Who do you want be the next president of the USA?

[brit]

Originally posted by Fett aka hmm
I would vote for Bush if I could. I frankly dont think hes done that bad of a job at all.
Saddam was a monster, he initiated costly costly attacks on foreign countries. The Iranian war hundreds of thousands died before Iraq finally pulled out, poison gas was used in many attacks on Iranian civilians. The Geneva Convention clearly states that prisoners of war should not be harmed in any way, yet Saddams military executed thousands of Iranian prisoners as a matter of policy. In the "Anfal" campaign Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, killing thousands, mostly civilians. He has also in southern Iraq executed thousands of Shi'a Arabs.

study the vietnam war. you know he was bad and all that, but the vietnam war was started because some guy decided to invade a less defended country. and we had to be nosey and stick our faces in it. we lost that war. now, while we caught saddam, what the fuck was the point? are we our brother's keeper? what justifies our involvement there? did he drop PG on us? not as far as i can remember. shit we still haven't been given a reason as to why we were there. the kurd incident happened when teh first bush was in power, so what was going on between then and now? it is a family grudge. "you tried to ruin my father, i'll get you." and we still haven't found any plausible ties to al qaeda in that country, so 9/11/01 has absolutely nothing to do with the real reason. oil simple as that. if it was water over there we wouldn't be there. so my vote is Kerry. i'm democrat. republicans are warmongers. look at bush. putting money into teh defence so he can justify shit like that war he had last year.
wow, this was long. sorry.

[Esememon]

Hey, how come Nader and Bob Marley aren't on the poll?

[brit]

Originally posted by reagan80
Actually, I wouldn't mind the US becoming isolationist again. I wish we could just mind our own business and keep all of our troops at home. I wouldn't mind giving our hegemon status to the European Union. Then, they would know what it feels like when the world hates you for trying to single-handedly maintain global stability and security. Then, they would know what it feels like to have the rest of the world pray for their collapse. Then, they would know what it feels like to have a bullseye painted on their foreheads by fanatical terrorists. I wouldn't mind seeing what the French would do if terrorists flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower...

actually i am forced to agree with you here as my previous post implies. america needs to be isolationist again. the government gets stupider each time we try to police the planet. oh and just so you know, terrorists did try to fly planes into the eiffel tower back in teh 80's but they did not know how to fly them so they left it alone.

[MasJ]

Yeah, the policing has got to stop. Mainly because it's not good for America and Americans themselves.... There might be goodwill behind it, and there is a definite element of greed behind it, but somehow, when America disregards the UN, it kinda hurts... like they did with Iraq. I remember from history that one of the main causes for WWII was the complete failiure of the League of Nations in preventing it, and one of the main reasons for that was because USA, the superpower, did not join it.

Same goes for the UN, why not listen to it's peace legislations for a change ? I agree, America plays a big role in giving aid etc. to parts of the world, but Africa etc. are poor countries needing aid today because of the imperialistic tortures imposed on them earlier...

Recently I read about the war in Angola, it seems that the US had been financing that war as well. Basically, because Angola has a lot of Diamond mines.. Not a good thing, America is already rich enough, honestly, do they need more ??

Oh, and to be on topic, Bush is possibly the worst American President I've ever seen. Does this guy think at all ? He seems to be playing on the American people's emotions all the time to get the job done.... Something like
Bush: "People, remember 9/11 ? It's because of those fucking terrorists (in Iraq ), lets go destroy them!"
People: YEAH, LETS GO!!

Some smarter people say No, but the majority of the population gets swayed by emotion. He seems to be modulating american sentiment to suit his requirement. Kind of a bitch if you know what I mean...

I really hope and pray that he doesn't get re-elected, though I've got some kind of feeling telling me that the Army is holding Osama in captivity and Bush is going to announce his capture right before the elections.
That would get him like 70% more votes, again, playing on people's sentiments....

EDIT: Oh yeah, being Isolationist isn't going to be the solution. Because in a lot of situations intervention, advice and restraint are needed. But being a bully sure has got to stop. And about telling everyone what to do, I don't think there's much wrong with that since I see it as more of a priviledge a super power has got, they get to do that, and no one can say otherwise, any country would do that... maybe not so blatantly as recently Bush administered America, but they would do it all the same..

[brit]

Originally posted by MasJ

I really hope and pray that he doesn't get re-elected, though I've got some kind of feeling telling me that the Army is holding Osama in captivity and Bush is going to announce his capture right before the elections.
That would get him like 70% more votes, again, playing on people's sentiments....

YOU are a fucking genius man! my mother said the exact same thing a few weeks ago, and now to find that someone else is thinking the same thing is pretty cool. and i would put money up that he already has him and will announce it before teh end of the summer. and yes people will get swayed. if he announces it the week before elections, 70% of that 70% will know what's going on, so he'll go kinda early if he decides to pretend to be smart.

[Dingy]

I agree with MasJ, Bush was just settling past scores when he tried to "liberate" Iraq, and just coincidentally happened to be getting ALOT of oil in return and who is he to walk into any country and look for anyone he wants to? That's like walking into your neighbour's house and looking for your aunt's dog who lives in another continent! not cool, it's old, and soon the whole world's gonna realize that he can't wave his stick around everywhere!
He has simply flashed his wallet (and god knows what else!) at the UN and its such a tragedy to see it being manipulated like that by George the Chimp!
Also, it's quite funny to see how many guy's don't like bush!

[youthquake]

there was a homeless guy who managed to make fliers telling the whole town to vote him for mayor. ambition like that makes a president.

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Bad Neighbour
why do you think that Iraq and all them arab countries have it in for America? its because they made themselves out to be better people. they thought they were the shit, and then tried to tell other how to live. they marched on in, thinking that if they did this, showed others how to live, that they'ed be doing the right thing. they weren't they were fucking it up for everyone else. they PUT Saddam Hussien into power, and look what its lead to? they thought they were doing the right thing, but what they were doing was creating the terror that the world sees today... if they had've stayed away, and kept out of other peoples business, then maybe they wouldn't have the problem they are having...

A perfect example of a no-win "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...........

1. Don't have a war with Saddam and maintain the sanctions on Iraq. The Iraqis hate us for supporting their leader with the oil trade and for starving them. Saddam possibly gets nukes someday and embarasses the US.
2. Have a war and try to make amends for past mistakes with Iraq. The Iraqis hate us for occupying them and the US doesn't find WMD's and is embarassed.


1. Keep American troops in South Korea to deter North Korea. South Koreans hate us for bullying their Northern "brothers."
2. Withdraw American troops from South Korea. South Koreans blame us when North Korea invades them.

1. Try to help Iraq become a democracy. The world hates us for imposing our will.
2. Put Saddam back in power. The Iraqis hate us for re-appointing a brutal dictator.

[31337D00D]

Reagan is right, thats why america sux so much cuz they do the wrong things all the time jk

[reagan80]

Originally posted by WaffenSSBroli
Well we are telling the world not to have nuclear weapons, and yet we do. We are telling the world to be all democratic. We are doing what we feel is right. The list goes on.

First off, our nuclear weapons are a deterrent for defensive purposes. We had a nuclear monopoly from 1945-1948 and didn't antagonize the world. On the other hand, the Soviets did just that. Remember the Berlin Airlift?

I wouldn't have a problem with nations possessing nuclear weapons just as long as they are rational and keep them out of terrorists' hands.

North Korea is practically bankrupt and on life support. They are desperate for cash since the rest of the world doesn't import goods from them. The North does have certain items that are in high demand from rogue states: long-range missiles and possibly nuclear warheads. North Korea was caught shipping some of these missiles to Yemen. Al Qaeda supposedly has assets worth millions of dollars from the heroine trade. If North Korea is desperate for money, what would stop them from giving nuclear materials to terrorists with a huge wad of cash?

Iran is going to go nuclear in the not-so-distant future if the inspections fail. Iran is run by an Islamic fundamentalist oligarchy. They recently banned many reformist parliamentary candidates from running in the recent elections so that the zealots could maintain control of the country. Iran is also a terrorist sponsor. Imagine what would happen if the Iranian government would give terrorists one of their surplus warheads to use against the Israelis or Americans.

Of course, North Korea and Iran will deny any invovlement with a terrorist attack using WMD's.

As I have already said, the Iraqis don't give a crap about having their dictator's sovereignty violated. The majority of them would rather have a democracy than put up with more oppression and poverty. At least now, the Iraqis have a chance to take control of their economic future without Saddam's greedy tentacles solely benefiting from the oil trade.

We aren't forcing the world to be democratic, but we are encouraging them to become democratic. There is nothing wrong in doing something that we feel is right just as long as the other country that is "benefiting" from our "righteous" actions agree and support us. Vietnam is the worst example where a host country rejected our "goodwill." Hopefully, Iraq won't be another.

[Fett aka hmm]

Originally posted by empty.
study the vietnam war. you know he was bad and all that, but the vietnam war was started because some guy decided to invade a less defended country. and we had to be nosey and stick our faces in it. we lost that war. now, while we caught saddam, what the fuck was the point? are we our brother's keeper? what justifies our involvement there? did he drop PG on us? not as far as i can remember. shit we still haven't been given a reason as to why we were there. the kurd incident happened when teh first bush was in power, so what was going on between then and now? it is a family grudge. "you tried to ruin my father, i'll get you." and we still haven't found any plausible ties to al qaeda in that country, so 9/11/01 has absolutely nothing to do with the real reason. oil simple as that. if it was water over there we wouldn't be there. so my vote is Kerry. i'm democrat. republicans are warmongers. look at bush. putting money into teh defence so he can justify shit like that war he had last year.
wow, this was long. sorry.

In Vietnam we were shipping home 500 dead a week, in Iraq I dont think a whole lot more than 500 have been killed so far, im not sure though. I find little comparison between the Iraq war, and Vietnam.

We have been given reasons to as why we are in Iraq, most intelligence agencies said that Saddam had WMD or had the ability to currently manufacture them. People just like to cling on to the fact that "Bush Lied". He was given bad/outdated intelligence reports, is that lying? I would say not.

If we went into Iraq for oil, thats fine with me, more oil is good. I didnt notice an oil shortage before the Iraq war, so I dont see how thats a valid point. I havent seen a reduction in oil prices, or have I seen tankers coming from Iraq full of oil.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by reagan80

As I have already said, the Iraqis don't give a crap about having their dictator's sovereignty violated. The majority of them would rather have a democracy than put up with more oppression and poverty. At least now, the Iraqis have a chance to take control of their economic future without Saddam's greedy tentacles solely benefiting from the oil trade.

We aren't forcing the world to be democratic, but we are encouraging them to become democratic. There is nothing wrong in doing something that we feel is right just as long as the other country that is "benefiting" from our "righteous" actions agree and support us. Vietnam is the worst example where a host country rejected our "goodwill." Hopefully, Iraq won't be another.

I am sure most are happy to have Saddam out, but I am also sure most want USA to now get the fuck out. Is it any better if the USA's greedy tentacles are benefitting from their oil?

We are forcing them to be democratic...changing them into a democracy is kinda forcing them, did we ask them? no. Our goodwill? I' m not even going to go into Vietnam as I don't know a lot about it. However, I don't think that America shows much goodwill to other countries unless abusing foreign labor is good will...

[Fett aka hmm]

Originally posted by Xaenn
I am sure most are happy to have Saddam out, but I am also sure most want USA to now get the fuck out. Is it any better if the USA's greedy tentacles are benefitting from their oil?

We are forcing them to be democratic...changing them into a democracy is kinda forcing them, did we ask them? no. Our goodwill? I' m not even going to go into Vietnam as I don't know a lot about it. However, I don't think that America shows much goodwill to other countries unless abusing foreign labor is good will...

What I dont get about the whole not paying people enought to do labor overseas is

1) The same people who are talking about sweatshops, are the people who are whining about companies taking employment overseas, thats my observation
2) Would it be better to just leave? no matter how much we might be or might not be paying them, they have a job, there getting money, there spending money

[MasJ]

reagan80, hmm.. not meaning to burst your bubble or anything.. but ...

First off, our nuclear weapons are a deterrent for defensive purposes. We had a nuclear monopoly from 1945-1948 and didn't antagonize the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure I must be, but wasn't it the US who dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945 and on Nagasaki 8th August 1945 ?
Ofcourse, that doesn't count as antagonizing, since in your words it probably was a "rightous" course of action "benefitting" the people of Japan, and in "agreement" with them.

Sure, you think that the Vietnam war took place when a host country rejected your "goodwill" ? Interesting...

[Solitude]

i voted on i won't vote on this.too bad you can't do that in real elections