Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

9/11 wasn't Bushs fault..like some smart ppl are sayin. He jus didn't react the rite way. Now I "assume".. most of the ppl on this fourm are using facts and information from Michel Moores Film. it was dumb for Bush to blame 9/11 on Iraq. Too many ppl are pointing too many fingers here and there! I'm a Muslim and most muslim i kno keep sayin it was the jews and that bush is jus tryin to kill all muslims.. I have no idea where they get this from...Nevertheless, ppl are pointing too many fingers. And its really hard to get evidence on this to prove much. And yes the Quran does protest violence. I dunno where ppl find this crap sayin muslims wanna kill... blame the ppl not Islam.
 
[quote name='BABETOOTH']PittsburghAfterDark I need your help!!! :lol: I am going to a costume party (70's Theme) on Saturday and I have nothing 70's to wear, so to be funny i was just going to dress up as a "Ghost" but my wife wont allow me to put two holes on this white sheet we have. :idea: Can you lend me your "Clan" outfit ? I'm sure you have one you can spare :wink: :wink:

O:) Just having some fun!!![/quote]

:rofl:
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='trq'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended. [/quote]

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.[/quote]

We still are at a state of war with North Korea.

Find me the peace treaty we signed for them.

Ditto Iraq.

No technicality about it. And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

CTL[/quote]

Okay, then let's go with "loophole" or "far-fetched abuse." You've managed to both misconstrue and make my point. No, we didn't ever sign a formal peace treaty with North Korea (just an armistice), but that doesn't prevent a common sense view that holds to the spirit rather than the letter of the law; one that says the Korean war has been over since 1953. I suppose you COULD be a stickler for the legal definition, but then I'd just say that since the President doesn't have the authority to simply declare war without congressional approval, as per -- you know -- the constitution, neither Korea nor Iraq was a "legal" war in the first place, and not fit to act as precedent for the resumption of hostilities anyway.

Like I said: that justification seems to only hold water for lawyers on the government payroll.

And what makes you think I'm NOT a lawyer myself? :)
 
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...[/quote]

Dude, I've read all of the "Homeland Security" thread you took part in, and considering how that went for you, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: sit this one out. You're treading some EXTREMELY insulting ground here, but I'm going to refrain from starting in with you, so I hope you recognize a random act of kindness when you see it.
 
[quote name='BABETOOTH'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.[/quote]

:idea: I say you should run for President on 2008 :wink: If your idol (Bush) could do it so can you. It seems your level of education is higher of that of Bush, who happens to have the lowest I.Q. among U.S. Presidents. :D[/quote]

I don't think I have ever agreed with PAD on anything, but I don't recall him posting anything that would make me believe he's a racist. If I'm wrong, correct me. If not, save it for someone who deserves it.
 
[quote name='Lootr2Core']And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)[/quote]

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.
 
I can't help but get a kick out of Babetooth's flames. Not only were they weak and ineffective it took 3 posts, that I wasn't even online or awake to respond to, for him to get his fill of insults off his chest.

Now that's crisp, clear and precise writing to espouse an opposing point of view! The New York City school system must be proud. Let me guess.... captain of the forensics team?
 
What you original stated was:

[quote name='trq']
Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.[/quote]

[quote name='trq']Okay, then let's go with "loophole" or "far-fetched abuse."[/quote]

Loophole? How? Far fetched abuse? How? A state of war continues to exist. That hostilities are not every day/month/or year does not excuse that. That you as a member of the public does not change that FACT.

But I don't even need that Congress voted to authorize war against Iraq in October of 2002.

The Text of the Joint Resolution: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

[quote name='trq'] You've managed to both misconstrue and make my point. No, we didn't ever sign a formal peace treaty with North Korea (just an armistice), but that doesn't prevent a common sense view that holds to the spirit rather than the letter of the law; one that says the Korean war has been over since 1953. I suppose you COULD be a stickler for the legal definition, but then I'd just say that since the President doesn't have the authority to simply declare war without congressional approval, as per -- you know -- the constitution, neither Korea nor Iraq was a "legal" war in the first place, and not fit to act as precedent for the resumption of hostilities anyway.[/quote]

Misconstue your point? How so?

The essence of your post was: "By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended."

And yet you absolutely conceed the point. We still are at war with North Korea, just as we remained in a state of hostilities with Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Make your point? Hollow rhetoric.

As for requiring Congressional approval do I need to point out the following:

http://www.jcs-group.com/military/wars.html

In fact, Congress has declared war in only five of the thirteen major shooting wars in which the U.S.A. has been involved:

The War of 1812 against Great Britain [1812-1814]*;
The Mexican-U.S.A. War [1846-1848]*;
The Spanish-American War [1898]*;
World War I [1917-1918]*;
World War II [1941-1945]*.
In each of the eight other major wars involving the U.S.A., Congress did not pass a declaration of war and the President did not recommend to Congress that it pass such a declaration. The eight undeclared major wars were:
The U.S. naval war with France [1798-1800]*;
The first war against the Barbary pirate states of North Africa [1801-1805]*;
The second war against the Barbary states [1815]*;
The Mexican-U.S.A. conflicts immediately preceeding American entrance into World War I [1914-1917]*;
The Korean War [1950-1953]*;
The Vietnam War [1961-1975]*;
The Persian Gulf War [1991]*;
The Kosovo-Yugoslav War [1999]*.

*Dates of America's direct involvement in the war.
Click to expand...

[quote name='trq']Like I said: that justification seems to only hold water for lawyers on the government payroll.[/quote]

No, it only appears to be incorrect to people who under any set of circumstances would still disagree with it.

[quote name='trq']And what makes you think I'm NOT a lawyer myself? :)[/quote]
CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Lootr2Core']And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)[/quote]

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.[/quote]

lts apparant that you care.
 
[quote name='Lootr2Core'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Lootr2Core']And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)[/quote]

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.[/quote]

lts apparant that you care.[/quote]

I care enough to tell you to go F yourself.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Lootr2Core'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Lootr2Core']And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)[/quote]

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.[/quote]

lts apparant that you care.[/quote]

I care enough to tell you to go F yourself.[/quote]


nah better not do that, i'd go blind and I couln't read your ever so witty posts.
 
[quote name='ingotheranchhand']Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.[/quote]

he noob has a point. A damn good point.
 
No, actually he has a good point. Even if I am unable to change your mind, hopefully there will some thinking going on here, and some of you will think more about what is going on in our country, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. After all, this is the essence of democracy, the reason our country was founded, by men who risked their fortunes, familes and their lives to make a country where we, in whatever form we live, military, pacifist, christian, muslim, non-believer, worker, GAMER, whatever, could have a say in their lives and the way they want to live it. And, I have never seen since then anyone who made the sacrifices these guys, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, and so many others did, for all of us. So use that democracy, thats what its here for!
 
This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

So explain it to me, how was Saddam Hussein "violating NATO"? What was he doing, specifically?

And also, how would Iraq have funded a second 9/11, given that they had no WMDs, no easy way to make WMDs, and no money due to international sanctions?

Irrational fear is not an argument.
 
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

Militant Muslims, are not as scary as Militant Americans. These anti-goverment activists are your neighbors and are not as easily recognizable. They are also responsible for the second-worst terrorist attack on american soil. They are well organized, well trained, and religiously dedicated to causing massive amouts of destruction. They are constantly overlooked since they are americans. We only caught this guy since he fucked up at a traffic stop.

9/11 didn't really kill the airline industry, it actually saved. It had been pretty lackluster before and not doing so well. The billions of dollars they got in corporate welfare kept them afloat.

Truthfully, what has the Bush Administration done to keep Terrorist activites in check? For the most part, what we now see from the 9/11 Reports, they're failures are some of the biggest reasons that my city is missing two of its buildings. I live in a city that is slowly believing that we lost our towers due to their inability to control the situation.

I agree with the fact that we should have gone to Iraq. But the truth is, why did our president and his administration go on information that was obviously false? Why can we get the truth from them? Why must they mistrust us and leave huge holes of information? Why is no information released about internal militia groups? All these questions are not being answered and this sours me greatly on this administration. I don't think George W and his staff have done the job they could have done. I think they been distracted with utterly worthless issues that should be decided on a state level. I seen the run up a defecit and deny cash for my own city to help rebuild itself. I seen an economy that has been promised to get better and do consitently worse. I seen this adminstration promised
hi-speed internet but not healthcare.

Being killed by a muslim terrorist attack in america, even for those of us in new york, ranks low. Hell, that's what finding nemo was all about. I have a better chance of losing my job in this shitty economy, getting hit by a car and not being able to afford an operation.

I can't vote for a man out of irrational fear. That's not what this country stands for.
 
