Rant: Evil Doer's Strike Again.

[Atrocities]

I did check. Besides I was linked to it from the kerry2004.com site. Thats what ticked me off to begin with. And I find it find it funny that this topic was up for more than a week before any one posted. LOL

[Captain Kwok]

Anyways, you should be ranting about the evil corporations that are running your country.

[Atrocities]

Down with Microsoft, The power companies, big oil, and safeway!

[Will]

AT, if you really want Microsoft, power companies, big oil, and safeway to go down, Bush isn't the candidate you want since he's pretty much in bed with all of them. And Kerry is in bed with a bunch of other corporations. Nader is probably the guy to go for, since he pissed off all the corporate-types a long time ago. The Republican Party has been helping Nader out too, so they must want you to vote for Nader

[Atrocities]

I check, he is only in bed with big oil. So he had better buck up and make the sacrafice then.

[Fyron]

Safeway groceries? It is owned by Vons now, you know...

[Atrocities]

I did not know that. Thanks. I thought they were still owned by KKR. Ooops. See what happens when you don't do your research.

[Katchoo]

Atrocities, I love you man, but are you seriously telling me that you're going to support a man who's authorized the killing of over 10,000 Iraqi people that had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

If another country (non-superpower) invaded another, weaker, country on false and exaggerated information (as the US has done), then the UN (US included) would be screaming for the head of the Leader of that invading country, and a War Trial would be on the horizon. Outside the US, people are looking at George Bush as a War Criminal, and every action he and his Administration has taken in regards to Iraq continue to lend credence to this view.

Supporting Bush is an insult to the nearly 1000 American soliders that have been sacrificed for this misbegotten War. Those American brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers have been lost for what? Removing Saddam from power? What exactly had Saddam done to the US in the past 5-10 Years? The answer is nothing.

Osama Bin Laden remains free, and he's the toad that ordered the 9/11 attack.

[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Atrocities]

Atrocities, I love you man,but are you seriously telling me that you're going to support a man who's authorized the killing of over 10,000 Iraqi people that had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

I love you to man , and no I am not supporting him because of his war record. I am supporting him because I do not like Kerry, as he is nothing more than an opportunistic liar who promises us a better tomorrow but has no intention on delivering. Bush, although flawed, is a far better choice. Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich.

And to be honest, Bush never ordered the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi’s. The wording of that statement is inflammatory. It should read,

"The war on terrorism, instigated by the horrific acts of 9-11 have lead our great nation into a war of moral choices. To do the right thing over the objections of world opinion and take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist. To that end, the path of righteousness has led us to the shores of Iraq where many have died, and many more are going to as we continue to fight the good fight against those who would kill innocent women and children. Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do. "

Was Saddam a terrorist, yes? Just ask those who were terrorized by him.

Military Fact: It is better that you choose the place and time for the battle. Iraq is that place, and the time is now. And oh look, the scumbag, mind warped, twisted, honor less, nimrod terrorists of the Arab world are flocking to Iraq in droves. Seems to me that this tried and true tactic has worked.

If another country (non-superpower) invaded another, weaker, country on false and exaggerated information (as the US has done), then the UN (US included) would be screaming for the head of the Leader of that invading country, and a War Trial would be on the horizon.

I would say that you are right. 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait and that is exactly what happened. However many Americans now believe that most of the European nations lost there stomach to stand up to Saddam and enforce the terms of the cease fire. They felt it was better to simply let him do as he pleased for the Last twelve years, prior to the war, and well, that dog just won’t hunt any more. You see, in that time Saddam continued to build up his military, he killed millions of Kurds, ordered the assignation attempt on George H. W. Bush, and had continued to disobey and disregard the terms of the cease fire by targeting US and allied planes. He took the money he got from food for oil sales and built lavish palaces while his people starved. Those who stood up to him, well we know what happened to them.

So should Bush now be called before a world court and tried for war crimes? Well no, in fact hell no. He should receive a medal for having the courage to what many European nations feared to do. Sometimes you must do what no other will do, and fight the bully on his terms. Bush did that, and now he is viewed as the bully. LOL! I often wonder what Europe would be like if the US had minded its own business and stayed out of the European conflict. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that we didn’t, but I still wonder how that conflict would have turned out if we had.

Outside the US, people are looking at George Bush as a War Criminal, and every action he and his Administration has taken in regards to Iraq continue to lend credence to this view.

Really. And I suppose they also view Saddam as a War Hero?

I ask you, do you consider terrorist to be a form of bullying? (Bully being a person that goes around enforcing his will onto others through violence and intimidation.)

Ok let’s say for arguments sake that you agree that Terrorist are nothing more than bullies. What is the one thing a bully fears most? If you said someone who will stand up to him, well your right. Now I want you to think about this in those terms as you read what I have written.

A clear and unmistakable message had to be sent to Arab nations that the days of reserved responses were over. To prove this point we took on the two biggest bullies on the Arab block, the Taliban and Regime of Saddam Hussein. We took on the worst of they had to offer and by doing so, even without Europe’s support; we proved that our word does mean something. “We will take the fight to you if you harbor, support, or otherwise engage in any act of and for terrorism.” What Bush did, was to lead a united coalition of nations against two very bad Groups of men and their armies of darkness, and by doing so he prove a point that if we can take down the biggest bad asses on the block, then we can take the rest of them down, so pay attention to our warning. And you know what, it worked. Pakistan, Libya, Sierra, Saudi Arabia and the others got the message and are now playing ball.

Now there is no doubt that this is going to be a long and deadly fight, but we have no choice but to win. And not just in Iraq, but everywhere we go. We must stop the terrorism regardless of how bloody we become in the process.

Now I know that Iraq was really not a terrorist state per say, however Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding it. He was not a War Hero as the Europeans are now making it seem, and he was not a nice man. He was a very bad individual with aspiration for, and the means to obtain weapons of mass destruction. When we went in, we believed he had, in one form or another, WMD’s. Only until after it was all said and done did we discover that he, for likely the first time in his life, was kind of sort of telling us the truth. What can I say, hindsight is always 20/20. But now, after the fact, to call Bush a war criminal because we did not find WMD’s is like saying Church Hill was guilty of mass murder for ordering the carpet-bombing of Berlin. Its ludicrous to think that, and equally so in Bush’s case.

Many Americans believe that Europe does not have the balls to stand up against terrorist. They fear them like frightened little school children that would rather run home and cry to momma than stand up and fight. Just look at what happened in Spain. The terrorists attack a train station killing a hundred or more innocent people, and in response, the people of Spain vote out their government because their leaders supported the US. What does that tell the terrorists? I will tell you what it tells them. It tells them that they have won. If they can scare people into accepting their actions out of fear that they will continue, then the next attack will be even more deadly. You cannot reason with these kinds of people, for they only understand one language, and that is the language of the strong. Kill or be killed.

I ask you, would you want to live under the threat of that kind of black mail every day? Do what they want or they will blow up a train station or school?” No, of course I can’t think of anyone who would want to live under that kind of situation. So what do we do? Do we invent a time machine and go back and stop the invasion of Iraq? Will that help us? Or will it just simply give the terrorist a platform from where they could launch wave after wave of attacks against us. And what if Saddam did have a nuke, or acquired one? He would have held the entire Middle East hostage and nothing would have stopped him from using it against Israel.

We need to work from here to make a better tomorrow with the hope that we never see the day when terrorist hold our freedoms in the palm of their grubby little [censored] encrusted hands?

What is done is done. Saddam is no more. And it would be wise for those who live in Europe to remember what the Nazi had accomplished when they were left along and ignored as we were doing with Saddam. Remember, Saddam is directly responsible for the death of over a million Iraqi people. And our soldiers are not fighting Iraqi's, they are fighting militant Islamic extremists from many Arab countries who came to Iraq to do nothing but kill Americans. And what have they done, they have not only killed Americans, but Iraqi’s, Australians, Koreans, Brits, and many many others. Hell they cut off the heads of more than one of them, and you call Bush a War Criminal? If Bush is guilty of anything, it’s being man enough to stand up to these bastards and do the right thing. He took the fight to them, gave them a target, and now we are where we are and I hope that one day we can rid the earth of these maggot eating, bomb making, kid killing, psychopaths that kill in the name of God.

Supporting Bush is an insult to the nearly 1000 American soldiers that have been sacrificed for this misbegotten War. Those American brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers have been lost for what? Removing Saddam from power? What exactly had Saddam done to the US in the past 5-10 Years? The answer is nothing.

How many Americans died saving Europe from Nazi Germany? If memory serves, Germany was lead by only one man, and if we had “sacrificed” a 1,000 men to remove him from power before he could start the great Nazi war machine, then I would bet those men would have gone to their graves hero’s.

And for record, supporting Bush is not an insult to the fallen. To say otherwise is the insult. Many Oregon and Washington State Gaurds men and women have fallen in this war and the local news stations have conducted interviews with most of their families. And do you know what they all have said? Teary eyed and sobbing they praised their sons, daughters, brothers, fathers, and yes even mothers for doing the right thing and fighting as soldiers of the Untied States. Not one of them, not one, has ever said a bad thing about Bush. In fact most when asked, say they will vote for him again because they understand the sacrifice that their loved ones had lived and died securing. That says a hell of a lot about the American people and even more about your news sources. (That being that they are all full of [censored] for reporting such tripe.)

Of those soldiers interviewed both abroad and here at home, most believe in what it is they are being asked to do. They don’t want to die doing it, but they are willing to put themselves in harms way not for politics, but for each other. Of the men and women interviewed upon returning from Iraq, most say the same thing. They don’t understand why the news media’s are so hell bent on focusing on only the small fraction of negative things that go on, when there are so many good things happening. Most say that although the situation is dangerous, most Iraqi’s are glad that Saddam is gone, and they are more than thrilled that it was the Americans who finally came to their rescue. They are proud of what we are doing, and despite the constant bull**** from the world media, more and more Iraqi’s are offering support for the Americans and their allies and what it is they are trying to do.

Now please do not take this wrong, but why are you taking the side of Saddam Hussein? Bush is not a mass murder, nor was any of his predecessors. In the Last twenty years we have not deployed chemical weapons against our own people, nor we did not invade Kuwait and Iran. Additionally, aside from some questionable military practices recently, we have not tortured people to death, persecuted the innocent, or held sham elections where the people had two choices, vote for Saddam, or die. Our Last three sitting presidents never ordered the assassination of a former leader of another nations, nor have any of them supported or funded terrorism.

The role reversal that Bush is somehow the bad man and Saddam is the innocent victim is quite inappropriate.

I know that we have different opinions on these subjects, and I want you to know that I did read your post and I did try to understand your POV. I don’t know what else I can say other than I feel that Bush, despite his flaws, is simply a better choice than Kerry. Kerry has lied about a great many things, and I simply do not trust the man. If only we had a viable third option, but we don’t, so I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

What is important is that we all remember that nothing means anything for we are all going to die. All of this, every Last bit of it, will mean nothing in a hundred years.

So we can sit here and piss and moan about what has happened all we want, the truth is, it simply does not matter. The world will go round, and if we can keep from killing ourselves off, maybe one day we can all learn to live in peace. Until then, we will continue doing what we have since the dawn of our time; killing each other for BS reasons.

EDIT

Osama Bin Laden remains free, and he's the toad that ordered the 9/11 attack.

And I hope that one day we do capture him alive and he spends the rest of his life living in 5x8 cell eating pork and listening to rap music.

[CNCRaymond]

Disclaimer

Ok an edit is needed here to avoid any hard feelings. First and foremost this is just a post. I wish to apologize up front. So please do not take my words to mean that I am a tight *** or a stuck up jerk. In this post I am responded to an attack, and like in any game, intimidation plays a roll. With that in mind, enjoy the read and please if you do get pissed off, take it out on me, and not your animals. (P.S. Nothing in this post is intended to be taken as a personalized attack. I am merely playing the game by the rules set forth in the post to which I am responding. I don't think he meant to come off as a mean person even if that is how his post seemed to present him.)

End Disclaimer



I have to agree with Atrocities, and go one step further; you are deliberately being closed minded and intentionally argumentative. You are attempting to goat him into responding to your rants at your level, and I am proud that he did not take your bait.

However, I have and I am not bit afraid of challenging your warped sources of information. I checked out your links and if the information contained in them is what you’re basing your arguments on, then you have no arguments.

I hope you have some proof to back statements like "I do not like Kerry, as he is nothing more than an opportunistic liar who promises us a better tomorrow but has no intention on delivering", otherwise your gonna come off here as just a ranting loon.

I read your post and I would have to say that you are the one who is coming off as the ranting loon and not Atrocities.

