Is this the President you want?

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Another smart post. Geez this is great. You must read the NY times and watch CNN to get your amazingly accurate information.

Nothing in that post pertains to current news so I'm not sure why you think I got that of the news. I think that about sums up my reply to your uneducated post.

**bermich** · 04-07-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

I recall that too.

Also, France said that the US would let Hans Blix continue his search for 30 more days, then they would change their UN vote to go along with the war on Iraq. Bush replied that he would not wait because of the "imminant danger to the US" and the rest is history.

Bush has the worst foreign policy ever . . .
--Tock

What do you expect Bush to say?? "I just want to kick Saddam out of power cause he is a fvcked up leader and tortures his people""" Dont you people realize that KERRY voted for us to go to war with IRAQ???? Oh but then you say the bill had some bad things in it or the bill had some good things in it.
ALL BILLS have good and bad things. Pick one or the other. Dont say he voted yes on one thing then no on the same thing only because of different bills. That is bullshlt and retarded.

**bermich** · 04-07-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by bookman

Nothing in that post pertains to current news so I'm not sure why you think I got that of the news. I think that about sums up my reply to your uneducated post.

No. It pertains to the source of where you get your information on which you make your "SUCH BRILLIANT" remarks.... You watch the news or read the paper and assume that is the only true side of the story because it is the easiest to believe.

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

No. It pertains to the source of where you get your information on which you make your "SUCH BRILLIANT" remarks.... You watch the news or read the paper and assume that is the only true side of the story because it is the easiest to believe.

Swifty, I was refering to my post. I would think it was obvious I didn't think you thought I watched the news because of your post. But maybe not too obvious to all. I think that about sums up my reply to .... .. Could you try intelligentely arguing the point instead of name calling. Just a suggestion.

**bermich** · 04-07-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by bookman

Dont have a military? I think about sums up my reply to your uneducated post.

Is there a point to this? I dont understand what you are trying to get across. Please find me the stats of France and Japan as to their military if I am wrong. Im sure they have some sort of defense force but nothing that Canada couldnt take out in a day. Japan is NOT ALLOWED to have a military due to the treaty they signed after WWII.

**bermich** · 04-07-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by bookman

Swifty, .. Could you try intelligentely arguing the point instead of name calling. Just a suggestion.

I dont believe I ever called anyone any names in any of my posts.....
Are you even reading anything or do you just go out on a wim and type back any sort of reply.

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Do you even know what you are typing? Military of China+France+Japan???
Dude.....France and Japan dont even have a fvcking military.
I could go on but I think that about sums it up on this educated post I replied to.

Well I wasn't trying to get anything across. I was just retorting to this post of yours that was worded oh so nicely. I guess you're right though, you didn't do any direct name calling. After reading back through I realized it was just the condescending snooty wording that I was thinking of. And you are definitely missing the point like you said. It's not about the exact names I listed, i.e. - Japan and France whom "have no army", it was about the fact that no one country matches up to us as far as military goes.

**Phillyboy1** · 04-07-2004, 07:07 PM

thanks guys for actually agreeing with me about the propaganda about kerry. honestly i dont really want either of them, but just as long as its not bush. i honestly think there isnt a worse person to have in office ever

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by jcstomper

thanks guys for actually agreeing with me about the propaganda about kerry. honestly i dont really want either of them, but just as long as its not bush. i honestly think there isnt a worse person to have in office ever

Amen to that. He may not be a hero but he's better than Bush.

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 07:23 PM

The republicans could siht out world peace and the democrats would still complain that they didnt wipe their ass afterwards.

I think this sums up why you're so perturbed.

**Shortyrock13** · 04-07-2004, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by mart651

We are only bullying the Middle east. The other countries( france and Russia) are only upset because their money and oil pool is all dried up. If I believed the things that was spoon fed to me by the media, I would be scared also.

Yah, we're only bullying the area that provides the majority of the 1st world's fuel supply(or an area that both the pres and VP have interest in personally and financially). The other countries as you call them are upset, and it may be for those reasons you state.... however it could also be because we wantonly violate the soverignty of other nationstates, based upon when it interests us. That kinda goes against one of the base tenents of the UN. It's called world community... the idea of whoever has more bombs is toughest, and you can't do anything to us because we're more militarily powerful became outdated before the berlin wall fell. Obviously our plethora of Nukes and smart bombs didn't help us on 9/11. Why even piss other countries off? Even if the orginal post in this thread is completely accurate without leaving anything out(such as the content of said bills) all those tanks and planes wouldn't have done **** to to protect us earlier.

Besides with alot of the middle easts sweet airforces support for ground troops can be accomplished with a fleet of B freaking fifty twos (exageration to prove a point). But either way its not about who's military is sweeter anymore, no one country can take over the world through military action... period.

Oh yah, number 1 rule in elections... americans vote with their pocketbooks.... and during the current admin I know my portfolio has taken a turn for the worse...

GOP folks will like this....

are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

hell no

**SportsMedVIP** · 04-07-2004, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Shortyrock13

Yah, we're only bullying the area that provides the majority of the 1st world's fuel supply(or an area that both the pres and VP have interest in personally and financially). The other countries as you call them are upset, and it may be for those reasons you state.... however it could also be because we wantonly violate the soverignty of other nationstates, based upon when it interests us. That kinda goes against one of the base tenents of the UN. It's called world community... the idea of whoever has more bombs is toughest, and you can't do anything to us because we're more militarily powerful became outdated before the berlin wall fell. Obviously our plethora of Nukes and smart bombs didn't help us on 9/11. Why even piss other countries off? Even if the orginal post in this thread is completely accurate without leaving anything out(such as the content of said bills) all those tanks and planes wouldn't have done **** to to protect us earlier.

