Who do you want to win the USA elections

[SussexHoop]

What the balaned and unbaised Michael Moore , do me a favour

Of course it's unbalanced ... he's out to do a job on Bush and he does it very well but if it's true, there was substantial intelligence throughout 2001 that planes would be hijacked and used as missiles.

You shouldn't be completely dismissive of him because he's subjective...it just might be true!

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

AD

I haven't actually made any comments about Bush , except what would you have done. I have not said anything about Iraq. I find on NSC if you do not toe the line you are accused of saying things you haven't.

So exactly have I surpassed myself ?. I don;t understand your comment.

 

[n1 gull]

I don't understand how anyone could support Bush.
He is a very power hungry, gun-ho president, who
took the world to war, in a country that did not have
Weapons of Mass Destruction as promised and
without a UN mandate.

I'd like to see him done for war crimes, for his illegal war.

 

[alan partridge]

Kerry= 4 months in Veitnam+ 3 Purple hearts+ 0 days in hospital =Bullshit.

FTR
The most hated presidency in resent years was the Clinton one.

If you believe conservative horse shit yes.

moore and littlejohn sounds amazing though. tape it for me big boy?

 

[looney]

No thats independent polls shortstuff and give the Barman a blowjob to let you watch QT instead of Sky.

 

[Commander]

What about McGhee?

 

[Biscuit]

Which 9 voted Bush?

50/59 to Kerry says it all.

 

[Albion Dan]

AD

I haven't actually made any comments about Bush , except what would you have done. I have not said anything about Iraq. I find on NSC if you do not toe the line you are accused of saying things you haven't.

So exactly have I surpassed myself ?. I don;t understand your comment.

You are defending, imo, the most dangerous man on the planet. Thats the way it reads to me anyway.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I am asking AD what would your policy as president of the USA have been on 12/9/01 ?. What would you have done ?.

 

[caz99]

I am asking AD what would your policy as president of the USA have been on 12/9/01 ?. What would you have done ?.

i think its obvious most people wouldnt have used a smokescreen to wage war on a country rather than proceeding to go after and find the real perputrater (spelling!)

he knew something was about to happen on that day granted not exactly what. however security issues should have been seen to.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

You have conveniently side stepped the question again like all anti war people. I will ask again what would you have done on 12/9/01 os president of the USA ?.

 

[caz99]

You have conveniently side stepped the question again like all anti war people. I will ask again what would you have done on 12/9/01 os president of the USA ?.

what could i have done? what could anyone have done on the day? what would you have done?

its the aftermath that he has not handled

also to add that i would not have declared war on most of the muslim world

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Yes but what would you have done, deathly silence re the answer. Would you have done nothing, lying like a sitting duck waiting for the next attack. That is why he will get in again as most Americans demanded action of some sort. I fully back the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, we are seeing the first glimmers of light from that country with 10 500 000 people refusing to be intimidated and going to vote. Iraq was handled very badly after the war and defeat of Saddam but overall Bush was between a rock and a hard place in his postion. Its all good and well siting behind your keyboard berating everything Bush/ The USA have done but the lack of decent arguments as to what should have been done by those opposing the war is deafening.

 

[Albion Dan]

I would have gone after the source of the problem and undermine the cause that the terrorists are apparently fighting for.

I agree that going into Afghanistan was probably required but I think the strategy for bringing stabillity to the country should have been far more robust, not just go in do over Al Quaeda and then leave the place to the Warlords.

I would look at stabilising Israel and not always giving 100% backing to the Israelis with their US financed Army in their illegal campaign against the Palestinians. This is the reason that most of the arab fundamentalists use as a reason to take arms against the USA. Take away this problem and make sure the Palestinians are given some sort of hope for the future and you would go along way to fixing many problems in the Middle East

I would certainly NOT start a war in Iraq because alot of my political allies stand to make millions for their corporations, which happen to fund my political party. Especially when there were NO links between that country and the terrorists in 9/11.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

At least a reasoned argument from AD. I respect your views even though we differ In think we both want a peaceful world ( eventually ) I am sure.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I hope I win.

 

[caz99]

Yes but what would you have done, deathly silence re the answer. Would you have done nothing, lying like a sitting duck waiting for the next attack. That is why he will get in again as most Americans demanded action of some sort. I fully back the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, we are seeing the first glimmers of light from that country with 10 500 000 people refusing to be intimidated and going to vote. Iraq was handled very badly after the war and defeat of Saddam but overall Bush was between a rock and a hard place in his postion. Its all good and well siting behind your keyboard berating everything Bush/ The USA have done but the lack of decent arguments as to what should have been done by those opposing the war is deafening.

thats just bollocks. what about not sending innocent soldiers to die, what about ruining iraq and killing 100s of innocent civilians. along with blair who backed him like a sheep.

he wasnt in between a rock and hard place. he went to war against UN backing. which is why half the world didnt support his cause and refused to send in troops. he had no evidence and still has no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. he failed on finding bin laden so attacking hussein was a better idea, i expect he got some of his great ideas from his father and desert storm which was also a fiasco.

saddam needed removing and something needed to be done however this was no the way to go about it. why the sudden rush after 9/11 when it was al queda that admitted responsiblity.

the usa has always and will always been about money and oil. like when they were backing iraq in the 80's with the iran/iraq war even providing iraq with american warships so iraq could pentrate iran more easily. this time however it has come unstuck and bush is onto a loser

 

[alan partridge]

Yes but what would you have done, deathly silence re the answer. Would you have done nothing, lying like a sitting duck waiting for the next attack. That is why he will get in again as most Americans demanded action of some sort. I fully back the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, we are seeing the first glimmers of light from that country with 10 500 000 people refusing to be intimidated and going to vote. Iraq was handled very badly after the war and defeat of Saddam but overall Bush was between a rock and a hard place in his postion. Its all good and well siting behind your keyboard berating everything Bush/ The USA have done but the lack of decent arguments as to what should have been done by those opposing the war is deafening.

sitting behind our keyboards? what like you do? no one bangs on about this kind of thing more than you.

I answered your question about what would you like to have seen done after 9/11 before but I'll do it again. Increased co operation between nations, sharing of intelligence based on that co operation (which was obvious to everyone in the aftermath of the attacks), arrests, seizing of funds and more.

what I didn't want to see was the kind of moronic, ill thought out, revenge seeking which the usual couch/internet potatos (and conservative freaks) wanted, that only serves to kill more innocent people and leaves me feeling a lot uneasier about world stability than I did on Sept 12th.

Glimmer of hope in Afghanistan? Do me a favour. That place is a mess. It's all very well sitting behind your keyboard saying ooh look elections...the reality is very different.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

This is a total no-brainer.... Kerry is a no one with no face but with a good team... Bush is a trime bomb waiting to happen..... It has to be Kerry because there really is no other choice. As for the contrived argument that safety is lost if we lose Bush we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for Bush and anyone who's spent five minuites in the arab world knows that the only way for peace is by understanding...... six years ago we had most of the Arab world pro-European if not pro-American.... since Iraq(not Afghansitan... most Muslim countries saw the sense in that) we have been pushed back into the time of the crusades... so how can it be safer with Bush?

As for Micheal Moore... saw him in concert and saw all his films. Is he biased? Yes absolutely yes and sometimes it blinds him... but is he essentially right... of course he is... the facts speak for themselves.... and if you're not sure read his latest book... he actually says very little but it's a collection of letters from troops in Iraq... their words make it clear.... with Bush we are heading for disaster.


BTW... most American still don't know who Micheal Moore is and don't care.

 

[dougdeep]

Sorry, I've spoiled my vote.