Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[lunch3]

Not really THE ENFORCER, but will find out for my own soon hopefully.

Vantage your an ignorant shitface, at very least spell Hussein right. I disagree with most of these people, AND respect most of them except for you, you talk out of your ass. Rumsfield gave Iraq weapons like 20 years ago I think for Iran war. The foreign policy back then was picking the lesser of 2 evils. Also Bush has tried to engage talks multi-laterally, but North Korea hasn't unless pushed because they know if they do the rest of the world will just force demands to them. By going bilaterally North Korea has a chance to give the US a deal, which they will not honor like they didn't before, because without the US they feel pretty safe in power.

I'm actually a democrat too, Kerry speaks too much in generalites and I feel Bush, although unilateral, is doing good with his foreign policy in the long-term.

[Vantage]

like you said.. the talks are not working... are u stupid? u just contradicted urself.. if they're not working.. how is he doing a good job? kerry will try to make it work.. if that means slightly comprimising.

spelling is irrelevant... its the thought dumb shit.

anyways... u said that hussain bombed his own ppl.. with america's weapons.

[lunch3]

1) Vantage you smuck, we did not sell Iraq biological weapons like the ones he used to kill 2,000 of his own people. Also those weapons we sold 20 years ago, I doubt many of them strill work.

2) Try respecting others' opinions even if they disagree with you. It is ignorant homos like you that I hate, I have listened to others opinions and respect them with rational thinking. You seem brainwashed with your small understanding of the world.

3) They aren't talking [US and North korea], which means that instead of making a bs deal that will not work the world will sooner than later have to deal with North Korea the right way.

[Vantage]

the right way is george bush's way? laff... anyway seems better than the current way... if N. Korea is as big as a threat that the US claims then to be... then wouldn't bush take any action to get it resolved...

no i am not ignorant. in fact, i feel that you are ignorant.. you pretend to listen to other people so you can feel all good inside.

no, the US didnt sell biological weapons.. they sold the means to make biological weapons. Do u know any history btw?

The last time the US invaded a country to install democracy (and fail miserably) was vietnam.. do i have to remind you what happened?

My small understanding of the world? i think not... i admit that i have some critical views but let me assure you, the things i know more than u can fill an encyclopedia.

[THE ENFORCER]

the right way is george bush's way? laff... anyway seems better than the current way... if N. Korea is as big as a threat that the US claims then to be... then wouldn't bush take any action to get it resolved...
Maybe if the rest of the world would let him!Look how much effort it took for Iraq any intervention by US on another country will be highly resisted thus cant happen for quite awhile

no i am not ignorant. in fact, i feel that you are ignorant.. you pretend to listen to other people so you can feel all good inside.

no, the US didnt sell biological weapons.. they sold the means to make biological weapons. Do u know any history btw?

The last time the US invaded a country to install democracy (and fail miserably) was vietnam.. do i have to remind you what happened?
I think thats why Bush is devoting so much energy to Iraq, if Iraq can become a successful democratic country it'll show the world that a democratic country can survive in the islamic world and hopefully other countries will follow suit thus the people will be able to shape thier own govt policies and hopefully end terrorism (since citizens of these countries wont be frustrated with thier own govt nor USA).
My small understanding of the world? i think not... i admit that i have some critical views but let me assure you, the things i know more than u can fill an encyclopedia.
Its how you use infomation not how much you know that makes you successful.

..

[Gemfire]

I'm responding to Vantage's post about how England took Palestinian land to give to the Israelis....

Well vantage...technially it is the Israelis anyways...(ive posted this before, but maybe you didnt see >_>). It belonged to the Israelites back in Roman times. They were being oppressed and they didnt want to be ruled. The rebelled, but the Roman sent some legions(cant remember how many, maybe was just 1) and crushed it. They scattered the Israelis to the winds, to prevent any more rebellions, and the Palestinians moved in...and lived their till after WW2...so TECHNIALLY it is the Israelis anyways

[Bigwig]

look your both wrong about north korea. They are a big threat, and bush isn't doing anything militarily about them because they have THE BOMB.
he'd have to be idiotic to attack them in any way, they have one of the largest standing armies in the world. they won't just roll over like much of the iraqi army did.
Bush is, on the other hand, trying to work things out with them diplomatically, offering aid, negotiating with them to get them to stop their nuclear programs.
That said bush's foreign policy is crap, he tries to intimidate his way to what he wants, and when another country disagrees or fails to support him he alienates them.

[demonfaze]

http://www.ntrautanen.fi/computers/c...ck_future3.jpg

[Vantage]

Yes, and america used to belong to the natives... whats ur point? gg

and secondly, N Korea and america arent talking... i think comprimising to talk is a better solution...

and second of all, what right do u have to install democracy in iraq? you're basically saying the democracy is the only way... a bit ignorant arent u?

also turkey is a muslim country which has democracy.

And what good has come out of the iraq war? both for iraqis and the rest of the world?

NOTHING. Their infrastructure is in shambles. Odd thing is, Halliburtun has already won the rights to "help" rebuild iraqi oil fields.

Whats more, when the UN imposed "Oil for Food" ( mainly forced by the US), it basically starved the Iraqis out of a decent living - oil.

[lunch3]

Try reading the New York Times Vantage at www.nytimes.com, many Iraqis feel better off now. Of course there are still bombings and guerilla attacks in places around Baghdad, like fallujah, but in the other 95% of the country this isn't happening and even in the Sunni circle you have many Iraqis saying they are better off now.

PS They aren't talking now, I guess you are okay with North Korea blackmailing us and STILL go around any agreement we make with them. Do you live in Hicksville Vantage?

PPS The Oil for food program basically only hurts the regimes we have problems with, forcing them to only sell their oil in return for food. Saddam ruled by giving those loyal to him the fruits of Iraq's oil industry. These are mostly the same people that are fighting the guerilla war now.

PPPS Haliburton, yes, is profitting from the oil, but they are rebuilding the oil fields and someday this will be turned over to the Iraqi government. But in meantime a lot of the profits, not all of it, is going towards the reconstruction effort. The Iraqi infrastructure is less in shambles then it was a year ago. They built many schools, reparing electrical grids, updating and mainstreaming oil industry, building roads, etc. Although we should have been able to do better in these areas, it is still better then it was under Saddam. In school textbooks they no longer show Saddam's picture every 5 pages and schoolchildren are not forced to 'pray' for Saddam's well-being and continued 'just' rule.

[lunch3]

308,000 jobs were created for the month of March alone. Don't know if it will continue, but something like 600,000 jobs were created since the beginning of January, so maybe, just maybe, Bush did something right.

Added info on Kerry, he is pro-choice for abortion and he is for stem-cell research, both things that I, and most democrats would like.

[THE ENFORCER]

Yes, and america used to belong to the natives... whats ur point? gg

Excatly (your contradicting yourself) by that princple Israel does have a right to exist if you think American residents are allowed live in the natives land then Jews are allowed to live in Israel-except there is even more of a right because the land before palastien belonged to the jews. So either way you look at it Israel has a right to exist.

And if it was up to me all countries would be democratic, i think citizens should have the right to influence their countries desicions.

As for your other points Lunch3 pretty much shed all the light on it.

I think your just looking for points agianst USA and not looking at all the facts.

[lunch3]

look your both wrong about north korea. They are a big threat, and bush isn't doing anything militarily about them because they have THE BOMB.
he'd have to be idiotic to attack them in any way, they have one of the largest standing armies in the world. they won't just roll over like much of the iraqi army did.
Bush is, on the other hand, trying to work things out with them diplomatically, offering aid, negotiating with them to get them to stop their nuclear programs.
That said bush's foreign policy is crap, he tries to intimidate his way to what he wants, and when another country disagrees or fails to support him he alienates them.

I know it is a lot to read, but I did say that North Korea wasn't a pushover. Basically I am just far fetching with an estimate of 5,000-20,000 troop and South Korean civilian loses, depending on if they successfully use their WMD against our troops or South Korean cities like Seoul. North Korea has threatened in the past that if they are invaded then "Seoul would turn into a sea of fire", 100's of regular WW2 style guns and cannons are poised to do this to South Korea's capital, Seoul, they don't even need WMD to do this damage. North Korea is estimated to have 2 nuclear bombs plus up to 6 more made recently from processing those spent fuel rods everyone was talking about a year ago. But in the end we would win. We, and the international community, need to have the resolve to pull this and the occupation afterwards successfully, and I think that resolve will only appear if and when some city is blown up with an A-bomb and people point fingers at North Korea.

Bush is not offering them aid, because he thinks of it as blackmail. But Bush has pushed North Korea to negotiating tables, but only if others like China, Russia, Japan, and others are allowed at these negotiations which at first Kim Yong (dictator of North Korea) rejected, but ultimately agreed to them. I think negotiations only continued for a few days, with China doing a could deal of diplomatic work talking with North Korea on the side and getting North Korea back to the table. China has this influence because North Korea gets MOST of its aid from China. Right now I'm sure there are some negotiations and talks going on behind the scenes, but the US is not a part of this. But the US (under Bush) has hinted that it might be willing to write an agreement that they would not attack North Korea and also contribute more aid to them, but only if North Korea at very least COMPLETELY disarms its WMD programs. US probably wants a few extra things like having inspectors inspect dismantled WMD programs and also inspectors to make sure all the UN food that is being sent as charity to North Korea goes to the people and not North Korea's military stockpiles of food for its soldiers.

Bush has only alienated French and maybe Germany. But he is known to symbolically show who his friends are on the nation scale by inviting their presidents or prime ministers to his Texas Ranch.

PS Enforcer, I found some stuff on Kerry's position on ME and Israel but just generalities. He agrees with Bush's "roadmap" but wants to add into the step by step plan "reasonable goals that the palestinian authority could reach in the security issue". He also wants to, and can I believe, bring in the international community into reconstruction efforts with Iraq. But I have no idea what he thinks of other ME countries, whether or not he wants to create sanctions against some and whether or not he has any diplomatic or political agenda in trying to get the countries in the ME to reform. But he does seem very heavily upon the idea of stregthening our energy technology and developing it so that the US is not dependent on oil.

[THE ENFORCER]

I

PS Enforcer, I found some stuff on Kerry's position on ME and Israel but just generalities. He agrees with Bush's "roadmap" but wants to add into the step by step plan "reasonable goals that the palestinian authority could reach in the security issue".
palastien authority seems to be unwilling or doesnt have much control over the palastiens.
He also wants to, and can I believe, bring in the international community into reconstruction efforts with Iraq.
Isnt that what Bush is trying to do from day one?Bring in other countries to help?

But he does seem very heavily upon the idea of stregthening our energy technology and developing it so that the US is not dependent on oil.
Thats a good long term strategy but doesnt help us now and will cost alot of money unfortunately (prepare for tax increases-not good when an economy is in a downswing but i see USA is strongly comming out of it so maybe tax increases wont be that bad infact could be good in controlling inflation) but renewable energy is becomming an neccessity for life in the future the question is, is it neccessary to start pouring alot of money now or could we wait awhile until the economy is stronger like in 3 or 4 years time and problems like Iraq and ME are solved? A:i dont know, depends on oil reserves and the ever so greedy OPEC.

..

[bloodzombie]

Taxing the rich is harder than you think they have alot of power so whenever someone states this i generally think they arent really going to do this and instead raise taxes to the general public (most likely case), if it actually does happen it'll be ok except it will encourage more income tax evasion and the most extreme case (but not far fetched) business owners wont open businesses because they gonna get tax to much.

You need to be more specific about "plans on taxing corporations doing business overseas" do you mean hes gonna tax US companies for importing goods cause if thats true that is not condusive to helping the economy grow agian but its quite possible to send the economy into a further downswing. If you are talking about outsourcing (e.g Nike employing labour from china) and taxing that, that also might have the same effect you need to be more specific please- it'll also be good if you know the figures but its ok if you dont.

Oh Lunch do you know anything about Kerry's plans with Israel and the ME.

It's like you just make this shit up. rich people were paying WAY more taxes under the clinton administration, bush decided his rich friends needed a break.

And taxing corporations doing business overseas doesn't mean importing goods, it means companies who move part of their operation overseas and bring the money back into the states.. that money currently isn't taxed, kerry wants to tax it.