Election Decided by 'Skins Game

[Blurred]

Well, that's because we were told that the US troops would be greeted with flowers and chocolate and the Iraqui people would be oh so happy to see the tanks and humvees roll into Bagdhad.

you must have missed the statue of Saddam being toppled. Also, check the murder rate in this country compared to how many have been killed in Iraq, the media makes it out like it's worse then here....puuullleease.

Brett, I love this country, and what it stands for. I don't like the idea of my freedoms being trampled in the name of security. I have a hard time with the policy of pre-emptive strikes. As someone who was unjustly incarcerated in a series of "pre-emptive" arrests, I know that my freedom is being threatened more by the US government than by Al-Quaeda.

Al-Quaida is trying to kill you, the government is trying to protect you...you've been brainwashed.

Open boundary policies at resorts: These do not make the resort any safer. If anything, they make them more dangerous, since people are more likely to ski in the BC if they are not afraid of losing there pass. There is a risk that more people will be hurt or killed in an avy, cliff, or hitting a tree than if they only were allowed to ski on piste. But people are willing to accept those risks, in exchange for the frredom to ski where they want to.

Yes, and how is this not like liberating the Iraqi people??!

We could eliminate terrorism in the US if we resorted to a police state. There aren't many terrorist attacks in Cuba or North Korea. Because anyone even suspected of being a terrorist is locked up- without a trial, or even proof of their guilt. And we could do the same in the US, but it wouldn't be the US anymore, would it?

Carpet bombing the middle east would prolly be more effective.

It seems those who support the war in Iraq often say "Freedom isn't Free"- a phrase that they somehow think justifies the fact that thousands of American troops have died in Iraq.

What you don't understand is that NO ONE likes war. Read that again, NO ONE likes war. One more time if you missed it, NO ONE LIKES WAR. That being said, "Freedom IS NOT free". MIllions...Millions....one more time for the slow ones, MILLIONS have died for YOUR freedom plakespeare. MILLIONS Is that justifiable all for you to take that for granted???

Well, in my opinion the thousands killed in the 9-11 attacks gave just as much for freedom as any soldier, sailor, or pilot. They died so we can live in a fee society, not a police state.

I don't know who the fuck has been talking to you, but they sure did a number on you. Those people didn't die for a GAWD-DAMN THING, THEY WERE FUCKING MURDERED BY the same DOUCHEBAGS you feel sorry for. They weren't on a fucking mission to serve their country, they were going to work to put food on the table for their families and were FUCKING MURDERED!!!! GET IT YET?? MURDERED!!
The GAWD DAMNED LEFT has talked you into feeling sorry for a bunch of murders....these fuckers make Charles Manson look like childs play, and youre feeling sorry for them.....UNDERSTAND why the right wing is pissed yet?? You really need to sit down and look at things through a scope of reality dude, they've got you twisted.

If we changed our policies and laws, the terrorists might not have succeeded in their mission, but the cost to our personal freedom might be greater.

Tell that to every widow and bastard child who is a result of 9-11. Then tell them about your compassion for the terrorists and how Ashcroft is just like them......It's one thing to serve and die for your country, it's another thing to be murdered.

[summit]

Everything in his power?!? did you by chance check CNN today? Something about several TONS of explosives missing? Where do you think they went? Who was on duty when they were stolen? BUSH.

FACT PATROL

This erroneous report was based on a NYT story. The DNC used this report in recent political attacks. This claim has been discounted by NBC News and reporters who were with the unit that supposedly failed.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

The explosives were gone gone gone long before our troops had a chance to secure them. Look for an NYT correction tomorrow...

/FACT PATROL

[trainnvain]

Blurred,you lost me on the part where Plake is showing compassion for terrorist. I'm not seeing that said anywhere by him.

[Blurred]

Blurred,you lost me on the part where Plake is showing compassion for terrorist. I'm not seeing that said anywhere by him.

I think John Ashcroft is reason enough to vote Bush out. If you took half the things the Islamic fundamentalists and replaced the words "Mohammed, Allah, and Koran" with "Jesus, God, and the Bible", they would probably resemble Ashcroft quotes.

there ya go...

[trainnvain]

I'm seeing a fine example of irony, not a said compassion for terrorists.
Just wanted to clear that up. I'm not missing something here.

[Blurred]

I'm not missing something here.

Actually, you are. Sober up, and reread in the morning. If that doesn't work, move to Pakistan.

[trainnvain]

That's funny, I am sober. Pakistan, huh?
Thanks for playing

[Blurred]

Your 20-some virgins will not be waiting in heaven, because you're talking to me instead of praying to Islam.

[trainnvain]

Virgins are overrated anyways.

[FNG]

Well, since it's my thread I might as well get my two cents in on all this political mud-slinging.

First, there is no great difference between President Bush and John Kerry on Iraq. Kerry's plan is to give more troops and more money towards the war & rebuilding of Iraq.

Second, NOBODY is sympathizing for the terrorists. Nobody is feeling sorry for them. What you have to realize is that being against Bush's anti-terrorism plan is not synonymous with being pro-terrorist. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Terrorism and terrorists exist in the entire world. Why not have the entire world fight terrorism instead of just the USA & UK?

Now I'm going to go line-by-line and contradict some of Brett's statements only I'm going to provide evidence and cite sources. Watch...

[in response to freshies' accusation that Bush was asleep at the wheel during 9/11]Actually, it was your boy Clinton that fucked up and didn't take Osama when he could have, even after being a known terrorist, THAT would of prevented 9-11.

1st of all, Bush was in office for months w/o having bin Laden killed. That's the same inaction you chastize Clinton for. 2nd, John Lehman of the 9/11 commission said last week that Osama bin Laden's location is known. He's in the mountains in Pakistan. Why can't we get him then? This is what he said, "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now." He also talked about how the US couldn't go in there because it would destabilize the Pakistani government. He said that the region was too hostile for US troops. Article Link

The dumbfuck wants to bring it down to a "police" matter, and have the U.N. take charge of things.

According to johnkerry.com, Kerry's foreign policy will be based on four principles, two of which are contradictory to your statement. 1.) Modernize the world's most powerful military to meet new threats. 2.) Deploy all that is in America's arsenal [in the war on terror]. (The other two were eliminate dependance on foreign oil and form new alliances.) I think John Kerry knows better than you what his plans for US foreign policy are.

Remember 9-11 WSD? Lots of people died, and Kerry wants to go back to a pre 9-11 mentality. Guess you already forgot...

This is a PERFECT example of the 'Post Hoc' fallacy of argument. 'A' occurs before 'B' therefor 'A' is the cause of 'B' (Link). You make the assumption that 9/11 was inevitable. If that terrorist attack was unavoidable, then any subsequent terrorist attacks cannot be prevented no matter who's in office. If a pre-9/11 mentality caused 9/11 then a post 9/11 mentality was the cause of every terrorist that has happened (e.g. the Anthrax) and will happen since then both against American's here and abroad (e.g. beheadings).

Having a president who is doing EVERYTHING in his power to prevent another attack...

As I mentioned earlier, John Lehman of the 9/11 Commission has said publicly that the location of Osama bin Laden is known. Why haven't we captured or killed him? Why haven't we invaded Pakistan for harbering a terrorist? Why is Saudi Arabia still ruled by the same people funding terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists?

...is more effective then some pussy who won't even acknowledge the seriousness of 9-11.

Why did Bush try and block the creation of the 9/11 commission - a commission to analyze our weaknesses that allowed us to be attacked? If 9/11 was so damn important to him, why not allow a committee to form to learn about America's weaknesses that allowed 9/11 to happen?

75% of Al-Qaida is locked up or dead.

And how do you figure that? 75% is an abstract number created by the Bush administration. Did they take a survey or something? Terrorists don't exactly go out of their way to identify themselves as such.

Terrorists are too busy running from us in Iraq and Afghanistan to be able to plan something else.

Too busy running from us to bomb trains in Spain to oust the pro-US political party? Too busy to kidnap and behead civilians?

Everyone is so dumbfounded that there are attacks in Iraq...

...but I thought you just said that the remaining 25% of the terrorists were too busy running from us to be able to plan attacks?

