|
Bush
Nov 3, 2006 12:43:22 GMT -5
Post by Nightmare on Nov 3, 2006 12:43:22 GMT -5
@sonic: I also have to agree that both parties can be stupid, but I'll have to disagree and say that the war is in fact not a mistake. I don't know about you, but I'd rather we crush these terrorists as best we can now, and get rid of Saddam and his supporters, than sit here pretending nothing's wrong and wait to get struck by them.
Sure, alot of people would like to claim it's a mistake because they don't want American casualties. Nobody wants American casualties. But these soldiers aren't being forced to fight in the war, they want to, because they want to protect their counrty, they want to protect the people they love.
If these people believe that they need to protect their loved ones, why try and force them to come back and give up? It's nice to care about them, and not want them to die, but they're willing to do that for what and who they love. If someone dies, it's sad, but hey, it happens, we're at war.
Do you think people wanted to fight the World Wars? Don't you think people back then thought the war was a mistake? Does that mean we shouldn't have fought in it? Should we have let the Gremans take over the world?
Do you think people wanted to fight the civil war? Don't you think people back then thought the war was a mistake? Does that mean we shouldn't have fought in it? Should we have let slavery become an okay thing and left America divided?
What about the Revolutionary war? Don't you think some people didn't want to fight in the Revolutionary War? Don't you think some people back then thought the war was a mistake? Does that mean we shouldn't have fought in it? Does that mean we should be sitting here right now drinking tea with the British flag hanging over our heads?
You see where I'm going with this, right?
America doesn't fight in wars because we want too, or because we like losing lives, or damaging the economy, we do it for the good of our future, to protect us, to ensure America stays the greatest country on Gods Green Earth.
So whether or not people oppose the war, like I said, in the future, our grand kids will be learning about George Bush and the war on terror, and they'll be taught he was a great man, a Hero. History speaks for itself.
@fusion: That was spam if I've ever seen it. XP
@spex: I'm not sure I understand the chart you've posted...
|
|
swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 3, 2006 15:51:29 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 3, 2006 15:51:29 GMT -5
People should stop whining about the casualties we're taking in Iraq. Today, 3x as many people ages 18-40 are going to die here in the US from natural causes than the number that'll be killed in Iraq. I wish they could go on the offensive again instead of waiting to be killed but we are winning. I want our soldiers to come back too but I think since we've done so much already, come so far and sacrificed so many that we should finish what we're doing.
I'm also very concerned with what Sonic said. You've gotta see it Nightmare, that at the time Bush had support but that is no longer the case. And now he's deeply hurt the Republican party. Now normally I wouldn't really care but the House, Senate and likely the White House are going to be controlled by Democrats. And I like to have an equal number of morons on both sides to balance each other out. From the looks of things, we are going to have a very, vey liberal next 4 years.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 3, 2006 18:41:14 GMT -5
Post by Nightmare on Nov 3, 2006 18:41:14 GMT -5
I have to agree, George Bush has lost some support since the beginning of the war, but if he were so hurt by the war, he wouldn't have been re-elected. Now, things may be looking good for the democrats as far as the House and Senate goes so far, but John Kerry has seriously damaged the Democratic party, probobly more than Bush has hurt the Republicans. That's because after hearing John Kerry, alot of the undecided people leaning towards democrat got pissed and will vote republican just too see the democrats suffer. I admit, it's not the best way for the republicans to win, but I wouldn't want anyone like that traitor John Kerry to have any amount of power.
As far as the Presidential race is concerned, I can't say who'll be in power till I see the candidates. I do know however that the Democrats are screwed if they put up John Kerry again, or Hillary Clinton. Also, the Republicans have a good chance if Rudy Juliani runs for president. But that's off topic.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 3, 2006 20:04:57 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 3, 2006 20:04:57 GMT -5
so these terrorists.. what makes htem not doing that^^ i dont agree. but in their opinion.. they are doing that, they are protecting their loved ones, and suicide bombers ARE THE BEST WAY TO GET NOTICED AND ACHIEVE THEIR GOAL.. sadly
also, kerry vs bush.. maybe bush was the lesser of two evils, or the best to PROTECT ameica in that situation, although not necessarily solve the problems
@spex. BUSH broke UN laws by declaring law when there were no WMDs. no matter what you say, it was proven that there were none
so what could Iraw have done? no nuclear capabilities, if they attack US they would get royally ass raped by a full scale war. so IMO, after finding no WMDs and leaving troops on watch there, it was problem solved. obviously theres still terrorists, but to be fair, the war has probably provoked more tenstion and more people to join the jihad. IMO, after finding no WMDs bush shoulda left troops on watch, and left the problem there, and it woulda been solved much better.
(note i'm not fully sober atm, so my argument aint great XD..)
|
|
swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 4, 2006 1:34:18 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 4, 2006 1:34:18 GMT -5
Well I hate to take advantage of your situation but I thought I'd stick in something Bush said, these probably aren't his exact words but they were something like this "There aren't good terrorists and bad terrorists. They're all bad. It doesn't matter if they don't have WMDs, they still aren't nice peaceful people. Its not as if these are good terrorists, we will fight them wherever we see them."
As far as breaking UN law, based on the info we had I think it had to be done. It was just countries like France that voted no because A. they're gutless cowards and they didn't want to get off their lazy butts and get involved and B. Saddam was giving them cheap oil so they'd vote his way.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 4, 2006 8:09:49 GMT -5
Post by Fusion on Nov 4, 2006 8:09:49 GMT -5
John Kerry didn't even really directly insult anyone. His words (exact words) were "If you don't go to college, you go to Iraq." How does that phrase insult people? That's the truth nowadays. Why are people taking those words the wrong way? How do you get "our american soldiers are retards" out of that? It just implies they've got at least high-school education plus training from the Army. You don't need a college degree to be a soldier. It's simply a statement of today's recruitment rate: We're getting too many rookies and not enough experience. Oh wait, our experience is retiring now.
You've also gotta remember that most Democratic supporters want the troops -out- of Iraq so vaguely calling them idiots is probably sympathetic. To Republicans it'll of course sound like a low blow so they'll treat it as such.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 4, 2006 12:01:59 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 4, 2006 12:01:59 GMT -5
by the same toke, saddam and the bush family (or was it bin laden and the bush family) were good (oil rich) friends.. so they had cheap oil. attacking means they can get that oil.. i mean terrorist threat outta iraq
and to be fair, they didnt need to invade iraq. they coulda just left some soldiers to keep an eye on saddam and we woulda been better off
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 4, 2006 15:07:23 GMT -5
Post by Nightmare on Nov 4, 2006 15:07:23 GMT -5
John Kerry didn't even really directly insult anyone. His words (exact words) were "If you don't go to college, you go to Iraq." How does that phrase insult people? That's the truth nowadays. Why are people taking those words the wrong way? How do you get "our american soldiers are retards" out of that? It just implies they've got at least high-school education plus training from the Army. You don't need a college degree to be a soldier. It's simply a statement of today's recruitment rate: We're getting too many rookies and not enough experience. Oh wait, our experience is retiring now. You've also gotta remember that most Democratic supporters want the troops -out- of Iraq so vaguely calling them idiots is probably sympathetic. To Republicans it'll of course sound like a low blow so they'll treat it as such. Although this is off topic, since it's not about Bush, Kerry's real exact words were "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don´t, you get stuck in Iraq." That's pretty much saying that if you do bad in school, don't make an effort to be smart, and come out stupid, you end up as a soldier fighting in a war... "The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today." That was quoted from Senator John McCain, couldn't agree more personally. What Jonh Kerry said, was unimaginably insulting to me, I can only imagine how the soldiers in Iraq feel. Not only that, but he insulting the military like that is in turn insulting the people who fought in the Vietnam war (like my father) and it makes him a traitor, since he's supposedly a Veteran and he's going around calling them idiots. I'm not going to get into the fact that he's a traitior, since I could go on for days, but I'll say right now, John Kerry is a scumbag. Even if this was a "botched joke", it was still aimed to be a real low blow to the President. But I doubt it was a "botched joke." In a botched joke, you screw up and change one or two words. He changed twenty two.... I call what Jonh Kerry said a Freudian slip. Meaning he wanted to say one thing, but blurted out another from his subconcious. Like if your girlfriend asks "Does this make me look fat?" and it does, but you don't want to say that, but you blurt it out anyways. "The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful. The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave, and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology." -George Bush.
|
|
swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 5, 2006 22:32:11 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 5, 2006 22:32:11 GMT -5
<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f129/JenClaws/MinnesotaNationalGaurd.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 9:12:29 GMT -5
Post by RELLIK on Nov 6, 2006 9:12:29 GMT -5
starting a war will not change the way a nation thinks. sure i dont want to have people get killed but peace is not possible until someone realizes it themselves. and if you were under the flag of britain it still wouldnt change who you are. as for wwi where was america?
so you mean america does it just for america and no other country... this is what creates greed.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 9:47:31 GMT -5
Post by Fusion on Nov 6, 2006 9:47:31 GMT -5
If anything, I'm voting Democrat anyhow in my local election so that if they win the house, we can see what THEY would do.
As for Iraq, let's look at it this way: Our only running point is to "get the Iraqi forces to stand up for themselves" and that's what they're -not- gonna do. If anything, there's too many soldiers in Iraq and that makes the policing forces and Iraqi's own militiary far too dependant on the U.S troops. "Slow" reduction of soldiers my foot, we should pull a chunk out and see of the Iraqi forces can handle the greater weight put on them. You don't hold a bird in your arms from the day it's born until the day it dies, you have to let it free sooner or later, and I believe that this bird is struggling to get free.
Although, if you really look at the facts, terrorism -isn't- the only problem in Iraq. You've got the Sunni-Shiite war, which in turn basically means that civil war has already broken out in Iraq. A war + terrorists + occupation from another country whose leader really has no clue what SHOULD be done = Recipe for total disaster.
What about North Korea? Are we just going to let them nuke someone? It's bad enough we have people that don't acknowledge real threats, but even worse if they ignore threats that have nuclear capability.
Come on, people, let us think for a second... Where would we honestly be if John Kerry was our president? Don't just say "nowhere" because I want you all to actually think about it a little.
I think that since the Democrats play alongside the general ideas from the media (which they get from viewer polls) that the troops would BE out of Iraq and we'd be repairing the foreign relations damages we'd done. Not to mention the better budget and possibly more stable economy (have you seen the stock numbers lately? Going down -ain't- a growing economy) and sure, we may have had higher taxes... But we'd also have higher wages to cover for them!
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 9:49:39 GMT -5
Post by Sonic on Nov 6, 2006 9:49:39 GMT -5
Ok, there are several points I'd like to discuss here, but first I'm going to start with what Nightmare said on our troops wanting to fight this war. First off, we don't know every troop personally. Who knows if their parents forced them into it or if they just had nothing else going for them, or if they at first wanted to fight but are now deeply regetting it... The second thing I'd like to discuss is your remark on our previous wars. I think those wars were actually justified, since we actually knew who our enemy was. (minus Vietnam, that war was also pointless) The british were the enemy during the Revolutionary War. In the World Wars it was the germans(World War II ended much quicker due to the fact that a certain maniacal bastard killed himself). In the Civil War, sadly, we were fighting amongst ourselves. But we knew what we were fighting for. Now, we're just fighting civilians with homemade bombs and lord knows what else. You don't know if you're shooting down an innocent bystander or an enemy. I understand what you mean about lives being lost because like you say, we're at war. But you don't understand the root cause of my frustastion. Lives are being claimed for no reason. Our poor troops are out there dying in vain, they're dying due to our foolish president's mere whim on wanting to finish his father's war. It is honorable to die in war when your cause is just. To me, they're still brave men for going out there and fighting, but come on, where's the nobility? They're just Bush's guinea pigs, and that, my friend, is what pisses me off. This war is a war of corruption and scams, which brings me to my third point, and it's what Alter and Swim pointed out. OIL. That's all it is. OIL. America can't quench it's thirst for the disgusting substance, and so it sends young men out to war on the premise that we're there to instate diplomacy in Iraq, which in my opinion is a mild form of dictatorship, you can't force a country to change their way of doing things if they don't want to, although here I'll allow some criticism because for all I know, it may be due to the a**holes we're fighting that diplomacy hasn't run rampant through Iraq. Either way, it was a bit boneheaded of us to just go over there and assume, "Oh yeah, Iraq is going to want to run their country just like we do, and if they don't want to, too f*cking bad." No no no, ladies and gentleman, it's because America needs to fuel it's own sloth and gluttony, that's why we're over there. Why is the federal deficit so high? Surely it can't all be due to war, although most of it probably is. No, our government pays for the oil that America needs, and where does this money go? To rich middle eastern oil companies, that's who. This money in turn funds the very same terrorist camps that we're trying to destroy. So much for not "negotiating with terrorists." F*cking hypocrites. That was the majority of my rant. Let me get to the minor things... John Kerry, like any normal human being, was showing passion in what he was saying. Maybe for once, he wasn't thinking about being politically correct like every other f*cktard, Bush included. And please, don't quote anything that Bush says. He is the world's most terrible orator, everything he says is engraved firmly within his small cranium from being rehearsed so many times. He just recites what his advisors tell him to say like a f*cking parrot. On a side note (and to keep things humorous) not all soldiers are intelligent. Ever see Forrest Gump?
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 12:21:34 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 6, 2006 12:21:34 GMT -5
on a side note as well, american's always complain about oil prices.. (quick check on google)
average price of petrol in uk = approx. $5.58/gal average price of petrol in us = approx. $2.38/gal
[/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline]Check Here[/url]
oh i'm sorry.. here was me thinking you guys had something to complain about...
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 13:13:35 GMT -5
Post by Nightmare on Nov 6, 2006 13:13:35 GMT -5
Well Sonic, I'm sure you think that all the wars beside this one were justified, but what about people back then? I'm sure people in the future will see this war as justified as well.
Now, as for your remark about lives being lost for "no reason", lives are being lost too help free Iraq, and too protect America. I'd say those are two very good reasons. And you can say you still support and respect the troops, and that you think they're brave, but saying they're dying in vain, calling them guinea pigs, and implying they have no nobility say the exact opposite. You can't hate the president and be so against the war, and still have respect for the troops.
Straying off for a second, but my father faught in the Vietnam War (which I also see as just), he served his country, and put his life on the line to protect everything he held dear. He was brave, and went through alot during that war, and do you know how he was greeted? He came home, and he didn't get a parade, he was spit on. He was spit on by people who decided that the war was unjust, and that the president was retard.
Whether you agree with the war, or like the President or not, people should still show some respect.
Anyways, with all due respect, what posessed you to say something so stupid as America is run by scams, and corrpution over oil? Sure, we may want oil, and sure, some fools out there may hate George Bush, but making such claims is lower than usual.
It's one thing to imply George Bush is an idiot (by the way, George Bush can fly a fighter jet, can you? Didn't think so...) but to say that he's corrupt, and fighting the war so we can have oil, and pretty much all that horrible stuff you said, that's just low. He's the President of the United States for Gods Sake, show some respect at least...
Now, as for the whole Iraq not wanting to change thing. Did they pull down the statue of Saddam and cheer in the streets when we came to free him because they didn't want a diplomacy? It's not that Iraq doesn't want too be free from the dictatorship, it's that the people we're fighting in Iraq are making it near impossible too set up a stable government.
And for those of you who want to say "We had no business going in in the first place, we should have left Iraq alone from the beginning." What if you were in Iraq, you had a horrible dictaror like Saddam in charge, people dying for no reason (for real this time) and there was this big SuperPower, the USA, and and they wanted to help you, but some liberal wussies said no.
How do you think the Iraqi people would have felt if that had happened? I think there'd be alot less democrats if that were the case, if you catch my drift....
As for your comment about America buying Oil and the money funding terrorists. That could be true, so why not free Iraq, make an allience with them, and get oil for cheaper, without worrying about the money funding terrorists? Looks like the damage done too our wallets cause of oil will be a little less severe if we finish the war...
And please, I'll quote the President as I see fit. He may not be the best with words, but he really is a smart guy, and he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the issues that matter.
@fusion: I agree that we should be redirecting troops from Iraq to focus on North Korea, but these things take time.
And in all honesty, I think that if John Kerry were president, we'd all be wearing turbans by now...
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 14:07:50 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 6, 2006 14:07:50 GMT -5
true.. but the guinea pig line i dont see as disrespect, i see it as him saying that they are being exploited whats wrong with that xD
also does it occur that Saddam coulda been oposed in a way other than an invasion? i mean he needed to be gotten rid of, but i dont think the tactics taken were the best.
as for bush being a great leader, and remembered well, consider this
Hitler was a great leader for his country, pulling them outta recission, and doing a lot for germany. like it or not, as a leader he was brilliant. but looking back, we all still hate him, and in the long term, he f'ed up majorly and sucked. Bush mighta done what you think was best for the US, but what about the long term? now East/West relations are even worse..
|
|