Guess Who is Endorsing Kerry *serious political stuff*

[ElfDude]

You made a lot of untrue statements in that post mate, but I'd rather deal with something you said that jumped out at me. It's a little more philosophical in nature...

We are not helping the Iraqi people. They don't know how to live any other way except for the way that they knew how to live, you can't just reform a country!

Here we see illustrated the basic difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals have no faith in the common man. He's just too stupid to get by on his own. He needs the enlightened liberal elite need to take care of him.

Conservatives believe that if you give men the freedom to become the best they can be, most of them will sieze the opportunity and run with it.

Will the transition for Iraq be easy? Of course not. After ten years of democracy in south Africa they're still struggling. But they'll get there.

I'll repeat what I said on this very topic elsewhere on this board. I'm reminded of Japan after WW2. We didn't go in and take over, we went in and gave them a constitution. With that new-found freedom and the ability to work and earn, the people there turned themselves from being a poor nation into one of the greatest (THE greatest at one point) economic superpowers in the world.

Okay... one more point...

Iraq has one major asset; oil. You sounded like you were accusing Bush of siezing oil fields when we went in. Yes, they were secured but they haven't been siezed. They belong to the Iraqis. And since their liberation, millions of barrels of oil have started being exported out of there. And instead of the revenue from those exports going to build more palaces, torture chambers, prisons, and rape rooms for Saddam and his boys, it has all gone into Iraqi reconstruction; hospitals, schools, etc.

Millions of Iraqis are now registered to vote in an upcoming election. When has that ever happened in their lifetimes?

Don't tell me we're not helping them.

Oh geez... once I get started... I'm such a long-winded bore... okay, one more...

The problem is that we were told about this war with our only fountain of information being the Government. And the Government lied to us. They lied to us because they had to lie to carry out their secret-agenda.

It's a secret agenda! And since the whole Clinton administration said everything Bush said when they were bombing Iraq in the late 90's, the conspiracy definitely pre-dates Bush. Oh, wait! Remember in the first Gulf war when Bush 41 said, "We are entering into a new world order"? That was the same phrase Hitler used! It all goes back to Nazi Germany! But wait! Hitler was into ancient mysticism! Could it really mean...? Fire up the X-Files theme music! Impeach Bush or aliens will land in my wig!

Okay, enough sarcasm. Once again my mouth runneth over.

Go back and read Bush's pre-war speeches where he was making the case for taking the war on terror into Iraq. Then take a look at his acceptance speech from the end of convention. See any similarities? Of course you do, because he was open about it all then and he hasn't changed his position since. We weren't lied to. We were given a litany of reasons as to why this was an expedient move. And they're all proving valid.

And if I didn't have to make my kids' lunches for school tomorrow and then get to bed 'cos it's already way past my bedtime I'd go on and on until I'd used up all of the server space for this board and gotten By-Tor into big trouble!

Somebody just tie me to a chair and duct tape my mouth shut, will ya?

[*Lifesonite]

Sorry, I did my best. I researched for a while and that's the information I could find

I didn't begin to become interested in any of this until about 3 weeks ago, but I'm trying to understand what's going on and I'm getting a lot of mixed messages.

I thought maybe I'd weigh in and see what happened, I don't mind discussing things. I don't expect to find the full truth, I'm only doing my best to wrap my head around all this stuff.


The Iraqi's problems began with the UN sanction that they couldn't sell enough of their oil, which is such a strong point for them, which resulted in them starving.

I feel very much like a war was finished that had never ended. Saddam needed to be removed, certainly, but 500,000 children didn't have to starve to death because of the economic warfare that we took part in. I'm sure Saddam was easier to remove after 14 years of that.

But that's not the point, sure, it was wrong to begin with, I think he should have been taken care of after the Gulf War. And I certainly have my doubts considering a very tangible piece of evidence was not found... What less-tangible things did he lie to us about? I just don't like holes in stories. If we went there to liberate the Iraqi people then why is it that we had waited until Saddam was tired of being harrassed and stopped complying with the sanctions?

I hope they can succeed as a Democracy, I'm just afraid that they won't really be ruling themselves. I'm afraid that there will be overseer's guiding them and controlling them with some kind of hold. Iraq will most likely be a lap-dog to us, in a way, after this. And we have nothing to gain?

[ElfDude]

Well said, *ite. Despite some differences in opinions, I think you're a great kid. Just don't tell me what you think of me!

I don't know if you've heard of a writer named Orson Scott Card... he's a North Carolina democrat. He does newspaper columns there, but mostly he publsihes either fantasy novels or historical fiction.