[Darkside]

Blurred, first off, you shouldn't make fun of people's spelling, at least not without looking at your own. Especially your spelling of Al Qaeda on the last page, that amused me.

Anyway, the reason there are terrorists in Iraq is not primarily because Iraq is a country of terrorists, but because the borders of Iraq were not closed off by the military when they first invaded, and as far as I know they are still not secured. This is due to the fact that the Bush administration (I'm not going to single him out, because he obviously is not capable of forming thoughts on his own) committed far too few troops to the war his cronies put him up to. This says to me that the adminstration never wanted to really win the war, only use it as:

a) a distraction from domestic politics and to strengthen support from the paranoid right
b) a means to secure contracts for their business cronies
c) an attempt to control petroleum reserves in Iraq, as Bush's father did after the Gulf War.

There are 6+ billion people in this world, and the US government can't kill/control them all. The more they commit blatantly self-motivated acts of agression and greed, the more people in this world will hate the US. I'm not saying that I want to see George Bush and Osama Bin Laden shake hands (actually, on second thought, that would be pretty awesome), but here's almost as good a photo.

Oh, and one more thing. Don't talk about serving your country and Ashcroft in the same sentence, he deferred his service seven times, I believe we learned earlier this week in another post. http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations...eld_saddam.gif

[Will]

This erroneous report was based on a NYT story. The DNC used this report in recent political attacks. This claim has been discounted by NBC News and reporters who were with the unit that supposedly failed.

How so?

This line from the NYTimes article:

"A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned."

[Note: Lots of lifted quotes & info in this. From the NY Times article, MSNBC, WSJ, AP, etc.]

March 8th - UN weapon inspectors visit al Qa Qaa. There are roughly 377 tons of high-explosive at al Qa Qaa under IAEA seal. (remember, these explosives are nuke components)

April 10th - They ain't there no more (maybe - see below). The White House now claims they knew this all along.

...but today Scott McClellan said, "Now, after the , the Pentagon, upon learning of this [notification on October 15th], directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing"
Also, according to an "unamed pentagon official" in the AP, this past weekend the Pentagon ordered the U.S. military command in Baghdad and the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the IAEA report.
The White House has also claimed no one told Condi Rice (and maybe Bush) about it until just last month. So either they knew about this, didn't think to mention it to the IAEA until the Iraqis did, and have been covering it up; or they were simply clueless and are now covering their butts.

Keep in mind, this place was hardly a secret weapons bunker. The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured. These things ain't just firecrackers, they're used to detonate nuclear weapons.

It's also worthwhile to point out that the AP's "unnamed Pentagon official" has contradicted the official spin:
"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."
News reports (that I've found) of the April sweep of Al Qa qaa make no mention of the discovery or absence of high explosives used in nukes.

The point of all this is that:
- we knew these explosives were there.
- we knew what they could be used for.
- we were warned that they had to be secured.
- we failed to secure them.
- we covered it up, or simply were unaware of our failure.

I don't think Bush or Condi or Rumsfeld or any one wanted to fuck this up. I'm sure they now they wish they hadn't. The whole point of this invasion was to prevent this kind of shit from going down. Yet, thanks to this administration, it has.

This is near incompetence.

I don't like the Bush administrations stated goals, but as far as I can tell they can't even accomplish those goals... they keep screwing up.

Don't even get me started on our choice not to take out Zarqawi early on.

Go here for a link to the full WSJ article(rr).

"As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country."

[Will]

Most of this from Factcheck.org....

The dumbfuck wants to bring it down to a "police" matter, and have the U.N. take charge of things.

This is actually right. Kerry does not want to wipe out Islam or carpet bomb the middle east (which Blurred might want). He wants to "bring it down" as a problem until we don't feel we need to invade other countries. Also, in response to Blurred's earlier comments Kerry never said he considered terrorism to be a nuisance, he said Americans would feel safe once terrorism was reduced to a nuisance.

And how do you figure that? 75% is an abstract number created by the Bush administration. Did they take a survey or something? Terrorists don't exactly go out of their way to identify themselves as such.

