Election 2004 (country, dance, house, single, Europe)

Interactive · 02-05-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimp_racer

what ever happened to Bush finding Osama i havent heard **** about that lately...Bush started another war before he finished the one with Osama

Get yourself informed. Do you have any idea about the amount of military personel we have in Afghanistan? Believe me, we have yet to stop looking for the mofo.

Interactive · 02-05-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Okay, you think an economy is going to boom because of 4 years. No, the effect of the economy is normally from the president 1-3 terms before him. And recently the economy has been on an upward trend. But why don't we look at the democratic canidates. Like Edwards, who wants to get NATO involved in Iraq. NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization) Iraq is no where near the north atlantic. So he is a complete retard for even mentioning that. Or what about that General, Dean I believe. He's great job in Kosovo in which he bombed hospitals, civilian convoys, and all other sorts. Newport News is very close by, I go there all the time. And we are STILL looking for Osama. But when no country in the middle east is willing to work with you it doesn't make it easy. And the electoral system has been around forever. No need to complain now. Maybe if Gore could have won his HOME STATE there would be no complaining?

You're thinking of Wesley Clark instead of Dean. Even Clinton tried to fire the moron if that says much. History has proven that Generals make very bad Presidents, excluding Washington (which is actually debatable). Stonewall Jackson failed like a penguin trying to fly...

NATO isn't all that bad, atleast they're a hell of a lot better then those idiots at the UN. Although they don't need to get involved, just like the UN, in anyway shape or form with the Iraqi conflict.

John Edwards just like the rest is a complete moron. He made a living off of suing people. Not someone we need as a President...

Dean and his little screaming match cost him any slight chance he had, thank God.

Rockafella Skank · 02-05-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interactive

John Edwards just like the rest is a complete moron. He made a living off of suing people. Not someone we need as a President...

I don't think that's fair. I think Edwards is one of the nicest guys who has ever run for President in the history of the United States. The guy has a big heart and loves everyone. It's not just a show either, because he has been known to be that way his whole life.

IamAlejo · 02-06-2004, 01:44 PM

Ugh, sure we didn't find any weapons of mass destructions. Of course, we gave them about 4 months to get rid of any weapons they had. And we still found missiles that had been banned from Iraq having by the UN. Of course, the UN weapons inspectors kept those out didn't they? O wait, no they didn't. We found weapons that they weren't allowed to have, a justification of war since they could have used those to strike key allies of ours. I'll admit we haven't found the WMD's that were promised, but are any of you to say you are 100% sure that they didn't have them before?

Xarius · 02-06-2004, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Ugh, sure we didn't find any weapons of mass destructions. Of course, we gave them about 4 months to get rid of any weapons they had. And we still found missiles that had been banned from Iraq having by the UN. Of course, the UN weapons inspectors kept those out didn't they? O wait, no they didn't. We found weapons that they weren't allowed to have, a justification of war since they could have used those to strike key allies of ours. I'll admit we haven't found the WMD's that were promised, but are any of you to say you are 100% sure that they didn't have them before?

no, we canmt be 100% sure they had none, but you can't be 100% sure they did. The difference is that if the US acts on what you are unsure of (which they did), then innocent people die for sure. If they act on what im unsure of, they dont. Simple as that.

and Interactive, about the UN being idiots and not belonging in Iraq...that is quite possibly the statement I disagree most with in this thread...Bush had no right to go into Iraq, and did so against the UN's (aka the rest of the world's) wishes. Basically, he gave them the finger and said "I dont give a **** what you all think, because im the prez of the US of A and Im gonna do whatever the **** I want." he decided that he knew better than everybody else in the world.

Then Bush attacked, killed a lot of innocents, and possibly ****ed up the country more than it was before....granted, he is making some small progress, but he declared the war over 7 or 8 months ago.

When the UN (remember: the rest of the world) then said ok, well, you did this anyway when we gave you no permision *hint* illegal war *hint*, we are going to help the Iraqi citizens build their nation into a real nation, Bush told them to **** off basically again. he decided that once again, he knew better than the rest of the world and needed no help. This country was gonna be rebuilt the american way.

Basically, you can see I am/was very anti-Iraq war. I think Bush is an arrogant prick, and am extremely proud of my country for taking the stance it did.

Interactive · 02-07-2004, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xarius

no, we canmt be 100% sure they had none, but you can't be 100% sure they did. The difference is that if the US acts on what you are unsure of (which they did), then innocent people die for sure. If they act on what im unsure of, they dont. Simple as that.

and Interactive, about the UN being idiots and not belonging in Iraq...that is quite possibly the statement I disagree most with in this thread...Bush had no right to go into Iraq, and did so against the UN's (aka the rest of the world's) wishes. Basically, he gave them the finger and said "I dont give a **** what you all think, because im the prez of the US of A and Im gonna do whatever the **** I want." he decided that he knew better than everybody else in the world.

Then Bush attacked, killed a lot of innocents, and possibly ****ed up the country more than it was before....granted, he is making some small progress, but he declared the war over 7 or 8 months ago.

When the UN (remember: the rest of the world) then said ok, well, you did this anyway when we gave you no permision *hint* illegal war *hint*, we are going to help the Iraqi citizens build their nation into a real nation, Bush told them to **** off basically again. he decided that once again, he knew better than the rest of the world and needed no help. This country was gonna be rebuilt the american way.

Basically, you can see I am/was very anti-Iraq war. I think Bush is an arrogant prick, and am extremely proud of my country for taking the stance it did.

Filled a lot of innocent people? Haha, so which do you think is worse, casulties of war (Which are to be expected) or Saddam and his kids going around raping, molesting, trashing, torturing, etc etc Iraqi citizens? Oh did I mention what they like to do with little boys? ya...

The UN is a group of misfits with way too much power. This one world united crap, is just that, crap. The fact that they have as much control, money and property as they do is a bit suspect. Believe me I know. I used to live adjacent to Mesa Verde National Park. Clinton decided he would make it a refuge and give it to the UN. This is not the only case of this either. This is our land, which our past family (except the draft dodging bastards) have fought to protect. I don't want to see some ninny, wife-cheating loser change that. Thankfully that's over though.

I'm glad you're proud of your country (just realizing that you're not a US citizen, which says a bit about your information, not in a bad way exactly) no matter which side of the table you're on. I could also care less which way people vote or whatever side of a argument they take, just as long as they vote and take a side.

I'm obviously Pro Iraqi War and admit that maybe our intel was a bit flawed (on the other hand it could be perfectly right, time will tell). However, with the human rights problems that were going on Iraq I think we were right to go in and over throw Saddam and set up a proper government....

2tonelol · 02-07-2004, 06:59 AM

It was a clever game played by Saddam.He lets the west think he's got these weapons,knowing that if they did invade they wouldn't find them thus comprimising the western leaders.Plus there was always the chance that the rest of the world could of fallen out over it.

IamAlejo · 02-07-2004, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xarius

no, we canmt be 100% sure they had none, but you can't be 100% sure they did. The difference is that if the US acts on what you are unsure of (which they did), then innocent people die for sure. If they act on what im unsure of, they dont. Simple as that.

and Interactive, about the UN being idiots and not belonging in Iraq...that is quite possibly the statement I disagree most with in this thread...Bush had no right to go into Iraq, and did so against the UN's (aka the rest of the world's) wishes. Basically, he gave them the finger and said "I dont give a **** what you all think, because im the prez of the US of A and Im gonna do whatever the **** I want." he decided that he knew better than everybody else in the world.

Then Bush attacked, killed a lot of innocents, and possibly ****ed up the country more than it was before....granted, he is making some small progress, but he declared the war over 7 or 8 months ago.

When the UN (remember: the rest of the world) then said ok, well, you did this anyway when we gave you no permision *hint* illegal war *hint*, we are going to help the Iraqi citizens build their nation into a real nation, Bush told them to **** off basically again. he decided that once again, he knew better than the rest of the world and needed no help. This country was gonna be rebuilt the american way.

Basically, you can see I am/was very anti-Iraq war. I think Bush is an arrogant prick, and am extremely proud of my country for taking the stance it did.

Basically your country has no army and has depended on the US for protection for years. As I have said before, the Salvation Army could go in and take over Canada. Illegal War? LMFAO, the US Congress voted to go to war. We don't need permission from anyone if we want to do something. The UNITED STATES went into Iraq and had some of their own soldiers killed while the whole world sat back and watched. As soon as we found Sadaam all the other countries decided to join in the rebuilding process. We said "**** that" cause you didn't help in the first place. BUSH didn't kill anybody. Say the US if you want to, cause the US went to war. CONGRESS voted to go to war. If you knew ANYTHING about United States politics you would know the President can only move troops for 60 days on his own terms and then they would have to pull back without a Congress vote. We asked for UN help in the situation. With Iraq funding terrorism and terrorism being a big thing in the US we needed to go in and take out Iraqi funds (all coming from Sadaam Hussein and his supporters). And judging by your first statement of "You aren't 100% sure. Put it this way, a country might have the weapons of power in order to hit your country. Would you sit back and wait for them to attack? And if you say yes, well then you are a ****ing idiot. All you people know NOTHING about the feelings of soldiers and the families. I go to school with kids whose parents are in the military (More than 3/4 my school is military families). Those kids are DAMN proud to see their parents out their fighting for what we feel is right. So if you got a problem with it, then **** off.

2tonelol · 02-07-2004, 08:58 AM

We don't need permission from anyone if we want to do something.

You sound just like Sadamm himself!!

IamAlejo · 02-07-2004, 10:21 AM

If another country wants to go to war, it is not illegal. There are very few international laws, and going to war is not one of them. That is retarded to call it an "illegal" war.

02-06-2004, 01:44 PM	#24 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	Ugh, sure we didn't find any weapons of mass destructions. Of course, we gave them about 4 months to get rid of any weapons they had. And we still found missiles that had been banned from Iraq having by the UN. Of course, the UN weapons inspectors kept those out didn't they? O wait, no they didn't. We found weapons that they weren't allowed to have, a justification of war since they could have used those to strike key allies of ours. I'll admit we haven't found the WMD's that were promised, but are any of you to say you are 100% sure that they didn't have them before? __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

02-07-2004, 06:59 AM	#27 (permalink)
2tonelol looking long'n'hard Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Hampton London Posts: 161	It was a clever game played by Saddam.He lets the west think he's got these weapons,knowing that if they did invade they wouldn't find them thus comprimising the western leaders.Plus there was always the chance that the rest of the world could of fallen out over it. __________________ Jesus is coming!!!! Look Busy!!!! http://liquidator.mysite.freeserve.com/

02-07-2004, 08:58 AM	#29 (permalink)
2tonelol looking long'n'hard Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Hampton London Posts: 161	We don't need permission from anyone if we want to do something. You sound just like Sadamm himself!! __________________ Jesus is coming!!!! Look Busy!!!! http://liquidator.mysite.freeserve.com/

02-07-2004, 10:21 AM	#30 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	If another country wants to go to war, it is not illegal. There are very few international laws, and going to war is not one of them. That is retarded to call it an "illegal" war. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama