How could anyone vote for George W. Bush?

[quote name='kaw'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Kaw']Shit, you're right. How foolish of me to expect to get paid reasonably for sought after technical skills! How foolish of me to worry that they're selling this country off, and we now have to compete for jobs on a global scale with third world countries where people work for peanuts. I'll go find a new job, and watch it go overseas too! And I'll watch it happen again, again, and again, because Goddammit I'm an American, and how dare I question anything a leader does. I'll just sit idly by, and never feel secure about my career, and if my family will have a roof over their heads. Thanks for opening my eyes, Jackass.[/quote]

Lovely. If you spent more time looking for a new job or learning a new skill instead of bitching about how you're being screwed, you may have found one already. You should stop playing videogames and put your free time to some better use. This IS america, dumbass, nobody OWES you anything. Like I said, quit your bitching and DO something about it.

America used to be the country of the strong, the adaptable, the initiate. Now it's a country of whiney ass bitches who think someone owes them a job just because they went to school to learn something. When someone else gets their job they complain and want to pass a law instead of change themselves to be more appealing to the market.

You think I'm a jackass for telling you about reality? Fine, you're right, I AM a jackass, but you're pathetic. You'd rather live in that dreamworld of yours where life is perfect and everything is handed to you.

Keep dreaming buddy, something will come along and save you. Try prayer. Some people actually think it works too.[/quote]

I think I'm missing something here. If you invested 4+ years of your life, and probably about over $60,000 to get an education in CS, how is that having something "handed to you"? After all that blood and sweat for a degree, wouldn't you expect opportunities to use that degree? Am I now expecting too much to want to get a job in my field that I trained for, or am I just whinning, and should spend another 4+ years in a new field that will likely disappear under the Republican control.

What happens when ALL jobs but retail and healthcare are sent overseas? Say all defense, satellite, optics, hardware, construction, manufacturing, steel, systems work, ... EVERYTHING but wal-mart and restaurants. The government now faces a shrinking tax base and America suffers.

I think it's time we outsourced the president's job.[/quote]

amen[/quote]

This is the most idiotic babbling I have ever heard. Somebody should get you two a pacifier
 
[quote name='joeposh']
Yes I have chosen a side, and I've allowed the facts to guide me to that decision. You've choosen a side, but you've been more selective with your vision. When the RNC goes after Kerry's military record in such an insidious way, I see hypocricy because they're the same ones to rail the dems on national tv about even insinuating that Bush didn't serve his country properly. Plus as we've seen Kerry released the documents, which is more than Bush has ever done (a few attendence cards don't quite cut it).[/quote]

You're choosing to ignore the facts. Unless he released them today, Kerry only released a couple of his war records. So he's doing the same thing you're faulting Bush for. I'm sorry it wasn't reported on CNN or NPR for you.

Also, have you noticed I haven't once brought up Kerry's involvement with the anti-war groups after the Vietnam War? That's because it is an ACCUSATION. No FACTS have been proven yet. This is the problem when you go Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random.

Like I said, you have not looked at the facts, you have only looked at the "facts" that have spewed forth of whatever left-leaning news source you use. I sit down and watch CNN, I would challenge you to watch FoxNews for one night and ask yourself this question: "Am I disagreeing with what is being reported because it is untrue or because it causes me to question my beliefs?"

I don't agree with everything Bush does or did, but all I see from the other side right now is unbelievable hatred, lies, and accusations.
 
Corporations are not like people, they are entities created at the leisure of we the people and we decide the rules that govern them. We create the infrastucture and markets that they use to profit, we decide how and when they can operate. And if they are harming our society in any way, we have the right to destroy them.
Click to expand...

sounds like people too
 
Is it me or does this thread have some extremely intelligent and well informed Republicans here.

Seems like the Dems rely on smoke, mirrors, and spin. Rhetoric only gets you so far in politics. It's not gonna get Kerry into the white house and I think most Dems know this. They should have gotten Edwards instead of Kerry. This is why they will not win. While the GOP has candidates that the DEMs will vote for...the Dems candidates normally just suck ass...they are too liberal and far to the left to even consider. I still wish it was Bradley vs McCain...that would have been fun. I like Bush but I thought both of those fellows were fine individuals.
 
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='joeposh']
Yes I have chosen a side, and I've allowed the facts to guide me to that decision. You've choosen a side, but you've been more selective with your vision. When the RNC goes after Kerry's military record in such an insidious way, I see hypocricy because they're the same ones to rail the dems on national tv about even insinuating that Bush didn't serve his country properly. Plus as we've seen Kerry released the documents, which is more than Bush has ever done (a few attendence cards don't quite cut it).[/quote]

You're choosing to ignore the facts. Unless he released them today, Kerry only released a couple of his war records. So he's doing the same thing you're faulting Bush for. I'm sorry it wasn't reported on CNN or NPR for you.

Also, have you noticed I haven't once brought up Kerry's involvement with the anti-war groups after the Vietnam War? That's because it is an ACCUSATION. No FACTS have been proven yet. This is the problem when you go Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random.

Like I said, you have not looked at the facts, you have only looked at the "facts" that have spewed forth of whatever left-leaning news source you use. I sit down and watch CNN, I would challenge you to watch FoxNews for one night and ask yourself this question: "Am I disagreeing with what is being reported because it is untrue or because it causes me to question my beliefs?"

I don't agree with everything Bush does or did, but all I see from the other side right now is unbelievable hatred, lies, and accusations.[/quote]


Sorry Dude, but Kerry released ALL of his records on Monday and made them available online.,
 
[quote name='defender']Is it me or does this thread have some extremely intelligent and well informed Republicans here.

Seems like the Dems rely on smoke, mirrors, and spin. Rhetoric only gets you so far in politics. It's not gonna get Kerry into the white house and I think most Dems know this. They should have gotten Edwards instead of Kerry. This is why they will not win. While the GOP has candidates that the DEMs will vote for...the Dems candidates normally just suck ass...they are too liberal and far to the left to even consider. I still wish it was Bradley vs McCain...that would have been fun. I like Bush but I thought both of those fellows were fine individuals.[/quote]

Sorry, it is the repubs who put out smoke mirros or spin. That's why they had to rename the estate tax the death tax, why Bush's No child left behind act leaves children behind, and his Clean skies program actually cuts down on regulations already in place. If you want to cut through the spin on both sides, check out these websites:

www.dailyhowler.com
www.spinsanity.com
www.factcheck.org
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='defender']Is it me or does this thread have some extremely intelligent and well informed Republicans here.

Seems like the Dems rely on smoke, mirrors, and spin. Rhetoric only gets you so far in politics. It's not gonna get Kerry into the white house and I think most Dems know this. They should have gotten Edwards instead of Kerry. This is why they will not win. While the GOP has candidates that the DEMs will vote for...the Dems candidates normally just suck ass...they are too liberal and far to the left to even consider. I still wish it was Bradley vs McCain...that would have been fun. I like Bush but I thought both of those fellows were fine individuals.[/quote]

Sorry, it is the repubs who put out smoke mirros or spin. That's why they had to rename the estate tax the death tax, why Bush's No child left behind act leaves children behind, and his Clean skies program actually cuts down on regulations already in place. If you want to cut through the spin on both sides, check out these websites:

www.dailyhowler.com
www.spinsanity.com
www.factcheck.org[/quote]
Are you claiming these web sites are nonpartisan?
I must be missing something or maybe you put in the wrong links?
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='defender']Is it me or does this thread have some extremely intelligent and well informed Republicans here.

Seems like the Dems rely on smoke, mirrors, and spin. Rhetoric only gets you so far in politics. It's not gonna get Kerry into the white house and I think most Dems know this. They should have gotten Edwards instead of Kerry. This is why they will not win. While the GOP has candidates that the DEMs will vote for...the Dems candidates normally just suck ass...they are too liberal and far to the left to even consider. I still wish it was Bradley vs McCain...that would have been fun. I like Bush but I thought both of those fellows were fine individuals.[/quote]

Sorry, it is the repubs who put out smoke mirros or spin. That's why they had to rename the estate tax the death tax, why Bush's No child left behind act leaves children behind, and his Clean skies program actually cuts down on regulations already in place. If you want to cut through the spin on both sides, check out these websites:

www.dailyhowler.com
www.spinsanity.com
www.factcheck.org[/quote]

thanks for making my point...your post quoting me states no facts only rhetoric. Sorry but I dont know how the names of legislation actually matter. So they renamed Estate Tax to Death Tax...OMG!

I wont even bother clicking the link...you can call that lazy but I dont think it fair that I should read page after page of Left Wing Liberal crap. If its not worthy of posting in the thread then why should I have to read it. Go get some quotes if there is such good important info there. Let's see how fast the intelligent GOPers here respond with facts.
 
How bad are you babies going to squeel when the republican reelect bush and get a filibuster proof senate. The left just aint cool. And Americans support America.
 
Tipper and Hillary are 2 reasons that I have become a staunch Republican. Both those women should be shot. I was disgusted that NYers have elected her. She hasnt done JACK SHIT for us here.
 
[quote name='defender']Tipper and Hillary are 2 reasons that I have become a staunch Republican. Both those women should be shot. I was disgusted that NYers have elected her. She hasnt done JACK SHIT for us here.[/quote]

Wanna know whats real scary? People would vote for hillary if she ran for president. That scares the living shit out of me.
 
Bush and his asshole VP Cheney both blow. Cheney thinks he can overcharge the US? Let's skin his *** and hang it.

Nader all the way.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random. [/quote]

That was a random accusation.
 
Here's a little tidbit to throw out there: Joe Liberman, a DEMOCRAT, has always been on the gaming industry's ass to censor their material. He wanted to run for President. Imagine if he would have made office. Kiss your GTA's goodbye.
 
Here's a little tidbit to throw out there: Joe Liberman, a DEMOCRAT, has always been on the gaming industry's ass to censor their material. He wanted to run for President. Imagine if he would have made office. Kiss your GTA's goodbye.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about Lieberman is that the last time he spoke out against GTA, he specifically said that people have the right to make such games but shouldn't do so, or something along those lines. I can't really fault Lieberman for having an opinion about violent games but recognizing that developers should have the right to create them. I'm generalizing, but this may very well be the core difference between a "family values" Democrat and a "family values" Republican.

I still think Lieberman is horribly wrong, of course.

P.S. Here is the exact quote:
"Video games have gotten better over time
...
There's a couple out there that are horrendous... You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again.
...
I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='defender']Is it me or does this thread have some extremely intelligent and well informed Republicans here.

Seems like the Dems rely on smoke, mirrors, and spin. Rhetoric only gets you so far in politics. It's not gonna get Kerry into the white house and I think most Dems know this. They should have gotten Edwards instead of Kerry. This is why they will not win. While the GOP has candidates that the DEMs will vote for...the Dems candidates normally just suck ass...they are too liberal and far to the left to even consider. I still wish it was Bradley vs McCain...that would have been fun. I like Bush but I thought both of those fellows were fine individuals.[/quote]

Sorry, it is the repubs who put out smoke mirros or spin. That's why they had to rename the estate tax the death tax, why Bush's No child left behind act leaves children behind, and his Clean skies program actually cuts down on regulations already in place. If you want to cut through the spin on both sides, check out these websites:

www.dailyhowler.com
www.spinsanity.com
www.factcheck.org[/quote]

thanks for making my point...your post quoting me states no facts only rhetoric. Sorry but I dont know how the names of legislation actually matter. So they renamed Estate Tax to Death Tax...OMG!

I wont even bother clicking the link...you can call that lazy but I dont think it fair that I should read page after page of Left Wing Liberal crap. If its not worthy of posting in the thread then why should I have to read it. Go get some quotes if there is such good important info there. Let's see how fast the intelligent GOPers here respond with facts.[/quote]


How can you call it left wing liberal crap if you haven't read it? Then you are no worse than anyone who complains about a movie or book without even seeing or reading it. All three sites are fair and back up their stories with proof.
At the very least check out factcheck.org. They break down the spin on boith the Bush and Kerry campaigns.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='chosen1s']Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random. [/quote]

That was a random accusation.[/quote]

True, but it is supported by fact. My source? This entire thread.
 
[quote name='BlueStorm781']Here's a little tidbit to throw out there: Joe Liberman, a DEMOCRAT, has always been on the gaming industry's ass to censor their material. He wanted to run for President. Imagine if he would have made office. Kiss your GTA's goodbye.[/quote]

My God, you're right! And by extension, all Democrats are evil, game-hating bastards! Thank you for opening my eyes!
 
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='chosen1s']Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random. [/quote]

That was a random accusation.[/quote]

True, but it is supported by fact. My source? This entire thread.[/quote]

It never fails to amazing my how differently people can perceive the same things. As hard as this may be for you to believe, chosen1s, I have always thought that Republicans were the ones who played dirty pool, who made random accusations, and who used intentionally misleading statements to further their cause. I just want you to realize that both of our opinions have been colored by our own biases and backgrounds. In reality, both parties have done some pretty scummy things, but at the end of the day, the Democratic Party is the major party that is closest to what I believe in, so they are who I support. I truly believe that their policies and way of thinking are far better for America as a whole than the Republicans'. Am I an evil, lying bastard for thinking this way? Or do we just see things differently?
 
[quote name='icruise']the Democratic Party is the major party that is closest to what I believe in, so they are who I support. I truly believe that their policies and way of thinking are far better for America as a whole than the Republicans'.[/quote]

List their principles, please. I'll bet you have no idea what they really stand for, because they don't even know. Their agenda is to get elected. Their moral compass is whatever group will give them the most votes. They have no "platform", only a list of issues from various groups they try to appease to get their votes during an election.

Basically their morality changes with the wind of public opinion, they have no real standards.
 
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='chosen1s']Republicans fire off facts, while Democrats just throw out accusations at random. [/quote]

That was a random accusation.[/quote]

True, but it is supported by fact. My source? This entire thread.[/quote]

?

You are making yourself look like a fool and have destroyed all of your credibility.
 
[quote name='extremep'][quote name='bmulligan']They have no "platform"[/quote]

http://www.democrats.org/about/platform.html[/quote]

Anybody can paste a url.. Lets hear it in your OWN words. Hint: first you have to read the website and then figure out what it means.

Dems are good at identifying problems and laying the blame at the foot of the republicans or anyone besides themselves. I'm not saying Republicans are any better. I personally don't like a president who promises to shrink government and creates a new cabinet and bureacracy, increases spending for education by making deals with Ted Kennedy, and creates new giveaway programs for seniors who want me to pay for their prescriptions. But I didn't vote for him or the other peanut head that was running Al Bore. You people did
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']That would be awesome if there were enough smart people in this country for a 3rd party candidate to win.[/quote]

It will happen some day. 30 years from now maybe. If they keep running, they will slowly build up support.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='extremep'][quote name='bmulligan']They have no "platform"[/quote]

http://www.democrats.org/about/platform.html[/quote]

Anybody can paste a url.. Lets hear it in your OWN words. Hint: first you have to read the website and then figure out what it means.

Dems are good at identifying problems and laying the blame at the foot of the republicans or anyone besides themselves. I'm not saying Republicans are any better. I personally don't like a president who promises to shrink government and creates a new cabinet and bureacracy, increases spending for education by making deals with Ted Kennedy, and creates new giveaway programs for seniors who want me to pay for their prescriptions. But I didn't vote for him or the other peanut head that was running Al Bore. You people did[/quote]

Anyone can post an URL...yes you're right. But why should he sum up everything that's written there, when it's...already written there. Why should he have to try and prove something to you when it's already written somewhere. That's like trying to prove the sky is blue to somebody, without being allowed to say "go outside and look at it".

Also, ANYONE can post an animated anti-Kerry gif, yet you all think it's so funny and clever when RichD1 or someone else does it. Double standard much?
 
It's not technically anti-kerry. It just shows you exactly what kerry's positions are on both sides of the issues. What's the matter, does the truth hurt too much?
 
List their principles, please. I'll bet you have no idea what they really stand for, because they don't even know. Their agenda is to get elected. Their moral compass is whatever group will give them the most votes. They have no "platform", only a list of issues from various groups they try to appease to get their votes during an election.

Basically their morality changes with the wind of public opinion, they have no real standards.
Click to expand...

