Arafat dying?

[DuDe]

 

[jareg]

So the old man his dying arty:
Like i give an ass

 

[Stalkid64]

A last word for the briefly off-topic among you all...
Anyway, if Arafat dies and we're no better off for it, where's the good in that?

 

[TheBench]

We are better off without that terrorist scumbag.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Sure. But you have to take the right standpoint in the first place, it doesn't matter how hard you stand by your decision, if it were wrong. Similarly, it's very easy to stand by a decision that is overwhelmingly viewed as "right". In that case, we would admire their strong stance, but really it was the good choice in the first place that we should admire.

I hope you see the point i'm trying to make here. Smarter decision >> unwavering decision. You may think that he's made all the right ones so far, but I don't.

Well your argument is fundamentally flawed. The right decision is rarely the most popular one. The civil war was a perfect example of that. And you'll never know which decision would have truely been better or smarter until long after the conflict is over.

And what happens when one day Bush takes a stand that you do think is wrong? What then? Tell him to stay strong?

Bush takes a strong stance on a few things that I think are wrong, such as the stem cell and abortion issues. But you know what? I know that he is doing these things with the best of intentions, so he will have my support for the most part. If anybody else comes along who I think can make better decisions than Bush does, then I'll vote for them instead. Kerry definitely isn't that somebody else, somewhat due to the fact that he can't really make any strong decisions to begin with, let alone good decisions.

(Such as calling Arafat a role model even though he has always encouraged suicide bombing, and then changing his oppinion on Arafat suddenly once everybody else starts hating him.)

Not to mention a few other things...

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."
-- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
-- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Smart decisions indeed.

 

[willljjj]

I just want to say one thing: The new episode of south park RULES. You should all watch it before you go vote (those of us in the US anyway).

 

[t0rek]

IMHO I prefer Kerry because democrats always are "a little bit more gentle" than republicans with Latin American issues, so I prefer an USA democrat president.
Just my "latino" opinion : :saint:

 

[Trotterwatch]

I just want to say one thing: The new episode of south park RULES. You should all watch it before you go vote (those of us in the US anyway).

First thing you've said I agree with.

 

[smegforbrain]

Your opinion holds no water however because it is pure and simple fact that Bush won and should have won the election.

Your opinion holds no water because you don't vote in our elections.

Besides, after all the protests leading up to the Iraq war, you should know that Bush doesn't give a rat's ass of your opinion one way or the other.

Bush also doesn't give a rat's ass about anybody that is undecided.

And apparently you don't find it rather suspicious that the most problems occured in the state that is run by the now-president's brother?

It also goes beyond Bush's lack of ability in speaking English. He has to correct what he's saying every time you turn around, it's that bad.
He's created more terrorists than 9/11 ever did, the largest deficeit, and many other things.

Yes, you strike me as very naive, vampire.

 

[vampireuk]

Your opinion holds no water because you don't vote in our elections.

No they do in fact because they are supported by cold hard facts

Yes, you strike me as very naive, vampire.

Again because I don't agree with your views on the world? I'll consider it a compliment to be labeled naive by you people

 

[ScottJC]

Again because I don't agree with your views on the world? I'll consider it a compliment to be labeled naive by you people

...and what makes your views on the world so bloody important? Everyone has their own views on things.

you're the Pro-Bush, i'm the Anti-bush, end of story, and you're not going to convince anyone your view is more correct than theirs by saying "i've seen cold hard facts", big deal, that depends which Facts you want to take in. Have you presented half these facts of yours to us? no.. and it depends if we really want to listen.

Half of us have already made up our own minds, just like you, you won't change to a Bush hater no matter what we say. But then again, its none of our business what America does, we're british afterall, who cares about America?

Its like the americans having a strong debate about the Labour government and Tony blair.. "I hate tony blair.." "I love that other guy", see what I mean, pointless.

Heres a much more interesting debate idea, is Marmite a tasty bread topping? I say no.

 

[vampireuk]

you're the Pro-Bush, i'm the Anti-bush, end of story, and you're not going to convince anyone your view is more correct than theirs by saying "i've seen cold hard facts", big deal, that depends which Facts you want to take in. Have you presented half these facts of yours to us? no.. and it depends if we really want to listen.

Perhaps if you did some research instead of spewing rhetoric bullshit for once you would see I am in fact right, check a few news sites and you will find the proof quite easily. I argue with facts you argue with biased opinion there is a huge difference.

 

[ScottJC]

Yeah, and do you think I or others honestly give a crap? I stopped caring ages ago and this topic has been off track since page 1 because of your endless defence of something not worth defending.

 

[Trotterwatch]

Scott, I don't see what the issue is here. Keep it amicable - VampireUK hasn't done anything wrong; you present an arguement, he presents a counter.

Both of you say you are correct - personally I'd say there are a lot of things uttered about Bush that have been uttered so often that people tend to believe them. As long as you present FACTs and not supposition, Vamp and everyone else who has a differing opinion from yourself will respect it.

Erm, btw - your closing comment re: not worth defending; is pretty damn insulting IMO Political discussion and the right to counter argue what is percieved to be a lot of ill thought out BS is perfectly fine.

Perhaps we shouldn't have a forum - perhaps anything political should be locked after 1 post or something.

 

[ScottJC]

Right, and may I ask, what facts has HE presented? he tells us to go visit news sites, thats not presenting facts. he says I am biased myself,

he fails to realize i've judged my opinion of bush based on the TV news channels and the fact he invaded IRAQ for WMD (my ass) and still hasn't found any, which to me suggests that he just did it for no good reason and I cannot accept that what he did was correct for that reason alone. You can throw rubbish at me all day but until they find REAL WMD in IRAQ I will always think that action was wrong.

Sure, they caught Saddam and i'm not sad to see him gone but, they killed thousands to do it and for what? no WMD? what was the point of this war, they said WMD. bs.

Edit: adding bits on:

What kind of a president/leader is he is he Makes up excuses like this just to go to war? this guys an imbecile, and while i'm at it so is Tony blair for following him blindly, both of them have their head up their arse.

Had they said "we're invading because saddams there" at least it would've been truthful.

 

[vampireuk]

Right, and may I ask, what facts has HE presented? he tells us to go visit news sites, thats not presenting facts. he says I am biased myself,

Because for once I would like a person to try and educate theirselves instead of buying into typical rhetoric. I simply go off the facts, if you want to find those facts go find them. Or are you perhaps too scared to look yourself out of fear of been proved wrong?

Bush won the election fair and square this is a fact

Illegal weapons banned under UN sanctions were found in Iraq, this is a fact.

Go do some research yourself instead of sitting in a blissful world of ignorance.

 

[Eagle]

Guys, Bush won the electoral vote, by our own constitution that means he wins regardless of the popular vote. I know people are thinking he cheated, but even I dont think he would have been capable of doing that at the time. If he had, he would have been caught, they always are (thats the one usefull thing the media does for us). He won the election fair and square, we just have to make sure he doesnt do it again.

 

[vampireuk]

Thankyou Eagle

 

[ScottJC]

Because for once I would like a person to try and educate theirselves instead of buying into typical rhetoric. I simply go off the facts, if you want to find those facts go find them. Or are you perhaps too scared to look yourself out of fear of been proved wrong?

Bush won the election fair and square this is a fact

Illegal weapons banned under UN sanctions were found in Iraq, this is a fact.

Go do some research yourself instead of sitting in a blissful world of ignorance.

1: I think he cheated, regardless of what you or anyone else tells me.

2: Illegal weapons eh? heh, hardly weapons of mass destruction, I am sure they only found small traces of chemicals that could be used in a chemical missile. regardless, iraq wasn't nearly as dangerous as they were portrayed by the US or the UK, and that was the problem.

Think about it, if they were really a threat to us they'd have actually fought back a lot harder, they were crushed by the US forces.

3: Heh, research my ass, that won't change my mind about how the IRAQ war was handled, and that is essentially what I made my mind over about Bush. Regardless of the outcome, that bastard lied to us all, and so did Tony blair.

My brother in-law's brother is over there in IRAQ now (part of the black watch), so I can say I have family over there, I consider my brother-in-law family as much as his brother.

I don't want to see him get killed over some rediculas lie, and that is what I think the whole of the IRAQ war is/was.

Think back 10-20 years, to a time George W Bush's father was in the white house, man, he and america Loved Saddam, what a disappointment, and what does George W Bush do when he gets into power, you guessed it, attack IRAQ. co-incidence, I think not.

see, i've read into some things as well and made my own decisions based on them. you're not going to convince me i'm wrong and its highly doubtful i'll convince you. who's biased? i'd say both of us.

 

[vampireuk]

1: I think he cheated, regardless of what you or anyone else tells me.

Then you are wrong and I am right.

2: Illegal weapons eh? heh, hardly weapons of mass destruction, I am sure they only found small traces of chemicals that could be used in a chemical missile. regardless, iraq wasn't nearly as dangerous as they were portrayed by the US or the UK, and that was the problem.

Illegal weapons are illegal weapons, you cannot argue over that because they were banned under UN sanctions.

3: Heh, research my ass, that won't change my mind about how the IRAQ war was handled, and that is essentially what I made my mind over about Bush. Regardless of the outcome, that bastard lied to us all, and so did Tony blair.

Did I mention the illegal weapons? Also that the entire world also believed that Saddam had weapons from intelligence reports.

We are both biased but I have the facts behind me, all you have is your own ignorance