Kerry/Bush...could you guys clear something up for me?

[Serenity]

ok, ok , ok , ok , ok (in the voice of joe pesci)

what i'd like to know is this..... what the "F" does is matter who gets in between bush and kerry?....well, as far as world agenda goes and the war on terrorism ,etc.

i'm not talking about public health care--although, that's a dire issue in my eyes. (although people will eat fast-foods etc...but that's besides the point)

anyways... here's the Deal...if any of you are read up on your secret societies (which are more the conspiracies..they're fact) you already are aware that both Bush and Kerry are members of the elitist and no doubt most notorious secret society- "the skull and bones".

SO, in my mind, the bigger picture here is what's the diff? if the ultimate "secret" :rolleyes: agenda is for unilateral world domination and both of the running mates are of the same societial values....well, where's the benefit?

I mean...i know bush is hailed to be a crazy bastid by most anyone....anywhere, but he's a driving force behind what makes america/western living what it is...and that's capitalism.

Kerry yaps on about socialism...which to many people might seem ideal.

Personally , i think it's an ignorance of many people as to what the financial ideoligies are of their country that keeps them where they are. What i mean by this is, many people understand that they live in north america and they can drive nice cars and have a nice home......they see that as common practice, but they also seem to be stuck in this way of thinking that "the govt. should look after my health care,etc"...and "well ****, i don't want to pay high taxes".

well, if you're goin to ask the govt to take care of everything you don't want to deal with because you like to avoid handling responsibilities...you're goin to need the socialist side of govt.....which is always costly in the end.

I am no doubt missing several important key argumentative factors here, but this is how i've come to see things so far....and please don't hesitate to inform me of relevant rebuttals.

so to cap this off... Bush/Kerry if you're not into makin money before the **** hits the fan (2nd coming of christ so to speak) , what's the diff? :-2

[Tombstone]

I have my personal answer to this. I could right a book on why Kerry should not be the Commander in Chief OR the President of the Executive Branch for our Country.

At the great risk of understating my argument due to the lack of being able to write 100 pages, please let me submit:

1. Current activities and policies while running for the President. His actions of openly criticizing the war is putting our allies and our soldiers in harms way. Google this - and find many references by Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and (historically) the communist Vietnamese that Kerry's open and harsh criticisms have emboldened them and given them incentive to continue their activities against the U.S. and its allies. This is not a General I want on my side. It is the antithesis of being Commander in Chief.

2. ACTION speaks louder than words. Kerry has had well more than a decade of voting opportunities. As a U.S. Senator, his votes are one of the most important functions of his job - and it is the GUAGE and POSITION template that he lives and dies by. I am a firm believer in Peace Through Strength. (Thank you Jimmy Carter for almost destroying this Country through your Peace Through Hugs policies.) If you are too young to remember the Carter years, go to your library and grab some Time magazines, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Reports and take a gander. You will be surprised about how bad it was.

Let's look at Kerry's military voting record: (I won't even get into his socialist leaning voting record)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-1 Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-2 Stealth Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-14

(H.R. 5803, CQ, Vote #319, 10/26/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-15

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-16

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Patriot Missiles

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Trident Missile System

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against M-1 Abrams Tank

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle

(S. 3189, QC, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2

Stealth Bomber

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)

(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)

(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)

(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)

(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)

(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)



Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate

Missile Defense

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91)

(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91)

(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92)

(S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93)

(S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94)

(S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95)

(S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95)

(S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96)

(S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98)

(S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98)

(S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96)

(S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

In 1984, when Kerry was running for U.S. Senate, Kerry clearly stated his

position on defense programs. He called for the elimination or reduction in

the following programs: (Here are the actual documents)

* Cancel MX Missile

* Cancel B-1 Bomber

* Cancel Anti-satellite system

* Cancel Strategic Defense Initiative

* Reduce by 50% Tomahawk Cruise Missile

* Cancel AH-64 "Apache" Helicopters

* Cancel Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD)

* Cancel Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

* Cancel AV-8B "Harrier"

* Cancel F-15 Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel F-14A Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel F-14D Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile

* Cancel Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile

Kerry has long held views against the U.S. Military. When Kerry unsuccessful

ran for Congress in 1972, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune wrote:

"On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a

different kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against

military appropriations."

Two years earlier when when Kerry had just returned from Vietnam and was

running for congress, Kerry was interviewed by the Harvard Crimson on

February 13, 1970. Kerry had the following to say:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see

our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United

Nations."

Personally, I need not go on.

[Tombstone]

I consider your argument to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am very familiar with HAARP. I know much more about it than the casual googler. To equate SDI being a waste of money because of one program that you disagree with does not make sense.

Regarding the Patriot missile, since since when did a new missile system operate efficiently and perfectly while it was still under development? You also must know that the modifications and improvements made on the Patriot were incorporated into later missile systems.

Okay, that's two products out of the list. Let's look at this list again:

B-1 Bomber

B-2 Stealth Bomber

F-14

F-15

F-16

Aegis Air Defense Cruiser

Trident Missile System

M-1 Abrams Tank

Tomahawk Cruise Missile

You can justify this by saying all the items above are evil? Better yet, you are classifying me as a Neocon? Since when have you met me? May I classify you as a limp-wristed liberal?

I believe in peace through strength. To believe otherwise is foolish. To believe that R&D results in perfect products with zero waste is naive.

[Paula]

All too intense, i wouldn't want to be President for any country, tough job.

[anastrophe]

jjtss wrote: We don't know what G. Brish's voting record would have been because he never served in the US legislature.
what is meant by "G. Brish"? what does that mean? what is it implying? i don't get it.

[gmc]

Two things.

1)things like sdi etc will not help you in fighting terrorism, good use of imntelligence and co-operation with other countries will.

2) arguably getting involved in vietnam was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. You never declared war on vietnam amd they never attacked you so maybe a close look at what led to being in vietnam in the first place might be in order. Have a read of colin powells autobiography it makes interesting reading. Opposition to war does not equal unpatriotic not does it mean you don't support the troops, that's a cheap quip designed to stop people thinking about what is being said.

Warfare is not a video game hesitating about going to war is tha act of a rational man. A war against terrorists is not like going to war against a natioin state with a clear enemy and objective it's an intelligence war.

George bush getting re-elected is probably the best thing that could happen to al queda. Iraq is a quagmire that is going to bankrupt you if you are not careful and was completely irrelevant to what happened on 911.

You now seem paranoid about terrorists sneaking across your borders, they don't have to sneak they can just walk in the front door.

"G. Brish"?


I can relate to that the i and the u are next to each other on the keyboard, I can spell and I can type it's doing both together that are diccifult.

[greydeadhead]

unfortunatelyl this is an election cycle that has fielded two completely unqualified candidates... Little George can't go to the bathroom without asking Daddy George.. and Gomer is so hypocritcally wishywashy that he can't make up his mind about what socks to wear for the day. Doubtlessly the Iraq mess is a major screw up.. and even attempting to link that to the war against terrorism was a blatant attempt to justify it is an idiotic move by the current administration. But.. on the other side of the coin.. to delcare that you are gonna halt the exportation of jobs out of country when your wife's company has moved all of its production plants off shore... plueeezzzee.... Just now both candidates are beginning to address the real issues that need to be dealt with.. halting the escalating health care costs, the disappearance of the middle class... etc etc etc.. okay enuff of a rant.. just remember what Roger Daltry and the boys said.. "meet the new boss.. Same as the old Boss"

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote: Two things.



1)things like sdi etc will not help you in fighting terrorism, good use of imntelligence and co-operation with other countries will.if i recall correctly the sdi is the 'missile shield'. north korea has nuclear weapons, india has nuclear weapons, iran may soon have nuclear weapons, and of course, the soviet union still has thousands of nuclear weapons still targetted at hundreds of major cities across the US.



no, sdi won't fight terrorism. it will prevent us from being blown to smithereens either by a rogue nation like north korea, or by a completely broken down system in the soviet uniion, where a missile could be launched accidentally, or insurgents could take over a missile site and send on its way themselves.





2) arguably getting involved in vietnam was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. You never declared war on vietnam amd they never attacked you so maybe a close look at what led to being in vietnam in the first place might be in order.'declaring war' is silly argument. we never declared war in korea, either. it's easy to declare in hindsight that this, that, or the other was a bad policy or a mistake, in the light of today's world. but the world was very, very different back then. people forget things like the baltic states, and eastern european states, that were swallowed up by the soviet union. the 'domino effect' was a very scary prospect back then, and the soviets were doing it. let's not forget that the french were the first ones to help the south vietnamese - back when it was French Indochina. the french ran like sewer rats when the going got tough (no surprise there, the beaujolais crop had come in!). they south vietnamese asked us to help them. we did. it turned into a quagmire.





Have a read of colin powells autobiography it makes interesting reading. Opposition to war does not equal unpatriotic not does it mean you don't support the troops, that's a cheap quip designed to stop people thinking about what is being said. not sure who here said opposition to war is unpatriotic. of course it's not. opposition to a strong military and a strong defense *is* ultimately unpatriotic - advocating a nation that can't defend itself is tantamount to saying you don't care what happens to your country.





Warfare is not a video game hesitating about going to war is tha act of a rational man. A war against terrorists is not like going to war against a natioin state with a clear enemy and objective it's an intelligence war.a war against terrorism can include war against a nation that harbors terrorists, funds terrorists, or encourages their activities.





George bush getting re-elected is probably the best thing that could happen to al queda.that's ridiculous.





Iraq is a quagmire that is going to bankrupt you if you are not careful and was completely irrelevant to what happened on 911.iraq is a quagmire? i'm sick of hearing this. it's been a year and a half since the invasion. tell me, if it's a quagmire, and john kerry states that he expects to have our troops out of iraq in FOUR YEARS, will you be blaming him for being in a quagmire, or will you keep pointing your finger back at evil bush?





You now seem paranoid about terrorists sneaking across your borders, they don't have to sneak they can just walk in the front door. um, cough bullshite cough. tell me what 'front door' you're talking about. tell me how they're walking right in. please explain. you're saying that if a terrorist flies into the US carrying a stinger missile, we'll just give him a customs stamp and let him go about his business? please.





I can relate to that the i and the u are next to each other on the keyboard, I can spell and I can type it's doing both together that are diccifult.this was not a misspelling. each and every instance of what should have been 'G. Bush' was "G. Brish" with no other notable misspellings. this person was using the term as a pseudonym for the real name, and i was curious what exactly it was supposed to mean.

[gmc]

anastrophe

but the world was very, very different back then. people forget things like the baltic states, and eastern european states, that were swallowed up by the soviet union. the 'domino effect' was a very scary prospect back then, and the soviets were doing it. let's not forget that the french were the first ones to help the south vietnamese - back when it was French Indochina. the french ran like sewer rats when the going got tough (no surprise there, the beaujolais crop had come in!). they south vietnamese asked us to help them. we did. it turned into a quagmire.


Yes indeed the world was a very different place, the french tried vainly to hold on to one of their colonies, the the opposition was us trained (to fight the japanese) Ho chi minh thought america would be sympathetic to their fight for freedom and he was a great admirer of the americans but the communist philosophy was a big no no, whether it was different from russian communism or not didn't matter it was communist. Instead of helping they turned him in to an enemy. The us went in to back up a government that had been rejected by its own people simply because not doing so would have seen a left wing government come to power. In retrospect it would probably have been better to have kept out altogether, the tonkin gulf incident we now know was fabricated. The fear of russian communism was very real and very justified but it became a paranoia about anything smacking of socialism that lingers on it seems even today. The Mccarthy era must have been hell for enyone to live through. While you're at it don't forget the thousands of ukrainians we sent back to russia by force after ww2. Hindsight is wonderful.

um, cough bullshite cough. tell me what 'front door' you're talking about. tell me how they're walking right in. please explain. you're saying that if a terrorist flies into the US carrying a stinger missile, we'll just give him a customs stamp and let him go about his business? please




The 911 terrorists didn't exactly sneak across the border did they? The best terrorists are completely innocuous and the only way you will have any chance of catching them is good intelligence. Even irish terroristasd had the sense to midify accents. You don't need to bring in weapons there are plenty of things to use if you are so disposed, next time you are behind say a petrol tanker just imagine the explosion that would make. There is plenty of radiation souirces around if you want to make a so called "dirty bomb" just look round the average hospital, if you really want to it would be easy to pinch. Get one of these machine guns -assault weapons whatevr, that seem to be readily available in the states, whether thye are or not i don't really know how easy would it be to bring down a passenger jet at an airport? drive by shooting, whatever. How do you think people would react to reports the water supply was contaminated, even if untrue the sheer terror would be considerable.

Above all it's terror, they just need to get people terrorised out of all proportion so it affects the way they live their lives and they have what they want. terrorised people frightened to go about their daily business and governments overreacting and creating chaos.

a war against terrorism can include war against a nation that harbors terrorists, funds terrorists, or encourages their activities.


True but there are smart ways to do it, going after the money is the best way if you can. Going in mob handed to a country that had no connection on a false pretext was not smart, the next time no one will believe you even if it is true. going it alone was not smart either, just because allies won't follow blindly doesn't mean they couldn;'t be persuaded. instead you were conned by your president and we were conned by TB

iraq is a quagmire? i'm sick of hearing this. it's been a year and a half since the invasion. tell me, if it's a quagmire, and john kerry states that he expects to have our troops out of iraq in FOUR YEARS, will you be blaming him for being in a quagmire, or will you keep pointing your finger back at evil bush?


Yes, although I don't think Bush is evil just wrong. His failth is wotrrying, anyone who thinks god is on hos side worries me temendously muslin or christian or even satanists. Mind you I would wonder why you are still there after four years, hopefully we won't be there either, even if we do stop for tea at four US tactics get a lot of criticism in the UK press as being too heavy handed, flattening whole areas killing innocent civilians instead of just shooting back when you have a clear idea of what you are aiming at our guys are a bit more careful or maybe just better trained and practiced for this kind of warfare.

American politics are curious, for a demopcracy there seems to be little ordinary people can do if they want to stand for political office unless they have lots of money to begin with.

[anastrophe]

I wrote:

Quote:

um, cough bullshite cough. tell me what 'front door' you're talking about. tell me how they're walking right in. please explain. you're saying that if a terrorist flies into the US carrying a stinger missile, we'll just give him a customs stamp and let him go about his business? please







gmc wrote: The 911 terrorists didn't exactly sneak across the border did they? this is disinguous at best. we're talking about post september 11th, not september 10th. the world for the US changed slightly on that day.





The best terrorists are completely innocuous and the only way you will have any chance of catching them is good intelligence. Even irish terroristasd had the sense to midify accents. You don't need to bring in weapons there are plenty of things to use if you are so disposed, next time you are behind say a petrol tanker just imagine the explosion that would make. There is plenty of radiation souirces around if you want to make a so called "dirty bomb" just look round the average hospital, if you really want to it would be easy to pinch. and, so far, there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil since sept 11 2001. so it seems domestically we are doing the right thing so far. tomorrow, there may be an incident the equivalent of 9/11 or worse. but say what you will, for three years terrorists have not succeeded in attacking us on our soil.



Get one of these machine guns -assault weapons whatevr, that seem to be readily available in the states,god i wish this nonsense would just go away!!! machine guns have not been 'readily available' in the US since the 1920's. the "assault weapons" (please note the quotes) that are constantly demonized in the press are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that LOOK LIKE machine guns. The guns that were banned here for a decade LOOKED LIKE machine guns, but were no different from a common deer rifle. The ban in fact was based purely on cosmetics - things attached to the gun that made it LOOK like an evil machine gun, but that did not alter the functionality of the weapon. those same weapons are no longer illegal. since their use in crime represented a tiny fraction of a fraction of all crime here, i expect the same to hold true now that the ban is gone. they were never a problem here in the US. they were only a problem for people who are firearm-phobic, who think that a rifle with a brown, wood stock and scope is somehow 'okay', but the same mechanism with a black stock and pistol grip is somehow 'more dangerous'.







whether thye are or not i don't really know how easy would it be to bring down a passenger jet at an airport? drive by shooting, whatever. How do you think people would react to reports the water supply was contaminated, even if untrue the sheer terror would be considerable.it goes without saying that we can never be completely safe. people throughout history have committed horrible crimes against humanity without it being a terrorist action. years ago someone poisoned bottles of pain-killers, and killed several completely innocent people randomly. it caused a general terror. the culprit turned out to a woman who killed her husband with the poisoned pain-killers, then planted the other bottles to try to hide her crime.





True but there are smart ways to do it, going after the money is the best way if you can. it is one of the ways to fight terrorism. it is arguable whether it is the best way. the 9/11 terrorists committed a few thousand dollars for flight lessons and a few tens of dollars for box cutters.





Going in mob handed to a country that had no connection on a false pretext was not smart, the next time no one will believe you even if it is true. this is a matter of perception. some say it was false pretext. others say it was bad intelligence. i lean to the middle - there was a desire to fight iraq, but it was based on intelligence that they in good faith believed was true.



i mean, think about it. if they knew at the time that the evidence was totally bogus, do you think they would not have thought of the ramifications of going to war on that basis? it makes no sense. if the govt was good enough to fake-up all this 'evidence' before the war as pretext to it, then the govt certainly could have faked up 'evidence' once they got to iraq to 'prove' they were right. if anything, the fact that the WMD's were not found lends credence to me that it was bad intelligence.





Yes, although I don't think Bush is evil just wrong. His failth is wotrrying, anyone who thinks god is on hos side worries me temendously muslin or christian or even satanists.i hate this mentality. for the eight years that bill clinton was president, we here in the US were treated to photo shots of the president and family traipsing off to church every few weeks. clinton professed his faith constantly, and said he prayed a lot. he said his faith informed his decisions in office.



but because he was a democrat, it was just 'business as usual'. when a republican/conservative says he believes in god, everyone goes off their rocker about the fundamentalist christian conservative right wing taking over the government!



Mind you I would wonder why you are still there after four years, hopefully we won't be there either, even if we do stop for tea at four US tactics get a lot of criticism in the UK press as being too heavy handed, flattening whole areas killing innocent civilians instead of just shooting back when you have a clear idea of what you are aiming at our guys are a bit more careful or maybe just better trained and practiced for this kind of warfare.ahem. there are times when massive force is recommended or required, and there are times when it is not. tell me again about the falklands war? were the sheep there really worth the 255 british soldiers lost?



(bill sikes will chime in that i'm trying to excuse our actions because GB has done bad things in the past. my response: bugger off.)





American politics are curious, for a demopcracy there seems to be little ordinary people can do if they want to stand for political office unless they have lots of money to begin with.we are not a democracy, we are a republic. yes, i'm going to keep harping on this point.

[gmc]

this is disinguous at best. we're talking about post september 11th, not september 10th. the world for the US changed slightly on that day.


? don't quite get your point I assume you mean disingenuous

disingenuous // adj.

having secret motives; dishonest; insincere.

disingenuously adv.

disingenuousness n.


Still don't get your point

all I meant was guarding your borders will help but any good terrorist will have good documentation you need good intelligence to know who to watch out for. They don't turn up wearing arab dress with a stinger missile under one arm.. There is plenty of stuff they can get hold of to use for explosives etc if they really want to. I don't actually know if machine guns are easy to get hold of, i see plenty of documentaries with americans showing off their weapons what seem to be machine guns amongst them. Terrorist attacks don't need to be high tech to have an effect.

and, so far, there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil since sept 11 2001. so it seems domestically we are doing the right thing so far. tomorrow, there may be an incident the equivalent of 9/11 or worse. but say what you will, for three years terrorists have not succeeded in attacking us on our soil.


You assume they have tried. This is not conventional warfare with one side constantly attacking the other, there are or were very few actual terrorists as in people prepared to do someting, there always is just a few, whether they do anything or not depends on having he funds and back up ti get fake documents etc and someone to plan. the west may be unpopular that doesn't mean everybody in the middle east wants to blow you up, most just want to be left alone to their own ways. Maybe those you arrested in afghanistan were guilty, to bad we will never know unless you try them. timing of attacks is important, if there is an attack just before the election will that help bush or kerry?

this is a matter of perception. some say it was false pretext. others say it was bad intelligence. i lean to the middle - there was a desire to fight iraq, but it was based on intelligence that they in good faith believed was true.




QUOTE]i mean, think about it. if they knew at the time that the evidence was totally bogus, do you think they would not have thought of the ramifications of going to war on that basis? it makes no sense. if the govt was good enough to fake-up all this 'evidence' before the war as pretext to it, then the govt certainly could have faked up 'evidence' once they got to iraq to 'prove' they were right. if anything, the fact that the WMD's were not found lends credence to me that it was bad intelligence.




Bad intelligence combined with a belief that meant contrary evidence was ignored.

In the case of TB he quite clearly altered intelligence reports so they tied in to what he believed rather than looked at it objectively. Words were altered to change the sense of documents, crucial bits were left out. He really believed the weapons were there and quite clearly ignored anything that went against that belief.

You have your own 911 commission to make up your own mind with. I do think they both believe they did the right thing, I am more inclined to be cynical about those around george bush who are quite blatantly practising realpolitik for their own benefit, they just see their interests as being the same as americas.

.



ahem. there are times when massive force is recommended or required, and there are times when it is not. tell me again about the falklands war? were the sheep there really worth the 255 british soldiers lost?




Not just the sheep but the oil reserves still to be exploited not to mention the islanders who did not want to be argentinian. It was blatant aggression that's why we had overwhelming UN support. I notice the US sent no troops, although they did help a lot, didn't want to upset their trade negotiations with south america. Mind you the french still supplied the exocet missiles that the argentinians had ordered not to mention spare parts for the mirage jets. It did help bring about democracy in argentina, it's a classic tactic of a dictator to start a foreign war to distract opponents at home, that's what galtieri was doing.

Worth 255 soldiers? very good question I don't know how to answer it. How about the 1,000 dead amerivcans in iraq not to mention the thousands wounded. Soldiers seldom get the political leaders they deserve.

but because he was a democrat, it was just 'business as usual'. when a republican/conservative says he believes in god, everyone goes off their rocker about the fundamentalist christian conservative right wing taking over the government!


Hypocrites everybody can understand someone sincere about their religon and prepared to change laws and force change on those who don't share their world view are a lot more dangerous. I do have a thing about fundamentalist christians, I associate them with narrow mindedness, intolerance and bigotry. I look at some of the pronouncements these characters make and hope I never live in a country where they get a chance to impose their will, because impose it they would. The UK is a secular society and will hopefully stay that way.

American domestic issues are in some ways the same as ours but at another completely alien. In particular religon dos not play a part. TB's expressions of faith militate against him rather than for him. the us election is of interest just to see what happens next, if pre-emptive warfare becomes the norm livfe will not be much fun, going after iraq and syria with force of arms will lead, I think, to full scale warfare in the middle east and you would just be on your own cos I can't see the UK supporting you in that.