# Bush's Electability



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Since the prisoner abuse scandal broke there has been a flurry of very negative news media around the US and its gov't. One person referred to it as the "perfect storm" of bad press that will in fact unseed President Bush.

Here is the latest:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ld_040526124901

How does everyone think all this "bad press" will effect November...?


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Bush f*cks up a lot of things, but if we put in a new president come election time were never going to finish what we started. I definitely dont want Kerry though. So, unless he does something majorly drastic then hes still getting my vote.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

The truth about John Kerry


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

I hope it is the PERFECT STORM. Anything that will get that oil-crazed moron out of our government is good. While he;s been in office we have been lied to, mislead and used over and over again. He treats our country like his own little playground. When he screws up, he changes the subject.

Osama Bin Laden shall be found!! (didnt find him)
Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (no he didnt)
gays are marrying!!! (who cares, good let them be happy too)

he starts one fight, it doesnt end up good, and he shoves something else in front of our faces to try and disguise the fact that he's half-assing everything he tries to do. then he half-asses whatever else he does and thinks that the american people wont notice. Maybe he thinks this country is stupider than he is.

I'm sick of having a person running the country I'm living in that doesn't give two shits about what I want. He went to war to prove to his daddy that he could succeed where he failed. So we got Saddam, great. But now he has started another Vietnam with no signs of ending any time soon. All he cares about his his title, and your votes. He doesnt care about you.

Oh wait, now he's saying its ending, and why? Because election time is coming. His motives are completely self-involved and he doesn't care about the american people - if election time weren't coming around you better believ ethat our troops wouldn't even be thinking about being able to come home.

If anyone out there is thinking of voting for Bush, please reconsider. We need someone who will listen to our voice and do what is best for the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

If Kerry gets the vote, dont look at it like we're never going to finish what Bush started. WE dont need to finish what he started, we need to clean up the mess that he created. His precedency has cause more anti-american feelings throughout the world than ever before. If you want the country being run by a child with only his own image to worry about, then vote Bush. If you realize that Bush did all the things that he did while in office completely in the service of his own self-image than vote for kerry so that someone with a half a brain can try and clean up the mess that Bush has turned this entire planet into.

Seeing that half wit on television makes me angry, he is a dolt and doesn't even know what he's talking about half the time (when reporters ask him "hard" questions half the time he cant even come up with an answer).

oh yeah and Bush really is a moron. You don't want a moron running your country do you? and seperation between Church and state? remember that? Ask yourself why Bush ends every speech he gives with some rambling metaphor about god.








f*ck BUSH


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Methuzela said:


> Anything that will get that oil-crazed moron out of our government is good.


 You still think its the oil?!


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Bush is a moron but the straw the broke the camel's back with me was the censorship thing. I'm not really into Howard Stern or pornography, but by all means, it's any person's right to view/listen to them if they so want. It is taking steps into taking our our rights...the rights many people died to protect.

Another one is the environment. Though I greatly respect nature, I still drive a truck, so I'm no tree-hugger. BUT, Bush cares nothing for the environment or for the average joe worker. He cares only for big business and making his own pocketbook bulge. His answer to everything is going and drilling in some lands that people spent years trying to get protected (i.e. Alaska). He's even repealed some laws that took a long time to get passed which made factories change their setups so they would run cleaner. He looks at the here and now, not the future, and when the environment is concerned, what someone does now DOES have an effect later. I certainly don't want him f*cking up my place to live for another four years.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Methuzela said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that will get that oil-crazed moron out of our government is good.
> ...


 One of Bush's main campaign "go getter's" four years ago was the fact that he claimed he was going to get the country off being so oil-dependant. Well, we know where that all went. He cares for one thing and one thing only...big business, and oil is one of them.


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

I think it WAS the oil. But now I think BUsh doesn't even know why we are there. Im sure he's got many many cabinet people TELLING him why he should tell us we are there. But the reasons just dont hold water for me.

How can you trust someone who looks like they're trying not to laugh every time they give a speech????

Bush cant even hold a straight face delivering a speech to the American People?!
And even if you dont buy the whole oil thing, do you really agree with displacing the American youth into another country that wasn't even threatening us and just leaving them there to die. What number of dead troops is BUsh waiting for before he lets them go home.

He's sick. He is running this country like a monarchy and he does whatever the f*ck he wants. He has placed friends of his throughout many government offices in order to ensure that he gets his way.

Under BUsh's governing, Texas killed more people by the death penalty than any other state ever before it in history. Do you really want a leader who sets those type of records?

Seriously though. If you are a bush supporter and you agree with thte things he does, at least then examine how he does them for a second. All the things he has tried to accomplish while president have basically failed miserabley, only for him to try and do something else before one task was even finished. I can understand agreeing with some of the actions he has taken, but even someone who voted for Bush can see that he has not finished ANYTHING that he has started. Take a second look at Bush, the Fuhrer and think if you still want that bumbling moron in office.


----------



## ineedchanna (May 27, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Methuzela said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that will get that oil-crazed moron out of our government is good.
> ...


 NOPE!

now how about the pic?


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

Oil or not what reason could you possibly give for what he has done with our troops? Did you read my first post? why is he only pulling the troops out now that election time is rolling around.

please dont tell me you think thats just a silly coincidence. All hewants is your vote he doesnt care about anyone but himself.

EVERYONE GO READ THE LINK IN XENON'S ORIGINAL POST IT IS VERY INFORMATIVE


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Speaking of repealing things that are important:

Rule May Drop Salmon From Endangered Species List

Check out this quote from a Bush-supporter:
_"I applaud the people that are trying to save species that are endangered," said Gretchen Borck, a lobbyist with the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. "But it might be good that we don't have dinosaurs now. We've gotten oil from the dinosaurs. If we had preserved the dinosaur, we wouldn't have that oil."_


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

dracofish said:


> He cares for one thing and one thing only...big business, and oil is one of them.


 And Kerry does not? Wake up and realize this is what is called American politics.


----------



## Kory (Jun 5, 2003)

ineedchanna said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Methuzela said:
> ...


 Jesus f*cking christ kid give it up she isn't going to show her picture to you. Why would she even want to show her pic to some pimple faced prepubescent dork obsessing over her on the internet.

Every god damn thread you ask and she says no. TAKE THE HINT!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Kory said:


> ineedchanna said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 hey let the kid have his fun...he's probably never talked to a girl in his life outside his family..


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> dracofish said:
> 
> 
> > He cares for one thing and one thing only...big business, and oil is one of them.
> ...


 I think I'd rather have someone leading this country that actually looked war (a controversial one at that) in the face and volunteered to fight for his country over someone that let his family's name and influence protect him from it.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

dracofish said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Methuzela said:
> ...


 Is getting less oil-dependant so bad? One of his ways was heavily supporting alternatives to oil such as electric car development which he spent heavily on r&d. I do agree with you about his view on the environment except it is more complicated then that. Of all issues of repub vs dems, the one view i support dems on is the environment. Its hard to side w/ one or the other b/c its not as easy as saying "lets not chop trees". You lose thousands of jobs and familys by doin that. The other hand, the environment suffers.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

It's not so much changing things and taking away more jobs...it's the fact that Bush wanted to go and repeal laws and acts (and did to some already) that were in effect already to help the environment or endangered species. Look at the law he repealed that was supposed to make factories have cleaner emissions from their smokestacks.

As far as becomming less oil-dependant...I think it's an excellent idea. Sure, electric cars are slow and not exactly "sporty" now, but if we had been researching them before (like we should have), they would be much better than they are now. Given the proper research, they would be comparable to gasoline in performance. There's also many other alternative fuels out there besides electric...like natural gas and even hydrogen. sh*t, you can make an engine run on practically anything with enough effort. Also, Bush may have spent money researching it and then let it fall by the wayside becuase why would he want to harm his family's business?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I heard the reason he repealed those laws was b/c companies would have to make major overhauls to meet those standards. I haven't fully researched it so im not an expert in that area. But from what i understand, the standard were very high where if they were done w/in the required timeframe, the costs involved would have meant many layoffs. They were laws that were effective now, but were laws that must have been met by 2008 or 2016...bascially sometime in the future. As far as bush's family business, i dont think thats really related to what hes doing. There is no proof that bush has "let it fall sideways".


----------



## Raptor (Jan 3, 2003)

How about this comparason.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 3, 2003)

:laugh:


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> I heard the reason he repealed those laws was b/c companies would have to make major overhauls to meet those standards. I haven't fully researched it so im not an expert in that area. But from what i understand, the standard were very high where if they were done w/in the required timeframe, the costs involved would have meant many layoffs. They were laws that were effective now, but were laws that must have been met by 2008 or 2016...bascially sometime in the future. As far as bush's family business, i dont think thats really related to what hes doing. There is no proof that bush has "let it fall sideways".


 Yes, it was a law that would be in effect for when the factories had to retool with their normal maintenance schedule. This was a law passed in the 80's I think and it said that they had to do the change-over when they would have to retool anyways, which would be coming up within the next couple years.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

I think bush will get in again. It is the lesser of two evils again. I mean Really GORE? He was an IDIOT. And Kerry isn't much better. So bush has been lucky and faced lameduck oppenents. He's gonna be doing this all the way to his 2nd term in the white house.....


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

garybusey said:


> I think bush will get in again. It is the lesser of two evils again. I mean Really GORE? He was an IDIOT. And Kerry isn't much better. So bush has been lucky and faced lameduck oppenents. He's gonna be doing this all the way to his 2nd term in the white house.....


 that picture makes me happy in my pants.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

Bush gets my vote. What ever happened with the big dig?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Tsk tsk... So many people throwing around bullshit about bush.



> When he screws up, he changes the subject


contrary to your belief, more than one significant event can happen across a presidency... To say that these things happened because he was 'changing the subject' is naive at best... Furthermore, you call his actions 'screwups' . I for one do not think that the war in afganistan was a screwup... We quickly and sucessfully took out an extremely represive regime which blatantly supported terroism.... though they didn't find wmd in Iraq, this is a moot point... You, along with many other people seem to have a very short term memory when it comes to Iraq. Iraq DID have weapons it was forbidden to have by international law. UN inspections were enacted to ensure their destruction. Saddam then forced inspections to stop... and several years passed. The UNs job was to ensure their destruction.... not ensure that they existed. Because its a well known fact that they existed. Saddam did not, repeat, DID NOT provide evidense of their removal/destruction. He violated UN resolutions that shold have forced action against him, but as we all know, the UN has no backbone. The war was not only justified, but necessary. 
And now you bring gay marriage into the issue?! This is a national issue that needs to be addressed, and I hardly find it a flaw of Bush to take a stance on the issue. A significant number of americans are AGAINST it., so its not like this is just 'his opinion'



> oil-crazed moron


Like Ms. Natt said.... I can't beleive you are still trying to play this as a valid point. Its not even worth arguing. No legitimate figure ever brings this up.



> Oil or not what reason could you possibly give for what he has done with our troops? Did you read my first post? why is he only pulling the troops out now that election time is rolling around.
> 
> please dont tell me you think thats just a silly coincidence. All hewants is your vote he doesnt care about anyone but himself.


He is pulling out troops because its the time to do so... The new Iraqi government is being put into place. Its not a 'silly coincidence' its the logical chain of events...

As far as wanting votes... the EXACT same can be said of Kerry.

I feel much more secure with Bush in office.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I am with you, Enriqo

Great post

I voted for Gore in 2000, but I'll vote for Bush this year


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Bush is a good man. Even good people make mistakes. We know that someone is responsible for giving Bush bad intel. Most likely Tenet from the CIA who was a Clinton appointee should be held most responsible. It is the intelligence community that abused the President. Most agree that based on the intel at the time, that Saddam had WMD. Even our wonderful Senator Kerry and the famous Edward Kennedy thought Saddam had them as well. So lets remember this is election year and well see alot of rhetoric and propaganda to unseat Bush. Im sure even Gore who gave Kerry 6m last month, the man who invented the internet will come up with some outlandish propaganda. So looking at the alternative, Kerry for pres...noway not in a million years . Ill stick to Bush.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Raptor said:


> How about this comparason.


 the first time i saw this comparison was on the wall of a resturant in amsterdam, it definately is kind of embarassing that even before 9/11 and all of bushs blunders he already had a rep for being an idiot..


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I think 4 more years of Bush will mean a complete polarisation of the world, a new cold war between the new east and the west (mainly US). Only difference is that sooner or later it won't be a cold war any longer...

Doesn't mean Kerry's a better choice - can't you guys do without a president for 4 years: maybe by then both parties can come up with something useful after a time-out...

Bush as president is like Forrest Gump commanding a nuclear sub, Kerry as president is like some boring sitcom-dad (a non-amusing one at that) leading the world's most powerful nation...
Either way, it sucks


----------



## xt12ap5peedx17x (Oct 20, 2003)

Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?


----------



## Black-Phoenix (Oct 21, 2003)

"Under BUsh's governing, Texas killed more people by the death penalty than any other state ever before it in history. Do you really want a leader who sets those type of records?"

Yes exactly the type of record.

I would like to see a better chiose this fall but there just isn't one


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Bush/Kerry, same sh*t........different asshole!


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

xt12ap5peedx17x said:


> Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?


 Put a monkey in the White House, I don't care - in my opinion, Bush and his clique are a global liability, and the sooner they get the boot, the better...


----------



## xt12ap5peedx17x (Oct 20, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> xt12ap5peedx17x said:
> 
> 
> > Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?
> ...


 True that!


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

xt12ap5peedx17x said:


> Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?


 the inhale pres is clinton and he was a way better pres imo.


----------



## xt12ap5peedx17x (Oct 20, 2003)

KingJeff said:


> xt12ap5peedx17x said:
> 
> 
> > Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?
> ...


 True thats, true that, i agree


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

why do you agree?


----------



## xt12ap5peedx17x (Oct 20, 2003)

Cause he didnt start no wars,why do you agree?


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

he made the economy better.


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

xt12ap5peedx17x said:


> Cause he didnt start no wars,why do you agree?


 cause he didnt start no wars? ok.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

I have a question: What would have happened if Clinton had cracked down on companies like Enron? Was the economy actually good, or were the companies just faking their way through it?


