sotonin: I'm not going to dignify that with a response. You can file a complaint to a developer if you think I'm out of line.

The problem with Fox News is that much like Michael Moore, they report out-of-context quotes and half-truths that change the meaning of what was said. So, even though he did really say those things, he also elaborated on them and in that context, his quotes do make sense.

Ever seen Outfoxed, by the way?

Edit: Basically, if you take Fox News as a credible source of information, you have to take Michael Moore as a credible source of information because they use the same technique and backing for their reportings.

Not one person on this earth can POSSIBLY look me in the eye and say...
...was not a direct, HUGE, flip-flop.

I'm too lazy to look into the specifics of that quote, but ASSUMING IT IS CORRECT, how does a single incident warrant something like

?

I'm confused. That's not a flipflop.

He's saying that while he reserves the right to preemptively attack a nation in defense of the US, he's probably not going to do it without international backing. :eng:

Edit: Yeah, I get the vibe that a lot of this flipflop rumoring comes from people who buy into Rupert Murdoch's propaganda and then start actively interpreting things as flipflopping.

I agree with him, if you dont like what someone else is saying dont comment on it. You stated your opinion and he stated his, dont attack him personally by saying his doesnt know what he is talking about. That goes for everyone, especially the mods and admins. We should be leading by example. For all you know he could be a political science professor.

Fair enough.

there was a poll done for military members for the army times 11 october 2004 edition,

First question "if the presidential election were held today for whome would you vote" 72% sayd Bush 17% sayd Kerry

"do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq" 60% sayd yes, 23% sayd no

"Dose George Bush's actions wile in the national Guard make you more or less likely to vote for him?" 73% not much effect 12% less likely

"dose Kerry's combat esperiene in Vietnam make you more likely to vote for him?" 58% not much effect 12% more likely 21% less likely

"Do Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from serving in Vietnam make you less likely to vote for him?"65% less likely 24% not much effect


There was a few more polls done but these give the picture, there is also a lot of quotes from soldiers who have been / are deployed / family members of soldiers killed. Some supporting Bush some supporting Kerry, but the common theme is, the reasons for the war that were given may have been wrong, but the fact we needed to go there cant be denied by anyone who has been there.

There is also a huge number of Soldiers mad that so many people are using the war in a negitive manner, the common theme there is, how can you say the war is badly led when the majarity of soldiers and civilians over there say its being run well?

at the same time there is a huge tone that says Bush should have made sure he had the correct information and shouldnt have sent the soldiers in there till he was sure.


The basics are - Most non-military are using military reasons to bash bush, wile the Military who are living it every day use those same reasons to vot FOR him, More Military use Kerry's anti-war setiment to prove he wouldnt be a good Military leader, and more Non-military use that as a reason to vote FOR him.


Pure and simple, do your own reading, search the net, search official voting records, you will see that Kerry is anti military, he voted against military spending then uses the lack of military funds in his campain against Bush.

If your going to use military issues to judge the election dosent the opinion of the military, those who live with this dicision more then any civilian ever will, matter?

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct9.html

For instance:
Or, just in the next paragraph:
Sounds like these marines believe in both the war and the way it's being handled, eh?

I'd like to hear your sources for your claims, too. :v:

...
Right. So hes saying that if the world doesnt see us going to attack for legit reasons, he wont attack.

You know why France didnt join us in the war? Look up France and Russia's involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal, where they made BILLIONS of dollars off of Iraq. If Kerry is going to have to pass a 'global test' to defend the US, looks like we're going to be taken over and all converted to Islam, eh?

Cisyouc, I read it the first time. It's still not a flipflop. He's not saying he wouldn't do it at all anywhere. Moreover, Saddam was never a threat to the US, as anyone is aware of by now, so maybe doing something like letting the inspectors do their job instead of going to a war that's headed in Vietnam's direction would be a good idea. The evidence of WMD was dubious at best, discardable at worst.

John Kerry will make for a shitty president, but he's just not on Bush's level.

Where does he say it 'should' pass the test? No, it says and implies it 'has to'.

Lmao-- the UN inspectors. Right. It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists. News flash-- Summits don't kill terrorists. Saddam was intentionally ignoring the UN resolutions. Saddam is not stupid, I believe as others he moved his weapons program WHICH DID EXIST mind you, to Iran.

We know they had a developed weapons program, whether they actually made the weapons we're not sure.

I personally tend to believe the 'Warrior on the biggest horse' (Bin Laden's words) theory. By retaliating in Iraq, in a country that harbored a terrorists and a developed weapons program, we sent a shockwave to the terrorists. I believe if we went into Iran we'd have Saddam delivered to us within 48 hours. The Administration doesnt want to explain it like this for PR reasons. This however is just a theory of mine and is based on no direct facts.

If Kerry is elected President, I recommend Canada :|.

by the way
 

by the way, i wouldnt trust the UN as far as i could throw them...

i mean look at the food for oil program, never know they could of been paid off before

this would make sense... considering he had 3 months in between to move them next door to iran or wherever he wanted..

very first thing i put.

Now look at the statistics i wrote again

No saing that, if you take the 23% and just put there quote in what would it look like?

The same newspaper but the October 4th edition had a statment from the Commanding General in Iraq stating his frustration with the american media in Iraq. "During a bad situation wether its deaths or setbacks the american media is first there and first to ask questions, however when there is something good like a hospital opening or when americans save a life the american media is nowhere to be seen wile other countries are there in force."


My wife was doing some PR work, couldnt discuss much with me but this was a major consern of hers, I have many pictures of events that the american media never even mentioned, hospital openings, school openings, trash and sewer for the first time ever.

Maby its the fact i live on a military instilation and see more good stuff on the local news, and newspapers, as well as I get more information then the average person from the FRG, but what the news reports is so far from the truth.

I have had many conversations with family and friends from back home in PA, the news they see reported is so diferent from whats reported here, I would realy like just ONE realy source of information that isnt biased in one way or another, sourting through the BS is a full time job.





And Mel i did state right in my post that there was soldiers who were dissatisfied, there ALWAYS are. You will always be able to find soldiers with diferent opinions, however did that artical even have one quote from one of the many soldiers that agree with us being there or was it all one sided?

As to the Saddam issue, the first troops that went into Iraq had bodies of children and the elderly piled up to block there progress, Saddam was committing acts that made Hitler look like a kitten, but we were justified in taking hitler out but not Saddam? Hitler was attacking our allies so was Saddam, Saddam was allowing terrorests to train in his country, could go on and on about some of the stuff but if anyone wants to know they can look it up and read it.


Once again Saddam wasnt a direct threat to the US, but someone needed to take him out to protect the people who couldnt protect themseles...Why the US? well why not nobody else was gonna do it.