U.S. Presidential Election. Who would you choose?

[SharyBobbins]

If you could vote in the U.S. presidential election who would you choose and why?

[Koolaid]

Has to be Kerry just to get rid of that moron...Not an ideal candidate but soooooooo much better than old twatface

[showmet]

Yes ... don't take the risk of giving the neo-cons a second term. Vote for the person most likely to oust Bush... he needs to go as a matter of public hygiene...

[Down_In_It]

Mike's with Kerry all the way AND I'm with Mike all the way... looks like I pick Kerry then

[SharyBobbins]

I guess no one likes Bush then?

[Solstice]

I can't say i'm surprised ;)

Hopefully he'll make an even bigger ass of himself tonight, than at the last debate.

[bigbusmike]

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/vpdebate.jpg
Not saying Kerry is the answer, just anyone but Bush and Mr Burns...

Bu__ Sh__!!!

[Down_In_It]

HE will be! He can see the future and it ain't him!

[Smartie.uk]

well i would rather see little jimmy walton i charge of america. hes got a better collection of toy soldiers than bush... but since he aint running then i guess im for kerry...


VOTE JIMMY WALTON!!!!!

[matthew]

I GUESS I AM A BUSH MAN..seeing kerry as president makes me more ill than thinking about Mr Howard run our country. its not a deep investigation of anyones policys or anything and i am sure its prety fick of me to not to look into their policys...but Mr blair and mr Bush just strike me as getting the job done.. i don't live under mr bushs 'regime' so can't say in all honesty if he is good or bad , but just from what i have heard i agree with his rationale in a lot of things (generaly iraq) but his other policys well i just get them filtered through other peoples opinions (generaly not good)...but i am a selfish so if he aint hurtin me he aint so bad.

[Smartie.uk]

ummm are you sure you agree with his policy on iraq... you agree with going to war against a country for your own personal gain.. and using your own working class as cannonfodder so bush and all his fat cat friends can get richer, while destroying iraq's hope of a secure econimic structure by taking their oil which is the only thing the iraqi's actually have thats worth anything.
you agree with the complete unecessary bombing of a country that was no more a threat to world peace than korea or kasakstahn(dunno if thats spelt right) under the false pretense of WMD? admittedly saddam was a bit of a wanker.. but he had passified himself in recent years and under his reign at least the iraqi people had work and had some sort of life. rather than being affraid to leave the house due to the fear of being gunned down by a bunch of gun-totin-shoot-anyhing-that-moves bunch of american redneck killing machines. or blown up by a rebble force trying to take back THEIR country from a bunch of imperialist spunkbubbles.

so i hope your joking beacuse the whole iraqi war is a farce. just an excuse for money... the whole bush government is a farce, and how an itelligent bloke like blair got suckered into it is beyond me.. but he did and that makes him a bit of a tosser too in my book.

sorry.. bit of a rant there... but no mate.. you gotta be kidding

[matthew]

ummm are you sure you agree with his policy on iraq... you agree with going to war against a country for your own personal gain.. and using your own working class as cannonfodder so bush and all his fat cat friends can get richer, while destroying iraq's hope of a secure econimic structure by taking their oil which is the only thing the iraqi's actually have thats worth anything.

well thats a conspiracy i don't believe in... i don't also find counting bodies as a unjustification for this war either... i have read many inteligent people around here and other places start reasonable debates about why bush is bad..they all resort in the end too this kinda stuff.. if i ever found it to be true , i would change my mind. I am always willing to change my mind if its proven that these things are true...but so far i have not.. i just see the good that is being done...i am a positive kinda guy

[DoktorAtomik]

Just out of curiosity, why do you frequent a hippy forum if you have politics that endorse a right-wing born-again christian conservative? Just wondering.

[matthew]

Just out of curiosity, why do you frequent a hippy forum if you have politics that endorse a right-wing born-again christian conservative? Just wondering.
..i frequent a hippy forum because i like it ... you gotta problem with that :rolleyes:

Are you saying that the conspiracys are true ????

[DoktorAtomik]

..i frequent a hippy forum because i like it ... you gotta problem with that :rolleyes:

Are you saying that the conspiracys are true ????I'm just curious. A community of predominantly left-wing ultra-liberal people seems an odd choice of hang-out for someone with very conservative politics. I mean, you're bound to end up in conflict with people, so I just would've thought you'd prefer a community where your views were less.... ummm.. disruptive? Like I said, just curious.

[matthew]

I'm just curious. A community of predominantly left-wing ultra-liberal people seems an odd choice of hang-out for someone with very conservative politics. I mean, you're bound to end up in conflict with people, so I just would've thought you'd prefer a community where your views were less.... ummm.. disruptive? Like I said, just curious.
I tend to hang out in predominantly left wing ultra liberal kinda places .. such as http://www.loony-show.com/cms.php/index.html ...not realy thought about it. surely you lot need a bit of disruption ..nothing wrong with that. As i say when i see that the allegations pointed toward bush are proven to be true...i will happily accept it. I maybe avoiding seeing the truth ... but i don't think so.. I just think that its because people are ultra liberal and left wing that they wish for these things to be true , to make them seem like they are right and that its not in anyones elses humanity to do anything good..

[matthew]

I don't think i am rude or offensive..can i stay ???

[DoktorAtomik]

I don't think i am rude or offensive..can i stay ???*shrug* Hang where you like. Just curious what makes you tick. However.... this statement.....

.. I just think that its because people are ultra liberal and left wing that they wish for these things to be true , to make them seem like they are right and that its not in anyones elses humanity to do anything good..... is rude and offensive, and a good example of why your views will always be provocative on these boards (which was why I was wondering why you hang here....). Just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean that their views aren't just as rational as your own. Indeed, whether or not you agree with it, a very powerful intellectual case has been made for opposing the war in Iraq. Dismissing this as "wishful thinking" is.... well, rude and offensive.

[matthew]

*shrug* Hang where you like. Just curious what makes you tick. However.... this statement.....

... is rude and offensive, and a good example of why your views will always be provocative on these boards (which was why I was wondering why you hang here....). Just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean that their views aren't just as rational as your own. Indeed, whether or not you agree with it, a very powerful intellectual case has been made for opposing the war in Iraq. Dismissing this as "wishful thinking" is.... well, rude and offensive.No the people that start threads and rant on about stuff that has been proven to be false .. people that use flawed arguements and the death of innocents to prop up their point of view , thats offensive.. I disagree with people that don't provide proof in what they say .avoiding the truth is what some people do..not all thats not fair but lots do. I am not dismissing anything , just that i have never seen any proof to back up these things...just merely a carefuly re-interpretation of given events. a bit of a contradiction i suppose , but i am not articulate enough to always make sense so sue me :rolleyes:

I just read stuff like this http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ and see that a lot of people accept this war as a postive step thats all. i don't like seeing death and destruction ...but i just think people that attack bush/blair are doing so because they don't like war in general ...thats a point of view i can understand ... so why not just say so?? instead of attacking something that you would be apposed to anyway..

give me a good ati-war site that will make me less cynical ??

[Smartie.uk]

just wandering dude, if you've seen farenhiet 9/11 yet... yes i agree that michael moore is making a point and so will present it all in a well thought out spin.. but facts are facts, if it wasn't true.. he simply wouldn't get away with saying it... if you haven't seen it.. then watch it.. if you have seen it.. then i can't believe that your brushing it off as lefty propoganda, and saying that the war was a good thing.

[matthew]

just wandering dude, if you've seen farenhiet 9/11 yet... yes i agree that michael moore is making a point and so will present it all in a well thought out spin.. but facts are facts, if it wasn't true.. he simply wouldn't get away with saying it... if you haven't seen it.. then watch it.. if you have seen it.. then i can't believe that your brushing it off as lefty propoganda, and saying that the war was a good thing.can't say i have seen it.. but i did read his website and have just read some of the letters written to him http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html .... equaly i am sure some one could make a film disputing the points made ..sure facts are facts , its possibly how you connect those facts . I can't take that film seriously as much because he (i think) ignores every other country apart from america . Its the whole americentric spin ...i can't work out ..yeah sure they are big and powerful ...but Mr Blair could have said no.... i hear no conspiracys about him ?.

[DoktorAtomik]

No the people that start threads and rant on about stuff that has been proven to be false ..What you consider proven and what someone else considers proven may well be two different things. You'd do well to show a little humility before arrogantly dismissing the opinions of others.

people that use flawed arguements and the death of innocents to prop up their point of viewNow you see most of us here believe this is exactly what Bush and Blair are doing. Different perspective, huh? Shows you how subjective these things can be.

thats offensiveAnd by that token, others might find your views offensive. However, I respect the fact that you hold your views in good faith and for what you believe to be the right reasons. However, what is really offensive is when you dismiss the views of others with whom you disagree.... just because you disagree with them.

Again though, if you find the majority view on this site so offensive, why are you here exactly? I really don't get it.

but i just think people that attack bush/blair are doing so because they don't like war in general ...thats a point of view i can understand ... so why not just say so??Rubbish. People are opposed to the war in Iraq because they think it's unjustified and a bad idea. Hell, even on Bushes own terms, the war has proved to be ill-founded. The specific war goal was to overthrow the Iraqi regime on the basis that it was producing weapons of mass destruction. There was also allegedly a fear that these weapons would be shared with Al Qaeda. Now seeing as all concerned now admit that there were no WMD in the first place, and seeing as there isn't a single scrap of evidence that Iraq was colluding with Al Qaeda, then the war can not be said to have been justified.

Furthermore, many of us believe the price for overthrowing the regime was too high. Thousands have died, the middle east has been further destabilised, and Al Qaeda has been given a new recruiting ground, propaganda, and training arena. Added to which, overthrowing the regime just because it was unpleasant was never a stated war goal.

give me a good ati-war site that will make me less cynical ??I have no idea why you're so cynical in the first place, so I've no idea what kind of information you require.

[matthew]

This is not personal..so calm down a little. ??

What you consider proven and what someone else considers proven may well be two different things. You'd do well to show a little humility before arrogantly dismissing the opinions of others.


well for 1 http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html .. the so called shady links with haliburton . Whats that all about ?.



Now you see most of us here believe this is exactly what Bush and Blair are doing. Different perspective, huh? Shows you how subjective these things can be.


I read lots of comments about the dossiers used ... but none about resolution 1441 ..why is that http://www.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/ . This ressolution is if pushed why i believe the war is valid ..


Again though, if you find the majority view on this site so offensive, why are you here exactly? I really don't get it

If i frequented a forum full of people that shred my point of view ... i doubt i could find one... The other side i think are people that would wish to drop a big bomb on the place. Their are people that don't share the majority view.. and when these people point out quite clearly a point that is not correct ..the thread dies on its ass..followed by another thread along simmilar lines days later.

In this battle for who is right and who is wrong ... i think the point i consider is are their iraqi people that support this 'war' , yes i do believe so ...... all this 'bitching' is fair enough but 'at the end of the day.....' How can you dispute their point of view.


Furthermore, many of us believe the price for overthrowing the regime was too high. Thousands have died, the middle east has been further destabilised, and Al Qaeda has been given a new recruiting ground, propaganda, and training arena. Added to which, overthrowing the regime just because it was unpleasant was never a stated war goal

all probably true...what propaganda supports terrorists the most. surely if information is found to be false (on either side) it should be taken out of the debate..

I have no idea why you're so cynical in the first place, so I've no idea what kind of information you require.

I am cynical because you have used the death of thousands to make me feel fucking awful.

gee whiz your doing nothing for my karmic level

[Smartie.uk]

in my oppinion.. and it is just my oppinion... it seems that you are allowing yourself to be moved into a media enforced mindset... you should probably take a really hard look at both sides before you make your decision on wether bushes crusade of capitalism was a good thing. i ,like evry1 else in the world, am constantly bombarded with information bastardised by the media... and bastardised in such a way as to make out that we are all ways in the right. " so we've gone to war, its allright look what good we're doing".. when really the harsh reality is masked by stupid stories like the american troups adopting a dog coz it was lame and would get killed by the wild packs that roam iraq... i dont see them adopting an iraqi child who's mum they blew up with the last unecessary motar volley.
if you choose to accept that this war is right and it was necessary to go into iraq in the first place then you are falling into the media trap which thousands of others do evryday... it is important to search out the answers.. find the other side and form an oppinion on the answers you get... then if you still think the war is good then fine... each to thier own.. but i certainly wont be inviting you to my birthday party( hehe no jelly and icecream for you)

[matthew]

in my oppinion.. and it is just my oppinion... it seems that you are allowing yourself to be moved into a media enforced mindset... you should probably take a really hard look at both sides before you make your decision on wether bushes crusade of capitalism was a good thing. i ,like evry1 else in the world, am constantly bombarded with information bastardised by the media... and bastardised in such a way as to make out that we are all ways in the right. " so we've gone to war, its allright look what good we're doing".. when really the harsh reality is masked by stupid stories like the american troups adopting a dog coz it was lame and would get killed by the wild packs that roam iraq... i dont see them adopting an iraqi child who's mum they blew up with the last unecessary motar volley.
if you choose to accept that this war is right and it was necessary to go into iraq in the first place then you are falling into the media trap which thousands of other do evryday... it is important to search out the answers.. find the other side and make form an oppinion on the answers you get... then if you still think the war is good then fine... each to thier own.. but i certainly wont be inviting you to my birthday party( hehe no jelly and icecream for you)
I have not fallen under the media spell...i tend to swich off..but saying that


bastardised in such a way as to make out that we are all ways in the right. " so we've gone to war, its allright look what good we're doing"..
Not true the BBC believe this war to be wrong and go out of their way on primetime to tell us that. Thankfully the BBC is so large other stuff they do balances out this and they (to their credit) have people that don't share their collective opinion.. can't remember the last positive story that came out of iraq ??? Good news is not intresting enough i guess .. shame that.


I am not a nasty person..and can go with out talking about iraq or anything 'offensive' for hours ... so reconsider ... i love jelly and ice cream.

[DoktorAtomik]

This is not personal..so calm down a little. ??Huh? I'm perfectly calm, thank you very much. I'm sorry if you have a problem with clearly expressed, well informed opinions.

.. the so called shady links with haliburton.... is a topic all in itself, and hardly the main reason that people are opposed to the war.


This ressolution is if pushed why i believe the war is valid .. Well the secretary general of the UN is of the opposite opinion, and believes the war to have been illegal under international law. So I'd say there's certainly room for an alternative point of view, and one that isn't limited to the leftie fringe, or "wishful thinking", as you seem to believe.


In this battle for who is right and who is wrong ... i think the point i consider is are their iraqi people that support this 'war' , yes i do believe so ...... all this 'bitching' is fair enough but 'at the end of the day.....' How can you dispute their point of view.Their are plenty of Iraqis who hold an entirely different point of view. How can you dispute their point of view? And doesn't it seem a little rude to reduce people's moral concerns over a war to the status of "bitching"?

all probably true...what propaganda supports terrorists the most. surely if information is found to be false (on either side) it should be taken out of the debate..I'm sorry. That doesn't make sense. Please clarify.

I am cynical because you have used the death of thousands to make me feel fucking awful.

gee whiz your doing nothing for my karmic levelOK, you've totally lost me. I'm not interested in making you feel awful. I'm simply pointing out that there are a very large number of people opposed to the war in Iraq, and that those people have well-founded views. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with those views, but to dismiss them as "wishful thinking" is very rude and ignorant.

[DoktorAtomik]

can't remember the last positive story that came out of iraq ???Maybe there's another reason for that that has nothing to do with BBC bias?!?

[matthew]

bastardised in such a way as to make out that we are all ways in the right.


Just thought ... you might be right about the media .. so in a few years all the positive stuff will get shown..in a nice documentary..saying even though x amount of people died look at the place now.. to does this now may give the impresion they are supprting this war..the general public are collectively anti-war (IMHO) and upsetting the general public is not on..

[Smartie.uk]

well i suppose it boils down to an unfothomable mindset.. i cant understand how faced with all the facts you can still choose to defend the war.. but then i suppose you cant see how when faced with all the facts i can come to my lefty conclusion about how much it all stinks of corruption and sucks massive bush-nuts... so we shall agree to disagree.. but when the truth finally does come out i want a written apology...


and yeah you can come to my birthday but you have to sit in the hall with your jelly and icecream while us leftys play pass the parcel.

[matthew]

I said


wish for these things to be true i did not say wishful thinking ..ok this may mean the same thing ..but repeating it makes me sound like i think that all other opinions apart from my own are wishful thinking...thats not true.

i said this

i have read many inteligent people around here and other places start reasonable debates about why bush is bad..they all resort in the end too this kinda stuff..

you say this


Huh? I'm perfectly calm, thank you very much. I'm sorry if you have a problem with clearly expressed, well informed opinions.



i thought you were taking it as a personal insult or something...anyway now that i am aware your perfectly calm..i don't feel so bad ..moving on .



Well the secretary general of the UN is of the opposite opinion, and believes the war to have been illegal under international law.

This he said a year and a half later..plus he sheepishly said 'if you wish'




When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Their are plenty of Iraqis who hold an entirely different point of view. How can you dispute their point of view? And doesn't it seem a little rude to reduce people's moral concerns over a war to the status of "bitching"?


we agree diffrent people have diffrent opinions.. morale concerns , don't you dare start on that :confused: .... fundementaly this war was not illegal and the 'bitching' i mention is the going over and over this ..moraly it might be questionable you are perfectly correct . But people shooting back at us and killing innocent people are of questionable morality don't you think .


all probably true...what propaganda supports terrorists the most. surely if information is found to be false (on either side) it should be taken out of the debate..

Ok saying mr cheney is corrupt and that ...well read http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html now this should be taken out of the debate... Haliburton a whole other thread ... sorry to go over this , please start a new thread or just tell me here why HALIBURTON ARE SO BAD...



OK, you've totally lost me. I'm not interested in making you feel awful. I'm simply pointing out that there are a very large number of people opposed to the war in Iraq, and that those people have well-founded views. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with those views, but to dismiss them as "wishful thinking" is very rude and ignorant.

Yes and their are a very large No. of people that have well founded views to the contary (not me :rolleyes: ). Wishful thinking i guess i mean that when alegations are proven to be false ... then to continue to believe them to be true is wishful thinking. Not that the whole basis of your opinion is wishful thinking.This is true on both sides , but i just see it more from some anti war people...so if you think that is ignorant and rude then sorry ..

[matthew]

well i suppose it boils down to an unfothomable minset.. i cant understand how faced with all the facts you can still choose to defend the war.. but then i suppose you cant see how when faced with all the facts i can come to my lefty conclusion about how much it all stinks of corruption and sucks massive bush-nuts... so we shall agree to disagree.. but when the truth finally does come out i want a written apology...


and yeah you can come to my birthday but you have to sit in the hall with your jelly and icecream while us leftys play pass the parcel.

Yeah i will be waiting for mine as well...;)

I read the gaurdian you know ... am i still a rotter.:)

[DoktorAtomik]

i did not say wishful thinking ..ok this may mean the same thing ..but repeating it makes me sound like i think that all other opinions apart from my own are wishful thinking...thats not true.No, but you did clearly imply that you feel that opposition to the Iraq war has no factual basis, and therefore those who choose to hold to this belief are practicing wishful thinking.

This he said a year and a half later..plus he sheepishly said 'if you wish'That really is the most pathetic cop-out I've ever heard. The secretary general of the UN expresses his opinion that the war is illegal, and you dismiss his opinion because it was sheepish and delivered too late. Now that is insulting.


fundementaly this war was not illegal and the 'bitching' This is what makes your stance incredibly arrongant and insulting. Many people (including the secretary general of the UN and various legal advisors) believe the war to have been illegal. You're entitled to your opinion that it wasn't, but that's all it is - an opinion. Not a fact. Stating it as though it's a fact is insulting, rude and childish.


Ok saying mr cheney is corrupt and that ... That's a whole other topic.

Wishful thinking i guess i mean that when alegations are proven to be false ...This is the basis of your problem. You take the facts that suit you and then believe a case to have been proven. There are many facts, and many opinions. You may see one set of facts and regard the case as closed, but another person may see another set of facts and disagree. Unless you're in a position to validate every single piece of information in front of you, then all you have is an opinion. And others are just as entitled to opinions of their own.

Personally, I regard the case agaisnt the war to have been adequately proven. If you don't accept this, would it therefore be reasonable for me to accuse you of wishful thinking?

[matthew]

No, but you did clearly imply that you feel that opposition to the Iraq war has no factual basis, and therefore those who choose to hold to this belief are practicing wishful thinking.
PUZZLED BY THAT...but you may read something into it that i don't see.

you said not the main reason people are apposed to this war ??? what are your main reasons ?? .. what are the main reasons ??

I read cheney is profiting from the war ...then i read the link and it says this is not true , in the context of wich it implies.. my take is that people say cheney is profiting so this is one reason we are their (in iraq) .. do you believe this to be true ???




That really is the most pathetic cop-out I've ever heard. The secretary general of the UN expresses his opinion that the war is illegal, and you dismiss his opinion because it was sheepish and delivered too late. Now that is insulting.

He also said

"You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now,"

Does this mean that no elections should have taken place ??


yes he is allowed his opinions ..... but just because he said these things some people take it as a fact ... i maybe wrong on that assumption.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005644

Like this article says ...more than one resolution was made 17 not one or two. How many does the man want ?



You're entitled to your opinion that it wasn't, but that's all it is - an opinion. Not a fact. Stating it as though it's a fact is insulting, rude and childish.

yeah but why did you actualy mention kofi in the first place .. as an example of how right you are ?? I maybe assuming a little here i admit..


This is the basis of your problem. You take the facts that suit you and then believe a case to have been proven. There are many facts, and many opinions. You may see one set of facts and regard the case as closed, but another person may see another set of facts and disagree. Unless you're in a position to validate every single piece of information in front of you, then all you have is an opinion. And others are just as entitled to opinions of their own.

Yes but my cheney example .. this is not opinion its a fact . If this fact is not correct ... then correct another assumption of mine...please.

Personally, I regard the case agaisnt the war to have been adequately proven. If you don't accept this, would it therefore be reasonable for me to accuse you of wishful thinking?Please re read what i said..and don't try and make out that i am implying something that i am not.

[Paul]

In all honesty I really don't think it's gonna make the slightest bit of difference who wins. Let's face it, America is stuffed ... none of the new laws or constitutional amendments from the last couple of years will be reversed no matter who gets in, the war will not be called off and the imperialism won't stop.

Land of the free? Once upon a time maybe ... but not anymore. The 'American Dream' has been turned into a nightmare.

[DoktorAtomik]

you said not the main reason people are apposed to this war ??? what are your main reasons ?? .. what are the main reasons ??I outlined the reasons in my previous posts.


.. do you believe this to be true ???I'm not that interested, so have never investigated. Whether anyone stands to profit from the war is just a side issue for me (although clearly as the main beneficiary of post-war rebuilding contracts, America as a whole clearly stands to benefit, as well as the strategic goal of securing oil production).


He also said

"You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now,"

Does this mean that no elections should have taken place ?? I'd certainly say so. What's the point of holding elections if they aren't seen to be fair and reliable?

yes he is allowed his opinions ..... but just because he said these things some people take it as a fact ... i maybe wrong on that assumption. I agree. But equally, the fact that you diagree with him does not justify you dismissing his opinion out of hand.

Like this article says ...more than one resolution was made 17 not one or two. How many does the man want ?You and I aren;t debating the legality of the war. We're debating how one should show respect for the opinions of others. Clearly there's room for argument over whether the war was legal. My point is not to argue that it was illegal, but to point out that you should respect that there's room for disagreement - just because someone does not hold the same opinion as you, it doesn't automatically make them wrong. Nor does it mean that they're ignoring the facts. It simply means that they've studied the evidence and reached a different conclusion. The secretary general certainly isn't someone who's opinion you should be dismissing so easily.

yeah but why did you actualy mention kofi in the first place .. as an example of how right you are ?? I maybe assuming a little here i admit..You're assuming a lot, actually. Like I said fairly clearly, my point in quoting the secretary general was to illustrate that a wide variety of people (not just hippy lefties) have questioned the legality of the war. My point was not to demonstrate to you that I'm right and you're wrong, but rather to demonstrate that there's room for more than one opinion, and that you shouldn't be so dismissive of the opinions of others.


Yes but my cheney example .. this is not opinion its a fact How do you know it's a fact? Can you vouch for the veracity of your source? Have you personally checked the information in the article that you quoted? How do you know it's not a misrepresentation? You choose to believe it - that doesn't make it a fact.

Please re read what i said..and don't try and make out that i am implying something that i am not.Huh? What are you talking about?

[matthew]

How do you know it's a fact? Can you vouch for the veracity of your source? Have you personally checked the information in the article that you quoted? How do you know it's not a misrepresentation? You choose to believe it - that doesn't make it a fact.



well so this whole forum is just opinions ?

well people make dicisions in the real world from what they read and see ..so if we are merely sharing opinions thats one thing but sometimes facts are important. Please investigate from your own personal opinion if the example (cheney) i gave is not factualy correct..


I think that you have lots of intelectual opinions , on the diffrent things i have asked .. but are not willing to share them with me. If your main point is that people are dying and that kofi annans opinions may be valid.. then fair enough. Your not answering any of my points so lets agree to disagree yeah..save us all a bit of time.

If your not intrested in anythig about this war apart from the peeople dying then i would say your moraly right.

[DoktorAtomik]

well so this whole forum is just opinions ?When you're quoting third party sources that aren't expressing a widely-accepted or independently verifiable piece of information, then yes.

well people make dicisions in the real world from what they read and see ..so if we are merely sharing opinions thats one thing but sometimes facts are important. Please investige from your own personal opinion if the example i gave is not factualy correct..You're entirely missing the point.

Your case originally was to argue that people are anti-war "because people are ultra liberal and left wing that they wish for these things to be true". The point that I'm making is that you can no more say this of others than you can say it of yourself. Both parties have studied a set of facts and arrived at different conclusions. That doesn't mean that people who're anti-war are enagaged in wishful thinking anymore than you are - they simply reach a different conclusion from the available evidence.

Facts can be important, but they're often subjective. You can't state a fact as a fact without being able to verify the source of that fact. If you can't do that, then it's effectively just an opinion.

I think that you have lots of intelectual opinions , on the diffrent things i have asked .. but are not willing to share them with me.That's correct. I have no interest in getting into a debate with you on an issue where, at the end of the day, we'll just end up disagreeing. I doubt I'll convince you of my beliefs any more than you'll convince me of yours.

If your main point is that people are dying and that kofi annans opinions may be valid.. then fair enough. Your not answering any of my points so lets agree to disagree yeah..save us all a bit of time.I'm not sure what your point is. I've replied to everything you've said, so I fail to see how I'm not answering your points.......

[matthew]

Ok ok.. if i had put a some people here and a possibly their..i would not appear as arrogant.. i apologise for that.

I am going to think about what you say..but even so ... you do tend to manage to avoid lots of things..but i am just a bit jaded.

i am talking in general ...what i say is true...look around.

[DoktorAtomik]

Ok ok.. if i had put a some people here and a possibly their..i would not appear as arrogant.. i apologise for that.Absolutely. There are wishful thinkers on either side of the debate, and if you were only talking about specific individuals rather than making generalisations, then I'd have no argument with that.


I am going to think about what you say..but even so ... you do tend to manage to avoid lots of things..but i am just a bit jaded.Not sure what you think I'm avoiding exactly. If you could be a little more specific......

[matthew]

Absolutely. There are wishful thinkers on either side of the debate, and if you were only talking about specific individuals rather than making generalisations, then I'd have no argument with that.

Not sure what you think I'm avoiding exactly. If you could be a little more specific......
I was generalising ..but then again i read only the people that actualy post their opinions , on the war .. and have found most that are anti-war do resort to side issues .. or major issues , depending on how you see it. People like yourself , i guess are safe because you generaly don't resort to side issues...from what you have said here .. i would say that your just against all the killing ? and that people are entitled to their opinions wich you like to pull apart or agree with on a intelectual level (i'm prety easy hahaha) . If this is your entire reason for not agreeing this war is right i can perfectly accept that , i understand and have no problems with it... . I only say your avoiding things because , i can't believe you have no opinion on what i said.. i don't wish to point the finger at anyone thats not realy fair..but you have been around here, you must see a pattern of some sort . Anyway i like the hip forums and i am not realy critising ... i just made a comment and now i am making it clearer (hopefuly). I think i must have hit a nerve with you ... sorry about that.

[DoktorAtomik]

I was generalising ..but then again i read only the people that actualy post their opinions , on the war .. and have found most that are anti-war do resort to side issues .. or major issues , depending on how you see it.Well we seem to have a different experience of the anti-war movement. Most people I've heard express an opinion hav been opposed to it for very fundamental reasons.

People like yourself , i guess are safe because you generaly don't resort to side issues...from what you have said here .. i would say that your just against all the killing ?I think that's a profound simplification of my position. My main reason for being opposed to the war is that I do not believe there is sufficient justification for it. If you go to war with a county, there should be a reason, surely? I've yet to see sufficient reason. At the moment, the US/UK argument seems to boil down to the Iraqi regime being unpleasant. If that was indeed the reason for the war, then the case should've been argued on that basis from the start. It wasn't. The justification for the war was the removal of weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, if the war's about removing an unpleasant regime, then I can think of other countries which should've been a more pressing priority. And if it is about removing unpleasant regimes, why aren't we looking towards invading other countries?

Yes, the killing is unpleasant. However, I'm not a pacifist, and accept in principle the notion of a moral war. I simply don't believe that Iraq qualifies in that regard.

and that people are entitled to their opinions wich you like to pull apart or agree with on a intelectual level (i'm prety easy hahaha)Absolutely. Opinions make the world go round. Like you say though, I like to pull them apart - when they're ill-founded or poorly constructed. I consider it a duty to encourage people to apply rigorous logic to their thinking on important issues.

I only say your avoiding things because , i can't believe you have no opinion on what i said..What are you referring to? Haliburton? Cheney? Well I do have an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. Seeing as I've not looked into the issue particularly deeply, there's no point me expressing an opinion that I'd be poorly equipped to justify. I don't enter into discussions about subjects unless I know enough about them to actually contribute something of value.

I think i must have hit a nerve with you ... sorry about that.No problem.

[matthew]

Well we seem to have a different experience of the anti-war movement. Most people I've heard express an opinion hav been opposed to it for very fundamental reasons.

well this is why i asked if you know any sites that i could look through that would make me less harsh on anti war people...don't realy want to be hanging in my town centre saying i don't think this war is wrong..can anyone explain why i maybe wrong..

I think that's a profound simplification of my position. My main reason for being opposed to the war is that I do not believe there is sufficient justification for it. If you go to war with a county, there should be a reason, surely? I've yet to see sufficient reason. At the moment, the US/UK argument seems to boil down to the Iraqi regime being unpleasant.Yeah but you have not said any other reasons , and i did ask , but you just said you had already outlined them so....
Thats not true ... who is simplfying now.


If that was indeed the reason for the war, then the case should've been argued on that basis from the start. It wasn't. The justification for the war was the removal of weapons of mass destruction. Plus the multitude of resolutions he has broken ... i almost see the dossiers as a side issue ... i was convinced by the r:1441 ...something that does not get mentioned enough...do you have any answers why ?? WMD well this is the holly grail and the crux for many people..if people knew they were not their from day one wow..they have powerful inteligence ... i would love to know were they got theis information from ..sure we could have waited longer , but for how long ?



Furthermore, if the war's about removing an unpleasant regime, then I can think of other countries which should've been a more pressing priority. And if it is about removing unpleasant regimes, why aren't we looking towards invading other countries?
This 'war' started a long time ago and it was avoidable if saddam had not lied .... I am sure you could think of other regimes , i am sure the same protest would be mounted by some group somewere ?


Yes, the killing is unpleasant. However, I'm not a pacifist, and accept in principle the notion of a moral war. I simply don't believe that Iraq qualifies in that regard. Unfortunatly i think we don't have morale wars anymore.


Absolutely. Opinions make the world go round. Like you say though, I like to pull them apart - when they're ill-founded or poorly constructed. I consider it a duty to encourage people to apply rigorous logic to their thinking on important issues.
shucks well it was a off hand comment , glad i had the chance to explain a bit better, I am glad because i still believe it to be true...i hope you know what i mean ?? if you don't then shucks i aint got a lot left to try and explain.



What are you referring to? Haliburton? Cheney? Well I do have an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. Seeing as I've not looked into the issue particularly deeply, there's no point me expressing an opinion that I'd be poorly equipped to justify. I don't enter into discussions about subjects unless I know enough about them to actually contribute something of value.
Your too modest , i am sure you know more that you let on .... of value well i do try , just because you don't agree does not make what i said valueless ..but i am sure your not talking about me in particular .


No problem.phew....

[DoktorAtomik]

Yeah but you have not said any other reasons , and i did ask , but you just said you had already outlined them so....
Thats not true ... who is simplfying now.I already explained the reasons for my opposition to the war. Let me refresh your memory:

The specific war goal was to overthrow the Iraqi regime on the basis that it was producing weapons of mass destruction. There was also allegedly a fear that these weapons would be shared with Al Qaeda. Now seeing as all concerned now admit that there were no WMD in the first place, and seeing as there isn't a single scrap of evidence that Iraq was colluding with Al Qaeda, then the war can not be said to have been justified.

Furthermore, many of us believe the price for overthrowing the regime was too high. Thousands have died, the middle east has been further destabilised, and Al Qaeda has been given a new recruiting ground, propaganda, and training arena. Added to which, overthrowing the regime just because it was unpleasant was never a stated war goal.
Plus the multitude of resolutions he has broken ... i almost see the dossiers as a side issue ... i was convinced by the r:1441 ...something that does not get mentioned enough...do you have any answers why ??Let me make a suggestion. Go away and look up how many UN resolutions Israel is in violation of and then tell me that we're being even-handed in the way we treat countries that breach UN resolutions.

WMD well this is the holly grail and the crux for many people..if people knew they were not their from day one wow..they have powerful inteligence ... i would love to know were they got theis information from ..sure we could have waited longer , but for how long ?It was obvious to any fool or halfwit that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It didn't serve their interests at that stage. It's not as though the facts haven't ended up bearing us out on this position, is it? Added to which, since when is possession of WMD sufficient reason for overthrowing a sovereign government? Why aren't we at war with Russia? Or China? Or Israel? Or France? If the possession of WMD was our reason for going to war (as stated), then surely we could only single out Iraq if they actually had an intention to use such weapons? Or else what's the difference between them and anyone else?

This 'war' started a long time ago and it was avoidable if saddam had not lied .... Oh dear. Did he tell a fib? Best invade his country and kill thousands of people then, eh?

This 'war' started because of oil. Simple. America wants to secure its strategic oil supply. Bush was chomping and the bit to invade Iraq as soon as he entered the Whitehouse. There's never been anything but the flimsiest of evidence that Iraq possesses WMD, and there's certainly been no evidence that it had any intent of using such weapons against the West. I mean for fucks sake, what would it stand to gain? Guaranteed invasion? Smart!

shucks well it was a off hand comment , glad i had the chance to explain a bit better, I am glad because i still believe it to be true...i hope you know what i mean ?? if you don't then shucks i aint got a lot left to try and explain.I think I understand what you're trying to get at. You're just not expressing it very well. I think you're saying that you believe some people ignore factual evidence in favour of theories that they'd rather believe? If so, then I agree with you. However, some people on both side of the debate are guilty of the same thing.

of value well i do try , just because you don't agree does not make what i said valueless ..but i am sure your not talking about me in particularI wasn't talking about you at all. I was just explaining why I don't choose to discuss an issue that I've never bothered to look into in any depth.

[matthew]

I think I understand what you're trying to get at. You're just not expressing it very well. I think you're saying that you believe some people ignore factual evidence in favour of theories that they'd rather believe? If so, then I agree with you. However, some people on both side of the debate are guilty of the same thing.
yeah thats what i was getting at .. and yeah i am glad we agree ..

Personaly i think i explained myself quite well from the start looking over it again...

I knew that you were being modest and a little rant was within you..not saying your wrong or right.. i will look into what you say .

[MattInVegas]

Doktor, I mean NO disrespect to you kynd sir. It is NOT a "US Election". It is more of a "US FICTION". At least, that's how I feel. They tell us what they WANT us to belive, thinking we'll be better off.

God save Queen Elizabeth!

Your Majesty, my sword is yours.

[Claire]

Doktor, I mean NO disrespect to you kynd sir. It is NOT a "US Election". It is more of a "US FICTION". At least, that's how I feel. They tell us what they WANT us to belive, thinking we'll be better off.

God save Queen Elizabeth!

Your Majesty, my sword is yours.
you know, it is soo weird that we are a "democracy" with a monarch...

[Smartie.uk]

but its nice that we have a monarch.. because she is a representation of the country.. so we can be patriotic without being patriotic to a political view.. where-as evry1 in america.. when they are patriotic, they are patriotic toward the president at the time so therefore towards a political stance.

still think she's a waste of space, time and money tho

[Claire]

but its nice that we have a monarch.. because she is a representation of the country.. so we can be patriotic without being patriotic to a political view.. where-as evry1 in america.. when they are patriotic, they are patriotic toward the president at the time so therefore towards a political stance.

still think she's a waste of space, time and money tho
hahahahaha

[DoktorAtomik]

I find it simpler to just not do patriotism.

[Pressed_Rat]

Don't forget there is also Michael Badnarik on the Libertarian ticket, Michael Peroutka on the Constitution ticket, and David Cobb on the Green ticket.

Nader is not the only 3rd party candidate running.

[Smartie.uk]

yup me too..
but some people join the armed forces and its nicer for them to be patriotic to a country rather than a political persuasion they may not agree with.

[DoktorAtomik]

yup me too..
but some people join the armed forces and its nicer for them to be patriotic to a country rather than a political persuasion they may not agree with.So you're saying the monarchy makes it easier to kill people for your country?

[Smartie.uk]

well yeah i guess i am... god another reason for me to hate the monarchy.. cheers dok

[showmet]

but its nice that we have a monarch.. because she is a representation of the country.. so we can be patriotic without being patriotic to a political view.. where-as evry1 in america.. when they are patriotic, they are patriotic toward the president at the time so therefore towards a political stance.

still think she's a waste of space, time and money tho
hahahahaha
Smartie actually makes a really good point!:D Following 9/11 many Americans became very patriotic and rallied around their head of state ... their head of state being a partisan politician with his own political agenda. So they rallied around a right wing agenda which became for them synonymous with loving their country. If such an attack happened here, many people would become very pro-British but people would tend to rally around their symbolic head of state, not their politically partisan Prime Minister. So there is a very sound case for having a non-partisan head of state.

Having said this, the Queen and the royal family must die. But a non-political head of state can serve a purpose by seperating politics from patriotism. To criticise Bush in America is to be "un-American". To criticise Blair is not to be "un-British"; this is at least in part to do with our seperation of politics from the identity of "the state".

[Smartie.uk]

ooo cheers jon.. some1 agrees with me.. excelent. i sleep sounder at night knowing that at least some of the time i'm not talking complete bollox.

[Smartie.uk]

i think evry1 in america should vote for me.. yay!!!

[Merlin]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunatly i think we don't have morale wars anymore<<<<


Hmmm.... what were the moral wars just out of interest?

[Merlin]

>>>>>>To criticise Blair is not to be "un-British"; this is at least in part to do with our seperation of politics from the identity of "the state".<<<<<


Heh. I criticise Blair AND The Queen. Looks like I'm un-British. Oh well :)

[Merlin]

>>>>>Why aren't we at war with Russia? Or China? Or Israel? Or France? If the possession of WMD was our reason for going to war (as stated), then surely we could only single out Iraq if they actually had an intention to use such weapons? Or else what's the difference between them and anyone else?<<<<<<


I suspect the reasons for this are:

a) Russia, China and Israel are big fish, essentially. They all either have a very large military force, a very strong military arsenal, or both. The war coalition would have a REAL fight on their hands if they were to go to war with these countries. I think the coalition, even if they were having very sour relations with the likes of China or Russia, would be desperate to remain content with passive methods of resolving the dispute. The reasons for which, I'm giving as we speak. Besides, why the hell would the US want to go to war with Israel? Arguably their closest ally? So, might as well attack small targets like Iraq. How convenient...

b) Clearly Bush and co. have some sort of vendetta against the Arab world. They're cool for countries which aren't predominantly islamic or predominantly communist to have WMD but the likes of Iraq? Oh no, I don't think so.

There may be other reasons. I'd say they could be the main 2. But as far as coalition are concerned, some nations can have them (WDMs, I mean) and some can't. If you ask me, no nation should have them.

[showmet]

>>>>>>To criticise Blair is not to be "un-British"; this is at least in part to do with our seperation of politics from the identity of "the state".<<<<<


Heh. I criticise Blair AND The Queen. Looks like I'm un-British. Oh well :)
Obviously the epithet "un-American" is meaningless in itself, but it gets bandied around a lot in times of perceived national crisis, because to criticise the politics of the presidency is to criticise the country. Whereas even those of us who criticise the monarchy are not necessarily called "un-British" because most people know that the Queen is merely a symbolic head of state and doesn't really matter. But a non-partisan symbol of Britain is valuable if it stops our politics getting as screwed up as America's. I'd rather we did entirely without patriotism, but it's a fact of life and is not going to change anytime soon...