G.W. Bush is going to lose...

Published on September 5, 2004 By Deaniac In Politics

note- This is a strict reply to the 'John Kerry is going to lose' forum. It seems that forum has gone out of hand, and shocked me.

George W. Bush is going to lose. He doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage sensing our president is racist. He has tormented the American people by doing virtually nothing to restore the economy, and produce more jobs. Instead he signed an overtime program preventing more pay for overtime. That sucks for the American people. He has sended many soldiers to Iraq where they didn't need to be. Neither Iraq or Sadaam Hussein proved an imminent threat to the United States. There was no reason to attack them. Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but we could've solved this by working with our allies, and working with the U.N. and NATO to solve this problem.

Anyone who votes for G.W. Bush in 2004 will regret it!

Comments (Page 1)

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

Neither Iraq or Sadaam Hussein proved an imminent threat to the United States.

No, but I wagered Saddam proved an imminent threat to the people of Iraq, which is why I supported it from the get go, without all the WMD, threat to US, etc.

"De Opresso Liber" is the motto of the Green Berets stands for "To Liberate the Oppressed", which should be the motto for the U.S.

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.

pk65

on Sep 05, 2004

...especially if they have oil...right ShoZan???

! Just kidding!

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.

Yes, and we all saw how helpful that was in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia, until the U.N.'s peacekeeping forces get more "balls" and "strength" it's a little help to ask them, as for NATO, it's not a NATO affair if it is not a direct attack on a NATO nation, Iraqi people are not a NATO nation.

Actually that would be a good poll to do, poll soldiers and ask them how many wanted to go, how many are glad they went, and how many would do it all over again, etc. Now why doesn't CNN, Time, Reuters, etc. do that kind of poll would be nice to have a U.S. Soldier's viewpoint from Iraq.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

...especially if they have oil...right ShoZan??? ! Just kidding!

Damn skippy, I need oil for my car engine, oil so I can have tires, oil so I can have gasoline, oil so I can have roads, etc. Even Electric engines use oil, alternative fuel is only an half-assed attempt for a solution, the problem is replacing oil completely so that nothing uses it, until that is done, alternative fuel arguments are moot (I think that's the right word)

Oh well we could have the government institute the Horse and Buggy Law, and what do you know the Amish are ahead of us on that front, they have been more enviromental than enviromentalist, HEHEHE.

pk65

on Sep 05, 2004

Everyone gets fired up about the oil statement - the reality is that any industrialized nation needs the oil to prosper. Japan invaded the far east for oil, and the reality of the matter is folks, that the main reason we care at all about anything in the middle east is the "black gold". Republican or Democrat. This guy we have in there now just had the arrogance and ignorance of how people think over there to just go grab it. Mission NOT Accomplished George!

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

Come on: Boswania? Rwanda? Somalia? Do they have the forces equivalent to Great Britan's, France's, Russia's, Germany's, or Spain's??? I bet not. We needed help from our strong allies--not the African countries who hate us in real life. We didn't need help from Palau, did we??

I don't think any soldier wants to be in Iraq now--deep in their hearts they want to serve their country, but they'd rather spend time with family, or friends.

ShoZan, they are many different alternatives to using tires or cars powered by oil. We can use metanol which is basically corn. When it isn't used, and wasted, there is no problem. That doesn't mean we need to suck all the oil out of Alaska or Iraq, does it??? That doesn't mean we have to drill through the Yellowstone (in which I'm hoping they never do)!!!!

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

I meant the UN's actions in those nations, not those nations supporting us.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

ShoZan, they are many different alternatives to using tires or cars powered by oil.

But what is used as a lubricant, still what is used to pave roads, there are way to many things that use oil, if you replace the cars, that's only a mission half-accomplished, it has to be an across the board replacement of oil to stop our oil dependency, which the oil companies won't do until we run out of oil completely, who knows they probably have many plans in place for this, including sell whole new stuff so they get even more money for the transition, I don't see right now a complete replacement of oil in my lifetime, unless more drastic measures are taken, and I am 23.

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.