To do historical fiction he's had to do an awful lot of homework. With that historic angle in mind, he's written two remarkably non-partisan articles on our candidates if anyone is interested.

Note: this may be the ONLY time you see me passing on things written by a democrat.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-06-13-1.html his opinion on Kerry

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-07-25-1.html his opinion on Bush

[by-tor]

The Iraqi's problems began with the UN sanction that they couldn't sell enough of their oil, which is such a strong point for them, which resulted in them starving.

I feel very much like a war was finished that had never ended. Saddam needed to be removed, certainly, but 500,000 children didn't have to starve to death because of the economic warfare that we took part in. I'm sure Saddam was easier to remove after 14 years of that.

That's not what happened. Saddam was allowed to sell what Iraq needed (read food for oil), and Saddam was supposed to use the revenue to support the people of Iraq. However, dear ole' Saddam was using the money to build his bank account, build palaces for him and his sons, and probably for weapons research. This was going on pretty much since the oil for food program began, and the UN knew it. But all the UN did was threaten him and call him a bad boy. The UN sanctions didn't hurt the people of Iraq, as there were provisions in place that were designed to help them. What hurt the Iraqi people was Saddam not using the money for what it was supposed to be used for, and the inactions of the UN.

[rushlight]

I'm a democrat and I'm not even sure about Kerry. Throughout the news, they've shown Bush/Kerry rallies that turned ugly. It looks like Bush can win this thing again.

[ElfDude]

From the AP



Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.

[rushlight]

See what I mean?

[Devil's Advocate]

From the AP



Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.

Corroboration? Looks to me like an amateur anti-Kerry publicity stunt. The image file format speaks volumes; no news source - nor even a competent Republican propagandist - would use a windows bitmap for ... well, for anything, really. Certainly not to publish on the web.

[ElfDude]

You're joking, right? You're NOT joking? You really see that much conspiracy in everything?

It came from the AP newswire... one of the biggest news sources in the world! The fact that it's a bitmap is because the picture I hosted came to me in the body of an e-mail, rather than as an attachment.

Here... here's the whole story in the Washington Times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -8041r.htm

Publicity stunt... good grief...

[awip2062]

There is someone going around in our town tearing up Bush signs. No one doing that to the Kerry ones, just the Bush signs.

[EndlesslyRocking]

You're joking, right? You're NOT joking? You really see that much conspiracy in everything?

It came from the AP newswire... one of the biggest news sources in the world! The fact that it's a bitmap is because the picture I hosted came to me in the body of an e-mail, rather than as an attachment.

Here... here's the whole story in the Washington Times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -8041r.htm

Publicity stunt... good grief...

It's happened before.

A well circulated picture of Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally was a deliberate fake. The news showed how two pictures were cropped together, to make them look like they were standing next to each other, when in fact the pcitures of each individual were taken a year apart.

This picture may not be a fake or a set-up (how would I know?) But don't just dismiss the notion: we've seen it before with our own eyes. It's not crazy paranoia, it's fact.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0 ... light.html

[happysmilies007]

There is someone going around in our town tearing up Bush signs. No one doing that to the Kerry ones, just the Bush signs.

and did you notice that there wasn't a quarter of a million anti-kerry ralliers outside the democratic national convention?? truth is, conservatives are called 'conservatives' for a reason.

carolynn

[EndlesslyRocking]

There is someone going around in our town tearing up Bush signs. No one doing that to the Kerry ones, just the Bush signs.

and did you notice that a quarter of a million anti-kerry ralliers outside the democratic national convention?? truth is, conservatives are called 'conservatives' for a reason.

carolynn

Riiiiiiiiiight...the poor put upon conservatives are so decent and well behaved, while the unwashed liberals roam the streets burning the flag and urinating on the Constitution...puh-leeze!

You're young and there's nothing wrong with idealism and passion. But let's be serious: individual acts of boorishness (or worse) occur on both sides of the aisle with alarming regularity. Neither party can claim the high road, IMHO, when it comes to dirty politics. If it's true some Kerry supporter ripped up that girl's sign, that's terrible. None of us want that. That person does not represent the mainstream left winger in the US.

You're too young to remember Donald Segretti, but may I suggest you do a search and read up on the GOP's Poster Boy for Bad Behavior? You might find it interesting...

[D'Anconia]

Riiiiiiiiiight...the poor put upon conservatives are so decent and well behaved, while the unwashed liberals roam the streets burning the flag and urinating on the Constitution...puh-leeze!

Don't forget unshaved.

[ElfDude]

Don't forget unshaved.

Or lice-infested!