Why are you republican/democrat?

[phreakerhaxxor]

Title. Post the main reason(s) your republican or democrat. it can be from our economy to the war on terrorism.

I'll start.


I'm mostly for republican because Bush isn't making more taxes, Kerry is.
Bush is fighting for the war on terrorism, he wants Osama found and punished.
He took Saddam out of power in Iraq, he was asking for it. One reason we invaded was his attack on Kuwait, and chemical weapons which do exist but haven't been found. Wars happen, words dont solve everything. Wars have casualties, and wars have consequences. Face it...we did a good thing hunting down Bin Laden and capturing Saddam.

What would clinton have done? Wrote a letter saying to Saddam saying how mad he was and beg Saddam to let the inspectors in? Bush did what we should've done, take no bullshit, were coming, asshole.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by phreakerhaxxor

What would clinton have done? Wrote a letter saying to Saddam saying how mad he was and beg Saddam to let the inspectors in? Bush did what we should've done, take no bullshit, were coming, asshole.

Yes, but the moron went in Irak alone, ****ing alone ! . And dont give me this "coallition of the willing" crap, because, who do you see dying in Irak ? americans. Who's country had to start digging into emergency fund to pay for a war that nobody know when it will end ? The United States.
This is the main problem I have with the monkey man, he managed to alienate most of his allies. If you can't ****ing convince anybody that your war is a good thing, maybe its not a good idea to go, dont you think ?
Do you have any idea how stupid, lunatic and impossible the task of implementing a successful democracy in an hostil country is ? Addoption by non-Western societies of Western democratic institutions give access and encourage the power to nativist and anti-Western movements. In the 1960 and 1970, Westernized and pro-Western government in developing country where treatened by coups and revolution, but in the 1980, 90 and in 2000, pro-Western government are even more in danger of being ousted by elections.

Democratisation conflict with Westernisation, and politicians in non-Western societies dont win election by showing how pro-Wetsern they are, but electoral competition insteed stimulate them to fashion what they believe will appeal to the mass and those are ethnic, nationalist and religious caracter.

You'll never have a durable democracy in Irak, your stuck there defending something that will never live on its own, your stuck there for a very long time, and your stuck there alone.

And dont compar this situation with the succesful implementation of democracies in Germany and Japan in WWII, those where different times. For once, those countries where irremediably crushed and occupied by western forces. Secondly, Western values and culture had a tremendous apeal that they dont have today, on the contrary.

Good luck, republican cretin.

[l33t 0n3]

Don't talk bullshit, BE. There is a coalition, where's your head? Up your ass? Also, its not "Irak" its Iraq. The only real country that didn't join was Germany, and Bush asked them quite a few times to join the coalition. He did the same for France, but France doesn't count, theyre all too busy getting their balls licked by kerry.

As for WMD's, they found a shitload of them in Seria and Jordan, giftwrapped from Suddam. We sold him the shit, how could he NOT have it?

To the topic:

I am usually independant, but I'm becoming repiblican. I care more for the good of the future, which is why it appeals to me. Democrats are those who like the temporary pleasure of peace, while the republicans seek an endless peace, once all those who threaten it are eliminated at all costs. Simple. I'm pro nuking japan in WWII. It ended up saving over a million estimate marine lives. I don't care about like 500,000 japs, they were the enemy, not the ally. Now that we aren't at war, seeing 500,000 japs die would make me march on to war with a rifle, if I was 18 =P

Next election, I can vote. I converted 12 voters with real-life discussions, I feel I did my part this time. Oh, and I signed up that dry **** moron at kidsforkerry.org up to almost every spam mailing list on the net.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by l33t 0n3

He did the same for France, but France doesn't count, theyre all too busy getting their balls licked by kerry.

You can't start being condescending to me and then finish your sentence with crap like this. France is the diplomatic powerhouse of the EU, and as such dont underestimat them. And if you can't convince the whole EU to join you, maybe its because your cause really sucked. Dont you think they would have enjoyed to have the right to give oil contract to its compagnies as much as britain and the usa ? Nevertheless, I dont think France, the EU, or anybody else, regret its decision of not joining the "coallittion of the willing" (as if the fact that nobody is forced to join needed to be highlighted :susp )

And Irak is spelled with a "K" at the end in my native language. No need to attack somebody's grammar, its a very lowly form of flame and discreditation.
But yhea, I guess you weren't flaming me... :P

[l33t 0n3]

The French would be a strong world power if only they held their guns backwards.

[B)ushid(o]

Originally Posted by l33t 0n3

I am usually independant, but I'm becoming repiblican. I care more for the good of the future, which is why it appeals to me. Democrats are those who like the temporary pleasure of peace, while the republicans seek an endless peace, once all those who threaten it are eliminated at all costs. Simple. I'm pro nuking japan in WWII. It ended up saving over a million estimate marine lives. I don't care about like 500,000 japs, they were the enemy, not the ally. Now that we aren't at war, seeing 500,000 japs die would make me march on to war with a rifle, if I was 18 =P

Suddenly, the environment isn't part of the future and enemies aren't part of human life. I'm sure nuking our enemies and releasing nuclear fallout upon the region will make for a good future. As weird as it sounds to me, intervention in the Middle East will somehow stifle terrorist activity and help in the goal of achieving world peace? I'm sure drilling oil in Arctic Wildlife Refuge will make the world a better place. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was getting to be a prick, anyway. Who needs global stability for peace?

[Kao]

I'm proud to say I voted Independant, because I agree with them more than I do with Kerry and Bush.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by l33t 0n3

Simple. I'm pro nuking japan in WWII. It ended up saving over a million estimate marine lives. I don't care about like 500,000 japs, they were the enemy, not the ally. Now that we aren't at war, seeing 500,000 japs die would make me march on to war with a rifle, if I was 18 =P

.

You see, at the time you nuked it, Japan was ressourceless, without an efficiant fleet, and without a mean of opposing your airforces and long range bombers. Plus, your leader knew that Japan officials and general were talking about surrendering.
But you nuked anyway.
Why ? to say to the world, and the URSS, that you had the mean, and will, to use nuclear bombs. Not to save more american live by forcing Japan to surrender. It was bound to happen anyway.
You oblitared hundred thousand of civilians just to send a message. This is far less honorable, logical and understanable.

This just show that you people where fooled 50 years ago, and still are.

[Tempest Storm]

If you can't ****ing convince anybody that your war is a good thing, maybe its not a good idea to go, dont you think ?

Like we had a shot at convincing the UN to go in with us. Saddam had 2 members of the security council with veto power in his pocket with the "Oil for Food" program.

And guess what, Russia and France were the 2 countries that made the most from that scandal.

[B~E]

You didn't only failed to convince the U.N security council, you failed to convince the world., and your very population.

And you think that France and Russia made the most out of the scandal ? I'm not certain what the hell this is supposed to mean, but if your talking about the oil for food program that russia and france and going on with Irak, here's my argument :

If Russia and France would have been so obsessed with oil, they would have joined the war insteed of opposing it, for the war was obiviously inevitable since the USA wanted it, and if you joined the war, you where at least in a position to secure some oil for your compagny, as opposed to not joining the war and getting nothing.

So its illogical to claim that a country could be genuinely motivated by oil gain and oppose the war at the same time.

[Kao]

Just a side-note: Does France even have a Military?

[phreakerhaxxor]

I think so,

"i know japan are being good little girls and making our nintendos though"
-My electronics teacher

Black enthusiasm, havent you been around for the past 12 years, Iraq supported Saddam, they supported terrorism, they shot at our ****ing planes, NOW WERE SHOOTING AT THEM.
Start a revolution, move out, or take a bullet.

[WildfireFX]

im liberal. conservatives want to be back in the 1950's. This isn't the 50's.

Just a side-note: Does France even have a Military?

Yes. But the sad fact is that my country (Canada).. our army could overthrow theirs with ease. Kinda scary haha.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by WildfireFX

im liberal. conservatives want to be back in the 1950's. This isn't the 50's.


Yes. But the sad fact is that my country (Canada).. our army could overthrow theirs with ease. Kinda scary haha.

France as twice the population of Canada, twice the military capability in number, its much more advenced technologicaly, and they spend 5 time more than Canada on their military, too.

Hell, while Canada has some of the best trained infantry in the world, with some on the most technologicaly advenced frigates (we have 12 of them), Canada doesn't even have the transport to bring its troop where they are needed, they have to rely, to a certain extend, on american transportation.
Do I need to bring the subject of the 4 submarines Canada purchased from Britain ? With the one that caught on fire while it was comming from Britain to Canada ? The humilation.

[c9h13no3]

I'm a libertarian. Usually puts me favoring republicans. Mainly because of their platform.

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by l33t 0n3

The only real country that didn't join was Germany, and Bush asked them quite a few times to join the coalition. He did the same for France, but France doesn't count, theyre all too busy getting their balls licked by kerry.

Oh yeah so Russia (a member of G8, one of the top nuclear powers, the asian powerhouse, one of the biggest energy providers in the world) in your point of view is not a real country? Get an education you moron. You had countries in that coalition like Ukraine and New Zealand (doesn't even have an army) then only real country in your so called coalition was GB.

Anyways, back on topic:

I am neither because both of them are build on bullshit and are solely made for brainwashing and getting top politicians special interest.

[Samsara]

What about us independants?

[l33t 0n3]

Originally Posted by B)ushid(o

Suddenly, the environment isn't part of the future and enemies aren't part of human life. I'm sure nuking our enemies and releasing nuclear fallout upon the region will make for a good future. As weird as it sounds to me, intervention in the Middle East will somehow stifle terrorist activity and help in the goal of achieving world peace? I'm sure drilling oil in Arctic Wildlife Refuge will make the world a better place. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was getting to be a prick, anyway. Who needs global stability for peace?

How the hell do your examples mean the same thing as what I said? The middle east isn't an arctic wildlife refuge, it's the closest thing to france, the rectum of the earth.

In this case, you have to go through an era of uncertainty and war, but it will pay off when we advance another step towards world peace. Take a moment and think about it for once before you jump to conclusions and believe your skewed vision on reality is what will happen. You are no prophet.

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

Oh yeah so Russia (a member of G8, one of the top nuclear powers, the asian powerhouse, one of the biggest energy providers in the world) in your point of view is not a real country? Get an education you moron. You had countries in that coalition like Ukraine and New Zealand (doesn't even have an army) then only real country in your so called coalition was GB.

Anyways, back on topic:

I am neither because both of them are build on bullshit and are solely made for brainwashing and getting top politicians special interest.

I don't have time to list every country. I left Russia out because the democrats didn't make a big deal about Russia not joining the war on terror. Sorry :wasted

You see, at the time you nuked it, Japan was ressourceless, without an efficiant fleet, and without a mean of opposing your airforces and long range bombers. Plus, your leader knew that Japan officials and general were talking about surrendering.
But you nuked anyway.
Why ? to say to the world, and the URSS, that you had the mean, and will, to use nuclear bombs. Not to save more american live by forcing Japan to surrender. It was bound to happen anyway.
You oblitared hundred thousand of civilians just to send a message. This is far less honorable, logical and understanable.

This just show that you people where fooled 50 years ago, and still are.

I've looked a lot into this issue two years or so ago. Some facts you missed:

-We told them before we nuked them, and gave them a chance to surrender. They refused, because they're idiots, so we nuked them. I don't think our nation was in the mood for bullshit whining games. Reminds me of my sister when I take the last piece of pizza always. I offer it, and she refuses, but after I eat it she gets pised at me.

-The targets were actually military bases, and a large portion of the death were japanese millitary, but at the time nobody knew how powerful nuclear radiation was. Almost all the civillian deaths were from the radiation, which was a coverup by one of the makers of the nuke. I can't remember names, I dont pull this out of my ass, but I remember einstein wanted to continue testing. The direct targets hit were not bases, since targeting at the time was rather primitive, so they landed around 30-70 miles off, which wasn't a bad shot at that altitude.

-If we had not forced japan to surrender with the nukes (they were not going to surrender, anyways) an estimated 1 million marines and 2-4 japaneese would have died as the war continued.

I am 100% for the nuke on Heroshima, but I feel the one on Nagasaki was unneded. We should have waited for them to negotiate before we dropped the second. Then again, the radiation's unknown effects made us seem brutal in the deathcounts.

Sorry to be so anal on this, but the facts are fresh, since I helped a friend on a report on this not too long ago. I, loving history, know a lot about WWII and WWI. I do, however, know more about the western front, not the pacific. Because of this, I said no exact statistics.

[B)ushid(o]

Originally Posted by l33t 0n3

How the hell do your examples mean the same thing as what I said? The middle east isn't an arctic wildlife refuge, it's the closest thing to france, the rectum of the earth.

In this case, you have to go through an era of uncertainty and war, but it will pay off when we advance another step towards world peace. Take a moment and think about it for once before you jump to conclusions and believe your skewed vision on reality is what will happen. You are no prophet.

Woops, probably should have put that in a seperate paragraph. What I meant was that Bush wants drilling to go on in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, I don't think the oil there will help us much at all, preserving the fragile ecosystem there would be a whole lot better than drilling.

Your glorious vision of peace through terror isn't a skewed vision?

I took a minute and thought about it. It still makes no sense. If we wanted true peace we wouldn't have broken so many treaties, become hypocrites, and alienate bunch of allies.

[Guru]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

You didn't only failed to convince the U.N security council, you failed to convince the world., and your very population.

And you think that France and Russia made the most out of the scandal ? I'm not certain what the hell this is supposed to mean, but if your talking about the oil for food program that russia and france and going on with Irak, here's my argument :

If Russia and France would have been so obsessed with oil, they would have joined the war insteed of opposing it, for the war was obiviously inevitable since the USA wanted it, and if you joined the war, you where at least in a position to secure some oil for your compagny, as opposed to not joining the war and getting nothing.

So its illogical to claim that a country could be genuinely motivated by oil gain and oppose the war at the same time.

There's a lot of geopolitical reason that are over your head. France and Russia benifeted from Saddam staying in power.

Keep in mind even the democrats (Kerry) agreed to going to war with bush

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

You see, at the time you nuked it, Japan was ressourceless, without an efficiant fleet, and without a mean of opposing your airforces and long range bombers. Plus, your leader knew that Japan officials and general were talking about surrendering.
But you nuked anyway.
Why ? to say to the world, and the URSS, that you had the mean, and will, to use nuclear bombs. Not to save more american live by forcing Japan to surrender. It was bound to happen anyway.
You oblitared hundred thousand of civilians just to send a message. This is far less honorable, logical and understanable.

This just show that you people where fooled 50 years ago, and still are.

Japan was not going to surrender. Even after the bomb, there was a coup to overthrow the emperor which would have been succesful has not the power gone off from an American air raid. After the surrender, hundreds of Japanese officers cominted suicide. Japan was not going to surrender without the Atomic Bomb.

Originally Posted by B)ushid(o

Woops, probably should have put that in a seperate paragraph. What I meant was that Bush wants drilling to go on in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, I don't think the oil there will help us much at all, preserving the fragile ecosystem there would be a whole lot better than drilling.

Tree hugging never got us anywhere

I'm conservative