----------



## Pacuguy (Apr 10, 2004)

Idiot son of an asshole!


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

I dont think the treatment of the terroist over there in the Iraq prison will affect Bush during election it will be old news by then. I don't know how many of you know this, the Geneva Conventions do not protect terrorists. (PTI: Interrogation of Ultras Not Regulated Under Geneva) They protect soldiers who serve under a nation who wear uniforms who carry their weapons openly, and with the kind of threat that we're facing today with terrorist cells in the U.S. plotting an even bigger attack than 9/11. I dont have a problem using acts of humiliation to get them to spill the beans. We are not torturing them,,,,unlike what they did to Berg.


----------



## illnino (Mar 6, 2004)

if i were old enough to vote, id take the time out of my day to vote against bush, that is how anti-fush i am


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

first off, the US has to sign onto the Kyoto accords. Without it, they are pretty much useless and we wont be able to breath eventually, if we dont get flooded first.

Second, the US has a history of damaging or supporting the damage of the environment. The problem is, multinational corporations in this day in age have more power than individual governements. A US mining company named Freeport McMoRan has a mine in Indonesia that is absolutely devastating the environment for example.

The culture of overconsumption we have is atrocious. Bear in mind that it isn't only the US, but they are a leader in it. We drive huge SUVs because we can feel safer in them or whtever your reason may be. AFter the Gas Crisis we went to smaller cars, and eventually we went back to bigger cars and trucks.

Whoever gets elected as pres is pretty much meaningless. All people running are going to be somehow associated with big business. White old fat cats from texas and the east coast designed the country for their own needs. There is no reason it is going to stop. no other politician will ever get anywhere near the power of the republicans or democrats, kind of sad. But its the same in most places. I think the global society has to change its ways. But since the US is so powerful, they would be a great leader.

On the hydrogen cars, sure we can make a car to run on hydrogen no problem. The problem is where you get the hydrogen from. Right now, we have to use other energy sourse to extract hydrogen, e.g. hydroelectric, coal etc. The problem is, each of these has their own problems that must be overcome. Until a clean source for hydrogen can be found, it wont make much different how well hydrogen cars run.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

KingJeff said:


> xt12ap5peedx17x said:
> 
> 
> > Is Bush a really bad president???? Who would you want as president then? The "I didn't inhale" president?
> ...


 This statement makes me weep...


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> KingJeff said:
> 
> 
> > xt12ap5peedx17x said:
> ...


 That just hurts reading that.

Clinton didnt do any good for the US except cut how many years a person could be on welfare.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Enriqo_Suavez said:
> 
> 
> > KingJeff said:
> ...


 Yeah sure, but I'm just wondering: what good did Bush actually do?
All I can think of is alienting the US from the rest from the world, making the US extremely unpopular everywhere but in the US, starting wars that are irresponsible (note, before y'all war monger start crying again: irresponsible is not the same as unnecessary!) and do at least as much harm as they do good, completely disregarding environmental issues, lying to his own people... well I could go on for a while, but why state the obvious?

Oh well, at least he didn't take a puff from tha chronic (even though he acts like someone who's permanently confused)









BraveHeart007: you're right, the Geneva Convention doesn't (fully) apply to terrorists, but the vast majority of captive Iraqi's are no terrorists, many of them arrested for minor stuff or even without reason.
Most Americans nowadays consider anyone that points a gun at an American a terrorist, but most of those Iraqi's are 'just' criminals or people trying to defend their home or country (as would most people do - only difference: when an American does it, it's called "patriottism" or "serving your country", but when an Iraqi does it it's called "terrorism"...)


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Enriqo_Suavez said:
> ...


 Well lets see what george has done.....he's had to deal w/ deficit, recession(happened before he was in presidency....wheels already in motion w/ clinton), dealt w/ a major terroist attack 9/11 (not to mention no attacks since then, which can't be said of other contries), improved the economy (fastest growth in 10 years,maybe more), got rid of the taliban, got rid of saddam, and iraq is going to be soverign in only one year after saddam is gone.


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

I'm sickened by the display of Bush-liking I'm seeing here. And dont get me wrong everyone is entitled to their opinon by all means vote for bush if you realy want to. I'm just expressing mine.

Those who say that its not just a coincidence that he;s pulling our troops out around election time, that's ridiculous because the troops should have been pulled out long ago. What are they dong there besides being killed and throwing fuel on the fire of american hatred?

I want apresident in the white house who strives for peace with other nations in the world, not one who ignores the UN and NATO and does what he wants. WHo does BUsh think he is?

I agree that it is a good thing that Saddam has been ousted from the govt in iraq but other than that we have no right to be there. He is really making daddy proud going for the guy that he couldnt get.

And have you just forgotten a man named Bin LAden???? Remember him? Well Bush obviously doesn't for he doesn't even mention the fact that he is still out roaming the desert planning more attacks on America and growing the Al Qaeda forces. Seems that in our administration's rush to make some headway in their self-described war on terroism, they have lost focus on their initial target of this war. Osama Bin Who? Either the tide of public sentiment is turning or apathy has set in. Iraq was a distraction effort in order to make americans feel like we are once again the sovereign nation of the planet earth who does what we want to who we want. Seems like this whole "War on Terrorism" was geared for capturing terrorists like Osama bin Laden, not provide a convenient scapegoat that allowed W to go in, guns a blazin', to remove a regional despot and protect America's interest in Iraq (someone tell me that this thing has nothing to do with oil, PLEASE! Prove that BUsh lies and people believe him). We never found bin laden, something Bush promised would be done. We couldnt find him, so lets just go to Iraq instead.

We tried to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob. So you are telling me that the lives of our sons and daughters is less important than a BJ? I didnt want another Vietnam and I bet my friends who are stuck over in Iraq feel the same way.










IMPEACH BUSH!!! DONT VOTE FOR HIM!!!!


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Clinton engaged in more foreign conflicts then the number of previous conflict in this century combined. All the while shrinking and belittling our military. Its a wonder Bush had anything to fight with at all. On top of that he was the beneficiary of a CYCLICAL boom time for the economy fueled by technology. Clinton personally did nothing except sit there and recieve blow jobs.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

> What are they dong there besides being killed and throwing fuel on the fire of american hatred?


A teacher from my high school was called into duty to fight in Iraq. In correspondence between the school paper and him, he has expressed how many Iraqis have thanked him for being there. He says that the anti-american sentiment isn't as strong as the media tries to portray.

Also, would the economy under clinton have been as good if companies like Enron were reporting ACTUAL earnings, rather than playing make believe with investors/the american public.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Not to sound disrespectful, but imo. 9/11 was Bush' career saver - without those unfortunate events he would never have any solid ground to base his policy on.
The war helped the economy, and the wars gave him the support he needed - without that, he would have been nothing more than a well-below-average-at-best president that would just have faded out of memory as soon as he left the White House...

btw: no one got rid of the Taliban or Al Qaeda or Saddam militia - if everything, they have dispersed throughout the world because of the war efforts (maybe 10% of the approx. 20.000 Al Qaeda fighters that lived in 2001 are killed or arrested - in the mean time, at least that amount has been recruted again), making the entire planet a potential battle field and making them even harder to eradicate...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

The taliban are dispered yes, but have no solid for of conducting any kind of major moves. They are bascially bands of rebels. And as 9/11 being a career saver...how so? Aren't bush haters around here against him cz of the war? What esle do u hate about him. And clinton got lucky sitting back watching the tech boom and internet boom(courtesy of mr gore







) And over half of al queda's leadership is dead or captured. So do any of u think that if clinton was still in power 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I dont think so. HOw would bill have handled that?


