disgusting politics

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 30, 2004, 11:37 pm

Its atrocious that the RNC has bribed wives of the victims on the fourth 9/11 airplane to assemble some sort of "memorial" to 9/11

Who the fuck does the "good ol party" think they are to try to politicise the greatest trajety in the last 50 years in order to try to get there canidate re-elected. The speech these women are giving have absolutly nothing to do with George Bush or the republican re-election bid. They are trying to stir up emotion and make americans "feel bad" enough to think they there being forced to re elect Bush. I had to change the channel, the victims of 911 would be turing in there graves if they knew there deaths would be re-lived in order to try boost a politicans standings by one or two points. Fucking atrocious, absolutly FuckedUpBeyondAllRecodnition. I dont think anything on TV has ever offended me as much as this has

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 1:23 am

Didnt the democrats do a similar thing during there convention?

They had a memorial to 9/11 aswell on neither side did any of them say elect so and so. I think both should, too show they are both Americans which both are great Americans with different opinions, but the same goals in this war...

I think your pissed because you know deep down this will help Bush more who you hate, because he was President at the time and of course is more connected to the emotional part of it obviously...

It is the most pivitol thing to happen inside our country since the Civil War...even more than Pearl Harbor. To ignore it would be in your own words absolutly FuckedUpBeyondAllRecodnition.

It would be like FDR running for President ignoring or not having anyone mention WWII.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 31, 2004, 1:24 am

more pivotal than pearl harbor? are you an idio... oh wait. hey sirton.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 31, 2004, 1:29 am

Xzion wrote:Its atrocious that the RNC has bribed wives of the victims on the fourth 9/11 airplane to assemble some sort of "memorial" to 9/11

Who the fuck does the "good ol party" think they are to try to politicise the greatest trajety in the last 50 years in order to try to get there canidate re-elected. The speech these women are giving have absolutly nothing to do with George Bush or the republican re-election bid. They are trying to stir up emotion and make americans "feel bad" enough to think they there being forced to re elect Bush. I had to change the channel, the victims of 911 would be turing in there graves if they knew there deaths would be re-lived in order to try boost a politicans standings by one or two points. Fucking atrocious, absolutly FuckedUpBeyondAllRecodnition. I dont think anything on TV has ever offended me as much as this has

Power switch on that remote control busted?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 1:53 am

Yes kyou. because this war is intertwinded with God with factions of fanatics which in total makes it much tougher to defeat...With the fanatics they will go into there holes and come back(this is not a 4-8-12 yr war, hell it may never end in reality or atleast to them till we are controled like them an islamic fundys ourselves. To them its already been a war from the crusades.)...If they can get ahold of what they need this war can be made into a cluster fuck....and because WMDs are a reality now instead of then(Most of WWII) trying to make.....well it is more pivitol than pearl harbor...look into the future of what is happening not just now these people will use them if they get em 9/11 showed us there determination and there level of brainwash that they would do it even if it meant mutual destruction....If they had the power the Soviet Union had we would all be dead now.

One mistake or major defeat can lead too majorl death and economic destruction to the USA repeat the United States of America alone as almost that entire war of WWII did to us. Dont you understand how technology advances one day those weapons will be easy to acquire for almost every country. Thats why I consider myself a extreme war hawk on any dictatorship and Ive explained it many of times why. Your not an idiot kyou. like you would call me you just have bad judgment or your just misguided.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 2:11 am

This election is all but over. Bush is a shoe in. Basically what the republicans are saying is that we need 4 more years of ass kicking to set things right in the world and then the democrats may get a chance to pussify us for a few years and focus less on national defense issues.

This gets back to how lame the survey was. There is one huge issue that people will weigh above all others and that's the security of our country. With Bush, you know we will remain strong and combat terrorism and continue to rebuild Iraq. With Kerry, you have no idea what he's going to do. He's a wishy washy person that leaves you with zero sense of confidence. During times of crisis, you need a strong, focused leader and Kerry isn't it. Bush may not be your ideal president but I'll bank on the american people recognizing his leadership and cabinet over Kerry and Edmonds.

You can continue to argue it up until the election but Bush is going to be reelected specifically due to the war on terrorism. There's no doubt that Kerry would have a great shot at being our next president if 911 never happened and all we were going on was Bush's economic policy.

I know it sucks for those that like to debate things issue by issue but it's not going to matter this time around.

You'll forget Kerry faster than you forgot Dukakis.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 31, 2004, 3:38 am

You'll forget Kerry faster than you forgot Dukakis.

They seem to still remember Gore.... good grief, gore???

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 31, 2004, 7:42 am

Winnow wrote:This election is all but over. Bush is a shoe in. Basically what the republicans are saying is that we need 4 more years of ass kicking to set things right in the world and then the democrats may get a chance to pussify us for a few years and focus less on national defense issues.

This gets back to how lame the survey was. There is one huge issue that people will weigh above all others and that's the security of our country. With Bush, you know we will remain strong and combat terrorism and continue to rebuild Iraq. With Kerry, you have no idea what he's going to do. He's a wishy washy person that leaves you with zero sense of confidence. During times of crisis, you need a strong, focused leader and Kerry isn't it. Bush may not be your ideal president but I'll bank on the american people recognizing his leadership and cabinet over Kerry and Edmonds.

You can continue to argue it up until the election but Bush is going to be reelected specifically due to the war on terrorism. There's no doubt that Kerry would have a great shot at being our next president if 911 never happened and all we were going on was Bush's economic policy.

I know it sucks for those that like to debate things issue by issue but it's not going to matter this time around.

You'll forget Kerry faster than you forgot Dukakis.

man, im gonna give you so much shit when Bush looses, at least i hope the americans arnt as fucking blind as midnyte, metanis and yourself

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 11:32 am

hum didn't Bush claim he would not use 9/11 for political gain? And honestly, he doesn't have that much to brag about in regards to 9/11 in the first place..

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 31, 2004, 11:57 am

Kelshara wrote:hum didn't Bush claim he would not use 9/11 for political gain? And honestly, he doesn't have that much to brag about in regards to 9/11 in the first place..

As opposed to ... say... YOU?

Or John Kerry who admitted in an interview that he and his Senator colleages sat around "pretty much unable to think" for 30 or 40 minutes before someone led them by the hand out of the Senate?

How many Presidents have ever had to respond to an attack on NYC? When was the last attack on Washington?

For the record, how would YOU have done better? What would YOU have done differently?

And what could George W. Bush have done differently that would have saved a single life that day?

Kelshara, I'm going to start calling you Princess. Because you obviously think you're the heroine in some fairy tale world.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 12:14 pm

What I would have done differently? I wouldn't have returned to read for the children and proven that I am nothing but a puppet to the VP for one thing. ANd, even though there might have been a risk to it, I would have been on the ground in NY ASAP. Of course, what I would have done in the year following the 9/11 attack has both similarities and differences from what Bush did.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 31, 2004, 12:55 pm

Xzion wrote:man, im gonna give you so much shit when Bush looses, at least i hope the americans arnt as fucking blind as midnyte, metanis and yourself

It's not that they're blind, it's that the Democrats didn't put forward a visionary to light the way. It's not just that Kerry lacks charisma, it's also that his personal politics are hard to pin down. I know that the ability to compromise is a good thing in a leader, but so is direction and vision. The only direction Kerry ever had was towards DC; the only vision he has is himself in the oval office.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 31, 2004, 2:28 pm

Personally I don't see a problem with Bush using 9/11 as a political tool. It is something that happened while he was in office. Something that he handled well. It's like a resume item. I am sure other presidents have used big events to their benefit in their elections like going to the moon, or tearing down the wall, or shuttle explosion. To not use what you have is stupid. To be torn apart by people about it is wrong. But hey, it is an election after all.

Still Undecided!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 2:31 pm

It wouldn't be a big deal to me if he used it (even though I find it ironical since I don't agree that he did a great job) if I didn't seem to recall he claiming he would NOT use it. Anybody else remember it, or am I wrong?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 2:41 pm

There's no avoiding that 911 was, beyond a doubt, the dominant issue of Bush's first term. You've got brain damage if you think it's not going to be the focus of the RNC.

Kerry should have spent more time on the subject. Nothing has rattled our nation more than 911 since Pearl Harbor.

Off Topic:

Have you seen some of the conspiracy theories for 911? This site has some interesting information for conspiracy junkies:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 5:07 pm

man, im gonna give you so much shit when Bush looses, at least i hope the americans arnt as fucking blind as midnyte, metanis and yourself

Bro the problem with what your saying, is Bush is going win.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 5:22 pm

It is something that happened while he was in office. Something that he handled well.

I am curious how you fel the handled it well. What action did Bush take that you thought was the right thing to do? The only thing I saw of any value was his speach at ground zero. That was a good speach. What he did in Afganastan would have been good, had it happened at least 1 month earlier. But by the time we got around to going in, the persons we were there to pinch were long gone. I am assuming by *handled well* you must mean more than just his speach, so I am just curious to what actions you are refering.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 6:09 pm

Aaeamdar wrote: What he did in Afganastan would have been good, had it happened at least 1 month earlier. But by the time we got around to going in, the persons we were there to pinch were long gone. I am assuming by *handled well* you must mean more than just his speach, so I am just curious to what actions you are refering.

I'm sure the democrats were pressuring him to attack as soon as possible!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 31, 2004, 6:32 pm

Sirton wrote:
man, im gonna give you so much shit when Bush looses, at least i hope the americans arnt as fucking blind as midnyte, metanis and yourself

Bro the problem with what your saying, is Bush is going win.

Your right, win an early retirement to his ranch in texas

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 6:43 pm

I'm sure the democrats were pressuring him to attack as soon as possible!

Even you, as delusional as you are, can't claim Afghanistan wasn't an unified decission and not limited to political parties.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 7:22 pm

Kelshara wrote:
I'm sure the democrats were pressuring him to attack as soon as possible!
Even you, as delusional as you are, can't claim Afghanistan wasn't an unified decission and not limited to political parties.

I know it was. I just find it funny that someone is complaining that we didn't steamroll Afghanistan fast enough when typically Bush is being criticized for moving ahead before "formal approval".

One thing the U.S. does well is fully prepare before any military action. Whether our actions are justified or not is separate from our ability to stomp various enemies with few casualties due to well coordinated and planned attacks.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 7:45 pm

Your confusion is likely rooted in teh same confusion most Bush supporters demonstrate - the inability (or unwilligness) to distiquish between Afghanastan and Iraq.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 31, 2004, 7:55 pm

Umm attacking Dems or Reps for being whores is like calling the sun hot.

I mean DUH!!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 8:01 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Your confusion is likely rooted in teh same confusion most Bush supporters demonstrate - the inability (or unwilligness) to distiquish between Afghanastan and Iraq.

It's not politics, it's making sure you're prepared before entering a conflict. We had Seal teams scouting out the country long before our main forces entered. Hopefully our military ignores politics when they are given orders to plan and carry out a military action.

Are you alone on this or are there other democrats that are unhappy with the way the U.S prepared itself before taking action against that Taliban in Afghanistan?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 8:18 pm

I'm not sure if I would have done it the exact same way.. it depends on what your ultimate goal was. If the ultimate goal was to topple the Taliban then this was the way to go.. get a lot of support around the world and go in with full force. If your ultimate goal was to capture terrorists, then it was not the best way imho. The only way you could have captured most of them before they all got lost in the border areas would be small, highly skilled forces moving in completely undercover.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 8:34 pm

Are you alone on this or are there other democrats that are unhappy with the way the U.S prepared itself before taking action against that Taliban in Afghanistan?

I am not a Democrat. I am a Republican. This election will be my second ever cast of a Democrat vote (and if California is locked for Kerry, I'll vote Liberatarian).

As for what happened in Afghanastan, well it depends on your goals. Mine would have been to both capture Bin Laden and other Al Queda AND to punish the Taliban for refusing to cooperate. To me, these take different types of actions and can be pursued independantly. You are suggesting that such activity might have been taking place (a loose reading of - "We had Seal teams scouting out the country long before our main forces entered."). If what you meant by that was we had military and/or intellegnce operations in place hunting for Bin Laden while preparing to invade Afghanastan - then great. Too bad they failed, but that is not Bush's fault if that is what he had going on. I never read anything about such an operation, however. But if its true, I'll retract my critism of what looked to me like waiting for nearly 2 months before doing anything about Bin Laden. If you can find a credible reference for that assertion, I would appriciated it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 9:36 pm

Here's the timeline for Afghanistan and what Bush did immediately:

Sept 13 - President Bush declares terrorist attacks acts of war, vows global crusade against terrorists and those who harbour them. US gears up for the the "first war of the 21st Century".

Sept 14 - US Senate approves US$40 billion (US$70 billion) in emergency aid and authorizes President Bush to use 'necessary and appropriate force' in retaliating against the terrorist strikes.

Sept 15 - President Bush warns America to prepare for a "broad and sustained campaign" against terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the US will gauge its ties with other nations on counter-terrorism cooperation.

Sept 17 - Senior Pakistani officials travel to neighbouring Afghanistan and ask the Taleban's supreme leader to hand over Osama bin Laden or risk massive retaliatory assault from the West. The supreme leader says a grand Islamic council will convene to decide.

Those were the initial and immediate actions taken. After that, mobilizing our forces and repeated warnings and an ultimatum were issued to the Taliban. Bush didn't hesitate in taking the initial steps required to get the ball rolling.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 9:47 pm

You forgot:

Sept 11 - reads books to children

Sept 11 - 12 - hides

At anyrate, I was asking if he mobilized our military or intellegence in a hunt for Bin Laden in the month and a half between when we knew it was Bin Laden and we knew Afghanastan was housing him. As far as I know - that did not happen. We postured and gave speachs about Axi of Evil, then invaded Afghanastan and removed teh Taliban from power. But to my knowledge, we did nothing to actually locate and capture/kill Bin Laden, apart from that large scale military action.

Again, mind you, I am not critical at all about punishing the Taliban nor in taking the time to do it properly. I am just saying that as far as I know, we made no additional military or intellegence efforts to bring him in. Do you have references indicating the contrary?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 9:52 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:You forgot:

Sept 11 - reads books to children

Spet 11 - 12 - hides

Dude, you're not even trying.

By Dec 6th, the Taliban had surrendered. We took Afghanistan in less than 2 months after 911.

Dec. 5: Afghan tanks supported by American bombers begin an offensive strike on Osama bin
Laden's suspected mountaintop stronghold in Tora Bora. Friendly fire from the strikes near the
Tora Bora caves kills three U.S. soldiers and five Pashtun tribal fighters. U.S. President Bush
said, "I, along with the rest of America, grieve for the loss of life in Afghanistan. I want the
families to know that they died for a noble and just cause." The U.N. announces from Bonn that
Hamid Karzai, a western-educated Pashtun who is leading 40,000 troops in the assault on
Kandahar, will assume control of the provisional Afghan government on December 22nd. Karzai
said, "My priority will be peace and stability." Karzai also disclosed the Taliban's supreme leader
Mullah Muhammad Omar, has agreed to surrender Kandahar if he and other senior leaders are
granted amnesty. Canadian Defence Department officials announce that members of the
Canadian army's secretive anti-terrorist unit JTF2 are heading to an undisclosed location to join
U.S. and British special forces. Canadian officials also said the Canadian frigate HMCS Toronto
will depart for the Arabian Sea and join five other Canadian warships and 2,000 Canadian
troops already committed to the war on terror.
Afghan Cabinet Deal

Taliban Prisoners

Dec. 6: Interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai announces the surrender of Taliban forces in the
southern stronghold of Kandahar. In return for surrendering and giving up weapons the Taliban
were offered amnesty, although Karzai said some 650 al-Qaeda fighters "would be brought to
justice." U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly spoke out against amnesty for
Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, saying, "Would an arrangement with Omar ...
be consistent with what I've said? The answer is no." If amnesty was granted to Omar, Rumsfeld
said "co-operation and assistance" with opposition forces "would clearly take a turn south."
Rumsfeld orders an investigation into the friendly fire death of three American Green Beret
soldiers who died near Kandahar on December 5th after a B-52 bomber dropped a 900-kilogram
bomb near front line U.S. troops. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with NATO allies in
Brussels to discuss the makeup of a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. U.S. Attorney General
John Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend the U.S. administration
plans to implement anti-terrorism measures for "war criminals." Senior U.S. officials say they
are providing air support for Alliance troops fighting the al-Qaeda forces near cave complexes
in Tora Bora, south of Jalalabad.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 9:56 pm

erh most people who knew Tora Bora said that if you let them get lost in the mountains you wouldn't find them. Hence if the target was to capture bin Laden the full-fledged attack was not going work.

And imagine that, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on the warpath.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 9:56 pm

ok, thanks. That is pretty much what said. We took 2 months to invade Afghanastan. No problem. But we did nothing else to actually try and capture or kill Bin Laden.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 1, 2004, 12:09 am

What's really sad is that many that actually witnessed and now have to deal with the "aftermath" don't really find Bush's campaign grandstanding to be all that much of an issue.

It all comes down to money. Bush makes rich people richer, poor people scared and the rest think he's spoiled dumb schmuck heading us into a real problem that someone with some fiscal responsibility is going to have to pull us out from.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 1, 2004, 12:16 am

if by "took afghanistan" you mean "bombed the fuck out of kabul and then let every warlord in the country not affiliated with the taliban run roughshod all over the country like a bunch lawless barbarians, killing indiscriminately and declaring political enemies as terrorists so they can have them arrested by the americans and collect the bounty" then yeah, good job on "taking afghanistan"

VeeshanVault

disgusting politics

disgusting politics

Re: disgusting politics