- What makes John Kerry "an opportunistic liar"?
- What proof do you have that John Kerry doesn't intend to fullfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail?

What makes John Kerry an opportunistic liar – Well he is lying about his war record for one.

“The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

"We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.
John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.” – Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04)
In 1992, John Kerry came to the defense of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. “I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,” Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, “that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.”
POW/MIA Against John Kerry Read what they have to say.

As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he and his staff advised Hanoi's communists government how to close POW/MIA cases, with little or no regard for the truth.
In November 1992, members of the Committee, led by Senator John Kerry, traveled to Hanoi. During that visit, Sr. Col. Pham Duc Dai turned over his wartime journal supposedly detailing the ambush, death and burial of four men, from the 196th Light Infantry Brigade. Dai described how he participated in the death and burial of the four Americans.
John Kerry was exuberant in his praise of Vietnamese cooperation. Using the revelations contained in the diary, Kerry called for further U.S. trade concessions to the Vietnamese and he announced that he had gotten an accounting of four men. The problem.... Dai lied. But Kerry never retracted his praise for Vietnamese "cooperation."
On October 26, 1993, Pulitzer Prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg wrote" "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in his haste to carry out his agenda of getting the While House to remove the embargo against Vietnam, has done some extraordinary things. One of his recurring feats has been to try to turn fiction into truth....."
John Kerry had one goal, to close the POW/MIA issue, and open trade with Vietnam.
Our opposition to John Kerry is not based on political motivation. We are the wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and extended family members whose loved ones are the victims of John Kerry's rush to normalization relations with Vietnam.
The John Kerry we know, signs a report stating servicemen were left behind at the end of the Vietnam War, doesn't ask what happened to them, and rewards Vietnam for withholding the truth
John Kerry clearly demonstrated his priorities, placing trade with Vietnam over the truth about servicemen listed as Prisoner or Missing in Action. This is not a trait we want in a Commander-in-Chief.
John Kerry brought the Vietnam War into this campaign. So we say "Bring it On."
All we want is the truth and John Kerry, by his actions, has made this goal far more difficult to reach.
Therefore, it is our intent to make it far more difficult if not impossible for John Kerry to reach his goal.
Dedicated to the defeat of John F. Kerry, we are the families of American Servicemen listed as Prisoner of War or Missing in Action, left behind at the end of America's wars.

And Kerry’s own campaign backtracked on August 24th when they came out and said that Kerry’s first purple heart award, and I quote; “My have been self-inflicted Read More

If you want to read more about what our vets think of John F. Kerry and his military record, just follow one of the 128 links on this site

Kerry portrays himself as a hunter yet he is the:
most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history. Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, John F. Kerry has cast 59 votes on issues involving firearms rights and hunting. These votes included votes to ban guns, to impose waiting periods on gun buyers, to financially punish gun manufactures for operating a legal business and to restrict the free speech of Second Amendment advocates.
In addition, Kerry currently is a co-sponsor of S. 1431, which would ban all semi-automatic shotguns, all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and many other guns, calling the whole lot "assault weapons."

And it should be noted that his photo op as a he claimed himself to be a hunter, he was using a semi-automatic shotgun. I know the second amendment means nothing to Canadans, but it does mean a lot to us Americans. So please do not begin a debate over this.

More from Kerry’s military voting record.

] Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:

1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.

2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.

3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."
4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)

I can keep going if you want me too. Kerry has billed himself as the right man at the right time however his Senate voting record proves otherwise. He says he is a hunter, and a war hero, yet the proof shows us otherwise. Kerry stated that “trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” And what has he done? He has used his questionable Vietnam service record in an attempt to gain election to the White House.

Like what was said, he is an opportunistic liar who doesn't intend to fulfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail. To him they are just an ends to a means.

Maybe you hate John Kerry because George Bush hasen't been able to fulfill the promises he made during his campaign in 99/00: George W. Bush: 100 Days of Broken Promises

I remember seeing one of these for Clinton too. I laughed then as well. I read it and nothing in it would make me think he has broken any promises. And you do know that in order to get his policies from paper to practice, they must go through the Senate and House of Representatives. And those bodies sometimes do not always agree with one another. So it is understandable that some pledges are still in the works, while the Senate and House killed others. So Bush technically has not broken any promises. And lets face it; a person’s failures sell more papers than their success.

As for "Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich", perhaps you should spend less time believeing everything you see on TV, and actually do some research for yourself. You can find John Kerry's Senate record here: John Kerry's Senate Record. It's pretty lengthy, but if you're going to smear Kerry's record or accomplishments, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I did read his record, and I posted a lot of it for you to read. And for the record, I am not “smearing” Kerry’s record and lack luster accomplishments for he has done a nice job of that himself when it comes to the issues that I am most concerned about. So do not accuse me as you did Atrocities of such things.

As for the "rich" comment, Kerry's been completely open with his finances. He inherited a good chunk from his parents, but the majority of his current wealth comes from wife.

You can see Kerry's finances here: John Kerry income record

George W Bush was rich (and still is) when he ran for the Presidency in 99/00, but it's Kerry you're siding against. Hmm...

The fact remain that Kerry came from a rich family and he has gotten richer while he has served as a Senator and he has shown absolutely no compassion for people to whom his proposed tax increases would effect.

"To do the right thing over the objections of world opinion"? In other words, as long as George Bush thinks it's right, he'll do what he wants, where he wants, to whomever he wants too? And you feel safe with this man who has the authority to push the big red button that ends all life on Earth? I hope you bought plenty of duct tape.

Well George Bush has the support of many of his people, and if you cared to do some investigating you would have discovered that many other nations supported the war in Iraq just not the ones that had been economically benefiting from Saddam and his regime.

Secondly, your doing exactly what a liberal turn coat, truth bending, spin doctor would do, your warping the meaning of what he did say to fit your own views. You are using conjecture and assuming facts that are not in play. Case in point you say: “ In other words” which clearly means that you are attempting to read into Atrocities statement something that was not there. This proves that you are the ranting loon my friend.

And you feel safe with this man

I know that I do feel safer with Bush in control far more than I would with Kerry given Kerry’s negavtive perpensity toward our armed forces. Kerry has demonstrated his willingness to compermise our safety by voting time and again to cut the budge of our military and intelligence agencies and against giving them the tools that they need to successfully carry out their charters. An example of his “heroic” nature was when he sacrificed the POW’MIA’s of Vietnam for his political agenda. I shudder in absolute fear at the thought of John F. Kerry (The second JFK as he has been called) having his finger on that “big red button.”

"take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist."

So I guess if, say, an American in Seattle drove a truck full of propane tanks into the Space Needle, we could expect Bush to invade the Washington area with as much vigor as he did Iraq?.

What are you smoking? What a totally frivolous, pointless, and meaningless statement this was.

Unlikely. North Korea posed (and still does) a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq did, yet Bush wanted to go into Iraq. The Bush Administration doesn't care where the terrorists are or might be, otherwise Iraq would have been further down the list of Countries to invade

Um let me clarify something for you, Korea represents a separate and unique threat that when the time comes will not only represent a threat to the US, but to most of Asia as well. When that day comes, the world will respond to the Korean threat as it sees fit. To compare Iraq to Korea is like comparing Apples to peanuts. Your point again is meaningless.

Still believe that Bush truely cares about stopping/ending terrorism?

- AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors
- Unmasking of Qaeda mole a security blunder
-

"Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do." So apparently Iraq was worse than Pakistan, even though Pakistan has nuclear weapons (as you point out), but Iraq doesn't, and apparently never did? Hmmm...

And would you rather we be fighting these folks near Pakistan where they do have the nuke, or further away where they do not appearently have the nuke? Again you make no sense your argument, correction you’re closed minded rant of little meaningful substance.

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

Oh my God I cannot believe you used this site as a reference. What a joke. Get some real facts will you! Progress news and views for a breaking community…. [insert]continuous laugh here[/insert] More like highly subjective and politicalized nonsense. Again, [insert] laugh here [/insert]. Is this the kind of site that you are basing your arguments on? My God you’d be better off just making [censored] up on your own.

Ah, but terrorism is such a broad term. Do you consider Human Rights Abuses terrorism? If so, then you have to call the prisoner abuse going on at Abu Ghraib by the American Military terrorism towards the Iraqi detainees.

A mute point since their actions were not considered terrorism. The sexual humiliation was intended to break the will of the detainees for purposes of questioning. Being forced to endure such humiliation at the hands of a woman would definitely have a negative impact upon their egos and would work well for breaking them down. But alas this is a mute point now so lets move on.

Oh one Last thing, you know that the distinction between Human Rights Abuses and Terrorism are vast. Human rights abuses deal with what Saddam was doing to his own people when he starved, gassed, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and denied them medical attention while presiding over them as their leader. Terrorism on the other hand deals with small Groups of individuals who are determined to kill innocent people to send a message of fear. On the surface they do appear similar, but underneath the surface, they are very much different kinds of horrors.

Oh, but I guess since it's the United States doing it, it's not called terrorism. Hmmm.

Lets face it, your nation simply just doesn’t have what it takes to be a super power so they never will be. And super power envy doesn’t make you a super power. And just out of morbid curiosity, how many war movies have been made about the heroism of your nations military successes during WWI and WWII?

*clap*clap*clap* Well, congratulations are in order then. Hooray for the United States! You've not only invaded a non-threatening country, you've made that country more hazardous for it's own citizens and for the Military presence there. Now that's what I call a plan

If this is all you can say, then I guess you have said nothing.

"However many Americans now believe that most of the European nations lost there stomach to stand up to Saddam and enforce the terms of the cease fire. They felt it was better to simply let him do as he pleased for the Last twelve years" How about providing us with some proof that the European community was allowing Saddam to "do as he pleased.

Why should he? Its obvious to any one who has read your post that your intent would simply be to twist and distort any facts that he would present. No wonder he doesn’t want to respond to you.

What would have happened? Bush, Cheney, and their circle of Oil magnates would have lost a ton of money, and the American economy would take a substantial hit from the conVersion of oil sales from American Dollars to Euros.

You’re the one who is good at making [censored] up, so why don’t you tell us.

Ah, so you're taking the simple minded approach that if one person is good, then the opposing person must be bad. So if I say Bush is bad, that must mean that I think Saddam is good.

Actually from the way I read it, this is exactly the way you meant for him to take it. So he answered you in your own context, and now your attacking him over it.

Hmmm... You see, this is one of the huge flaws with the Republican Party; the view that everything is black or white, good or evil. If you don't Subscribe to Republican beliefs, you get labled as a Liberal, and you sumarily get dragged through the mud. The scarier corner of the Republican Party even believes that if you're not white, then you're not pure.

Well [censored], by your definition of the Republican party, Atrocities and I are both liberals since neither of us fully Subscribe to many of the Republican views. And golly gee, look, here you are attempting to drag Atrocities through the mud.

I don't hold any misguided beliefs that the Democratic Party his it's kooks too, but nothing compares to the ones the Republican Party has.

Your right, both parties suck however, given the choice to live an unarmed slave, or as an armed slave, I choose armed.

Democrats want to protect everyone from their rights and freedoms by passing laws that limit an individuals right to choose. To a democrat there is no personal responsibility for one own actions so long as you can blame it on someone or something else.

Republicans want to protect you from “their” money. They are big business and view the American people as little more than slaves from a renewable resource.

Anyways, back to your first assessment of me. No, I don't like Saddam, nor do I view him as a War Hero. Anyone who takes pleasure in taking away human life deserves whatever fate eventually befalls them.

Bush Mocks Condemed Killer

Oh my God here you are again twisting facts and making [censored] up. Did you even bother to look at that sites URL? ((www.bushkills.com). These folks love to defend convicted murders that have been found guilty of their crimes by a jury of their peers. Convicted being the operative word here. Convicted means that they are guilty of the crime for which they were sent to death row. And you post a link to this site where they say Bush mocked a condemned killer as proof that Bush enjoys watching people die? Man talk about spin doctoring the facts, hell man, you really need to come up with something far more concrete than the ramblings of a bunch of folks who think putting condemned killers to death for there crime is a crime.

Offer us up some real proof. Present us with legitimate facts that support your contention that Bush takes pleasure in murder. Where is your actual evidence, do you have any news reports, videotape, and or printed articles from legitimate sites that prove that Bush has ever taken “pleasure” from the suffering of others? Most likely you do not so again, you are argument is meaningless.

The Taliban I can understand, considering they're the ones who took part in 9/11. But Saddam Hussein?!? I'll repeat this again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq make the United States the bully in that conflict.

Really, you would call the US the bully? Wow, that is really impressive since Saddam continuously hindered the inspection process, violated the UN cease fire agreements, and deliberately manipulated the process of confirming that he had in fact complied with the terms of the cease fire. You might go as far as to say Saddam brought this upon himself for if he had complied with the UN resolutions and allowed open access to all locations that the inspectors had wanted, then perhaps the world would have believed him when he said that Iraq had now WMD’s. But he didn’t even though he was given chance after chance after chance to comply. Eventually the cycle of his games had to be broken. He was given the chance to leave Iraq and he refused. George Bush was quite clear in his televised statement to Saddam, “Leave Iraq or suffer military action.” He was given far more chances to step down and do the right thing than he deserved, and in the end he chose to put the Iraqi people in harms way. So your argument that Bush is the bully and a war criminal is utterly asinine. Besides, we did have our reasons for invading Iraq; one we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Again this reason could have been abated only if Saddam would have complied with the UN inspectors, but he didn’t, and Hans Blix (sp) even stated that they, being the UN, had no proof that Saddam had destroyed his known WMD’s, and therefore more likely than not still had them. Poor Saddam, he fell victim of his own stupidity.
Secondly his out right criminal treatment of his own people had gone on for far to long. Taking the food and medicine that was earmarked for his people and selling them on the black market in order to build his personal wealth added to the misery of his people. He was also supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere in the world and that fact cannot be denied. Additionally, Saddam, the leader of a hostile country ordered the assignations of a former President of the United States. No in any other part of the world, that would have been considered an act of war.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?! "Armies of darkness"?!?!?!?!?! Atrocities, seriously, is someone pointing a gun to your head and making you type that, cause that's the only way a sane thinking person could come out with that.

I think he was attempting to interject humor into his statement.

Really, who sounds like a bully now..

I think you know what his point was. You are just twisting his words again. I read his post to mean that the US needed to prove to the Arab’s that we could beat one of their bullies at his own game if push came to shove.

And the message, was, what? "Do as we say or we're going to bomb your country into the stone age, and there's nothing the UN can do to stop it"? Or is it "Do as we say or you're population will have to look forward to some good old fashioned American justice (re: torture and dehumanizing at Abu Ghraib)?

Here we go again with your spin doctoring made up crap. The message was clear, and you know it. If they harbored or supported terrorism, we would act.

The United States will be stuck in Iraq for years because of the mess and corruption going on over there. As for "everywhere we go", the US won't be going anywhere else. Afterall, the current Administration got what it wanted: total control of Iraq's oil production and reserves.

Here we go again, one more trip on the Katchoo truth spinner. Dude where is your legitimate proof that all Bush wanted was “total control of Iraq’s oil production and reserves? Do you have any proof that can be supported by fact? And I am not at all sorry to say that half-baked assumptions from less than reputable web sites will not serve as proof. You’re going to have to prove this one the hard way, with true, real, and concrete proof.

What, you still think Bush took the US to Iraq to, what, free the poor Iraqi people?

<insert continuous laugh track here>

I think he does, and here you are condemning him for his support over the publicly acknowledge secondary reason for going into Iraq? Have you no shame? Where in the hell do you get off questioning Atrocities motive? What do you think we went into Iraq for? Just oil? How shallow are you man? My God man, do you honestly believe that the only reason the US went to war with Iraq was over oil? Holly ****t, that has to be the most crackpot conspiracy theory that I have ever heard in my life. I mean it is of epic proportions right up their with the notion that we never landed on the moon.

"Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding it"? Proof please.

He had given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel for one.


“documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the Last two years.”
Link

“MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.” Link

“Insight reviewed some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic, in addition to hundreds of pages more on financial aid from Saudi Arabia and direct military assistance from Syria and Iran. The evidence of their involvement in Palestinian terrorist operations is massive, direct and overwhelming.”

There are more, many more examples of his ties to terrorism, but this post is already way to long and I have grown tired of reading your post. From what I take from it, your post is nothing more than an instrument designed to incite a war of words. You list questionable web sites as your source material and attack Atrocities fact based evidence by taking it out of context and twisting his meaning. You referred to Atrocities as a ranting loon when in fact it was you who was doing the ranting.

If any one here is a loon, you’d already have my vote.

(This has just been opinion, and who knows, I could be wrong, but not today. )