He has said much dumber things. At least Dean apologized for that comment. Bush never does and never will, he'll just continue to say very dumb things.
"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President ... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." --Speaking to the National Security Council
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Sep. 29, 2000
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." - Oct. 18, 2000
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Our technology, expensive or not, helps saves american lives. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's doing a great job in Iraq. Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying every day, despite having the best military equipment in the world.
Most people in America consider there to be only two parties of consequence and would never vote for annother party because they would be "throwing their vote away". This of course just leaves us stuck with the two party system where your choice is between the guy favoring corporations and the guy who really really favors corporations. Thus I have decided to "Throw my vote away" and vote for my mother, as she is the only respectable person I know who meets all the requirements.
Bush. I want to tax the poor till the coffers of the rich are overflowing with blood money stolen from the peace loving countries of North Korea and Iran. I also want to kill the environment as fast as possible and eventually see the US become a fascist state with all opposition to Bush jailed or executed. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Of course, thats better then the alternatives... Bush in '04: Its not like theres a better choice.
Dean and Kunich: Raise taxes, stop fighting terror. Clark: No real plan, contradictory. Liberman: I like him. Probably my favorite dem, although he favors expanding Government. :-/ At least Bush CLAIMS to be against big government. Gephart: Universal Healthcare is bad. Sharpton: HAHA! Kerry: Classic tax and spend liberal. Doesn't take terror seriously enough. Everyone Else: Not going to win.
Personal Hopes: I've love to see Cheney dropped from the ticket, since he fuels so many conspiracy attacks. I'd absolutely DIE if there were a Bush-Rice ticket. Jesus, I'd love that! Republicans having the first woman vice president AND the first black vp ALL IN ONE!
Serious threats to Bush: -I think a Dean/Clark ticket could significantly challange him, although not to the extent he'd be a surefire miss. -Bush has mishandled security. I think if Democrats highlighted the crappy security we still have, they'd have an issue. Unfortunately, they're trying to play the Iraq card, which won't work. As long as America thinks they've done some good in Iraq, its going to be tough to shame Bush into going to war. I hate to say it, but the best thing for Democrats would be to have our boys keep coming home in body bags. Sad, but true. -If there is another catastrophic terror attack, he's a goner.
And thats my thoughts on the matter.
EDIT Ryo, you study military history, at least casually, right? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, it's doing a great job in Iraq. Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying every day, despite having the best military equipment in the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The war in Iraq is having remarkable low casualties for what is happening. American technology IS saving lives. The US took over a country the size of california and lost about 350 troops. (400 something total coalition I think). Thats an incredible feat.
I'm just kinda suprised you'd take the cynic's argument. For comparison, during the height of vietnam, the US lost 500 a <b>week</b>. Right now, the US is losing about 9 a week, on average. Its tragic, since they aren't just numbers, but people, but the fact remains that its amazingly low. At that rate, the US would need to be in Iraq for another 106 years to compare to Vietnam.
I'm rather impressed by his physical prescence and his military background. He seems knowledgable enough also. If he can settle down and establish a solid foundation, alot can go for him.
As for Bush....I don't want to talk about him (domestic flop anyone?)...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The war in Iraq is having remarkable low casualties for what is happening. American technology IS saving lives. The US took over a country the size of california and lost about 350 troops. (400 something total coalition I think). Thats an incredible feat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true. The Iraq campaign was very successful militarily, lightning strikes with minimal casulties (it's sad that many were friendly-fire). It's just the post-war plans didn't go Quite as expected.
<!--QuoteBegin--PanzerOx+Nov 14 2003, 11:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PanzerOx @ Nov 14 2003, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I used to favor clark, but I've been hearing a LOT of bad things about him, so I'm going with Dean.
Bush is a fuckup, I hate the guy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Keep on topic please. Don't turn this into another pro bush/anti-bush thread.
I don't really care for many of the potential candiates but I simply presented who I would vote for if I don't feel like voting for Bush in 2004 (I live in CT so even when I do vote for him [I probably will] it doesn't matter because New England is pretty much strictly liberal)
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Nov 15 2003, 02:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 15 2003, 02:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most people in America consider there to be only two parties of consequence and would never vote for annother party because they would be "throwing their vote away". This of course just leaves us stuck with the two party system where your choice is between the guy favoring corporations and the guy who really really favors corporations. Thus I have decided to "Throw my vote away" and vote for my mother, as she is the only respectable person I know who meets all the requirements. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats because we don't have a percentage wise vote system, I think that would be much better. Unless we get some 3rd party candiates in, the 2 main party's will always keep systems that will harp on any attempt for a third party candiate to get elected to any office, especially at national level.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 15 2003, 01:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 15 2003, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, it's doing a great job in Iraq. Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying every day, despite having the best military equipment in the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah... I mean... Walking soldiers or jeeps or humvees are so good at protecting against rocket or bomb attacks.
Get real! There is only so much technology can do. When you have real soldiers on the front lines they will die. Regardless of technological superiority. Now if we had our tanks rolling through the streets with all our guys in there... Then it would be harder to kill them.... But that's not very practical nor smart ( this does not mean there are no tanks, just that they are not the best means to enforce security within a city ).
UN sees "worrying signs" in Afghanistan instability Saturday October 25, 10:07 AM
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The ousted Taliban have retaken control of parts of Afghanistan amid "worrying signs" that the post-war government is starting to weaken, the UN's top peacekeeping official said.
Just days before a UN Security Council mission to the war-torn country, Jean-Marie Guehenno offered a dire assessment of the difficult rebuilding process, which he said could cost five times more than previously thought.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 15 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 15 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dean and Kunich: Raise taxes, stop fighting terror. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OH COME ON! Howard Dean is nothing like Dennis Kucinich.
From your perspective everyone is misjudging Bush because of their own bias, and I agree with that. But you're doing the same thing with the Democratic candidates.
I also don't think "Universal Healthcare is bad" is a sound statement. It has such growing support that most Republicans won't oppose it.
I'll say it before the communist comes in and says it. "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Maybe that's why Iraq seems a lot more bloodier then pretty much any war fought on the planet Earth, ever?
Anyways...
I think we need to have Bush re-elected because of one stereotype. Democrats suck at fighting wars, while Republicans excel at it. Because we are currently fighting terror (right now more then ever) we need to keep electing Republicans. Later on, when we fixed Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran, THEN we can elect who ever we want.
Really, Im all for the war in iraq. Even if they didnt find WMD, they freed alot of things that were bad.
But i also think Clark would try the military way way too much. Trying to force the military on everyone.
I dunno im just so used to the same thing lately in the whitehouse. Im really just going with. not this election but next election. Us as americans need to get with the program and vote in a woman or colored president.
White Males is just showing how free we are.
I love America! Im a true american.
Im just saying a little change wouldnt hurt.
In all honesty i think this year's election i would vote for Bush Again. He has boosted us in the economy and handled alot of tradgies, and isnt scared to stand up to terroist.
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction. -Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order. -Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy. -And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I haven't gotten around to researching the new candidates much, but with the action taken by our current president during the past 4 years, i'd have to say that all of the competition would have to be a pack of complete idiots, and i mean REAL ignorant, if i thought that GWB would be the best choice to have back in the top seat.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 17 2003, 03:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 17 2003, 03:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those saying that Dem's suck at war:
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction. -Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order. -Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy. -And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But he also cut some back and handed programs to the states as well. Obviously, something like the Department of Homeland Security was <i>needed</i> granted, I don't think it needed such a huge budget. But simply for the reassurance to people here in the states.
<!--QuoteBegin--BigBull+Nov 16 2003, 04:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigBull @ Nov 16 2003, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love America! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That means you love Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Cuba, Brazil AND USA.
