• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bush vs Kerry

From the Wed 06 Oct 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record
(Ellensburg, Washington)...  written by Mathew Manweller, Central
Washington University political science professor.

" Election determines fate of nation"

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential  election,
there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty
repartee.The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.  This
November we will vote in the only election during our
lifetime  that will truly matter.  Because America is at a
once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the
balance.  Down one  path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of
ambivalence.  Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its
past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we
choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the
next 50 years of history.  If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out
the current occupant of the White House, the message to
the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a
nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and
stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing
democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us.
But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as
voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges,
preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has
characterized other civilizations.  The defeat of President
Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to
make difficult, yet unpopular decisions.  America has
always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of
the costs or appeal.  If we turn
away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the
lesson of Somalia was well learned.  In Somalia we
showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the
battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom.  They
learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.
Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls
will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow.  Except that
Iraq is Somalia times 10.  The election of John Kerry will
serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly
of American power is the timidity of American voters.
Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is
all you need to break the will of the American people.
Our own self-doubt will take it from there.  Bin Laden will recognize
that he can topple any American administration without
setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest
generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as
America's 'last generation.'  Born in the bleakness of the Great
Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be
the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor
and sacrifice.  It is difficult to admit, but I know
these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all)
in my generation.  Too many citizens today
mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.'  But America has
always been more of an idea than a place.  When you
sign on, you do more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values
and responsibilities.  This November, my generation,
which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes
with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they
may deserve.  I believe that 100 years from now historians will look
back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive
election of our century.  Depending on the outcome, they will describe
it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary
nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their
burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller
 
Personally, I think Bush is plain stupid.

not to judge him by he expressions either.


You hear your countries been attacked by terrorisys in a florida classroom, you lick your lips and read a upsidedown book......nice one Bush.

He is not good at public speaking.....I think its speaking over all.......did you ever listen to the first line of his speeches, use a thersauous and change the words and add iraq, terrorism, Saddam, Evil-doers, and America to get the same affect of the actual speech?

And Iraq, yes our lovely oil.....I mean taking saddam out of power (whoops almost slipped up on the truth there.....) Saddam was someone who had no regarde for human life and him no longer in power is great for Iraq....but where are these WMD that was the main issue to invade Iraq.....you can't jsut go give a reason to get into a place and then when you were wrong find another and make it seem like nothing happenend.....and threating America???? give me a break.....

 
Hey "Peace Keeper" maybe you could fill in your profile so I know who Im talking to. That last post was an incoherrant mess. I get it- you dont like Bush. However the reasons you used have been rebutted time and again. Oil, the classroom story- we've been over this ground before. Bush was applauded by the school teacher who's classroom he was reading in for how he handled the situation....of course the "forwarded emails" you quite obviously get your information from wouldnt cover this.... ::)
 
Peace_Keeper said:
Personally, I think Bush is plain stupid.

not to judge him by he expressions either.


You hear your countries been attacked by terrorisys in a florida classroom, you lick your lips and read a upsidedown book......nice one Bush.

He is not good at public speaking.....I think its speaking over all.......did you ever listen to the first line of his speeches, use a thersauous and change the words and add iraq, terrorism, Saddam, Evil-doers, and America to get the same affect of the actual speech?

And Iraq, yes our lovely oil.....I mean taking saddam out of power (whoops almost slipped up on the truth there.....) Saddam was someone who had no regarde for human life and him no longer in power is great for Iraq....but where are these WMD that was the main issue to invade Iraq.....you can't jsut go give a reason to get into a place and then when you were wrong find another and make it seem like nothing happenend.....and threating America???? give me a break.....

Peace_Keeper said:
I've been in Air Cadets mainly becuase the Army ones around here suck.

Its good and when i turn 16 I plan to join the reserves....its a great experience and helps mold youth.

Peace_Keeper said:
I was in school....the teachers told us and we went on with otu day....when I got home i watched it all on tv......


But there is always a looming question of what hit the pentagon.....it was not a 757.....



