Originally posted by hunchy
You can disagree, but to say this:"bush attracts 2 types of people:
-republicans
-stupid people"That isn't calling names and saying the other side is just stupid? What? Then what is it? You can have your opinion and disagree without calling the people who disagree with you stupid. There are stupid people on both sides...stop bringing this up.
actually i categorised stupid people and republicans as TWO seperate types of people. one educated, one not, get it??? why dont you actually read my posts which you are so fond of quoting. unless you dont fall under the 'republican' category, which would not surprise me, in which case feel free to take it personal.
and yes, kerry attracts liberals AND dipshits. those who are educated and those who are not.
so why dont you quit trying to stir the shit and stay on topic. the focus is politics, not PVS.
Originally posted by Zanthor
Slaughtered families attacked by terrorists? Was this a big problem before we invaded? Ummm no! Saddam controlled the country. Maybe not well. Our beloved President created the blood bath.All that you list the gas chambers, mass graves. Etc. That was why the international community was against Saddam. It has been like that for years. Now all the of the sudden Bush cared? To help people?
Revolution? Yes, interesting you bring that up. WE wanted freedom and we did something about it. The Iraqis didn't. We did it for them. In the Revolution we had help from the French. We invited the French to help us. As a government. In Iraq we took over and formed out own government. The Iraqis didn't overthrow their government WE did.
I certainly don't need a you to insult me. Saying I am selfish because I don't like all the killing in Iraq that Bush started. That I dishonor our ancestors and humanity by disregarding their sacrifices? Do you have a book that you get this from? Or do you come up with this all by yourself? My goodness.
You did exactly what I expect a Bush supporter would do. Take blame off Bush and put it on someone else. In this case me because I am not supporting him. I guess I must be responsible for all the death? I must not be supporting our troops because I don't agree with my president.
You probably consider me un-American. Perhaps you should take a moment and look in the mirror. Or visit one of the websites with pictures of the service men and women that have died for this little revolution. Go through their pictures and get to know them. They are dead and not coming back. I wonder how Bush and his followers can sleep at night knowing how many lives they have destroyed. How many deaths will it take?
And Hunchy... The best you can come up with in answer to all the people killed in this conflict is "Amen Raven! Amen!"
My god you are a sad individual.
wow... you know nothing about the present situation before we invaded.... Saddams secret police was EXTRODINARILY effcient at killing insugents, if there are no leaders to lead a revolution.... how do you expect anyone to revolt? we were able to revolt because the ruling power was a 1000 miles away.
If you knew anything about history, you would know that there was several times were the Iraqis requested aid to rid themselves of Saddam... AND THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED when they tried to revolt.
By your statements earlier, it was in fact that Bush carred from the moment he entered office. It was Clinton who didn't care.
No you dishonor all memory by disregaurding history itself with your ignorance.
no, bush sr. encouraged iraqis to overthrow saddam. they took over major cities and recieved no backup as was promised to them. the reason being that the sheites(spelling) were the ones who took over, and they were deemed too militant by our government, so we sat back and allowed their slaughter. this was post desert storm.
Originally posted by PVS
no, bush sr. encouraged iraqis to overthrow saddam. they took over major cities and recieved no backup as was promised to them. the reason being that the sheites(spelling) were the ones who took over, and they were deemed too militant by our government, so we sat back and allowed their slaughter. this was post desert storm.
No the Kurds revolted in the north and allied commanders allowed the Iraqi army to use helicopter gunships to surpress them post Desert Storm. Prior to Desert Storm in the 80's and 70's the Iraqis tried numerous revolts but were crushed many times. The Shites are the dominant ethnic group in Iraq. After Bush Sr. the Kurds tried many other times and were smashed over and over again.
Originally posted by PVS
no, it was the shiites
ummm your link... leads... nowhere. 😐
this sit puts it in better perspective than i can:
"At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Baath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place. Afterwards, Al-Khoei went into exile."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia2.htm
Originally posted by PVS
this sit puts it in better perspective than i can:"At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Baath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place. Afterwards, Al-Khoei went into exile."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia2.htm
ohhhh thats right the rebellion with Iranian influence. i appologize about that one. The Kurds also revolted seperatly right after the conflict and were surpresed by the helicopter gunships. The US refused to support anything related to the Iranians. We have had a lot of bad run ins with that country.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
wow... you know nothing about the present situation before we invaded.... Saddams secret police was EXTRODINARILY effcient at killing insugents, if there are no leaders to lead a revolution.... how do you expect anyone to revolt? we were able to revolt because the ruling power was a 1000 miles away.
If you knew anything about history, you would know that there was several times were the Iraqis requested aid to rid themselves of Saddam... AND THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED when they tried to revolt.
By your statements earlier, it was in fact that Bush carred from the moment he entered office. It was Clinton who didn't care.
No you dishonor all memory by disregaurding history itself with your ignorance.
Ignorance? I certainly don't claim to know everything like you do. Since when were you put in charge of this countries intelligence? You share so many 'facts' with us. I see little proof other then you saying... 'Your ignorant' and 'You don't understand anything' Please share these exclusive teachings you have. All the vast histories of mankind that you have gleaned. All the inside info that you seem to poses that I as an uncivilized native can't possible comprehend.
Bush claims to keep all life sacrad. Right? Don't kill the fetus! It's ok to invade a country kill children and adults?
Bush cared from the moment he entered office? How do you know him sooooo well. You have no basis in fact for that statement.
Iraqis tried to help us that last time we were there. They were slaughter because Mr. Bush's father didn't stay and help them after last invasion. People who helped us were killed. That is probably why they hate us now and are afraid to help take their own country from the brink of disaster. Of course Bush Sr. isn't responsible for that. They never are.
History can be used to support any position. As can the bible. You use it well but you assume there is only one right position. Your position.
You are also good at insulting others. Insult away if it makes you feel better about yourself. Or makes you think it strengthens your position. Fire away, I have heard worse then from the likes of you.
What are you like 20 years old? What do you know of sacrifice? Have you ever sacrificed for your country? Lost a loved one to protect our country. I personally think you speak from untested nativity. It is all fine to be safe here debating or insulting others. What know you of the real world? Not much I am guessing. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time but I think I am right.
Iraq was no direct threat to America. Period! Will we go around taking over every country that might someday become a problem? I bet Bush is just itching to get out of Iraq so he can move to the next target. Another 4 years for Bush? I think not!
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
ohhhh thats right the rebellion with Iranian influence. i appologize about that one. The Kurds also revolted seperatly right after the conflict and were surpresed by the helicopter gunships. The US refused to support anything related to the Iranians. We have had a lot of bad run ins with that country.
yeah, i researched it and there were also kurd uprisings, but nowhere near the magnitude of that of the siites...so i guess we were both right/wrong.
but anyway, we know that the majority of iraqis are shiites...and thus fall under the influence of iran. so...what was the uprising SUPPOSED to be like in the eyes of bush sr.? to say "its time to rise...(points at majority) NO NOT YOU!!!....(points at kurds) you"
he should have seen it coming, and i think it was just reckless to instigate such an event and not follow through as promised. not only did it prevent an overthrow of saddam, but it damaged our credibility to the people of iraq.
perhaps if this never took place our troops would have truely been welcome...perhaps.
bush sr. was initiating a product of his own pipe dream, where a politically agreeable minority would rise up and overthrow hussein while the majority would just sit back and do nothing.
was he justified in fearing an iranian influenced revolution? perhaps...who can tell for sure? but the bottom line is he jumped into the situation with no real plan, only a fools hope. thus, thousands of shiites were slaughtered like cattle.
Truth is, neigther candidate offers anything for this country. I think another four years with Bush woul result in the country staying the way it is now. Four years with kerry will make the country expensive and result in shitty healthcare. eigther way the country will be the same as it is now in four years, i just think it will a touch worse with kerry in office. I think kerry would even start in motion the use of the Euro in America, and a weakend military.
Let us look at the strategery... as Will Ferrel put it in SNL. I find that so true. Bush uses strategy. He surrounds himself with genius thinkers in voting statistics and asks them to study voting patterns given population density.
Electoral State values in 2000
The make up of the US in Electoral votes (The vote a state is worth when the candidate takes the majority of the popular vote) This is to check the power of highly dense populated areas so they do not have a greater say than the low populated states. For example New York vs Wyoming. New York state could have many times more popular votes than votes from Wyoming for the other candidate. The electoral voting chart is a limiting factor on who gets to be the president. It is of course The United States of America, and not the United Cities of America.
To get back to it, statisticians for George W Bush have found that if he stirs up the conservative thinking people in the US, he will grab the 270 electoral votes to win the election. In 2000 it was Bush 271, and Gore 266. By going to the debates and bringing out the word Liberal, which news commentators asked why he would do that. It was probably suggested to him to secure the 270 electoral votes. No time in history has the US voted on the "Liberal". The US still voted this way in 2000, and the population density has not changed.
P Diddy's get out the vote kind of does nothing. If everyone in greatly populated areas get out the vote, they won't add electoral votes because the makers of the US Constitution saw that great population centers are also centers for great negativity and crime which would lead to the overthrow of the US (upset people overthrow governments). The electoral vote counts, but the popular vote doesn't change the fact that the state will only award the candidate the electoral votes. That is the "game" rule. No changing it to "can't the popular vote count?". It has happened at least 2 times that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. I think it was 1888 Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleavland. Harrison (Republican) won the electoral vote and didn't get more popular votes because conservative ideas don't change. Not in 116 years. Bush is not Arrogant. He is placing history and faith in the Conservatives of the US. It isn't stacking the deck, it is "Strategery" based on history.
Here is the voting.. in 1888 Harrison Vs Cleavland 1888 Yes I agree the 4-way picture reduces the size too much, but what could I do? That is how the site presents it.
In fact, winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote happened with the same candidate both ways. Cleavland won his first in 1884 by winning electoral and losing the popular vote, and lost the 2nd election in 1888 by a "Gore" occurrence.
