> the rest of the world watches news - america watches fox
I don't tend to watch TV news very often, but I don't see what's so bad with Fox News. The only complaint I've really seen leveled at Fox is that sometimes they cover stories CNN won't.
Also that their opinion programs give voice to Conservative (as well Liberal) viewpoints.
I'm not a shareholder. I'm not a consumer. I'm a citizen.
A citizen is like a shareholder, except you're even more vested in the "company".
Bush has a very selective ear as to which citizens he will work for. They generally have bank accounts with balances that exceed 7 digits. Everyone else gets table scraps and a pat on the head.
As opposed to Kerry? Ha!
$600 is an insulting bid for my vote. My health insurance went up a hell of a lot more than that in 4 years. As did my state and local taxes to cover what the feds cut back.
Tort reform is needed to drive health care costs down. Socialized healthcare will never get passed, and guess who's in the pocket of trial lawyers.
Also, why would your state increase taxes just because the federal government lowered them? Makes no sense.
My my, the anti-Bush crowd is working themselves up into quite a froth. We haven't seen this level of insanity since the 1984 presidential election with Reagan.
The sanctions were being bypassed by a corrupt Food-for-Oil plan. While you're right that if we repealed Food-for-Oil the sanctions might have started working again, there was still the matter of getting France, Germany, and Russia to agree to that. And since those nations were the primary benefactors of the Food-for-Oil corruption money, that seems unlikely.
As for priority, I'd still like to believe that our military can do two things at once.
Good god, that's the worst thing you have to say about Afghanistan? That radical remnants tried (and failed miserably) to derail the election?
And, while every death is sad, the soldier deaths in Iraq are militarily insignificant. The only negative effect they've had is to give rhetorical fodder to people like you.
Also, yes, MSNBC and the BBC were mislead, as they are on a regular basis. I can't find a link on the CIA web site at the moment, but you probably wouldn't change your mind anyways.
Who said Afghanistan and Iraq were messes? Afghanistan just had successful elections, and Iraq's elections are on track despite Islamo-fascist efforts. The terrorists in Iraq themselves have gained the enmity of the general populace, even in places like Falluja.
You realize that if he gets re-elected he's going to beat his chest and attack Iran, and possibly Syria and North Korea too.
Well, his opposition has criticized him for not invading Iran and North Korea, so I'd be more worried about a Kerry presidency doing so.
You also repeat the myth that the CIA provided aid and training to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. But this is not true, both the CIA and Osama himself agree.
Attacking Pakistan is a monementally bad idea, for reasons that should be obvious.
You seem to be certain that Iran has a WMD program. And indeed, the signs are all there -- but the signs were there for Iraq too. What if we invaded Iran and nothing was found?
Iran is a growing problem, but it isn't in the same precarious position Iraq was, what with the tenuous ceasefire, sanctions, no-fly zones, blocked inspections, oil-for-food corruption...
Unless you think that the sanctions, no-fly-zones, and inspections were supposed to be permanent, then you have to see that the resumption of hostilities was inevitable. The only other options were Saddam turning over a new leaf, or the United States letting him out of his obligations.
> If we didn't have 130,000 troops in Iraq, we would have.... 130,000!!!! more troops available to use in Afghanistan.
So you want there to be 130,000!!!! U.S. troops in Afghanistan, doing crime patrols and other non-Osama-related tasks? Do you even know how many troops we actually need to hunt al-Qaeda in the Afghan-Pakistan border region? You probably have no clue, and yet go on criticizing anyway.
Plus it's not like we have a troop shortage or anything. There's still 300,000!!!! reservists we haven't called up, not to mention all the regular troops we're pulling out of Germany, etc.
> Like those missin' diplomatic and mil'tary relations with the only Islamic nucular power
And we want to keep those relations good by not getting their government overthrown and replaced with a radical islamic theocracy. So we rely on Pakistan's army.
> Just 'cuz they hauled ass along with all their predator drones two years and eleven months ago today, allowing bin Laden to cross the border on donkey, heck!
Of course, because everyone knows that the world's strongest military can only do one thing at a time. (Also, your link mentions nothing about predator drones.)
But hey, I can only wish that all raving lefties would take this election so lightheartedly.
That's a bit of a misnomer. I mean, in Iraq, how many troops did we have searching for Saddam? A fraction of the 130,000. Most were dealing with the civilian population.
In Afghanistan we had local forces deal with the civilian population, and had/have a comperable number of troops hunting for Osama. The real reason they haven't found him yet is because he's in Pakistan, and U.S. troops can't currently go in there much (for various reasons).
Bush had started planning Iraq well before 9/11, as evidenced by some of the reports that leaked about Cheney's energy task force
Another misinterpretation. Cheney's energy task force mapped the world's oil supplies. (As well it should.) No special attention was paid to Iraq.
PNAC
Has many good ideas and principles. Plus, Saddam's Iraq was a longstanding problem ever since 1991. Confrontation was inevitable, so why just sponsor a coup that'd leave another dictator in charge? Why not try for democracy?
Because the Selective Service System is legally obligated to keep the draft boards stocked. And they've been obligated for a good number of decades now.
There is CURRENTLY a sort of "backdoor" draft going on (RETIRED RESERVISTS being called into active duty
Baloney. Nobody is being called up out of "retirement" -- they all still have time left in their commitment, even after their first tour of duty.
Most of the people being re-called up have special skillsets, or are otherwise experienced. If we need more lower-skilled grunts, there still is about 300,000+ reservists we haven't called up yet.
So we have no need for draftees (whom are invariably totally unskilled, hard to train, and often unwilling!)
That's some "Iraqi Resistance Movement", when it's mostly being led by foreign terrorists. (Yes, the Iranian puppet Al-Sadr counts, and the Sunni groups have mostly aligned themselves with the foreigners.)
On one side there is the American-backed government trying to set up a democracy. On the other is several groups that want to set up theocratic dictatorship. That you would root for the latter means that you have no moral compass whatsoever.
First, that quote from Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland was taken way out of context.
Second, I was more thinking of Kerry (and his advisors) very literal and direct insults at the leader of our biggest ally in Iraq. That's right, I'm talking about the copious insults hurled at Iyad Allawi.
He comes and addresses Congress, thanking America for all of its efforts and sacrifices, and gives a positive assessment of Iraq's progress towards democracy. (Note: It is Allawi's job to do this kind of thing.)
But Kerry and Co. call him a liar, a puppet, and someone who "doesn't know what's happening in Iraq." Frankly it was disgusting, and convinced me that Kerry is not to be trusted with our foreign affairs.
President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so" -- that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."
The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
John Kerry has not given me the impression that he'd run the war any better, plus he's gone and insulted our current allies in Iraq, and promised (and eventually backed down on) the ridiculous notion that he could get France and Germany to help. Not to mention that you can't successfully fight a war and keep calling it a "mistake" and a "distraction".
If John Kerry wins the election, and were to take the Iraq sitution seriously, he'd be giving the exact same optimistic account that Bush is. He'd have to.
And according to the US army unit commander the facility was locked down when they were there on April 10th. They left it as is, as they weren't ordered to do anything with it. The Iraqi's noted it had been looted some months later.
Slashdot Mirror
> the rest of the world watches news - america watches fox
I don't tend to watch TV news very often, but I don't see what's so bad with Fox News. The only complaint I've really seen leveled at Fox is that sometimes they cover stories CNN won't.
Also that their opinion programs give voice to Conservative (as well Liberal) viewpoints.
The BBC, on the other hand, has people weeping for Yasser Arafat.
Also, why would your state increase taxes just because the federal government lowered them? Makes no sense.
My my, the anti-Bush crowd is working themselves up into quite a froth. We haven't seen this level of insanity since the 1984 presidential election with Reagan.
Yeah, just like the "record numbers" registered in 2000, in 1996, in 1992...
What, if they can't socialize with their own kind, who can they socialize with?
To be fair, part of the reward is to socialize with your fellow geeks and collaborate in solving a puzzle.
Also, as my parents always said, going outside once in a while is good for you.
The sanctions were being bypassed by a corrupt Food-for-Oil plan. While you're right that if we repealed Food-for-Oil the sanctions might have started working again, there was still the matter of getting France, Germany, and Russia to agree to that. And since those nations were the primary benefactors of the Food-for-Oil corruption money, that seems unlikely.
As for priority, I'd still like to believe that our military can do two things at once.
Good god, that's the worst thing you have to say about Afghanistan? That radical remnants tried (and failed miserably) to derail the election?
And, while every death is sad, the soldier deaths in Iraq are militarily insignificant. The only negative effect they've had is to give rhetorical fodder to people like you.
Also, yes, MSNBC and the BBC were mislead, as they are on a regular basis. I can't find a link on the CIA web site at the moment, but you probably wouldn't change your mind anyways.
Well, his opposition has criticized him for not invading Iran and North Korea, so I'd be more worried about a Kerry presidency doing so.
You also repeat the myth that the CIA provided aid and training to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. But this is not true, both the CIA and Osama himself agree.
Attacking Pakistan is a monementally bad idea, for reasons that should be obvious.
You seem to be certain that Iran has a WMD program. And indeed, the signs are all there -- but the signs were there for Iraq too. What if we invaded Iran and nothing was found?
Iran is a growing problem, but it isn't in the same precarious position Iraq was, what with the tenuous ceasefire, sanctions, no-fly zones, blocked inspections, oil-for-food corruption...