Exactly who are you kidding? Sending UN and NATO? Haven't America tried that for like... 12 years! Can you seriously name one UN peacekeeping action without massive USA troop involvement anyway? In the last Gulf War, which is approved by UN, USA sent in more troops than we have today. What about Yugosolvia? General W. Clark was the NATO commander in chief that war. Exactly what was the % of USA soldiers in that peacekeeping action? Do you know? I challenege you to find me a good evidence that if we had used the UN or NATO route (as you suggested) that United States no longer need to send in "thousand of soldiers" -- as you put it. Stop making things up. America is the only nation on earth actually somewhat respect UN. I give you two examples. The only two war fought under UN context are: Korean War and the first Gulf War. There is not another country on earth fought their war under UN context.

Saddam has defied 14 UN resolutions for 12 years. Is that not enough? Real threat is not WMD is the intention to use WMD. Israel has nuclear weapons, so do India, England, France.... They are not a threat to US because they don't have the intention to use those nuclear weapons at us. Saddam has the capability to rebuild his WMD, he has used those weapons on his people, on Kurd, on Iran. Don't forget, the only national leader opnely celebrated 9/11 tradegy is Saddam.

By the way, someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is not racist... Racist has something to do with Race! Personally I support gay marriage, but please, and I mean please stop making things up. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Kerry believe in gay marriage. Bill Clinton is the one who encouraged and signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Kerry does not support gay marriage but support civil union. The exact position G. W. Bush is taking. The only difference is that Kerry believes marriage is a state right issue, whereas Bush believe it is a federal matter. So exactly whysomeone believe in federal is more racist?

Neither A. Lincoln nor Robert E. Lee believes in slavery, but one believe in the union, the other believe in states? Who is more racist according to you?

Mr Arex

on Sep 05, 2004

It's still possible that Bush could lose. The point gap will probably close quite a bit once the post-RNC euphoria wears off and people are less wowed by talk of "strength" and "growth". Then, the gap will hopefully close more when people see the sort of double-talk, half-truths, and glaring omissions in the president's speech/plan. His speech will carry less weight once people take note of the first term with a national job loss since Hoover, the raising of Medicare costs by 17% a day after the president said he was protecting seniors, and a whole host of other damning issues for Bush. The rest will be up to Kerry who is still talking about Vietnam. Contrary to popular belief, he does have a plan for the country, but he needs to get it out more. If he can do that, he'll win since very few people really have any reason to vote for Bush. But even if Bush wins, I think Congress will come under Democratic control.

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

Keep on dreaming Mr. Alex. Exactly what is Kerry's Iraq Plan since you seem to understand his plan. His plan has changed from condemning the war to supporting the war. His plan is that he supported the first gulf war and disapproving the second (current) Iraq war. But here is the catch, his congressional votes are opposite to what he is saying now. Can you tell me why he vote against the first gulf war but really support it -- as he is repeatly saying now.

I hate to tell you this, but most people has less to vote for Kerry? Why do I say that because Democrats are less excited about Kerry than Republicans are excited about Bush -- many national poll has shown that result.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

The only two war fought under UN context are: Korean War and the first Gulf War. There is not another country on earth fought their war under UN context.

Though don't forget the contributions of the British Soldiers and Australian Soldiers, you do them a disservice if you forget that where ever the U.S. goes those two along with support from Japan is sure to follow, because we are tight like that, like a Democratic Posse.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

It's still possible that Bush could lose. The point gap will probably close quite a bit once the post-RNC euphoria wears off and people are less wowed by talk of "strength" and "growth".

It will come down to the debate where instead of speaking of "I Have a plan" etc. they will have to get down to the brass tacks and tell people the specfics, and hopefully people don't buy into the glittering generalites from both Candidates.

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

Ok, my apology. I don't mean to say allies are not important. All I said (I am correct still) is that going through UN or NATO route would not save us from sending thousand and really hundreds of thousand of troops -- I was arguing with Deanic who thought if we got support from the French and German, we don't need to send in thousand of troops.

But that doesn't mean we had to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq. Saddam was a horrible person--no doubt--but we could've used the UN and NATO to help us.

I do understand the British and Polish troops contribute the most in today Iraq. Yet, the reality is that with or without these allies, Americans still have to send in a massive troop.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!