Who to vote for? (for US President)

People on the internet shouldn't argue about stuff they don't understand.

 

Yes, that is why you stopped to argue about sexuality

 

Are you saying LeHah doesn't understand sexuality?

 

Wow.
You said that!

 

I've read that pretty much verbatim from the Bush website. That could be a "flip flop" as you say, but you can also reconcile those statements. That said, I'd like to see more context to see if there is actually a shift or if the quotations used a spliced together to make it appear as though there is one. I just quite don't frankly trust anyone, especially the candidates themselves, to interpret things for me but who can you go to for unbiased facts?

Since you see a "flip flop" here, I will play devils advocate and show how there is another interpretation. He voted to authorize the use of force, and one of his motives could well have been to threaten Saddam. Note also that Kerry has no control over how any force is actually used, so although he might have wanted the use of force he may not like how it was used. He says he is against the way that Bush ran the war, not necessarily opposed to war with Iraq.

It’s like going to a restaurant and ordering steak (use of force) because you are hungry for it (your motive, could be anything), only to get the steak (use of force) and not want it because it was burned (how force was used in Iraq by Bush). That doesn't make you a "flip flopper," it makes you someone who wanted steak (use of force) but couldn't see into the future and know that the cook (Bush) was going to burn it (use the force in a way you don’t like).

 

I don't think there is anyone you can go to for unbiased reporting. And some of the news organizations and sources are more biased than others.

 

Wow Bandit LOAF, I've really got to hand it to you. Here's me thinking you could not get anymore condesending, and then you go proving me wrong. Well, I could try to put my point across like you do and pass personal observation and opinion as fact, but hey, I'm just not that committed.

It's kinda funny. When I was over in the UK and noticed how little regard many Europeans tend to show towards Americans at times, I could never truly understand why that would be. Now I know. It's because of chest-thumping introverts such as yourself which give your fine country a bad name.

Well, stick to whatever facts suits you, I suppose. Listen to the propaganda and beleive it. Oh wait, thats right. It's your side, so it can't be propoganda, it mist be the truth. There's no sense arguing with someone who simply doesn't want to listen. Then again, I suppose you can always insult someone who puts together a good argument. Of course, that would be rather childish, wouldn't it?

Incidently, I don't think I'm the only one thinking you're way out of line on this one. although again, I suppose as long as you think your mature, than it must be the truth. The rest of us must be crazy/stupid/foreign, or a combination of all three.

 

I'm being stupid? I think others would argue that. I've tried putting a point across being as civil as I thought I could. yes, it was a biased opnion. Yes, it was fom my point of view. However, I beleive you have lowered the bar on this occasion. What's next? Toilet humour for a rebuttal? Professing one's beliefs or opinions that conflict with anothers don't neccesarily have to be stupid (words, not mine), just different.

Also, your slight against the "common person" not caring about the issues we thin are important seemed rather petty as well. International strife, political manipulation, etc. are issues people, American or not, want to debate. I think that what we are discussing now, is in itself a democratic process and still important. Don't take that away from others.

Also, really classy quote about the college kids. Why the hostilities towards them? Again, why assume that a few individuals on the other end of the argument must being protesting to "skip classes and the guy college students will try to have sex with the girl ones by pretending they're really passionate about such things." (again, your words, not mine).

Yep, you're sounding like the big man on these boards.

 

"WARNING, WARNING!"

You're dangerously close to finding out. Just a fiendly observation.

 

My response was "Well you must hate Europeans"? Try reading what I actually wrote on my original post.

As for the comment regarding the attitudes I've experienced towards Americans and American policy in Europe.... Well, I can think of the US Consular General in Edinburgh having an open forum meeting at the City's Chambers a day or so after 9-11. The public response was not would I would have expected (ie: an outpouring of civil support, a general affirmation of friendship between the UK and US, etc.) Instead, the Consular was effectively heckled and booed by several people disagreeing with US foreign policy and they were asking some very tough questions. I was there. I was shocked. and yes, like it or not, it's true. Thats what I'm saying. I understand you may not have a problem with these people (unless they are involved with receiving a higher education, of course), but they seem to have a bone to pick with the US.

I suppose this is yelling and shrieking to you? Putting forth an informed debate.

However, if you feel I'm deviating, I shall re-interate. I don't support Bush because I feel lied to about the Gulf War. (Where are those gosh-darn pesky weapons at?). I don't agree with his domestic policies (continuation of the military industrial complex at the expense of civil services). And to be totally honest, he's got far too many ghosts in his closet for my trust (drug charges, financial cronyism). I just happen to think this current administration is making a hell of a lot of right white guys richer, and leaving the rest of the country in dire straits.

 

Bush did not lie about the Gulf War and the WMDs. He believed that Saddam had them based on not only intelligence reports from our own agencies, but also those of the UK, France, and Russia. If you had not only your own intelligence agency saying that Saddam had the WMDs, but also the intelligence services of multiple other nation's, wouldn't you believe that he had those weapons. A majority of the UN believed those reports because UN Resolution 1441 was passed. This resolution called for Saddam to fully dislcose whatever WMDs he had and allow for unrestricted inspections. Saddam had to prove that he didn't have the weapons, not the other way around.

And telling us that Saddam had WMDs based on those intelligence reports is not a lie. He may have been wrong due to innacurate intelligence regarding the WMDs, but that is not lying.

 

Oh come off it! The intelligence agencies did what they were told from the top dowwards. Let's look at the UK for instance. Preceding the war, MI6 was under direct influence of the PM's office to gather as much data as it could, no matter how outdated, speculative, or irrelevent it was, to persuade parliament that a war in iraq would be justified. All this despite the fact that for years since 1995-1996 Iraq has been categorized as a "non-threatening nation" in the MODs annual strategic analysis.

One examle of inconclusive evidence brought to parliament was data on nuclear vacuum systems. It was claimed the Iraqi's could possibly acquire these vacuum systems for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. However, the data was so outdated at the time, american intelligence experts disputed the claim in 2002. That's one instance where old or incorrect intelligence was used in the report to the government, and was itself ignored by intelligence in the states years ago!

Another of PM's leading argument for war was that Iraq did possess WMD that could target British forces in Cyprus in under 45 minutes. The Ministry of Defense has now acknowledged that claim to be "inflated". the Iraqi's simply do not have a delivery system capable of that feat. That has been proven by on-site searches by British forces in Iraq.

Both the American and British documents relied heavily on the International Institute for Strategic Studies' report for the claims about Iraq's nuclear capability. The document alleged that Iraq could potentially assemble nuclear weapons within months if another country (N. Korea, perhaps) supplied it with nuclear material. In American and British statements, however, that claim simply becomes, 'Iraq could make nuclear weapons within months'. Yet according to the author, Gary Samore, it would take 'several years' and 'extensive outside help' for Iraq to get a nuclear weapons programme up and running. 'We rate the chance of Iraq acquiring fissile material as low', he says. 'It would be difficult for Iraq or any other group to obtain enough fissile material to build a weapon.' This from the IISS, and they are experts at what they do.

In the case of the Gulf War it has simply been a case of policy dicating intelligence, not intelligence dictating policy.

However, I feel the most disgusting aspect of this whole charade is the death of Doctor David Kelly. Don't know who he is? Well, Dr. Kelly was the UK's leading microbiologist and specialized in biological weapons and warfare. Dr. Kelly blew the whistle on the British govenment's Iraq dossier and how, frankly bollocks, the whole deal was. Dr. Kelly suggested himself the report was "sexed up" to make it sell in parliament by the PM's office, despite the inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Dr. Kelly is now dead. That's right. He apparently killed himself. Strangely, just before he was to hand over his official counter-claim in protest over the parliamentary report. Not wanting to make it sound more sinister than it is, nor am I making ny accusation (though I have my thoughts), but I find it incrediably interesting that the man, the expert in the field, mind you, who felt the government was wrong in it's fact-finding, is now suddenly dead before he's able to get his side of the story across.

Let's face it, Bush and Blair leaned on the intelligence community to get support, any sort of support at all to justify the war. Intelligence was flawed or non-existent. Bush even went so far as to link Al-Qaeda with the Iraqi government, despite Bin Laden's outspoken and often provocative criticism towards Hussein and the government at that time.

 

What do you mean I just ranted about complaints only I have? I thought I was putting together quite a bit of an argument. What is it you want answered and I shall do so.

Also, what with the censorship?