World 'wants Kerry as president'

[Hackysack]

...it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks.

If you are American, and you want to help stamp out terrorism - Vote for Kerry.

Kerry wont do -*BAD WORD*-. He's just another -*BAD WORD*- democrate. The man will say whatever it takes to win an election, but when it comes to it, he doesn't have the balls to do anything with the war on terror. Do you think Kerry would/will do anything about North Korea? -*BAD WORD*- no. They actually have said that they were starting nulear tests. Thats next on Bush's agenda. Is it on Kerry's? I dont think so.

[Vile Requiem]

Then why is Iran in the news smart guy?

 

Iran != NK

 

I love how so many of you know what Bush thinks with no proof

[Netr0]

ugh...foreign populations don't vote in US elections for a reason.

 

Suppose I was starting a small zone (which may actually happen, but...). Then, SSC said that everyone can vote who the zone-owner is for Trench Wars.

 

Simply put, I would find the stupidest n00b I could find to run Trench Wars, so that they would collapse and I could get a chunk of that playerbase.

 

 

Same thing here. Foreign nations want Kerry as president because Kerry is weak and stupid and our nation would be weakened by his leadership.

 

In some ways I agree upon this statement.

[Tenet]

I think that everyone who posts here is intelligent.  But even intelligent people get it wrong.

 

You may be wrong' date=' but I doubt it is possible to convince you due to all the propaganda that influences your opinion.

 

Yes, but governments, including the US government, do make mistakes.  I, along with over half of the citizens of the free world - and most of the rest - think that Bush and his government are stuffing up - big time.

That is your opinion. In 50 years when, hopefully, the war is long over and historians begin to seriously study it we will know who was right and who was wrong.

Too much propaganda is involved to make conclusions right now.

 

 

Maybe.  But I disagree.  Most of the free world supported Churchill.  Most of the free world despises GWB.

 

People who hate G.W.Bush have much more power as individuals to express their opinion then people during WWII.

Besides, the free world you speak of is mostly North America and Europe, with a few countries in Asia and some exceptions in other parts of the world.

Most of the world is not free, but controlled by either Totalitarian or Psuedo-Democratic, corrupt, governments.

 

Another example would be Margaret Thatcher - her economic reforms brough the UK from the socialist gutter to the top positions in Europe and the World. People hated her work so much there were violent riots in the streets, but in the end the results of her actions benefitted everyone.

 

Jimmy Carter is respected by a lot of people in the US and outside.  He did win the Nobel Peace Prize.  He is one dude worth listening to. Despite their rhetoric, GWB and his staff will never win a peace prize.  That is for certain.

 

Nobel was a sad guy, anything he invented with good intentions ended up being corrupted and blowing up in his face...

 

http://www.latimes.com/includes/ramirez/ramirez_20021017.gif

 

We can go on forever back and forth Monte, but it ends up being a matter of opinion and interpretation. Fun discussion, but I think I'm done. Have fun with the reply!

[MasterDrake]

Well that's just your opinion:

 

This one pisses me off just thinking about it. If you slit my throat right now you'd get shot in the eye with boiling blood. Any time you say something sucks around someone who disagrees, they try to validate their taste in -*BAD WORD*-ty music/movies/clothing by reminding you that you still only speak for yourself, as if their opinions are in jeopardy of being monopolized by your own. Everyone already knows it's my opinion by virtue of the fact that I said it, no need to restate the obvious you dopey -*BAD WORD*-.

 

qoute from : http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood

[A Soldier]

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/mam/

 

WAHAHAHAHA

[PoLiX]

If Clinton would have dedicated more attention to modernizing the US security and intelligence organizations, and employed a more effective policy of tracking down and fighting terrorists - we would indeed have 2 World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and over three thousand innocent civilians alive.

You forget. The US was a different place and people thought differently then. We never knew there was going to be some terrorist attack, we never knew our security was flawed. To all of US, america seemed fine and safe. 9/11 proved that wrong, but I still think we've now gone overboard with the security just a bit. It seems like the beginning of big brother, but luckily under some slight control.

[Aileron]

Well, if the US was a different place back then, then we shouldn't have a presedent with a Clinton-like policy. To some extent, Kerry and the Democrats need to wake up and realise the 90s are over. (Actually, they need to wake up and realise the 60s are over first, then realise the 90s are over.)

[MasterDrake]

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/mam/

 

WAHAHAHAHA

lmao soldier good one !

[sunnyd]

yeah maddox owns all!

[Tipme]

THE EXUBERANCE IS INSUBSTANTIAL

[MonteZuma]

Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with North Korea, which was supposed to restrict that country with no atomic power. But guess what, they have atomic power anyway. So yeah, Carter really should be heard of. His Nobel Award was deserved justly.

How do you suppose Jimmy Carter could have stopped North Korea developing a nuclear program? North Korea has always been under the wing of the Chinese.

