Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

Topic closed

2007-01-24 12:57:56
Magius5.0
Member
+106|6808|UMass Amherst
America is in the ultimate 'we are so FOOKED' scenario lately.  Bush's strategy at this point is not so much a matter of making the country (Iraq) safer, so much as making sure it doesn't fall apart.  Iraq may Never be safe, because these insurgents and the inbound terrorists from the neighboring countries are having a lovely turkey shoot with our armed forces.  Its like trying to bail water out of a sinking ship, it'll just keep coming until we cork the goddamn holes.

In short, we need to stop bailing water in Iraq and start targeting the source: these other countries who are using Iraq as a giant shooting range, and we're the targets.  Bush is doing the right thing, by sending in more troops, but hes' sending them to all the wrong places.  We need to start having high-level talks with these other countries and play hardball (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and bring them the table.  Threaten them with sanctions if this action continues, because we all know they're just letting these anti-civilization forces through without any harassment.

Of course, we'd need the support of other countries to follow suit.  Something we don't have at the moment, since Bush has pretty much told everyone to piss off.  Recall 2002 to early 2003, where they tried to get weapon inspectors into Iraq?  Tried to get the UN to listen to us and back an invasion to disarm the regime?  Didn't go so well for us, and Bush burned bridges with a lot of people in the process.  Many countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq due to negative support (i.e., Britain, just to name one), and because they realized they needed to cut their losses.  We however, don't have that option--not at present.

Even if we did get that going, there's no guarantee the Shiites and the Sunnis would be all happy-happy and not kill each other like we know they will; a bit of a stretch, but when African nations started becoming independent of their European colonizers, what happened?  The native people ignored the lines drawn in the sand (borders) and proceeded to cause mass carnage against each other.  Darfur, anyone?  Congo Republic?  These people are two exclusive parties that hate each other, the Shiites and the Sunnis--getting them to ever agree to cease-fire is wishful thinking.

The odds of success...any success, at least, in Iraq, are slim, and it'll take a hell of a lot of work.  Bush just simply isn't pursuing the right means to stem the flow; more troops (buckets) just means we'll be able to bail out a little more trouble for a time in Iraq, and what then?  Keep going indefinitely, or until our leaders come to their senses (hint, election time) and start pursuing a course of action that gets results?
2007-01-24 13:11:06
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6784|CA, USA
Changing a president in the middle of a war probably weighed alot in terms of the voters for the 2004 election. 

Regarding the direction overseas, i'd like to hear people start talking about realistic solutions instead of just complaining that Bush sucks or whatever.  If you complain without giving an actual solution - that's a whiner.  Nobody likes a whiner.

To the democrats credit, they appear to have some amount of plans that involve getting people talking.  While this is an idealistic and noble pursuit, how much chance does this have in reality?  Palestinians talking with Israel?  Iran pursuing 'peaceful' nukes for power while in same breath stating their desire to eliminate the state of Israel and of course their friends the USA.  North Korea and Venezuela?  How can we get these parties to the table? 

Is there some magical svengali-like appeal that the decmocrats have that encourages diametrically opposed viewed people to come to the table in solidarity?  I suppose some do.  Clinton was well liked, but i would argue that he 'passed the buck'.  While he was getting Arafat to shake hands with Israel (and Arafat was implicitly supporting terror campaigns inside that country) and pursuing lazily Al Qaeda in a law enforcement mode (which takes forever), extremists were growing stronger and buying more and more weapons.  I mean if we get people talking, we assume that the parties will actually do something other than just political rhetoric, right?  How sure are we that they won't do something under the table behind the curtain.  Obviously this should include re-evaluating who our friends really are (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be put on notice).

To me, Bush seemed that he wanted to actually enforce the UN resolutions that were in place and voted on by the world body.  So, if Bush should be faulted in enforcing the resolutions, then one could argue what was the purpose in having resoultions without consequence.  Extending this argument, why have the UN at all?

