|
|
Post by scott on Nov 9, 2003 21:26:29 GMT -5
Here is the place to talk about Bush and all the mumbo jumbo that has to do with him.
I will start this off with...do think the war in Iraq was a right move or not?
I would have to go with a big NO.
|
|
Clump
X-Treme Gulp
Stop Buggering Me
Posts: 437
|
Post by Clump on Nov 9, 2003 22:01:51 GMT -5
I think that it's justified. I have i Iraqi neighbors who love it and think that getting rid of Saddam was a great thing. The way they think, now they're able to move back and not have their lives threatened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 9, 2003 22:19:57 GMT -5
YES I think it is the right move. Sadaam supported terrorism, we know it. Terrorists murdered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, so we know the two are related. Bush did the right thing by declaring war on Iraq when they refused to agree to any peace terms or give up their nuclear arsenal.
All those weapons searches were in vain because the UN officials are so strictly regulated when searching that Iraqis can simply ship the weapons out of the country or hide them wherever inspectors aren't looking.
We will win this war. Its gonna be a hard fight, its all geurilla warfare. But we're gonna do it. And Sadam will be gone, and there will be a not perfect, but much better system of government in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 9, 2003 22:20:24 GMT -5
I agree and support Pres. Bush. I belive that the WAS JUSTIFIED, as I am sure you gathered from my previous posts on politcal compass and dem. or rep.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpPhantomX on Nov 10, 2003 15:40:07 GMT -5
YES I think it is the right move. Sadaam supported terrorism, we know it. Terrorists murdered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, so we know the two are related. Bush did the right thing by declaring war on Iraq when they refused to agree to any peace terms or give up their nuclear arsenal. All those weapons searches were in vain because the UN officials are so strictly regulated when searching that Iraqis can simply ship the weapons out of the country or hide them wherever inspectors aren't looking. We will win this war. Its gonna be a hard fight, its all geurilla warfare. But we're gonna do it. And Sadam will be gone, and there will be a not perfect, but much better system of government in Iraq. it was justified....not only did saddam support the terrorists acts that killed americans on 9/11....but saddam has also killed many of his own people too. so this was justified...we need to stop the killing of innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by rapinyokids on Nov 10, 2003 19:29:32 GMT -5
we need to stop the killing of innocent people. yes, definitely, by going to war and killing more of them! i mean they got us, didnt they! eye for an eye, this is the stone age. war is never ever justified, especially when its run by idiots by bush so he and his pals can make dollas... read about the plan for a new millenium or somethin like that.... ull see |
|
|
|
Post by destroywoogy on Nov 10, 2003 20:33:18 GMT -5
you motherfuckers have got to be kidding me that you would support a war in which between 10 and 15 thousand iraqis were killed?? between 3,200 and 4,300 of these iraqis were unarmed innocent civilians. thats more than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. so how is killing between 3,200 and 4,300 more justifiable than killing nearly 3,000 people? not only that, bush has killed several of his fellow americans. sure, saddam was a vicious dictator, but leave it to the bush adminstration to go and make things incredibly worse. i mean, if terrorism was such a threat to bush, why didn't he take the least bit of action when richard clarke repeatedly warned him of the impending threat of terrorist attacks. richard clarke helped stop every major terrorist threat in the united states during the clinton administration. why then, did bush take the longest presidential vacation in 32 yrs. after being warned of said attacks in august of 2001? then the terrorist attacks hit and all of the sudden he had something to gain. i mean thank p diddy that we didnt bomb all of their oil fields....i mean dick cheney was one of the leaders of halliburton and did numerous accounts of business with iraq..it's interesting how oil can be of more value than human lives. we'll at least we can now supply ourselves with enough gasoline to fuel our H2's, imagine all the time and money we're going to save with access to all of that oil. now to address some other issues: clump, its good to see that your iraqi neighbors, who apparently speak for the entire nation of iraq, are pleased with the bush adminstration. that completely justifies over 3,000 deaths. i'm glad that they wouldn't feel threatened living there. i think its safe to say that iraq is one of the safest countries in the world right now....you're right, itd be a great idea to live there! wilshire, i can make connections too....the united states government has awarded $43 million to Afghanistan for supporting anti-drug policies. Afghanistan supports terrorism. therefore, the united states supports terrorism! thats too bad that the un cant find wmds, but its a great relief to know that you clearly know where they are. (by the way, maybe the u.s. thinks that they have wmd's because our government sold them to iraq). there is no axis of evil....theres been NO evidence of any link between osama bin laden and saddam. they have some similar interests (i.e. power, money), but so did the notorious b.i.g. and tupac (i.e. rapping) and i wouldn't exactly call them friends....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 10, 2003 20:35:49 GMT -5
yes, definitely, by going to war and killing more of them! i mean they got us, didnt they! eye for an eye, this is the stone age. war is never ever justified, especially when its run by idiots by bush so he and his pals can make dollas... read about the plan for a new millenium or somethin like that.... ull see you motherfuckers have got to be kidding me that you would support a war in which between 10 and 15 thousand iraqis were killed?? between 3,200 and 4,300 of these iraqis were unarmed innocent civilians. thats more than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. so how is killing between 3,200 and 4,300 more justifiable than killing nearly 3,000 people? not only that, bush has killed several of his fellow americans. sure, saddam was a vicious dictator, but leave it to the bush adminstration to go and make things incredibly worse. i mean, if terrorism was such a threat to bush, why didn't he take the least bit of action when richard clarke repeatedly warned him of the impending threat of terrorist attacks. richard clarke helped stop every major terrorist threat in the united states during the clinton administration. why then, did bush take the longest presidential vacation in 32 yrs. after being warned of said attacks in august of 2001? then the terrorist attacks hit and all of the sudden he had something to gain. i mean thank p diddy that we didnt bomb all of their oil fields....i mean dick cheney was one of the leaders of halliburton and did numerous accounts of business with iraq..it's interesting how oil can be of more value than human lives. we'll at least we can now supply ourselves with enough gasoline to fuel our H2's, imagine all the time and money we're going to save with access to all of that oil. now to address some other issues: clump, its good to see that your iraqi neighbors, who apparently speak for the entire nation of iraq, are pleased with the bush adminstration. that completely justifies over 3,000 deaths. i'm glad that they wouldn't feel threatened living there. i think its safe to say that iraq is one of the safest countries in the world right now....you're right, itd be a great idea to live there! wilshire, i can make connections too....the united states government has awarded $43 million to Afghanistan for supporting anti-drug policies. Afghanistan supports terrorism. therefore, the united states supports terrorism! thats too bad that the un cant find wmds, but its a great relief to know that you clearly know where they are. (by the way, maybe the u.s. thinks that they have wmd's because our government sold them to iraq). there is no axis of evil....theres been NO evidence of any link between osama bin laden and saddam. they have some similar interests (i.e. power, money), but so did the notorious b.i.g. and tupac (i.e. rapping) and i wouldn't exactly call them friends.... God, here I go again. Damn it feels like I have to keep repeating myself, can't anyone read? (Rehtorical and sarcastic) How in hell did he "cheat his way in to an election" there have been many minority popular vote presidents in our country. Its the way the system works. Our political system is not a democracy based on rule of the majority, but a republic based on the rule of the minority. This system has worked for 200 years so far and I see no reason to end it. First of all President Bush did not start a war for his own profit. You need to stop listening to liberal conspericy (sp) theories, seriously. President Bush started the war with Iraq becasue: 1. Saddam Hussien posed an immediate clear and present danger to the United States of America with his posession of WMDs. Yes, we had no real clue as to where he was hiding them. We have found evidence that they exist. Documents stating that scientists and eqipment that could be used to produce WMDs must be moved before the UN inspectors got to the location. We have found evidence of mobile labs. We have also found empty missles without warheads, warheads which still are out there. 2. Saddam made it clear that he had no "love" for the United States. He always supported our downfall and supported the terrorist actions on 9/11. Look, he didn't offer condolences although they would have added insult to injury coming from him. He actually condoned those actions. 