What pisses me off is that Bush keeps saying Kerry flip-flops over the war. He says Kerry voted to go to war, then he voted against the $88B. Of course Kerry voted to go to war, Bush lied to all of congress that he was positive Iraq had WMDs. If there's anything Kerry flip-flopped on, it was trusting the president, then losing trust in him.
i wish that Bush will be elected again,...if kerry becomes president he will remove all troops from there and leaves iraq with terrorists who want to rule the country and make it a radical moslim country like iran,afghanistan etc.
You cannot eliminate terrorism by military action. Bush has no clue what he's gotten himself into by deeming this "war" on terrorism "winnable." If he gets re-elected he will only plunge the nation further into the black oblivion of debt we're already starting to see. Terrorism does not only exist in the Middle East, but rather Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and in our own backyard. You cannot eliminate it by force, more people will only spring up against us.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire. [/b][/quote] Keeping our troops there makes matters worse. Our troops presence in Iraq pisses off the terrorists and adds fuel to the fire. you know what first pissed off them? first it was palestina matter that usa supported israel,..ow and osama was pissed that americans were in saudi arabia first so he planned attack on us ships.... lets see hmmm o remeber the french hostiges? was that also the present of americans?or support of the americans? it was because of french goverment that didnt allow religious elements at school... i wont be suprised if they take hostages next time for microsoft because of their dominating position... how far do you want to accept terrorists requests?
Jesus....listen to what I said before^ [/b][/quote] ok by peace?before this war i think american thought the world is in peace and thats why 9/11 happend... so you suggest we should not do anything about it and just gasp when more buildings go down...
9/11/01. In Bush's regime. Why not in Clinton's? And suppose that what you are saying is right. That war on terror is something that God wants. Then why is it so f***** up? Osama is still on the loose after Afghanistan's campaign, and that country is still screwed, and Iraq's war was a complete mistake (yeah Saddam was a bas tard, but you weren't looking to free Iraq, you were looking for the imaginary WMD), and people in both countries like that they aren't under tyranny but hate that you are still there...
ok by peace?before this war i think american thought the world is in peace and thats why 9/11 happend... so you suggest we should not do anything about it and just gasp when more buildings go down... [/b][/quote] No, you're putting words in my mouth. Terrorism can be eliminated by education and tolerance. This is a two way street, one that should be improved on our side and theirs. With the "war" on terror, the best defense ISN'T a good offense...if we had better security in the first place, and if people kept their eyes and ears open for suspicious activity, we wouldn't have to worry about attacks, IF attempted.
That made no sense, htep.fan. And don't bring religion into this, that's ridiculous. J-Flex: Get real. All you care about is saving America's asses. You couldn't care less that by going into this war in Iraq fueled by fabrication, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by stray missiles, random bombings, and gunfire at the hands of American and coalition troops. Plus, you've set off a rash of Muslim extremists who suicide bomb busy city streets every day. This war should not have happened. Let me spell it out for you; -- THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. -- SADDAM DID NOT PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA (thus, my first point). I agree that Saddam should've been removed, but that could've easily been a UN thing. The US went in there because they knew they wouldn't get lots of oil if the UN went in. Want to protect America, stop invading Muslim-based countries with no evidence that they're going to hurt you. Pre-emptive strikes are ridiculous. You're only pissing them off more. Protect your borders, don't kill everyone over mass-paranoia. Funny how this could've all been avoided.
Indeed. "You will only truely feel safe when everyone else is dead" should not be the philosophy of the government. And what Mark pointed out it why I keep putting quotes around "war." I wouldn't even call it a war; more of a crusade based on false pretenses.
Nevermind what I write then, I just suck writing on English..... And I was using the God phrase just to make clear my point......and it didn't worked..... And I completely agree with you. Nevermind.....
hehehe if i didnt had homework i could have replayed quicker but well i am doing my best back on subject...... do you know how long the operation was planned before they made their strike? maybe you should be elected as the new president and see what you reach with your theory... in a war there are always victims and mistakes,...dont tell me that american troops are aiming with purpise on iraqis. and you must understand 1 thing very well these extremist moslims are not iraqis!!!!!! these came from other regions Al Zarqaui is from jordan yup because they are already in hands of al-qaida the biggest shock is yet to come....and it wont take much longer.... I agree that Saddam should've been removed, but that could've easily been a UN thing. dream on with the UN thing besides when he gives up his chair his son Uday (the raper)then i wish in that case saddam there.... agreed but humans filosofie seem to be "kill to get your goal"
I didn't say the extreme muslims were Iraqis. And there shouldn't have been a war in the first place. Prove it. And I'm sure you know all about the UNs plans. They took out Milosevic, why not Hussein and his sons? I swear...
J-Flex, you need to work on your typing skills. I can hardly read some of your posts, which makes responding to them even more difficult. Or maybe you could stop being a smart ass and listen to the points that others bring up. Or maybe you could look at history and realize in situations like say the Cuban Missile Crisis, where our President could have easily assaulted Cuba and brought on possibly another World War, and no one would have even blinked, instead chose to use the path of diplomacy and subtle pressure, and thus avoided such an outcome. Do you really think we're winning over the hearts of the Iraqis by bombing their country and killing their people?
About the weapons neither me nor you can prove it but its a matter of time which deicides who is right... our points seem to be clear you believe saddam would be cought easly. i dont believe in that , you cant compare saddam and milosovic,..milosovic didnt even resist...sadddam made clones of him self and stayed in a hole till they took him.... so now lets imagine your way.....iraqi army is there UN tries to get in to get him.....saddam refuses to take over and war will come and same thing what now happend would happen.....saddam maybe taken then dead or alive.....and extremists strike on UN troops like they did before to the UN embassy in Bagdad. so i dont think the war would be avoided there only the target for the terrorist would be spread and same people would be victims. i am saying saddam wouldnt give up because i lived there and i know his policy and how he managed his years there.. didnt US+UN warn iraq before they started the war? no but us is trying to do it over ground and when they dont have a choice they use miscles, at least thats what i hope is going on.... you win their hearts when there is a stable stiuation and as long as these terrorist are there there won't be a stablized situation.
Terrorisim against the United States can't be stopped when the President of the United States is apart of it. And if anyone actually thinks the WMD's do exist you're absolutly ridiculous. Although I wouldn't put it past George Bush and the Republicans to fake a "we found WMD's in Iraq!" before the election. If you think about it it's a perfect plan to win.
Yes, before the Gulf war I think Well, I am kinda for the war, cause we are trying to capture and kill the people responsible for 9/11. If we didnt capture Saddam, and all those other whatever Taliban people, we would probably still have attacks coming to the US. I think we should capture Osama, who I hate, just for hiding in stupid caves, and get rid of the first 20 of the people on Bush's hit list (lmao) and retreat. This to me is like a fight for peace, eliminating the bad people. I dont like the killing of soldiers, unless the ones video taping the beheadings... Those truely disgrace me. This is my view and my dad's view on the war
There's a problem with that statement - Saddam had absolutly NOTHING to do with 9/11. So if we're trying to capture the people responsible then why are we in Iraq? We're in Iraq because George Bush doesn't really want to capture Al Queda. He doesn't care about those supposed "terrorists". He cares about oil and trying to make the US look like even more of a "power house" then it already is. If he really cared about stopping terrorisim he'd try to do a little more here, at home, in America. For less than half of the $200 billion spent so far in Iraq, George Bush could have funded: 1. $7.5 billion to make our ports safe. 2. $2 billion for improved cargo security. 3. $10 billion to protect American commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles. 4. $5 billion for state of the art baggage screening machines. 5. $7 billion for 100,000 new police officers. 6. $30.5 billion to safeguard nuclear material. If you would like to check the facts: 1. US Government Accounting Report, 1/1/04 2. Senate Government Affairs Committee, 3/20/03 3. Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/03 4. The Manchester Union Leader, 7/23/04 5. Congressional Research Service, 4/6/03 6. Nuclear Threat Initiative, Harvard University, 3/03 "George Bush: Wrong Priorities. Dangerous Choices." I'm praying George Bush gets asked some serious questions at the debate. Not stupid crap coming from Bill O'Reilly. BILL O'REILLY from FOX NEWS interviews George Bush, claims he was able to ask any questions he wanted to, and says we should respect George Bush for allowing that. For fuck's sake, he's the President of the United States and it's one month untill the election - He should be being asked any questions people want. It shouldn't be some special thing when it happens. And the fact that it's coming from FOX news isn't much to respect anyway. Go on The Daily Show, George, and let Jon Stewert talk to you for 10 minutes. THEN you'll get some respect. Back to the Bill O'Reilly interview: The look on George Bush's face after being asked if he got special treatment in the Texas Air National Guard really pisses me off. The fact that he tells straight out lies to millions of viewers gets on my nerves. "No. If I did I wasn't aware of it." Bullshit. Go the fuck back to Texas. One more month....
That just set off something in my mind as wrong....we're eliminating those who don't agree with us, not just what you call the "bad" people.