I guess you are free to believe what you like, but please don't have the gall to tell me what I do and do not know. As someone has already pointed out, there isn't much point in simply regurgitating the DNC platform, but let me tell you a few issues where the contrast between Democrats and Republicans seems pretty clear-cut:

These issues include: taxation, race (affirmative action, etc), gun control, abortion, foreign policy, the environment, the exportation of American jobs, and the protection of civil liberties. If I took a minute, I'm sure I could come up with many more. The point is that each party has pretty clear-cut positions on all of these ideas. Is your position really that the Democrats will do anything to get elected? If that were true, wouldn't they take whatever was the most popular side in these issues, instead of remaining more or less the same over the years? Sure, the details may change with the times (I for one find it very ironic that the Republicans are the ones campaigning for more intrusive and bigger government right now...), but the fundamental character of each party hasn't really changed all that much. Maybe it's easier to dismiss the other side if you think that "they really don't stand for anything" but that doesn't make it true.
 
I have to agree with defender. I thought Bradley (D) and McCain (R) were both better candidates than Gore and Bush in the last election.

This year I thought the most intelligent and rational thinking Democrat candidates were Edwards and Lieberman. They seemed to be very intelligent to me and genuinely had the best interests of the country in the minds. Kerry and Dean were just trying to win a popularity contest. It's kind of like an earlier post said about Kerry, he is against these so called tax cuts for the rich but his wife is one of the richest women in the US. But all that proves is how he'll say anything to get voted (which I admit Republicans do that too) but Kerry is trying to please everyone and you just can't do that becuase he is contradicting himself WAY too much.

Also, in regards to the tax cuts not meaning much to some of you, like I said before THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT. The states have to learn to spend wisely so they don't have to pass extra cost to their constituents. I live in Virginia and there are some serous budget things going on within the state. There is supposedly a lack of funds in the budget for schools and they are consolidating a large number of schools in my county (which will leading to serious overcrowding IMO). Now how in the hell is this possible in a state which has a LOTTERY that is supposed to have millions of dollars contributing to the education fund. Something is fishy. I remember when I lived in NorthDakota in 1992 that the schools then were in better condition and more advanced than most of the schools in my county Virginia even last year! North Dakota doesn't have a lottery and have great schools. This is what I mean that we can't focus JUST on the President. You have to have GOOD local and state officials to look out for your best interests.

076.jpg
 
but why be fiscally responsible when you can borrow against taxpayer money, spend more than you take in, then blame someone else when you get the bill and raise taxes after you give a sob story. That's the game in washington. And you're right, the president simply sets the agenda and has the public pulpit to wield power, the CONGRESS actually passes ALL the laws, appropriates ALL the money. Yet both sides blame the president for all the budget ills every 4 years while the real blame simply slides off their slimy self-righteous faces. The only people worthy of the office are the ones who would never want to do it. Our first president reluctantly held his office and walked away from the job. It's gone downhill ever since.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']but why be fiscally responsible when you can borrow against taxpayer money, spend more than you take in, then blame someone else when you get the bill and raise taxes after you give a sob story. That's the game in washington. And you're right, the president simply sets the agenda and has the public pulpit to wield power, the CONGRESS actually passes ALL the laws, appropriates ALL the money. Yet both sides blame the president for all the budget ills every 4 years while the real blame simply slides off their slimy self-righteous faces. The only people worthy of the office are the ones who would never want to do it. Our first president reluctantly held his office and walked away from the job. It's gone downhill ever since.[/quote]

You also seem to forget that it is the President who submits the budget to Congress
 
[quote name='bmulligan']but why be fiscally responsible when you can borrow against taxpayer money, spend more than you take in, then blame someone else when you get the bill and raise taxes after you give a sob story.[/quote]

Why should taxpayers be forced to finance interest payments on money the government borrowed because our elected leaders couldn't balance the budget? Government officials need to take a basic economics class. If you don't have the money to spend, you shouldn't be spending it. It was bad enough when they burned through the budget surplus, but when they started getting us into several 100 million dollars of deficits, government spending had just gotten completely out of control.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='bmulligan']but why be fiscally responsible when you can borrow against taxpayer money, spend more than you take in, then blame someone else when you get the bill and raise taxes after you give a sob story. That's the game in washington. And you're right, the president simply sets the agenda and has the public pulpit to wield power, the CONGRESS actually passes ALL the laws, appropriates ALL the money. Yet both sides blame the president for all the budget ills every 4 years while the real blame simply slides off their slimy self-righteous faces. The only people worthy of the office are the ones who would never want to do it. Our first president reluctantly held his office and walked away from the job. It's gone downhill ever since.[/quote]

You also seem to forget that it is the President who submits the budget to Congress[/quote]

I thought that fact was well known...
 
Im not too happy with things. that said, Bush gets my vote and my fiance's. Theres no chance of Kerry doing anything to better our situation.
And I think hes lacking spine.
 
[quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

No I mean he will do whatever he thinks will kept his approval numbers highest and not what he thinks is truly best.

Invading other countries sucks. War sucks.
 
[quote name='paz9x'][quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

No I mean he will do whatever he thinks will kept his approval numbers highest and not what he thinks is truly best.

Invading other countries sucks. War sucks.[/quote]

Do whatever it takes to keep his approval numbers highest?

Like...
1) Posing for a publicity stunt with landing an aircraft on a carrier
2) Announcing a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages
3) Proposing a far-out space program
4) Announcing a plan to protect millions of acres of wetlands

When was the last time you heard anything about #2 and #3? And it won't be long until #4 is out of the picture.

You can defend him all you want, but truth is, he's worried about his approval numbers too. Any president HAS to be if he plans to be re-elected.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='paz9x'][quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

No I mean he will do whatever he thinks will kept his approval numbers highest and not what he thinks is truly best.

Invading other countries sucks. War sucks.[/quote]

Do whatever it takes to keep his approval numbers highest?

Like...
1) Posing for a publicity stunt with landing an aircraft on a carrier
2) Announcing a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages
3) Proposing a far-out space program
4) Announcing a plan to protect millions of acres of wetlands

When was the last time you heard anything about #2 and #3? And it won't be long until #4 is out of the picture.

You can defend him all you want, but truth is, he's worried about his approval numbers too. Any president HAS to be if he plans to be re-elected.[/quote]

Thats an obvious statement. The opinion I was attempting to convey in that post - Bush does not always do the popular thing, I dont think that can be argued. And while I disagree with a large amount of happenings over his term, I do give him credit for having a spine and doing things that arent always the most popular. Kerry I feel on the other hand will bow to approval ratings and BS polls.

I can already read the response to this post.
 
[quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

Yeah:

12 years of sanction;

17 UN Sec Resolutions

a cease-fire for a war that never concluded

9/11

continuos firing at American fighters patrolling Iraq

an unprecedented attempt to bring the degenerate UN along

Yeah Bush just pulled that invasion out of the air.

What an astute "observation".

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

Yeah:

12 years of sanction;

17 UN Sec Resolutions

a cease-fire for a war that never concluded

9/11

continuos firing at American fighters patrolling Iraq

an unprecedented attempt to bring the degenerate UN along

Yeah Bush just pulled that invasion out of the air.

What an astute "observation".

CTL[/quote]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 despite what bush is trying to mislead you into thinking. To this day, there is no link. AND no WMD. And can you blame the general population for wanting us out? We're occupying their country.
 
We're not just occupying any country in the world either. Iraq happens to have the world's second largest oil reserves. I'm sure that couldn't have anything to do with the U.S. being there. Multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts for Halliburton? Nah, that couldn't have anything to do with it either. Big business and oil have nothing to do with it. We're just there to save the Iraqi people, right? You can tell how much the Iraqi people love the U.S. by the number of them willing to give their lives in the attempt to make us leave.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

Yeah:

12 years of sanction;

17 UN Sec Resolutions

a cease-fire for a war that never concluded

9/11

continuos firing at American fighters patrolling Iraq

an unprecedented attempt to bring the degenerate UN along

Yeah Bush just pulled that invasion out of the air.

What an astute "observation".

CTL[/quote]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 despite what bush is trying to mislead you into thinking. To this day, there is no link. AND no WMD. And can you blame the general population for wanting us out? We're occupying their country.[/quote]

Contrary to what you have been lead to believe about what I may or may not believe, I did not claim Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. I was placing Iraq WITHIN the context of 9/11.

The US cannot wait for threats to materialize.

And what do you call the capture of Abu Abbas in Iraq if not a terrorist link?

The war on terrorism is not just against Al-Queda but against all terrorism.

And no WMD? I guess the Al-Samoud missles wich violate UN Res 687 are what? Just a big joke?

And if you think the general population is represented by terrorists conducting these attacks in Iraq you couldn't be more mistaken.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='icruise']If by "spine" you mean invading other countries willy-nilly, then you're right.[/quote]

Yeah:

12 years of sanction;

17 UN Sec Resolutions

a cease-fire for a war that never concluded

9/11

continuos firing at American fighters patrolling Iraq

an unprecedented attempt to bring the degenerate UN along

Yeah Bush just pulled that invasion out of the air.

What an astute "observation".

CTL[/quote]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 despite what bush is trying to mislead you into thinking. To this day, there is no link. AND no WMD. And can you blame the general population for wanting us out? We're occupying their country.[/quote]

Contrary to what you have been lead to believe about what I may or may not believe, I did not claim Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. I was placing Iraq WITHIN the context of 9/11.

The US cannot wait for threats to materialize.

And what do you call the capture of Abu Abbas in Iraq if not a terrorist link?

The war on terrorism is not just against Al-Queda but against all terrorism.

And no WMD? I guess the Al-Samoud missles wich violate UN Res 687 are what? Just a big joke?

And if you think the general population is represented by terrorists conducting these attacks in Iraq you couldn't be more mistaken.

CTL[/quote]

The missiles may have violated an UN resolution, but did it contain plutonium? Did it carry chemicals? Did it have a biological weapon it it? NO! You're stretching for a cause for war much like Bush did. And there are plenty of other threats out there. North Korea. Iran. Why not attack them too? Why go after the only country of those three with oil and with a president who tried to assassinate Bush Sr.? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

AND AGAIN. IRAQ HAD NO LINKS TO TERRORISTS. If they are there now, it's because we meddled with the affairs of Iraq. The terrorists, aka al-Qaeda, HATED Saddam. Why? Because he allowed ONLY a secular government.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
The missiles may have violated an UN resolution, but did it contain plutonium? Did it carry chemicals? Did it have a biological weapon it it?[/quote]

No, its not an issue of may. They did violate the UN resolutions.

Thankfully the Iraqi's don't have nukes because in the early 1980's Israel bombed their nuclear reactor.

Did it have a biological weapon in it?

(1) You don't store biological weapons in warheads;
(2) Its irrelevant what it was or was not armed with - it violated an agreement with the US.

[quote name='E-Z-B']
NO! You're stretching for a cause for war much like Bush did. And there are plenty of other threats out there. North Korea. Iran. Why not attack them too? [/quote]

I am stretching the cause for war? How quicky you forget the history I posted. After UN Res 1441 it was incumbent on Iraq to provide evidence it disposed of its WMD - Iraq failed to do so.

And I love the anti-war rhetoric the US could have invaded any other country on the planet, BUT Iraq. Somehow I think if we had invaded another country you would be claiming that was one sacred country we couldn't invade.

Invading Iraq was right if for no other reason than to illustrate to "the arab street" there are consequences for attacking the US.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Why go after the only country of those three with oil and with a president who tried to assassinate Bush Sr.? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.[/quote]

Right ignore:

12 years of sanction;

17 UN Sec Resolutions

a cease-fire for a war that never concluded

9/11

continuos firing at American fighters patrolling Iraq

an unprecedented attempt to bring the degenerate UN along

So the only country the US can invade is one without natural resources?

[quote name='E-Z-B']AND AGAIN. IRAQ HAD NO LINKS TO TERRORISTS. If they are there now, it's because we meddled with the affairs of Iraq. The terrorists, aka al-Qaeda, HATED Saddam. Why? Because he allowed ONLY a secular government.[/quote]

Oh no links to terrorism? Is that why Abdul Niddal suicided himself in Baghdad several months before the US invasion? Is that why we caught Abu Abbas in Iraq? Do you even know who these people are?

Ah yes, terrorism in Iraq today is the fault of the US.

Whats next the US brought 9/11 on itself?

"meddled in the affairs of Iraq" - like the Syrians and Iranians in Iraq now?

CTL
 
You forget that the US made Sadam Hussein.

The US gave him those chemicals, and he used them all against Iran and during an attempt of genocide against HIS OWN PEOPLE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top