3. Saddam Hussien suppoted terrorism. We have found terrorist traning camps inside of Iraq. Also, Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in the Gaza. 4. Saddam terrorized and burtalized his own people! Is a leader of a nation supposed to do that? NO!!! Also anyone who says this war is for oil and Pres. Bush's own wealth is high on something. Not only can we get all of the oil we need from the Saudis and Kuait, but we can get oil from South America as well. How did Pres. Bush gain from this war moniterally? Politcally, yes he did profit from the war however, this always occurs. Pres. Woodrow Wilson in WWI gained popularity (a Democrat and liberal) as well as Pres. FDR during WWII, look his served four or five complete terms and either part of five or six. All becasue oif his poularity due to the war. None of them intended to recive the poularit it just came, and that's because normally American's get behind their country and support it, although there is always some opposition. The opposition currently occuring is rediculios, caused by hippy wantabes, people who fear all conflict even though ist needed, and liberals who can't stand a conservitive in the governement. Most likly the WMD's are being hid, were destroyed by Saddam just as the war was begging to hid prevent us getting our hands on them and charging him with crimes against huimanity and terroris if we ever caught him, or we sent into neighboring anti-west countires, like Syria. Now the part about the Iraqi people. After any government is topled, especially one so backward and byzantinne as Saddam's takes awile to fix and form a new governemnt. It would be unrealitic for the Iraqis to expect a new governemnt in a jify. In a recent poll done by an indepedent polling agency, 66% of Iraqis still want the troops there. Many Iraqis feel fearful of the return of Saddam, they don't understand that there is no coming back for him, if he shows his face in public again he'll be ours, dead or alive, all the same to many Americans. Now the last part... Yes, President Bush has ties to the Saudi royal family, they made him an honerary member of their family. Hmm...dosn't seem economic to me, just political in the fact that they can say that yeah we are supported by the west and a modern country. I'll have a thread on how modern in fact they are started shortly. Bin laden is also tied to the Saudi family, however to imply a connection between Pres. Saying that Bush has ecominc connections with bin laden is wrong as Pres. Bush would rather die than work with that scum bag, piece of sh-t. Just in case you missed my reply, as it this is now on page five. Once agin sorry I took so long in replying. So youre're saying we should wait until he kill thousands maybe millions of our people before we should attack him?? Right  ... If we knew he could have the potential to do this we should (as we did) go in there and prevent him from using the weapons. The general notion about nuclear weapons and chemically weapons is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that's why there was a stalemeate against the Societ Union and noe North Korea, we know both sides are sane enough not to launch against the other, even though both sides may always try to gian an advantage over the other (Cold War). With Saddam, a person who has already shown himself to not care about his contrymen, only himself (a terrorist) can not be truted with those types of weapons to uphold MAD, thus the premptive stike against him and his corrupt regime. |
|
|
|
Post by xpPhantomX on Nov 11, 2003 16:08:28 GMT -5
yes, definitely, by going to war and killing more of them! i mean they got us, didnt they! eye for an eye, this is the stone age. war is never ever justified, especially when its run by idiots by bush so he and his pals can make dollas... read about the plan for a new millenium or somethin like that.... ull see oh really??the government is making money??oh because i thought to fight a war....it costed lots of money.like billions of dollars to fight the war. but i guess if what your saying is true......then fighting a war is free and we just make money off it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 11, 2003 18:59:38 GMT -5
Also, it has come to my attnetion that few of you have actually read the above post of mine. Oh, well. Tough sh--t. Keep beliving in the liberal exageration and distortion of the truth, you lazy lard a--es.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 11, 2003 19:37:13 GMT -5
Also, it has come to my attnetion that few of you have actually read the above post of mine. Oh, well. Tough sh--t. Keep beliving in the liberal exageration and distortion of the truth, you lazy lard a--es. I would read it...but I don't care...so what the hell am I reading this thread for? As long as the draft is not re-instituted and everything stays pretty normal, I don't care one way or another... |
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 11, 2003 23:23:26 GMT -5
If you people think I’m getting myself into this shit again in ANOTHER thread, you can think again. Tell you what, I’m much more comfortable being a one-man-fucking-army in just one thread, the one in The Jungle. You can bitch at me for my views there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 18:23:11 GMT -5
Fine. Post there. "If you can't handel the heat get out of the fire." I'll be posting in both as long as they both exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 20:08:31 GMT -5
Wow, did I stir up a shitstorm or what? Alright, time for my bigass rebuttal: Point: I do not listen to liberal conspiracies I developed my views and opinions based on my own knowledge and sense. Just wanted to get that out of the way. Thingy #1: The hell he didn’t cheat his way into the big chair. The electoral college system does what? It takes the majority vote of the state it represents and gives electoral votes to the chosen candidate; with the amount of votes being based on the population itself. Sounds like it should pretty much represent the majority to me. But Bush managed to get around it and win even though he lost by over 1,000,000 votes. Bullshit. Thingy #2: Hussein didn’t pose an immediate and present danger to us. When did we receive any official threats from him, saying “America, your are assholes and I will bomb your asses.” Or something to that effect. Never, it was just ASSUMED. Assumption is a rather dangerous thing in the hands of jackasses or corrupt politicians, the latter being the current case. Thingy #3: You say Saddam trained terrorists, but Bin Laden probably couldn’t have pulled off 9/11 without the super-duper training he received by the CIA. Thingy: #4: No, I’m not high on anything, I’m straightedge, thank you very much. Thingy #5: FDR was elected to all of his terms before the war, because of his “New Deal” I believe it was called, which helped the economy. He died in the middle fo the war, and Truman took over and ended it. Thingy #6: I’m not a hippie, and I’m not afraid of conflict, I just abhor it, especially when it’s senseless, kinda like now. Thingy #7: I bet the Iraqi’s recovery would’ve been a shitload speedier if we hadn’t just gone in and bombed everything to the fucking ground. “My fellow Americans, I think it’s best that we just rush in and blow everything to shit, and maybe we’ll find Saddam’s carcass in the rubble or something. I must go now, for Cow and Chicken is on. God Bless.” Thingy #8: For shit’s sake, Saddam is not going to launch nukes at anyone just because he feels like it one day. He may be a totally psychotic asshole son-of-a-bastardick, but he’s not a stupid one. Hell, he managed to make himself the leader of an entire country. But he knows damn well that if he were to fire a WMD his rule would be over in the blink of an eye. The entire world wouldn’t rest until he was dead. The nukes are more bark than bite. He can push people around with them, but if he so much as says the “anth” in anthrax, we’ll be shoving our boot so far down his throat we’ll wear him as a shoe. Bush made him out to be this huge threat, because when people are afraid of something, they’ll give up their rights just to feel safe. Oh yeah, and if it was really for the sake of the Iraqi people, Bush would’ve ended this charade long ago, because Saddam has always abused his people, we were just fishing for a reason to go after him. In fact, if his abusiveness was the actual reason, let’s start a war right now against every single country in the world with a total asshole as their leader. Wait, that wouldn’t work, cuz then we’d have to declare war on ourselves. I think that about answers most of the shit you guys threw at me, but something in my gull bladder tells me this is just gonna spawn more crap down my throat. Maybe Scott should start paying me for this……(*wink wink*) Sorry Scott , I couldn't include my reply on the same post as this quote becasue of a 10,000 character limit. Could you possibly increase that linit for the furutre? My reply follows. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 20:09:14 GMT -5
Wow, more mindless garbage from the radical left.
Ok, the day you stop posting things on how Pres. Bush "cheated" his way into the presidency, is the day I'll belive you don't actually listen to liberal conspiracy theories.
Rebuttle to Point 1: I guess , I'll have to go through this again. He did not cheat his way into an election. There is no evidence that you can show that could prove otherwise. Gore supports and bleeding heart liberals just use that as another reason to whine. He won fare and square. Now, your're just unwilling to see that our country is a republic not a true democracy! A republic by definition is minority rule, not majority rule. Please consult college level United States history books and Government text-books. Mark 617 even agrees with me on this fact. Represeantatives of the state, take the majoirty winner in their state and vote for the canidate in the elctoral college. (You implied officals not neccesarily representing the state would take the state's vote and vote in the elctoral college for that canidate.) The canidate that recives the most ELECTORAL votes wins the election and the highest office in our country, not the winner of the POPULAR vote. State's recieve votes based on their poulation and two extra votes for senators, so just not solely based on population. The beauty of this system is that it gives an ALMOST equal ground to all of the states. Now here comes the argument that California recives more votes than let's say Alaska. Well, would you rather have it that California revives millions of votes while Alaska only gets a couple of thousand. Of course not, that would be insane and a gross advantage to the state of California. Now, isn't this sounding a lot more like a republic every second! Ok, now that we understand the sytem a little bit better, I'll explain the election results. Yes, Bush lost the POPULAR vote by about milion, however as I stated above the elction is won through ELECTORAL votes. Bush had more ELECTORAL votes than Al Gore and hence, won the elction. Actually Gore was the challenger of the elction results. An interesting fact, he was the only person to ever challenge presidential election results. Nixon could have in his first attempt to gain the office against Kennedy, however he had enough dignity and decency that he did not challenge the results.
Rebuttle to Point 2: Saddamn Hussien and his corrupt regime did pose an immediate clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America. It's no secret that Saddma has never supported, liked, or said anything nice about the United Sates, you can go back to your sugar coatted world of lies and belive whatever you want. It was never assumed, he threatened us and we took care of the problem. And who are the corrupt politcians your naming? Starting to sound like McCarthy aren't you?
Rebuttle to Point 3: Yes, Saddam trained terroist. There is evidence of it in the camps out in the desert. Our troops even found one with a hollow 747 like object. Saddma gives money to the families of sucide bombers and other terrorists who die for their backward "casue". Also, Bin Laden's CIA training had nothing to do with his terroisrt activites except to show him how to train pepole like the Taliban and other Islamic militant groups. At the time of the Cold War, Bin Laden was "the enemy of my enemy", making him an ally. Bin Laden only provided a place for the terrorists to train and live before thye carried out their operation which he did not plan at all, but bankrolled.
Rebuttle to Point 4: Nothing really, but your dependence on liberal conspiracy theories, liberal media, and just plain dumb ass thoughts give the impress that your somking something. Yeah...right...a straitedge, more like a shoddy peice of metal with a trillion rough edges.
Rebuttle to Poin 5: No I'm sorry your sense of history is once again flawed. He was elected as the threat of war loomed and right smack dab near the end of it. Also, the New Deal was a relatively, good ATTEMPT to right the economy. All most all historians agree that it was the war, not the New Deal that turned the economy around. You are right Truman did end the War, but Truman was elected with FDR during the election of 1944. FDR died shortly after his election, within a year I think and Truman took over, who turned out to be a suprisingly great president as many people though he was slow mentaly.
Rebuttal to Point 6: The violence is not sensless (specifically refering to the current war in Iraq). The reasons for the violence are as follows: 1. Saddam Hussien posed an immediate clear and present danger to the United States of America with his posession of WMDs. Yes, we had no real clue as to where he was hiding them. We have found evidence that they exist. Documents stating that scientists and eqipment that could be used to produce WMDs must be moved before the UN inspectors got to the location. We have found evidence of mobile labs. We have also found empty missles without warheads, warheads which still are out there. 2. Saddam made it clear that he had no "love" for the United States. He always supported our downfall and supported the terrorist actions on 9/11. Look, he didn't offer condolences although they would have added insult to injury coming from him. He actually condoned those actions. 3. Saddam Hussien suppoted terrorism. We have found terrorist traning camps inside of Iraq. Also, Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in the Gaza. 4. Saddam terrorized and burtalized his own people! Is a leader of a nation supposed to do that? NO!!!
Rebuttal to Point 7: We did not bomb Iraq to the "fuc***g ground" as you so eloquently put it. We used a precision bombing campaing which significanly weakend Iraq's military and vital superstructure to make it safer for our troops and to inhibit the reasources Iraq's military. Also who and when did that person say that? It's more of your non-tolleration of Bush. More libral crap and b.s.
Rebuttle to Point 8: Actually, if Saddam had the capibilites I belive he would. Against the United States, Isreal, and the United kingdom, as well as any one else who was the United States' current ally. He would be aperson who would think that they could get away with something of that magnitude, mainly by living in bunkers like he was. I guess our development of the Bunker Buster bomb frightened him off a little bit, when our precison bombs hit his bunkers in attempts to kill targets of opertunity. Also all of you liberal anti-war hippies keep forgetting that Saddam troops still had weapons, and anti-aricraft guns. Our teoops were in danger.
Rebuttle to Point 9?: What charade, please explain. So far you seem SOOOOO much more elightened than all of us. (Hint: Extremly Sarcastic) We, the people of the United States of America, have a very well educated leader, who knows what he is doing.
Ok, that look like that answers all the garbage you threw back.
Hey, Scott if you take Seiryuken as a writer, I'll write for free!
|
|
