Vote - November 2nd - Elections

[Japnaam Singh]

(sorry: correction -- if Gore was allowed to become the president since he WON the election)

Really? He won the election? Says who? Angry democrats? Are they a reliable source?

A full Florida recount done in early 2001 by the Associated Press confirmed that Bush won. They recount actually increased Bush's margin of victory.

Anyways... you're right if you're saying that Gore won the popular vote, he did.

However, the popular vote is not the constitutional method of obtaining a victor. Even in Canada, Joe Clark became Prime Minister in 1979, even though he lost the Popular vote by 4%. I live in British Columbia, and in 1996, the NDP won the election with a majority government, even though they lost the popular vote.

No one complained, thats just the way the system works.

but he most certainly would not have arbitrarily wandered into Iraq!

So what? He probably wouldn't have, and shame on him. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

[Khalsa4ever]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

What do you define as the right thing to do? People make mistakes... but come on! Its usually a good idea to be PRETTY SURE of something before you haphazardly declare war. Of course, Bush didn't lose any of his daughters, or friends... so what's it to him?

He went to the UN and said "Iraq has WMDs". The UN said prove it. Weapons inspectors went in... and OMG! there were none!!! (the worst thing those inspectors could say was that some weapons that PREVIOUSLY existed prior to the first Gulf-war had been improperly discarded.

Its really stupid actually. Bush declares that Iraq has these weapons. The UN says "no they dont." Iraq says "no we dont". The inspectors say "no they dont". So what does the US do? Declare war! Fun for everyone! And NOW WHAT DOES BUSH SAY? He went in to "liberate Iraqis".

And then there are some *sigh* who still believe that the US is safer that Saddam is out... that he no longer poses a threat. Well, sad to say, he NEVER WAS A THREAT after the Gulf-war.

**and a side point... Gore DID win the election... the final recount which was produced stated that Gore actually had a few hundred votes over Bush, but the recount was halted and DISCOUNTED by the US Supreme Court where 4 justices (appointed by Democrats) voted for Gore and you guessed it, 5 justices (appointed by Republicans) voted for Bush.**

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgur

U jI kI &iqh!!

[Japnaam Singh]

Khalsa4ever,

I already argued in about 2 or 3 posts why going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

The UN says "no they dont."

The UN said that? Show me when. The UN passed a resolution in October of 2002 calling on Saddam to "disarm" and halt all WMD activity or face "consequences". It would seem odd for the UN to call on Saddam to stop WMD activitity if they didn't believe that he was engaged in WMD activity.

The overwhelming consensus was that Saddam had WMD. The UN's answer was to debate about it some more and maybe issue some strong letter of condemnation, i.e. "all talk, no action". Bush's answer was obviously different; backing up words with action.

the final recount which was produced stated that Gore actually had a few hundred votes over Bush

That's not true, Bush was ahead by over 500 votes when the Supreme Court made their ruling. Gore was never ahead at all, in the whole recount process.

You're right that it was a 5-4 vote. 2 of those who voted with Gore's side were appointed by Republicans. Justice Souter by the first President Bush and Justice Stevens by President Ford.

[simmal tree]

Japnaam Singh veerjee,

The question is not whether Iraq or US is better off now that Saddam Hussein is gone.

You cannot say that you would be equally happy with a man who killed hundreds of thousands of people and wasted billions of dollars to get rid of one evil dictator, and a second man who did not do nearly as much damage and still got rid of the dictator.

If Sikhs can assassinate Indira Gandhi, if somebody can kill JFK, if somebody can kill Mohandas Gandhi ....... I'm pretty sure, somehow, the USA could have killed Saddam Hussein. I'm sure with the billions of dollars they spend on security satellites and warfare, with all the special commandos and espionage specialists and veteran war heroes they have, they would easily have been able to execute Saddam Hussein without spilling oceans of Iraqi blood - all of that blood is on GWB's hands.

[S1ngh]

Going war with IRAQ is AMAZING stupid of Bush !

Did you happen to know What first thing bush said.. when his aide told him about Sept 11 incident when he was down in florida @ some elementary school.. ???

"Find me out if Suddam is behind this?" Said Bush... That was his first Sentence after he heard about sept 11 incident !!!

He made false case of WMD to fear his own citizens about future attacks and then attacked the country without strong case..

What's NATO is for?? What UN is for?? Bush went against NATO and UN and what he found out?? WMD ?? DId he ?? Wasn't that the reason he went on war?? <_>

Okay now How bush/kerry gonna effect us?? I will let you think over this RECENT news..

When the Senate-approved proposal was presented at the House of Representatives on Thursday, Republican negotiators rejected the bill, aimed at strengthening the hate crime law.

The hate crime bill called Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA), co-sponored by Senators Edward M Kennedy and Gordan Smith(Democrats), was viewed to help in prosecution of hate crimes by removing unnecessary impediments in the prosecution procedures.

This post is by the person who also helped Republican cand. Kathuria couple of months ago.. So as comparing between bush and kerry.. i would say kerry is far better than bush.. As Democrats always help middle class ppls... I rest my case..

[Japnaam Singh]

You're missing the point.

The Iraq problem wasn't all about one man. Its much deeper than that.

It wasn't all about bringing Saddam to justice for his crimes.

It wasn't all about liberating people from tyranny.

(Although those points were important factors)

What would've happened if Saddam was killed? One of his sons might've taken over? What if he was killed? Then the other son? Regimes can not be toppled by simple assassinations. A democracy can not be built by killing one man.

The war was and is largely about having a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east - the centre of our planet's instability.

How can you have a "war on terror" and then not address the need for fundamental changes to take place in the middle east before that culture of terror can be altered?

Arabs living in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nations will without a doubt be compelled to speak up like never before for reforms, for freedoms, for fundamental liberties, when they see a democratic and free Iraq operating right next door.

Oceans of Iraqi blood? Most of the innocent blood spilt in the past few months has been the direct cause of the brutal terrorists and homicide bombers doing whatever they can to prevent elections in January. You speak as if Bush organizes the killing of civilians. Grow up. Do you really believe that?

You speak as if there's some moral equivelancy between Bush and the Jihadists, there is NOT. The Americans do not target civilians, the American's hearts are not filled with hatred in the same way as the Jihadists, the Americans just want to genuinely help

set up a functioning society now, they want to help institute a democratic government and then they hope to leave.

Even if someone disagreed with going to war to begin with, what kind of heartless scumbag wouldn't support the effort now? And that's exactly what I see nowadays. When Americans die, people feel satisfied; "shows them right", they say. Some people demand that the Americans leave immediately or within 6 months. Why? Do these people have some sick temptation to witness a civil war?

History will vindicate this war, as long as the Americans stay the course and make certain that a democracy is set up, that human rights are appreciated and that the culture of terror and jihadism is dealt with.

Do you really think historians, 20 years from now will be saying, "Don't you think it was so horrible when George Bush went into Iraq and set up that democracy? My god, that was awful. Why did he have to ruin the stability provided by that good fellow Saddam? What a war criminal that Bush."

Ok, I've said enough and when I hit "Add Reply" I'll be able to reach 100 posts and view the next new shabad beside my name.

[Japnaam Singh]

Vicky Singh,

Did you happen to know What first thing bush said.. when his aide told him about Sept 11 incident when he was down in florida @ some elementary school.. ???

"Find me out if Suddam is behind this?" Said Bush... That was his first Sentence after he heard about sept 11 incident !!!

How was that unreasonable? Did you know that Saddam was the only world leader to celebrate and praise those attacks? The Iranians, the Libyans, I think even the North Koreans expressed sympathy and condolences, but not Saddam. If you're aware of a sworn enemy of your nation, why would you not discuss the possibility of their involvement? It would be irresponsible not to do so.

He made false case of WMD to fear his own citizens about future attacks and then attacked the country without strong case..

There've been about half a dozen inquiries so far in the USA and the UK; all of these inquiries agreed that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed and in many cases, outright wrong, but not a single one of them said that Bush and Blair purposely mislead their people in the run up to the war. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Bush lied.

[S1ngh]

Japnaam singh veerjee..

How sept 11 is linked to Iraq? that's first question..

Why Suddam needs to pull down, when there are dozen of other countries where more cruel/inhuman/sick stuff is happening by the power of their leaders??? If US took the job of being the Babysitter for the rest of the world then why he only care for the country like Iraq. He can go and help other war torn countries in Africa as humanity base just like bush changed his agenda from WMD to Humanity base. When he wasn't able to find WMD in iraq all he did was showing that how suddam was cruel by digging decades old graves.. <_ i admit suddam is bad guy.. but war with his country without any strong case big mistake and bush party will pay it by losing this year election for shurrree>

Like me and others.. we really don't like our Money to go into war which is absolutely not necessary.. while students like me can't even find a simple part time job. Bush or our current president needs to Look into domestic issues more than in international issues.

Did you know that sale of weapons of US department increase after other countries watch Americans using their weapons on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so on?? Did you know that there’s always expiry date on every weapon and they wanna flush it out ?? There's huge conspiracy behind this !!! Huge Companies gets contract by Bush to rebuild countries they destroy. Did you know that US didn't allowed rebuilding contracts coming from countries German

y and France just because they were against war in Iraq?

So now America who is known as world peace nation and the one who wants to settle the issue of Israel and Palestine.. That will only happen if american govt stop the sale of US arms and latest gadgets to Israel. Maybe it's time for America to stop making weapons of mass destruction by himself and set the example to other countries not to make deadly weapons. We can put limit on these stuff only if we choose right leader.. which means NO bush in 2004 !

[simmal tree]

Japnaam Singh veerjee,

Nobody is saying that democracy is bad or that making an attempt to liberate Iraqis is bad.

Sure assassination of Saddam Hussein alone couldn't do everything.

Yes Jihadists in Iraq are far worse of a mental state that GWB.

But how does any of that rationalize GWB's approach to the situation?

GWB didn't just go in there, try to make changes and set up a government.

He wanted to go in there, exploit the resources, and come out.

Now they are stuck there due to international expectations.

Nobody in their right mind is happy to see an Iraqi or an American die.

Please don't paint all anti-GWB people with the same brush.

You're continuing to feed into that "with us or with the terrorists" ideology

Instability in the world comes from walking away from God. Bad karmas for the human race are caused by those who have no faith. And also caused by those who use faith to commit sins.

That applies to - among others - the right-wing crusador Americans, jihadist Middle Easterners, fanatic RSS Indians, and the apathetic atheist Chinese.

Democracy is a sham Japnaam Singh. What the hell does "world's largest democracy" mean in India anymore. Democracy does not come from the USA setting up some sham government of US-lovers. IN our global capitalist market, everybody is either bought out or on sale.

It doesn't matter how successful the end result is - in Gurmat the motives matter. And GWB did not send soldiers to Iraq for liberation of Iraqis. That's his cover-up.

GWB's mental intentions are dishonest - so everything he does is stai

ned.

It's the same reason why I quit from the exec of some groups - because I am not a rehitdharee Gursikh and my personal actions reflect into my public parchar. man mailai sabh kishh mailaa

Whatever the war on iraq finally accomplishes, it is not credit to GWB. His hands are stained with the blood of innocent civilians. He didn't go and kill anybody, but he put a lot of people in a position where they couldn't decide whether or not they wanted to be involved in the war - and they had to fight or die. He made that decision and he didn't lose anything. A lot of people lost from it and that "hisaab kithaab" is serious stuff.

I'm not here to judge GWB - that's for dharam raaj - and God knows I will be judged harshly too.

He might be this and that, which looks good in Martha Stewart Magazine, but he's just not a good potential president. That's all.

[Japnaam Singh]

How is September 11th linked to Iraq? Read my previous posts. The American government cannot allow threats to materialize like they did in the past. Saddam Hussein funded terror, he approved of terror, and he praised the 9/11 hijackers. He was believed to have WMD, everyone thought he had WMD, so the only logical thing Bush could have thought was "Hey, this bad guy Saddam approves of terror, he doesn't like our country, what if he gives WMD to those terrorists? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians can be killed immediately. Can I let this happen?"

They did have a strong case! That's my own interpretation though. I've outlined numerous rationales for going into Iraq, all of which are justifiable.

Did you know that there’s always expiry date on every weapon and they wanna flush it out ?? There's huge conspiracy behind this !!!

Do you know how silly that sounds? No one in their right mind believes that Bush is some heartless war profiteer. Stop being so cynical veerjee.

Did you know that US didn't allowed rebuilding contracts coming from countries Germany and France just because they were against war in Iraq?