|
Post by Wolfofdoom on Feb 15, 2008 12:50:15 GMT 12
But the Republicans have been running the show for the last 6 years (mostly Conservatives.... brrrr.... and don't forget that the Democrats didn't have a majority in either the House or Senate for his term up to recently). Yeah but the democrats just cut and run. They want to pull right out of Iraq which would throw that entire area into chaos. Now Sure we did make a mistake. But i still say Bush meant well. Anyway we are going to clean our mess up by seeing the job done. We would have succeeded in Iraq if Bush hadn't messed up on key decisions likendisbaning the entire original military. Now we are getting a new military trained but if either Obama or the Scranton hick take over then we'll just pull out and they'll be taken over by Alquiada. Now Let me also remind you that you have two candidates one who is a bit of a Meow(Obama) and Clinton she keeps changing where she is from.
|
|
|
Post by thedarkfiddler on Feb 15, 2008 13:36:05 GMT 12
Now by the time it was revealed that the guy who gave the report screwed up we were already there for 2 years. Also Tel TDF what proof is there that Bush knew we would be attacked? . I did say supposedly. aNd btw, Democrats don't want to cut and run, they want a time table for withdrawl, and I say you might be able to blame Bush for that, if I have my facts straight here, because I remember years ago he said mission acomplished, but I can't remember if it was for Iraq or Iran. UGh, I'll never forget 9-11, I was in first grade, home with the flu in the living room, at the time, I was sad my mom made me watch the news, but now I'm just sad that what the phrase 9-11 has been turned into. Oh, and for Scranton hick, you don't mean CLinton do you, because the only Scranton I know is Scranton PA, and I'm pretty sure they aren't worthy of being called hicks, and I should know, seeing as I live within thirty minutes of it.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfofdoom on Feb 15, 2008 14:09:41 GMT 12
Dude I mean no offense to you but I'm from Philadelphia and we are natural enemies of Scranton. Also i do believe the initial battle to get Saddam out of office is the accomplished mission you are referring to.
|
|
|
Post by thedarkfiddler on Feb 16, 2008 14:46:57 GMT 12
Ok, and really, I didn't know I lived in the same state as anyone here. But like I said, i don't remember what mision was acomplished, but one was.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfofdoom on Feb 16, 2008 15:40:48 GMT 12
The get Saddam out of office mission was the one accomplished
|
|
|
Post by tyrannosaurusalan on Mar 1, 2008 4:19:41 GMT 12
I don't really support any politcal party. (Even though in my eyes, Ships are considered politcal parties in a way.)
|
|
|
Post by Vurtax on Mar 11, 2008 8:09:35 GMT 12
I side with Wolfofdoom here, I'm very conservatives in my beliefs
Heres the sum up with Iraq:
For some dumb reason, our congress found the need to warn Saddam that we were invading 18 months ahead of time. During that time, a company of Ambulance trucks left Iraq and were sent to Syria.
Okay considering that we already know Saddam was a blood-thristy and black-hearted beast. He used Ambulance trucks to hide the weapons of mass destruction he had. Because Who's gonna stop an Ambulance?
Israel (How much i love that country) had their intellegence go in ahead of time and found some educated guesses on where the weapons were. So they bombed them like they did recently in Lebanon.
Also we found mobile labs, they're very hard to track. And the documents found inside them were test results in trying to make nuclear weapons.
Saddam also told some of his scholars to make Nuclear weapons, those that refused were tortured.
So the question is: when is it better to invade a country? When they are in the process of inventing nuclear weapons or when they have them and could threaten thousands of innocent people?
Saddam had made 6 mass graves; those are when about 300,000 people are starved and bone thirsty for over 48 hours. They are then torture by having their toungues pulled out, whipped, shot, raped, throats cut. And then buried alive in a massive hole. Those that survived were only a few, they straggled back to a nearby town hoping they would survive to see tommorow.
When Saddam went on the streets, you had to cheer him on or you would be shot on sight.
Saddam would walk up to random people and hand them a red card. The Card meant that you would be killed tommorow.
Not listening to him when he talked would result in having your toungue pulled out, touch something he wanted and he'd chop off your head. Run against him in an election and he'd kill your family (thats why he was in power for so long)
He would also send people to a desert to get blown up for no reason. The tribe known as the Kurds were his 'test' subjects; he would have them injected with unsafe chemcials then left to die slowly.
His sons were pure evil as well, They were each given five girls a week to R A P E. If the girls didn't cooperate they'd be killed. To find out they would be killed anyway in the end.
So you read this, and then your demanding Bush to go and save the people of Darfur? You completley ignore the fact of the Two Million people that had died under Saddams reign and just claim there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Theres no weapons of mass destruction in Darfur, Liberals can't make up their mind.
And also about North Korea now: Bill Clinton and Congress gave Kin Jon Yill (north korean dictator) him 5 billion dollars as long as he so called 'promised' not to make nuclear weapons.
Well you can see where that went.
Oh, and I'm just getting started
|
|
|
Post by Vurtax on Mar 16, 2008 3:04:09 GMT 12
I know I'm double posting but it's been a while and I'm still wondering what you guys think of this
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Mar 16, 2008 3:58:59 GMT 12
I side with Wolfofdoom here, I'm very conservatives in my beliefs Heres the sum up with Iraq: For some dumb reason, our congress found the need to warn Saddam that we were invading 18 months ahead of time. During that time, a company of Ambulance trucks left Iraq and were sent to Syria. Okay considering that we already know Saddam was a blood-thristy and black-hearted beast. He used Ambulance trucks to hide the weapons of mass destruction he had. Because Who's gonna stop an Ambulance? Israel (How much i love that country) had their intellegence go in ahead of time and found some educated guesses on where the weapons were. So they bombed them like they did recently in Lebanon. Also we found mobile labs, they're very hard to track. And the documents found inside them were test results in trying to make nuclear weapons. Saddam also told some of his scholars to make Nuclear weapons, those that refused were tortured. So the question is: when is it better to invade a country? When they are in the process of inventing nuclear weapons or when they have them and could threaten thousands of innocent people? Saddam had made 6 mass graves; those are when about 300,000 people are starved and bone thirsty for over 48 hours. They are then torture by having their toungues pulled out, whipped, shot, raped, throats cut. And then buried alive in a massive hole. Those that survived were only a few, they straggled back to a nearby town hoping they would survive to see tommorow. When Saddam went on the streets, you had to cheer him on or you would be shot on sight. Saddam would walk up to random people and hand them a red card. The Card meant that you would be killed tommorow. Not listening to him when he talked would result in having your toungue pulled out, touch something he wanted and he'd chop off your head. Run against him in an election and he'd kill your family (thats why he was in power for so long) Isn't it ironic how Saddam slaughtered many Iraqes, and yet there are some Iraquis want to maintain the oppresive dictatorship that he had put up.
|
|
|
Post by Vurtax on Mar 16, 2008 4:32:22 GMT 12
Those are coming from the people who Saddam turned to when he needed help. Like his family that claimed he was a hero
|
|
|
Post by Vurtax on Apr 8, 2008 23:33:45 GMT 12
i know i'm double posting but it's been a while
JB you wanna challenge me on politics come here and I'll take you on how your wrong about the economy!
There was never no surplus when clinton was in office, that was only because he raised taxes by signing the largest tax bill in world history!! When Bush came to office your party wanted to spend it when bush said "This was never a surplus, it belongs to the people of America" and Bush redistributed it back to everyone in america. Your parents received a $600 check in the mail that was really your parents money to begin with.
Clinton in fact tuined our economy, that's why the economy was bad when Bush first came into office because it was what clinton left behind for him to deal with. Our economy has made an amazing turn around since then and we are working our way out of the america deficit at this rate.
So our economies in debt, we never asked Osama to run a plane in the world trade center or ask Saddam to threaten the world that he had nuclear weapons and he was going tp use them.
Even Hillary clinton, John Kerry, and this one other democratic leader said back in 2002 that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he was going to use them.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 9, 2008 3:48:57 GMT 12
I don't know the difference beetween Democrat, and Republicans personally... actually I know nothing about the difference (I want Obama to win, simple as that), but somethings I do get here. So I'll just bold the things I find out of place. Call the Credit crunch a turn around? or the World recession that has followed in its wake. If anything the Pound is twice as strong than the Dollar, as well as the Euro also remaining strong, and yet the U.S. continues to be in a deficit in the Balance of Payments. With it hitting 'records' in 2006. and I quote that's about -$600,000,000,000, in 2005 The U.S. Economy is stuck in a slow down, and Global confidence in the Dollar is low. With out the confidence, there are only bad things on the way. I''m not taking any sides, seeing as I don't know the difference I'm just looking for the facts.
|
|
|
Post by narutoninja44 on Apr 9, 2008 6:49:42 GMT 12
(I want Obama to win, simple as that) You do know that Obama has done nothing largley remarkable as a senator, right? He has little experience with big events. Ima little iffy on him and I hope when he gets elected, he doesn't ruin the country farther than it is. On a side note, I really have no clue on what party I am. Just because I have 4 more years and I really don't know what I want to be yet.
|
|
|
Post by JbstormburstADV on Apr 9, 2008 9:28:55 GMT 12
Vurta, I gotta agree with Xaotl here. The dollar is very low, everyone pretty much shops here because its so low, and the sub-prime mortgage crisis ain't helping either. If we had one of the current Democrat senators as our President, the stimulus package probably would've been more agreeable. And did the '06 elections teach you anything? The Republicans are becoming unpopular because of how they've messed up the economy. (As far as I remember, the only recent Democrat president was Clinton, and the Congress was mainly Republican for a number of years) That is why Congress took the majority change, and why the Democrats are now even with Bush, due to being in control of Congress. Heck, even his own party is going against him.
|
|
|
Post by Vurtax on Apr 9, 2008 23:31:29 GMT 12
The Republican party is messed up right now (i'm thinking myself of becoming an independant). The republican party needs leadership. Something we don't have, the rebuplicans who opposed bush are the wimps who didn't wanna look bad in front of the left wing media. The wake of the economy deficit that Clinton left behind is now all of a sudden Bush's fault. When the only one to blame is clinton.
The economy is coming back, if people would stop buying houses they can't afford and then go into foreclosure, or people would stop placing themselves in debt, then our economy would be coming back all the faster.
But the american debt is receeding, slowly, but in a few years, the american debt will be gone.
|
|