He did not "vote for the war." He voted to give the President authority to take us to war, probably with the hope that Bush would use that as leverage to force Saddam to cooperate with the inspections.
Ok, now explain why he supported the war after it started and up until it major combat "ended"?
Surely, if the president didn't do what he liked, he would have objected sometime on the eve or war or any time in the 18 months after?
There were many other more significant threats to the US. He wants to handle N Korea with diplomacy through multiple nations, but he wanted to go to war with Iraq, even without help. I think that shows his bias toward war in Iraq pretty well.
N.Korea is completely different. North Korea hasn't gone against 12 years of UN resolutions. The US has a strong presence right next door (South Korea). And Korea isn't a middle eastern or muslim country (and they are the ones exporting terrorists atm). Influencing the middle east with liberty will fight terror better than doing the same to North Korea.
I believe that was my point -- you can't prove one way or the other, so it's not the greatest point to bring up.
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
I don't like this rationalization: More deaths due to poor health care and lack of food is worse than less deaths due to war. Shouldn't we try to prevent both? Any preventable death is bad. People shouldn't be starving -- there's enough food in the world for everyone. War is hell. In this so-called civilized world, neither should occur. But they do, and that's not right.
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
Yes, but it's a bit unfair to attack the president on the war and over WMD when you thought yourself that they were their. Hindsight is 20/20. He doesn't admit he was ever wrong, only that his decisions and votes were "complicated".
Changing your opinions on new information is an important attribute, but not changing your opinions may simply mean the new information isn't enough to change it (even if other people think so). For example, it is important to stay in Iraq *despite* the beheadings (etc) because leaving would be more disasterous for everyone.
You do know how much money Cheney has made from Halliburton while he's been VP, don't you?
He got a golden handshake when he left Halliburton and chose to have it paid in installments (which is not unusual). Halliburton's eclusive contract with the government was broughr in by Clinton BTW. But then again, facts don't make good conspiracy theories.
Kerry makes about why he thought Saddam was a threat but would have relied on inspectors using war as a last resort with a larger coalition of nations
Then why did Kerry note only vote for the war, but support the war way up until he decided to run as an "anti-war" condidate to get the "dean" vote (that was well after bush announced "major combate" over)?
believe Turkey is considered part of the Middle East, and IIRC, they can handle democracy quite well.
I believe that was my point.
Iraq posed no threat to the US as it had little, if any, connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Most of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! So why aren't we bombing that country? My guess? We're friends with the government there because of their mighty oil reserves.
There are many reasons. Many Iraqis wanted it and a free Iraq influences the rest of the middle east. Iran has been close to revolution for a long time, and with free countries on two of their borders, it may not be long before the silent majority in Iran revolt.
How can you prove that? You can't.
Can you prove that there would have been less deaths? I think most people would agree there would be more. Saddam wasn't going anywhere and UN sanctions were killing more people than the first and second wars.
I haven't been able to figure this one out. People just refuse to open their eyes. I liken it to the same sort of power religion has over some people, it's like the cult of Bush.
No, you are the insane one and you refuse to open your eyes.
The guy could start killing a baby a day until the election and people would still vote for him.
I repeat, you are insane. I suggest you treat your BDS ASAP.
Yes. The fantasy world you speak of is in vast constrast to reality which includes, Arabs not being able to handle democracy, noone (and certianly not Kerry or Edwards) believing that there were WMD in Iraq before 2003, pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises, America safer with Saddam in power, less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule than under a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east.
Just like the assault weapons ban and stem cell research funding
Bush is the first president to allow federal funding for stem cell research but yeah, it is limited. Privately, you can do whatever you want wrt to stem cell research.
And how the hell do those examples lead to the "expiration" of the bill or rights and constitution? I suggest you get profressional help.
Oh, yeah. Being in war with one middle-eastern country and getting all news through the government's filter really makes you a fucking expert in the cultures of the world.
Well I don't believe that most people outside of the US are in a good position to understand US politics. The coverage the rest of the world get of the presidential candiates (to take an example) is slim. All the world sees of Bush is his speeches on Iraq or from F/911. They rarely get to see him as a human being while he's compaigning or mingling. These are the people who think they should have a right to vote in the US elections.
The middle-east coverage is a bit different because the US military is actually *IN* the middle east at this very moment. The coverage is syndicated between various international networks. The same thing can't be said of coverage of internal US issues because they simply aren't as important as Iraq (war...).
Slashdot Mirror
How many people cared about politics or debated gun rights issues before Michael Moore started bringing up points about them?
LOL. Many, which is why Moore picked the issue up and made millions. You're not that naive are you?
He did not "vote for the war." He voted to give the President authority to take us to war, probably with the hope that Bush would use that as leverage to force Saddam to cooperate with the inspections.
Ok, now explain why he supported the war after it started and up until it major combat "ended"?
Surely, if the president didn't do what he liked, he would have objected sometime on the eve or war or any time in the 18 months after?
There were many other more significant threats to the US. He wants to handle N Korea with diplomacy through multiple nations, but he wanted to go to war with Iraq, even without help. I think that shows his bias toward war in Iraq pretty well.
N.Korea is completely different. North Korea hasn't gone against 12 years of UN resolutions. The US has a strong presence right next door (South Korea). And Korea isn't a middle eastern or muslim country (and they are the ones exporting terrorists atm). Influencing the middle east with liberty will fight terror better than doing the same to North Korea.
I believe that was my point -- you can't prove one way or the other, so it's not the greatest point to bring up.
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
I don't like this rationalization: More deaths due to poor health care and lack of food is worse than less deaths due to war. Shouldn't we try to prevent both? Any preventable death is bad. People shouldn't be starving -- there's enough food in the world for everyone. War is hell. In this so-called civilized world, neither should occur. But they do, and that's not right.
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
Yes, but it's a bit unfair to attack the president on the war and over WMD when you thought yourself that they were their. Hindsight is 20/20. He doesn't admit he was ever wrong, only that his decisions and votes were "complicated".
Changing your opinions on new information is an important attribute, but not changing your opinions may simply mean the new information isn't enough to change it (even if other people think so). For example, it is important to stay in Iraq *despite* the beheadings (etc) because leaving would be more disasterous for everyone.
You do know how much money Cheney has made from Halliburton while he's been VP, don't you?
He got a golden handshake when he left Halliburton and chose to have it paid in installments (which is not unusual). Halliburton's eclusive contract with the government was broughr in by Clinton BTW. But then again, facts don't make good conspiracy theories.
Kerry makes about why he thought Saddam was a threat but would have relied on inspectors using war as a last resort with a larger coalition of nations
Then why did Kerry note only vote for the war, but support the war way up until he decided to run as an "anti-war" condidate to get the "dean" vote (that was well after bush announced "major combate" over)?
Read this
believe Turkey is considered part of the Middle East, and IIRC, they can handle democracy quite well.
I believe that was my point.
Iraq posed no threat to the US as it had little, if any, connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Most of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! So why aren't we bombing that country? My guess? We're friends with the government there because of their mighty oil reserves.
There are many reasons. Many Iraqis wanted it and a free Iraq influences the rest of the middle east. Iran has been close to revolution for a long time, and with free countries on two of their borders, it may not be long before the silent majority in Iran revolt.
How can you prove that? You can't.
Can you prove that there would have been less deaths? I think most people would agree there would be more. Saddam wasn't going anywhere and UN sanctions were killing more people than the first and second wars.
I haven't been able to figure this one out. People just refuse to open their eyes. I liken it to the same sort of power religion has over some people, it's like the cult of Bush.
No, you are the insane one and you refuse to open your eyes.
The guy could start killing a baby a day until the election and people would still vote for him.
I repeat, you are insane. I suggest you treat your BDS ASAP.
Yes. The fantasy world you speak of is in vast constrast to reality which includes, Arabs not being able to handle democracy, noone (and certianly not Kerry or Edwards) believing that there were WMD in Iraq before 2003, pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises, America safer with Saddam in power, less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule than under a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east.
Actually, no they aren't. They're the terrorists. Liberals aren't boogymen, how ridiculous.
Just like the assault weapons ban and stem cell research funding
Bush is the first president to allow federal funding for stem cell research but yeah, it is limited. Privately, you can do whatever you want wrt to stem cell research.
And how the hell do those examples lead to the "expiration" of the bill or rights and constitution? I suggest you get profressional help.
For republicans, the boogymen are terrorists. For liberals like you, it's Karl Rove and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
How exactly does it make me arrogant?
Two questions. Did you see Bush's RNC speech? Did BBC broadcast the speech?
To be clear, I'm Vietnamese ethnically (I was born there) but I grew up in NZ and consider myself a New Zealander -- a pro-American New Zealander ;).
Oh, yeah. Being in war with one middle-eastern country and getting all news through the government's filter really makes you a fucking expert in the cultures of the world.
You must be an American.
Vietnamese living in New Zealand actually.
PS. LOL @ Government filter
Yep. And at least Rush has an excuse (he's a fat capitalist pig). What's Moore's excuse for spending his millions on cheese burgers and krispy creams?
Cox And Forkum are objectivist cartoonists who are usually right on the button with their witty clever illustrations and commentary.
:)
CommunistsForKerry are a riot if you like good satire
Daily "screw them" Kos.
I think he was calling me one, not you.
Well I don't believe that most people outside of the US are in a good position to understand US politics. The coverage the rest of the world get of the presidential candiates (to take an example) is slim. All the world sees of Bush is his speeches on Iraq or from F/911. They rarely get to see him as a human being while he's compaigning or mingling. These are the people who think they should have a right to vote in the US elections.
The middle-east coverage is a bit different because the US military is actually *IN* the middle east at this very moment. The coverage is syndicated between various international networks. The same thing can't be said of coverage of internal US issues because they simply aren't as important as Iraq (war...).
But ofcourse CNN, BBC, ABC, etc do?
Maybe you shouldn't have only pointed the finger at FOX?
For all Moore fans