Vote - November 2nd - Elections

[r.singh]

Interesting statistics. So how many people did the US kill since 1978, directly and indirectly (indirectly by setting up and funding wars, etc)? A lot more than the number of americans killed (of course, any innocent person killed is a travesty).

[simmal tree]

Bush in 2004!

Rupi Kaur bhainjee,

I advise you to compare those facts you layed out to a search on google for American attacks on world countries.

You will find that, of all nations, USA is responsible for the most deaths ever - more than Hitler.

Further to that, most of these deaths were casualties of innocent civilians, in a non-combatant situation.

I am not going to go on a long tangent about America's history of terrorism against the world. All I know is that GWB has made Americans perhaps a little safer, a lot more afraid, paranoid and suspicious, and all of this was not for the sake of America. GWB has had vested interests in many of his missions, for personal profit or for future votes.

Japnaam Singh veerjee,

when somebody opposes something that you favour, please don't twist the issue into "hate" and "love"

i don't "hate" George W. Bush.

in fact, although I can't call myself a Sikh until I keep amrit vela, all Sikhs are about "love" and not "hate"

I am not talking about love or hate here.

Guru jee and God looks at your bhaavnaa and your actions together, not just your actions alone.

What you are doing is just looking at GWB's action of capturing Saddam Hussein.

Are you sure of what his bhaavnaa was? Is it not mysterious to you tha

t being the commander-in-cheif of the world's most influential and powerful army, he was too stupid to know that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and he still chose to attack the country, and has cost the USA 1.5 Billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American lives?

Is it not mysterious to you that Vice Pres. Cheney was CEO of a company that profited heavily from the war on Iraq because it gave the company more access to Iraqi oil?

It's not about hate or love --- I have a serious problem trusting GWB's bhaavnaa. On the outside anybody (including myself) can look devout and faithful, innocent and simple.

Being a good Christian, not drinking, these are all good karmas on one hand, but if he is good with his left hand and he is playing with lives in his right hand, without regard for anything but personal profit - his good karmas don't mean anything.

If he was really into liberating places why didn't he help Sierra Leone, or Congo, or Nagaland, or Assam, or Punjab, or ***Palestine*** or the many other communities suffering in the world?

There's no discounting what the American soldiers did - sacrificing their lives. But GWB is a good-for-nothing leader and Kerry is a much better candidate for president of the USA.

[Japnaam Singh]

GWB has had vested interests in many of his missions, for personal profit or for future votes.

Personal profits? Prove it.

Future votes? How quickly you forget history my friend; up until the Iraq War, Bush was enjoying very high poll numbers for any sitting President. His numbers only began to dip AFTER the war. (Even though jobs were created during his downturn in the polls.)

Is it not mysterious to you that being the commander-in-cheif of the world's most influential and powerful army, he was too stupid to know that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and he still chose to attack the country, and has cost the USA 1.5 Billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American lives?

Too stupid to know? Everyone in the entire world thought he had weapons, I saw an interview a little while ago where a former Iraqi general was talking about how he and all the other Generals were SHOCKED when Saddam told them in March of 2003 that they didn't have any WMD to fight with in the war against the Americans. If Saddam's own generals believed there were weapons, why is it so shocking that Bush might as well? The whole world thought

he had weapons including the man running against Bush currently.

Hundreds of thousands of lives huh? What pure lies. Remember this:

The anti-war website Iraqbodycount.net estimates that between 11,487 and 13,458 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the war. Added to that are 1049 coalition deaths listed. That is a staggering 14,507 deaths since March 19 last year - a horrendous average of 28.5 people, real human beings, a day for the 509 days.

How could this ever be justified? Wouldn't Iraq have been better off without this?

It is estimated that Saddam killed between 500,000 and 1 million of his own people in the 13 years since the Gulf War, not including the effects of the sanctions. The lower number averages out to be 105 a day.

Assuming Saddam had stayed in power, as the anti-war movement would have had, and assuming his regime did not fundamentally change, Saddam could have killed between 53,445 and 106,890 innocent people in the same 509 days.

In other words, the war probably cost between 38,938 and 92,383 fewer lives than the so-called peace would have cost.

Is it not mysterious to you that Vice Pres. Cheney was CEO of a company that profited heavily from the war on Iraq because it gave the company more access to Iraqi oil?

Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000. During his employment at that company, the company received numerous no bid and bidding contracts from the Clinton Administration. After he became vice president, when he severed all real ties to the company, (except severence which is not in any way tied to the company's performance) donated his stock options to charity, etc. he would feel compelled to get thousands of people killed to help his buddies at his former company? Do you thi

nk anybody really believes that? Also, they're not an oil company, they're a contracting and construction company.

but if he is good with his left hand and he is playing with lives in his right hand, without regard for anything but personal profit - his good karmas don't mean anything.

What personal profit? Stop repeating lies. State some facts.

If he was really into liberating places why didn't he help Sierra Leone, or Congo, or Nagaland, or Assam, or Punjab, or ***Palestine*** or the many other communities suffering in the world?

You can't invade every country in the world. The idea is that democracy and freedom carries a domino effect. If its implanted in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will almost surely spread elsewhere.

[Japnaam Singh]

Also, in order to back up Rupinder Kaur's point:

Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US. If he had weapons, and most reports say that he had the capability and intention to produce weapons, he WOULD have, and if pressured or even asked by terrorist groups, he probably would have given the weapons. Not only that, his sons were probably more ruthless than even Saddam himself. They would've come into power in just a few years and would've been even more aggressive in their attempts to terrorize their region, and with the help of terrorists, the world as well.

Also, on another point, has anyone noticed the SHARP decline in Palistinean suicide bombings over the past year? Its like a 80 - 90% drop from the previous 3 years. Why is this? Saddam gave $25,000 to the family of every Palistinean suicide bomber in order to encourage the innocent, unprovoked slaughter of civilians.

He promoted terrorism with money, he would've promoted it with WMD sooner or later as well. And since everyone DID assume that he had WMD at the time, what kind of risk was that to take?

[r.singh]

hahaha... that's good propoganda, Japnaam. Would, could, should.... he MIGHT have blown up the world, he COULD have destroyed all his neighbours,....

The sharp decline in suicide bombings by Hamas has to do with the assasinations of their leaders. They're too busy trying to regroup.

[simmal tree]

Japnaam Singh veerjee,

The question is not of whether or not GWB should have removed Saddam Hussein

For example, would you call Hitler a great man if he killed Mousellini ?

Just because one jhoottee sarkaar downs another jhoottee sarkaar doesn't make the former a sachee sarkaar.

And in that vein I am not saying Kerry is an angel. But I'm sure he would have handled the Iraq situation much better than GWB.

It's not about the end result - because the end result could have been accomplished in various ways.

The question is of the motives and method

It's not just a few tree-huggers in Seattle who are complaining about GWB's motives and method.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American lives is right - I did not mean deaths by statistics.. I meant people whose lives were ruined by the War on Iraq.

Just think about that --- how many lives GWB's motives and methods have ruined.

And please stop with this whole "with us or against us" rhetoric. :|

Just because I disapprove of GWB and believe he is not the democratically elected president and doesn't deserve to be elected in 2004, does NOT mean I, in any way, shape, or form, support Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

it's that type of mentality that has caused the Patriot Act in USA and discrimination against Muslims and Sikhs all across North America.

with love my dear :lol:

(just for the sangat's notice me and japnaam singh always argue like this and it's all in the spirit of love -- at least from my side )

-k.s.

[simmal tree]

Okay I'm not sure if I have ever seen this many websites against one leader

Here are a few of the dozens of websites hoping to knock some sense into GWB supporters:

http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard6.html

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

http://www.525reasons.com

http://www.thousandreasons.org

http://www.stopbush.com/

http://www.legitgov.org/

http://www.bushbacklash.com/

http://fearbush.com/

http://www.pantsonfire.net/

[Japnaam Singh]

Just because one jhoottee sarkaar downs another jhoottee sarkaar doesn't make the former a sachee sarkaar.

This is actually very right. Every nation is imperfect or "jhottee". Only a Khalsa Raj could hope to be perfect.

But I don't understand where this leads us; are you saying that because the USA has done bad in the past, it is incapable of doing good in the future?

The Khalsa led aggressive battles in the past as well.

The end will justify the means. The "right track/wrong track" poll numbers of Iraqis show a pretty high "right track" number. The Iraqis, and moreso the Afghans are very optimistic about their future. Only people who enjoyed having sadistic madmen rule their nation wouldn't feel that their country is on the right track.

And please, for the love of god, stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Its a very dishonest comparison.

And R.Singh,

hahaha... that's good propoganda, Japnaam. Would, could, should.... he MIGHT have blown up the world, he COULD have destroyed all his neighbours,....

Saddam Hussein was the only leader of any country to praise the 9/11 attacks. Anybody that vicious, with th

e capability to produce weapons would've almost certainly have helped with another, far more deadly attack in the future.

It is impossible to predict the future. Any responsible nation that has been attacked by terrorists can not allow "future threats to materialize". Pre-emptive action has to be taken in some circumstances.

The sharp decline in suicide bombings by Hamas has to do with the assasinations of their leaders. They're too busy trying to regroup.

Putting the sharp decline in suicide bombings on any particular influence is not scientific and can't be proven. It was almost certainly a combination of many factors, the killing of Hamas leaders, no more financial rewards, increased security, etc.

[JSingh]

well, Bush is the man!!! :lol: i don't know if he will win the election, but he has done a wonderful job as a president. In the days of his presidency, there was no other alternative to fight the terrorism. If Gore were the president, he would have done the same as Mr. Bush.

[Khalsa4ever]

well, Bush is the man!!! :lol: i don't know if he will win the election, but he has done a wonderful job as a president. In the days of his presidency, there was no other alternative to fight the terrorism. If Gore were the president, he would have done the same as Mr. Bush.

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

I suppose it would be really hard to speculate after-the-fact... but although I agree that if Gore had won the election (sorry: correction -- if Gore was allowed to become the president since he WON the election), he would have certainly gone into Afghanistan, which was OK (everyone supported that, even the UN, France, and the Arabic Countries didn't complain too much), but he most certainly would not have arbitrarily wandered into Iraq!

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!