So, if we are all in it for 'the win' against global terrorism, what do we do to move that forward?  That's the dialog we should be having - not just bashing and complaining or passing the buck with false hopes of dialog. 

I think we want action, right?  Any suggestions on how to improve the situation overseas and defeat the terrorists from imposing their will and way of life on feedom loving people?
2007-01-24 13:12:31
Andoura
Got loooollllll ?
+853|7066|Montreal, Qc, Canada
Its Fuck yourself not F... .......f   

/title error
2007-01-24 13:15:15
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6748|South Carolina, US

Cougar wrote:

I was reading over the "State of the Union" address manuscript from earlier tonight and I have to vent my frustrations.  First of all the "state of the union" is shitty, because you made it shitty you fucking tard.  But the thing that really boils me is this whole Iraq issue that he repeats and dwells over like a broken record.

It's the State of the Union, it doesn't have to be some rhetorical masterpiece.

George W. Bush wrote:

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission.
Actually it doesn't look that much different to me. Same shit different day as they used to say.

George W. Bush wrote:

Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.
But we don't even do those things.  We vote and everything but I seriously doubt that the voting system is working correctly because after all, we re-elected you.  How the fuck can 150 million people be that stupid?  Granted there are a lot of stupid people out there, but 150 million doing the same exact stupid thing is pushing the laws of probability.  Also, you don't even respect our rights, so how can you demand it out of a forgiven nation? (Illegal wiretapping and phone tapping scandal anyone?)

They've given up on warrantless wiretapping.

Oh, and not every single person voted in this nation. Besides, he was reelected in more popular times. I'm sure if he were up for reelection he'd be kicked out.

George W. Bush wrote:

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province -- where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them -- we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.
But.......you guys have been telling us that the Iraqi forces are starting to take control of thier own neighborhoods and are almost strong enough to be on thier own, now they aren't even close?  20,000 people not close?  WTF?  Also, telling the terrorists that you are sending 20,000 troops to help take back Anbar Province.........*sigh*.  Hang out with Geraldo much?

George W. Bush wrote:

The people of Iraq want to live in peace,
Yeah, I know, CNN, FOXNEWS, BBC and all the major newspapers are just full of happy stories and lullibyes.  I like the one titled "I Went To The Market To Buy Some Oranges and Got Blown Up By an Old Knockoff of a Mini-Cooper"

George W. Bush wrote:

and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They have ple..........blah blah blah blah more shit that's never gonna happen and false promises.
Snore.

George W. Bush wrote:

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq -- because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.
Well, I'm sure the military leaders have, but I think you are a bit stupid.  Also, I do understand the price of failure in Iraq, I mean, WTF would we do if we had to ration our gas by not driving big ass SUV's that suck down 5 gallons per mile or *GASP* maybe even have to go to alternate fuel sources!!??  THE HORROR!

I guess you're okay then with a nation completely imploding in religious violence, and you're okay with terrorists using the chaos to set up a new base.

George W. Bush wrote:

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
So.......I'm supposed to believe that the Iraqi forces are fully capable of taking care of themselves, because afterall, we trained them, but at the same time I'm not supposed to believe that they can take care of themselves because if we leave they will be overrun and the Earth will explode? 

2+2=5 perhaps?  Double + Ungood?  Newspeak?

When did we say the Iraqis were ready for fighting on their own? The administration has said all along that they weren't ready.

George W. Bush wrote:

For America, this is a nightmare scenario.
Stop trying to scare people all the time you fucking asshole!!!

It's the truth, what do you want him to say?

George W. Bush wrote:

For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.
Yes, yes, scare the shit out of people, use Sept 11, yet again in your State of the Union address to make people know how HORRIBLE and TERRIFYING it will be if we don't send 20,000 more troops to Iraq.  The only thing I am scared of is you fucking things up.......worse than they already are, because you are a fucking deet da dee.  The Iraqi terrorists never illegally tapped my phone, never tried to pass a bill through the system that pretty much fucks half my rights and is ironically entitled "Patriot Act", never ruined the foriegn relations of my country with literally every single ally we fucking had except for Britain, and they don't come on TV and release statements nearly everyday telling me how fucking scared of my fucking mind I should be!!  YOU SUCK! 

Where the hell is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?!  He'd speak softly and ram his big stick right up your ass, straight out of the White House gates and into the presidential dumpster where you belong.
He's right in that allowing a nation to collapse into warfare will allow the terrorists to set up base there, like in Afghanistan.

You must be ignorant about US history because T.R. in this situation probably would have invaded 10 times as many countries as we have.
2007-01-24 13:20:34
IBleedGravy
Member
+3|6818|Richmond

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Miller wrote:

So who do you want? A democrat to raise taxes, deteriorate the safety of the US, turn his/her back on the voters, kill more babies than save animals? Anwser me, please.
Exactly.

Clinton = balanced budget = national debt starts to drop = LAME

Bush administration = keep taxes low whilst dramatically overspending = hike up the national debt = our grandkids foot the bill instead of us = AWESOME
U=dillusional.  Go study up on American economics before you make a stupid remark like Clinton balanced the budget, and made the national debt drop.
2007-01-24 13:23:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

IBleedGravy wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Miller wrote:

So who do you want? A democrat to raise taxes, deteriorate the safety of the US, turn his/her back on the voters, kill more babies than save animals? Anwser me, please.
Exactly.

Clinton = balanced budget = national debt starts to drop = LAME

Bush administration = keep taxes low whilst dramatically overspending = hike up the national debt = our grandkids foot the bill instead of us = AWESOME
U=dillusional.  Go study up on American economics before you make a stupid remark like Clinton balanced the budget, and made the national debt drop.
He did (well there was a budget surplus due to reactionary changes he made to national expenditure and national debt was reduced under his presidency).

That is indisputable fact.
2007-01-24 13:29:42
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7082|United States of America

m3thod wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

btw, at least the US/World economy didn't collapse after 9/11 like would have happened if Al Gore and the socialists were in power at the time.
Quick! Lend me that crystal ball, you've just given me a reason to purchase my first lottery ticket.
You know little about US economics and Al Gores/Democrats political objectives at the time.
2007-01-24 13:32:42
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7199|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Smoking isn't the only thing that causes lung cancer, but it definitely is the main contributor.
You could also refrain from smoking a single cigarette in your entire life, only to get run over by a bus.
That's about as relevant as saying ladders help humans gain access to the roofs of buildings but clowns are still generally funny.
No. Actually, I can just about claim relevance via reductio ad absurdum. Cougar brought up smokers dying of lung cancer, so I brought up an extreme way for a non-smoker to die. That isn't quite as irrelevant as the use of ladders and the overall funniness of clowns.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-24 13:56:25)

2007-01-24 13:33:03
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7076

UGADawgs wrote:

{ZIP}
Jeeze, can you please not do that?
2007-01-24 14:10:14
PluggedValve
Member
+17|6767
"Changing a president in the middle of a war probably weighed alot in terms of the voters for the 2004 election. " 
             Ya if he actually won the first election.

"To the democrats credit, they appear to have some amount of plans that involve getting people talking.  While this is an idealistic and noble pursuit, how much chance does this have in reality?  Palestinians talking with Israel?  Iran pursuing 'peaceful' nukes for power while in same breath stating their desire to eliminate the state of Israel and of course their friends the USA.  North Korea and Venezuela?  How can we get these parties to the table?"
           Maybe if we didnt threaten them and instead helped them.  You can have nuclear energy if you let us ensure that you aren't making bombs.  Is Venezuala really scaring you americans??  I dont think you should worry about it so much.  The guy just loves his country more than yours.  If they dont want to do business with you, you dont have to attack them as a response.  Just say "im sorry it didnt work out".

"Of course, we'd need the support of other countries to follow suit.  Something we don't have at the moment, since Bush has pretty much told everyone to piss off.  Recall 2002 to early 2003, where they tried to get weapon inspectors into Iraq?  Tried to get the UN to listen to us and back an invasion to disarm the regime?  Didn't go so well for us, and Bush burned bridges with a lot of people in the process.  Many countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq due to negative support (i.e., Britain, just to name one), and because they realized they needed to cut their losses.  We however, don't have that option--not at present."
                    I agree.  If you leave now it looks more like you were just after the oil(oil who said anything about oil??  Bitch you cookin?!).  Which sooner or later will be more obvious.

"Even if we did get that going, there's no guarantee the Shiites and the Sunnis would be all happy-happy and not kill each other like we know they will; a bit of a stretch, but when African nations started becoming independent of their European colonizers, what happened?  The native people ignored the lines drawn in the sand (borders) and proceeded to cause mass carnage against each other.  Darfur, anyone?  Congo Republic?  These people are two exclusive parties that hate each other, the Shiites and the Sunnis--getting them to ever agree to cease-fire is wishful thinking."
                    Its kinda funny that Saddam mostly had this under control.  In Saddam's reign it is said that he gassed(US chems mind u) about 3000 kurds and a few hundred rebellios shias(that the US promised to back if they rioted).  Since the US has been there, there have been over 60 000 civilian deaths.  If they leave it is gauranteed to rise dramatically.  I was just wondering if say 3500 dead civilians in 20 yrs is as bad as 60 000 in about 3 to 4 yrs?? hmmm

"The odds of success...any success, at least, in Iraq, are slim, and it'll take a hell of a lot of work.  Bush just simply isn't pursuing the right means to stem the flow; more troops (buckets) just means we'll be able to bail out a little more trouble for a time in Iraq, and what then?  Keep going indefinitely, or until our leaders come to their senses (hint, election time) and start pursuing a course of action that gets results?"
                    Ummmm.  Anyone notice that Obamma and Billory Clinton both have very similar views of a course of action in Iraq?  Who is the democrat and who is republican?  Do you really think it matters who u vote for, particularily in this election or the last.?  Kerry would have done the same as Bush "but better" what a joke.  It was a poor idea in the first place to go in.  The rest of the world knew it AND warned you.  But Bush took unilateral measures(illegal by the way) to go in and "secure the area"(oil).  So conveniently his companies and Cheney's halliburton made loads of money while the US taxpayers are footing the bill for these contracts to halliburton et al.  So the nation goes farther in debt (any time frame on the payments? No, uh ok) while Cheney and Bushes get richer.  hmmm

I understand not wanting to be unpatriotic and all but does these circumstances not make you feel betrayed, cheated and plain old stolen from???  I dont understyand why americns would want to fund a war anywhere when they just extended the maximum debt from 4 trillion to 5 just so the entire US Dollar wouldnt collapse and cease to hold value. 

Also, while im on it.  Of all the fear tactics used by the gov't the most significant in my mind hasnt been talked about much.  That is the US economy.  Its going down unfortunately.  You guys are sadly toast. The Euro is going to be the global currency and is already whoopin the dollar.  With more countries converting to it from the dollar every other week.

Sorry for the incredibly long rant.  Hope things all work out and i am just some crazy guy at the end of the day, but I dont think so.  Every empire has collapsed and the more the US expand influence the harder it will crash down.
2007-01-24 15:16:57
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6784|CA, USA
"To the democrats credit, they appear to have some amount of plans that involve getting people talking.  While this is an idealistic and noble pursuit, how much chance does this have in reality?  Palestinians talking with Israel?  Iran pursuing 'peaceful' nukes for power while in same breath stating their desire to eliminate the state of Israel and of course their friends the USA.  North Korea and Venezuela?  How can we get these parties to the table?"

[PluggedValve]:  Maybe if we didnt threaten them and instead helped them.  You can have nuclear energy if you let us ensure that you aren't making bombs. 

[my response]:  I think that most people would love the idea of helping people in need.  Indeed overall Americans have shown their generosity time and time again (Tsunami aid, sending teams to aid in earthquakes, etc).  The problem that people have is sending aid to corrupt regimes who steal the money, use it to buy arms and blame all their social problems on the evil Americans to further their own agenda.  Case in point many countries in the middle east that hate us.  Further, i think overall it's a trust issue with Iran and the nuke thing because they won't allow nuke inspectors in to ensure they aren't making bombs instead of just powerplants.  So, i guess we could argue that should Iran have the bomb?  if they do, would they use it against israel or for that matter any of their other neighbors?  the govt there scares me for sure with their 'death to <fill-in-the blank> and the perpetual circle of violence that pervades that culture (you kill my friend, i kill yours, repeat).  Again, just a simple trust issue and the country has to be willing to come half way, and also simply stop funding groups that kill innocent people

[Original Line]:  "The odds of success...any success, at least, in Iraq, are slim, and it'll take a hell of a lot of work.  Bush just simply isn't pursuing the right means to stem the flow; more troops (buckets) just means we'll be able to bail out a little more trouble for a time in Iraq, and what then?  Keep going indefinitely, or until our leaders come to their senses (hint, election time) and start pursuing a course of action that gets results?"
                   
[PluggedValve]:  Ummmm.  Anyone notice that Obamma and Billory Clinton both have very similar views of a course of action in Iraq?  Who is the democrat and who is republican?  Do you really think it matters who u vote for, particularily in this election or the last.?  Kerry would have done the same as Bush "but better" what a joke.  It was a poor idea in the first place to go in.  The rest of the world knew it AND warned you.  But Bush took unilateral measures(illegal by the way) to go in and "secure the area"(oil).  So conveniently his companies and Cheney's halliburton made loads of money while the US taxpayers are footing the bill for these contracts to halliburton et al.  So the nation goes farther in debt (any time frame on the payments? No, uh ok) while Cheney and Bushes get richer.  hmmm

[My response]:  Two points.  First regarding the choice to go into Iraq.  Again, it depends on whether you placed value on the resolutions passed by the UN.  Who would enforce such resolutions?  UN seemed to be type to say 'obey our resolutions or we'll pass more resolutions'.  Bush stepped up as far as i see it.  It wasn't clear to us that then that there would be a civil war after the fall of Saddam.  Part of this is the ignorance (admittedly) the west has with the cultures of that area.  It's just so foreign for many of us here to really grasp.  Secondly, regarding the oil in Iraq, it's not like the US or anyone for that matter is 'stealing' the oil.  Iraqis are getting paid for it.  Or am i wrong here?  are we just carting off the oil without paying any iraqis?  I'm all for reducing dependency on foreign oil.  sounds like a great idea.  Tell it to the Soccer (or football haha) moms in their Escalades and Yukons.  Tell it to the people blocking drilling for oil in our own backyard because some spotted owl lived there once.  Clean fuel alternatives are great to develop and use but the public has to 'want' them.  so it's not enough to develop the tech but it's also a sell job to the public.  Plus, i'm wondering what happens to the electic cars and fuel cells after accidents and when they wear out.  Is it more toxic than what we have now? 

I would say that Iraq could be doing alot more to step up to the plate and help pay for rebuilding their country.  I would say that Iraq could also be doing alot better in terms of helping to secure their own country.  Rather, i see them as sitting back and letting the US take care of things.  See, until the security concerns get addressed, i don't see much chance of progress in terms of fixing their infrastructure.  Would it make sense to have the UN actually go in and secure the area like they were supposed to do in first place (when enforcing their original resolutions)?  it seems nobody wants to take a bite out of the sh*t sandwich.  Hence we are forced to go it alone.  Another thorn is that Iraq has only known in recent years a culture of bribery and kickbacks and tribal/nepotism stuff.  To change that overnight is not easy.

I'm making the assumption that you are from UK (apologies if you aren't), but aren't you worried about radicals in London and Birmingham?  The growing population of people who refuse to integrate into mainstream society continues to alienate themselves and foster these avenues for radicalization.  Not to mention forcing their views and laws upon the rest of the population through intimidation and force.  The Danes have similar problems - and Spain and France.  This mass of people are effectively changing the climate of those countries and over time i think big changes could occur that you might not like.  Certainly the bulk of which are immigrants from impoverished areas of the world with little skills so they become a burden on the system and you through taxes.  Can we take a step back and see why they are leaving their own country to come to a different one?  why not solve THAT problem.  pro-active instead of re-active.  we have similar issues with Mexico here in US.  Most are probably law abiding and just want a better life.  I say that's great!  just do it 'legally' through the proper channels.  we'd need to revisit our immigration dept and probably staff it better but it's better than just letting them come on in without any checks.  Osama himself probably could come across the border right now.

Switching gears a bit...

Are we or are we not in a global war against Islamo-Fascism?  Should we 'submit' to these people and have peace through oppression or fight and have freedom?  Really i think it boils down to this.  All the other arguments about Bush this/that, the economy, etc take a sideline to the war.  they may be by-products in some cases, but we must decide if we want to live in a free society or one that oppresses all people.

I'd rather fight and die than live on my knees.  But that's just me.
2007-01-24 16:13:23
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6965|Long Island, New York
lmao, I loved when he said "Give it a chance to work". Yeah, we gave all your other plans chances too. Times up, bud.
2007-01-24 16:20:36
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Poseidon wrote:

lmao, I loved when he said "Give it a chance to work". Yeah, we gave all your other plans chances too. Times up, bud.
Actually what we need is the Iraqi people to give it a chance to work. You can't force someone to be successful. Only they can take the lead and make this happen. I'm just glad when America gained it's independence the colonist didn't go around blowing each other up.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-24 16:24:57
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

Kmarion wrote:

I'm just glad when America gained it's independence the colonist didn't go around blowing each other up.
Ya we did...eventually. :p
2007-01-24 16:26:10
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

usmarine2007 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm just glad when America gained it's independence the colonist didn't go around blowing each other up.
Ya we did...eventually. :p
Fair enough, however not exactly the same.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-24 16:30:04
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm just glad when America gained it's independence the colonist didn't go around blowing each other up.
Ya we did...eventually. :p
Fair enough, however not exactly the same.
I know.  Trust me I agree with you.  Iraqi people need to step up and take control of their country like we did.
2007-01-24 16:32:00
topthrill05
Member
+125|7005|Rochester NY USA
Although the Iraq part of the speech will be picked apart and bitched about for the next week, I did think this was his best Union address so far and the ideas put forth although late are nice to hear.

Cougar what is the solution then?
2007-01-24 16:33:00
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7053|Sea to globally-cooled sea
i read the speech and I think that his domestic policy is good.  people have one-track minds.  it's all about iraq.  I like what he had to say.  my 2 cents.
2007-01-24 16:36:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

G3|Genius wrote:

i read the speech and I think that his domestic policy is good.  people have one-track minds.  it's all about iraq.  I like what he had to say.  my 2 cents.
Not necessarily, there are many discontent with the current state of the border and health care. Economy is doing great though . It would have been nice if he had said something about the Katrina rebuilding efforts also.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-24 16:45:59)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-24 17:29:46
jonsimon
Member
+224|6922

CameronPoe wrote:

Relatively comprehensive demolition of what was a pathetic and miserable empty and largely meaningless diatribe.
At first I thought you were referring to what Bush did to the State of the Union Address in the US
2007-01-24 17:51:42
DemonAlucard
Member
+2|6901|Laredo,Texas USA

Kmarion wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

i read the speech and I think that his domestic policy is good.  people have one-track minds.  it's all about iraq.  I like what he had to say.  my 2 cents.
Not necessarily, there are many discontent with the current state of the border and health care. Economy is doing great though . It would have been nice if he had said something about the Katrina rebuilding efforts also.
its kind of funny that he didn't mention anything about New Orleans but he proposed to millions of dollars helping Lebanon, LOL.. don't get me wrong, Lebanon is a country that needs help getting rid of those fucktard hezbollas but ...New Orleans or any other disaster area in the U.S. comes first...
2007-01-24 17:58:09
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

Maybe if he respected the men and women in uniform of this country. -1 to you for being in support of American servicemen and women throwing their lives away for G.W. Bush.

For shame!
You think people fight for the President?
we fight for our brothers to the left and right of us.  also, for the freedom of this country.
For your response.....and you are correct


Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-24 18:51:45)

2007-01-24 17:58:53
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6880|Ontario, Canada
would ppl seriously stop riding his coattails
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2007-01-24 18:02:39
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

Fen321 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

One thing you have to bear in mind is that the only reason Bush got re-elected is because days before the vote Osama Bin Laden threatened the American people saying if we do in fact re-elect him he will attack America again. And that right there is pretty much the only reason. The only reason people ( Americans )are bitching about Iraq is that we haven't had any attacks in America. I think we would be more solidified if there was another attack. And as far as Iraq goes I'd like to see any other country try to pull off the impossible. And the impossible is trying to unite 3 different ethnic people after 50 years of torture and hate. Then fight off an influx of Jihadists/extremists from 6-7 other different countries at the same time using guerrilla warfare.
If you ask me 3,000 KIA's in 4 years is pretty damn good. Look back at Russia vs the Muhajudeen in Chechnya. Russia lost 25,000 in one year, though those figures are sketchy, more like 55,000. Things could be much, much worse casualty wise.
Hilarious. Someone actually believes that, somehow, occupying Iraq is preventing terror attacks in the USA. That doesn't make much logical sense. If someone wanted to attack you on US soil they could do it with ease. 11 Iraqis were arrested crossing the Mexican border the other day or did you gloss over that story? The blindness of some people amazes me. The Iraq war is as much a 'war on terror' as it is a 'war on common sense'.
O M G don't you REALIZE that by taking the FIGHT to them we REDUCE the likely hood of an attack taking place at home! GOD!?!?!? I thought you would have seen by now that if we fight them -----> There <----- and not  --->here<---- we stop them from getting .....<---here?

Extreme ideological powers that the terrorist posses restrict their movements SINCE they are being attacked  ----->there<----

No attacks since 911 = FREEDOM

oh btw i enjoyed when the president listed off a handful of "prevented" terrorist attacks within the US, the list was well massive. Including the one alleged British national that wanted to blow up airliners while over the Atlantic.....you know the guy that was acquitted we stopped THEM!

FUCK YeAH! AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
You, my friend, are an idiot and need to think for yourself for juuust a second.

By killing people, we don't make our name look any better.  It just makes their family/friends hate us more for being there.  So your logic is actually completely wrong.  By killing people, we are spreading terrorism.

Unfortunately not too many people can think like this anymore because they find hope in believing that killing thousands will end their problem, making it okay.  Sorry dude, you're no safer than you were before 9-11, in fact.. I would argue that you are less safe now than you were.

and to the guy who lost family in the 9-11 attacks, I'm sorry for your loss but your government knew about the attacks many weeks in advance and still let them happen.  Why? You can be the judge of that if you aren't too blinded by hate already.
2007-01-24 18:05:12
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071
hes still commander in cheif.  you got somebody to blame, blame yourselves for voting for him or for not supporting a better candidate.  im tired of the president bashing.  and trust me,  i cant stand the fucker, since day one.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard