Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Please be warned that this post is one that will offend most people. I am sorry for this, and for offending any liberal democrat that wants to tell me how to live my life. I honestly do not want to offend any one who does not deserve to be offended. I feel that it is important to clarify that my intention here is purely to vent and address some issues that I feel are important. This is just a rant; it is not directed at any member of this forum and should not be taken too seriously. If you disagree with me, great, counter points of view are what make our country strong. However if you are not an American, and you post a dissenting point of view toward mine, I will most likely ignore you. You do not live here and as much as I may respect you and your country, and value your opinion, I am only after American points of view. However, I thank any one who does post and I hope that what you post will support my rant. If not, well, it should make for some interesting reading.

www.bush2004.com owned and operated by registered democrats that support www.kerry2004.com. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Actually a novel idea, and more proof that the democrats are as dirty as they come when it comes to cheap under handed tactics. Kudos� to you folks for playing the part of propaganda misters so well. Adolph would be proud. For me, my choice is a simple one, I don't want to belong to a party that does exactly the kind of thing that my ex-stepmother used to do. Manufacture lies, invent mythical problems, role reverse, lie, and generally enjoy being nasty to others while smiling to their face and stabbing them in the back at the same time. Nope, I will stick with the side that doesn't remove the G W B keys from all the key Boards in the white house, and who hasn't taxed us into bankruptcy and sold our jobs to CHINA for re-election.

Oh wait, didn�t GWB do exactly that, he lied to us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction? Well in a nutshell, yes, yes he did. However, he is the president of the United States and he based his decision on information and facts that we now know were of questionable origins whereas we did not know that at the time. The ends do not justify the means, but to be perfectly honest with you, I thank God that we did take our Saddam and by doing so sent a message to the rest of the terrorist breading nations that we will come after them, and we will do it regardless of world support. I do agree that the post war situation was handled poorly and that those directly tasked with the responsibly should have done a better job. However, this limping around Iraq with one hand tied behind our backs all because our liberal media, and world opinion, are against us is no excuse for not finding and removing those individuals who are responsible for the continued unrest in Iraq. (No Bush is not on that list thank you very much.)

The 2004 donkey march toward the white house is paved by lies, misrepresentation of facts, deceit, and under handed dirty pool hall tricks that until now only Nixon had been accused of.

It sours me horribly to think that Kerry and his lawsuit happy cohort could actually win.

Sure Bush has his problems but I ask you what president hasn't? One thing is for certain, Clintonomics got us into this recession, 911 plunged us deeper into it, and if not for Bush and the tax cuts God only knows how bad off we would be right now. And here comes Kerry with his tax increases, tax on gas - "If Americans can afford $2.00 a gallon for gas, then they can afford $3.00 a gallon," with his supportive view on kissing the asses of the anti American countries of the world. Excuse me Mr. Kerry, but no, no we cannot afford this!

Kerry voted for the patriot act, and now he is saying he is against it? What kind of politics is that? Mr. Kerry, you voted for it, and now your saying that you were "forced" into voting for it? Oh come on.

Kerry says that Bush didn't do all that he could have done to prevent the attacks of September 11th, when in fact it was he and his party who tried to decrease funding for the CIA, NSA, and the FBI after the first trade tower attack. Oh Come on Mr. Kerry be truthful and tell the American people how you tried to undermine our nations ability to detect and defend against terrorist attacks long before George W Bush was ever even elected into office.

If you think about it, Kerry has been in the political position to effect change far longer than George Bush has, and despite this, all that he has actively done has been to work toward cutting the funding of the very agencies tasked with the job of detecting and preventing terrorist attacks. Kerry should tell the American people the true, that he and his party were one of the principal causes that weakened our nations ability to protects itself from attack and that he and many other Democrats were the key players behind the scenes that led to the FBI and CIA's failure to stop the attacks of 9-11. It was Kerry and his party that undermining our nations ability to protect itself on September 11th, 2001, and not George Bush�s.

When it comes down to it, do we really want a lawsuit crazy, truth bending, tax raising, freedom taking, gun grabbing, fence riding, Clinton clone and his party running our country in time of war?

No I think not. I don't believe that it would be in our best interest to take a step backwards and readopt the failed Clinton philosophy of foreign affairs that lead to 9-11. Nor do I think it is a wise choice to raise taxes like Clinton, and send our struggling economy back into the red. Clinton rode the economic wave brought by the policies of Regan and Bush from before the Internet boom all the way through to his re-election. His economic Teflon shield served him well, even though he inherited the success, while selling our future to the Chinese for re-election. That criminally negligent act, along with NAFTA, started the recession ball rolling, the benefits of which coupled with Clintons foreign affairs policies lead to the 9-11 attacks that shot that recession ball right into the red like a ball out of a cannon. Thank you very much Mr. Clinton and Party.

The sad truth was, I was a democrat, registered too, and then came Clinton and his politics and I just could not adopt his politically correct, sue your neighbor, sign away your rights, and ride the fence political approach to governing our great nation. Under Clinton I saw everything from the cost of car insurance to the price of electricity rise while my paycheck fell do to his increased taxes. In the age of big money and profit I saw only loss and poverty.

Now here we are again, looking right down the barrel of the same gun. So many of us are buying into the liberal controlled media�s whipped up controversies and the lies of the Democratic party from Michael Moore all the way through to Ted Kennedy, that we don�t even realize it is they who are holding the gun of oppression to our very heads. They play their political game, do the old Potomac two step, and spin doctor the truth into a web of lies that leaves the mind numbed followers of our TV fed nation to believe that it is the other party who is sticking it to them. If you can get enough people to tell the same lie, then that lie becomes a reality and that reality becomes your prison, a prison controlled by the very people who started the lie.

Bare none; this election is about power and money. Nothing more and nothing less than that. So vote for whomever you want but understand one thing, when it comes down to it, whoever wins, in four years we start this all over again.
Either way it goes, I am going to register Kerry2008.com/org/net/other just so I can post all kinds of FAKE material on the web page so stupid people with no brains, will read it, believe it, and repeat it. Who knows, I might even make a movie about Kerry if he wins and make a hundred million dollars by telling the truth as I see it.

Sorry, had to rant.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Umm. . . Atrocities the notokerry.com (which you site is in another post) is paid for by Bush Chenney '04 and the first thing one sees on Bush's website is bashing Kerry.

So you lose all credibility in your rant because Bush is actually funding the type of politics you are ranting against.

This is my guess:

Either

You are deviously being a nutty right winger to turn off any possible swing voters in voting for Bush because they wouldn't want to be associated with people who rant like you.

Or

You are starting to turn against Bush and so in your rants you are actually trying convince yourself.

I haven't figured which one it is though.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Thanks Rex for point this out, but look at the dates of this post compared to the other post. This post was made nearly a week ago.

Also the Bush's site DOES NOT MAKE CRAP UP about Kerry, whereas the Kerry controlled sight IS MAKING CRAP UP. Major differance.

The Anit Kerry Bush supported sight is not manufactuing stories like the Kerry Controlled bush2004.com site is. So they cannot be compared.

Also I am a republican and I am voting for Bush because Bush has no desire to take from me the very things I enjoy owning, and doing. Whereas Mr. Kerry does. The rest of this crap is tripe as far as I am concerned. Kerry is a proven liar, and dark side liberal left wing freedom grabing, right stealing, liar with delusions of Godhood. No thanks.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I've got it - your overly hostile Posts suggest to me that you are conflicted and not just a nut.

Anyway let's be clear.

on 8/10 you posted a diatribe against a website http://www.bush2004.com that posted negative information which you disagreed with and called it lies.

You said that this negative stuff is "cheap under handed tactics".

on 8/18 you posted in another thread a link to a website http://www.notokerry.com funded by Bush Cheney '04 that essentially does exactly the same thing the website you ranted against does and that's ok!!?

Am I missing something?

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Bush2004 is mostly made up stories that are not true. notokerry post true facts that are supported. Big differance Rex.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

That's a matter of opinion.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Right. And all because your differs from mine does not devalidate either.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Umm, Rex, here's a quick quote from the Bush2004 site:
(emphasis added)

Google's Definition of DisinformationGoogle's definition of misinformation:
So the Bush2004 site is saying it is deliberately giving out false information. I'd say it is not a matter of opinion that the Bush2004 site is lying, based on the site's own claims.

I'd check out the notokerry site, but I keep getting "cannot be found" Messages - seems to be a DNS failure.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Atrocities,

The site is an obvious satirical site and not intended to be taken at face value nor does it imply that it is being founded by Democrats either.

I respect your opinion but before you get yourself worked up, double check the site so you don't need to rant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

If I were in the US, I'd go with Kerry I suppose as the lesser of two evils. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I did check. Besides I was linked to it from the kerry2004.com site. Thats what ticked me off to begin with. And I find it find it funny that this topic was up for more than a week before any one posted. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif LOL

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Anyways, you should be ranting about the evil corporations that are running your country. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Down with Microsoft, The power companies, big oil, and safeway!

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

AT, if you really want Microsoft, power companies, big oil, and safeway to go down, Bush isn't the candidate you want since he's pretty much in bed with all of them. And Kerry is in bed with a bunch of other corporations. Nader is probably the guy to go for, since he pissed off all the corporate-types a long time ago. The Republican Party has been helping Nader out too, so they must want you to vote for Nader http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I check, he is only in bed with big oil. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif So he had better buck up and make the sacrafice then.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Safeway groceries? It is owned by Vons now, you know...

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I did not know that. Thanks. I thought they were still owned by KKR. Ooops. See what happens when you don't do your research. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Atrocities, I love you man, but are you seriously telling me that you're going to support a man who's authorized the killing of over 10,000 Iraqi people that had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

If another country (non-superpower) invaded another, weaker, country on false and exaggerated information (as the US has done), then the UN (US included) would be screaming for the head of the Leader of that invading country, and a War Trial would be on the horizon. Outside the US, people are looking at George Bush as a War Criminal, and every action he and his Administration has taken in regards to Iraq continue to lend credence to this view.

Supporting Bush is an insult to the nearly 1000 American soliders that have been sacrificed for this misbegotten War. Those American brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers have been lost for what? Removing Saddam from power? What exactly had Saddam done to the US in the past 5-10 Years? The answer is nothing.

Osama Bin Laden remains free, and he's the toad that ordered the 9/11 attack.

[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I love you to man http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif, and no I am not supporting him because of his war record. I am supporting him because I do not like Kerry, as he is nothing more than an opportunistic liar who promises us a better tomorrow but has no intention on delivering. Bush, although flawed, is a far better choice. Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich.

And to be honest, Bush never ordered the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi�s. The wording of that statement is inflammatory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It should read,

"The war on terrorism, instigated by the horrific acts of 9-11 have lead our great nation into a war of moral choices. To do the right thing over the objections of world opinion and take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist. To that end, the path of righteousness has led us to the shores of Iraq where many have died, and many more are going to as we continue to fight the good fight against those who would kill innocent women and children. Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do. "

Was Saddam a terrorist, yes? Just ask those who were terrorized by him.

Military Fact: It is better that you choose the place and time for the battle. Iraq is that place, and the time is now. And oh look, the scumbag, mind warped, twisted, honor less, nimrod terrorists of the Arab world are flocking to Iraq in droves. Seems to me that this tried and true tactic has worked.

I would say that you are right. 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait and that is exactly what happened. However many Americans now believe that most of the European nations lost there stomach to stand up to Saddam and enforce the terms of the cease fire. They felt it was better to simply let him do as he pleased for the Last twelve years, prior to the war, and well, that dog just won�t hunt any more. You see, in that time Saddam continued to build up his military, he killed millions of Kurds, ordered the assignation attempt on George H. W. Bush, and had continued to disobey and disregard the terms of the cease fire by targeting US and allied planes. He took the money he got from food for oil sales and built lavish palaces while his people starved. Those who stood up to him, well we know what happened to them.

So should Bush now be called before a world court and tried for war crimes? Well no, in fact hell no. He should receive a medal for having the courage to what many European nations feared to do. Sometimes you must do what no other will do, and fight the bully on his terms. Bush did that, and now he is viewed as the bully. LOL! I often wonder what Europe would be like if the US had minded its own business and stayed out of the European conflict. Don�t get me wrong, I am glad that we didn�t, but I still wonder how that conflict would have turned out if we had.

Really. And I suppose they also view Saddam as a War Hero?

I ask you, do you consider terrorist to be a form of bullying? (Bully being a person that goes around enforcing his will onto others through violence and intimidation.)

Ok let�s say for arguments sake that you agree that Terrorist are nothing more than bullies. What is the one thing a bully fears most? If you said someone who will stand up to him, well your right. Now I want you to think about this in those terms as you read what I have written.

A clear and unmistakable message had to be sent to Arab nations that the days of reserved responses were over. To prove this point we took on the two biggest bullies on the Arab block, the Taliban and Regime of Saddam Hussein. We took on the worst of they had to offer and by doing so, even without Europe�s support; we proved that our word does mean something. �We will take the fight to you if you harbor, support, or otherwise engage in any act of and for terrorism.� What Bush did, was to lead a united coalition of nations against two very bad Groups of men and their armies of darkness, and by doing so he prove a point that if we can take down the biggest bad asses on the block, then we can take the rest of them down, so pay attention to our warning. And you know what, it worked. Pakistan, Libya, Sierra, Saudi Arabia and the others got the message and are now playing ball.

Now there is no doubt that this is going to be a long and deadly fight, but we have no choice but to win. And not just in Iraq, but everywhere we go. We must stop the terrorism regardless of how bloody we become in the process.

Now I know that Iraq was really not a terrorist state per say, however Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding it. He was not a War Hero as the Europeans are now making it seem, and he was not a nice man. He was a very bad individual with aspiration for, and the means to obtain weapons of mass destruction. When we went in, we believed he had, in one form or another, WMD�s. Only until after it was all said and done did we discover that he, for likely the first time in his life, was kind of sort of telling us the truth. What can I say, hindsight is always 20/20. But now, after the fact, to call Bush a war criminal because we did not find WMD�s is like saying Church Hill was guilty of mass murder for ordering the carpet-bombing of Berlin. Its ludicrous to think that, and equally so in Bush�s case.

Many Americans believe that Europe does not have the balls to stand up against terrorist. They fear them like frightened little school children that would rather run home and cry to momma than stand up and fight. Just look at what happened in Spain. The terrorists attack a train station killing a hundred or more innocent people, and in response, the people of Spain vote out their government because their leaders supported the US. What does that tell the terrorists? I will tell you what it tells them. It tells them that they have won. If they can scare people into accepting their actions out of fear that they will continue, then the next attack will be even more deadly. You cannot reason with these kinds of people, for they only understand one language, and that is the language of the strong. Kill or be killed.

I ask you, would you want to live under the threat of that kind of black mail every day? Do what they want or they will blow up a train station or school?� No, of course I can�t think of anyone who would want to live under that kind of situation. So what do we do? Do we invent a time machine and go back and stop the invasion of Iraq? Will that help us? Or will it just simply give the terrorist a platform from where they could launch wave after wave of attacks against us. And what if Saddam did have a nuke, or acquired one? He would have held the entire Middle East hostage and nothing would have stopped him from using it against Israel.

We need to work from here to make a better tomorrow with the hope that we never see the day when terrorist hold our freedoms in the palm of their grubby little [censored] encrusted hands?

What is done is done. Saddam is no more. And it would be wise for those who live in Europe to remember what the Nazi had accomplished when they were left along and ignored as we were doing with Saddam. Remember, Saddam is directly responsible for the death of over a million Iraqi people. And our soldiers are not fighting Iraqi's, they are fighting militant Islamic extremists from many Arab countries who came to Iraq to do nothing but kill Americans. And what have they done, they have not only killed Americans, but Iraqi�s, Australians, Koreans, Brits, and many many others. Hell they cut off the heads of more than one of them, and you call Bush a War Criminal? If Bush is guilty of anything, it�s being man enough to stand up to these bastards and do the right thing. He took the fight to them, gave them a target, and now we are where we are and I hope that one day we can rid the earth of these maggot eating, bomb making, kid killing, psychopaths that kill in the name of God.

How many Americans died saving Europe from Nazi Germany? If memory serves, Germany was lead by only one man, and if we had �sacrificed� a 1,000 men to remove him from power before he could start the great Nazi war machine, then I would bet those men would have gone to their graves hero�s.

And for record, supporting Bush is not an insult to the fallen. To say otherwise is the insult. Many Oregon and Washington State Gaurds men and women have fallen in this war and the local news stations have conducted interviews with most of their families. And do you know what they all have said? Teary eyed and sobbing they praised their sons, daughters, brothers, fathers, and yes even mothers for doing the right thing and fighting as soldiers of the Untied States. Not one of them, not one, has ever said a bad thing about Bush. In fact most when asked, say they will vote for him again because they understand the sacrifice that their loved ones had lived and died securing. That says a hell of a lot about the American people and even more about your news sources. (That being that they are all full of [censored] for reporting such tripe.)

Of those soldiers interviewed both abroad and here at home, most believe in what it is they are being asked to do. They don�t want to die doing it, but they are willing to put themselves in harms way not for politics, but for each other. Of the men and women interviewed upon returning from Iraq, most say the same thing. They don�t understand why the news media�s are so hell bent on focusing on only the small fraction of negative things that go on, when there are so many good things happening. Most say that although the situation is dangerous, most Iraqi�s are glad that Saddam is gone, and they are more than thrilled that it was the Americans who finally came to their rescue. They are proud of what we are doing, and despite the constant bull**** from the world media, more and more Iraqi�s are offering support for the Americans and their allies and what it is they are trying to do.

Now please do not take this wrong, but why are you taking the side of Saddam Hussein? Bush is not a mass murder, nor was any of his predecessors. In the Last twenty years we have not deployed chemical weapons against our own people, nor we did not invade Kuwait and Iran. Additionally, aside from some questionable military practices recently, we have not tortured people to death, persecuted the innocent, or held sham elections where the people had two choices, vote for Saddam, or die. Our Last three sitting presidents never ordered the assassination of a former leader of another nations, nor have any of them supported or funded terrorism.

The role reversal that Bush is somehow the bad man and Saddam is the innocent victim is quite inappropriate.

I know that we have different opinions on these subjects, and I want you to know that I did read your post and I did try to understand your POV. I don�t know what else I can say other than I feel that Bush, despite his flaws, is simply a better choice than Kerry. Kerry has lied about a great many things, and I simply do not trust the man. If only we had a viable third option, but we don�t, so I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

What is important is that we all remember that nothing means anything for we are all going to die. All of this, every Last bit of it, will mean nothing in a hundred years.

So we can sit here and piss and moan about what has happened all we want, the truth is, it simply does not matter. The world will go round, and if we can keep from killing ourselves off, maybe one day we can all learn to live in peace. Until then, we will continue doing what we have since the dawn of our time; killing each other for BS reasons.

EDIT

And I hope that one day we do capture him alive and he spends the rest of his life living in 5x8 cell eating pork and listening to rap music.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

[quote]
Atrocities said:
I agree, I don't see that Bush went into Iraq with the intend to kill innocent people.

...or if we think you do, despite that we have no prove and all the intelligence services of the world tell us otherwise...

Or, with other words: Might makes right so watch out.

Please tell me I read it another way then it is meant. Should the world be covered in blood for it? That's what the terrorist scums really want to see! Don't give them what they want!

They don't make him any hero at all. We are quite aware what a man he was.

That is the point that concerns Europe so much: We did tell it to the US all along but we got the impression that the US government wasn't listening. More, it didn't WANT to listen as it was already set to act, no matter what. That is concerning Europe! The terrorists are scum and we can expect no good. But if our trusted friend, the US, a nation that stands for freedom, liberty and reason, a fortress against tyrants starts not to listen to reason it is a scary thing to see.

Is it? It was a act of mass murder for the German Generals. How can slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in a purely civilian area not be mass murder? All the nations in WW2 did it but that doesn't make it right. It was a war crime, Banned by the Geneva convention all along but no one cared. Did it have any effect? No. It was planned that it should break the moral of the population but it worked against none.

You are mistaken if you think so.

How do you know? Do you live here? Have you forgotten about all the Europe soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq? Please!

Again, this is far from the whole truth. The Spanish government fell because the lied to the people telling them it was a group of terrorist unrelated to Al'Quida (spelling?) when it fact it was Al'Quida and they knew it all along. People don't like to be lied to.

I agree, unfortunately this is the impression it must have given to them.

No, I refuse to become like them! I rather be killed but to become like them, to do, what they want: Crash the world into chaos and give up my personal liberties out of fear. No, I will not do this. They will NOT alter my way of living!

I would before I will hurt innocent people without proper proof that they aren't innocent. You, me and every man has inalienable rights, and one of them is live. Even the guilty ones do.

I totally agree. My way to ensure this is just different from yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Correct, but like in Vietnam they US has a problem to bring this information to the affected people, mostly the Arab world. Less fighting, more improvement for the live of people in Iraq needs to be done and seen on the street and the media.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I think you summed it up best when you said "Might Makes Right." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif One day we will be on the recieving end of someones pay back.

You make your points very well Mephisto. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I really do not believe that the world has been plunged into chaos over the invasion of Iraq. I think the that perhaps the US Government wanted, as I said, to choose the time and place for the battle on terror and they chose Iraq two fold, one they would have centeral location in the heart of arab controlled middle east, and they got to take out one of the worst SOB's of the Last quarter century.

I honestly believe it was a dilibrate and intentional military objective to take on Iraq. This way our forces would have a solid base of operation if the need arose to take on other arab countries.

Now the ends should never justify the means, and lying to us about the objective may have been nessassary in order to preserve the hidden operational objectives of the real mission.

I simply do not know. I do know that many countries are peeved at us over this and I am sorry about that. I don't know what to say other than whats done is done, and I hope that eventually this dismal situation will improve and we all, every Last one of us including the Iraqi's, end up having better lives for it.

Our world is one of constant conflict and it has been so since the dawn of our time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif No one knows what the next hundred years will bring, but I do honestly believe that what we have seen here over the Last three years is just the beginning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif I fear that Kerry will win, he will do something stupid like re-odopt Clintons failed foriegn policies, cut the budge for the CIA, FBI, and Military, withdraw from Afgan and Iraq, and kiss the asses of the European nations like a good lap dog should. Clinton sold our economic future to the Chines, I fear Kerry will sell it to the European Union, and the terrorist.

I am sorry but I really don't like the man.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Atrocities, I hope you have some proof to back statements like "I do not like Kerry, as he is nothing more than an opportunistic liar who promises us a better tomorrow but has no intention on delivering", otherwise your gonna come off here as just a ranting loon.

- What makes John Kerry "an opportunistic liar"?
- What proof do you have that John Kerry doesn't intend to fullfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail?

Maybe you hate John Kerry because George Bush hasen't been able to fullfill the promises he made during his campaign in 99/00: George W. Bush: 100 Days of Broken Promises

As for "Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich", perhaps you should spend less time believeing everything you see on TV, and actually do some research for yourself. You can find John Kerry's Senate record here: John Kerry's Senate Record. It's pretty lengthy, but if you're going to smear Kerry's record or accomplishments, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

As for the "rich" comment, Kerry's been completely open with his finances. He inherited a good chunk from his parents, but the majority of his current wealth comes from wife.

You can see Kerry's finances here: John Kerry income record

George W Bush was rich (and still is) when he ran for the Presidency in 99/00, but it's Kerry you're siding against. Hmm...

"To do the right thing over the objections of world opinion"? In other words, as long as George Bush thinks it's right, he'll do what he wants, where he wants, to whomever he wants too? And you feel safe with this man who has the authority to push the big red button that ends all life on Earth? I hope you bought plenty of duct tape.

"take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist." So I guess if, say, an American in Seattle drove a truck full of propane tanks into the Space Needle, we could expect Bush to invade the Washington area with as much vigor as he did Iraq? Unlikely. North Korea posed (and still does) a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq did, yet Bush wanted to go into Iraq. The Bush Administration doesn't care where the terrorists are or might be, otherwise Iraq would have been futher down the list of Countries to invade.

Still believe that Bush truely cares about stopping/ending terrorism?

- AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors
- Unmasking of Qaeda mole a security blunder
-

"Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do." So apparently Iraq was worse than Pakistan, even though Pakistan has nuclear weapons (as you point out), but Iraq doesn't, and apparently never did? Hmmm...

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

Ah, but terrorism is such a broad term. Do you consider Human Rights Abuses terrorism? If so, then you have to call the prisoner abuse going on at Abu Ghraib by the American Military terrorism towards the Iraqi detainees.

Oh, but I guess since it's the United States doing it, it's not called terrorism. Hmmm...

*clap*clap*clap* Well, congratulations are in order then. Hooray for the United States! You've not only invaded a non-threatening country, you've made that country more hazardous for it's own citizens and for the Military presence there. Now that's what I call a plan.

"However many Americans now believe that most of the European nations lost there stomach to stand up to Saddam and enforce the terms of the cease fire. They felt it was better to simply let him do as he pleased for the Last twelve years" How about providing us with some proof that the Eurpoean community was allowing Saddam to "do as he pleased.

Or perhaps you're referring to the proposed switch from American Dollars to Euros for selling Iraqi oil? Hmmm, I wonder what that would have done to the US economy...

The real reasons Bush went to war

What would have happened? Bush, Cheney, and their cirle of Oil magnates would have lost a ton of money, and the American economy would take a substantial hit from the conVersion of oil sales from American Dollars to Euros.

"European conflict" What conflict are you referring to here?

Ah, so you're taking the simple minded approach that if one person is good, then the opposing person must be bad. So if I say Bush is bad, that must mean that I think Saddam is good.

Hmmm... You see, this is one of the huge flaws with the Republican Party; the view that everything is black or white, good or evil. If you don't Subscribe to Republican beliefs, you get labled as a Liberal, and you sumarily get dragged through the mud. The scarier corner of the Republican Party even believes that if you're not white, then you're not pure.

Eugenics Backer Causes Stir in Tenn. Race

I don't hold any misguided beliefs that the Democratic Party his it's kooks too, but nothing compares to the ones the Republican Party has.

Anyways, back to your first assessment of me. No, I don't like Saddam, nor do I view him as a War Hero. Anyone who takes pleasure in taking away human life deserves whatever fate eventually befalls them.

Bush Mocks Condemed Killer

The Taliban I can understand, considering they're the ones who took part in 9/11. But Saddam Hussein?!? I'll repeat this again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq make the United States the bully in that conflict.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?! "Armies of darkness"?!?!?!?!?! Atrocities, seriously, is someone pointing a gun to your head and making you type that, cause that's the only way a sane thinking person could come out with that.

Really, who sounds like a bully now...

And the message, was, what? "Do as we say or we're going to bomb your country into the stone age, and there's nothing the UN can do to stop it"? Or is it "Do as we say or you're population will have to look forward to some good old fashioned American justice (re: torture and dehumanizing at Abu Ghraib)?

The United States will be stuck in Iraq for years because of the mess and corruption going on over there. As for "everywhere we go", the US won't be going anywhere else. Afterall, the current Administration got what it wanted: total control of Iraq's oil production and reserves.

What, you still think Bush took the US to Iraq to, what, free the poor Iraqi people?

<insert continuous laugh track here>

"Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding it"? Proof please.

Please back this statement up with some facts aswell, please.

So what you're essentially saying is "Oops, sorry for invading your country, and destroying your infrastructre. My bad".

?!?!

Yeah, I'm sure the Iraqi people appreciate it.

Hmm... What could be wrong about this statement. Hmmm... What could it be... What could it be... Hmmm...

<insert drumming fingers on desk>

What could it be... Oh yeah: Germany actively attacked Britain, and invaded every surrounding country. IRAQ NEVER INVADED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

As Charlie Brown would say, "good grief"!

I'm all for killing/punishing terrorists, but the Bush Administration isn't interested in doing that. Not unless there's a profit in it...

Ah, so now the US invaded Iraq to free Israel. The excuses never cease.

"...I hope that one day we can rid the earth of these maggot eating, bomb making, kid killing, psychopaths that kill in the name of God." George Bush thinks that God is talking to him. Doesn't that mean that the end of your paragraph can apply to him aswell?

President Bush Receiving Orders from God?

Gotta love these comparisons with Nazi Germany...

In other words, you believe everything you see on TV?

<Whispering> Psssst... You do know that Fox News isn't really 'Fair & Balanced', right?

Maybe it's because the bad things outway the good by a margin of 10 to 1.

How about providing us with some links to support all the good work the US is doing in Iraq and to their people? I'm sure it would be news to them...

I'm not. I'm criticizing Bush. You're the one who brought up Hussein.

I don't remember saying anything about the previous American Administrations.

Ah, so now the US invaded Iraq in response to Saddam's actions over the Last 20 or so years. Right. Gottcha!

Funny, but I don't remember ever saying or implying that Saddam "is the innocent victim". Feel free to make stuff up, but don't drag me into it.

Again, I would love to know what you think Kerry has lied about that makes him worse than Bush.

I'm glad to hear that you're keeping an open mind. I'd like to think that I am too. Afterall, we were all born with a brain, and to not use it is a waste.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but it almost sounds to me like you're giving up. I'm a firm believer in fate, and that we're all here on this planet for a reason (big or small), but that doesn't mean that we should follow blindly, or don't ask questions when we see or hear something that we know deep down isn't right. One of the worse things anyone can do is to stop learning. Wether it's trying out a book by a new author or spending time with someone you may not agree with politically (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), we have to stay aware of the world around us, and grow along with it.

The old adage that "one vote doesn't count" is a crock. By casting that vote you are, most importantly, standing up for yourself. That one vote says "Hey! This is who I am, this is what I believe, and nobody can take this away from me"!

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

You�re out of line with your intentional hostile and somewhat rude responses. If you cannot discuss this topic like a grown up, then there is really no point in discussing it with you at all.

If you missed the meaning of what I said well then there is no point in me trying to clarify it for you. You have already made up your mind to ignore the clear meaning of my comments in favor of twisting them out of their intended meaning for the purpose of serving your POV. There really is no point in continuing this discussion if this is all that you are going to do.

In fact, I am fed up with the essence of hatred that your post seems to contain. At this point, as I read further down your post, I can see that I was mistaken about your intentions. You are actively and deliberately attacking my point of view and opinion with hostile intent. This is unfortunate as I had considered you to be a levelheaded person open to discussion over or differing points of view. Your more interested in posting attacks filled with venomous content that can only be classified as demented hatred is truly disappointing.

END OF POST - Original Post Deleted -

Lets just agree to disagree from this point forward. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Disclaimer

Ok an edit is needed here to avoid any hard feelings. First and foremost this is just a post. I wish to apologize up front. So please do not take my words to mean that I am a tight *** or a stuck up jerk. In this post I am responded to an attack, and like in any game, intimidation plays a roll. With that in mind, enjoy the read and please if you do get pissed off, take it out on me, and not your animals. (P.S. Nothing in this post is intended to be taken as a personalized attack. I am merely playing the game by the rules set forth in the post to which I am responding. I don't think he meant to come off as a mean person even if that is how his post seemed to present him.)

End Disclaimer



I have to agree with Atrocities, and go one step further; you are deliberately being closed minded and intentionally argumentative. You are attempting to goat him into responding to your rants at your level, and I am proud that he did not take your bait.

However, I have and I am not bit afraid of challenging your warped sources of information. I checked out your links and if the information contained in them is what you�re basing your arguments on, then you have no arguments.

I read your post and I would have to say that you are the one who is coming off as the ranting loon and not Atrocities.

What makes John Kerry an opportunistic liar � Well he is lying about his war record for one.
<font color="blue">
�The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

"We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.
John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.� � Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04)
In 1992, John Kerry came to the defense of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. �I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,� Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, �that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.� </font>
POW/MIA Against John Kerry Read what they have to say.

<font color="blue">As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he and his staff advised Hanoi's communists government how to close POW/MIA cases, with little or no regard for the truth.
In November 1992, members of the Committee, led by Senator John Kerry, traveled to Hanoi. During that visit, Sr. Col. Pham Duc Dai turned over his wartime journal supposedly detailing the ambush, death and burial of four men, from the 196th Light Infantry Brigade. Dai described how he participated in the death and burial of the four Americans.
John Kerry was exuberant in his praise of Vietnamese cooperation. Using the revelations contained in the diary, Kerry called for further U.S. trade concessions to the Vietnamese and he announced that he had gotten an accounting of four men. The problem.... Dai lied. But Kerry never retracted his praise for Vietnamese "cooperation."
On October 26, 1993, Pulitzer Prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg wrote" "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in his haste to carry out his agenda of getting the While House to remove the embargo against Vietnam, has done some extraordinary things. One of his recurring feats has been to try to turn fiction into truth....."
John Kerry had one goal, to close the POW/MIA issue, and open trade with Vietnam.
Our opposition to John Kerry is not based on political motivation. We are the wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and extended family members whose loved ones are the victims of John Kerry's rush to normalization relations with Vietnam.
The John Kerry we know, signs a report stating servicemen were left behind at the end of the Vietnam War, doesn't ask what happened to them, and rewards Vietnam for withholding the truth
John Kerry clearly demonstrated his priorities, placing trade with Vietnam over the truth about servicemen listed as Prisoner or Missing in Action. This is not a trait we want in a Commander-in-Chief.
John Kerry brought the Vietnam War into this campaign. So we say "Bring it On."
All we want is the truth and John Kerry, by his actions, has made this goal far more difficult to reach.
Therefore, it is our intent to make it far more difficult if not impossible for John Kerry to reach his goal.
Dedicated to the defeat of John F. Kerry, we are the families of American Servicemen listed as Prisoner of War or Missing in Action, left behind at the end of America's wars.</font>

And Kerry�s own campaign backtracked on August 24th when they came out and said that Kerry�s first purple heart award, and I quote; �My have been self-inflicted Read More

If you want to read more about what our vets think of John F. Kerry and his military record, just follow one of the 128 links on this site

Kerry portrays himself as a hunter yet he is the:
<font color="blue"> most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history. Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, John F. Kerry has cast 59 votes on issues involving firearms rights and hunting. These votes included votes to ban guns, to impose waiting periods on gun buyers, to financially punish gun manufactures for operating a legal business and to restrict the free speech of Second Amendment advocates.
In addition, Kerry currently is a co-sponsor of S. 1431, which would ban all semi-automatic shotguns, all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and many other guns, calling the whole lot "assault weapons." </font>

And it should be noted that his photo op as a he claimed himself to be a hunter, he was using a semi-automatic shotgun. I know the second amendment means nothing to Canadans, but it does mean a lot to us Americans. So please do not begin a debate over this.

More from Kerry�s military voting record.

<font color="blue">] Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:

1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.

2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.

3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."
4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061) </font>

I can keep going if you want me too. Kerry has billed himself as the right man at the right time however his Senate voting record proves otherwise. He says he is a hunter, and a war hero, yet the proof shows us otherwise. Kerry stated that �trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.� And what has he done? He has used his questionable Vietnam service record in an attempt to gain election to the White House.

Like what was said, he is an opportunistic liar who doesn't intend to fulfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail. To him they are just an ends to a means.

I remember seeing one of these for Clinton too. I laughed then as well. I read it and nothing in it would make me think he has broken any promises. And you do know that in order to get his policies from paper to practice, they must go through the Senate and House of Representatives. And those bodies sometimes do not always agree with one another. So it is understandable that some pledges are still in the works, while the Senate and House killed others. So Bush technically has not broken any promises. And lets face it; a person�s failures sell more papers than their success.

I did read his record, and I posted a lot of it for you to read. And for the record, I am not �smearing� Kerry�s record and lack luster accomplishments for he has done a nice job of that himself when it comes to the issues that I am most concerned about. So do not accuse me as you did Atrocities of such things.

The fact remain that Kerry came from a rich family and he has gotten richer while he has served as a Senator and he has shown absolutely no compassion for people to whom his proposed tax increases would effect.

Well George Bush has the support of many of his people, and if you cared to do some investigating you would have discovered that many other nations supported the war in Iraq just not the ones that had been economically benefiting from Saddam and his regime.

Secondly, your doing exactly what a liberal turn coat, truth bending, spin doctor would do, your warping the meaning of what he did say to fit your own views. You are using conjecture and assuming facts that are not in play. Case in point you say: � In other words� which clearly means that you are attempting to read into Atrocities statement something that was not there. This proves that you are the ranting loon my friend.

I know that I do feel safer with Bush in control far more than I would with Kerry given Kerry�s negavtive perpensity toward our armed forces. Kerry has demonstrated his willingness to compermise our safety by voting time and again to cut the budge of our military and intelligence agencies and against giving them the tools that they need to successfully carry out their charters. An example of his �heroic� nature was when he sacrificed the POW�MIA�s of Vietnam for his political agenda. I shudder in absolute fear at the thought of John F. Kerry (The second JFK as he has been called) having his finger on that �big red button.�

What are you smoking? What a totally frivolous, pointless, and meaningless statement this was.

Um let me clarify something for you, Korea represents a separate and unique threat that when the time comes will not only represent a threat to the US, but to most of Asia as well. When that day comes, the world will respond to the Korean threat as it sees fit. To compare Iraq to Korea is like comparing Apples to peanuts. Your point again is meaningless.

And would you rather we be fighting these folks near Pakistan where they do have the nuke, or further away where they do not appearently have the nuke? Again you make no sense your argument, correction you�re closed minded rant of little meaningful substance.

Oh my God I cannot believe you used this site as a reference. What a joke. Get some real facts will you! Progress news and views for a breaking community�. [insert]continuous laugh here[/insert] More like highly subjective and politicalized nonsense. Again, [insert] laugh here [/insert]. Is this the kind of site that you are basing your arguments on? My God you�d be better off just making [censored] up on your own.

A mute point since their actions were not considered terrorism. The sexual humiliation was intended to break the will of the detainees for purposes of questioning. Being forced to endure such humiliation at the hands of a woman would definitely have a negative impact upon their egos and would work well for breaking them down. But alas this is a mute point now so lets move on.

Oh one Last thing, you know that the distinction between Human Rights Abuses and Terrorism are vast. Human rights abuses deal with what Saddam was doing to his own people when he starved, gassed, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and denied them medical attention while presiding over them as their leader. Terrorism on the other hand deals with small Groups of individuals who are determined to kill innocent people to send a message of fear. On the surface they do appear similar, but underneath the surface, they are very much different kinds of horrors.

Lets face it, your nation simply just doesn�t have what it takes to be a super power so they never will be. And super power envy doesn�t make you a super power. And just out of morbid curiosity, how many war movies have been made about the heroism of your nations military successes during WWI and WWII?


If this is all you can say, then I guess you have said nothing.

Why should he? Its obvious to any one who has read your post that your intent would simply be to twist and distort any facts that he would present. No wonder he doesn�t want to respond to you.

You�re the one who is good at making [censored] up, so why don�t you tell us.

Actually from the way I read it, this is exactly the way you meant for him to take it. So he answered you in your own context, and now your attacking him over it.

Well [censored], by your definition of the Republican party, Atrocities and I are both liberals since neither of us fully Subscribe to many of the Republican views. And golly gee, look, here you are attempting to drag Atrocities through the mud.

Your right, both parties suck however, given the choice to live an unarmed slave, or as an armed slave, I choose armed.

Democrats want to protect everyone from their rights and freedoms by passing laws that limit an individuals right to choose. To a democrat there is no personal responsibility for one own actions so long as you can blame it on someone or something else.

Republicans want to protect you from �their� money. They are big business and view the American people as little more than slaves from a renewable resource.

Oh my God here you are again twisting facts and making [censored] up. Did you even bother to look at that sites URL? ((www.bushkills.com). These folks love to defend convicted murders that have been found guilty of their crimes by a jury of their peers. Convicted being the operative word here. Convicted means that they are guilty of the crime for which they were sent to death row. And you post a link to this site where they say Bush mocked a condemned killer as proof that Bush enjoys watching people die? Man talk about spin doctoring the facts, hell man, you really need to come up with something far more concrete than the ramblings of a bunch of folks who think putting condemned killers to death for there crime is a crime.

Offer us up some real proof. Present us with legitimate facts that support your contention that Bush takes pleasure in murder. Where is your actual evidence, do you have any news reports, videotape, and or printed articles from legitimate sites that prove that Bush has ever taken �pleasure� from the suffering of others? Most likely you do not so again, you are argument is meaningless.

Really, you would call the US the bully? Wow, that is really impressive since Saddam continuously hindered the inspection process, violated the UN cease fire agreements, and deliberately manipulated the process of confirming that he had in fact complied with the terms of the cease fire. You might go as far as to say Saddam brought this upon himself for if he had complied with the UN resolutions and allowed open access to all locations that the inspectors had wanted, then perhaps the world would have believed him when he said that Iraq had now WMD�s. But he didn�t even though he was given chance after chance after chance to comply. Eventually the cycle of his games had to be broken. He was given the chance to leave Iraq and he refused. George Bush was quite clear in his televised statement to Saddam, �Leave Iraq or suffer military action.� He was given far more chances to step down and do the right thing than he deserved, and in the end he chose to put the Iraqi people in harms way. So your argument that Bush is the bully and a war criminal is utterly asinine. Besides, we did have our reasons for invading Iraq; one we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Again this reason could have been abated only if Saddam would have complied with the UN inspectors, but he didn�t, and Hans Blix (sp) even stated that they, being the UN, had no proof that Saddam had destroyed his known WMD�s, and therefore more likely than not still had them. Poor Saddam, he fell victim of his own stupidity.
Secondly his out right criminal treatment of his own people had gone on for far to long. Taking the food and medicine that was earmarked for his people and selling them on the black market in order to build his personal wealth added to the misery of his people. He was also supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere in the world and that fact cannot be denied. Additionally, Saddam, the leader of a hostile country ordered the assignations of a former President of the United States. No in any other part of the world, that would have been considered an act of war.

I think he was attempting to interject humor into his statement.

I think you know what his point was. You are just twisting his words again. I read his post to mean that the US needed to prove to the Arab�s that we could beat one of their bullies at his own game if push came to shove.

Here we go again with your spin doctoring made up crap. The message was clear, and you know it. If they harbored or supported terrorism, we would act.

Here we go again, one more trip on the Katchoo truth spinner. Dude where is your legitimate proof that all Bush wanted was �total control of Iraq�s oil production and reserves? Do you have any proof that can be supported by fact? And I am not at all sorry to say that half-baked assumptions from less than reputable web sites will not serve as proof. You�re going to have to prove this one the hard way, with true, real, and concrete proof.

I think he does, and here you are condemning him for his support over the publicly acknowledge secondary reason for going into Iraq? Have you no shame? Where in the hell do you get off questioning Atrocities motive? What do you think we went into Iraq for? Just oil? How shallow are you man? My God man, do you honestly believe that the only reason the US went to war with Iraq was over oil? Holly ****t, that has to be the most crackpot conspiracy theory that I have ever heard in my life. I mean it is of epic proportions right up their with the notion that we never landed on the moon.


He had given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel for one.

<font color="blue">
�documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the Last two years.�
Link

�MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.� Link

�Insight reviewed some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic, in addition to hundreds of pages more on financial aid from Saudi Arabia and direct military assistance from Syria and Iran. The evidence of their involvement in Palestinian terrorist operations is massive, direct and overwhelming.� </font>

There are more, many more examples of his ties to terrorism, but this post is already way to long and I have grown tired of reading your post. From what I take from it, your post is nothing more than an instrument designed to incite a war of words. You list questionable web sites as your source material and attack Atrocities fact based evidence by taking it out of context and twisting his meaning. You referred to Atrocities as a ranting loon when in fact it was you who was doing the ranting.

If any one here is a loon, you�d already have my vote.

(This has just been opinion, and who knows, I could be wrong, but not today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

No less so than any other US news media. If you take it at face value and do not look at the big picture, sure. They all have unfair political biases. Fox News makes that claim because they have the opposite bias from most other US news media. So in a world full of liberal-slanted news media, a conservative-slanted news media is indeed fair and balanced, in that it helps create a more balanced spectrum of news media overall... So in one sense, it is quite true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

FOX has a news channel?? I did not kown that.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I don't have the time to read through everyone's points and respond to them in full at the moment, but I just had to point out a few things from CNC's post.

First, the endorsements and condemnations of Kerry by various veterans Groups... I consider all of them highly suspect. I've known quite a few war veterans, and one thing nearly all of them had in common was the tendency to exagerrate EVERYTHING they say, even more so when it comes to war stories. Do I think Kerry is a war hero? No, but then again, he actually went to Vietnam, which is more than can be said for Clinton or Bush. Do I think Kerry is a terrible person from all the veterans' stories? Definitely no, as it's already been shown in various media outlets that many of those veterans attacking Kerry didn't serve at the same time Kerry did, and those that were there at the same time, most had either no or very short-lived contact with him. It all sounds to me like one big grudge-match between various camps of veterans. There are probably several veterans that oppose Kerry simply for the fact that he turned war-protester once he returned from duty. And in the end, the whole mess just stinks of political tactics to discount any areas where Kerry could possibly have an advantage over Bush; especially when the possibility of a percieved advantage when it comes to commanding the military is just about all that Bush has when you look at some of the public opinion polls.

Second thing I wanted to point out was the cuts to defense spending that Kerry voted for. I would like everyone to take a careful look at those dates in CNC's points one through five. All after 1991. And when did the Cold War end, everybody? 1991? Right! I really don't see the problem in cutting military spending when all that needed to be done was maintain a portion of the current military hardware, since there was no huge imminent threat to the US. To attempt a very poor analogy, it's like having your house covered in rat traps already, and then after the rats nest kills the fattest rats and the rest run away and disappear from your house, you keep spending money on bait for the rat traps IN ADDITION TO BUYING EVEN MORE TRAPS. It is simply not necessary, the major threat is gone, and the current traps are more than sufficient for any mice that may want to take up residence. And this isn't even getting into the fact that most likely all of those bills had many other provisions in them that would also cause Kerry to vote against. Common, ugly political tactic; present bill where it states that "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then also bundle that with a provision that says people who make less than $10k a year have to pay for and attend poverty counseling sessions, or else pay a $1k/year fine. If someone votes against the bill, the fact that they voted against "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is held against them, no mention of other undesirable provisions in the bill.

As for the Cold War years points, joining with Dukakis in a lobbying group dedicated to cutting military spending and the '72 campaign promise to do so, I see this as just a reaction to the huge amounts of spending that were already occuring. It doesn't look like he voted for it at all, and I don't have the time currently to look it up, so I will do so later or hope someone else will to clarify. But without the votes, it just seems to me that he's helping to give voice to dissenters, a vital part of a democracy.

And for the point on opposing missile defense, there are many people that oppose it for the simple fact that it hasn't been demonstrated to actually WORK yet. Money for research on missile defense is fine, and doesn't hinge on Congressional funding, but on the discretionary research budget of the DoD. Funding actual deployments of the technology that fails most of the time is ridiculous.

I'll try to get back to the rest of the stuff later today.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Becareful Will, CNC is a Democrate. And if he is voting for Bush this year, that means he's done his homework over the subjects. I have learned a long time ago to never argue with him over politics. Mocho bad mojo.

And honestly, everything is suspect. Katchoo proved that. No matter what your source of information is, someone can always find a another source to say exactly the oposite. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Atrocites:

Yeah, I probably did come off as hostile. For some reason I'm getting easily rilled up when discussing Politics lately, especially American Politics. So I apoligize for running at you with a proverbial hatchet.

Atrocities, the one key thing I wanted to know was why you considered Kerry a liar. If your reasons why are the same as CNC's reasons, then that's fine, but if there's another reason, one that I may not have heard about yet, then I would love to hear it. In the end my mind does open up; my stubborn side doesn't keep it closed all the time.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

CNC:

Thank you for the links. Since you took the time to post them, I'll take the time to go through them.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Ok, most of the rest of the points are highly inflamatory, and don't deal with the issues much, if at all. So I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of it.

And AT, I hold both the Republican and Democratic parties in utter contempt. It's just I usually have less of a problem with Democrats than I do with Republicans, since the idealogical community that I despise the most in the US (conservative Evangelical Christians, eg. those who love their faith so much they want everyone else to have that faith too... or else) tends to overwhelmingly go Republican, and they determine some of their more distasteful (in my view) policies. Most of the Republicans I know who don't put the "neo-conservative" labels on themselves would fit far better in the Libertarian Party, since the Republican leadership has unfortunately been taken over by the so-called neo-conservative elements.

Pretty much my view on the entire military aspect of the candidates is that Kerry has some experience commanding a very small number of soldiers (five at a time, I believe), and none commanding any significant number. Bush has the three and a half years he got as President, and I think he botched most of it.

Afghanistan was pretty much a necessity any way you look at it, he would have been crucified if there wasn't swift action there. Then I think there are two ways to look at Iraq: either it was chosen over other viable targets (such as N. Korea) because there were already other factors aiding in the war attempt (trouble with UN sanctions) as well as it's location close to other Middle-eastern states where it was suspected terrorists were harbored; or, it was chosen because it was a slightly easier target (again because of UN sanctions and the demolishment of the Iraqi military in Gulf War I), control over oil (auto-magically gain the support of probably 25% of the country there), personal grudge over the assasination plot against Daddy, or any of the other conspiracy theories that have floated around. While the conspiracy theory points ARE possible, the first option would have to be the primary reason for any sane person.

So, in my view, immediately after invading Afghanistan, the talk of invading Iraq that came up was Bush mistake #1. Everything before that was pretty much auto-pilot, it would have happened no matter who was President (my opinion, but I don't see how anyone could think differently). The military should have focused on cleaning out Afghanistan and ensuring a stable new government, then moved on to the next target.

Bush mistake #2 was not listening to his military advisors, who knew what they were doing, and sending fewer troops than recommended into Iraq. While the neutralization of Iraq was still swift, it could have gone smoother, and a larger force would have been able to prevent the next mistake...

With Bush mistake #3 being again not listening to his military advisors, and keeping an insufficient police force in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco (I can't see how anyone would think that Bush's little stunt of showing up on the carrier was a smart move, especially considering that it was premature). There were a lot of analogies used for the search for weapons about how Iraq was about the size of California, making searching the entire country difficult. Well, to borrow from that, imagine going into California, and removing all the local police, the CHP, the National Guard, etc., in the state, and replacing them with a vastly smaller force of "police troops", who patrolled mostly in the major cities and the routes between them. What would happen to California then? Well, very quickly, gangs would gain control of large parts of the cities, and small Groups of bandits would have free reign over the rural areas. Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

So, Bush has consistently overestimated the abilities of his armies, and consistently underestimated the abilities of his opponents, on his opponents' home ground. With that record, you will forgive me if I do not want to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes, I'll take chances with someone else.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I know that your post was not directed at me Will, but I would still like to respond to it if you don�t mind. (If you do mind, well then I apologize now for I am going to respond to it.)

I respect your point of view, and although I do agree with much of what you have to say, I do have some questions for you. I would like to know if you are a specialist on the military, their tactics and capabilities? Are you a political specialist and or annalist? Have you ever been in the white house, or have ever sat in attendance during any of the meetings between Bush and his military advisors? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not, or are all your points just your opinion and nothing more?

You see, unless you are in the loop, your out of it. And those out of the look love to speculate and arm chair quarterback the choices of those who are in the loop.

You speak of mistakes that Bush has made. Do you have any written proof from any legitimate source that can cohobate your statements? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not? Do you have confirmation that Bush has made mistakes from solid military sources that can be quoted and or verified? Or are you more likely or not basing your statements on your own best assumption of the facts at hand?

Facts at hand that are often not complete, lack vital information, and are most likely from subjective sources. Subjective sources being not directly from the source to which they are reportedly reporting on. More often than not they are little more than hearsay and rumor until cohobated. I see no cohabitation of your contention that Bush has made mistakes, therefore I can only conclude that these mistakes you speak of are little more than your opinion of Bush�s performance. However since you are most likely not a military tactical specialist, and are probably not a political annalist, and have no connection to the leaders of our armed forces, I can only surmise that your opinions that the President has made mistakes lack credibility and are little more than your personal beliefs based not on fact, but on personal observations which lack professional credibility. Welcome to the club.

As for the religious aspects of the Republican Party, I don't know, as I have never really paid much attention to them. All I do know is that they have been under attack lately by people who want the words �In God We Trust,� removed from our currency, and the words �Under God� censored from the Pledge of Allegiance. I have read that many people, namely lesbian woman�s Groups and teenage girls, oppose them because they have a strong stance against abortion. I have no facts to back this up, therefore I will not comment on it. I challenge you to do the same, and produce facts to back up your comments.

My �observations� of the Democratic party is that they fear personal responsibility and have historically voted to limit personal freedoms, write laws to protect us from our freedom of choice, and support the corrupt ambulance chasing actions of trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits.

Hell look at what they are doing over the Swift Vote adds right now. The Democrats, specifically Kerry's campaign, have dumped over sixty three million dollars worth of negative adds into the president�s lap, and he watered them without fuss. Now here comes the Swift Vote with there two hundred and fifty thousands dollars worth of ads and Mr. Kerry and his Democrat supporters are crying foul. I really just want to yell, "OH GIVE ME A BREAK MR. KERRY AND SUCK IT UP!"

You see the Kerry people love to dish it out, but can't stand to get it back. Do the math, sixty three million dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. And now they want a court order to stop these vets right to voice their views. What is Kerry afraid of? Is he afraid that the truth will come out, and that truth will be that he manufactured situations and doctored his reports in order to get medals? I think that that is where this controversy is heading and he and his supporters know this so they want to use the courts, and make law, to prevent those who know the truth from ever telling any one of it. That is what the Democrats do. They whine and boo hoo like spoiled rotten children whenever things don't go their way. They lie, they sue, and they do whatever they can to make the light of truth to go away. Again, this is just based upon my personal observations that just so happen to be shared by a great deal of Americans.

Look at what Gore did in 2000; He sued over the results of the election. Fast-forward to day, and you see Kerry and his camp suing to stop adds that put him and his candidacy for the presidency in jeopardy.

As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job. And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Why would they? Maybe because they don't like Kerry? There are Veterans (also Swift) as far as I know that state the direct opposite of what the Swift Veterans tell you. Why would they make things up? Because they like Kerry and not Bush? Who is right I don't know but it is IMHO a bit far-fetched to say that either of the Vets are objective in their opinion, not subjective.

I'm no Amercian so can you give me an example where the Vets said something that was not done and that got awfully wrong? Anyway, just being someone who has been in a war doesn't make a person more reliable or wiser then other persons IMHO. I would trust my mother any day with her opinion but she surely isn't a veteran. I have seen my fair share of cruelty, suffering, blood and death as a Paramedic but this doesn't make me more reliable or wiser then other people who haven't. You see my point of view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Why is it that important that the President has the majority of vote from the military personal? How many people of the police, medical stuff, fire fighters and - most of all - persons who don't get their pay check from a government organisation - prefer Bush over Kerry and vice versa? Why is the job of these persons so important and - for example - not their social standing or something else? Why is the opinion of these persons more important then opinions of other persons? I'm just curios. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

To respond, no, I am not a "specialist" in either politics or military strategy or tactics. Just because I'm not a specialist doesn't deny me an informed opinion on the subject, and most of the information I've seen points to arrogance and overconfidence on the part of the civilian leadership of the military in the Bush Administration. Much of what I know about the military comes from my grandfather (a WWII and Korean War Army veteran) and my father (served in the Navy as a lab tech, stayed in San Diego for entire term of service). What I do know is that the top generals in the armed forces were asking for more troops to help out in Iraq, and the civilian leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., who believed our military to be invincible, denied the extra forces.

I'm really tired at the moment (it's 3:30am local time), so the following google (searched 'military strategy bush generals iraq') links haven't been checked up on much, but at a cursory glance they seem fairly legitimate except for the Last one:
CBS, Gen. Zinni
Washington Post, dissention in senior ranks
Newsweek, President must command
Sun Tzu &amp; Iraq War

On to the rest of it...

Religious aspects: it is far more than "lesbian woman�s Groups and teenage girls" opposing the assult on Roe v. Wade by the religious conservative elements of the Republican Party, and to me the former group you mentioned smacks of the predjudice so prevalant among some Republicans (I know it's a generalization on your part, I hope you don't acually believe that it's a problem with the "queers"). The argument against "In God we Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge do have some merit, as they were only put in to differentiate the US from the "godless Commies" during the Cold War, and it is very close to a government endorsement of religion. Right now, the Supreme Court has decided that it is enough that "God" could concievably cover a wide range of religious beliefs, and thus doesn't imply government endorsement of a specific religion; there are some that say government endorsement of ANY religion at all is going too far, and thus they want the words removed (among the Groups wanting this is Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, headed by, I believe, a reverend). Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as the words aren't forced (ie, requiring kids to recite, etc), and that's already not legal. But the other major issue that the religious conservatives have been piping up about is homosexual unions. I have yet to hear an argument against this that doesn't in some way appeal to a religious doctorine, and if you can point me to one that doesn't, I would be very appreciative.

Democrats, fearing personal responsibility, etc, etc... well, if it hasn't already been made clear, I don't exactly like the Democrats either; I just usually prefer them to Republicans because they tend to be "progressive". But I can't believe that you think the Republicans are for personal freedoms after the PATRIOT Act, Republicans pushing a second Version of said act, proposals for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions, national ID cards and databases, CAPPS I and II... the Republicans are just as Big Government and restricting of freedom as the Democrats, they just do it in different areas of life. You want a party that is for personal freedom AND personal responsibility, go Libertarian (I did).

The Swift Boat veteran ads... I don't know of any credible source that is actually defending the slander in those ads. I mean, how many of those veterans actually did serve with John Kerry (in the sense that most Americans would interpret serve, as in they knew Kerry in Vietnam, not they were in Asia at the same time he was)? I think it was two. And the doctor who "treated" Kerry, but is not mentioned anywhere in the military medical records for Kerry's injuries. The anti-Bush ads at least had some facts behind them, the swift boat ads were just a bunch of old guys with a grudge in my view. Which is why I said that I think all the veterans Groups endorsements and condemnations are highly suspect. I don't believe them one way or the other, they're too biased. And the veterans in America are largely split when it comes to Bush or Kerry, and I get the distinct impression (especially from my grandfather) that most veterans don't like either candidate, they only dislike one more than the other.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

You want some 'real' evil doers, AT? Try this.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

Summary: the central vote-counting program used by 30 states has a intentional backdoor. Anyone with knowledge of it and access to the machine can change the vote counts. This isn't a bug, it isn't a security flaw. Its a built in fraud subroutine.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Thanks Phoenix-D.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

the president of Diebold - Walden W. O'Dell - is a MAJOR Bush backer and he has vowed to deliver Ohio to Bush. I think the implications are pretty obvious.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I don't believe Bush or Kerry would ever rig an election.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I don't believe either of them would personally allow anyone to get the impression that either is behind an election-rigging attempt. There is far too much risk involved, for a fairly insignificant gain (IMHO, anyone who actually wants to be President is insane).

I do believe that the fanatical supporters on either the left or the right are capable of rigging an election for their candidate. Which is why the Ohio comment by the president of Diebold is a bit scary... and would be just as scary if he promised Ohio to Kerry. Because then we won't really be a democracy anymore, representative or otherwise.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5822356/

U.N.: Iran to resume uranium enrichment

They believe that since world opinion is against the US, they can resume their uranium enrichment and terrorist supportive activities with little or not worries about reprisal. JMHO

And I agree, no way in hell would either support rigging of votes. However, both sides are capable of doing things to get votes that many of us would find questionable, and if and when these instances are brought to light, whomever is responsible should be punished to the laws extent. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Burger.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cheese.gif[/img] http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/carrot.gif [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Dogbone.gif[/img]

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Ya know, M. Moore makes a compelling arguement with his movie. It does what it is designed to do very well. He points out facts that do make you think, that make you feel, that make you both angery and sad. If he were a lawyer, he would work for Insurance companies defending their guild as sin clients in court, twisting the facts to fit their case and ulitmately putting on the best case for his clients as he could. His movie does that, but it does it with the same intent an insurance lawyer putting on a case.

Now if you happen to sit on the jury, and all you are given is just the one side, Moores sides, you would do what any of us would, you would side with him.

Now if you happen to discover that there is more truth behind what you have been told, a lot more truth, then perhaps your decision would be based upon the whole big picture instead of only the left side of an incomplete frame.

Its a hard call, a very hard call, but in the end, it is a dog eat dog world, and the truth that you choose to believe in may ir may not be right or wrong, but it many seldom if ever be both. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Its a tough call, to vote between a liar, or a lair, both are in it for money, both are rich, and both are men of questionable character.

I will vote for Bush, not because of Iraq, or other, but because of the one thing that Kerry is against that Bush is for. A choice that I feel is more important to me than any other issue on the table. And that really has nothing to do with terrorism, economys, or wars.

In the end, it will be up to the electorial vote, not the popular vote, but the electorial vote, and they vote the way they are paid to. God help us. (Subjective belief, one that may or may not be accurate.)

Its time to make a choice, and each of us know that we will make the right one for us. Lets just hope that in the end, history will show that we chose wisely but it probably won't.

No I am not a big Micheal Moore fan, oh hell, I hate the fat bastard, but the truth is, his movie, although highly subjective and one sided, is worth seeing. Not for its anti Bush sentaments, but for its hidden, all though not dilibrately, story that war is a bad bad thing paid for by lives, human lives.

To that end, I stand corrected on my opinion, although I disagree with the movies one sided view of Bush, his administration, and the war, I can understand why it has earned the respect of many. I do not respect M. Moore, but I cannot argue with his film making genius. He would make a fine defense lawyer and or prosecutor. If only Californa had had him as their prosecutor on the O.J. case.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

AT, I'm glad that you finally saw it. You really don't have to agree with the man's politics to get something out of the movie. Besides the conspiracy theory bits, which have been getting the most knee-jerk reaction out of some conservatives, the central thesis of the film has recieved hardly any comment. This is an unfortunate theme through his films, I think. People get so worked up over his style of blindly going through any possibilities imaginable (eg. intro to Bowling for Columbine, where the shooters went bowling before going on the rampage, therefore bowling is evil... etc), that the actual Messages of the film get lost in an endless debate over the meaningless details.

You hit on one of what I think are two core Messages of the film, that war has a very high human cost, ignoring all the money that has been funneled into it. The images from the war are considered very shocking to many Americans, I think from the distinct American media practice of putting a facsade over everything. Any other country in the world would have seen, and did see, the pictures of the killed, wounded, and mourners in their media outlets. American media went for the "flashier" shots from a jet's undercarrige camera, or a splash screen of an American flag, or crowds cheering soldiers. The other stuff doesn't make people feel good, and it's a distinctly American belief that everyone should Feel Good, All The Time, No Matter What.

The other part of the message was where the true strength in America lies. It's with the Ugly American (referring to the engineer in the book of the same name), the working people who form the bulk of the armed forces, and the ones who have some kind of decency, helping others instead of just themselves. They are presented in contrast to the very rich Bush Administration officials, and the very rich corporate directors, who call the shots because they have the money, and thus, presumably, the power. Kerry fits in this group too, although IMHO, it's a bit different since he married into money rather than being born into it like most are.

You have the things that are important to you, I have things that are important to me, and those form our choices. And I hope with you that whichever one ends up "winning" truly is the best one.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I will put this here just because it seems like the right place for it. To me this is a scarey Bush..

I finally found a decent link to a quote I kept hearing.
&gt; "If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world
&gt; will drift toward tragedy," Mr. Bush said, implicitly but clearly
&gt; comparing himself with Mr. Kerry. "This will not happen on my watch."

When that short statement is broken down I find it one of the scariest things Ive ever heard Bush say. That if AMERICA shows UNCERTAINTY and WEAKNESS in this decade then the WORLD will DRIFT toward tragedy. He wants America to be firm and strong in keeping the world from drifting? He is proud that Iraq is now free and democratic. He makes snide comments about Iran and North Korea. I just think all-in-all this is a worrisome statement from the guy who wants another 4 years to finish what he started. Sorry but Im just not big on America fixing the world on MY watch.

Oh yeah, decent link is here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/po...bf&amp;ei=5070
short link here..
http://tinyurl.com/6uru7

Gandalf Parker

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

It kinda does anger me about what Kerry did, putting words in Chaneys mouth like he did, but its understandable that things like this are going to keep happening as we get closer to Nov.

As for M. Moores movie, well I wish he would put all of his skill and heart into making a documentary on the horrors that just happened in Russia where the terrorists blew up the gym and tried to kill all those inocent children.

I honestly doubt that we will care about reports of abuse of terrorist in Russan prisons if connected to this case.

My god what has the world come to when sicko M---er F---kers like these sick bastards go after children?

God what a horrible thing. And yes, even if it were a school of Afgan or Iraqi children accidently hit by a bomb, I would still say that it was a horrible horrible tragedy.

Even if kids are packing AK-47's and shooting at US soldiers, all other options must be taken before the choice to shoot back is decided upon. However the children in Russa were not combat victims, nor were they armed, they were inocent kids doing what kids do, and they were targeted and executed by people who have just taken the word TERRORIST to new unforgettable lows.

Whoever wins in November has a duty to not just the US, but to the world to keep going after terrorists and those who support, harbor, and secretly protect them, even if it means going after Saudi Arabia and Iran.

What a sad day this world has come to when children are dilibrately targeted by terrorists.

And I have to agree with Chaney on this, I do not think the terrorist will be impressed by our softer, genteler side. They respect one thing, and that I am afraid is unconditional brute violent force in all of its unbridaled fury.

I hope the Russan's can save the wounded, find more alive in the rubble, and prevent this kind of atrocitie from ever happening again. I know that we here in the states will now take extra care to watch our schools.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

I have not problem with how TERRORISTS are treated. Well I shouldnt say no problem. I think keeping them in other countries to do things they cant do to them at home, and not allowing even geneva convention, is abit stretchy for the good guys.

That phrase "secretly protects them" is the problem. Going into Afghan after Bin Laden I had no problem with. I guess it depends on how much you trust a few guys to tell us who is secretly supporting terrorists, and the US ignoring political lines to go anywhere on earth. If someone wants to harbor a pitbull for its own defense then fine, but they need to keep it fenced (in this case Im referring to the US as the pitbull)

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

What kind of world? About the same as always. AT, the worst school "shooting" in the US didn't occur with guns at all. It occured around 1900 (IIRC) when a teacher loaded his truck with explosives and suicide bombed the school.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Say, Atrocities, may I just congratulate you on coming across very convincingly as a right wing nut case?

You love Bush, but you have no idea what's he has done to the military, to the people in the military, to politics (funding lying attacks against 3 war heroes from Vietnam, while dodging service there himself, just like - Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and Perle, to name 4 massively prominent hawks in the administration. Bush approved of lies about McCain (whom I would vote for in a second), Max Cleland (lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, was the congressman who originally proposed a Dept of Homeland Security, which Baby Bush _opposed_ originally), and now Kerry), to the environment.

From 1989 to March of this year, I was with US Central Command, first as a Marine, then as a contractor. You might say I was paid to keep track of what was going on. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld hamstrung the war efforts, for political gain. They screwed up Afghanistan, then Iraq, and threw away the chance to actually nail Al Qaeda.

And some of Boy George's most celebrated stunts, like having Thanksgiving in Iraq with the troops? BS. Because of Bush, troops in Iraq were turned away from the chow hall and wound up eating cold MREs (Meal, Ready to Eat - pLastic bags full of nasty tasting food) for Thanksgiving dinner. Why? Because they only wanted good, safe, republican Bush-lovers in there. For security reasons, only approved, invited, troops were there.

Similarly, when he landed on the air craft carrier and the sailors applauded? They were ordered to applaud, and told not to applaud before they were given the signal. Again, a crock of BS, and on top of everything - the ship was ordered to stay at sea an extra day, so Georgie could get his photo-op, never mind the sailors who hadn't seen their wives/husbands, kids, etc, for over 6 months.

I'm not going by what was in the papers (although it was mentioned in some papers, but not often or loudly). I'm going by 1st hand accounts from friends in the military.

Feh.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Calling me a right wing nut case is not an accurate essement of me. I am neither right wing nor left. I merely dislike Kerry more than Bush.

I am voting for Bush because Kerry's stance on a few issues important to both myself and my way of life scare the hell out of me.

The rest is just politics being politics.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Well, to be fair, he said you came across as a right-wing nutcase, not that you *are*, AT. You've proven over and over that you are capable of critical thought, which is a major thing lacking in all nutcases (right-wing or otherwise).

And you've mentioned these issues that Kerry differs from Bush on... but never said what they are. Care to enlighten us?

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Thanks Will.

I prefer not to discuss the issues important to me on a pubic forum at this time. But I will say that Kerry's recent stance on the experation of a recent law really does alarm me given the facts that he ignorned. Past that I will not discuss the topic.

Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
 

Gee. The assault weapons ban? Personally, I might think that they fall well under the 2nd amendment, which was meant to allow the people to oppose tyrants and their own government. As a senior citizen who voted for Bush Last time said, "I'm so ashamed I voted for him. I did it because of gun control, even though I don't like guns, but now ... If someone isn't going to shoot Bush, what good is having guns?"

As I stated - Bush has screwed the military, he's screwed the authority of the states (which he campaigned for), he's screwed the economy, the environment, the war on terror, the war on drugs (he screwed both by deciding to go after Iraq for personal reasons instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan), he's screwed the middle class. The only things he's helped are corporations, the rich, Al Qaeda (albeit even I'll concede that he didn't _mean_ to help them), and the fanatical religious right.

For Christmas' sake, with a war on Iraq and terror going on, his administration is proposing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. And putting 200 secret service agents to work cracking down on ... music pirates! Like Al Qaeda is financing explosives by sharing songs on Limewire. And let's not forget, Ashcroft deciding that no, states shouldn't have autonomy - not when it involves medicinal marijuana, not when it involves people's right to not suffer for years while hospitals and insurance companies get rich, not when it involves states attempted to enforce clean air laws that are tougher than the ones which Bush is gutting.