Unless you think that the sanctions, no-fly-zones, and inspections were supposed to be permanent, then you have to see that the resumption of hostilities was inevitable. The only other options were Saddam turning over a new leaf, or the United States letting him out of his obligations.
> If we didn't have 130,000 troops in Iraq, we would have.... 130,000!!!! more troops available to use in Afghanistan.
So you want there to be 130,000!!!! U.S. troops in Afghanistan, doing crime patrols and other non-Osama-related tasks? Do you even know how many troops we actually need to hunt al-Qaeda in the Afghan-Pakistan border region? You probably have no clue, and yet go on criticizing anyway.
Plus it's not like we have a troop shortage or anything. There's still 300,000!!!! reservists we haven't called up, not to mention all the regular troops we're pulling out of Germany, etc.
!!!!
> So are you saying Bush is letting another nation get in the way of our national security?
Bush is trying not to get a nuclear-armed nation taken over by radical islamists, you dope.
> Like those missin' diplomatic and mil'tary relations with the only Islamic nucular power
And we want to keep those relations good by not getting their government overthrown and replaced with a radical islamic theocracy. So we rely on Pakistan's army.
> Just 'cuz they hauled ass along with all their predator drones two years and eleven months ago today, allowing bin Laden to cross the border on donkey, heck!
Of course, because everyone knows that the world's strongest military can only do one thing at a time.
(Also, your link mentions nothing about predator drones.)
But hey, I can only wish that all raving lefties would take this election so lightheartedly.
That's a bit of a misnomer. I mean, in Iraq, how many troops did we have searching for Saddam? A fraction of the 130,000. Most were dealing with the civilian population.
In Afghanistan we had local forces deal with the civilian population, and had/have a comperable number of troops hunting for Osama. The real reason they haven't found him yet is because he's in Pakistan, and U.S. troops can't currently go in there much (for various reasons).
Another misinterpretation. Cheney's energy task force mapped the world's oil supplies. (As well it should.) No special attention was paid to Iraq.
Has many good ideas and principles. Plus, Saddam's Iraq was a longstanding problem ever since 1991. Confrontation was inevitable, so why just sponsor a coup that'd leave another dictator in charge? Why not try for democracy?
Because the Selective Service System is legally obligated to keep the draft boards stocked. And they've been obligated for a good number of decades now.
Baloney. Nobody is being called up out of "retirement" -- they all still have time left in their commitment, even after their first tour of duty.
Most of the people being re-called up have special skillsets, or are otherwise experienced. If we need more lower-skilled grunts, there still is about 300,000+ reservists we haven't called up yet.
So we have no need for draftees (whom are invariably totally unskilled, hard to train, and often unwilling!)
That's some "Iraqi Resistance Movement", when it's mostly being led by foreign terrorists. (Yes, the Iranian puppet Al-Sadr counts, and the Sunni groups have mostly aligned themselves with the foreigners.)
On one side there is the American-backed government trying to set up a democracy. On the other is several groups that want to set up theocratic dictatorship. That you would root for the latter means that you have no moral compass whatsoever.
If you're getting your talking points from the Daily Show, then you're quite beyond hope.
That post-9/11 sympathy was a blip in a sea of anti-Americanism. It evaporated long before the runup to the Iraq war.
And when the economy goes down, golly gee, tax revenues go down too! Who'da thunk it?
This is quite an unlikely article -- even moreso than the double-counting IraqBodyCount.net
I suspect this is a hackneyed attempt at an "October Surprise".
You're free to organize a group of like-minded people, lobby the government, and get politicians elected that agree with your views.
You know, just like the "conservative christian" voting bloc did.
What, you didn't want to go through all that trouble? Then too bad.
First, that quote from Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland was taken way out of context.
Second, I was more thinking of Kerry (and his advisors) very literal and direct insults at the leader of our biggest ally in Iraq. That's right, I'm talking about the copious insults hurled at Iyad Allawi.
He comes and addresses Congress, thanking America for all of its efforts and sacrifices, and gives a positive assessment of Iraq's progress towards democracy. (Note: It is Allawi's job to do this kind of thing.)
But Kerry and Co. call him a liar, a puppet, and someone who "doesn't know what's happening in Iraq." Frankly it was disgusting, and convinced me that Kerry is not to be trusted with our foreign affairs.
Partial quote:
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
John Kerry has not given me the impression that he'd run the war any better, plus he's gone and insulted our current allies in Iraq, and promised (and eventually backed down on) the ridiculous notion that he could get France and Germany to help. Not to mention that you can't successfully fight a war and keep calling it a "mistake" and a "distraction".
If John Kerry wins the election, and were to take the Iraq sitution seriously, he'd be giving the exact same optimistic account that Bush is. He'd have to.
Discrepency Found in Explosives Amounts
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
Just helping you keep on top of things.