Election Day is oming - do you know who you are voting for and WHY?

[CHJoker]

nwhr,

While it is very easy to wrap it up like this, those sweeping generalizations just are not true.

do you know how many different types of "christianity" there are out there? And how vastly different they are? Have you ever visited or known muslims from many different "Islamic" states? Because, if you had, you would know that your statement about "Allah's will" for ALL muslims is not correct. That is like saying that ALL christians believe that abortion is wrong.

And, actually, many christians believe that if you are poor, it is because you did something to offend God, and if you are rich, then you are "blessed".

But this has nothing to do with the reason Democracy works or doesn't..

Our system of "democracy" is VERY YOUNG when compared to the history of the world. Christianity, in fact, was more linked to dictators than democracy, if you look at the number of years kings and queens were in power, and used the church as a political tool.

Funny how we have come full circle, with Bush even using the word "crusade" in press releases. Do people realize how inflamitory that is to Muslims, and any other faith, for that matter? Jihad means "holy war" and MY GOD, it sure appears to be just that.

Do people not get how AMERICANS seem to the outside world to be the religous fanatics? And greedy, warmongering, irrational, to boot.

The world is watching this election SO closely, because they want to know if the majority of Americans agree with Bush. I am PRAYING that they don't.

But I will tell you this, Bush doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting ANY outside aid from former allies. He burned bridges along the way, and proved what an incompetant leader he was, and no amount of ass kissing is going to convince them otherwise(you might not see the footage, but I do, here in Europe) . The people of these countries would simply NOT allow it, even if the leaders would consider it.

Put the shoe on the other foot... if France or Germany invaded a country without US support, and in fact told you to &$ck off, what would be YOUR reaction when the invasion didn't go sooo well, and they came asking for money and men?? Why is anyone surprised?

[nhwr]

Actually, I do know a bit Islam. I have family members who practice Islam, was surrounded by Muslims when I was growing up and I have a number of Muslim friends. It is a beautiful and gentle philosophy, in many ways. The Islamic concept of Allah is not the same as the Christian idea of God. When I said "They would be happy if we were gone", I was referring to fundamentalists, not all Muslims. ObL is not entirely wrong about the Saudi royal family. Many are not very devout and support Islam because it supports them. It is a pretty oppressive monarchy. But that doesn't mean I think what bin Laden espouses as an alternative is right.

Christians may differ in their interpretations of the Bible, that is true. But can you imagine, in current times, Methodists going to war against Baptists? Our system of democracy is relatively young. And it is true that Christianity has not always been linked to it. But that is not what I said. What I said was modern democracy is linked to Christianity. By and large, that is true. I don't think that has to be true, but it has been, historically.

CHJoker, I travel outside the US frequently. I feel as if I need to constantly appologize for Bush. One of the major reasons I support Kerry (besides the fact that he isn't Bush ) is that he will be able to go to all the countries that Bush pissed off and do some fence mending. We need that.

[CHJoker]

Fair enough. I just get worried when statements are made about how the muslims are "so different from us".

They aren't. When you travel the world, you start to see some basic themes emerge. WE ALL want love, a home, a family, and food. Everything else is icing on the cake. Freedom doesn's mean much if all of your family is dead, and you are starving.

There are good people throughout the world, and there are bad people. And both forms come in every size, shape, religion, and color.

I would actually venture to say that our form of democracy is tied to Industrialism and a higher standard of living in general. Once you have the basics covered, you can move on to the bigger issues, like how to keep what you own, and keep your family alive, etc..etc... Our form of democracy has these excellent benefits.

BUT, it must be realized that the MAJORITY of the world does NOT live in the relative affluence of western society. They are worried about feeding their starving children, not about whose running the local elections.

People make the gross assumption that the rest of the world lives like we do. They do not. In fact, we profit because of their poverty. (but this is another topic entirely...just ask Nike).

[silver]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
do you know how many different types of "christianity" there are out there? And how vastly different they are <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have quite a lot of Muslim friends. And, believe it or not, quite a lot of conservative religious friends of the christian persuasion too.

You have to remember that back in the day the Catholic church regarded evangelicals as heretics and did very nasty things to them. They are all Christians, sure, but with a history of murdering each other for their beliefs and for political gain. Oh wait, they still do that.

Which is why I firmly believe that a religious agenda has NO place in politics. It's amazing how quickly you can resurrect 500 year old grudges when it comes to religion. It's a tribal thing and we should be beyond that now.

[silver]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nhwr:Christians may differ in their interpretations of the Bible, that is true. But can you imagine, in current times, Methodists going to war against Baptists? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, because I have a lot of family in the north of Ireland.

My father (who hs lived in the US for 18 years now) says that the current situation reminds him of the 1970s in Belfast, when the leaders used ideology to split the populace and the worst off in society who should have been protected by their trusted leaders were the ones who died or lost out.

[hosspuller]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Now, I am pretty sure we can all agree that we're not fans of ol' Osama. Obviously there is no justification for 9/11. But I think it behooves us to try to understand why the terrorists THINK it is justified, in their own minds.

It isn't because of the Stars and Stripes, baseball, mom, or apple pie. They don't hate our freedom, and it has always galled me that Bush has tried to make it into that. They don't hate the fact that we "want to live."

They don't hate US, they hate what we have DONE, as a country, to other countries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erin: The freedom I was refering to is our culture. Movies, books, ideas, internet, Gay marrige, etc All of these things are anethma to the Islamic mullahs. Why attack Sweden? They don't export culture as we do.

[QUOTE
WHAT INDICATIONS??! There were no WMD found, and just recently a commission investigating (I wish I could remember WHICH commission or find their report but...) said that, in essence, the sanctions had worked. Hussein was not pursuing a WMD program. He had been marginalized. He had no capability to attack the U.S. in March 2002 and was not pursuing the means to do so.

Again, I think we all agree that something needed to be done in Iraq... it is not good that the inspectors were tossed out and that we just turned a blind eye for so many years. But surely there was a middle ground between pretending Iraq didn't exist and blowing it up? ][/QUOTE]

The indications were presented by Colin Powell to the UN. The other indicators were the WMD preparations the Iraq army had, as we fought them.
Hussein's actions were as if he was armed with WMD. That we have not found any, makes no difference. It is the same as a bank robber going into a bank with a toy pistol. The crime is the same as if the weapon was real.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sure, but Iraq was not one of those countries... they HAD allowed inspectors back in, and as it turns out in hindsight, there was nothing for the inspectors to find anyway.

9/11 did not come out of nowhere. Sure, it seems that way to us little people, but the intelligence community knew about the possibility (and issued a report specifically outlining the possibility of terrorists using airplanes as bombs).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inspectors does not make an open country. The inspectors can and were fooled.

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hosspuller:

Erin: The freedom I was refering to is our culture. Movies, books, ideas, internet, Gay marrige, etc All of these things are anethma to the Islamic mullahs. Why attack Sweden? They don't export culture as we do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno, seems to me like they might be more pissed over our foreign policy than movies and crappy reality TV shows...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The indications were presented by Colin Powell to the UN. The other indicators were the WMD preparations the Iraq army had, as we fought them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, what "preparations," exactly? No WMDs were found, and in fact, it was found that Hussein had pretty much dismantled his weapons program.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hussein's actions were as if he was armed with WMD. That we have not found any, makes no difference. It is the same as a bank robber going into a bank with a toy pistol. The crime is the same as if the weapon was real. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but you really can't be serious with this, can you? First of all, a bank robbery is a crime, whether you do it with a gun or not. Hussein had actually allowed the inspectors back into the country. He wasn't being aggressive toward us. Surely you can't be suggesting we can attack anyone who ACTS as if they might have WMDs, regardless of whether they DO have them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Inspectors does not make an open country. The inspectors can and were fooled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fooled into thinking what? That there weren't any WMDs? But... THERE WEREN'T ANY WMDS!!!!

By the way, do you have any actual articles that you can cite to back up any of these assertions? Or are these just your personal opinions?

[CHJoker]

That is great Hosspuller! I hear the U.S. Army is looking for a few good men. With your firm belief that Bush is right, then maybe you would consider joining the fight? OR, are you a member of the military?

The armed forces are mighty short these days of men... perhaps all the Bush supporters should volunteer?

[CHJoker]

Erin,

I don't know.... those crappy "Bachelor" reality shows have been translated into every known language, and that makes me pretty mad. Not terrorist bombing mad, but pretty mad.

Seriously, even when you point out facts to Bush and Supporters, they continue to ignore them...like...if I just ignore it...it won't be true....blahhahablahh...I can't heaaarrr you!!!!!

[aliali]

This is a picture that nhwr's post reminded me of (apologizing for Bush) Clothing Tag
Enjoy!

[CHJoker]

Here are some great sites!!

www.whitehousewest.com Will Farrell imitates Bush.

www.jibjab.com Political satire.

http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Vi...oVotingMachine An example of Florida's electronic machine

Good night all Vote!!!

[CessnaPilot]

Erin -

There were weapons of mass destruction, or are you forgetting the sarin gas shells...

[CHJoker]

This is from CNN.com, and can be found on EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWS NETWORK throughout the world, with the exception of possibly FOX.

You know who IS developing WMD??? US!!! YEAH!!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

[Erin]

Feel free to point me to an article from a reputable news source reporting that Cessna, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

[Erin]

Duelfer! Thank you! That's the guy whose report I keep referring to without being able to remember which report it actually was.

[CHJoker]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones:


WMD - Biological:
The U.S. offensive biological warfare (BW) program was launched in 1943 and terminated in 1969, by executive order. During this period, the U.S. weaponized a variety of pathogens and toxins for use against humans and plants. The anti-human agents it developed for weapons purposes were Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Coxiella burnetii (Q fever), the Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, and staphylococcal enterotoxin B. The anti-plant agents were the fungi that cause wheat rust and rice blast. In addition, U.S. military scientists conducted research on pathogens that cause smallpox, glanders, and plague, as well as several toxins, such as botulinum toxin, saxitoxin, and ricin. The entire U.S. BW stockpile was destroyed in 1969 and 1970; since that time, it has not had an offensive BW program. The U.S. ratified the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) in March 1975 and had an important role in the process of developing confidence-building measures (CBMs) during several BWC review conferences. However, in 2001, the Bush administration rejected an effort by other signatories to conclude a protocol that would provide verification measures. For many years, the United States has conducted an active biodefense program in accordance with BWC provisions that permit the use of agents of types and in quantities appropriate for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes. These activities are reported each year to Congress and in an annual information exchange on biodefense activities under the BWC. A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs.

(per $ GDP):
0 per $

(per capita):
0 per people

Â*

WMD - Chemical:
The U.S. chemical warfare (CW) program began with the establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service in June 1918. During World War I, the United States manufactured, stockpiled, and used chemical weapons. Chemical weapons development and production continued during and after World War II, but the production of unitary chemical munitions was terminated in 1969. During the Reagan administration, the production of binary chemical weapons was restarted, but was discontinued in 1990. Since then, the United States no longer has an active CW program. The United States ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1975, with the reservation that the treaty not apply to defoliants and riot control agents such as were used in Vietnam and Laos during the Vietnam War. Currently, the United States has what is believed to be the world's second largest stockpile of chemical weapons, including bombs, rockets, and artillery shells that are loaded with lewisite, mustard, sarin, soman, VX, or binary nerve agents. Under terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which the United States ratified in April 1997, the United States has committed to destroying all chemical stockpiles by April 2004. However, in September 2003, the Pentagon announced that it would be unable to meet this deadline and would ask for an extension at the Fall 2003 CWC meeting. In 2001, the United States destroyed 20 percent of its Category I chemical weapons ahead of the CWC timeline and destroyed over 99 percent of its Category 3 chemical weapons. No Category 2 chemical weapons were declared by the United States.

(per $ GDP):
0 per $

(per capita):
0 per people

Â*

WMD - Missile:
The United States has the capability to produce highly sophisticated liquid- and solid-fueled missiles of all ranges. It currently deploys 500 Minuteman and 40 MX/Peacekeeper nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) at three bases in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.Â* The number of warheads on Minuteman missiles will be reduced from three to one by 2007 and the multiple-warhead Peacekeeper/MX missiles will be phased out altogether. Deactivation of the MX/Peacekeeper force began in October 2002 and will continue over the course of three years, at the cost of $600 million.Â* The Minuteman missile force is also undergoing a $5.5 billion modernization program to improve the weapon's accuracy, reliability, and to extend its service life beyond 2020. A new, longer-range ICBM, to be ready in 2018, is being considered by the Pentagon.Â* As of mid-2003, the U.S. Navy had 16 operational Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), out of a total of 18 in the class.Â* This number will be reduced to 14 by 2007, as the four oldest subs in the class are converted to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles.Â* The 16 operational SSBNs carry a total of 384 Trident-1 and Trident-II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), each carrying between six and eight warheads, for an estimated total of 2,880.Â* All SSBNs will be modified to carry the Trident II missiles, and the navy has extended the service life of the Trident-II from 30 to 49 years.Â* The Pentagon is studying two options for a new SSBN to be launched in 2029. The U.S. bomber force consists of 94 B-52 bombers stationed at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana and Minot AFB in North Dakota, and 21 B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. The B-52 can deliver air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM), advanced cruise missiles (ACM), or gravity bombs. The B-2 carries only gravity bombs. It is estimated that 430 ALCMs are deployed, with about 700 more in storage.Â* It has been estimated that there are around 430 operational ACMs, which have a longer range, greater accuracy, and more difficult to intercept than an ALCM. The United States is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), whose goal is to control the transfer of nuclear-capable missiles and unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of WMD.
Source: "U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2003" NRDC Nuclear Notebook,
July/August 2003.

(per $ GDP):
0 per $

(per capita):
0 per people

Â*

WMD - Nuclear:
As one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons, including approximately 10,600 intact warheads, 7.650 of which are considered active or operational. Approximately 1,600 are deployed on land-based missile systems (Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs), 1,660 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,880 on submarines (Ohio-class subs).Â* 1,120 are tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), and consist of an estimated 320 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLAM/N), and 800 B61 bombs.Â* The remaining warheads are stockpiled.Â* The only remaining U.S. weapons in forward deployment, aside from those on SSBNs, are approximately 150 B61 bombs in six European NATO countries.Â* According to the May 2002 Treaty of Moscow (the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT) between the United States and the Russian Federation, both countries are required to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012. The majority of the weapons removed from deployment by the United States will be moved to a "responsive force" (active but not deployed or in overhaul), "spares," or inactive status rather than dismantled, in keeping with past practice under previous U.S. arms control agreements. The Bush administration has rejected U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but calls for a continued moratorium on nuclear testing. The NPR calls for a reduction in the amount of time needed (now two to three years, but this could be reduced to as little as 12 months) to test a nuclear weapon, suggesting that the United States might decide to resume nuclear testing, although Bush administration officials deny that this is currently planned and explain the shortening of test-site readiness time as a logical extension of the U.S. decision to maintain a testing option. The NPR also calls for discussion on possible development of new, low-yield, bunker-busting TNW.Â* A 1994 law currently in effect bars research and development that could lead to the production by the United States of a new low-yield "bunker buster" nuclear weapon (warheads with a yield of 5 kilotons or less). In its fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Department of Defense requested a repeal of the 1994 law, suggesting that the U.S. government intends to proceed with development of new nuclear weapons. The repeal was approved by the Senate on May 20, 2003, and the administration will receive $15 million that it requested in order to research nuclear "bunker busters" under the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) Project. The United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, making it the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons during a conflict. It ratified the NPT in March 1970.
Source: "U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2003" NRDC Nuclear Notebook,
July/August 2003.

(per $ GDP):
0 per $

(per capita):
0 per people

Â*

WMD - Overview:
The United States possesses a substantial nuclear weapons arsenal and associated delivery systems. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) suggests that the United States may seek to develop, and possibly test, new types of nuclear weapons in the future. The United States destroyed its biological weapons by 1970 and is in the process of destroying its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2004. Some critics allege that elements of U.S. government biodefense research are in violation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC).

(per $ GDP):
0 per $

(per capita):
0 per people


Sources: Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy; calculated on the basis of data on armed forces from IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies). 2001. The Military Balance 2001-2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies). 2001. The Military Balance 2001-2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; CIA World Factbook, December 2003; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. Data collected from the nations concerned, unless otherwise indicated. Acronyms: Amnesty International (AI); European Council of Conscripts Organizations (ECCO); Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC); International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHFHR); National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors (NISBCO); Service, Peace and Justice in Latin America (SERPAJ); War Resisters International (WRI); World Council of Churches (WCC).; SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on weapons transfer data. March. Stockholm.; Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC); Richard F. Grimmett, ""Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992-1999"" (Washington: Congressional Research Service, August 18, 2000), p. 51.; Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE): A Review and Update of Key Treaty Elements (US Department of State: Washington, DC, Jan. 2002). Joint Consultative Group (JCG), Group on Treaty Operation and Implementation, JCG document JCG.TOI/22/03, 23 June 2003; Dr T.R. O'Connor, (05/15/04). Retrieved from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lect04.htm on 27 May 2004.; Center for Nonproliferation Studies (http://cns.miis.edu) at http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/pdfs/apmunter.pdf; Center for Nonproliferation Studies (http://cns.miis.edu) at http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/pdfs/apmunter.pd; Dr T.R. O'Connor (05/15/04). Retrieved from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lect04.htm on 27 May 2004; The Nuclear Threat Initiative.

[CessnaPilot]

here you go, take your pic...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3722255.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/165531.shtml

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...052604,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04May17_2.html

[CHJoker]

The fox news link, at least, was dated MAY 04.

The official GOVERNMENT report was this October.

who do you think is right? Do you think that this MAJOR, GOVERNMENT document is lying when it CLEARLY states that there were NO WMD??

IF BUSH GETS RE ELECTED, it will prove education in America has gone down the crapper, because quite frankly, some people are as illiterate as he is.

[silver]

Cessna I read all your links and as far as I can tell they refer to two incidents. ONe in May and one in October. Both of them are older type shells apparently.

From your last link:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But weapons experts cautioned that the shell appeared to predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War and did not necessarily mean that Hussein possessed hidden stockpiles of chemical munitions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[CessnaPilot]

okay, so these shells can kill thousands of people. They DON'T HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE! Erin stated there were NO WMD's, yet we found some.

Tell you what, lets get those "older type shells" and fire them over some troops and then say "well they are older type shells that killed the troops".

This is the part I love about most Liberals, they REFUSE to admit that Saddam might have had WMD's, even in limited amounts. What about the tens of thousands of Kurds he gassed? How did he do that? Bottom line is - he had them, and NOBODY can account for how many or few are floating in Iraq.

Have we found massive stockpiles? Not yet. Could there be none, possibly - Saddam appears to be seriously deranged, as were his sons.