Besides with alot of the middle easts sweet airforces support for ground troops can be accomplished with a fleet of B freaking fifty twos (exageration to prove a point). But either way its not about who's military is sweeter anymore, no one country can take over the world through military action... period.

Oh yah, number 1 rule in elections... americans vote with their pocketbooks.... and during the current admin I know my portfolio has taken a turn for the worse...

GOP folks will like this....

are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

hell no

Another resounding Amen to that.

**Tock** · 04-07-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Also, France said that the US would let Hans Blix continue his search for 30 more days, then they would change their UN vote to go along with the war on Iraq. Bush replied that he would not wait because of the "imminant danger to the US" and the rest is history.

Bush has the worst foreign policy ever . . .
--Tock

Originally Posted by bermich

1) What do you expect Bush to say?? "I just want to kick Saddam out of power cause he is a fvcked up leader and tortures his people"""

2) Dont you people realize that KERRY voted for us to go to war with IRAQ???? Oh but then you say the bill had some bad things in it or the bill had some good things in it.
ALL BILLS have good and bad things. Pick one or the other. Dont say he voted yes on one thing then no on the same thing only because of different bills. That is bullshlt and retarded.

1) Something like, "We can wait 30 more days in exchange for full cooperation and endorsement from the United Nations" would be nice. He could even snip to his henchmen, "It's ok, we don't really have any concrete evidence of WMD anyway."

2) That's what happens when 90% of the public gets their appetite whetted for war. Happened back with the Yellow Journalism of the late 1800's when some newspapers spread rumors of Spain sinking the USS Maine. The US gov't demonized Germans to get Americans to enlist to fight in both WWI and WW2. Bush did the same thing with Iraq and Saddam.
The big problem here is with the gullibility of Americans. Ain't enough people around with the guts to question what the leadership tells us.

-Tock

**chicamahomico** · 04-07-2004, 10:30 PM

I was pretty sure this was incorrect http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/....html#Military
so I checked out the CIA factbook page on Japan. I'm no miliatry expert but I'm hoping maybe someone can elaborate on this issue a bit. You just never hear about Japanese military or peacekeeping efforts.....do they participate in UN peacekeeping?

Originally Posted by bermich

..... Japan is NOT ALLOWED to have a military due to the treaty they signed after WWII.

**Symian** · 04-07-2004, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by chicamahomico

I was pretty sure this was incorrect http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/....html#Military
so I checked out the CIA factbook page on Japan. I'm no miliatry expert but I'm hoping maybe someone can elaborate on this issue a bit. You just never hear about Japanese military or peacekeeping efforts.....do they participate in UN peacekeeping?

Originally Posted by bookman

Dont have a military? I think about sums up my reply to your uneducated post.

Um...they don't.

Japan has a "Civil Defense Force". You can't exactly call it a military because thier constitution that was rewritten after WWII, because of the treaty, prohibits Japan from creating an army, navy, or air force. So no they don't have a "military".

France hasn't had a French Government military since the beggining of the 20th century when they went on strike. Cowards. There is the French Foreign Legion, but it is it's own entity.

Sym

**Symian** · 04-07-2004, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel

One of the things I would be curious to see is the dates of when he voted the way he did. You have to keep in mind that he has been in public office for almost two decades. A lot has changed over that period of time.
In addition, jcstomper has a good point, I would like to know what the rest of the bills looked like.
It is all part of political propaganda. Give part of the story that makes your candidate look good and the other look bad. Because let's face it, a majority of Americans vote based on newspaper headlines without knowing all the facts.

D

This should put somewhat of an end to this debate.

Happy gloating, demos.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

Sym

**Tock** · 04-08-2004, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by chicamahomico

I was pretty sure this was incorrect http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/....html#Military
so I checked out the CIA factbook page on Japan. I'm no miliatry expert but I'm hoping maybe someone can elaborate on this issue a bit. You just never hear about Japanese military or peacekeeping efforts.....do they participate in UN peacekeeping?

Yep . . . they've got a few (around 100) in Afghanistan.
The big thing with Japan's military is since they invaded China back in WW2, China is real touchy about Japan rebuilding its military. The US trades real estate for US military bases in Japan (where the US spies on everyone in the area) for military protection of Japan.
If the US was to abandon its protection of Japan (the American taxpayer has been, in effect, paying for Japan's national security since 1946), then they would have to re-build their own military, and then China would freak out and increase their own military to off-set the Japanese military, and things in Korea would probably get dicy again with the Chinese more apt to support North Korea's invasion of the south, and then the US would get upset about that, and then ya, everyone would be real unhappy with everything. So for the time being, the plan is to keep the Japanese military down to a token force, and let the US control what they get for national security.
-Tock

**symatech** · 04-08-2004, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Symian

This should put somewhat of an end to this debate.

Happy gloating, demos.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

Sym

I don't understand how Bush sleeps at night. no conscience i suppose. How can you send an army to fight, on false pretenses, and then cut their spport while they are dying for your re-election. for lack or far more eloquent terms...bush is an asshole