This is a pretty weak first 3 posts......
 
Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.

I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents.
There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.

Among the highest, JFK, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and among the lowest, George Bush Sr and Jr, Nixon and Reagan.

Just something I read.
 
Maybe you could post a source for things you "just read". Its kind've a thing "we just do". Another empty profile hmm....
 
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Oh look 2 minutes of research later........ ::)


lfejoel25 said:
Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.

I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents.
There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.

Among the highest, JFK, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and among the lowest, George Bush Sr and Jr, Nixon and Reagan.

Just something I read.
 
lfejoel25 said:
Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.

I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents. Ur
There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.

Among the highest, JFK, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and among the lowest, George Bush Sr and Jr, Nixon and Reagan.

Just something I read.

Just another BS Urban Legend:
January 14, 2001
Bush gets bad rap on intelligence
By Aubrey Immelman
Times columnist

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ... 
â ” W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming"
A week from today, the sun will rise on the second Bush presidency in a generation, in what for some may be a day of trepidation. Does Bush the Younger have what it takes to lead the nation in the new millennium?

It's a question that transcends concerns about George W. Bush's conservatism or a path to power marred by youthful indiscretions. It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity.

The Spanish physician Juan Huarte in 1575 proposed one of the earliest recorded definitions of intelligence: learning ability, imaginativeness and good judgment. Undoubtedly, the mantle of the modern U.S. presidency imposes a steep learning curve and demands vision, wisdom and discretion.

Equally clear is this: Sheer intellectual brilliance does not cut it in the Oval Office.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman â ” railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster â ” or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough â ” and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students â ” hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient â ” an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence â ” the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse â ” to steer the course.

Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302.
 
i digress, i was wrong, although i did read that in a paper years ago.

i just looked it up on the web and read that some papers fell for the hoax, and so apparently so did i.  funny, i've been telling people that for years.

but that being said, aaron white, i'll fill in my profile if you want, i'm not trying to be one of "those guys" if you know what i mean.  i like a good debate.

frankly, i don't care who wins the elections, and even though i've seen some good arguements on here, i still don't like bush.  he kind of scares me really.  I just find that throughout his term he has been subject to quite a few knee jerk reactions.  in a crisis situation, like 9/11, it can be a good thing, because you simply need to react fast in order to eliminate the threat.  but when it comes to things like the war in iraq,although i'm not against it, i think it was rushed.  the restructuring of the country is the hard part, and although i'm sure they planned for it, i don't think they realized what they were getting themselves into, meaning the serious problems with public services (policing, water electricity).  but realistically, it's one of those things you can't know how serious the problem is until you get there.

even pappy mentioned how the bush white house reacted to public outcry with a few knee jerk reactions on some issues i mentioned earlier in this topic.  my point is that a knee jek reaction isn't necessarily the best direction for a government to take, as they could have consequences.

just my opinion.



 



 
The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.  The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.  The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.  It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.


Pappy,
Where do I start.

As neighbors and friends we felt a profound sense of loss on 9-11. Canadian Forces were prepared to assist in the War on Terror from the outset. However, our country did not see Iraq as part of the War on Terror. There was no solid intel linking Saddam with Al Qaeda, nor was there firm evidence of WMD. The was no justification for the war and those facts, as we know now, are indisputable. (Whether you believe the blusterings of a tyrant or not)

The same logic is being applied to your justification for fighting Islamic Fundamentalists in Iraq. There is no firm proof linking any Iraqi Fundamentalist cells to any acts of terror stated above. Just as I, a protestant, have no connection to the protestant extremist groups in Ireland.

I am not accepting or condoning the actions of extremists. There are extremist groups in Iraq, without doubt, but the latest insurgency is more a rebellion against the occupation by the populace. And I suspect it will continue to grow in scope and ferocity. If your view of Islamic Fundamentalism persists I think you will find many more enemies just around the corner.

In reference to your War of Independence, I suspect the Islamic Fundamentalists and Extremists see you playing the role of the British.

