Bush wants war to continue
taranaki
07-03-2003, 03:59 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Challenging militants who attack U.S. forces in Iraq, President Bush said Wednesday they would be dealt with harshly, and declared, "Bring them on."
For the second day in a row, Bush vowed that attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq will not shake his administration's resolve to stay in that country until a strong and stable democratic government takes root.
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on."
U.S. forces, he added, are "plenty tough" to deal with any security threats.
The president made his comments as he spoke to reporters at the White House, following an announcement about his program to combat AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.(Full story)
They echoed comments he made Tuesday, when he appeared to address growing concerns about U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the continued U.S. military presence there. In March, U.S. forces led an invasion of Iraq to topple the government of Saddam Hussein, whom the United States and allies said was developing weapons of mass destruction.
But Bush's tough talk was criticized by Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt who said the president should stop with the "phony, macho rhetoric."
"I have a message for the president," Gephardt said in a statement. "We should be focused on a long-term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel."
"We need a clear plan to bring stability to Iraq and an honest discussion with the American people on the cost of that endeavor," Gephardt's statement continued. "We need a serious attempt to develop a postwar plan for Iraq and not more shoot-from-the-hip one-liners."
Since May 1 -- when Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq -- there have been more than two dozen "hostile" U.S. military deaths in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
Bush said on Tuesday that rebuilding Iraq, following a U.S.-led invasion there, will be a "massive and long-term undertaking," one that he suggested would require further sacrifice.
Some lawmakers, however, have begun to question how long the United States should remain in Iraq.
For example, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pennsylvania, on Tuesday called for troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Speaking to a group of business executives in Washington, Weldon, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, said one of Congress' "greatest concerns is that our government not get bogged down with our military for the long term."
He added, "Yes, we want to guarantee stability in that country," but steps should be taken so that "as soon as possible we can bring our troops back home."
The administration has not provided a specific timeline for when the United States will pull troops out of Iraq.
"We're not leaving until we accomplish the task," Bush said Wednesday.
For the second day in a row, Bush vowed that attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq will not shake his administration's resolve to stay in that country until a strong and stable democratic government takes root.
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on."
U.S. forces, he added, are "plenty tough" to deal with any security threats.
The president made his comments as he spoke to reporters at the White House, following an announcement about his program to combat AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.(Full story)
They echoed comments he made Tuesday, when he appeared to address growing concerns about U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the continued U.S. military presence there. In March, U.S. forces led an invasion of Iraq to topple the government of Saddam Hussein, whom the United States and allies said was developing weapons of mass destruction.
But Bush's tough talk was criticized by Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt who said the president should stop with the "phony, macho rhetoric."
"I have a message for the president," Gephardt said in a statement. "We should be focused on a long-term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel."
"We need a clear plan to bring stability to Iraq and an honest discussion with the American people on the cost of that endeavor," Gephardt's statement continued. "We need a serious attempt to develop a postwar plan for Iraq and not more shoot-from-the-hip one-liners."
Since May 1 -- when Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq -- there have been more than two dozen "hostile" U.S. military deaths in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
Bush said on Tuesday that rebuilding Iraq, following a U.S.-led invasion there, will be a "massive and long-term undertaking," one that he suggested would require further sacrifice.
Some lawmakers, however, have begun to question how long the United States should remain in Iraq.
For example, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pennsylvania, on Tuesday called for troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Speaking to a group of business executives in Washington, Weldon, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, said one of Congress' "greatest concerns is that our government not get bogged down with our military for the long term."
He added, "Yes, we want to guarantee stability in that country," but steps should be taken so that "as soon as possible we can bring our troops back home."
The administration has not provided a specific timeline for when the United States will pull troops out of Iraq.
"We're not leaving until we accomplish the task," Bush said Wednesday.
YogsVR4
07-03-2003, 09:50 AM
I don't see the coorelation between your thread title and the text of the message.
I know how often you expressed fear that Bush is the biggest threat to world peace yada yada yada - you should really be afraid of Gephardt and his ilk. Now there is one scary mo-fo.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
I know how often you expressed fear that Bush is the biggest threat to world peace yada yada yada - you should really be afraid of Gephardt and his ilk. Now there is one scary mo-fo.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
TexasF355F1
07-03-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
I don't see the coorelation between your thread title and the text of the message.
I know how often you expressed fear that Bush is the biggest threat to world peace yada yada yada - you should really be afraid of Gephardt and his ilk. Now there is one scary mo-fo.
Even scarier than Gephardt is Al Sharpton and worse than him....Hillary. God help us all if she's elected.
I don't see the coorelation between your thread title and the text of the message.
I know how often you expressed fear that Bush is the biggest threat to world peace yada yada yada - you should really be afraid of Gephardt and his ilk. Now there is one scary mo-fo.
Even scarier than Gephardt is Al Sharpton and worse than him....Hillary. God help us all if she's elected.
YogsVR4
07-03-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by TexasF355F1
Even scarier than Gephardt is Al Sharpton and worse than him....Hillary. God help us all if she's elected.
Not to stray to far from the origin of the thread - but that is most unlikly. She can win races in the Northeast and perhaps on the west coast, but she'd never be able in as President (unless she were the vice and tragedy struck)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Even scarier than Gephardt is Al Sharpton and worse than him....Hillary. God help us all if she's elected.
Not to stray to far from the origin of the thread - but that is most unlikly. She can win races in the Northeast and perhaps on the west coast, but she'd never be able in as President (unless she were the vice and tragedy struck)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
07-03-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
I don't see the coorelation between your thread title and the text of the message.
Given your ongoing stance on Iraq,I never expected you to.
One third of the U.S.troops who have died in Iraq have died since Bush declared the main thrust of the war to be over.Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more.
Bush doesn't want peace for Iraq,he wants Iraq.The families of those who are serving in the Middle East will be delighted that he is using their boys as bait.He's proving once again to be morally bankrupt,and should be dumped at the next election,if not sooner.
Perhaps if he's so keen on using his troops as human lures to catch terrorists,he shoul put his money where his mouth is and put himself on Iraqi soil as a target.With a little luck he'd end up with a round in the back of his head.
I don't see the coorelation between your thread title and the text of the message.
Given your ongoing stance on Iraq,I never expected you to.
One third of the U.S.troops who have died in Iraq have died since Bush declared the main thrust of the war to be over.Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more.
Bush doesn't want peace for Iraq,he wants Iraq.The families of those who are serving in the Middle East will be delighted that he is using their boys as bait.He's proving once again to be morally bankrupt,and should be dumped at the next election,if not sooner.
Perhaps if he's so keen on using his troops as human lures to catch terrorists,he shoul put his money where his mouth is and put himself on Iraqi soil as a target.With a little luck he'd end up with a round in the back of his head.
YogsVR4
07-03-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Given your ongoing stance on Iraq,I never expected you to.
One third of the U.S.troops who have died in Iraq have died since Bush declared the main thrust of the war to be over.Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more.
Bush doesn't want peace for Iraq,he wants Iraq.The families of those who are serving in the Middle East will be delighted that he is using their boys as bait.He's proving once again to be morally bankrupt,and should be dumped at the next election,if not sooner.
Perhaps if he's so keen on using his troops as human lures to catch terrorists,he shoul put his money where his mouth is and put himself on Iraqi soil as a target.With a little luck he'd end up with a round in the back of his head.
He's inciting them so he can exterminate more huh. Common - thats a bunch of bs and you know it. I also know where your opinions stand. I don't think this article supports either of our positions.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Given your ongoing stance on Iraq,I never expected you to.
One third of the U.S.troops who have died in Iraq have died since Bush declared the main thrust of the war to be over.Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more.
Bush doesn't want peace for Iraq,he wants Iraq.The families of those who are serving in the Middle East will be delighted that he is using their boys as bait.He's proving once again to be morally bankrupt,and should be dumped at the next election,if not sooner.
Perhaps if he's so keen on using his troops as human lures to catch terrorists,he shoul put his money where his mouth is and put himself on Iraqi soil as a target.With a little luck he'd end up with a round in the back of his head.
He's inciting them so he can exterminate more huh. Common - thats a bunch of bs and you know it. I also know where your opinions stand. I don't think this article supports either of our positions.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Ludelover
07-03-2003, 08:41 PM
One question to all doubters of Bush's 'real' intentions....where are all of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? wasn't that the main reason for their war against Iraq?
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
Ludelover
07-03-2003, 08:46 PM
and yeah, we are north of the US, but we use whats north of our necks to think b4 we take action as well! You could learn a thing or two.
thats the dumbest sig. pic i've seen on this site yet, good work! :iceslolan
thats the dumbest sig. pic i've seen on this site yet, good work! :iceslolan
TexasF355F1
07-03-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Ludelover
One question to all doubters of Bush's 'real' intentions....where are all of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? wasn't that the main reason for their war against Iraq?
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
The whole weapons of mass destruction thing has been beat to death. Quite frankly though, I refuse to even watch anything else on the whole Iraq thing b/c I'm sick of it. I don't care anymore if the U.S. is liked or hated, I just don't care.
One question to all doubters of Bush's 'real' intentions....where are all of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? wasn't that the main reason for their war against Iraq?
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
The whole weapons of mass destruction thing has been beat to death. Quite frankly though, I refuse to even watch anything else on the whole Iraq thing b/c I'm sick of it. I don't care anymore if the U.S. is liked or hated, I just don't care.
taranaki
07-03-2003, 10:42 PM
We've covered the WMD thing fully,established that the U.S. can't find Osama OR Saddam,I'm just curious as to what Bush hopes to achieve with this latest round of bullshit macho rhetoric.Two things are for certain,it WON'T win the hearts and minds of Iraqis,and it WON'T persuade those loyal to Saddam to come out with their hands up.I suspect the only reason for this warmongering claptrap is to keep the voters focused on the war,and away from Bush's pisspoor general record as President.
Marc04
07-06-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Ringo
removed by moderator
what?:bloated:
and i fail to see why Hillary is such a hated person
removed by moderator
what?:bloated:
and i fail to see why Hillary is such a hated person
taranaki
07-06-2003, 05:03 PM
Welcome to the Political forum,Ringo.Please make your points without making offensive comments,or you will be banned from AF.:smile:
Ringo
07-06-2003, 06:11 PM
Well, well, well! seems like you’re not accustomed to American rights like freedom of speech. You talk like your government has never done anything wrong.
Too bad I don’t have censoring powers like you so I can modify your posts.
Too bad I don’t have censoring powers like you so I can modify your posts.
taranaki
07-06-2003, 09:36 PM
If Iwere to suggest that you were a rapist,I'd expect a moderator to edit my post.I'm assuming that you can read,but that you have either insufficient brain capacity,or insufficient manners,to remember the AF guidelines.
For your convenience,here's a link.
AF guidelines (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html)
If you have trouble understanding the longer words,we'd be happy to explain for you.
Now if you'd care to make any observations as to what my government has 'done wrong' in the last,say 100 years,I'd be happy to debate the issuue.If you can even tell me who 'my government' is,you will have exceeded my estimation of your intelligence.
And by the way.The internet is not America.AF is not America.Be grateful for the fact,because if it were I'd be suing your balls off for your incredibly stupid coments about aborigines and rape.
Feel free to post an apology any time,you are getting seriously beaten at this game and it is in your interests to quit ,before you make yourself look like a total dickhead.
For your convenience,here's a link.
AF guidelines (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html)
If you have trouble understanding the longer words,we'd be happy to explain for you.
Now if you'd care to make any observations as to what my government has 'done wrong' in the last,say 100 years,I'd be happy to debate the issuue.If you can even tell me who 'my government' is,you will have exceeded my estimation of your intelligence.
And by the way.The internet is not America.AF is not America.Be grateful for the fact,because if it were I'd be suing your balls off for your incredibly stupid coments about aborigines and rape.
Feel free to post an apology any time,you are getting seriously beaten at this game and it is in your interests to quit ,before you make yourself look like a total dickhead.
TexasF355F1
07-06-2003, 10:23 PM
Ringo, just relax and speak in a calm and peaceful manner. I hate Hillary just as much as the next person, but no need to go on rampages bashing everyone, especially Naki. If you actually viewed the whole politics forum for a while you would see Naki is a good guy who has his own opinions just like you and I. If you enjoy the freedoms we have here in America so much, why don't you reread the Bill of Rights and give Naki the right to free speech(i.e. the first amendment). You are being a pretty big asshole and I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet.
sidewinder69
07-06-2003, 11:52 PM
I agree with 'Naki.....instead of Bush talking shit like a true American he should jump on Old Reliable Air Force One and go to Iraq see how nicely he is treated.....hopefully someone will cap his ass and then we don't have to worry about a guy that almost DIED, while trying to eat a GODDAMNED PRETZEL, being the most powerful person in the world.
Damn I could puke. Does he really think that talking "brave" shit like he does will actually get you somewhere in life? Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics. And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
"My Dad was the President so I wanna be one too!!!" Seems to be a very disturbing catch phrase in the politics of the US.
BTW..........WMD are where????? That's what I thought. And if they DO find some I will personally make it my mission to appologize to everyone that requests me to.
Although if they have "Made in the US" printed on the side......well obviously I won't be appologizing. :)
Damn I could puke. Does he really think that talking "brave" shit like he does will actually get you somewhere in life? Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics. And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
"My Dad was the President so I wanna be one too!!!" Seems to be a very disturbing catch phrase in the politics of the US.
BTW..........WMD are where????? That's what I thought. And if they DO find some I will personally make it my mission to appologize to everyone that requests me to.
Although if they have "Made in the US" printed on the side......well obviously I won't be appologizing. :)
taranaki
07-07-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics.
Oprah for President!:bigthumb:
I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics.
Oprah for President!:bigthumb:
Ludelover
07-07-2003, 11:48 AM
beautiful rebuttle, i am glad you are a moderator here! cheers! :bigthumb:
NSX-R-SSJ20K
07-07-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
I agree with 'Naki.....instead of Bush talking shit like a true American he should jump on Old Reliable Air Force One and go to Iraq see how nicely he is treated.....hopefully someone will cap his ass and then we don't have to worry about a guy that almost DIED, while trying to eat a GODDAMNED PRETZEL, being the most powerful person in the world.
Damn I could puke. Does he really think that talking "brave" shit like he does will actually get you somewhere in life? Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics. And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
"My Dad was the President so I wanna be one too!!!" Seems to be a very disturbing catch phrase in the politics of the US.
BTW..........WMD are where????? That's what I thought. And if they DO find some I will personally make it my mission to appologize to everyone that requests me to.
Although if they have "Made in the US" printed on the side......well obviously I won't be appologizing. :)
he shouldn't be the most powerful person in the world and if the governments checks and balances worked properly he wouldn't be.
I agree with 'Naki.....instead of Bush talking shit like a true American he should jump on Old Reliable Air Force One and go to Iraq see how nicely he is treated.....hopefully someone will cap his ass and then we don't have to worry about a guy that almost DIED, while trying to eat a GODDAMNED PRETZEL, being the most powerful person in the world.
Damn I could puke. Does he really think that talking "brave" shit like he does will actually get you somewhere in life? Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. Or at least find someone in the US who knows politics. And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
"My Dad was the President so I wanna be one too!!!" Seems to be a very disturbing catch phrase in the politics of the US.
BTW..........WMD are where????? That's what I thought. And if they DO find some I will personally make it my mission to appologize to everyone that requests me to.
Although if they have "Made in the US" printed on the side......well obviously I won't be appologizing. :)
he shouldn't be the most powerful person in the world and if the governments checks and balances worked properly he wouldn't be.
Ringo
07-07-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
If Iwere to suggest that you were a rapist,I'd expect a moderator to edit my post.I'm assuming that you can read,but that you have either insufficient brain capacity,or insufficient manners,to remember the AF guidelines.
For your convenience,here's a link.
AF guidelines (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html)
If you have trouble understanding the longer words,we'd be happy to explain for you.
Now if you'd care to make any observations as to what my government has 'done wrong' in the last,say 100 years,I'd be happy to debate the issuue.If you can even tell me who 'my government' is,you will have exceeded my estimation of your intelligence.
And by the way.The internet is not America.AF is not America.Be grateful for the fact,because if it were I'd be suing your balls off for your incredibly stupid coments about aborigines and rape.
Feel free to post an apology any time,you are getting seriously beaten at this game and it is in your interests to quit ,before you make yourself look like a total dickhead.
I am sorry I offender you, but you must understand that I was simply reacting in anger by what you wrote.
"Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more."
Do you have any proof that he is actually doing this, or is this your immagination at work. I believe in Bush, he is my president, I'm sorry for deffending my president, that is all I did.
If Iwere to suggest that you were a rapist,I'd expect a moderator to edit my post.I'm assuming that you can read,but that you have either insufficient brain capacity,or insufficient manners,to remember the AF guidelines.
For your convenience,here's a link.
AF guidelines (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html)
If you have trouble understanding the longer words,we'd be happy to explain for you.
Now if you'd care to make any observations as to what my government has 'done wrong' in the last,say 100 years,I'd be happy to debate the issuue.If you can even tell me who 'my government' is,you will have exceeded my estimation of your intelligence.
And by the way.The internet is not America.AF is not America.Be grateful for the fact,because if it were I'd be suing your balls off for your incredibly stupid coments about aborigines and rape.
Feel free to post an apology any time,you are getting seriously beaten at this game and it is in your interests to quit ,before you make yourself look like a total dickhead.
I am sorry I offender you, but you must understand that I was simply reacting in anger by what you wrote.
"Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more."
Do you have any proof that he is actually doing this, or is this your immagination at work. I believe in Bush, he is my president, I'm sorry for deffending my president, that is all I did.
freakray
07-07-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Ringo
"Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more."
Do you have any proof that he is actually doing this, or is this your immagination at work. I believe in Bush, he is my president, I'm sorry for deffending my president, that is all I did.
I believe Bush's "bring them on" comment made towards the Iraqi's could be construed as enough proof that he is inciting the Iraqi people to attack the US troops.
"Now he is inciting the Iraqis to attack his troops,so that he can exterminate some more."
Do you have any proof that he is actually doing this, or is this your immagination at work. I believe in Bush, he is my president, I'm sorry for deffending my president, that is all I did.
I believe Bush's "bring them on" comment made towards the Iraqi's could be construed as enough proof that he is inciting the Iraqi people to attack the US troops.
Ringo
07-07-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by freakray
I believe Bush's "bring them on" comment made towards the Iraqi's could be construed as enough proof that he is inciting the Iraqi people to attack the US troops.
That speech was for Americans.
Those Iraqis are already being incited and brainwashed by their own...like that information minister...:rolleyes:
I believe Bush's "bring them on" comment made towards the Iraqi's could be construed as enough proof that he is inciting the Iraqi people to attack the US troops.
That speech was for Americans.
Those Iraqis are already being incited and brainwashed by their own...like that information minister...:rolleyes:
freakray
07-07-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Ringo
That speech was for Americans.
Those Iraqis are already being incited and brainwashed by their own...like that information minister...:rolleyes:
Satelites carried that speech internationally, the challenge went out all over the world, I have friends and family in other countries that have commented on that speech when it was broadcast, because it was broadcast across the world.
If you believe only Americans heard that speech, you are fooling yourself, if you believe Bush only said it as a politically motivating speech for Americans to hear, you are naive.
That speech was for Americans.
Those Iraqis are already being incited and brainwashed by their own...like that information minister...:rolleyes:
Satelites carried that speech internationally, the challenge went out all over the world, I have friends and family in other countries that have commented on that speech when it was broadcast, because it was broadcast across the world.
If you believe only Americans heard that speech, you are fooling yourself, if you believe Bush only said it as a politically motivating speech for Americans to hear, you are naive.
Pick
07-08-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Ludelover
One question to all doubters of Bush's 'real' intentions....where are all of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? wasn't that the main reason for their war against Iraq?
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
Where's Saddam?? Its easier to hide a case of weapons than one of the most noticeable and famous men in the middle east. Be rational....:rolleyes:
One question to all doubters of Bush's 'real' intentions....where are all of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? wasn't that the main reason for their war against Iraq?
damn, when are people going to realize what this war was really about?
UN 1, US 0
Where's Saddam?? Its easier to hide a case of weapons than one of the most noticeable and famous men in the middle east. Be rational....:rolleyes:
Pick
07-08-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. That really sums up your opinions and gives a pretty good idea of your political persuasions.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by sidewinder69
And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
2 wars... TWO FREAKING WARS, one on a country that was directly involved in killing 3,000 of our civilians. The other was ridding the world of a pyschopathic dictatorship and getting rid of a terrorist-supporting cell. Not to mention getting rid of WMD's.
Don't they screen these guys before they put them up for an election? I sure as hell hope the next prez of the US is either a black person or a female. That really sums up your opinions and gives a pretty good idea of your political persuasions.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by sidewinder69
And at least doesn't want to start a war with EVERYONE!!!
2 wars... TWO FREAKING WARS, one on a country that was directly involved in killing 3,000 of our civilians. The other was ridding the world of a pyschopathic dictatorship and getting rid of a terrorist-supporting cell. Not to mention getting rid of WMD's.
freakray
07-08-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Pick
2 wars... TWO FREAKING WARS, one on a country that was directly involved in killing 3,000 of our civilians. The other was ridding the world of a pyschopathic dictatorship and getting rid of a terrorist-supporting cell. Not to mention getting rid of WMD's.
Since you brought it up, did they find any WMD's yet?
Did you find any conclusive evidence of their existence?
2 wars... TWO FREAKING WARS, one on a country that was directly involved in killing 3,000 of our civilians. The other was ridding the world of a pyschopathic dictatorship and getting rid of a terrorist-supporting cell. Not to mention getting rid of WMD's.
Since you brought it up, did they find any WMD's yet?
Did you find any conclusive evidence of their existence?
Pick
07-08-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Since you brought it up, did they find any WMD's yet?
Did you find any conclusive evidence of their existence?
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
Since you brought it up, did they find any WMD's yet?
Did you find any conclusive evidence of their existence?
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
freakray
07-08-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
The people you refer to as criminals are the people who want to free their country from the American occupier, please keep that in mind.
Admittedly they are not going to speed up the process of the 'coalition' forces leaving by shooting at them, but keep in mind they are only acting the way they have been taught....
Would you know Saddam if he stood in front of you with a full beard and in tribal dress?
To brighten the mood in here:
http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/deb291527ac22d/www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/bo030628.gif
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
The people you refer to as criminals are the people who want to free their country from the American occupier, please keep that in mind.
Admittedly they are not going to speed up the process of the 'coalition' forces leaving by shooting at them, but keep in mind they are only acting the way they have been taught....
Would you know Saddam if he stood in front of you with a full beard and in tribal dress?
To brighten the mood in here:
http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/deb291527ac22d/www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/bo030628.gif
YogsVR4
07-08-2003, 01:07 PM
Ray - thats a pretty good little clip :smile:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
sidewinder69
07-10-2003, 01:15 AM
Are you STILL trying to defend Bush???
Why?
Give me a good reason? He started a war TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!! NOT TO GET SADDAM.......THAT WAS JUST IN THERE TO CALM THE MASSES.
"Did you hear that Bush is starting a war against Iraq now?"
"Why?"
"To get rid of WMD's."
"Well we have them too, what's the difference?"
"Oh yeah, also to get Saddam out of power."
"Oh good, well I can see why he started the war then, I hate that Saddam guy!"
And thus that's the mentality of American's: Always have a back up plan.
Because if one thing doesn't work.......you always have another thing waiting to just slide in there.
Comments?
Why?
Give me a good reason? He started a war TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!! NOT TO GET SADDAM.......THAT WAS JUST IN THERE TO CALM THE MASSES.
"Did you hear that Bush is starting a war against Iraq now?"
"Why?"
"To get rid of WMD's."
"Well we have them too, what's the difference?"
"Oh yeah, also to get Saddam out of power."
"Oh good, well I can see why he started the war then, I hate that Saddam guy!"
And thus that's the mentality of American's: Always have a back up plan.
Because if one thing doesn't work.......you always have another thing waiting to just slide in there.
Comments?
taranaki
07-10-2003, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Pick
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
Have to admire your twisted logic,pick.You invade a country,claiming that they have WMD's,send in thousands of troops kitted up in full chem suits,only to find no piles of toxic ordinance stacked beside the smoking Iraqi guns.Bush told the world that he had conclusive evidence that IRAQ WAS REBUILDING ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND HAD STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.Guess what?Bush lied.YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU AND LIED TO THE WORLD.If the weapons ever existed,the troops would have found them by now.It's no good clinging to the WMD excuse for George's Middle East power grab.Face up to the facts,WMD are totally irrelevant tothe current conflict.The 'criminals' that you refer to want their country back,they have been unjustly invaded,and the U.S. MILITARY HAS FAILED TO ACHIEVE EVERY STATED OBJECTIVE OF THE CAMPAIGN.
This point alone begs the question- if the world's biggest and deadliest fighting force can't achieve its stated objectives,are there unstated objectives that are swallowing the resources?
Bloody oath there are.One of the biggest priorities of postwar Iraq has been to start pumping oil.Never mind restoring power,replacing bombed desalination plants so that people can have clean drinking water,never mind clearing up the thousands of tons of highly toxic depleted uranium that American forces dropped during the conflict......No - keep the guns trained on the survivors and start pumping the oil.
Is it any wonder that the Iraqi people see the occupying forces as no better than Saddam?The U.S. is not welcome in Iraq.Hand it back to its rightful owners and bring the boys home alive.Iraq willnever become a 'littleAmerica',and if Bush continues to press for his agenda,he'd better order a shitload more body bags.The Iraqis are entirely justified in resisting this bogus liberation.
Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.:wink:
Have to admire your twisted logic,pick.You invade a country,claiming that they have WMD's,send in thousands of troops kitted up in full chem suits,only to find no piles of toxic ordinance stacked beside the smoking Iraqi guns.Bush told the world that he had conclusive evidence that IRAQ WAS REBUILDING ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND HAD STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.Guess what?Bush lied.YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU AND LIED TO THE WORLD.If the weapons ever existed,the troops would have found them by now.It's no good clinging to the WMD excuse for George's Middle East power grab.Face up to the facts,WMD are totally irrelevant tothe current conflict.The 'criminals' that you refer to want their country back,they have been unjustly invaded,and the U.S. MILITARY HAS FAILED TO ACHIEVE EVERY STATED OBJECTIVE OF THE CAMPAIGN.
This point alone begs the question- if the world's biggest and deadliest fighting force can't achieve its stated objectives,are there unstated objectives that are swallowing the resources?
Bloody oath there are.One of the biggest priorities of postwar Iraq has been to start pumping oil.Never mind restoring power,replacing bombed desalination plants so that people can have clean drinking water,never mind clearing up the thousands of tons of highly toxic depleted uranium that American forces dropped during the conflict......No - keep the guns trained on the survivors and start pumping the oil.
Is it any wonder that the Iraqi people see the occupying forces as no better than Saddam?The U.S. is not welcome in Iraq.Hand it back to its rightful owners and bring the boys home alive.Iraq willnever become a 'littleAmerica',and if Bush continues to press for his agenda,he'd better order a shitload more body bags.The Iraqis are entirely justified in resisting this bogus liberation.
Pick
07-10-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
Are you STILL trying to defend Bush???
Why?
Give me a good reason? He started a war TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!! NOT TO GET SADDAM.......THAT WAS JUST IN THERE TO CALM THE MASSES.
"Did you hear that Bush is starting a war against Iraq now?"
"Why?"
"To get rid of WMD's."
"Well we have them too, what's the difference?"
"Oh yeah, also to get Saddam out of power."
"Oh good, well I can see why he started the war then, I hate that Saddam guy!"
And thus that's the mentality of American's: Always have a back up plan.
Because if one thing doesn't work.......you always have another thing waiting to just slide in there.
Comments?
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
Are you STILL trying to defend Bush???
Why?
Give me a good reason? He started a war TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!! NOT TO GET SADDAM.......THAT WAS JUST IN THERE TO CALM THE MASSES.
"Did you hear that Bush is starting a war against Iraq now?"
"Why?"
"To get rid of WMD's."
"Well we have them too, what's the difference?"
"Oh yeah, also to get Saddam out of power."
"Oh good, well I can see why he started the war then, I hate that Saddam guy!"
And thus that's the mentality of American's: Always have a back up plan.
Because if one thing doesn't work.......you always have another thing waiting to just slide in there.
Comments?
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
freakray
07-10-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
Pick, you have an exceptional skill there sir, you turn everything anyone says into an anti-Bush post.....
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
Pick, you have an exceptional skill there sir, you turn everything anyone says into an anti-Bush post.....
Pick
07-10-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Pick, you have an exceptional skill there sir, you turn everything anyone says into an anti-Bush post.....
yes, I do have an admittedly amazing skill!!:bigthumb: :icon16:
Pick, you have an exceptional skill there sir, you turn everything anyone says into an anti-Bush post.....
yes, I do have an admittedly amazing skill!!:bigthumb: :icon16:
sidewinder69
07-10-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
I said that where???????
Oh BTW.......I don't think you have any ability, besides being able to pull stuff out of your ass that is entirely untrue........oh and BTW you DIDN'T answer my question. :thefinger
Don't say things, or insinuate anything that I haven't written because I wasn't saying that Bush was as messed up as Saddam, it's just interesting, (to me anyways) that Bush is trying to get rid of OTHER ppl.'s WMD, while he ISN'T getting rid of HIS OWN!
BTW I don't see your reply to 'Naki's post either. :confused:
Here's how ridiculous you and many people are, just to put your opinion in perspective: you think George Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
I said that where???????
Oh BTW.......I don't think you have any ability, besides being able to pull stuff out of your ass that is entirely untrue........oh and BTW you DIDN'T answer my question. :thefinger
Don't say things, or insinuate anything that I haven't written because I wasn't saying that Bush was as messed up as Saddam, it's just interesting, (to me anyways) that Bush is trying to get rid of OTHER ppl.'s WMD, while he ISN'T getting rid of HIS OWN!
BTW I don't see your reply to 'Naki's post either. :confused:
Pick
07-10-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
I said that where???????
Oh BTW.......I don't think you have any ability, besides being able to pull stuff out of your ass that is entirely untrue........oh and BTW you DIDN'T answer my question. :thefinger
Don't say things, or insinuate anything that I haven't written because I wasn't saying that Bush was as messed up as Saddam, it's just interesting, (to me anyways) that Bush is trying to get rid of OTHER ppl.'s WMD, while he ISN'T getting rid of HIS OWN!
BTW I don't see your reply to 'Naki's post either. :confused:
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
I said that where???????
Oh BTW.......I don't think you have any ability, besides being able to pull stuff out of your ass that is entirely untrue........oh and BTW you DIDN'T answer my question. :thefinger
Don't say things, or insinuate anything that I haven't written because I wasn't saying that Bush was as messed up as Saddam, it's just interesting, (to me anyways) that Bush is trying to get rid of OTHER ppl.'s WMD, while he ISN'T getting rid of HIS OWN!
BTW I don't see your reply to 'Naki's post either. :confused:
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
taranaki
07-10-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Pick
We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
SAFE HANDS? GEORGE BUSH?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
SAFE HANDS? GEORGE BUSH?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
freakray
07-10-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
Why should America need WMD's to protect itself when it is making certain nobody else has them?
America can control itself? Who are you fooling Pick? If America was able to control itself then there wouldn't be American troops in Iraq right now, nor in North Africa for that matter (Do I see another "but Iraq had WMD's rant coming now?).
Do you really consider trigger-happy George safe hands for a "nucular" weapon?
America is terrorising the world, that is why America needs those "nucular"weapons, to keep the world at bay and scared.
Pick, but bluntly, and from a fellow American citizen, YOU ARE DELUSIONAL IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU TYPE!!
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
Why should America need WMD's to protect itself when it is making certain nobody else has them?
America can control itself? Who are you fooling Pick? If America was able to control itself then there wouldn't be American troops in Iraq right now, nor in North Africa for that matter (Do I see another "but Iraq had WMD's rant coming now?).
Do you really consider trigger-happy George safe hands for a "nucular" weapon?
America is terrorising the world, that is why America needs those "nucular"weapons, to keep the world at bay and scared.
Pick, but bluntly, and from a fellow American citizen, YOU ARE DELUSIONAL IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU TYPE!!
sidewinder69
07-10-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
Pick if someone "Jacks" some nukes you don't have to worry too much about firing back.......because there isn't gonna be a helluva whole lot left to fire back with.
And I know you're going to put down all of your underground bunkers....but really it's gonna be in vain because there won't be that much left to protect. :bloated:
Plus all the leaders of the country will be dead anyways since there won't be adequate warning........unless all of that government spending that's gone into the Military for early warning systems has ACTUALLY been spent on what it was supposed to be used on. :rolleyes:
I mean you can shoot back, but everyone left in America is gonna look like this: :icon16: after the fallout.....that's why you don't see too many ppl. firing nukes.
And is it just me, or is it that the last time I checked the only ppl. that have used a nuke missle/bomb to cause human endangerment was the U.S?
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki anyone?
I know that you'll put in your defense that it saved more lives than it took because the war would have gone on a lot longer, and that you had to get them back because you were bombed at Pearl Harbour. So do you have any other reasons why you used the "bomb"?
Why should we rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons? What is to protect us if someone jacks one and we have no ability to strike back against them? The difference is we can control ours. We have the ability to keep the weapons in safe hands and have a reason for having them other than terror.
Pick if someone "Jacks" some nukes you don't have to worry too much about firing back.......because there isn't gonna be a helluva whole lot left to fire back with.
And I know you're going to put down all of your underground bunkers....but really it's gonna be in vain because there won't be that much left to protect. :bloated:
Plus all the leaders of the country will be dead anyways since there won't be adequate warning........unless all of that government spending that's gone into the Military for early warning systems has ACTUALLY been spent on what it was supposed to be used on. :rolleyes:
I mean you can shoot back, but everyone left in America is gonna look like this: :icon16: after the fallout.....that's why you don't see too many ppl. firing nukes.
And is it just me, or is it that the last time I checked the only ppl. that have used a nuke missle/bomb to cause human endangerment was the U.S?
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki anyone?
I know that you'll put in your defense that it saved more lives than it took because the war would have gone on a lot longer, and that you had to get them back because you were bombed at Pearl Harbour. So do you have any other reasons why you used the "bomb"?
Pick
07-11-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
........unless all of that government spending that's gone into the Military for early warning systems has ACTUALLY been spent on what it was supposed to be used on. :rolleyes:
That is one reason for our budget "deficit", we have spent billions of dollars trying to rebuild the early-warning system Clinton destroyed. So, yes, it has been spent on what it was supposed to.
........unless all of that government spending that's gone into the Military for early warning systems has ACTUALLY been spent on what it was supposed to be used on. :rolleyes:
That is one reason for our budget "deficit", we have spent billions of dollars trying to rebuild the early-warning system Clinton destroyed. So, yes, it has been spent on what it was supposed to.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025