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

[Displaced]

pressure on the Saudi regime to move toward democratization and the provision of basic human rights.

I find that hilarious, saudi has human rights. how old is this.. must read more.

[lunch3]

Lolz, that was Richard, tru is probably a waste of time because we write so much and doubt others will fully read them. But some are including me, and this forum has allowed me to collect my thoughts and alter some views a bit. Plus I can't get on ss at moment very laggy, think tw's server's problem....I hope. After this whole thread I have changed my mind for voting for Kerry as I looked for answers and now will vote for Bush. He may be stupid and gun-ho but he has smart advisors and listens better to human morality. Also see him changing his stance on Saudi Arabia to be more unfriendly and hopefully harsh. Think foreign issues are far more important, but I wish he would chance his stance on world trade, but at least he seems very much on right direction for fight on terror.

[THE ENFORCER]

Free trade= no tariffs i thought there has been alot of free trade agreements with USA well i know for one at least with Aust. Also tarrifs are not economically beneficial anyway it breed inefficientcies (USA knows this) so i dont think tarrifs on imported goods will last long. If USA could get around making economic policies without being politically bias then there would be no tarrifs as the jobs lost will eventually be gained back through forcing companies to increase their competitivness. But at the moment govt are afraid they will be elected out of office if they drop all tariffs now, so i would think the govt is gradually dropping tarrifs. Eventually there will be no tariffs so that issue isnt for concern.

Therefore i wouldnt worry about world trade lunch

[Displaced]

hmm ive read whats in the first link, and while a lot of it is accurate and credible, i cant help but feel that his stance on Saudi is completely inaccurate.

[THE ENFORCER]

Im sorry but i thought that was a completely useless waste of my time, he raises points that everyone already knows the problem is its gonna take decades for those things to happen.I mean who here is agianst renewable energy sources and increased wealth for poorer countries?? I think the guy just threw in a whole lot of facts and fancy words but really its all been said before...
I feel i must repeat the last paragraph i stated before..

Dude everyone knows about these points they are no secret, we must use renewable energy sources, we must increase the wealth and income to be more evenly distributed in the world hes living in a dream world the fact is these things although are achievable will take along time to happen so we have to focus on the immediate goals in detering terrorism such as assinating terrorist leaders and bringing terrorist training camps to an end, creating democratic states through the use of military support until technology is advanced enough to solve these problems. Bringing down the actual structure of terrorism and constructing democratic states in these arab countries is an immediate achievable solution although the actual dissent of civilians will either be solved through democracy or technology but advancement of technology is slow.

btw im referring to the first link i am yet to read the second :eek:

[bloodzombie]

.I mean who here is agianst renewable energy sources :

bush

[Nethila]

wat bz said.. bush.. cause his family owns an oil company or some sort


anyways..back to terrorism stuff.. US launched a war against Iraq 13 years ago, failed to capture saddam.. That's when old Bush was in power. 13 years later, US once against launched a war against Iraq.. this time, young Bosh is in power. See links?
WMD.. did they even find ANY WMD? no.. and it has being how long?

Get real, everyone know why Bush government attacks Iraq. one, to revenge for his father's defeat. Two, to get the oil. Even Iraqis know that. Why do you think they burn their oil when US was attacking? Don't give me that "because they want to block satellite images" stuff.

How many US soldiers alone died from this war? 300? Lunch3 and THE ENFORCER, im pretty sure that if you are one of those soldiers family member, you'd be hating Bush too.
and yes, i saw the campaign ad, and yes, i find it very offensive because i lost a family member in 9/11. Why do you think families who lost their loved ones in 9/11 felt so angry about this ad? And where is Bush when 9/11 happened? Somewhere underground protecting himself instead of coming out and help. And don't forget Bush ran away from goin to war when he was young.

[bloodzombie]

He's a pussy and he didn't care about terrorism until it became a photo opportunity. on paper he says he's all for renewable energy, but doesn't put any money or effort towards it. same with schools "leave no children behind", but there's no extra money going to the program. Everything's in theory and nothing gets done. he's a piece of shit.

[bloodzombie]

Somewhat unrelated, but just so everyone understands how the end of desert storm was a big fuckup...

Our whole reason for being there was to get the iraqis out of kuwait. We finished our mission, and then encouraged the iraqi people to rise up and overthrow saddam. In the ceasefire negotiations, for some reason schwartzkopf told saddam's people that they could fly their helecopters to transport their people (I guess the assmption was that they would be picking them up to bring them back home) as long as they didn't fly them near the areas where the american troops were. So saddam took his armed helecopters and slaughtered the rebels while we did nothing. After we realized what was going on, we warned them that we would shoot down their helecopters, but by then it was too late, the rebellion that we encouraged had been crushed.

gg schwartzkopf.

[Force of Nature]

What THE ENFORCER said is a good point I would have shown if he didn't. Lolz, seems like we are tag teaming against the ignorant, although he is by far more subtle and less insulting.

It was quite inconsiderate for you to say that. So everyone who disagrees with you are ignorant? No, they don't have the time to be a forum zealot waiting for every post to repost a huge rebuttal. Most of this thread is totally a one sided argument. It only seems like you guys are winning because people who oppose your views don't have the time to answer each of your posts. Remember its only the extremes who really post views. There are many people who just dont care or are indifferent.

By saying that you sir have lost credibility.

[Sarien]

It only seems like you guys are winning because people who oppose your views don't have the time to answer each of your posts.

It's not so much that FoN, I suspect. as people just giving up really. Enforcer especially doesn't give two shits how much you try to reason with him or when you show him fact for fact why he's wrong. He'll just say you're twisting his words and try to find a way to squirm out of it, for the sake of arguing. Again, it's something that I find a lot (NOT ALL) of Aussies to have in common. They don't care how many hours they have to argue on end, nor how much doubletalk and nonsense they have to spew, they in the end want to be the one that looks like they're still standing. What they don't get is lots of people just wandered off and stop giving a shit about what they said long ago, so they just switch topics and do it again.

If you don't believe me check Enforcer's record:
From Doublesquadding:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=9545
to Gay Marriage:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=10043
To Arguing with himself:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=10151
To Howard Stern:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=10201
To his new sub-branch, this thread.

He's not an American. He doesn't get a vote, and he might think he knows anything at all about our system of government and what it is Americans want or expect from our President, but he doesn't. All he knows is what he's seen or heard from the media he gets there or worse; other people in his country that have relied on that same media. He averages something like 8.92 posts a day, and has a tendency to do things like post 12 times in a row.

In short, The Enforcer is like your neighbor's little yappy dog that you'd like to hit in the head with a rock, just so it might shut up once in a while.

[lunch3]

It was a joke if you didn't notice FON, I said 'seems'. I respect most people here that have disagreed with me. I don't personal attack someone unless I get caught offguard unexpectedly emotionally, and haven't done so for most part in this thread.

Sorry you lost family members Nethila, I would probably feel same way you did if I lost family. You probably don't care now to hear this, but we all appreciate your family member's sacrifice whether or not we are for Iraqi war/occupation.

Thanx BZ for info, I only knew half of it, like what happened, not the reasons with the helicopters.

I'm still voting for Bush after seeing many arguements that have swayed me a little from choosing Bush, but not enough after all the time and research I spent understanding these issues and compiling my thoughts. Maybe a few more valid arguements would sway me and others if you have any more. Headlines are the majority of arguements against Bush though here in this thread, only compiled thoughts will sway me.

PS Sarien that is very nit-picky for you to do and research other people's bio and post it. I for one am not looking at it, you people are the ones double-talking and changing topics. Me and EN just rebuttal everyone else's posts, we haven't really brought any new links, just our thoughts and arguements. Those that write long posts do so because they understand the material more in depth and have done more research and have more to say. Those that don't are just repeating news headlines and other forms of propaganda because all they understand is the headlines and not the actual story. I also write long because it comes easy to me, it takes like 30minutes to type a thoughtful page. Just so you know I don't just spend my whole life posting, except for today because I'm off.

[Sarien]

Lunch.. dude check this out.
Bush is running on the platform of only he can protect America from terrorists. This is the platform he has chosen because he simply cannot run on anything else. He can't run on job creation (unless he's trying to get elected in another country), he can't run on popularity (look at the scandal he had getting into office the first time), he can't run on being world savvy (he's widely reknowned to be really poor at that). But I have one single thought along the lines of his whole election military/safety platform.

Between George Herbert Walker Bush Jr, and John Forbes Kerry, only one man has been in a war, only one man has won in a wartime theater the silver star, bronze star, and 3 purple hearts. No person on earth will ever be able to tell me that George Bush will know more about protecting one's self or their nation from harm, seeing as how Kerry was the only one of them to actually undergo the experience of doing just that, without having been elected first.

What does that mean? It means Bush's own platform for election is dispelled like everything else the man says: myth.


And Lunch... I'd rather be accused of being nitpicky than being wrong. He does do that, it's right there if you would look at it. Enforcer argues for the sake of arguing, nothing more. He started the Doublesquadding thread, This thread, and the one where he was spamming people arguing himself. I'm not a kid, I'm 28 years old. I understand his posts and what it is he's saying and why he's saying it, and this isn't some personal vendetta. The guy simply doesn't know half of what he says he does, and posts simply to argue.
How many threads did you go on for two pages with an alias, arguing with yourself? Probably none, and neither have I, it's childish and stupid, just like the rest of his behavior. I'd rather be nitpicky.

[bloodzombie]

Lunch,

I'm seriously appalled by anyone who would still vote for bush at this point. I mean.. why?

to say that enforcer writes long posts because he understands the topics is just nonsense, he's living in some fantasy world where by invading iraq the people will automatically love us and accept any government that we force upon them. Polls among iraqi people have shown that we (the US) have about a 50% acceptance rating there, but some people didn't count because they wouldn't answer the questions, or they pulled weapons on the people trying to ask them.

50%... think about that.. this is not a country that overwhelmingly wanted us to free them.. half of them hate us. Probably more than half if everyone asked had answered the poll.. that sounds like a lot of new terrorists to me.

*I don't remember the exact percentage, but when I heard it, I remember thinking half.. it might be 48, it might be 52.

[lunch3]

lunch3 dont get me wrong, im not calling baghdad a nice place.. but its not as bad as the media make it seem..

its not like constant gunfire, torture, killing ppl on the streets etc. sure people were being oppressed, tortured and killed. The same shit happens in Iran too. i dont see the us going over there any time soon.

Just to make sure, we are both talking about Iraq between the Gulf War and before our recent war. If it is, I don't think there is constant violoence at that time. So as follows I will just state the general feel of things as I see they were at that time.

People were not totally afraid to walk the streets, and fedayamen did not run rampant. But I think people definitely tried to avoid these people and also tried not to make a rukus so they wouldn't draw attention. But every now and then the fedayamen and the likes would take people away just because they had personal feelings against them or if they seemed 'suspicious' or if they were extremely bored and enjoyed the act of torture. It is a big country and I think something like 100 people a day were taken away for questioning, while 5o of them were tortured and/or killed. The stories I heard of torture involved burning testicles, fingers, and toes, hanging people on ceiling and prodding them with electric stunners, cuttings, long and drawn out interrogations, beatings, etc. Those that they wanted killed would be grouped together for firing squad.

Also Saddam's sons had very bad reputation of looking and clubbing in cities and take away anyone that gave them a bad look and just kill them. They would even kill their own henchmen, like in one story I heard they were playing golf, and the older son blamed the club and the guy who gave him that club. The son didn't like the groveling guy's answer to why he gave him a bad club, so he just took out his handgun and killed him.

Although this stuff didn't happen very often, everyone was afraid to be in these guys presence because there was small but decent probability they wouldn't be able to talk of it again.

Lunch.. dude check this out.
Bush is running on the platform of only he can protect America from terrorists. This is the platform he has chosen because he simply cannot run on anything else.

Somewhat true, that is his main platform.

He can't run on job creation (unless he's trying to get elected in another country),

no he can't but think it would have happened anyways, we were already in start of depression, plus I agree with others that economy lags behind policies. Think our economy grew way to fast during 90's under Clinton, and stock markets overexaggerated companies growth. Think we went from 2,000 to 12,000 in Dow Jones during this period, record breaking, but numbers are settling down and 9/11 made them go down too far. We are starting to go back up again and think we will regain half of what we lost. Those lost jobs were mostly companies giving themselves insurance and a buffer zone in case they kept falling.

he can't run on popularity (look at the scandal he had getting into office the first time),

tru, especially now, think his popularity will grow a bit before election after next few weeks, but no where near his peak.

he can't run on being world savvy (he's widely reknowned to be really poor at that). But I have one single thought along the lines of his whole election military/safety platform.

Also true, but this one is the only one of your points that makes me not want to really vote for him so far.

But here are my other reasons for wanting Bush.
1. He donated money for Africa in Aids fight, because he is the religious type of guy. Kerry would rather not donate and give it too people of US.

2. Kerry will strengthen our tariffs against developing countries because he can't break his word that he 'is the president of the labor class'.

3. Doubt Kerry will do more than just hunting for Al Qaeda and terrorists inside Iraq and Afghanistan and closing dopwn financial funding for terrorism.

4. Do not know Kerry's standpoint on Israel, that can sway me either way.

5. Bush is a morale type of guy, meaning more likely to stand tough against regimes in ME that do not help in reforms or fight on terrorism.

6. He has experience now as president, presidents always do better their second term.

7. Tell me what Kerry's stance on North Korea too, someone, that can sway me and others too either way.

8. Bush also against and hotly on trail against child prostitutes, this fight will help fight against corruption and illegal businesses.

9. Don't like Bush's stance on gays and marriage, against constitution, but like in past history, the supreme court will decide this issue and they seem to be opposite than Bush on issue so no problem. This issue is just another prejudice like racism and it's segregation policies in another form.

PS The US is crying about a down economy, yet we had a 3% growth in industry GDP while every European country had like 0.1% growth. We are still investing, if we ever stop growing like European countries there won't be people to fill all the jobs we have left. But once we stop our industry growth policies it will be very hard to start it up again. Look at France, they are in trouble because people there need to work longer hours and accept losses in social security pay in order to keep their government services that they have now, but people of course are selfish and will probably vote for someone other than Chirac and let their children pay for their selfishness. Think Kerry is analogy to Chirac's rival, he will be supported by selfish people and we'll pay later for it.