Thread: I figured out why my stance is anybody but Bush...

That's not a very good anaolgy, IMHO.

Why? Kerry wouldn't be on the path until the rest of the world said it was ok.

Originally Posted by Stickboy

That's not a very good anaolgy, IMHO.

Why? Kerry wouldn't be on the path until the rest of the world said it was ok.

thats a horrible analogy, its has not even close to reality...

You forgot to add that both are walking backwards talking to their groups, seeing their reactions instead of looking forward. You also left out that Bush would send someone ahead to scout and then ignore him when he told him there was a cliff ahead. Cheney would then phone up his buddies at Halliburton and give them 7 B's to build a bridge to the other side. You also forget that Kerry would probably walk a mile in both directions of the cliff before deciding to just turn back and take a new path.

Why? Kerry wouldn't be on the path until the rest of the world said it was ok.

yeah, well guess what.. if we have no allies then we have no other troops to send over to Iraq but American soldiers, which we are running low on. What happens when we are not out of Iraq in a quick manner, which is what the situation is. Either A) we have allies send troops in there along with us to secure this mess we have entangled ourselves in, or B) the draft will eventually have to become a reality.. We won't be out of their fro quite a while, so what are our options. Bush may be resooute, but does it do the country any good to be resoloute but wrong?

Originally Posted by gr81

yeah, well guess what.. if we have no allies then we have no other troops to send over to Iraq but American soldiers, which we are running low on.

We do? Tell that to the military folks that are being forced out of the service because current manning exceeds the authorization.

What happens when we are not out of Iraq in a quick manner, which is what the situation is. Either A) we have allies send troops in there along with us to secure this mess we have entangled ourselves in

Psssst. The allies helping in Iraq already have troops there. (Don't tell anyone)

Unless, of course, you only consider France and Germany as allies. We have others that are not what you call "fair weather friends". Nevermind that both of those countries will be proved to have violated the very sanctions they voted for (i.e. the oil for food program).

or B) the draft will eventually have to become a reality

Draft? What draft? Are you talking about HR163? That's a bill brought to the floor by Sen. Charles Rangel and Ernest Hollings (both democrats).

Believe it or not (and you won't), Neither the Republicans or the military wants the draft re-instated. The military is fairly selective in who it takes in nowadays.

We won't be out of their fro quite a while, so what are our options. Bush may be resooute, but does it do the country any good to be resoloute but wrong?

Who said we'd be out of there anytime soon? Our option is to stay and win the peace and bring the Iraqi government to a democracy. I believe you mean resolute.

BTW, How is freeing 50 million people wrong?

Tell that to the military folks that are being forced out of the service because current manning exceeds the authorization.

yeah, try telling that to the cats that are still there despite their tours being over.. they need people and bad, thats no secret

Believe it or not (and you won't), Neither the Republicans or the military wants the draft re-instated. The military is fairly selective in who it takes in nowadays.

no shit, no one wants the draft. You said it yourself, we won't be out of their for sometime, so how will we have the man power? where will it come from, I would olove to know? Just about everyone we have is already their. they won't have teh option of being selective, shit the national guard is over there, what does that tell you? BTW the pentagon has already admitted that the training of the Iraqi guard is not going as they expected, they are way below standards. Half of them are leaving to jion the insurgence for christs sake.

BTW, How is freeing 50 million people wrong?

is that what we are doing, well isn't that nice of us. Its wrong b/c it has made our countr less safe, among any number of other obvious reason its wrong. What makes you tihnk they want a democracy in the first place? an btw we cannot even control our "democratic" gov in the first place at home, we can't even hold an election without miscounting the votes. and yes forgive me, I misspelled a word. deal with it. I thought you were leaving anyways, what happened to that?

Originally Posted by gr81

yeah, try telling that to the cats that are still there despite their tours being over.. they need people and bad, thats no secret

Hmmm. Must be a secret because those of us in the military don't know what you are talking about when you say "they need people".

no shit, no one wants the draft. You said it yourself, we won't be out of their for sometime, so how will we have the man power? where will it come from, I would olove to know? Just about everyone we have is already their.

Simply not true. We have about 135,000 people in Iraq. As of 8/31/04 there were 1, 468,402 people in the military. 10% of the force is not everyone.

they won't have teh option of being selective, shit the national guard is over there, what does that tell you? BTW the pentagon has already admitted that the training of the Iraqi guard is not going as they expected, they are way below standards. Half of them are leaving to jion the insurgence for christs sake.

Last time I checked, the NG was a component of the military. Rest of your paragraph is opinion.

yes forgive me, I misspelled a word. deal with it. I thought you were leaving anyways, what happened to that?

Provided the correct spelling so you would know how to spell it. You misspelled the same word twice, in two different ways. Just trying to help.

Never said I was leaving. I said I wouldn't be posting much, if at all.

Uhhhhhh, my analogy is perfect. Bush obviously went about Iraq in the wrong way. Some douche said it first, now Paul Bremer says it, yet he refuses to change the way we do it.

Kerry voted for it originally, sees we did it the wrong way, and now thinks we should go about it differently. I fail to see how anyone with above a 3rd grade education could not get that analogy.

1.) Kerry voted to force Saddam with threats not threaten Saddam by force.

2.) On the "I voted for it before I voted against it" issue he voted for money for our troops when the first bill was proposed, then when the second time came the Republicans had attached so much pork to it it sagged like an 80 year-old bra-less hippies tits.

"Bush's bill contained a $20 billion blank check to provide no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other firms for Iraq reconstruction, and none of the $87 billion price tag would be paid using Bush's tax cuts. As the Washington Post has reported, Kerry voted for a different version of the bill that would have funded some of the spending by raising taxes on incomes greater than $312,000, while Bush vowed to veto a version that would have converted half of the Iraq rebuilding plan into a loan. Kerry's alternate version was defeated and Bush's original bill came up for a vote. Most Democrats decided to support it, as it would be sure to pass. Knowing this, Kerry on principle voted "against" it – that is, he voted against the $20 billion blank check and the no-repealing-the-tax-cut provisions. Cheney, as president pro-tem of the Senate, knows this."


He knew that the bill would get through eventually, everyone knew it would get through so the argument that he wanted to abandon our troops is not legit.

Ok...ok...I couldn't resist...:


http://members.aol.com/chillinois1/q.jpg

^lol...i think today's report that bush read should rest everyone's case....he was wrong...what do u all say to that?we still should have gone in???lmao

Two ways to take something that does not belong to you ... by guile or by force. Bush was not smart to get that oil by guile soooo ... this is funny kbm.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

OK, finally figured it out. All of the pro Bush people wanted to know why the people who are "anybody but Bush" are going that route, so here is my take.

The biggest difference that I see between the candidates is that Bush is considered steadfast, while Kerry is portrayed as changing his mind alot. I will use an example. The example is walking towards a cliff.

Bush
Ok, so we turn down a path that Bush decides we should go down. We do, and he is steadfast that we go this way. As we get closer, signs that a cliff might possibly be coming arise. Perhaps the sound of a waterfall, i don't know. Anyway, this obvioucly would arise some concern with the group, but our fearless leader says let's forge on. I am good with this so far, we are not necessarily nearing a cliff, there is the possibility, but anything is possible. So, we finally make it to the edge of this cliff, there is no doubt that the direction we have been taking is going to indeed end with us falling off the cliff. So we are stopped and our fearless leader looks to us and says, "Hey, what are you waiting for, let's forge on. We can't quit now, we chose this way and must continue on."

Kerry
Ok, I admit, he would be that little bitch going, "Are you sure we should have gone this way? I don't think we should have. Ahhh, I guess we were right, we should press on. No, wait..." the entire time. I admit, this would prolly be quite annoying, but I bet when we are standing at the edge of that cliff we are nolt going to walk over it just because we originally chose this path.

So that is my answer.

Focus on specific public policy issues, and stop being a simpleton.