Good Luck
 
Tanner said:
In reference to your War of Independence, I suspect the Islamic Fundamentalists and Extremists see you playing the role of the British.

Good Luck

The British didnt come to North America and liberate the populace from a brutal dictator. I grow very weary of that analogy.
 
British soldiers were, in fact, deployed to secure funding for battles elsewhere (Boston Teaparty stuff). Look it up!
 
British soldiers were deployed to keep the Indians out, Americans in and the Republicans (those nasty chappies who had lopped off poor King Charles head) DOWN.  The British parliament then demanded that the Americans pay for this service.  The Americans declined the offer......

Cheers. ;D
 
Tanner said:
The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.   The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.   The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.   It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.

No, they are NOT the same. The sooner "we" understand that, the sooner we can begin to deal with the threat.

Acorn
 
Thanks for the history lesson Tanner. Im aware of the period. Im saying that they are not similar besides what ever loose logic you are going to apply to the situation. While what you are saying is the popular spin it fails to stand up under scrutiny.

If you cant see a humanitarian plus to removing a brutal dictator than I wont be able to change your mind on an internet forum.

I suspect you are a Canadian whos Canadian Pride comes from "not being an American".


Oh and Im not meaning to sound rude, thats the majority of the people I bump into...

Cheers,
Aaron

 
As to my reasons I consider Iraq a just target in the "war on terrorism" just check out a few of these links, they are current and also go back 10 to 15 years just in a simple internet search.  I consider there being more then enough proof to link almost all the terrorist groups from the 1970-2004.  I can not explain things to anyone better then those links below.  I feel its foolish to think Al Qeada just came about out of mid air in the late 1990's, his is but one group of many.  Take a look at the links below, if you still don't see a link then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  We all get to have our own ideas, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, I don't think anyone has done anything here but speak thier free mind and I find everyone point of view interesting. So read and enjoy.  I myself feel that the gobal war on terrorism is more then one group, more then one leader, more then one country, more then one safe haven.  We can not focus on just one leader/group/country, it's larger then that.


Search: State sponsored terrorism, Iran, Iraq (All the words)
Found: 26 result(s) on The Web
Date: 10/25/2004 10:07:46 PM

1. State-Sponsored Terrorism
... it is not known to have directly sponsored terrorist activity in ... one of the most active state sponsors of ... a variety of international terrorist activities, was ..
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html
95%

2. (I) Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000 Released by ... terrorism business and off the terrorism list. Iran, Iraq...
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm
94%

3. 1995 Patterns of Global Terrorism - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
... S. Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism Release Date: April 1996 Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism Cuba Iran Iraq Libya North Korea Sudan Syria The United States and ...
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_95/tersst.htm
94%

4. K - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
Patterns of Global Terrorism -2002. Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. April 30, 2003. Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ... State-Sponsored Terrorism. Despite significant pressure from the US Government, the seven designat
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
94%

5. Terrorism: Q & A | Iraq
... Iraq. Has Iraq sponsored terrorism? Yes ... and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups ... State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question ...
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html
80%

6. Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1998 - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
... West Bank, and Gaza Strip Jordan Lebanon Saudi Arabia Tunisia Yemen Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism Cuba Iran Iraq Libya North Korea Sudan Syria Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D ...
http://www.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/sponsor.html
72%

7. Propaganda Matrix.com - Exposing the New World Order and Government
...o Iraq Aftermath | o Police State | o Big Brother | o New World Order | o Bilderberg | o ... in Iran >> Britain 'to send reinforcements' to Iraq...
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/
72%

8. PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1993: STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM...
... STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM OVERVIEW. CONTENTS. Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea ... states that sponsor international terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan ......
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/93/statespon.html
68%

9. http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1998Report/sponsor.html

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1998Report/sponsor.html
65%

10. MSNBC - Terrorists Don't Need States
... had been backed by a state. The Soviet Union had financed and trained terror groups around the world. Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya had all sponsored terrorism. ..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4615876/
65%

11. 1990 Global Terrorism: State-Sponsored Terrorism
... State-Sponsored Terrorism. ... for those governments who support, tolerate, and engage in terrorism. ... Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as state supporters of ..
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html
61%

12. Cuba State Sponsored Terrorism
... Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism -2000, Released by the ... ... Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan ...
http://cuban-exile.com/menu1/!terror.html
59%

13. State-Sponsored Terrorism
State-Sponsored Terrorism. For many years, terrorism was perceived as a contest between ... Updates Articles Documents. Iran. Iraq. Lebanon...
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/State_t.htm
55%

14. PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1994: STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM...
... STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM OVERVIEW. CONTENTS. Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea ... states that sponsor international terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan ......
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_94/statespon.html
54%

15. 1991 Global Terrorism: State-Sponsored Terrorism
... historical pattern of Libyan Government-sponsored terrorist attacks ... continuing danger posed by state sponsorship ... Iran has also strengthened its relationship with ..
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_91/sponsored.html
52%

16. State ­Sponsored Terrorism - Iran
... remained the premier state sponsor of terrorism in 1996. It ... in 1996 in Turkey and northern Iraq. Iran's primary targets are ... and four Lebanese for the Iran ­sponsored killing of Iranian ...
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism-Iran.html
52%

17. State-Sponsored Terrorism:
Articles on terrorism, counter-terrorism and security policy. ... State-Sponsored Terrorism: Terrorism as a Preferred Instrument of Syrian Policy ... by the American State Department as states that sponsor terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North ...
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=400
52%

18. 1997 Global Terrorism: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
... Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea. Sudan. Syria. Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ... There has been a marked decline in state-sponsored terrorism in recent years ...
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/97/sponsored.html
47%

19. Conway home page
... info. on all groups) State Sponsored Terrorism (Iraq, Iran, N.Korea, Syria, etc.) Background Info. on Terrorist Groups (American-Israeli coop.) Hamas Terrorrism information Hamas (Islamic Resistance ...
http://www.4j.lane.edu/~conway/global/regional.html
46%

20. Holt, Rinehart and Winston
State Sponsored Terrorism: Axis of Evil. In his State of the Union address in January 2002 President Bush took aim at governments that sponsor terrorism. ..
http://go.hrw.com/hrw.nd/arbiter/pRedirect?project=hrwonline&siteId=1160&pageId=9038
46%

21. Patterns of Global Terrorism - 1998 Overview of State-Sponsored
Patterns of Global Terrorism - 1998 Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. SOURCE: ... Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria are...
http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Government/US/StateDepartment/CounterterrorismOffice/patterns/1998/OverviewStateSpons.html
46%

22. Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism 2000. The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. ... Iran, Iraq, Sy
http://www.iacsp.com/over.html
41%

23. Understanding Terrorism - State Sponsors of Terrorism
... weapons to Hezbollah. State Sponsored Terrorism Summary. 1) The US Government considers Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria & Libya. ..
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTStateSponsorsofTerrorism.html
39%

24. Ronald Reagan â “ The Pioneer of Global War on State-Sponsored Terrorism
... oil installations in Iran and expanded the US ... plague of state-sponsored terrorism. That was the ... toward the Jewish state. The 40th President ... Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor. The ...
http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/opeds/040607.html
33%

25. state-sponsor-terror
... This summarizes state-sponsored terrorism by Middle East and other countries, including: Iran. Iraq. Syria ... Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. Patterns of Global Terrorism -2000 ...
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/state-sponsor-terror.htm
32%

26. state sponsored terrorism syria arafat assad counter terrorism israel
... the War on Terrorism: The Role of Yasser ... serves as one against Iraq. Bashar Assad is ... to Fatah. In addition, Iran has tried to send ... Another Muslim Arab State of 'Palestine'? By ...
http://www.betar.org.uk/articles/betar1067287215.php
26%
 
maybe too much coffee today....

I feel that the war in Iraq was justafied for many reasons, ongoing costs to maintain the no-fly zones is just one of them, the US is not a bottomless pit of money... 
Below are some quotes from named sources as to the cost of the no-fly zones.  This had to end, the US could not continue to spend the money and military assets on the no-fly zones.  Simple military neccesitys dictate the removal of Saddam H.  The US could not contiue the war on terrorism in the gulf region with SH/Iraq being a thorn in our sides.

12 years and still going Saddam had to go, the UN was useless and would never do anything, we had to act.  Again if you disagree, well we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
But aside form some well made agurements, most people base their disagreement with the war in Iraq on thier haterd of Bush.  Bush is not perfect, in my opinion Kerry would be worse.  But agurements such as "Bush can't speak english correctly so I think he's stupid and doesn't know what he's doing" is not much of an agurement.  Not trying to flame anyone, so don't take it that way. 

I dislike Kerry based on his history based on the last 30 plus years of his public history.  Bush has made some mistakes, the war hasn't gone perfect, not many wars go perfect. in fact I doubt anyone can find one in history that has.  If we had given up in WW2 based on the first year of that war, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

"While the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims not to maintain records separately identifying expenditure incurred in sustaining the NFZs, it has provided statistics outlining the overall additional expenditure incurred by the MoD as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992-3 onwards:
Year £ Million
1992-93 551
1993-94 179
1994-95 58
1995-96 14
1996-97 6
1997-98 16
1998-99 35
1999-2000 28
2000-01(estimate) 24
Source: Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 23 January 2003"

"From the American point of view, the lack of definitive action in 1991 left the United States with a nasty hangnail to the otherwise successful Gulf War.
Trying to police Iraq's armaments industry costs $100 million a year, and enforcement of no-fly zones costs $1 billion per year. Also, Iraq's control of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves enables Hussein to play a continuing active role in the world energy market. It is difficult to say the degree to which President George W. Bush sees the continued reign of Hussein as unfinished business from his father's term of office, thus requiring the attention of his administration."
The Reckoning: Iraq And The Legacy Of Saddam Hussein,By Sandra Mackey
 
boy pappy, that must have been some good quality tim horton's coffee :cdn:
 
Sorry Pappy, but eliminating the cost of the no fly zones as a justification for the war in Iraq is a complete farce.   The US has already spent ~$80B on the war, and will spend billions more over the next several years maintaining some sort of military presence in the region.   Saving $1B per year is not going to balance the books.

That being said, you are quite correct- there was unfinished business in Iraq, and action was justified.   I would have been happier if the US had spent some time and money to help the UN develop some teeth (perhaps a pipe dream) but it didn't work out that way.   Bush raced head long into war as soon as Congress gave him the stick.   It would have been interesting to see what happened if he waved the stick in front of Saddam's nose first, rather than beating him over the head with it.

As for Kerry being worse, I disagree (sort of).   He's going to build a grand coalition, not through any great plan of international relations, but through his charming personality (and the fact that he's not Bush). ::)   I personally don't think either one of them truly understands the point of view of anyone outside the US.
 
Maybe Kerry will get Franch to help    ;D

Or mabye Vietnam, They owe hiim one, he helpped the vietcong and NVA win thier war, maybe they will help him win this one.

I do agree what you said about them both not understanding the rest of the world, the same can be said from the other side, I don't think many understand the people in the US either.

as far as adding teeth to the UN, I doubt that will ever happen.  The UN is too busy lining thier own pockets to give a rats behind to the real needs of the world.
the UN is a lost cause just like the League of Nations.  just look at the Oil-for-food program and funny now the countries that tried so hard to stop the US invading Iraq where the same ones taking Saddams money and kckbacks, and selling them weapons to shoot down Bristish and US pilots flying the NFZs.

The only thing the UN can agree on is looting thier own cafeiteria....
They didn't stop the genocide in Rwanda when they had the chance....  I doubt they will stop it in Sudan either, unless Uncle Sammy shows up with his army.

I have to give the Candaians credit, I can't think of another nation that has supported UN peackeeping missions more then Canada , along with Britian and the US.

but enough bashing the UN, this is a bash Bush and bash Kerry thread.....
 
Back
Top