swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 6, 2006 14:23:35 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 6, 2006 14:23:35 GMT -5
I just don't see Kerry protecting us. I can't make a strong case on that though, he hasn't had to make the choices Bush is. But he wouldn't go on the offensive. He'd sit there and do nothing and let us get attacked which - in time - we would have been. Better to eliminate a problem before it gets dangerous.
As for Sonic's arguement, to me it doesn't seem like its about oil. What I said about oil was that it was a reason for us not to go to war, France opposed the war for the simple reason that it drove their oil prices up. And it drove ours up too. But in going to war, we're showing that some things are more important than cheap gas. I dunno, I just don't see the war as an excuse to finish Bush senior's war or to get oil. Its to go in, kill the frigging terrorists and go home. And going home is whats taking the longest part, our military is much more suited for offense than it is for defense. And I really like Fusion's analogy about the bird, you have to see if it'll fly, can't hold it forever.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 7, 2006 12:43:52 GMT -5
Post by Sonic on Nov 7, 2006 12:43:52 GMT -5
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. Tell me Nightmare, what would happen if we were to withdraw from Iraq? You're saying our troops are there to protect us from Iraq. From what though? The only thing I can think of is if they try to pull an Al-Quaeda on us (i.e. trying to bomb a building) and Al- Quaeda can virtually be anywhere, from Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan (which is where we should've focused in the first place) if something were to happen here, you wouldn't be able to pin it on Iraq, because Al-Quaeda is a global oraganization. What can Iraq themselves do to us? With no WMD or any other long range nuclear capabilities, they aren't a threat. It's like Alter said, we should just have a handful of troops patrolling Iraq to keep it in check. On your second remark, the one about me "offending" our troops, how did I offend them? I do appreciate that they're out there, what I'm saying is that I don't appreciate the reasons that they're out there for. I'm quite sure that I'm typing in English. Futhermore, whoever said I hated the president? I detest his ideas, and I positivley loathe his decisions, but you can't truly hate a person unless you know them, and I don't know him. I think he's the world's biggest moron, yes, an idiot, yes, but I don't hate him. 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. Ok, so you're dad fought in Vietnam, and people spit on him. How is that my fault? I wouldn't have spat on him, I would've either A. Congratulated him on putting up with the indecisiveness of our presidents during that war (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc...some who were good presidents overall...not so sure about Truman though) or B. I would just feel bad for him, because there's a good chance he was drafted into that war. But let's get off family matters, shall we? This is politics we're talking. 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. Ho man, you're really showing how young you are with that comment...do you honestly think that America is being run by honest, caring, people? People that would first put their own necks on the line to save people they don't even know, rather than care about themselves and their families? I mean sure, there are always exceptions, there are some good people out there I think, but it's a dog eat dog world man, survival of the fittest. To think that America is some utopia where everyone cares is just naive. There is corruption in America. Not just over oil, but for several other things that you'll probably demand to hear with your next retort. 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... Ok, I make it a rule to keep my personal feelings out of these deabtes, but honestly, the way you keep gushing about how great and smart Bush is, you sound like his freakin lawyer. I mean seriously, you're practically licking the guy's feet....it's kind of repulsive. (And I can write a 200 page essay on why America is going to the dogs and for what reasons, can Bush do that? Didn't think so.) 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. I distinctly remember saying that I'd allow some criticism when I said that, didn't I? I'm not psychic, and neither are you. I have no idea what the Iraqi people would do if we actually managed to get rid of the insurgents. My guess is that yes, they would be happy. But where the hell would they go from there? We'd try to instate dimplomacy, and who's to say they wouldn't rebel against us too? 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. I'd like to see them help us if they were the superpower and we were the ailing country. I say let them fight their own wars, we had no reason to get involved with them if they had nothing to do with us. The only possible way I could see this as justified was if Iraq did indeed have WMD, because they would then be a possible threat. They DIDN'T have WMD. And you're calling liberals like me wussies (which is a bit childish) when conservatives like yourself instantly get offended when I say our troops are being used as pawns, and when I call the president an idiot. 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... Because like I said before, Al-Quaeda is a global organization. Merely making alliances with Iraq will not stop that money from going to terrorist camps. Even if Al-Quaeda was concentrated in Iraq, we do the majority of our oil transactions with Saudi Arabia. Iraq is just an added oil bonus. 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. That's fine. In that case, I'll insult the president and his actions as I see fit. He's not really that smart, and if he seems to know what he's talking about, it's because he practiced his "how to get people to digest my garbage" look in the mirror. I'm not here to endlessly argue with you, Nightmare. I'm here to make my opinions known, and that I have done.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 7, 2006 15:26:59 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 7, 2006 15:26:59 GMT -5
just to c/d with sonic there
War in Iraq is more of a cause for violence than a deterrent. sure it mighta damaged Al Quaeda a little bit, if it was their base of operations, or because they were attacked, but in the end, as Sonic said, they are GLOBAL. let me just quote today's metro (a local London newspaper)
this is a summary article today, as the story has been on the front page for about a week. as some background info, for those who dont know. Thames = Biggest river in london Tube = underground train kinda thing Dirty bomb = bomb that throws out radioactive material to F up the place afterwards too via radiation All those stations mentioned = huge train/underground/tube (all 3 services) stations where thousands of commuters come each day.
so a fairly big attack.. especially as he was planning to blow up the THAMES and some trains at the same time.. and attack America.. tell me did any of you guys here about this?
see he was raised and trained in the UK. truthfully, do you think the Iraq invasion has detterred him at all? or really had an effect on this attack? other than possibly (for lack of a better word) "provoking" it? especially since we have a huge anti terror campaign going on over here, so the Iraq invasion has done jack all to help with this really.
like i said, and sonic too. the invasion was unnecessary and hasnt helped. it has provoked if anything (imo) is an example of bad leadership.
just thought i'd add that
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 7, 2006 15:44:26 GMT -5
Post by Sonic on Nov 7, 2006 15:44:26 GMT -5
Thanks Alter, that just further proves my point.
|
|
swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 7, 2006 15:53:54 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 7, 2006 15:53:54 GMT -5
Kinda skipped over mine though.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 8, 2006 6:30:11 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 8, 2006 6:30:11 GMT -5
i don't really know enough about kerry so im not gonna talk about that and look stupid.
as for the oil thing. like i keep saying, there was no reason to attack, (reasonably - i.e WMDs, threat of military attack etc) so oil is the logical conclusion for me
and yes the US military is better on offence.. soo... nukes are better on offence.. does that mean bush should suppress the rest of the planet with regular nukings? to "let the bird fly"?
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 8, 2006 9:33:03 GMT -5
Post by Sonic on Nov 8, 2006 9:33:03 GMT -5
This just in! Dems win the House! Bout time the nation started waking up...oh by the way, read the very first paragraph. Matter of fact, I'll put it right here in big, bold letters: A succession of tainted Republicans lost seats as their leaders lost power, a stinging and discerning referendum on the ways of Washington. A large majority of voters surveyed across the country said their disgust with corruption influenced their choice.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eln_election_rdp
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 8, 2006 12:22:51 GMT -5
Post by Nightmare on Nov 8, 2006 12:22:51 GMT -5
Well Sonic, if you don't want to keep arguing with me, that's fine. We'll agree to disagree for now. As for the current election: So I see people are still getting dumber... But I think that's a topic for another thread.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 8, 2006 13:32:16 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 8, 2006 13:32:16 GMT -5
just to remind and counter that^
Lower IQs in all states who voted bush.... *cough* not that that matters as we've discussed. however, not to promote conflict, but NMMZ, i would like to see your reply to Sonic's big post up there^^ would be very interesting.
|
|
swimstud600
Guest
Member is offline
|
Bush
Nov 8, 2006 15:56:38 GMT -5
Post by swimstud600 on Nov 8, 2006 15:56:38 GMT -5
You wanna talk this election see the Voting thread I made on November 7, it isn't just about those 2 old ladies. And the problem I have with all the people that voted Democrat is this: they aren't voting for anything. They voted against Bush, they aren't considering current candidates, many people just voted that way because they hate Bush.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 9, 2006 0:21:23 GMT -5
Post by Nicktendonick on Nov 9, 2006 0:21:23 GMT -5
As for the current election: So I see people are still getting dumber... But I think that's a topic for another thread. Actually I disagree. for Republicans, this will force them to regroup and be a strong party in the future (if they do regroup of course). It's a wake up call for them. And the problem I have with all the people that voted Democrat is this: they aren't voting for anything. They voted against Bush, they aren't considering current candidates, many people just voted that way because they hate Bush. Oh god I hope not. The reason why I didn't like the democrat's agenda is that they didn't have one. but well, I beleive this is good. Now for all the democrats have said they could do better, now with them in control of both house and senate, it's time to see what they do. If they do good and are bi-partician (same with the president), then expect them to keep it and maybe a democratic president in 08. If they do a poor job with their power, then expect the democrats to lose both houses and presidency for another 12 years. Also, nothing will happen too. the house + senate will block all the president does, and the president will block all the democrats do. I'm hopeful for the future. If the ENTIRE goverment works together, then we have a bright future ahead of us. If not, then nothing will happen in the next 2 years and we'll be back at 2004 when it's 08. (on a person note and opinion....) I also have my eye on the new Majority Speaker of the House. I hear she's extremely-liberal and would love to crusify the President. Time to see if that's true and what she's made of.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 9, 2006 11:13:15 GMT -5
Post by Sonic on Nov 9, 2006 11:13:15 GMT -5
Well Sonic, if you don't want to keep arguing with me, that's fine. We'll agree to disagree for now. As for the current election: So I see people are still getting dumber... But I think that's a topic for another thread. Hey man, that's fine. Just let it be known, if you have any viable arguments, I'll just have better ones to counter them. And note that I said in my post, I'm not here to endlessly argue...what I mean by that is if the argument isn't worth my time, then I won't reply. But I'm still making my opinions known, whether you argue or not. As for the second comment...what Alter said is true. It's a proven fact that red states all have lower IQs.
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 9, 2006 13:10:23 GMT -5
Post by Knuckles on Nov 9, 2006 13:10:23 GMT -5
one thing to say.. i kinda agree about the voting democrat to remove bush thing.. it is kinda sad..
but if i have a choice of War continuing and escalating.. and war possibly ending, but definately continuing at least a lil more.. the latter is the lesser of 2 evils
|
|
|
Bush
Nov 9, 2006 14:40:14 GMT -5
Post by RELLIK on Nov 9, 2006 14:40:14 GMT -5
so iq aint nothin. you cant measure intelligence. its just not possible.
|
|