----------



## Poseidon X (Jan 31, 2003)

at least our president has balls... Ill be outta this country the day kerry and his socialist frenchy relatives move into the white house.

The media is controlled my liberals... they tell the people what they want to hear, which is always full of drama, exageration, and lies.

Half my freinds were just commisioned in Special Forces type paths, their general sentiment was that they could not wait to start killing those inhuman killers over there. They are animals, and need to be exterminated


----------



## upt1me (Jun 26, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Clinton personally did nothing except sit there and recieve blow jobs.


 Thats my kind of president.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> The taliban are dispered yes, but have no solid for of conducting any kind of major moves. They are bascially bands of rebels. And as 9/11 being a career saver...how so? Aren't bush haters around here against him cz of the war? What esle do u hate about him. And clinton got lucky sitting back watching the tech boom and internet boom(courtesy of mr gore :laugh: ) And over half of al queda's leadership is dead or captured. So do any of u think that if clinton was still in power 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I dont think so. HOw would bill have handled that?


I don't know, nor care how Clinton would have handled it - it's not relevant.
All I'm trying to say is that Bush took the wrong course - true, he had to act, and there's nothing wrong with fighting terrorism, but instead of solving things it only got worse. Agreed, the Taliban have gone, Saddam is gone, but are the problems really solved because of that?
No, terrorism is even more a problem than it was before: it's global now (keep in mind Al Qaeda is mainly after the US - other Western countries are only a target as soon as they back up and actively support US foreign policy - 'Madrid' would never have happened if the Spanish kept their men at home in the first place). Besides that, Iraq was free of terorists before the fall of Saddam - I'm glad he's gone, but god knows what terrorist groups have taken refuge in Iraq, and god knows what they are up to - the 'new' Iraq may be freed of Iraq, but it's a new wasteland where terrorists can move freely. Same applies to large area's of Afghanistan.
Besides that: the number of civilian casualties is high, and the number of people that now actively support resistance against the US or even joined terrorist groups is definitely larger than the number of terrorists killed since 9/11, so what's the gain?
Do you think it makes a difference wheter you kill some Al Qaeda leaders? Sure, temporarily, but for each one killed there will be dozens of eager people waiting to fill in the vacancy.
Just like the initial succeses in the wars themeselves, the capturing of Houssein and terrorist leaders, the successes are media moments (good PR for the White House) rather than defining moments...

Again, I'm not saying the war on terror per se is bad: it's just that imo. the way it's conducted only made matters worse, though. I don't know the answers (I'm no politician), but the current route of violence rather than responsible, constructive policy won't win you the war on terror - brains are needed as well, so it's about time we see some of that at work in Washington...
Look at Isreal - 40 years of violent countermeasures haven't solved a damn thing: if anything, matter have gotten worse. The global war on terror is a similar type of war, and in this case as well, guns alone will cause more problems than they actually solve.

btw: Mr. Clinton had someone knibble his lollypop whilst sitting back and chilling...
So what? Isn't that what any normally functioning man wants?









Oh well, these are just my opinions - think of it whatever you want...


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

I'd rather have a president who gets his knob shined on occasion, then one who irresponsibly goes to war by way of deception and manipulation and causes tens of thousands of deaths.

Bush should be impeached, tarred & feather, and in jail for life.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm not a George Bush fan either, but theres a few things mentioned above. The whole weapons of mass destruction not being found is because 
1) most of the weapons were moved into other countries such as Syria or Lebanon and were hidden 
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=670123
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/965072/posts

2) weapons could be buried in the desert, dont believe me, they buried 30 some MiG's in the desert and weren't found for awhile, its possible http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../6/105528.shtml

"The discovery of the buried Iraqi jet fighters illustrates the problem faced by U.S. inspection teams searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is larger in size than California, and the massive deserts south and west of Baghdad were used by Saddam Hussein to hide weapons during the first Gulf war.

U.S. intelligence sources have already uncovered several mass grave burial sites in the open deserts with an estimated 10,000 dead hidden there. In addition, Iraq previously hid SCUD missiles, chemical weapons and biological warheads by burying them under the desert sand. U.N. inspection teams found the weapons in the early 1990s after detailed information of the exact locations was obtained.
"

If they can hide a fleet of planes, imagine just small little boxers or containers of weapons, missles, etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93483,00.html

3) also there was a river tested for radiation which the tests proved there was radioactive substances left over.

"A trailer found by U.S. troops outside the northern Iraqi city of Tall Kayf is suspected of being a mobile biological weapons laboratory from the now-defunct regime of Saddam Hussein, and it is now undergoing extensive testing and evaluation in Baghdad"......", it contains a fermenter and a system to capture exhaust gases, items necessary for developing biological weapons."

http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/wwwhwashnews354.html

Also, what would you do with 9/11 if you were president? just sit back and get a bj while you're citizens are being killed. he had to do something, and if Al Qaeda just keeps deciding on killing people because the US is evil, sitting back and doing nothing isnt gonna help. i'm not a fan of war, my friend is in the military right now, but what else can you do? these people only care about killing US citizens, they dont want to talk, they just want to hide and kill people and then pray to their god for their humble doings. i know the following for al qaeda is just gonna keep going and more people will join. we could have a president sit back and get some







from some fat intern or a president who needed to stand up and take action. we got the second and i'd take that over the first.

If you ever have the chance to listen to Larry E. SCHWEIKART speak about the Iraqi war do it. He was my professor and a smart man who knew his stuff. The following links are not the ones he used, but ones I just found at the moment right now because I am at work and do not have the links with me. There are probably better links out there that he used, I just did a google search. In no way am I a Bush fan, but with all the criticism he is getting for the Iraqi war, I just wanted to bring to people's attention stuff that may have been overlooked.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

b_ack51, I doubt it's a secret Saddam had WMD at any given point - I mean, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians, so it's not a big surprise.

But that doesn't mean Bush ain't no irresponsible knucklehead, who would have started a war against Iraq no matter what had happened - 9/11 was the best possible excuse for him to start his campaign, but if it never happened he'd have found another reason to topple Saddam. This despite the fact that he (and those other Pentagon/White House idiots) is about the only person who still firmly believes in a link between Saddam and Bin Laden: Al Qaeda was non-present in Iraq until the Coalition invaded, and Saddam told Bin Laden to take a hike on a few occasions when the latter his support.


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

Bush will still have my vote no matter what...Ill never vote for anybody who protested alongside jane fonda in vietnam, or for anybody who is so active against american gun rights.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

At least Kerry served his country....









Doesn't mean he's no knucklehead either...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I think that serving bs is so overrated on both sides. they try to puff up their image and show citizens how patriotic they are. One guys in the military and doesn't fight, other side protests even fighting and all this bs about how he threw away his medals. who cares. its what they can do for the country and i believe bush will do better. Hes reliable and sticks to his guns....kerry doesn't even kno what he believes in yet.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> I think that serving bs is so overrated on both sides. they try to puff up their image and show citizens how patriotic they are. One guys in the military and doesn't fight, other side protests even fighting and all this bs about how he threw away his medals. who cares.


 Well, if the tables were turned and Kerry dodged service while Bush was the decorated veteran, I bet it would have mattered to those that say it doesn't matter...
It provides no mud to throw with, so to many it's irrelevant now.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

nf9648 said:


> or for anybody who is so active against american gun rights.


I'd rather have stonger gun control over losing my right to watch/listen to whatever I want and maybe even down the road my right to religious freedom. Don't say that it's not possible either, because they've already begun taking away that right in a few schools around the country.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

dracofish said:


> Don't say that it's not possible either, because they've already begun taking away that right in a few schools around the country.


 This is not Bush's doing. This is the result of the modern liberalism touted by so many on this site.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Poseidon X said:


> at least our president has balls... Ill be outta this country the day kerry and his socialist frenchy relatives move into the white house.
> 
> The media is controlled my liberals... they tell the people what they want to hear, which is always full of drama, exageration, and lies.
> 
> Half my freinds were just commisioned in Special Forces type paths, their general sentiment was that they could not wait to start killing those inhuman killers over there. They are animals, and need to be exterminated


 I still dont understand why we are "supposed" to hate the french for not wanting to agree to bombard iraq....the russians would have voted no also...


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Filo said:


> Poseidon X said:
> 
> 
> > at least our president has balls... Ill be outta this country the day kerry and his socialist frenchy relatives move into the white house.
> ...


Because a wise man once said "_you're either with us, or with the terrorists_".
That's how black and white the world will be, if certain people get what they want...


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> I'd rather have a president who gets his knob shined on occasion, then one who irresponsibly goes to war by way of deception and manipulation and causes tens of thousands of deaths.
> 
> Bush should be impeached, tarred & feather, and in jail for life.


 here here


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> dracofish said:
> 
> 
> > Don't say that it's not possible either, because they've already begun taking away that right in a few schools around the country.
> ...


You can go on believing that...

I'd think it would be the liberals that would WANT to have complete freedom. Is not Bush the one that is against gay marriage? Is he not the one that's behind the censorship problem (yes, it's the FCC that's the big "mover and shaker" but it had to start somewhere and as far as I know, it started with Bush's cabinet). He's banging the religion drum in hopes of gaining the Christian and conservative vote.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Filo said:
> 
> 
> > Poseidon X said:
> ...


 hatred of the french go way back before the war. They are never grateful for what the US provided w/ them. Americans that even visit french are routinely discriminated against once they know they are americans.....many of my friends have first hand experienced this.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

anyone ever read that al franken book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". It talks about the election between gore and bush and how media is actually more conservative, saying "the reporters are liberals, but the people who control the stations are conservative".... its pretty interesting to read.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

diddye said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Filo said:
> ...


 French are never greatful for what the US has done to them. Germany practically owned them til we went in during WW2 and gave them back their country. Then when we ask for some help, they turn around and say f**k you?! Exactly why we hate the French.


----------



## Poseidon X (Jan 31, 2003)

my girlfreind had a french roomate last semester... what an ungrateful bitch.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

dracofish said:


> Speaking of repealing things that are important:
> 
> Rule May Drop Salmon From Endangered Species List
> 
> ...










another bush moment..


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> At least Kerry served his country....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread...&threadid=13550

Thats all I need to show you to change your opinion on his hippy ass.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 So, because the US and its allies saved france from germany, they should always support the US no matter what they want to do?


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

scrubbs said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > diddye said:
> ...


 You miss the whole point. Its not about no matter what. Its about what is right, even France thought Saddam had WMD. The issue is this France is only into themselves. History even modern history shows France are nothing but cowards.
When its not in there best interest they say Fuc$ Y*% instead of looking at whats best for the whole world. France is not our friend....


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Umm, since when does a country have to help a country that once was their "ally"??? France got us our Independence...lets not forget that. We had Saddam contained for about 10 years, and we go and mess it all up. One thing GWBUSH should have read was his father's reason not to invade Iraq--There would be no outcome-aka Vietnam.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 maybe i missed the point, but what ms natt wrote i replied to. Nowhere did she mention anything about self interest. She said that the US saved france from germany, and therefore they should help the US.

The fact you bring self interest up is almost comical. The whole war on terror is about self interest. The US's that is. If there hadnt been terrorist attacks IN THE US, i doubt the US would have attacked Iraq without more intelligence. I think its safe to say that most of the smaller countries involved in iraq and afganistan are in it for self interest. For some, jsut getting mentioned in the same sentence with the US is great. Others will probably recieve more aid in one form or another. If france based its decision on self interest in this war, i bet it would have been smarter to join the war. By not doing so, they probably lost a tonne of sh*t that they got from the US and Britain.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

does anyone hate germans or russians too? Because they were gonna vote no as well, weren't they?


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scrubbs said:


> does anyone hate germans or russians too? Because they were gonna vote no as well, weren't they?


 We couldnt hate the Germans...they have Amsterdam























As for the commies...who likes them!?


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > does anyone hate germans or russians too? Because they were gonna vote no as well, weren't they?
> ...


 haha


----------



## SERRAPYGO (Feb 4, 2003)

Bush









I definitey don't agree with all that he's done or where he may take us in the future, and if this were'nt a time of war, I may change my vote. But, we are at war and this is the wrong time to change leaders. Especially, to one that wants to "end the mess in Iraq". 
There is no mess to end. Iraq is a harborer of terrorism and it has not one thing to do witth oil. (The popular liberal excuse)
If we (the U.S.) are basing this war on oil, and taking over the oil fields, why are gas prices still so high?

Bush is aggressively taking on terrorism and chasing terrorists around the world. WE HAVE THEM ON THE RUN! What doesn't the left understand about that?


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Serrapygo said:


> WE HAVE THEM ON THE RUN! What doesn't the left understand about that?


Really? Is that why terrorists pose more of a threat now than before 9/11? Interesting theory...

As far as gas prices going up, you can thank OPEC for that...not the "war on terrorism."


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Anybody w/ any kind of education....please enlighten me on how this is even remotely close to vietnam. They are no way alike. The only thing they have alike is that the enemy is hard to decipher. Thats it. Liberals like to use that word b/c it makes this war seem like its unwinnable. Oh, btw, WWII is not the only reason...many more conflicts involved. You dont dislike a country just b/c of one event...that'll mean we'd hate japan, germany, britian....thier history is littered w/ dishonor. Americans hate them b/c they dont respect them and vise versa.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Filo said:


> Umm, since when does a country have to help a country that once was their "ally"??? France got us our Independence...lets not forget that.


 Excellent point - too bad these are the very things peple tend to "forget" when swept away in a wave of mindless pattriotism...

Oh and Nick: terrorists on the run? LOLOL!








Sure, Al Qaeda has suffered a big set-back, but they have reorganised and are as operational and dangerous as ever - killing the leaders won't remove the threat of the sleeper cells spreaded throughout the West, waiting for their call to action.
The war on terror solved hardly anything: we're basically just waiting for new massive attacks (it's a matter of "where and when" rather than "if"), so in the aftermath we can once again change policy in the hope that we may find better ways to protect ourselves. Sounds gloomy, but that's how it is: it's like fighting computer virusses - our side are always on step behind...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Filo said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, since when does a country have to help a country that once was their "ally"??? France got us our Independence...lets not forget that.
> ...


 yes and america has repaid that tenfold. And as far as terrorists, should the world and espeically the states cower and act like wimps? How many attacks have there been in the us since 9/11? thats right....ZERO!. HOw many in other places that isn't as vigilant as the states? Lets see, france(haha), spain(stupid civilians), indonesia, and many other places in europe and the middle east like saudia arabia. Judazzz, lets see where you stand when and if you precious amsterdam gets blown up tomorrow. Easy to sit there behind a computer when the rest of the world is getting attacked.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Okay for all you anti-war people...instead of arguing why we shouldnt have even gone to war, lets see what YOU would have done to resolve our conflicts with the terrorism that was brought onto the US.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Okay for all you anti-war people...instead of arguing why we shouldnt have even gone to war, lets see what YOU would have done to resolve our conflicts with the terrorism that was brought onto the US.


 Haha, thats right....well if it was any place like france, they'd wave white flags at 9/11 and paris would be renamed "alqueda city" w/in 10 days. They'd cry for the world to help and everybbody would not want to help. Low and behold, the states will come in and save france once again.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

Where is al queda on the run to? They can't stay in Iraq or Afghanistan. Assuming we stay the course and allow Iraq to develop into a democratic country that is not dominated by hardliner religious clerics, the entire region is going to be a tougher place for Al Queda to hang out in. When people see the freedoms that they sacrifice to a government controlled by religious extremists, they will push for those freedoms that the Iraqis will have as well.

I'll admit, what I wrote sounds pretty ignorant, and I apologize if that offended any people of the muslim faith. I will clarify my statement later, but it is dinner time


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > does anyone hate germans or russians too? Because they were gonna vote no as well, weren't they?
> ...


 Germany doesnt have amsterdam, netherlands does.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nf9648 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > scrubbs said:
> ...


 Oh no, so I was off by a border...chill out man. It was just a joke


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Bush will not be reelected. Everybody knows hes in it for the oil, just like the rest of his republican sex partners...There is no reason american soldieers should be over there...teenagers, fathers, mothers, husbands and wifes are over there getting killed so bush will be re elected. Just remember, when it comes time to vote, just think, should I vote for the Graduate of Yale University, or should I vote for the captain cheerleader of former high school..


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


Ditto...

Next time the french are getting their asses kicked, we should leave them to fight for themselves...


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

aaron07_20 said:


> Bush will not be reelected. Everybody knows hes in it for the oil, just like the rest of his republican sex partners...There is no reason american soldieers should be over there...teenagers, fathers, mothers, husbands and wifes are over there getting killed so bush will be re elected. Just remember, when it comes time to vote, just think, should I vote for the Graduate of Yale University, or should I vote for the captain cheerleader of former high school..


 Well I know I am going to vote for a graduate of Yale... Bush. Your post is filled with misinformation. Everyone knows that is is NOT in it for oil... what are the basis of your claims? No respectable source says anything about oil because it is a ridiculous claim... And I don't see how people dying in the war are getting him re-elected... quite the opposite.

W04


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

The what the F*** is he in it for??! There is no damn reason why we should be over there..


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Bush is getting my vote


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

aaron07_20 said:


> The what the F*** is he in it for??! There is no damn reason why we should be over there..


 I thought the name of the war gave it away. The war on *TERRORISM*...


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> aaron07_20 said:
> 
> 
> > The what the F*** is he in it for??! There is no damn reason why we should be over there..
> ...


 Yeah.... If you still honestly beleive its oil, I feel bad for ya.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

There is nobody in Iraq anymore with enough power to terrorize the US anymore, I would support bush if he would concentrate on the real terrorist, Osama Bin Laden..


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Bush is getting my vote


 Foolish Girl..


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Okay for all you anti-war people...instead of arguing why we shouldnt have even gone to war, lets see what YOU would have done to resolve our conflicts with the terrorism that was brought onto the US.


 how about change foreign policy to make the rest of the world see the US as a good ally, not an enemy.

for all you pro-war people, how would you like to eradicate terrorism. Like Judazz said, its pretty much a waiting game right now. Its a when, not if question. how many countries would the US have to invade to eradicate terorism? It would be like 30 years at least. The US has spent like a year and half in Iraq, with plans to stay for awhile. When they invade the next country, it will be another 3-5 years, and so on...

It is becoming a viscious circle. Muslim extremists hate the US. So the US goes and occupies a arab country. That fuels even more hate. It goes on and on...

Personally, i cant see any stop to anything anymore. I dont think war will stop terrorism, and diplomatic routes won't either. Short of killing or locking up anyone with "possible" links to terrorism, I can't see an ending.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

aaron07_20 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Bush is getting my vote
> ...


This coming from a guy who thinks the war is all about oil..


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scrubbs said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Okay for all you anti-war people...instead of arguing why we shouldnt have even gone to war, lets see what YOU would have done to resolve our conflicts with the terrorism that was brought onto the US.:rock:
> ...


We've only been at war for how long!? And already you want to see some sort of ending?! Look at all the wars we've had in the past and how long they lasted. Do you think that by the second year they knew where some sort of ending was?! I dont think so. War is something that takes time, especially when the agenda is so broad as in fighting *all* terrorism.

But at least look how far they've gotten in these 2-3 years. They went as far as to pick a PM for Iraq. Article. I think we did pretty well.


----------



## SERRAPYGO (Feb 4, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Filo said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, since when does a country have to help a country that once was their "ally"??? France got us our Independence...lets not forget that.
> ...


 Sure are Jonas! And I stand by that. It's gonna take time. It's not like flicking off a light switch. However, if Kerry is elected, I'm sure he'll find a way to"get us out of this mess".







Then, prepare for more terrorists acts than we've ever seen before.



> Umm, since when does a country have to help a country that once was their "ally"??? France got us our Independence...lets not forget that.


Ancient history. What good does that do us now?


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 i understand that war would take a long time. But, in the past when there were wars, we could look forward to peace for an extended period of time afterwards. Do you agree that there are other countries that support terrorism as well? If you do, then you can understand why i feel that we may not get taht extended peace time. And thats all im saying, To fully eradicate terrorism, it will take an awfully long time.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scrubbs said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > scrubbs said:
> ...


 Id rather have it take a lot of time and know we end up in peace, rather than not take the time now and always be in constant fear of the next time we or one of our allies gets attacked. If you dont take care of it now, these terrorist organizations will only continue to grow and gain more and more members.


----------



## SERRAPYGO (Feb 4, 2003)

> To fully eradicate terrorism, it will take an awfully long time.


Yes it will.



> Id rather have it take a lot of time and know we end up in peace, rather than not take the time now and always be in constant fear of the next time we or one of our allies gets attacked. If you dont take care of it now, these terrorist organizations will only continue to grow and gain more and more members.


Exactly.

One question for the libs. *What would be a better way to deal with terrorism?* if Bush isn't handling things correctly in your opinions.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Terrorism may never be eliminated b/c its jst a fact of life jst like how wars or murders will never stop. Just b/c it may never end doesn't mean you shouldn't try to stop as much as possible right?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

> And thats all im saying, To fully eradicate terrorism, it will take an awfully long time.


This is no reason to just not try at all... If Kerry acts how he is saying he will act.... (he doesnt give us very many details at all) I will be frightened.... However, the more likely outcome is that if he is elected, Kerrys views will turn-about again when he is faced with the actual task of the presidency, not just SAYING stuff to get the vote.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> aaron07_20 said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Its not ALL about oil but everyone knows some of it is! Terrorism will NEVER end, no matter what bush does or some other crazy republican..


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scrubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Yeah there should be a damn ending because no american soldiers should be over there! I would understand if more of them were over in afghanistan! How old are you btw!!?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

aaron07_20 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > aaron07_20 said:
> ...


 Read my last post...

By your logic we shouldn't do anything at all to stop terrorism, just because 'it will never end'. Furthermore you think that 'crazy republicans' are the only ones wanting to take action to stop terrorism... if thats the case, I hope republicans gain as many victories as they can this year...


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

There is nothing to worry about an Iraq anymore..they have no power...he needs to worry about afghanistan and Korea..


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

aaron07_20 said:


> There is nothing to worry about an Iraq anymore..they have no power...he needs to worry about afghanistan and Korea..


 afghanistan...Hello??? What are you smoking..Try Iran, Syria, china and the like..


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

aaron07_20 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > scrubbs said:
> ...


 What does my age have anything to do with this argument?!

None of this war was for the oil. If you think the US was in it for the oil, think again. Iraq is NOT a major supplier of oil to the US. We get our oil elsewhere.

On the side note, part of the reason France didnt join the US in this war, is because they didnt want to ruin the oil ties they have with Iraq, because Iraq is their main supplier of oil.

American soldiers are over to make sure order is in control there. Remember we took their dictator out of there. So now we need to make sure by instituting a new gov't, order is took place or else all chaos will start up again.

Plus, you seem to forget Iraq still harbors terrorist. And figuring this is the War on *TERRORISM* its only logical as to why we still have soldiers there.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Plus, you seem to forget Iraq still harbors terrorist. And figuring this is the War on *TERRORISM* its only logical as to why we still have soldiers there.


Iraq is harbouring terrorists since the Coalition invaded the country - Al Qaeda was non-present in Iraq under Saddam Houssein, and so where anti-Western militia that now roam the streets - invading Iraq without thinking about the (pretty obvious) consequences opened a Pandora's Box, and now the Coalition has to deal with it...

And it takes more than simply importing a couple of Western ideologies and political systems (foreign to Arabs and in its current shape possibly incompatible with Arab culture anyways) to clean up the mess.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, you seem to forget Iraq still harbors terrorist. And figuring this is the War on *TERRORISM* its only logical as to why we still have soldiers there.
> ...


 I understand that, but its definitely a responsibility that our President has chosen to take on. I just feel more comfortable knowing that theres IS something being done to prevent such groups from terrorizing other countries than there NOTHING being done.

Enough with this "pandora box" idealogy that you and Frank keep using :rasp:


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 It's not a bad thing to take up that responsibility (the problem of global terrorism is something that has to be addressed for sure), but it would have been nice if those that took this task upon them had a shred of responsibility, credibility and common sense in them as well.

btw: I knew you'd start about that Pandora-thing


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

If the states did something like aaron said, we should enter a country, oust any kind of gov, then leave....hmmm chaos does make sense...lets leave the country in ruins and let anarchy run.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 ..if those that took the task...

Thats the problem. Who else was going to?! I didnt see anybody else jumping to the gun to address the problem. Granted, the US, cant do this all alone, I think it was pretty admirable that at least we're trying, instead of us and our allies being bullied around.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I can't possibly combine "admirable" and Bush (and his cabinet) in one and the same sentence - I don't believe him or his henchmen: whenever he talks, I get the feeling he's f*cking with me: he says one thing, but means something else.
Hell, even his apologies seem fake...

Anyways, different issue.
It was a good thing to oust Saddam and free the Iraqi's, but so many things have happened that could have been predicted, and thus avoided. I know the Coalition tries it's best, but this cannot be resolved with violence (which is about the only thing Washington can come up with lately).
You need to start at grassroot level: you can't simply overrun a country, institute democracy and expect the people to know what it's all about - democracy as we know it is the result of centuries of history: you can't simply force that through a whole people's throat and expect it to work out.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Yes, but a LOT easier said then done. Also, I dont see anybody else, or country for that matter giving any other ideas or suggestions.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't possibly combine "admirable" and Bush (and his cabinet) in one and the same sentence - I don't believe him or his henchmen: whenever he talks, I get the feeling he's f*cking with me: he says one thing, but means something else.
> Hell, even his apologies seem fake...
> 
> Anyways, different issue.
> ...


I wasnt speaking on behalf of Bush when I said admirable :rasp: I just meant the US as a whole.

If youd like to think Bush is f*cking with you...by all means thats YOUR personal preference. But do you really think its appropriate to share it with us?!









So, how would you suggest we had taken care of this?! Over tea and crumpets?!







But honestly, what would you have done?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I can't possibly combine "admirable" and Bush (and his cabinet) in one and the same sentence - I don't believe him or his henchmen: whenever he talks, I get the feeling he's f*cking with me: he says one thing, but means something else.
> ...


 Damn, I knew I should've stayed quiet about me and Dubya...









How I would have "done" Iraq?
I'm no politician, and I admit it's easy standing on the side-line critisizing what I see, but it's mainly because I'm worried about the consequences of what is going on today - because I think whatever has happened so far and what is still going to happen under American supervision will do at least as much harm as it has done/will do good...
Anyways, I don't really know how it could have been better, but stampeding into Iraq like a mindless behemoth certainly isn't the answer. The main focus has been on the military aspects from the very first second, but imo. the most important factor in this matter are the common Iraqi's and their lives - in the end, they are the ones that either help building up the country, or joining the resistance - until now, the current approach almost completely disregarded them...


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> How I would have "done" Iraq?
> I'm no politician, and I admit it's easy standing on the side-line critisizing what I see, but it's mainly because I'm worried about the consequences of what is going on today - because I think whatever has happened so far and what is still going to happen under American supervision will do at least as much harm as it has done/will do good...
> Anyways, I don't really know how it could have been better, but stampeding into Iraq like a mindless behemoth certainly isn't the answer. The main focus has been on the military aspects from the very first second, but imo. the most important factor in this matter are the common Iraqi's and their lives - in the end, they are the ones that either help building up the country, or joining the resistance - until now, the current approach almost completely disregarded them...


 Trust me, we worry about the consequences too. Im sure almost everyone does. But what can we do?! Just pull out and act like nothing ever happened?! No, we got to finish what we started.

We stampeded into their country not after the Iraqi citizen's but after their military. Yeah, their lives were affected, but there was really no other alternative. Thats another thing that happens in war. You cant help it. In the end, your correct, itll be ultimately up to the Iraqi people to make it or break it. However, with the current situation, the US will most definitely try to make it.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

BraveHeart007 said:


> aaron07_20 said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing to worry about an Iraq anymore..they have no power...he needs to worry about afghanistan and Korea..
> ...


 UUHH I think we need to concentrate on osama bin laden. We have nothing to do in Iraq. There is no one in power there anymore.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

aaron07_20 said:


> BraveHeart007 said:
> 
> 
> > aaron07_20 said:
> ...


 Oh and what, wait for another jack ass to get in power that just as bad or worse than Saddam?! Umm, no I dont think so!


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> nf9648 said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Haha, geez, I was only being sarcastic, hehe. Please dont hurt me...


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> aaron07_20 said:
> 
> 
> > BraveHeart007 said:
> ...


 Osama is moe powerful then Saddam....


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

aaron07_20 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > aaron07_20 said:
> ...


 Where do you come up with this rediculous crap?!? In Iraq for oil? Iraq isnt a threat? Osama is more powerful than saddam was? The question is, what have you done for your country? How much military service have you given your country? How much do you know about what is going on in Iraq, have you been there lately? I left in Late March, Im headed back before Christmas, Ive seen cars shot up on sides of roads, Ive woken up at 3 am to the feeling of a 105mm shell impacting 200 yards from my cot, if you believe theres nothing to worry about in Iraq and nothing to fix then I suggest you do some homework before posting anything further. BTW, Bush has my vote along with the cvote of every voting member of my family, regardless of my profession and deployable status. Its better to have someone who will act against the enemy, rather than let the threat grow behind everybodys back until it becomes a catastrophy like what happened with Clinton and the events that led to 9/11.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nf9648 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > nf9648 said:
> ...


 Oh come on, then how am I to have fun :laugh:


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > How I would have "done" Iraq?
> ...


 Maybe, but the thought that a large minority of your fellow countrymen finds it acceptable to use nuclear weapons to clean up the area if things don't go as they should (which makes those people as much a terrorist as any given Al Qaeda member, but that's another issue), is an extremely chilling and frightening thought...
Responses in similar threads on PFury provide enough evidence of how many people wouldn't mind the use of nukes if it serves their goals


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

use of nukes = start of WW3 = end of world


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 Tell me, these people that wouldnt mind the use of nukes, are they in any way in power right now?!









If not, why do you worry. Theyre just all talk anyway.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Ms_Nattereri said:
> ...


 Why do I worry? very simple: what if???
And that thought is freightening enough, no matter how small the chance - as soon as those people get any political influence, it may be too late - this is not something we can f*ck up once, and redo if the results disappoint.

And god knows what the true motives of those in charge are. We the people certainly don't have a clue...


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 Honestly, I dont think any of these extremist who want to use nuclear weapons will ever get in political power or influence any such decision. Hence why we DO have Congress.

We actually do have a clue what their motives are...just how they plan to go about it...well thats a different story. And that kind of plan typically isnt televised or told to the world for obvious reasons.

Dont worry Juda, I promise we wont blow up your country


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

The only person in the states that has the power to send the nuke is the president. I think you should worry about the rest of the world. Not us.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> The only person in the states that has the power to send the nuke is the president. I think you should worry about the rest of the world. Not us.


 If there was no reason to be worried about the US, it's foreign policy and the way it has affected , currently affects and will affect the world, then I wouldn't be worried.

But there's plenty of things to be worried about - US policy affects the rest of the world as well, in both positive and negative ways - the US might worry/think about that and the consequences for once instead of thinking of its own interests...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

muahahaha


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > The only person in the states that has the power to send the nuke is the president. I think you should worry about the rest of the world. Not us.
> ...


 Then its time for you to immigrate and join the good side before it stoo late if thats how you feel.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > The only person in the states that has the power to send the nuke is the president. I think you should worry about the rest of the world. Not us.
> ...


 Darwin's Theory comes to mind...of course we only think of our own interest. Just like every other country does, no?

I think France is a prime example. The main reason they didnt join us on this war, was because they would lose their ties with Iraq to receive their main supply of oil. So its not just the US thats all about self-interest.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

This arguing is stupid, bush will not be re elected, and everyone knows it. I dont care if I was paid, he wont be getting my vote or anyone elses in my family...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

id vote for him if i got paid 20 bucks for it... hell maybe even 10


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

aaron07_20 said:


> This arguing is stupid, bush will not be re elected, and everyone knows it. I dont care if I was paid, he wont be getting my vote or anyone elses in my family...


 All it takes is a Florida re-count and hes in


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Darwin's Theory comes to mind...of course we only think of our own interest. Just like every other country does, no?


Yeah, the US did that since they became the world's most powerful nation (immedeately after WW2), and for some reason they have used up about all their credits because of their self-centered foreign policy - the US is one of the most disliked countries in the world, and that has a reason - too bad just a few even bother to think about why that is.

There's nothing wrong with serving your own interests, but combining that with a complete and utter disinterest in the consequences is not something to be proud of, imo. Yes, the US did tremendous good, but it did equally bad things, and it's time to acknowledge that, and change policy based on that acknowledgement - the world doesn't evolve around the US, the US is a mere part of it. Historically, overplaying your hand always ended up with failure...


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Why must you all bash the french? I'll give it to them for being assholes and stuck-up egotistical fucks, but without them, we couldn't have won WW2. Anyone ever hear of the French Resistance during WW2? They provided the Allied forces with reconnaisance on the nazi army, and they help make D-Day possible. Another thing, without the french, America would be owned by the damn brits and their tea n' crumps royal navy. I say at least give the french some credit, they might've bent over and took it up the ass in the war, but they're right on certain accounts.

With Bush's electibility, i haven't had time to catch up, but i hear that its getting royally fucked. Something about CIA director stepping down, Kerry saying BS and all that crappy stuff....quick someone fill me in!


----------



## nf9648 (May 18, 2004)

If kerry gets elected, I might move to france...


----------



## channafreak (Mar 27, 2004)

I guess Ive been thinking about this war on terrorism and the math confuses me.

16 terrorists - 5 terrorists = 11 terrorists

or is it really

16 terrorists - 5 terrorists = 24 terrorists

Terrorism seems to have a direct correlation between oversees involvement of arabic countrys and the amount of insergents operating around the globe.


----------



## BAMBINO (May 29, 2004)

very true, very tue... bush is the lesser of two evils. ive heard kerry talking trash about what he thinks bush is doing wrong but i havent heard him say jack about what hes going to do, so where would that get us? anyone who affiliates with gore should be shot. also, does everyone really know how oil dependant our nation seriously is? oh man! its insane! bush is doing what needs to be done. fighting evil. 
if kerry gets in he'll f--k up the whole earths rotation. that guy dosent have a clue and a moral whatsoever. if you want to get political about stuff read the constitution the guys who wrote that knew what would happen and evil people are trying to change it. stuff that our forefathers wrote! its ridiculous. anywayz, they all have scales so its a moot point. thats why i created a militia. peace.

Arrevederci!


----------

