No, I think Kerry got carried into the fear propaganda following 9/11. After a drama like that, you trust your leader and hope for the best.   I don't think Kerry would have went to war in Iraq because Kerry has no interest in Iraq, Kerry has no dream about World domination. The war in Iraq was not about terrorism nor about 9/11. If it truly was, it would have been Saudi Arabia that would ave been attacked, not Iraq. Terrorism and WMP were just the pretext the extreme-right wingers used to touch the sensitive American patriotism.

Great good it did too. Now Saddam doesn't control Iraq anymore, Al Qaeda does.

#41 by paxx - 10/15/2004 5:44:54 PM Geeh, my memory must play tricks on me. I could have sworn that Irak was ordered to deliver all WMD or it will be attacked. Irak kept saing it didn't have any, so it was attacked. Turned out they didn't have any...

I remember Iraq playing games with the inspectors, consistently lying, and over the years after the first Gulf War to totally falsify and lie about whether they did or didn't have WMD

So Iraq saying they didn't is like Bush or Kerry saying that they don't like cheese... who cares?! We will find out for ourselves when we investigate it.

I would have rather gone for Iran though... a major event of 2 way assault Iran then a surprise attack against Iraq. Full troop installment, no lack of troop or early call for 'war over we won' crap. The Iraq war was handled to pretty... and war is not pretty that is why no one wants to have it and everyone wants it to end when it begins.


Then again... I like cheese.

Thing is, Irak never had WMP after "Operation Desert Storm" (not to confuse with the first Gulf war, which is a different story altogeter - although not totally unrelated). A new report just came out confirming that Iraq didn't have any WMP since 1992.

Saudi Arabia is the place that should have gotten hit, and still is actually.

I think is Saudi Arabia got hit the world would plunge into a depression. Oil is too much apart of America and other industrial and tech nations.

I think this is why USA supports the Saudi so much, but as with helping Iraq against Iran, supporting regimes can be very tricky and bite you in the ass later.

I say 9/11 should have ended all support of Saudi Arabia, make Iraq follow the 15 or so resolutions on the same subject (totally free inspections no restrictions and WMD's) or else, Iran should have been hit by surprise and good old North Korea would be having some problems right about now.


I think Bush gambled that the world would have to help after Iraq otherwise Iraq could become a haven for terrorists and then he could scare North Korea and Iran.

To me history says otherwise that the world could care less that Iraq could plunge into an abyss of war that would spread throughout the region and then the world. Bush was betting on the world seeing that Iraq had to be stabilized, they would help. Nope, not this world.

Bush made some major mistakes and I think he and his advisor's looked at the world from the perspective of the US instead of understanding the cultural dynamics of different world cultures and there possible responses or understand the USA place in world culture. If this was explored maybe there would have been a change of plans.





On another note, I think there were WMD's found in 1994 after a scientist gave inspectors information. So I don't think it ended after 1992.

A new report just came out confirming that Iraq didn't have any WMP since 1992.

That same report states that Saddam still had the capibility, and intentions of producing WMD again, as soon as he could get rid of the UN sanctions. Saddam was manipulating the Oil for Food program to bribe countries to get the sanctions removed. But you don't hear about that part of the report. The news media doesn't report anything that might make George look good..........

Do you think I'm a fascist, Paxx? Because I support all of Bush's foreign policies and most of his domestic ones too.

I don't think you support Rumsfield's gang's true foreign and domesic policies, Brad. And if you do, then you would be one, yes. Their true policy is to rule the World, and the country. No more democracy, no more freedom. Big Brother. 

I'll admit that some of the Rumsfield, Haliburton weirdness has some strange point in mind, but Fascist reminds me more of Hitler and kill everybody else rather than try to influence everybody to be industrial and free.

Frogboy, you said in one of your blogs that its Freedom Vs. Fairness Vs. something... don't remember the last one, but that blog was on point. The US preaches the Freedom side of looking at things and it would seem that it will push it at any cost.

For some cultures, the Freedom way of looking at things doesn't work and they don't really want to use it.

So paxx, to me its not Fascist, more like really over baring, but no different than any other nation and what they do. As the saying goes, the richer you are, the more your personality stands out and what you do is watched. The richer you get the more you effect other peoples live with the decisions you make. The more powerful you get the more people you effect.

So the US gets all the attention, becomes the scape goat for other countries troubles whether it deserves or not. I think in many cases the US doesn't, but some high profile cases makes the US look like a dum-dum.


I don't like it myself, because forcing ones philosophy down someone else's throat usually doesn't work. To me, Bush and the people he works with remind me of the type who know only of their own culture but nothing of others or how their culture fits into the fabric of the world. The perspective seem very narrow and the decisions end up reflecting that. Work that way in your own world and your find, but when your world is a global one, you better be able to change how you look at things.

heck if you put the two together you might have a president worth having...

how about all 4 (put the VP with them) and you come up with a super president!!! One that make a decision (good or bad) and sticks to it, able to finesse the politically and social area... know about business... better understanding of social issues... flip flop with ease and give illogical and un-historical facts.

Everyone is happy!!!

off into the sun rise with me again, hope everyone is doing well

Personally I think this whole election process is a joke. Two candidates get together every 4 years a bicker like little children about how this one did that or that one did this, both of them lying through their teeth, never really saying anything concrete or realistic but promise you the world, and we are suppose to make a decision based on that?

I don't think it matters one way or the other who you vote for, the rich are going to take care of their own and if you are lucky something just might trickle down on you.

In my opinion we should just boycott the whole election until they come up with someone that has some integrity.

This message was made possible by the president who created the jobs at Stardock & WinCustomize.

One of the things about this election that frightens (?) me a bit is that nobody is talking about what the Bush administration has done with the environmental laws. It has softened clean air policy, allowed for more logging in formerly pristine national wilderness areas, ditto with oil drilling, cut funding for R&D for new energy sources...there are other examples I'm sure. (No, I don't have any concrete facts and sources on hand to cite, at the moment.)

These things are just as important, or should be just as important as any other issue on the table and I have heard very little from either candidate on these matters.

I don't think you support Rumsfield's gang's true foreign and domesic policies, Brad. And if you do, then you would be one, yes. Their true policy is to rule the World, and the country. No more democracy, no more freedom. Big Brother.

I see you buy into a lot of the left wing conspiracy theories that drive some people. I would respond to the "republicans want to rule the world", but it's just ridiculous.

Nobodies freedom or democracy has been taken away. You really should stop with the rhetoric.

Thing is, Irak never had WMP after "Operation Desert Storm" (not to confuse with the first Gulf war, which is a different story altogeter - although not totally unrelated). A new report just came out confirming that Iraq didn't have any WMP since 1992.

So then I guess Clinton should be brought up on "war crimes" also since he bombed Iraq after '92 because of WMD's.

Wait a second - Operation Desert Storm WAS the first gulf war.

Operation Desert Fox

OPERATION NAME: Operation Desert Fox MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

Funny how democrats used to think Iraq was a threat.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

I thought he said Iraq wasn't a threat.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Wrong war, wrong time?

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Support BushSpain: 13%France: 16%Canada: 20%G-B: 22%Russia: 52%

paxx:

Popularity is one of the least accurate ways to assess a persons 'worth'...
Remember Regan? Remember how popular he was?
Or how 'bout George Washington?...Im sure he wasnt very 'popular' in Great B. in his time.

I liken the popularity poll to the skins here at WC...

If you name a skin 'areo something'...or 'Longhorn whatever' or 'Halo suchandsuch'...Its going to be a very 'popular' skin (popularity being downloads) However, most of these skins are... (no offense to the authors) 'below-par.'
Many of the real 'gems' dont have very many downloads, (Anamania by Hippy is one example, IMO) relative to the count on those '15seconds of fame' submissions...

(This is generally speaking, as there are some very popular skins that are also extremely high quality...CopperDeck, for example)

...Similarly in politics, If you spew all sorts of crap and make your popularity rating go up, that does not automatically make you a 'good candidate.'...Just because bush is unpopular in Europe doesnt mean he is a 'bad' person...Those danged eurpoeans just veiw him as such.

And also, their/your opinion doesnt hardly matter anyway, as they/you are not the one(s) voting.

By the same token, "JoeUScitizen"'s opinon of Jacques Chirac is also largely irrelevant as he (Mr. US Citizen) is not a citizen of France.
[Message Edited]

Kona: no, there was a war already called the "the Gulf War" before the first attack on Iraq. It was the Iraq (&US) vs Iran (&USSR) war. Operation Desert Storm would be the second Gulf war and this one the third.

Island Dog: If you read my previous posts, you will see that I am not refering to the traditionnal Republicans, but to a new breed of Republicans that some have started to call te Neo-Republicans.  I used to think that Republicans and Democrats were really not that much different, but now it's different with these guys.
Even Daddy Bush was smart enough to stop before things got out of hand. He knew very well how it would be once Saddam got evicted. And furthermore, Daddy Bush was still respectfull of International law. He went to war in Iraq with a UN mandate. 
This nwe breed of Republicans don't care about International law, heck they don't care about American laws. You have witnessed under this administration the death of the First Republic of America. You can say that this is the start of the Second Republic, and you're a lot less free in it than you were in the first one. The freedom so many Americans have lost their lives over is being taken away from you. The Patriot Act I was already an outrage, but now Patriot Act II will be Big Brother.
How can Americans accept to have their privacy invaded like that? Nothing will be private anymore. Not your emails, not your telephone conversations, not your medical record. Heck, some good Americans were already arrested just for saying that Bush was as bad a terrorist than Saddam.  Where is freedom of Speech? Gone!  And it's not Ben Ladden or Saddam Hussein who has taken it away from you, no, it's your own government!
I'm not pro-Kerry nor Pro-Democrat. I don't really care if he made some mistakes in the past, or if he - like a whole lot of people - got carried away in a fear-induced patriotic storm. I am pro-freedom, and strongly anti-fascist and anti-Bush (or his Neo Republican friends).

I don't think you support Rumsfield's gang's true foreign and domesic policies, Brad. And if you do, then you would be one, yes. Their true policy is to rule the World, and the country. No more democracy, no more freedom. Big Brother.

Well first off I don't think you know what fascism is then, Paxx. Here's a clue: Disagreeing with your opinions doesn't make someone a fascist.  Having an agressive foreign policy doesn't make someone a fascist either.

Fascism is actually about the government controlling as much as it can. Restricting personal freedoms and controlling all the key industries in order to have control over society.

If you think Rumsfeld is for that, then you really are way off.

I'll not address your other points such as the "Death of the American republic" because it just sounds too hysterical to bother with and I'm not going to address crazy talk here on a customization site (particularly someone living in Canada where they have various "hate speech" laws).  )

Fine, dismiss it as crazy talk.
I'm judging the men by what they've done, not by what they are saying. The talk is patriotic, but the actions are anti-democratic (or borderline fascist). "Restricting personal freedoms and controlling all the key industries in order to have control over society" has already started.

I will never vote for Howard.....not if my life depended on it.

He is an idiot, a liar, and a US puppet.

Fortunately, Bush won't get his entire arm dirty as Howard is also a pathetic runt of an individual.

I think most non-Americans felt safer when there were TWO world powers.....one to keep the other honest.

Now there is only one, and many are left wondering whether the wrong one went....

People will get the politicians they deserve....but I guess that means I was a bit of a bastard in a former life or something....

Now there is only one, and many are left wondering whether the wrong one went....

Hmm, what was the other one? Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? If it is the former, I know that there aren't to many jewish people smiling at you right now. If it is the latter, I know there aren't too many people in the Baltics smiling at you.


Note: The war in IRAQ was not because Bush said IRAQ had MWD. Saddam Hussein blocked the U.N. inspectors too many times when they were searching for WMD. What did Saddam have to hide, if he had no WMD? He was warned many times not to interfere with the weapons inspectors. True, we went into IRAQ looking for WMD. But, that was not the cause of the war. There were also some serious humanitarian charges against the Saddam Regime.

ChasUGC - I have to disagree. Bush went to war in Iraq because he was acting on false intel that Iraq had WMD or was trying to make WMP. At least this is how I understood it.
[Message Edited]