Okay, I'm willing to say maybe I'm the one not making my point clearly enough. Let's try...

[quote name='CTLesq'] Loophole? How? Far fetched abuse? How? A state of war continues to exist. That hostilities are not every day/month/or year does not excuse that. That you as a member of the public does not change that FACT. [/quote]

Actually, it DOES change that fact. It's the public who gets to elect politicians and I don't think that anybody -- regardless of political affiliation -- is interested in electing a representative who considers us to be in a state of indefinite war with the Sudan, Libya, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Syria, Cuba, China, the Phillipines and so on. After all, as you say, even though we don't need to bother adhering to the law and getting congressional approval to start a war, we DO need to have a strict, literal interpretation when it comes to ending a war with a cease-fire or an armistice rather than with an actual peace treaty. I find that a little selective, but then, who needs consistency or fairness when it comes to the law, international or otherwise.

[quote name='CTLesq'] But I don't even need that Congress voted to authorize war against Iraq in October of 2002.

Misconstue your point? How so?

The essence of your post was: "By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended."

And yet you absolutely conceed the point. We still are at war with North Korea, just as we remained in a state of hostilities with Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Make your point? Hollow rhetoric. [/quote]

I think I've clarified this now.

[quote name='CTLesq'] As for requiring Congressional approval do I need to point out the following:

http://www.jcs-group.com/military/wars.html [/quote]

Nope. But does the fact that something is done frequently make it legal? I must have missed the precedent for that. I don't care that we've flouted the constitution on numerous occasions, over several presedencies, and among both parties. That doesn't make it any more acceptable now.

[quote name='CTLesq'] No, it only appears to be incorrect to people who under any set of circumstances would still disagree with it. [/quote]

That's fine. My goal here wasn't to convince you per se.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Militant islam is Hitler in a headscarf.[/quote]

And Bush is Hitler with a flag pin?

Let's just leave the whole Hitler chestnut out of it.

This particular rhetorical device is a well-worn crutch on both sides. Conservatives like to equate Hussein with Hitler, and Bush often gets the comparison from the more extreme liberals. Frankly, the comparison sucks in both cases. It's not even close. NOT EVEN CLOSE. I'm not a big fan of either of 'em, but unless they happened to kill twelve million people while nobody was looking, it's nothing more than tacky hyperbole that trades genuine tragedy for political gain.

Let's all try not to piss on the Holocaust by comparing every petty dictator du jour to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. Seriously. Saddam ain't Hitler, and this ain't WWII.
 
Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?[/quote]

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?
 
Wait, wait, wait. Did I see Hitler come into this? That's Godwin's Law (link), people! This thread is over! Winner by default: the hippie liberal douches, for not bringing up Hitler first! Sorry, pissed-off white trash redneck conservatives, but them's the rules.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Wait, wait, wait. Did I see Hitler come into this? That's Godwin's Law (link), people! This thread is over! Winner by default: the hippie liberal douches, for not bringing up Hitler first! Sorry, pissed-off white trash redneck conservatives, but them's the rules.[/quote]

LOL! Didn't know the rule, but I shore do luv it! :lol:
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.[/quote]

Saddam is our second biggest threat? After Libya? After North Korea? After Terrorist Couples in Texas with chemical Weapons?

What the fuck are you smoking? Bush was busy reading to a bunch of little kids when a number of people living in my goddamn city died in a building while the goddamn Vice President sat on his hands. They then sell litographs of the disaster site to raise cash.

The biggest threat to america is the bunch of bastards who fucked up and then are trying to make cash off it.
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.[/quote]

I note that you didn't respond to a single one of my questions, which pretty much tells me what I need to know about the strength of your argument.

There is no proof of recent Iraqi support of terrorism, no proof that he was a threat to the United States and no proof that he had or could soon have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never attacked the United States, and we have no proof of any serious intention to attack the United States.

And by the way, you mention Osama bin Laden. Where is he, anyway? Wasn't he our number one target at one point? You know, the guy who actually led an attack against our country? Yet now Bush says in a press conference, "I don't know where he is and I don't care."

Yeah....I can see why you sleep safe at night with Bush in charge.
 
[quote name='Pezdro'][quote name='WarrenGekko']Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.[/quote]

Saddam is our second biggest threat? After Libya? After North Korea? After Terrorist Couples in Texas with chemical Weapons?

What the shaq-fu are you smoking? Bush was busy reading to a bunch of little kids when a number of people living in my goddamn city died in a building while the goddamn Vice President sat on his hands. They then sell litographs of the disaster site to raise cash.

The biggest threat to america is the bunch of bastards who shaq-fued up and then are trying to make cash off it.[/quote]

Saddam is our second after Osama (that's why I put him in parens). Anyway, I agree that the biggest threat IS the bastards who fued up. Because Saddam and Osama are now less of a threat then they were before.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='WarrenGekko']Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.[/quote]

I note that you didn't respond to a single one of my questions, which pretty much tells me what I need to know about the strength of your argument.

There is no proof of recent Iraqi support of terrorism, no proof that he was a threat to the United States and no proof that he had or could soon have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never attacked the United States, and we have no proof of any serious intention to attack the United States.

And by the way, you mention Osama bin Laden. Where is he, anyway? Wasn't he our number one target at one point? You know, the guy who actually led an attack against our country? Yet now Bush says in a press conference, "I don't know where he is and I don't care."

Yeah....I can see why you sleep safe at night with Bush in charge.[/quote]

I can sleep just fine. Osama lives in a rock and Saddam is no longer in power. They are much less of a threat now. They can't operate as freely without fear of retribution like they were before. Although, I am not saying that Osama is not a threat anymore but he has signifantly less wiggle room. I like that. I really like that. I don't want to live in the same conditions that Isreal faces daily.

Anyway, apparently someone mentioned Hitler and the thread is dead now. (According to the rules)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I can't help but get a kick out of Babetooth's flames. Not only were they weak and ineffective it took 3 posts, that I wasn't even online or awake to respond to, for him to get his fill of insults off his chest.

Now that's crisp, clear and precise writing to espouse an opposing point of view! The New York City school system must be proud. Let me guess.... captain of the forensics team?[/quote]

Like I stated before, i'm just having some fun. Dont take yourself so serious :roll: You are only going to get ulcers that way. Seriously speaking even if I was the dumbest product of NYC's public school system I am smart enough to realize that President Bush is just not a good President. Yet you will defend his wrong doings to the end because you are a die hard Republican. Not to be offensive, and this is just an example but I bet if Bush pissed on your Mother you would defend his actions, and find an excuse for such repulsive behavior. I understand that in sports we stick with our favorite team no matter how much they suck. You can't treat politics the same way. The man has to go. He was never elected by the majority of votes and I see why. It took the Supreme Court's descision to vote him in and even their descision was not unanimous. Why does he and his rich buddies or for that matter Kerry or the rich need a tax break? So they need to borrow money from other contries to pay for it. If anyone needs a tax break is the middle class in America. Do yourself a favor, put aside your love for the party and accept the fact that this man is no good for our country. HE MUST GO :!:
 
[quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

You must work within the intelligence community or something so I am sure you have evidence of Iraq's funding of a second 9/11 (just like those WMD's) To tell you the truth so many people in the Middle East hate Bush that in my opinion the U.S. would be safer if he is NOT re-elected...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The looney fest returns. I'm just going to pull up a chair, get a cold one and watch the festivities.[/quote]

No, it's over. This is all just the thread's corpse twitching.
 
According to WarrenGekko "Osama lives in a rock" LOL so please let us know where it is so we can get the bastard. The fact of the matter is that Osama is recruting potential terrorists left and right more than ever before! Feel safer now???
 
No, he is in a safe house.

The fact that he is alive has been verified, he is recruiting and motivating the troops.

He also needs a dialisis machine and a doctor to take care of him.

He is most likely in the Saudi Arabia, a close freind of the US but an even closer freind to Al Qaeda.
 
He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.[/quote]

Saddam was turned over to Iraq and is being tried there, last I heard.
 
[quote name='BABETOOTH'][quote name='WarrenGekko']This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.[/quote]

You must work within the intelligence community or something so I am sure you have evidence of Iraq's funding of a second 9/11 (just like those WMD's) To tell you the truth so many people in the Middle East hate Bush that in my opinion the U.S. would be safer if he is NOT re-elected...[/quote]

I don't need to work in the intelligence community to know that Saddam had billions of US dollars horded up. I also know it wasn't being used to feed the Iraqi people. It was to fund terrorists.
However, if you want to wait around for proof, it may be too late.
Thank God Bush isn't waiting around for more proof like more dead bodies on our soil. If Bush did wait and we had another 9/11, the American people would go ballistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top