Please people, when you mean USA say so because USA is not America. Thank j00
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Nov 17 2003, 10:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Nov 17 2003, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 17 2003, 03:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 17 2003, 03:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those saying that Dem's suck at war:
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction. -Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order. -Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy. -And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But he also cut some back and handed programs to the states as well. Obviously, something like the Department of Homeland Security was <i>needed</i> granted, I don't think it needed such a huge budget. But simply for the reassurance to people here in the states. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why did we need a Department of Homeland Security? Is it just to make us feel better? Didn't we already have a <a href='http://www.nsa.gov/' target='_blank'>agency</a> responsible for that?
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 17 2003, 11:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 17 2003, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It didn't need to exist on such a large scale. As a sub-department of the Department of DEFENSE, yeah, but not it's own.
and those programs he handed back to the states? from what i've heard/read, many states can't take the added budget strain. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they refuse to look for things to cut. People are so against program cutting, many times programs aren't even used or taken out of the budget. So much spending goes to waste.
Say a government agency gets 900,000 dollars a year. They request 100,000 extra so they can buy some new computers. Lets say they get those new computers for 90,000, that would leave 10,000, so we should see that go back to the main budget. But no, those agency's will spend that money (wasting 10% of the extra grant) just because their afraid of perhaps not getting the money they may need to request next year because they didn't use all the money they had.
Government should give initive for agencies to spend LESS.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Nov 17 2003, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 17 2003, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why did we need a Department of Homeland Security? Is it just to make us feel better? Didn't we already have a <a href='http://www.nsa.gov/' target='_blank'>agency</a> responsible for that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You obviously has no clue what the purpose of DHS is.... Or the NSA.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
This years elections will be the first I'm legal to vote in, and I'll be making mine count...........FOR FICUS! Ficus: the only politician ever to actually make oxygen.
Anyone But Bush 2004. My vote will most likely go to Dean. Though if McCain were to run, he may also get my vote (if he were to run as a Democrat there's a good chance he'd win).
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 17 2003, 07:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 17 2003, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Nov 17 2003, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 17 2003, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why did we need a Department of Homeland Security? Is it just to make us feel better? Didn't we already have a <a href='http://www.nsa.gov/' target='_blank'>agency</a> responsible for that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You obviously has no clue what the purpose of DHS is.... Or the NSA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your right, I don't. Maybe you'd care to explain the difference?
<!--QuoteBegin--Renegade+Nov 18 2003, 01:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ Nov 18 2003, 01:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyone But Bush 2004. My vote will most likely go to Dean. Though if McCain were to run, he may also get my vote (if he were to run as a Democrat there's a good chance he'd win). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen. McCain, no matter which banner he ran beneath, would have my vote in the next election.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 13 2003, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 13 2003, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How isn't he a moderate? He is against gun registration and he is also a fiscal conservative. The only strong liberal trait he has is that he was against the war. And if you hear his reasoning he wasn't really against it just because it was a war, but because it wasn't operated well from the beginning, which he believes others in his party ignored at the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fiscal conservative...
Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.
Anyhow, he is <b>not</b> a fiscal conservative... he is by vermont standards perhaps. However, the conservatives in vermont = liberals in the U.S. senate, and the liberals in vermont = communist russia. It's that bad.
You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest <a href='http://www.mrc.org' target='_blank'>www.mrc.org</a> for you.
Comments
<a href='http://www.dubyaspeak.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.dubyaspeak.com/</a>
"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President ... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
--Speaking to the National Security Council
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Sep. 29, 2000
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." - Oct. 18, 2000
Yeah, it's doing a great job in Iraq. Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying every day, despite having the best military equipment in the world.
Of course, thats better then the alternatives...
Bush in '04: Its not like theres a better choice.
Dean and Kunich: Raise taxes, stop fighting terror.
Clark: No real plan, contradictory.
Liberman: I like him. Probably my favorite dem, although he favors expanding Government. :-/ At least Bush CLAIMS to be against big government.
Gephart: Universal Healthcare is bad.
Sharpton: HAHA!
Kerry: Classic tax and spend liberal. Doesn't take terror seriously enough.
Everyone Else: Not going to win.
Personal Hopes: I've love to see Cheney dropped from the ticket, since he fuels so many conspiracy attacks. I'd absolutely DIE if there were a Bush-Rice ticket. Jesus, I'd love that! Republicans having the first woman vice president AND the first black vp ALL IN ONE!
Serious threats to Bush:
-I think a Dean/Clark ticket could significantly challange him, although not to the extent he'd be a surefire miss.
-Bush has mishandled security. I think if Democrats highlighted the crappy security we still have, they'd have an issue. Unfortunately, they're trying to play the Iraq card, which won't work. As long as America thinks they've done some good in Iraq, its going to be tough to shame Bush into going to war. I hate to say it, but the best thing for Democrats would be to have our boys keep coming home in body bags. Sad, but true.
-If there is another catastrophic terror attack, he's a goner.
And thats my thoughts on the matter.
EDIT
Ryo, you study military history, at least casually, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, it's doing a great job in Iraq. Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying every day, despite having the best military equipment in the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The war in Iraq is having remarkable low casualties for what is happening. American technology IS saving lives. The US took over a country the size of california and lost about 350 troops. (400 something total coalition I think). Thats an incredible feat.
I'm just kinda suprised you'd take the cynic's argument. For comparison, during the height of vietnam, the US lost 500 a <b>week</b>. Right now, the US is losing about 9 a week, on average. Its tragic, since they aren't just numbers, but people, but the fact remains that its amazingly low. At that rate, the US would need to be in Iraq for another 106 years to compare to Vietnam.
I'm rather impressed by his physical prescence and his military background. He seems knowledgable enough also. If he can settle down and establish a solid foundation, alot can go for him.
As for Bush....I don't want to talk about him (domestic flop anyone?)...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The war in Iraq is having remarkable low casualties for what is happening. American technology IS saving lives. The US took over a country the size of california and lost about 350 troops. (400 something total coalition I think). Thats an incredible feat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true. The Iraq campaign was very successful militarily, lightning strikes with minimal casulties (it's sad that many were friendly-fire). It's just the post-war plans didn't go Quite as expected.
Bush is a fuckup, I hate the guy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep on topic please. Don't turn this into another pro bush/anti-bush thread.
I don't really care for many of the potential candiates but I simply presented who I would vote for if I don't feel like voting for Bush in 2004 (I live in CT so even when I do vote for him [I probably will] it doesn't matter because New England is pretty much strictly liberal)
Thats because we don't have a percentage wise vote system, I think that would be much better. Unless we get some 3rd party candiates in, the 2 main party's will always keep systems that will harp on any attempt for a third party candiate to get elected to any office, especially at national level.
Yeah... I mean... Walking soldiers or jeeps or humvees are so good at protecting against rocket or bomb attacks.
Get real! There is only so much technology can do. When you have real soldiers on the front lines they will die. Regardless of technological superiority. Now if we had our tanks rolling through the streets with all our guys in there... Then it would be harder to kill them.... But that's not very practical nor smart ( this does not mean there are no tanks, just that they are not the best means to enforce security within a city ).
UN sees "worrying signs" in Afghanistan instability Saturday October 25, 10:07 AM
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The ousted Taliban have retaken control of parts of Afghanistan amid "worrying signs" that the post-war government is starting to weaken, the UN's top peacekeeping official said.
Just days before a UN Security Council mission to the war-torn country, Jean-Marie Guehenno offered a dire assessment of the difficult rebuilding process, which he said could cost five times more than previously thought.
<a href='http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031025/afp/031025020755asiapacificnews.html' target='_blank'>http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031025/afp/0310...acificnews.html</a>
This other site gives a (pretty biased) report on the current situation of women in Afghanistan
<a href='http://www.rawa.org/apathy.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rawa.org/apathy.htm</a>
So, as I said before, just bombing the bad guys doesnt bring democracy
I hope it isnt too offtopic
OH COME ON! Howard Dean is nothing like Dennis Kucinich.
<a href='http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign' target='_blank'>http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageSer...atement_foreign</a>
<a href='http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy' target='_blank'>http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageSer...atement_economy</a>
From your perspective everyone is misjudging Bush because of their own bias, and I agree with that. But you're doing the same thing with the Democratic candidates.
I also don't think "Universal Healthcare is bad" is a sound statement. It has such growing support that most Republicans won't oppose it.
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
Maybe that's why Iraq seems a lot more bloodier then pretty much any war fought on the planet Earth, ever?
Anyways...
I think we need to have Bush re-elected because of one stereotype.
Democrats suck at fighting wars, while Republicans excel at it. Because we are currently fighting terror (right now more then ever) we need to keep electing Republicans. Later on, when we fixed Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran, THEN we can elect who ever we want.
But i also think Clark would try the military way way too much. Trying to force the military on everyone.
I dunno im just so used to the same thing lately in the whitehouse. Im really just going with. not this election but next election. Us as americans need to get with the program and vote in a woman or colored president.
White Males is just showing how free we are.
I love America!
Im a true american.
Im just saying a little change wouldnt hurt.
In all honesty i think this year's election i would vote for Bush Again. He has boosted us in the economy and handled alot of tradgies, and isnt scared to stand up to terroist.
Bush.
You'll forgive me if I fail to see any logic in that statement.
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
-Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
-Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
-And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security.
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
-Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
-Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
-And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But he also cut some back and handed programs to the states as well. Obviously, something like the Department of Homeland Security was <i>needed</i> granted, I don't think it needed such a huge budget. But simply for the reassurance to people here in the states.
and those programs he handed back to the states? from what i've heard/read, many states can't take the added budget strain.
That means you love Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Cuba, Brazil AND USA.
Please people, when you mean USA say so because USA is not America. Thank j00
/nitpicky mode off
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
-Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
-Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
-And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But he also cut some back and handed programs to the states as well. Obviously, something like the Department of Homeland Security was <i>needed</i> granted, I don't think it needed such a huge budget. But simply for the reassurance to people here in the states. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did we need a Department of Homeland Security? Is it just to make us feel better? Didn't we already have a <a href='http://www.nsa.gov/' target='_blank'>agency</a> responsible for that?
and those programs he handed back to the states? from what i've heard/read, many states can't take the added budget strain. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they refuse to look for things to cut. People are so against program cutting, many times programs aren't even used or taken out of the budget. So much spending goes to waste.
Say a government agency gets 900,000 dollars a year. They request 100,000 extra so they can buy some new computers. Lets say they get those new computers for 90,000, that would leave 10,000, so we should see that go back to the main budget. But no, those agency's will spend that money (wasting 10% of the extra grant) just because their afraid of perhaps not getting the money they may need to request next year because they didn't use all the money they had.
Government should give initive for agencies to spend LESS.
You obviously has no clue what the purpose of DHS is.... Or the NSA.
Ficus: the only politician ever to actually make oxygen.
You obviously has no clue what the purpose of DHS is.... Or the NSA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right, I don't. Maybe you'd care to explain the difference?
Amen. McCain, no matter which banner he ran beneath, would have my vote in the next election.
Too bad he didn't beat Bush in 2000
Fiscal conservative...
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA</span>
Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.
Anyhow, he is <b>not</b> a fiscal conservative... he is by vermont standards perhaps. However, the conservatives in vermont = liberals in the U.S. senate, and the liberals in vermont = communist russia. It's that bad.
You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest <a href='http://www.mrc.org' target='_blank'>www.mrc.org</a> for you.