kgilly

kgilly

It is fine, actually great that a president can stand u for what he blieves in and take what action is necessary. It si anothe rthing however if the president can do these things and then not take the blame with the credit. He never will answer questions that could possibly hurt him in this campaign. He also has not done the majority of things he said he wa set out to do during his first campaign. When people call Kerry a flip-flopper is makes me laugh, because the president in office himself has changed his views since his first campaign. Also, yes somebody needed to do something to HELP the outbreak of ciolence in the middle east that has been going on for some time. In fact these things should have been taken care of when we were over there the first time. However after the first Bush let he wrote a book discussing how no one should ever go into Iraq, however now he doesn;t feel this way anymore now that his son is over there. If Kerry gets elected yes our boys and girls will still be over there. However things will change. Money that was alotted to the traiing of Iraqi troops and military will actually get there instead of mor emoney needing to be alotted over there. Where did that money go? Why are there only 8000 troops trained when there should be 50,000 and growing right now. Not one Iraqi police officer has completely finished there training. In order to stabilize Iraq we must build up there army and police force to enforce their rules. We also must finisht he job in Fallujah and surrounding areas than Colin Powell himself said was completly out of controla nd unstable and uncapable of holding elections. Elections should nto be held until the people can elect whot hey want in power. 25% of Iraq is capable of voting right now, and not even that many will vote due to the outcoms that can arise such as being shot while trying to cast your vote. We must show these people what democracy is all about before they are going to jump in the boat. So far we have shown them the same old shit, killing and violence, and a stream of radicals that have still not beent aken care of. Kerry will get our boys home sooner by trainign Iraqi troops, and getting more countries involved, which is completely needed if you are going to win a war on terrorism. Without the cooperation of the majority fo countries terrosits will not be completely conquered and one group will go and another will spur, etc etc.

vixy022685

LS1-S10

All im saying is that i believe he did the right thing, and he continues to follow through for this country in its best interest. I know its hard to relate this conflict with other wars, because alot of people don't see it as an actual war. But look back onto all of our past wars we have been part of. How many troops and innocents died while we and our allies were bombing cities in Europe in WWII? We were not against a whole nation....but of one man and all of his followers.

What good is this world if we cannot atleast attempt to oppress tyranny and terror. People have gotton WAY too liberal today, you ask why send our young men and women to die today for a reason you can't explain? The answer is simple, to protect our welfare and freedom for years to come. The fact of the matter is, our enemy cannot be trusted and for years we have beat around the bush with Iraq and Saddam. These people simply don't leave proof just lying around that they have weapons of mass destruction, or if there associated with terroists. I wouldn't be suprised if all of its either been destroyed or relocated so not to be found. The single trick that evil always has up its sleeve is deceit.

Just ask yourself what George Washington would have done after the War of Independence if the British had blew up Boston Harbor killing over 2,000 of our people? Would he have done years of searching for the exact group that did this and bring them to justice in the courts, or would he have waged war on them once again in retalliation?

kgilly

So your saying that Sadaam had a direct relationship with 9/11? Cheney just in his debate yesterday said this wasn't true...he also said he never said that it was...but he did...and many people in america still believe this to be true. I under stadn what you are saying about sadaam violating 12 years of UN sanctions, but the afghanistan war was in retaliation of 9/11, not the Iraq war.

LS1-S10

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Cheney said that there wasn't any proof that Saddam had been affliated with the 9/11 attacks. However, the terroist's accused of the 9/11 attacks were being harbored in his country with his knowledge and refusal to assist us....this pretty much implies to me that a., he is either in on it with them, or b., he's basically slapping us in the face. I didn't mean to come across as the war in Iraq was focused on the 9/11 attacks, but it was mearly a part of W.'s plan on the war on terror.

Saddam was an evil power hungry dictator that was oppressing his people and surrounding countries to his own benefit. In my eyes, he was Hitlers reincarnate.....without the mass genocide. If something had not been done when it was....it was only a matter of time before he had the idea of wanting to be leader of the free world and we have another world war on our hands.

The middle eastern countries are littered with people that have been living under Saddam's beliefs and way of life so long, they take them as there own. These people are religious extremists with nothing to loose but there own life, which in there eyes dying for there cause is the most rewarding way to die. While there are many innocents, there are also many terrorists....with no way to tell who's who, there will be some innocents fallen. American occupation in Iraq isn't even negotionable. We simply can't take away all forms of government and set the way for democracy then just up and leave them to fend for themselves. All we would do is end up with the exact dictatorship we are trying to get rid of in that country.

kgilly

Cheney said that "Iraq was responsible for many terrorist activites, especially 9/11", on the debate he said that "He never said Iraq was realted to 9/11
...even Bill Crystal said his jaw dropped when he heard Cheney say this durign the debate. Your assuming Sadaam had some sort of master plan to create a world war when there is no proof to backup your statement...he in no way was Hitler. Many of these people as you stated have been living in Sadaam's way of life for a long time, many and actually msot of these people were scared of what would happen tot hem if they did not follow sadaam's orders and rules...big reason why many were hesitant to believe sadaam was captured. We must stay the course, it is too late to withdraw now. If we did there would just be yet another rise to power as in sadaam's case when they turnded from democracy in the past. However we must leave as soon as we have Iraq troops and police to a point where they can govern themselves. Any on when asked for help should we intervene.

Jimi

That's absurd, and irrelevant. Our independance was won from a monarchy that taxed and controlled us from 3,000 miles away. We fought for freedom. Also, I don't see England taking out 2,000 people with some cannons from a ship.

Also, is it me, or does anyone else notice the complete fear instilled in the citizens of the nation in the hopes that it will gain votes? Everything is about terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. "Oh man, I was gonna go out and get some coffee, but I may get bombed!" Our country was hit, and hit hard. But it isn't the first time. We didn't fear everything in the first WTC bombing. We didn't go up in arms when McVeigh bombed Oklahoma. Hell, we didn't attack Atlanta when a pipe bomb went off at the Olympic games in Georgia. Why now? Why has ONE attack gotten us this riled up? In the debates, Dubya's main focus is Iraq, and terrorism. This tactic, if anyone has read "1984" for example, has been used time-and-time-again to scare people into trusting their government. The Nazis did it. The Russians did it. Korea is now doing it. IRAQ did it!! We are a powerful nation. We cannot stop every act of terrorism. But we also can't elect a president who uses an act of violence as his mainstay. We are in more danger when the country is in this much fear than ever. This fear shows weakness, and our current president is using that weakness, as will others who want to do harm to our country.

kgilly

I love that point you just made about how we are in more danger with the country being int his much dear than ever. It goes with the statement Kerry made int he debate this past week. He didnt say that the world was better off without saddam...he clearly and simply said, "We are in more danger now than when Bush took office." and sadly it is true...if you think back when Clinton was in office or even 20 years back you can remember the securiy you felt and how lucky you felt to live in america. Now we don;t feel this way. We need a president to quit dividing our nation and bring a sense of not only pride but a sense of freedom ack into our people. The statue of Liberty says "Bring us your tired, your hungry, your poor", America no longer stands for the trophy we so greatly treasure symbolizing it says.

Jimi

I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down, since it was given to us by the French.

Jimi

Kerry, 3 for 3

tjlaxattack

Kerry said "Read my lips. I will not raise taxes."
Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes.
Surprised he even voted, he missed 68% of his senate vote this year. If you are against Bush's stands on issues (yes, he unlike Kerry actually takes stands and sticks to them) I am all for your decision and I respect that.

I can't stand when people just say they will vote for Kerry because Bush is an idiot or because Bush lied. Kerry has lied more times to the American Public in his campaign than Bush has in his entire 4 years in office.

Also if you think Kerry won the debate, it's because all he does is agree with absolutely everyone's opinions and also use ridiculous obscure situations as examples why we should agree with his stem-cell stand (Michael J Fox and Chris Reeves), partial birth abortions (a 14 yr old girl raped by her dad), gay marriage (Cheney's daughter), and gun laws (a drug bust a friend of his made where they found the dealer and he had an AK47).

Get educated on some of these issues. They can both say whatever they want on TV. The same people who just watch TV probably were swayed by Fahrenheit 9/11. Good one. Look at past voting records and things they both have stood for BEFORE they got into the public eye. You'd be surprised.

Jimi

I watched it, I saw what he said, I saw the issues at hand. Bush didn't even talk about the topics at hand. He kept changing the subject. Almost every time, it was crazy. Kerry told his ideas. Bush told his ideas too, just not the ideas that were asked about.

Insaniteus

I noticed that, it was laughable. Kerry did it ONCE (When asked how he was gonna fund everything), but Bush did it every single time he was cornered. He also continued with his attacks on Kerry's votes even after Kerry explained them in full detail many times. For example:

"Kerry voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban"

As Kerry said in the 2nd debate quite clearly, the reason he voted against it was because there was no clause for the life of the mother. What Bush is hoping is that Americans are too stupid to know how congress works and how bills are amended and reworked until they're better than they were in their original design, and it really is a sad, sad sign of his core support.

Anyway, Kerry wins for sticking on topic more, and for him and analysts catching Bush in several lies (Like denying he said he wasn't worried about Osama anymore).

-Insaniteus-