- The 75% number refers to the capture or death of Al Qaeda's senior leadership known at the time the September 11th attacks. The CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data. This number does not refer to footsoldiers or killers (who number 18,000 or more), it is a count of past leadership.

Actually, it was your boy Clinton that fucked up and didn't take Osama when he could have, even after being a known terrorist, THAT would of prevented 9-11.

In 1996 American diplomats pressed the hard-line Islamic regime of Sudan to expel Mr. bin Laden. They knew he wanted to attack Americans, but could not prove that he had. To build support for this effort among Middle Eastern governments, the State Department circulated a dossier that accused Mr. bin Laden of financing radical Islamic causes around the world. Sudanese officials met with their C.I.A. and State Department counterparts and signaled that they might turn Mr. bin Laden over to another country. Saudi Arabia and Egypt were possibilities. State Department and C.I.A. officials urged both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to accept him, according to former Clinton officials. "But both were afraid of the domestic reaction and refused," one recalled.
Clinton was unwilling to invade Sudan to take Bin Laden. Conservatives claim that he should have.

[Will]

Hey! Did you read all that crap?

Congratulations, here is your prize:

From Late Night with Conan O'Brien, check out the latest Triumph clip, Triumph Takes on Poop Alley. Triumph was at the third presidential debate and later hit Spin Alley to talk to the crazy spinsters.

[13]

Brett, if you read the 9/11 Commission Report, you'll have a better grasp of Osama and his al Qaeda network leading up to Sept. 11.

Read it, dude.

Go fudge!

[warthog]

Knowingly in the minority here, but here goes anyway.

I don't expect to ever change someone's mind. To that point, it is silly to argue about. I do pay attention to other peoples opinions, cause sometimes they make a lot of sense.

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story. Iraqis, you want your freedom? Well help us fight these fuckers, and it's yours. Sucks for them, but freedom isn't free. I'm sure there is an easier way, but none of those have worked. The world is a shitty place.

My feelings on John Kerry- The man will say ANYTHING to get to the White House. It is so evident lately, that I am very scared of this man. Where will he settle? Which side of anything is he on? Does he define being tough on terrorism by talking EXTRA hard? Cause those days are gone, get the fuck over it and sack up. On the Today Show,this man actually promised that the U.S. will not be attacked while he is in office. Katie Currick (big Kerry supporter- from what I have seen) just about shit herself when he said this, and to her credit, she dug into him about it.



My feelings on the whole election- ENOUGH already. These political ads are not aimed at you and me. They are aimed at the 90% of this country that couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag. They are aimed at getting the dregs so fired up that they vote. The winner of this election will win due to stirring up the emotions of the brainless masses. This is a sad fact.
They can keep this job. I smoked a lot of dope in college, and I inhaled every time. You can keep that job.

[Will]

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story. Iraqis, you want your freedom? Well help us fight these fuckers, and it's yours. Sucks for them, but freedom isn't free. I'm sure there is an easier way, but none of those have worked. The world is a shitty place.

Ignoring the question of "how many of the insurgents are outside fighters and how many of them are Iraqis motivated to pick up arms b/c of the invasion"....

Your point is: we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

The number of young and disaffected men in the Muslim world who are potentially willing to take up arms against America is, for practical geopolitical purposes, all but infinite. Killing those already bent on suicide missions againt the US is undeniably a good thing. But doing so in a way that is guaranteed to replace them with ten new volunteers is the most foolish way to go about it. It is the classic case of dousing the fire with gasoline.

[Angry Whelk]

Even political void like angry whelk can see gaint pollution in america. from deep cavern to karaoke bar much change is need.

angry whelk drown politics, whelk is not partisan, whelk speaks for life, and bukkake drown the face of opressive. laking in filial piety, admistration must be drown in bukkake of disrespect.

shinjuku, ALL YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!

[watersnowdirt]

Remember 9-11 WSD? Lots of people died, and Kerry wants to go back to a pre 9-11 mentality. Guess you already forgot......

Don't ever, EVER say something like that to me again you ignorant piece of shit. You've said a lot of insulting things, to me, and others, but when you say something like that, you cross a dangerous line.

