Bush and Iraq
-
draconic74
- Green Beret
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:08 am
- Contact:
I like Bush. He provided every comedian in America enough material for 20 years of laughs.
http://www.google.com/musica?aid=IfdLni ... &ct=result
http://www.calendars.com/results.asp?PID=1&MGID=8715
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ge+W.+Bush
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mi ... gle+Search
and so on. In fact, searching "waffles" in google returns Kerry as a first result. i remember one ofmy freinds was really good at saying "I like waffles" but with a Kerry/Texan accent. Hilarious. Who thinks we should try to "google bomb" ClanHalo as "pwnage" or something?
http://www.google.com/musica?aid=IfdLni ... &ct=result
http://www.calendars.com/results.asp?PID=1&MGID=8715
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ge+W.+Bush
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mi ... gle+Search
and so on. In fact, searching "waffles" in google returns Kerry as a first result. i remember one ofmy freinds was really good at saying "I like waffles" but with a Kerry/Texan accent. Hilarious. Who thinks we should try to "google bomb" ClanHalo as "pwnage" or something?
what some of you young kids dont know is that when sadam ruled, more than a million people went missing. he massacred a whole race.
i think it was the sheites (cant spell it). he had a soccer team shot because they lost in the world cup!
maybe the war isnt going to swell now. but getting rid of sadam's rule was needed.
america had a mistake to fix also.
before the first gulf war, america was supplying iraq with money and weapons to invade kuwait.
now i cant deny that they are after the oil in iraq also.
you have to think though.
a country goes to war. where do the proceeds come from?
from the riches they find in the country.
in iraq that is oil.
that oil being secured means they can fund the war.
though i dont think its right. but thats how they see it.
i find the war in iraq was needed but i believe they went about ti the wrong way.
should have let the aussies do it! haha
we have a great track record of liberating countries.
eg. search in google "east timor"
they were taken by the indonesions ages ago.
the idonesions gave them no freedom, no rights and stole their money.
we sent a force of UN volunteers over there who had no guns besides the small UN force (wasnt enough if you know much about east timor)
the volunteers set up ballot boxes and it took along time but eventually got the people to vote. THIS was very hard! the people of east timor were told if the voted they would be killed. people had to sneak to the ballot boxes to vote. the malicia killed hundreds.
but in the end they got like 80 % of the pop to vote.
they voted that they become their own country.
indonesia started burning and killing. because east timor was now a free country we were able to send troops in. (it s law. you cannot send troops in to a foriegn country unless asked to by that country. otherwise it is seen as an invasion) so we went in and secured the country. gave them a government. we still have a very small force we never hear about anymore that are still over there serving as law inforcement and advise them when needed on topics.
i think it was the sheites (cant spell it). he had a soccer team shot because they lost in the world cup!
maybe the war isnt going to swell now. but getting rid of sadam's rule was needed.
america had a mistake to fix also.
before the first gulf war, america was supplying iraq with money and weapons to invade kuwait.
now i cant deny that they are after the oil in iraq also.
you have to think though.
a country goes to war. where do the proceeds come from?
from the riches they find in the country.
in iraq that is oil.
that oil being secured means they can fund the war.
though i dont think its right. but thats how they see it.
i find the war in iraq was needed but i believe they went about ti the wrong way.
should have let the aussies do it! haha
we have a great track record of liberating countries.
eg. search in google "east timor"
they were taken by the indonesions ages ago.
the idonesions gave them no freedom, no rights and stole their money.
we sent a force of UN volunteers over there who had no guns besides the small UN force (wasnt enough if you know much about east timor)
the volunteers set up ballot boxes and it took along time but eventually got the people to vote. THIS was very hard! the people of east timor were told if the voted they would be killed. people had to sneak to the ballot boxes to vote. the malicia killed hundreds.
but in the end they got like 80 % of the pop to vote.
they voted that they become their own country.
indonesia started burning and killing. because east timor was now a free country we were able to send troops in. (it s law. you cannot send troops in to a foriegn country unless asked to by that country. otherwise it is seen as an invasion) so we went in and secured the country. gave them a government. we still have a very small force we never hear about anymore that are still over there serving as law inforcement and advise them when needed on topics.
Ohh yay argument.
OK, first of all the war in Iraq was not needed. The reason Bush put out there for going to Iraq was the WMD's. It has been proven that the WMD did not exist, and they don't in Iraq. In fact, one of the investigators (CIA) that went over there released an article saying that Bush was lying about it, but Bush released that he works in the CIA. Hm, sounds a little like a dictatorship, not a democracy? By the way, technically Bush should not be in office because he (90 or so percent sure) didn't win the election; the republicians because of a quote from the (right-wing) leader of the voting machine company "I will do anything to help Bush win this election." And yeah, probably cheating. I saw a video proving how easy it was to cheat one of those machines. The democrats, now that they are in office have found many votes that have not been counted (especially in urban areas -- where the left-wingers live). Sorry I got off subject lol.
Anyways, don't even begin to tell me we should be in Iraq because to be honest, Iraq is worse off without Saddam. As terrible as that sounds, it's true. Right now, there's Civil War in Iraq, and Saddam was able to keep that in control even though he was a terrible person. If we hadn't gone to Iraq we would've avoided this crap. There's more money (taxpayers money) being spent in a war that we were supposed to go to for false reasons. Don't even begin to tell me it's fair that your parents or you pay money for this bullshit. You also realize, the President that sent us to war was the one who wimped out of the war when he was little? Now, he ordered the Baker guy to write a report about what we should do with the report; but it's sounding like he won't listen to Baker because he is so firm on this war where at this point we CAN'T pull out (but we can gradually pull out). The whole point of this "War on Terror" was supposed to be to catch the terrorists from 9/11. So, Saddam was apparently included in that? No, he wasn't, Mr. Bush gave us bull so he could get to oil wells and be a rich whore. We should be after Al Qaida or whoever the hell you spell it, not after Iraqi civilians who have done nothing. And, as people have been saying, the sounds a hell lot like the Vietnam war. The Vietnam's were "communists" and we were supposed to go in there, then be out very quickly, but it lasted forever and many many Americans died. The Iraq war was supposed to be quick (and according to Bush a while ago it ended in 2003 or something because he had this huge banned "Mission Accomplished" while Americans died in Iraq. As your argument, Saddam massacred a whole race? So, if he did, and now going to be put on the chair, what the HELL are we doing in Iraq? Oh right, we need that money because we are rich, greety whores who need money.
Before Mr. Bush, we had many allies, including France, England and so on. After Mr. Bush, they have seemed to dislike us because of our foreign policy. Now, those people who were our allies put a stereotype on us if ignorant idiots.
That's all i have to say
OK, first of all the war in Iraq was not needed. The reason Bush put out there for going to Iraq was the WMD's. It has been proven that the WMD did not exist, and they don't in Iraq. In fact, one of the investigators (CIA) that went over there released an article saying that Bush was lying about it, but Bush released that he works in the CIA. Hm, sounds a little like a dictatorship, not a democracy? By the way, technically Bush should not be in office because he (90 or so percent sure) didn't win the election; the republicians because of a quote from the (right-wing) leader of the voting machine company "I will do anything to help Bush win this election." And yeah, probably cheating. I saw a video proving how easy it was to cheat one of those machines. The democrats, now that they are in office have found many votes that have not been counted (especially in urban areas -- where the left-wingers live). Sorry I got off subject lol.
Anyways, don't even begin to tell me we should be in Iraq because to be honest, Iraq is worse off without Saddam. As terrible as that sounds, it's true. Right now, there's Civil War in Iraq, and Saddam was able to keep that in control even though he was a terrible person. If we hadn't gone to Iraq we would've avoided this crap. There's more money (taxpayers money) being spent in a war that we were supposed to go to for false reasons. Don't even begin to tell me it's fair that your parents or you pay money for this bullshit. You also realize, the President that sent us to war was the one who wimped out of the war when he was little? Now, he ordered the Baker guy to write a report about what we should do with the report; but it's sounding like he won't listen to Baker because he is so firm on this war where at this point we CAN'T pull out (but we can gradually pull out). The whole point of this "War on Terror" was supposed to be to catch the terrorists from 9/11. So, Saddam was apparently included in that? No, he wasn't, Mr. Bush gave us bull so he could get to oil wells and be a rich whore. We should be after Al Qaida or whoever the hell you spell it, not after Iraqi civilians who have done nothing. And, as people have been saying, the sounds a hell lot like the Vietnam war. The Vietnam's were "communists" and we were supposed to go in there, then be out very quickly, but it lasted forever and many many Americans died. The Iraq war was supposed to be quick (and according to Bush a while ago it ended in 2003 or something because he had this huge banned "Mission Accomplished" while Americans died in Iraq. As your argument, Saddam massacred a whole race? So, if he did, and now going to be put on the chair, what the HELL are we doing in Iraq? Oh right, we need that money because we are rich, greety whores who need money.
Before Mr. Bush, we had many allies, including France, England and so on. After Mr. Bush, they have seemed to dislike us because of our foreign policy. Now, those people who were our allies put a stereotype on us if ignorant idiots.
That's all i have to say
-
draconic74
- Green Beret
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:08 am
- Contact:
Yes, mike. This will turn into a bad situation. But the difference is back then the president had a plan to get out. All ours says is, "We will withdraw from Iraq when they can support themselves. They will be able to do that when we withdraw." Words of wisdom 
.
"These is historic times."
-Bush
Oh yes, they sure is...
."These is historic times."
-Bush
Oh yes, they sure is...
how is that true. This war would have never been started without evidence of WMD's (found false later). Without evidence wars can not be started by the US. (unless it is in defense)Yummy wrote:Ok, why don't you like liberals (I don't see any reason). Second of all it is true that Bush knew there were no WMD's but he still went into Iraq.
The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.
i never said the war in iraq was great i just meant that getting rid of saddam and his regime was needed. right now thousands of people have died. under saddam it was millions.
bush and his govt. are not doing it properly. i agree.
they didnt have a plan. they went in there to find WMD's they found none. (doesnt mean there wasnt any... there are alot of places to hide them)
once they found none they should have pulled out in an orderly fashion. yes oil is why they are staying there.
all i said is thats why countries invade countries.
if there is nothing to gain from invading then they wouldnt do it unless they needed to.
in iraq, if there was no oil, the US probably wouldnt have gone in because of the monetary loss from the war.
i think they should have just sent spies over there and taken out saddam and everyone they wanted with a few car bombs and snipers. of course everyone would point the finger at the US. but there would be no proof.
more terrorists jump up in the places the assassinated terrorists were. but atleast they are less powerful for the moment.
by the way dont ask me if i support bush or not.
as im not american and also think the american way of voting is bullshit.
a person rich enough runs a campaign for president.
person is elected.
person chooses their own party members.
person is head of country.
stupid!
australian way (i think is better)
party chooses its leader. who they think represents themselves the best.
party campaigns.
party is elected.
the leader of party becomes the primeminister.
the primeminister is the figure head of the country but cannot do anything without the parties consent.
so a whole group of people working together runs the country. not just one man. plus the person running for office doesnt have to be rich to fund his own campaign.
the both parties have the same amount of funds to campaign.
plus! voting is mandatory in australia. so we have nearly 99% of people over 18 voting. (the other 1% or so get fined for not voting)
this makes the vote mean alot more since its everyones opinion.
in the US alot of people dont vote.
so the vote doesnt represent the whole countries opinion.
then people complain they dont like the president..... but they didnt vote!
bush and his govt. are not doing it properly. i agree.
they didnt have a plan. they went in there to find WMD's they found none. (doesnt mean there wasnt any... there are alot of places to hide them)
once they found none they should have pulled out in an orderly fashion. yes oil is why they are staying there.
all i said is thats why countries invade countries.
if there is nothing to gain from invading then they wouldnt do it unless they needed to.
in iraq, if there was no oil, the US probably wouldnt have gone in because of the monetary loss from the war.
i think they should have just sent spies over there and taken out saddam and everyone they wanted with a few car bombs and snipers. of course everyone would point the finger at the US. but there would be no proof.
more terrorists jump up in the places the assassinated terrorists were. but atleast they are less powerful for the moment.
by the way dont ask me if i support bush or not.
as im not american and also think the american way of voting is bullshit.
a person rich enough runs a campaign for president.
person is elected.
person chooses their own party members.
person is head of country.
stupid!
australian way (i think is better)
party chooses its leader. who they think represents themselves the best.
party campaigns.
party is elected.
the leader of party becomes the primeminister.
the primeminister is the figure head of the country but cannot do anything without the parties consent.
so a whole group of people working together runs the country. not just one man. plus the person running for office doesnt have to be rich to fund his own campaign.
the both parties have the same amount of funds to campaign.
plus! voting is mandatory in australia. so we have nearly 99% of people over 18 voting. (the other 1% or so get fined for not voting)
this makes the vote mean alot more since its everyones opinion.
in the US alot of people dont vote.
so the vote doesnt represent the whole countries opinion.
then people complain they dont like the president..... but they didnt vote!
First of all, this is what he said? how the hell do you believe that? second of all, yes it is true. Why would he release someone's name from the cia because they used their freedom of speech. he knew all along, you're just not noticing how ignorant he is because you're too caught up in trusting him. i don't trust him, or many other people, hell i don't even trust the liberals that much....they never went up against bush enough.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests