairly decisive election - if you're willing to look beyond the United States.
We're at one of those moments in history, where your country will decide on a path that will determine what the rest of the world makes of it, for many years to come. It's hard to describe to people quite how extreme the shift in opinion has been over the last 6-7 years. While the policies of its nation should be separated from the character of its populace, the middle class seldom does that. It's fair to say, the middle class across the middle-east, continental europe and asia is of the opinion that america has failed the world. that is has no moral standing in the world, that its a nation of hypocrites and superficial folks who don't understand the depth of human history or the consequences of their actions. Of the two candidates, neither will change an awful lot: but, Obama will change how your country is perceived.
Does this matter? In today's world, I'm convinced it does. It's of profound importance really, because the middle classes of today form the politicians of tomorrow and a world with such hatred for all things American is sure to lead to politicians who start to represent this anti-americanism. As an outsider, I can only suggest that this does appear to be a moment of profound historical importance and McCain getting elected would take us (the whole world) down a very painful path.


I appreciate your well thought opinion but I just cannot bring myself to vote for Obama. I have a huge problem with voting someone into office that went to a church that is racist and hates America for over 20yrs. You cannot tell me that someone sits there for 20 yrs and does not feel the same way as the church does and then puts the Reveren of that church on his caimpain as a spiritual advisor. If it were not for that I might be able to vote Obama but I just have severe issues with him not leaving that church the minute he heard those kind of remarks Rev. Wright made in the past. It took him running for office and the media bringing this church to light in order for him to condone it. I just have a big issue with that.

[bishop]

i definitely agree with that, along with my problems regarding his voting record..

Honestly I don't feel I am going to vote for McCain or Obama this year. This may be the first year I chose to vote None of the Above and just not vote. McCain voted towards Bush policies most of the time because he would tie in military issues which McCain will always support the military. I like that he tries to work with both parties but there are a lot of things I disagree with him on and one of the is the immigration stance he poses. I just cannot bring myself to vote for Obama because of his past so that leaves me in no mans land for I cannot vote for Ron Paul because well, I think he is just plain nuts. If McCain would of picked Romney as his VP I would of probably voted for him mostly because I feel he would of leaned on Romney for econmic issues which we are in dire need of and I just do not feel Obama knows what to do with that either.

Voting the lesser of two evils is just not valid anymore in my mind as well. I feel that is how we got where we are today after people have been voting the lesser of 2 evils for over 60 years.

well, i make no effort to hide my disdain for the two-party supporters (hence my signature). given that so many people can't amass the courage to vote outside the establishment, i'm going to vote third party. the two-party establishment has consistently failed the nation, and at the very minimum, needs a swift reality check. also, i want to see third parties become more prominent, receive federal funding, and have a voice at the debates. this is the only way for real change to occur - so long as it's democrats vs. republicans on corporate sponsored debates, we're going to be left with the typical tabloid-as-usual politics.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Do you mean like the US which harbours terrorists in Miami who commit their terrorist acts against Cuba?

Or those who commit their terrorists acts against those governments in south America that won't do as they are told.

[Dawkinsrocks]

What about stealth bombers?

How are they different to suicide bombers?

Apart from the fact that they kill and maim thousands more people at a time?

[KSTornado]

i definitely agree with that, along with my problems regarding his voting record..



well, i make no effort to hide my disdain for the two-party supporters (hence my signature). given that so many people can't amass the courage to vote outside the establishment, i'm going to vote third party. the two-party establishment has consistently failed the nation, and at the very minimum, needs a swift reality check. also, i want to see third parties become more prominent, receive federal funding, and have a voice at the debates. this is the only way for real change to occur - so long as it's democrats vs. republicans on corporate sponsored debates, we're going to be left with the typical tabloid-as-usual politics.



I agree. I do wish a Third Party to be more funded as I feel a lot of Americans wish to have more choices when it comes to the Presidency. Unfortunately, the Independents have not had a candidate that I would vote for either.

[KSTornado]

What about stealth bombers?

How are they different to suicide bombers?

Apart from the fact that they kill and maim thousands more people at a time?


Well first off, a stealth bomber targets enemy combatants whereas a suicide bomber just walks into a store or on a bus with innocent people on it and blows themselves up killing innocent people. Yes, a stealth bomber sometimes kills innocent people which I know you would say that in response but the main fact is that they do not target them, suicide bombers do which is why it is called terrorism.

[bishop]

realistically, no third party candidate seems to have any chance of winning in this election - so a vote for third party should be regarded as a vote for the party, rather than its nominated candidate.

[KSTornado]

True. I think I understand what you are saying here. Try to get as many votes for a 3rd party as possible to get recognition that it can be a viable Party in order to try to get funding for the next election?

[I Like Beer]

I just feel that way. Every American has a right to think and feel what they want.

Sure. But you would extend the same courtesy to people in other countries, would you not? The people of Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Indonesia, etc... they have the right to see America as a terrorist state?

You have no problem with that?

As for what happened 20 yrs ago I could care less because you cannot change it.

You also can't change 9/11. Do you not care about that either?

Point being, while you may be ready to 'forgive and forget', why would those effected by US foreign policy be ready to do that?

Don't you think that what's happening in Iran, right now, could be directly related the the coup in the 1950s? (Bush threatened WWIII over Iran/Nuclear issue - doesn't that effect you, now?)

But as for International Law we see how well that actually works as other nations, not just the U.S., violate International Laws daily.

So what are you saying? The US doesn't need to follow the law because some brutal dictators ignore it? Is that really your position? Then why have any laws at all since they don't need to apply to the US? Why should anyone follow international law if the US ignores it whenever it suits its purposes?

Wasn't one of the stated reasons for the Iraq invasion the fact that it (Iraq) was in violation of Security Council resolution 1441? (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

How is the US's refusal to follow UN SC resolution 1373 different than Iraq's refusal to follow 1441? Is it hypocrisy plain and simple? Seems like it to me.

[KSTornado]

Sure. But you would extend the same courtesy to people in other countries, would you not? The people of Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Indonesia, etc... they have the right to see America as a terrorist state?

You have no problem with that?



You also can't change 9/11. Do you not care about that either?

Point being, while you may be ready to 'forgive and forget', why would those effected by US foreign policy be ready to do that?

Don't you think that what's happening in Iran, right now, could be directly related the the coup in the 1950s? (Bush threatened WWIII over Iran/Nuclear issue - doesn't that effect you, now?)



So what are you saying? The US doesn't need to follow the law because some brutal dictators ignore it? Is that really your position? Then why have any laws at all since they don't need to apply to the US? Why should anyone follow international law if the US ignores it whenever it suits its purposes?

Wasn't one of the stated reasons for the Iraq invasion the fact that it (Iraq) was in violation of Security Council resolution 1441? (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

How is the US's refusal to follow UN SC resolution 1373 different than Iraq's refusal to follow 1441? Is it hypocrisy plain and simple? Seems like it to me.



I see your point here since you continue to pressure me on these issues but you seem to like to live in the past when the only hope for these type of things not happening again is in the future.

When the world speaks up on whether a country broke a resolution then I would have to say yes, a resolution had been broken and that country needs to suffer the consequences but when only 1 or 2 countries feel that someone broke a resolution then it is hard for me to feel that a resolution was broken. Iraq broke resolution after resolution. I think they broke 13 to be exact but I may be wrong on that number. I do like however that you assume my position. I seem to notice that a lot of people on these forums "assume" what I feel and like to post what they assume making themselves look arrogant and ignorant.


I have no problem with other countries looking at us as a terrorist nation for most of those countries are not able to even speak freely due to communism. This world is a lot like our national politics. There is a partisan in our politics just like there is a partisan in the world. Until you can unite leaders of the world and come to agreements for peace which ultimately benefits all economies and nations then you will never see peace and you will see acts such as this happen. Now please pick this post apart like you have all other posts of mine in this thread and continue to turn my words around assuming that is what I meant.

[Stoner]

This thread is mostly in retort to the thread despising Bush's speach. i felt a Republican's view on it was warranted so I gave it.

That thread is just typical libbie rhetoric you'll find on here in every thread. Best just use the scroll button to bypass crap like that. You'll learn quickly who to give no mind to.

[KSTornado]

That thread is just yypical libbie rhetoric you'll find on here in every thread. Best just use the scroll button to bypass crap like that. You'll learn quickly who to give no mind to.



I am starting to notice that. It seems that whenever I post now that a number of "Democrats" seem to jump on me and twist my words all around and smear me. I feel like a real Republican politician now.:nana:

[I Like Beer]

I see your point here since you continue to pressure me on these issues but you seem to like to live in the past when the only hope for these type of things not happening again is in the future.

Uhmm, the Posada thing happened in 2007. That's years AFTER the President said, 'you are either with us, or you or with the terrorists'. To me, 2007 is not the past. Plus, the past shows how US foreign policy has evolved and what is likely to happen in the future.

When the world speaks up on whether a country broke a resolution then I would have to say yes, a resolution had been broken and that country needs to suffer the consequences

I never said the US should be invaded and toppled. I'm only curious as to why the US gets to break SC resolutions with impunity? The reason you seemed to give was, because others do it. If that is wrong, please clarify. What consequences should the US suffer for breaking this resolution?

I do like however that you assume my position. I seem to notice that a lot of people on these forums "assume" what I feel and like to post what they assume making themselves look arrogant and ignorant.

I'm sorry if that offends you, it isn't my intention. I'm only trying to understand your POV as best as I can. I don't purposefully put words in anyone's mouth, and as much as I can, I ask for clarification. One way to see if I understand, is to reflect back to you what I'm hearing so you can correct me. If I've made an assumption on your position that is in error, please correct it. I would do the same.

I have no problem with other countries looking at us as a terrorist nation for most of those countries are not able to even speak freely due to communism.

In a recent poll, President Bush was seen as more dangerous than either the leaders of Iran or North Korea. This poll was conducted among citizens of a US ally, Great Britain. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/03/terrorism.northkorea)

True, they didn't call Bush a terrorists, but when asked who is a danger to peace, he was only beaten by Bin Laden.

Now please pick this post apart like you have all other posts of mine in this thread and continue to turn my words around assuming that is what I meant.

Once again, if I've offended you, I"m sorry. If I've misinterpreted your meaning, please set me straight.

[bishop]

True. I think I understand what you are saying here. Try to get as many votes for a 3rd party as possible to get recognition that it can be a viable Party in order to try to get funding for the next election?

exactly.

personally, i actively (and financially) supported paul's campaign for the nomination - despite the fact that i don't agree with paul on every single issue. i do generally support two things that he and many "hard-core" libertarians disdain: international organizations and fiat money. granted, i can elaborate my views a bit more, but that's besides the point... the point is that as third parties get more support from voters, and consequentially national recognition, they won't be as "fringe" as they currently seem to be. but, they will at the very least help steer the country in a better direction. i'd take watered down change over more of the same from the two-party establishment any day of the week. if only the ~50% of the nonvoting public actually got up off their asses and cast a vote for an alternative..

[I Like Beer]

That thread is just yypical libbie rhetoric you'll find on here in every thread. Best just use the scroll button to bypass crap like that. You'll learn quickly who to give no mind to.

LOL... "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot, you're black."

[KSTornado]

Uhmm, the Posada thing happened in 2007. That's years AFTER the President said, 'you are either with us, or you or with the terrorists'. To me, 2007 is not the past. Plus, the past shows how US foreign policy has evolved and what is likely to happen in the future.



I never said the US should be invaded and toppled. I'm only curious as to why the US gets to break SC resolutions with impunity? The reason you seemed to give was, because others do it. If that is wrong, please clarify. What consequences should the US suffer for breaking this resolution?



I'm sorry if that offends you, it isn't my intention. I'm only trying to understand your POV as best as I can. I don't purposefully put words in anyone's mouth, and as much as I can, I ask for clarification. One way to see if I understand, is to reflect back to you what I'm hearing so you can correct me. If I've made an assumption on your position that is in error, please correct it. I would do the same.



In a recent poll, President Bush was seen as more dangerous than either the leaders of Iran or North Korea. This poll was conducted among citizens of a US ally, Great Britain. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/03/terrorism.northkorea)

True, they didn't call Bush a terrorists, but when asked who is a danger to peace, he was only beaten by Bin Laden.



Once again, if I've offended you, I"m sorry. If I've misinterpreted your meaning, please set me straight.


The reason you do not know my POV is because you have not read into what I have posted. My POV is in my posts. I never said I condone what has been done in the past and I never said the US gets immunity because others do it either. I was just merely stating that it seems everyone always wants to blame the US on world matters when there are other factors in play. Frankly I am done with this discussion for I feel no matter what I say you will break it apart if I do not agree with you and continue just for arguements sake. We disagree on certain matters. No point in continueing the arguement when either side will not change on their view of it.

[I Like Beer]

That thread is just yypical libbie rhetoric you'll find on here in every thread. Best just use the scroll button to bypass crap like that. You'll learn quickly who to give no mind to.

The US breaking international Security Resolutions that it helped enact, Bush harbouring terrorists over the objections of his own Justice Department - yeah, empty liberal rhetoric. :)

I know you won't respond to this post, you never do. (Excuse me while I light up a joint and not have to worry about becoming a criminal because I live in a liberal country. :))

[KSTornado]

exactly.

personally, i actively (and financially) supported paul's campaign for the nomination - despite the fact that i don't agree with paul on every single issue. i do generally support two things that he and many "hard-core" libertarians disdain: international organizations and fiat money. granted, i can elaborate my views a bit more, but that's besides the point... the point is that as third parties get more support from voters, and consequentially national recognition, they won't be as "fringe" as they currently seem to be. but, they will at the very least help steer the country in a better direction. i'd take watered down change over more of the same from the two-party establishment any day of the week. if only the ~50% of the nonvoting public actually got up off their asses and cast a vote for an alternative..


I think your and my views are greatly simular in some areas. you may of convinced me to vote Paul moslty to just help voice a dislike for the way the 2 party system is and what it has done to our country.

[I Like Beer]

The reason you do not know my POV is because you have not read into what I have posted. My POV is in my posts. I never said I condone what has been done in the past and I never said the US gets immunity because others do it either. I was just merely stating that it seems everyone always wants to blame the US on world matters when there are other factors in play. Frankly I am done with this discussion for I feel no matter what I say you will break it apart if I do not agree with you and continue just for arguements sake. We disagree on certain matters. No point in continueing the arguement when either side will not change on their view of it.

Again I apologize.

Take this statement for example.

But as for International Law we see how well that actually works as other nations, not just the U.S., violate International Laws daily.

I took it to mean that since others break international law, the US can, too, and I asked you confirm if that was the case. You set me straight and said that those who break resolutions should face the consequence, something I agree with, so I asked 'what consequences should the US face'? I thought that was progress in understanding your position.

As for me not changing my mind, you haven't given me any reason. Why did the US overthrow democratically elected governments? Why does Bush harbour a terrorist? You said they may have gotten information from him, so I asked, 'what information'? Surely you see that's too vague for me to change my position.

It's true that since I don't consume US media, I actually hear about these events. (I don't think the US media gives attention to things like this - it doesn't sell papers.) So I do have you at a disadvantage.

I'm sorry if you feel hard done by and it's too bad this discussion is over. I don't think anyone else on the right will even touch this subject. So, I congratulate you for sticking with it as long as you did.

[KSTornado]

Again I apologize.

Take this statement for example.



I took it to mean that since others break international law, the US can, too, and I asked you confirm if that was the case. You set me straight and said that those who break resolutions should face the consequence, something I agree with, so I asked 'what consequences should the US face'? I thought that was progress in understanding your position.

As for me not changing my mind, you haven't given me any reason. Why did the US overthrow democratically elected governments? Why does Bush harbour a terrorist? You said they may have gotten information from him, so I asked, 'what information'? Surely you see that's too vague for me to change my position.

It's true that since I don't consume US media, I actually hear about these events. (I don't think the US media gives attention to things like this - it doesn't sell papers.) So I do have you at a disadvantage.

I'm sorry if you feel hard done by and it's too bad this discussion is over. I don't think anyone else on the right will even touch this subject. So, I congratulate you for sticking with it as long as you did.

I do feel that if the world feels the US violated a resolution then we should be held accountable in helping find this person and help bring him to justice but I aslo stated that if the world does not think this then the US is at no fault.


As for overthrowing Democratically elected governments I feel some of those "Democratic" elections were rigged just like in Iraq for fear if they didn't vote for that person they would be killed hence communism or a dictatorship. The same could be said for Cuba. If Cubans loved Fidel Castro so much then why did and do so many flee to America? You have to look at the circumstances at which the supposid "Democratic" voting went and if it were truly a Democratic state or country. I feel Iran is not a Democratic society and feel the US knew that a regime was on the rise which is why back in '50 the US did what they did.

[I Like Beer]

I do feel that if the world feels the US violated a resolution then we should be held accountable in helping find this person and help bring him to justice but I aslo stated that if the world does not think this then the US is at no fault.

Thanks. But, it's not just the world, it's your own Justice Department, too. He was released over their objections. As I posted before there was at least one Congressman asking for an investigation. Both Posada and Bosch live comfortably in Miami, they are heroes to the Cuban community. Bosch, remember, blew up a car in Philadelphia (IIRC) and killed an American girl named Ronni Moffitt.

I think if the US wants credibility when it comes to cracking down on terrorists, it should clean up its own house first.


As for overthrowing Democratically elected governments I feel some of those "Democratic" elections were rigged just like in Iraq for fear if they didn't vote for that person they would be killed...

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the elections in Iran or Chile were anything but fair. If they weren't, why would Albright and Powell apologize for them? If the elections weren't fair, the coups may have been justified, but Albright and Powell certainly didn't think so. In fact, Secretary Rice (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/45418.htm), while not apologizing tried to explain it this way in 2005.

But I do think that the United States has said, in several cases, that this was not our finest hour. We recognize that. We recognize that our support for democracy has not always been as strong as it should be, either in Latin America or, for instance, in the Middle East,

If Cubans loved Fidel Castro so much then why did and do so many flee to America? You have to look at the circumstances at which the supposid "Democratic" voting went and if it were truly a Democratic state or country.

You'd have to ask them why they leave. I could make assumptions on why they do but I try not to do that. Well, we could also get into US support for non-democratic countries, too. That would be a long list - Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Hussein in Iraq.... The point is, there is a huge disconnect between what the US says it stands for and what it does stand for. The rest of the world, we whose vision is not obscured with patriotism for the US, see that clearly.

This doesn't mean we hate the US. We just ask that your country be honest and consistent. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I feel Iran is not a Democratic society and feel the US knew that a regime was on the rise which is why back in '50 the US did what they did.

The great irony is, Iran was an emerging Democracy. It had a Monarch, the Shah, but popular elections were being held. Secular (secular is better, IMHO) elections. But, because of the coup and the reinstatement of the Shah, the Iranian people were brutalized, mistreated, and sent back 100 years. To overthrow this killer, they backed a Religious Zealot and now they are a Theocracy (all Theocracies are dangerous, IMHO).

The regime that's in Iran today, was not around 50 years ago, and had the US/Britain/France done the right thing - they probably wouldn't be there today being a threat.

[piratemonkey]

The regime that's in Iran today, was not around 50 years ago, and had the US/Britain/France done the right thing - they probably wouldn't be there today being a threat.

This is historical fact.

If you don't know this simple fact, KS... sit down.

[KSTornado]

This is historical fact.

If you don't know this simple fact, KS... sit down.


Um, when did I say I did not like this and why the rude comment? Thanks for jumping in our discussion though just to throw a jab at someone.

[KSTornado]

Thanks. But, it's not just the world, it's your own Justice Department, too. He was released over their objections. As I posted before there was at least one Congressman asking for an investigation. Both Posada and Bosch live comfortably in Miami, they are heroes to the Cuban community. Bosch, remember, blew up a car in Philadelphia (IIRC) and killed an American girl named Ronni Moffitt.

I think if the US wants credibility when it comes to cracking down on terrorists, it should clean up its own house first.




I've seen no evidence to suggest that the elections in Iran or Chile were anything but fair. If they weren't, why would Albright and Powell apologize for them? If the elections weren't fair, the coups may have been justified, but Albright and Powell certainly didn't think so. In fact, Secretary Rice (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/45418.htm), while not apologizing tried to explain it this way in 2005.





You'd have to ask them why they leave. I could make assumptions on why they do but I try not to do that. Well, we could also get into US support for non-democratic countries, too. That would be a long list - Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Hussein in Iraq.... The point is, there is a huge disconnect between what the US says it stands for and what it does stand for. The rest of the world, we whose vision is not obscured with patriotism for the US, see that clearly.

This doesn't mean we hate the US. We just ask that your country be honest and consistent. I don't think that's too much to ask.



The great irony is, Iran was an emerging Democracy. It had a Monarch, the Shah, but popular elections were being held. Secular (secular is better, IMHO) elections. But, because of the coup and the reinstatement of the Shah, the Iranian people were brutalized, mistreated, and sent back 100 years. To overthrow this killer, they backed a Religious Zealot and now they are a Theocracy (all Theocracies are dangerous, IMHO).

The regime that's in Iran today, was not around 50 years ago, and had the US/Britain/France done the right thing - they probably wouldn't be there today being a threat.



I personally do not beleive that an election in Iran is fair with the regime that runs that country. That is just my personal opinion on that matter and not one of my party.

I also feel that the reason for inconsistantcies in the past is because of the way our government is ran. When you have 2 styles of Parties with different ideas you are going to have irregularties when a different party takes office. That is about the only thing in my mind that could be a reason for it.

[piratemonkey]

Um, when did I say I did not like this and why the rude comment? Thanks for jumping in our discussion though just to throw a jab at someone.

That's what I'm hear for.

When I see historically inaccurate statement like this, I feel obligated to respond:
I feel Iran is not a Democratic society and feel the US knew that a regime was on the rise which is why back in '50 the US did what they did.

And I notice you don't defend your statement in your response.

At least you know when you're wrong, even if you can't admit it.

[I Like Beer]

I personally do not beleive that an election in Iran is fair with the regime that runs that country. That is just my personal opinion on that matter and not one of my party.

KS, the election was over 50 years ago, when Eisenhower was President. The regime that currently runs Iran, did not exist then. Mossadeq headed, for the most part, a secular government.

I also feel that the reason for inconsistantcies in the past is because of the way our government is ran. When you have 2 styles of Parties with different ideas you are going to have irregularties when a different party takes office. That is about the only thing in my mind that could be a reason for it.

Actually, both parties have been guilty of this, not just the Republicans.

IMO, America has to own up to these things. It has to realize that much of the hatred and anger directed toward it, are a result of these actions. You know, if you invaded Canada, and installed a murderous dictator 50 years ago, I'd pretty much hate you, too.

[KSTornado]

That's what I'm hear for.

When I see historically inaccurate statement like this, I feel obligated to respond:


And I notice you don't defend your statement in your response.

At least you know when you're wrong, even if you can't admit it.



Thank you for your 2 cents. It was well worth it.

[KSTornado]

KS, the election was over 50 years ago, when Eisenhower was President. The regime that currently runs Iran, did not exist then. Mossadeq headed, for the most part, a secular government.



Actually, both parties have been guilty of this, not just the Republicans.

IMO, America has to own up to these things. It has to realize that much of the hatred and anger directed toward it, are a result of these actions. You know, if you invaded Canada, and installed a murderous dictator 50 years ago, I'd pretty much hate you, too.


Again though I must reiterate that I just do not share the same opinion as you on this which is why I am done with this arguement since it is getting no one anywhere.

[piratemonkey]

Again though I must reiterate that I just do not share the same opinion as you on this which is why I am done with this arguement since it is getting no one anywhere.

:)

Catch 'em in a blatant historical mistake and they run away.

Gotta love 'em.


Hey, how's the whine taste with those sour grapes? ;)

[KSTornado]

:)

Catch 'em in a blatant historical mistake and they run away.

Gotta love 'em.


Hey, how's the whine taste with those sour grapes? ;)



Actually no but I will let you look like an ass anyways.

[I Like Beer]

Again though I must reiterate that I just do not share the same opinion as you on this which is why I am done with this arguement since it is getting no one anywhere.

Again, this topic is dripping with US hypocrisy and these things can't really can't be defended (which is why no one will ever debate this stuff). They just get swept under the rug as, 'things that happened'. This is why the world gets uncomfortable when Bush says, "God is on our side", because the implication is, "everything the US does, by definition, is correct". Well, history shows that the US backs who it wants, when it wants, and it continually tries to hold the rest of the world to a standard it isn't prepared to meet. Now that's hypocrisy.

Still, if the US is going to be despised, I think it's important you see the genesis of that. Even if you don't think it's that bad, certainly you must be able to see why those who were exposed to these terrors hate you. They don't hate 'freedom' as your President claims, they hate you. They hate that you stole freedom from them.

As an outside observer not wearing the blinders of Patriotism, I find it hard to argue with their logic.

Thanks for sticking with it as long as you did. I haven't seen anyone else with the courage, or stomach, to do it. It's hard to look in the mirror and see something so ugly staring back at you.

[nevadamedic]

So you want the U.S. to stop going after terrorism and nations who promote terrorism so that the terrorist can revamp and grow back to the strength they were at prior to 9/11 and give them a chance to attack us again on our own soil?

Unfortunately that is the Democrat mindset. I mean come on we had slick Willy in office for 8 years and he had several chances to get Bin Laden, but he never did. That is their mentality. They would rather have an attack that kills thousands of American men women and children then go to war. They would rather protect the people who killed our men women and children then seek justice. It really makes me think that deep down inside they cheered that dark day in September.

[Osborn F. Enready]

nevadamedic said:
Unfortunately that is the Democrat mindset. I mean come on we had slick Willy in office for 8 years and he had several chances to get Bin Laden, but he never did. That is their mentality. They would rather have an attack that kills thousands of American men women and children then go to war. They would rather protect the people who killed our men women and children then seek justice. It really makes me think that deep down inside they cheered that dark day in September.

Could one make a more blindly partisan argument?

[nevadamedic]

Could one make a more blindly partisan argument?

Im sure I could if you want.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Don't bother Nevadamedic, I think the last one you made will suffice....

[Osborn F. Enready]

(edit, double post)