Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.
    When Hitler was killing Jews (and others) America and Britain sat idly by pretending it wasn't happening, America was more concerned about working it's way out of the 30's recession by selling arms and materials for arms to Germany and Japan (amongst others) at the time, as usual America was looking after it's own interests.

    If you think Bush went after Iraq to save Iraqi lives you are even more deluded than you appear to be, there was an interview with Jay Garner the other day which summed it up perfectly, Garner was explaining his differences from that of the administration, his priority was to set up elections and get the Iraqis in charge oftheir own country, whilst the orders from above clearly prioritised the privitisation of Iraqs oil fields.

    Originally posted by interactive

    Clarke is supposidly not partisan, yet has ties to the Democraps.

    You guys have to come up with new **** all the time, because all your old '****' gets blasted apart..
    And how is that blasting it apart? That says nothing about the facts, there again facts aren't that important to you people are they.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,815
    Just some notes on the conservsation. Hitler also killed 5 million non-Jews, in addition to 6 million Jews.

    Also, the attacks on 9/11 were in planning for several years before Bush took office. Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism, even turning down Sudan's offering of Bin Laden.

    Those are facts.

    As for my opinions, well, nothing suprises me, Clinton was a worthless liar, and Bush is to. I'm sick of the black and white party line people. You're supposed of be a flaming liberal or a right wing windbag, where the hell did middle America go to?

    Until we start electing normal people who aren't corrupt lawyers bent on power (a la Clintons) or illiterate buffoons bent on settling scores (a la Bush), then we are going to get the same crap every election. Duverger's law is no more evident than in America.

    That's my 2 cents, don't expect change back.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by interactive
    Clarke is supposidly not partisan, yet has ties to the Democraps.

    You guys have to come up with new **** all the time, because all your old '****' gets blasted apart..
    DemoCraps?

    Why is that it's always the republicans who insult the Democrats as a group? No where on this thread have any Democrats insulted a Republican, except for Bush.

    Republicans seem to love to insult the Democrats by attacking them as a group and name calling.

    How immature.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Usually that is because the Republicans have no solid ground to stand on so they attempt to attack character in almost every instance.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Originally posted by Rob83
    DemoCraps?

    Why is that it's always the republicans who insult the Democrats as a group? No where on this thread have any Democrats insulted a Republican, except for Bush.

    Republicans seem to love to insult the Democrats by attacking them as a group and name calling.

    How immature.
    Perhaps not in this thread, but it's a two-way street.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,815
    "Democraps" and "Repukes" are some of the more popular names among the internet political forums I visit. The silly generalisations aren't confined to one group.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by Velostream
    Perhaps not in this thread, but it's a two-way street.
    I don't doubt that one bit. Democrats do resort to name calling as well. But I don't, and nobody in this thread has and there is no need to do that. From what I've seen, it seems that the Republicans are first to do the name calling. I've seen it on this forum and on others.. always a republican that resorts to name calling.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    416
    Originally posted by NewtSys
    At the risk of being flamed here I will interject my $0.02 worth of post here.

    I am a Republican, Ex-Soldier (8.5 years in US Army) who fought in first war in Kuwait. Yes, sadam needed to be gotten rid of, yes 9/11 was a major tragedy, but I think this war is just plain wrong. This is my personal belief...... I have watched the progress of this war, and what it has done to this economy and the moral of our citizens and how we are viewed by other nations. No where in History that I can find has the USA and its citizens lost so much of its freedoms, its constitutional standing then it has today due to war.


    Blue27 said this "You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.
    "

    Human rights doesnt come into play in aggressive actions the US takes anymore.... it only takes agressive actions if one of our interests is at stake such as Oil, land, or if someone has a fleating chance of carrying a bigger stick than we do. I mean hell look at us screaming that everyone has nuclear weapons.. holy Sh*t people... the US has 100X more than any country yet we refuse to disarm... what kind of double standard is that? How can we tell people how to act in their country when we have all this crap to deal with in our own.... police our own county before we police others... it is no wonder when I travel outside the US, people look at us like pariah..... its because we cant bother to work with other countries...we would rather beat them into submission and follow our rules. How can we tell another country to be a democracy, when in fact, the USA is NOT a Democracy anymore?
    The problem is that, the countries who develop nuclear arsenals should be able to control their technology / weapons and should not allow it to be sold to terrorist and other countries. The example here is the Pakistan an strong ally of USA in war on terror. Pakistani president and their nuclear scientist have agreed that he sold nuclear technology to Korea.

    There fore it is correct that not all the countries, specially the countries where extremists rule more then governments should not be allowed to developed Nuclear technology or they will simply start threatening other countries of the world.
    * ´¨`*:·. .·:*´¨` * ~ X-Max ~ * ´¨`*:·. .·:*´¨` *
    I love Wikipedia.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by X-Max
    or they will simply start threatening other countries of the world.
    Yes and we all know that's Americas job.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,198
    Originally posted by speedy007h
    Most pointless comment I've ever seen in an attempt to *debate* something.
    Maybe ... but I think you just topped it.
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    What was your MOS?

    I remember the liberals were using this "it's all about oil" crap back a few months ago, but look at gas prices now. It's evidently not "all about oil"...

    Originally posted by NewtSys
    At the risk of being flamed here I will interject my $0.02 worth of post here.

    I am a Republican, Ex-Soldier (8.5 years in US Army) who fought in first war in Kuwait. Yes, sadam needed to be gotten rid of, yes 9/11 was a major tragedy, but I think this war is just plain wrong. This is my personal belief...... I have watched the progress of this war, and what it has done to this economy and the moral of our citizens and how we are viewed by other nations. No where in History that I can find has the USA and its citizens lost so much of its freedoms, its constitutional standing then it has today due to war.


    Blue27 said this "You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.
    "

    Human rights doesnt come into play in aggressive actions the US takes anymore.... it only takes agressive actions if one of our interests is at stake such as Oil, land, or if someone has a fleating chance of carrying a bigger stick than we do. I mean hell look at us screaming that everyone has nuclear weapons.. holy Sh*t people... the US has 100X more than any country yet we refuse to disarm... what kind of double standard is that? How can we tell people how to act in their country when we have all this crap to deal with in our own.... police our own county before we police others... it is no wonder when I travel outside the US, people look at us like pariah..... its because we cant bother to work with other countries...we would rather beat them into submission and follow our rules. How can we tell another country to be a democracy, when in fact, the USA is NOT a Democracy anymore?
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    Actually Clintons cabinet had Al Qaeda on their priority list. They gave this list to the Bush cabinet and they pushed Al Qaeda down to the 3rd tier list. Bush had a no hands rule on the middle east. And he made this very clear. He did this because he had a much larger priority and that was the cutting of taxes which was for something much bigger I won't get into with this topic.

    Now in saying that, Gore probably would not have stopped it anyways. What happened was something most people would have never imagined. What is really important now is that steps are taken to make this world safer. And I feel the only way that will happen is if the world unites together.

    And I personally do not feel any safer then I did after 9/11. Bombings in Spain, Turkey, and Indonesia (to name a few) tell me that we have not done what was needed.
    Alvin

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,198
    Originally posted by alvinks
    Actually Clintons cabinet had Al Qaeda on their priority list. They gave this list to the Bush cabinet and they pushed Al Qaeda down to the 3rd tier list. Bush had a no hands rule on the middle east. And he made this very clear.
    And you get your information from where?
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    The list I heard from news that came from the Clinton cabinet. As for him making the economy the number one priority that was by his own words. I have always followed Israel/Palestine situation way before Bush came into office and when he did he had a hands off policy as he did not want to be involved. This also went for countries like Haiti that have now collapsed.

    If you are asking where I get my sources from, they are...

    CNN, BBC, NPR, and a little bit of The Nation and Mother Jones though some views can be pretty liberal. And I am an independant who says it how he sees it regardless of party. I have plenty of issues with Kerry. Especially is protectionist views on the economy.

    And I read this stuff every day. It drives the people around me crazy because of it.
    Alvin

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by interactive
    What was your MOS?

    I remember the liberals were using this "it's all about oil" crap back a few months ago, but look at gas prices now. It's evidently not "all about oil"...
    The desperate rush to privatise Iraqs oil field against the wishes of the Iraqi people would seem to suggest otherwise.

    It's also evident you know nothing about the oil market, the current hike in oil prices is being caused by several factors, an increase in demand by the worlds largest oil importer the US, OPEC cutting it's production by 3.5%, concern over the situations in Venezula, Iraq, Iran and Nigeria and a low level of commercial oil stocks that will be unable to absorb future shocks until they are restored to a satisfactory level. (the price was also not helped by Shell wiping 20% off their estimated oil reserves)

    Apparently you can't grasp the idea that securing a supply of oil in Iraq for the US is not for now, but in 10 - 25 years when demand will vastly exceed supply, even at maximum production.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    Bush went in because he really believed they had WMD. Honestly I thought they did also. On top of that Saddam does not have the best record of peace. Attacking two countries and killed tens of thousands of people.

    However, I admit that I was wrong as nothing was found. It was all a trick.

    All that money we spent on Iraq could have gone to less taxes for me or towards getting rid of the Al Qaeda camps that still exist on the Afghan/Pakistan border.
    Alvin

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Don't forget alvinks, that one of those countries Iraq attacked was Iran, where Iraq used chemical weapons and other weapons paid for and supplied by the USA.

    No one in the Bush government actually believed that there were WMD in Iraq. It was a smoke screen for G. senior's agenda of getting revenge on Sadaam.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    9-11 gave Bush the perfect oppurtunity to put the blame on Iraq and for us to invade. He was looking for a way to invade Iraq, and "two metal birds in the sky" gave him just that.

    He lied to the American people.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    No, they always believed he had WMD's. I could go on and on about this, but they have been wanting to go into Iraq ever since the first Bush stopped. They even wrote to Clinton explaining what a grave thread saddam was.

    And I do not believe Iraq ever used chemical weapons on Iran. They used it one time and that was against the ethnic Kurds in the north. Weapons that we gave them. However, they did use it which is why I felt they were a threat.
    Alvin

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by alvinks
    No, they always believed he had WMD's. I could go on and on about this, but they have been wanting to go into Iraq ever since the first Bush stopped. They even wrote to Clinton explaining what a grave thread saddam was.

    And I do not believe Iraq ever used chemical weapons on Iran. They used it one time and that was against the ethnic Kurds in the north. Weapons that we gave them. However, they did use it which is why I felt they were a threat.
    Yes, we did speculate there were some WMD .. active or in the development.

    However, we have yet to find any... interesting. Someone lied to the American people..

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by alvinks
    And I do not believe Iraq ever used chemical weapons on Iran. They used it one time and that was against the ethnic Kurds in the north.

    Whether you "believe" it or not, it is a fact.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    Okay, I made a mistake. Iraq did use chemical weapons on Iran starting in 1983. 10 documented uses of chemical weapons.

    so, in saying this, it is not far fetched for a person of normal intelligence to believe that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons.
    Alvin

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by alvinks
    Okay, I made a mistake. Iraq did use chemical weapons on Iran starting in 1983. 10 documented uses of chemical weapons.

    so, in saying this, it is not far fetched for a person of normal intelligence to believe that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons.
    Which is what the Bush administration was relying on when they went to war under false pretences.

    The government does not rely on "normal" intelligence. They have spys, people on the ground, satellite technology, informants, moles.
    None of these sources provided tangible evidence of WMD yet the Bush spin doctors were able to convince the public that the threat was real.

    All they did was set back the real war on terrorism by a year by concentrating all of their energy on a red herring.

    Like I said before, if WMD was really an issue, they would have been in Tripoli, not Bagdad.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,198
    I think we have one too many people watching "Conspiracy Theory" on a daily basis. (http://imdb.com/title/tt0118883/)

    Obviously there is a stockpile of weapons somewhere that we haven't located. They keep using them on our troops.

    We have searched approx. 85% of Iraq.

    There is 271,128 square miles in the country of Iraq. That leaves 40669.2 square miles unaccounted for. I think you can fit quite a few WMD's in that amount of land.
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    Obviously there is a stockpile of weapons somewhere that we haven't located. They keep using them on our troops.

    You have really got to be kidding us now.
    Every credible source says there is no evidence of WMD and there never will be.

    And you talk about liberal blinders.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •