Bush wants war to continue

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


Nope....still trying to keep our soldiers from being shot by criminals. Read my post above the one you quoted.

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]

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!!!!!

[freakray]

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!!!!!

Pick, you have an exceptional skill there sir, you turn everything anyone says into an anti-Bush post.....

[Pick]

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!!

[sidewinder69]

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!!!!!

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.

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.

[Pick]

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.

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.

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]

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?

[freakray]

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!!

[sidewinder69]

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.

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.

I mean you can shoot back, but everyone left in America is gonna look like this: 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]

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.

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.