| Author |
Reasons to vote for Kerry |
Lynx69
Joined: Feb 22, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: [ENGLAND]
PM |
Post your reasons here.
 >>*Wow 2100+ posts*<< |
|
|
rrojas260
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Valencia, Venezuela
PM, WWW
|
He has shoes.
|
Grimslade
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 464
From: London
PM |
1.) You think the Islamist-terror problem will go away if America makes nice with France and Germany.
2.) You think it's Bush's fault North Korea has nuclear weapons.
3.) You think the Iranian ayatollahs are nice guys unfairly maligned by Bush.
 |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-10-17 20:26:55, Grimslade wrote:
1.) You think the Islamist-terror problem will go away if America makes nice with France and Germany.
2.) You think it's Bush's fault North Korea has nuclear weapons.
3.) You think the Iranian ayatollahs are nice guys unfairly maligned by Bush.
|
|
1.) Islamist terror will go away once america stops its illegle occupation of Sovereign islamic states.and creates a independent Palestinian state.
2.) Every Sovreign nation has the right to nuclear weapons just as america has supplied Israel with nukes,You can't have one rule for one country and different rule for another.If america wants to stop nuclear proliferation it has to set an example.
3.)Iranian Ayatollas are basically nice guys just that they won't take any crap from the u.s due to americas continueing support of israel and the plight of the palestinians.
[addsig] |
Grimslade
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 464
From: London
PM |
1. America wasn't occupying any Islamic states pre-9/11 (though it did have troops in Saudi Arabia at Saudi invitation, the Saudis would be very surprised to know that they were "occupied"...).
2. America most certainly did _not_ give the Israelis nukes; they have them now, even if they won't admit it, but they didn't get them from uncle sam.
It's not a question of having the "right" to nuclear weapons; there's no such right. It's a question of whether it's wise for the countries that have them to allow countries that don't to get them. Rights talk here is meaningless.
3. Tell the Iranians locked up or executed for speaking their minds, or thrown off the ballot for criticizing their government that the ayatollahs are nice guys. They are not; they are cruel and oppressive. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-10-17 21:00:13, Grimslade wrote:
1. America wasn't occupying any Islamic states pre-9/11 (though it did have troops in Saudi Arabia at Saudi invitation, the Saudis would be very surprised to know that they were "occupied"...).
2. America most certainly did _not_ give the Israelis nukes; they have them now, even if they won't admit it, but they didn't get them from uncle sam.
It's not a question of having the "right" to nuclear weapons; there's no such right. It's a question of whether it's wise for the countries that have them to allow countries that don't to get them. Rights talk here is meaningless.
3. Tell the Iranians locked up or executed for speaking their minds, or thrown off the ballot for criticizing their government that the ayatollahs are nice guys. They are not; they are cruel and oppressive.
|
|
1.I completely understand that american was'nt occupying an countrys pre 9/11 but americas continueing support of israel and in the injustice on the palestinians gives reason enough to terrorists..The u.s does'nt seem to realise how much the palestinian issue matters to the muslim world.If u.s truly wants peace and democracy to spread in the arab world then the creation of a true Palestinian State is vital.
2.I'm sorry but its a well documented fact that the u.s supplyed Israel with nuclear technology and is also supplying tanks,and other heavy weaponry i.e (Weapons of Mass distruction)..Where did you think isreal got its nuclear technology?..israel has no bigger friend in the world than the u.s!.
The u.s just has double standards in everything that it does thats why its is hated by so many countries...
3.The oppression of the iranian public by its evil leaders is so important to you then the same is going in in many other countries i.e:Zimbabwe,North korea why dont america start off with these countries first?..
[addsig] |
Grimslade
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 464
From: London
PM |
re: No. 3. I'm not calling for an invasion of Iran (or anywhere else). All I'm saying is, these are not "nice guys" we're talking about. (the words used in a previous post (by me, ironically) and re-used by another).
|
Sage
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 233
PM |
Oh please, Kerry is just the lesser of two evils. Anything he may say that is somewhat moral is just playing politics and trying to get votes, nothing more. |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Of course he's just trying to get votes - that's the whole point of elections!
This message was posted from a T68i |
riflogic
Joined: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: London,UK
PM |
@axxxr
I totally agree mate.
In simple terms>vote for Kerry simply because he is not as hopeless as Bush. |
|
|
Posted: 2004-10-17 19:37
>>*Wow 2100+ posts*<< 
/ Nokia = 