[FNG]

My feelings on Iraq- The terrorists are there cause we are there. They aren't here in the U.S. cause we are there. They have a lot more stake in keeping Iraq from freedom, than they do in blowing up Americans at this time. What if we weren't there? End of story.

They actually have very less stake in keeping iraq from freedom than you'd think. Al Qaeda is a multi-national organization. Iraq is a convenient staging ground due to its proximity to other countries with Islamic influenced governments. However, Al Qaeda could just as easily operate in Pakistan or Chechnya for example. The stake terrorist groups like Al Qaeda do have in Iraq is a religious one. Iraq has many holy cities to islam. Islam (not to be confused with fanatical Islamic fundamentalism) lends itself very nicely to government. Right or wrong, Islamic terrorists may feel that the U.S. is attempting to drive Islam out of the middle east and possibly even remove it from the world all together. More so, they may believe the U.S. is trying to replace it with Christianity.

My feelings on John Kerry- The man will say ANYTHING to get to the White House. It is so evident lately, that I am very scared of this man. Where will he settle? Which side of anything is he on? Does he define being tough on terrorism by talking EXTRA hard?

At this point, all he really can do about terrorism is talk. Until/unless he's elected, he's not in a position to do anything about terrorism. The responsibilty for setting foreign policy has for the last few presidencies been given to the President. For example, when congress passed a resolution giving President Bush the authority to do what he feels is right regarding Iraq. It has been a long time since congress has really used their power in the foreign policy of the U.S.

Interesting reads on the struggle for power between the president and congress over foreign policy are the letters from Helvidius and Pacificus written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton respectively.

"Hamilton [Pacificus] argued that the conduct of foreign relations was exclusively an executive function, except where the Constitution explicitly stated otherwise."

Madison (Helvidius) argued the opposite.

Letters Link

[Lane Meyer]

FACT PATROL

blah blah blah SO FUCKING WHAT blah blah blah
/FACT PATROL

WHO CARES WHEN THEY WENT MISSING and how long it took to be reported. The explosives are still gone. Somebody screwed the pooch. Who knows where or when they will turn up, but I sure as hell hope it isn't next Tuesday while I'm in line casting my vote for "the waffler" who wants to pick up where Clinton's left off at ACTUALLY FIGHTING TERRORISM DIRECTLY.

I'm out of this discussion after this, it's puking outside my window, and let's leave it at agreeing to disagree and voting for our own man. I still want to meet/ski with many people on this board, and I don't want politics to sour that. Our country is great because we can each have our own views, and although I see things differently than you and Brett, I respect your views.

[Lone Star]

John Kerry says that day didn't change him, and that terrorism should be only viewed as a nuisance.....

Seriously dude, do some research, that's what the waffler said.

Actually, what Kerry said was, "''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Here's a link to verify that
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html


Glad I could do some research for ya.

[basom]

wow, blurred taking something out of context. i would have never imagined.


edit: maybe blurred didn't take it out of context, he's just repeating Racicots interpretation.

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Kerry was a prosecutor before he got into politics, and made fighting organized crime a priority.

Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."

[365wp]

It's very interesting how Bush's campaign took a line from Kerry that means "it's a nuisance to wait in long security lines, but at least we'll be safe" and spun it to mean "terrorists ARE HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET!"

In 02/03 while waiting to board a flight in DIA, I remembered I had a mini-leatherman in my pocket. I stuck it in my pack, fully preparing for the klaxons to sound and get immediately arrested, but nothing happened.

Of course, I had to take off my shoes...

Feeling secure is not the same as being secure...unless, of course, you're running for president and you can get people to believe they will feel secure under your presidency. It's amazing Rove can get people to feel safer under a President who was running the show when American was attacked...he'll have an awesome career in the private sectory whenever the Redskins lose...I mean Bush loses.

[Blurred]

Actually, what Kerry said was, "''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Here's a link to verify that
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html


Glad I could do some research for ya.

I didn't put quotes around what Kerry said dipshit, Still means the same thing though. He doesn't think terrorism should be the main focus right now. The turd in your room is waiting....