 

You think that Carter shouldn't have been awarded a peace prize because North Korea have a nuclear agenda? Is that really the best argument you can come up with? Heh.

[MonteZuma]

Bush's decisions are very much based on populist politics.

 

Pres Bush is quite possibly the exact opposite...

His views might be entirely different to those of the populist party(ies) in the US, but GWB is very much a modern populist. His views on taxes, economics and war are geared towards ordinary, unsophisticated people.

[Vile Requiem]

History Lesson #1:

 

In the Korean War, we did NOT invade NK due to the Chinese.

We instead repelled invasion.

 

Much the same happened in Vietnam, except we lost that one.

 

Provoking other world powers = Not good.

[Dr.Worthless]

His views might be entirely different to those of the populist party(ies) in the US, but GWB is very much a modern populist. His views on taxes, economics and war are geared towards ordinary, unsophisticated people.

 

Thx for calling me unsophisticated, along with 200+ million americans.

 

Reminds me of something Teresa Heinz (kerry) would say.

[Aileron]

Nothing new there. He didn't exactly say all Americans were unsophisticated though, he said those that support Bush were. You know he thinks that, but he's a little more cautious than that.

 

 

Alright, so then who among Kerry or Bush is supporting the working man? If Bush is the candidate for those "unsophisticated types", then Bush is the working class supporter and Kerry is catering to the rich, and if you think past the BS over taxes, you could realise this.

 

I mean one example would Bush's Tort law reform (putting caps on "pain and suffering"). He is taking money from the white-collar lawyers and giving it to doctors, which are blue-collar workers, though highly paid and educated. This doesn't seem much on the pay scale. However, doctors actually have a significant "trickle-down", they need so many nurses, supporting staff, pharmacueticals, equipment, etc. that the trickle down theary may actually work here.

 

 

See, that's what disgusts me about the Democrats. In the 60s, they were great. They were the ones being working class, populist, equitarian, etc. However, by the 80s all they were doing is lip-service. Now, the Republicans are the ones who have dominance in those territories, but idiots remember the 60s and vote Democratic because they assume the party didn't change over 30 years.

 

Pose this question: Which party is more likely to run a black man or woman for president sooner? The Democrats? Heck no. There are very few black people in the upper echelons of the Democratic party. The ones that are there are little more than weak puppets there to fulfill the nostalgia factor. The Republicans are the ones who may run a black person as early as 2008. Two members of Bush's cabinet Powel and Rice, are grade A material to run for president.

 

 

Bottom line, you may thing Bush appeals to the "unsophisticated types", but really he one being populist and trying to break the pre-set notion that the democrats are the one who are.

[Guest Recombo]

Montezuma was merely trying to boost his ego there. Since he's also a fellow American, he'll have to account for the fact that he's just called Americans dweebs among our other foreign friends. Now that's truly sophisticated of him.

 

I'm determining more and more that I don't mind hearing the voice of democrat Americans here simply because it's a different opinion, and as free people, we should be able to have these discussions. Keeps us on our toes. However, our northern Canadian friend and others continue to bash current US policy. Like it or not, America is going to be involved internationally regardless of what others think. Both Bush and Kerry have expressed clear views supporting the war.

 

America is not merely provoking other world powers. If you were old enough, you would remember that America supported Saddam when Ayatolla Khumeini attempted to take power in his 'Persian Empire' back in the late 70's. Then America supported Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. When we go to help others, they have turned their back on us time and again.

 

Just this week, one of the largest pharmacuetical drug companies on earth, based in America, provided MMR2 vaccines to nearly 200,000 children under 2 in the Dominican Republic. Yet those people living there, will try to tell us that we are doing it just for our sake! Donating millions in free drugs has nothing to do with America - it has everything to do with helping out nations who really need it.

[A Soldier]

Pose this question:  Which party is more likely to run a black man or woman for president sooner?  The Democrats?  Heck no.  There are very few black people in the upper echelons of the Democratic party.  The ones that are there are little more than weak puppets there to fulfill the nostalgia factor.  The Republicans are the ones who may run a black person as early as 2008.  Two members of Bush's cabinet Powel and Rice, are grade A material to run for president.

Though they were speaking of Baraka Obama (not sure if spelt correctly) - Illinois.

 

I'm not sure Rice would make a good candidate for presidency :/

[Vile Requiem]

The Democrats could Run Barak Obama http://obamaforillinois.com/ (who has a do-*BAD WORD*-ented story where Bush saw one of his campaign pins and flipped out...guess why) as early as 2008.

 

The Republicans want to change the cons!@#$%^&*ution so Arnold can run.

 

Ladeda...i'm a insurgant truthteller.

[MonteZuma]

Montezuma was merely trying to boost his ego there. Since he's also a fellow American, he'll have to account for the fact that he's just called Americans dweebs among our other foreign friends. Now that's truly sophisticated of him.

You are too quick to jump to conclusions.

 

I'm determining more and more that I don't mind hearing the voice of democrat Americans here simply because it's a different opinion, and as free people, we should be able to have these discussions. Keeps us on our toes. However, our northern Canadian friend and others continue to bash current US policy. Like it or not, America is going to be involved internationally regardless of what others think. Both Bush and Kerry have expressed clear views supporting the war.

Virtually everybody, everywhere supports the war on terror. If Kerry is elected, which is probably unlikely, the war will be faught very differently.

 

America is not merely provoking other world powers. If you were old enough, you would remember that America supported Saddam when Ayatolla Khumeini attempted to take power in his 'Persian Empire' back in the late 70's. Then America supported Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. When we go to help others, they have turned their back on us time and again.

In both instances, the US intervened to support it's own political agenda - not because it wanted to 'help' Iraq or Afghanistan. Both times the US got burned - badly. Both times the world would have been better off if the US worked with the UN - or just butted out altogether. The lesson that should be learned here is that the US should pick it's fights more carefully. Operation Iraqi Freedom will probably go down in history as yet another stuff-up.

 

Just this week, one of the largest pharmacuetical drug companies on earth, based in America, provided MMR2 vaccines to nearly 200,000 children under 2 in the Dominican Republic. Yet those people living there, will try to tell us that we are doing it just for our sake! Donating millions in free drugs has nothing to do with America - it has everything to do with helping out nations who really need it.

The US sometimes does fantastic things. But sometimes it stuffs up - monumentally. I'd like to see the proportion of -*BAD WORD*-ups decrease.

[Dr.Worthless]

The Democrats could Run Barak Obama http://obamaforillinois.com/ (who has a do-*BAD WORD*-ented story where Bush saw one of his campaign pins and flipped out...guess why) as early as 2008.

 

The Republicans want to change the cons!@#$%^&*ution so Arnold can run.

 

Ladeda...i'm a insurgant truthteller.

 

Doubtful Vile, general concensus from both parties is

 

(Speculation)

 

Hillary Clinton -2008

 

V

 

George Pataki or Rudolph Guliani -2008

[Aileron]

We didn't get burned badly in Iraq or Afghanistan - not any wosre than Bosnia or Kosovo. That is the difference between a media supported conflict and one that isn't.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about Iraq going down in history as a blunder. One thing historians do very well is look at long term patterns, decades at a time. Now, is Iraq going to last for a decade? Probably not. And the thing that going into Iraq did was change the political landscape of the middle east.

 

The first thing it did was give credit to US threats. It barely made the news when various other middle eastern rulers caved to US political pressure after Iraq. In a history book, this would be important.

 

It also changes the public perception of democracy. Formally, demoracy meant that you were either like Israel or like Hussein government. By eliminating the flase belief that Hussein's government was a democracy and by instilling a functional one, it will make democracy much more appealing.

 

The difference here is really perception of time. Liberals tend to think in months, conservatives in years. Historians think in decades, so guess how they are going to view this.

[Vile Requiem]

Funny, I read in my freshly bought-and-rained-on (Thank you Ivan) Newsweek that we're losing Iraq towns to the insurgancy left and right and that said insurgancy is made up of 99% Shi'a, which comprise the #1 ethnic group in Iraq with 60-65% of the population. Naturally everyone else in Iraq loves that they're getting more power out of the government. And also that most experts consider the prospect of January elections "laughable".

 

The only solution at this point is to build a credible Iraqi police force/army. If Bush can pull this off then that's a very good thing. If he can not then Iraq is going to split into 3 countries as it was BEFORE British colonization created one state. In that regard, Husayn did his job well in keeping the country together regardless of whatever else he did. Getting UN !@#$%^&*istance will be pivotal in ensuring Iraq doesn't end up like Afganistan where all we hold is the capitol city. If that happens, there is 0 chance of anything but civil war breaking out and at least 1 new Iran being formed out of the chaos.

[MasterDrake]

In both instances, the US intervened to support it's own political agenda - not because it wanted to 'help' Iraq or Afghanistan. Both times the US got burned - badly. Both times the world would have been better off if the US worked with the UN - or just butted out altogether. The lesson that should be learned here is that the US should pick it's fights more carefully. Operation Iraqi Freedom will probably go down in history as yet another stuff-up.

 

Just tell me when terrorists attack ausi so I can tell you to -*BAD WORD*- off and burn in -*BAD WORD*-.

[Guest Recombo]

Despite popular opinion, the break up of Iraq would not be a bad thing at all. There is history to be learned from the Palestinian/Israeli clash. No matter what, killing your own people for your own interests is all that Hussein did, and no one could stick up against him. Now that he is gone, we have a new era, and perhaps new divides to be found. Could happen with or without US involvement - it's really up to the Iraqi intellectuals.

 

The US picks its fights very carefully, and expounds all forms of diplomacy before taking action. Perhaps some forum members have a bad case of amnesia.