NationStates Jolt Archive

The US governement keeps pursuing a very consequent policy.
After starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying to forbid gay marriage with constitutional laws, they now unban semi automatic weapons.
Make war, not love is a clearly visible trend throughout Bush's presidency.

I feel sorry for all intelligent Americans, as they are represented in the entire world by a bunch of fools.

--
Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? -Ernest Gaines

I like the way America is going now. Especially banning queer marriage.

They declared war on us in 1996.

They declared war on us in 1996.
Gay marriages?

I like the way America is going now. Especially banning queer marriage.
Pro-Bush, Neo-Con, Anti-Gay, Ignorant...
The typical American then. Carry on.

Pro-Bush, Neo-Con, Anti-Gay, Ignorant...
The typical American then. Carry on.
Not really, there is no such thing as a "typical American". I understand the temptation to stereotype us all due to a few loudmouthed ones, but speaking as an American, that's really annoying!

Should I make some comment about typical Germans now? Seriously.

Guys, the majority of the country likes Bush...sorry if you don't agree with him...but I do. He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, and picking up the ball after Clinton dropped it. Pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, sorry you stupid germans can't realize that. you'll be attacked soon enough just like russia was, and you'll see the importance of attacking those who attacked us. We like bush, he'll win, and we'll be that much closer to winning the war on terror. so don't appologize for us having good leadership. i'm just sorry that your head isn't on straight and your hat is on backwards and you can't tell what the right thing to do it. war on terror means ALL terrorists, not just al qaeda. saddam was a terrorist. he deserves to get the electric chair for the hundreds of thousands he killed.

Guys, the majority of the country likes Bush...sorry if you don't agree with him...but I do. He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, and picking up the ball after Clinton dropped it. Pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, sorry you stupid germans can't realize that. you'll be attacked soon enough just like russia was, and you'll see the importance of attacking those who attacked us. We like bush, he'll win, and we'll be that much closer to winning the war on terror. so don't appologize for us having good leadership. i'm just sorry that your head isn't on straight and your hat is on backwards and you can't tell what the right thing to do it. war on terror means ALL terrorists, not just al qaeda. saddam was a terrorist. he deserves to get the electric chair for the hundreds of thousands he killed.
And is he killed? No. Why? Because they don't want to make a martyr *boohoo* If he's such a friggin terrorist just shoot him. Pussies.

Yeah, your country is really being well run. How's the unemployment going?

Guys, the majority of the country likes Bush...sorry if you don't agree with him...but I do.
Not true. National polls show that the country and the individual states are fluctuating constantly between him and Kerry.

And who got more popular votes in 2000, eh? Bush sure didn't get the "majority".

You moron, home ownership is the highest its ever been in the history of the US and the tax cuts saved our economy from another depresion. jobs are being created everyday; 1 million new ones were created in the last 2 months alone. just shut up if you don't live here because we don't give a flying shit what france or germany has to say about our awesome country.

You moron, home ownership is the highest its ever been in the history of the US and the tax cuts saved our economy from another depresion. jobs are being created everyday; 1 million new ones were created in the last 2 months alone. just shut up if you don't live here because we don't give a flying shit what france or germany has to say about our awesome country. Colors added.

You're flaming. Stop it.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

and by the way...bush won the popular vote by 537 votes in florida...and popular vote doesn't even count in the presidential election in America. we use the electoral college. a president could lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote, thus winning the election. i don't neccisaryily agree with this way (i think it should be one man one vote) but this is the way it is, so we have to deal with it. he won, quit whinning about it. and bush has an 11 point lead in the election and is winning most swing states as of now...

bush has an 11 point lead in the election and is winning most swing states as of now...
According to which poll? Kerry was in the lead according to most national polling averages only three weeks ago; polls are a snapshot in time and honestly can't be used to justify a statement like "most of the country likes Bush" because... um... a lot of us don't.

Almost everyone I know is against Bush. It is a very close race between Bush and Kerry. I don't think you can say that either the majority of the country favors Bush, or that the typical American is pro-Bush.

I would also like to point out how the American's that are rude, ignorant, and don't backup their arguments tend to be Pro-Bush...

Guys, the majority of the country likes Bush...sorry if you don't agree with him...but I do. He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, and picking up the ball after Clinton dropped it. Pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, sorry you stupid germans can't realize that. you'll be attacked soon enough just like russia was, and you'll see the importance of attacking those who attacked us. We like bush, he'll win, and we'll be that much closer to winning the war on terror. so don't appologize for us having good leadership. i'm just sorry that your head isn't on straight and your hat is on backwards and you can't tell what the right thing to do it. war on terror means ALL terrorists, not just al qaeda. saddam was a terrorist. he deserves to get the electric chair for the hundreds of thousands he killed.


(sigh) lemme see, where to start...

1) maybe Bush is doing what he thnks is right. maybe. But if what he is doing is what he beleives is right, then hes even dumber than what his hysterical command of Language has led us to beleive.

2) pre-emption is never the way to win any war, fuckbag, its only a way to start it.

3) does the war on terror mean All terrorists? sure, I can see your reasoning, but I cant see why a) You attack a suposed terorist who, if IF he has wmd's, its the ones that america gave him...if
b) You attack that supposed terrorist before you even catch or kill the one you know is a terrorist.

extra note: dont you dare give me crap about "liberating people" since the saudis were worse off than the Iraquis of Afghans. of course, the saudis are best friends with the Bushes. Lemme put it this way, Ill vote for bush, if he says hes going for saudi arabia.
Also, no, Al quaeda was not linked to saddam, any dipshit can see that.

Guys, the majority of the country likes Bush...sorry if you don't agree with him...but I do. He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, and picking up the ball after Clinton dropped it. Pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, sorry you stupid germans can't realize that. you'll be attacked soon enough just like russia was, and you'll see the importance of attacking those who attacked us. We like bush, he'll win, and we'll be that much closer to winning the war on terror. so don't appologize for us having good leadership. i'm just sorry that your head isn't on straight and your hat is on backwards and you can't tell what the right thing to do it. war on terror means ALL terrorists, not just al qaeda. saddam was a terrorist. he deserves to get the electric chair for the hundreds of thousands he killed.

Also, I wouldnt be talkin about "heads being on straight" if you name yourself the New York mets and think the word "stupids" is an actual word.

2) pre-emption is never the way to win any war, fuckbag, its only a way to start it.

...

Also, no, Al quaeda was not linked to saddam, any dipshit can see that. Color added.

You too. Attacking the poster is a really bad way to debate an argument.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Color added.

You too. Attacking the poster is a really bad way to debate an argument.


but it makes me feel better, :) , so if you dont mind...

Well, actually, I do mind. According to the Terms and Conditions (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html) you agreed to when you made your nation:

You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, attempt to "hack" the site or another player's account, nor otherwise mislead as to the origin of information.The purpose of this forum is to provide a medium of debate between NS players, unlike flame forums (of which there are plenty out there) which exist just to belittle others.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

You moron, home ownership is the highest its ever been in the history of the US and the tax cuts saved our economy from another depresion. jobs are being created everyday; 1 million new ones were created in the last 2 months alone. just shut up if you don't live here because we don't give a flying shit what france or germany has to say about our awesome country.

WOW. WOW. I am sorry that I live in the same country as you. I really am. I don't like being negative and partisan, it really sucks as far as I'm concerned, but you are clearly misguided and have been duped by the lies of the lying liars (thanks Al Franken!) of the right. Being as you joined in September, what past two months could you POSSIBLY be talking about where 1 million jobs were created? True, the economy is coming back, and we are creating jobs, but more have been lost than gained in the Bush years, and these jobs don't pay as well.

- And tax cuts definatly didn't save us; my argument for this you ask? Give me one way they helped anyone in this country besides the top 1% of the nation (people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld). You know, the rich guys. How did the Bush tax cuts stop our country from depression, because, as it stands now, Bush will be the ONLY president since Herbert Hoover [quick history, Hoover was the President at the onset of..... THE GREAT DEPRESSION] to have lost more jobs than were created buring his presidency. I don't like that anymore than you; it doesn't make me happy in the least that a Republican President was a failure. But we have to live with it. :(

Let me give you a quick lesson in Economics. For unemployment rates, part-time workers (i.e. - people like me who hate their job, 15 hours a week for $6.00 an hour) count as full-time workers. Also, the work force doesn't include people not currently looking for jobs (don't ask me how they determine that one). So, when people stop looking for jobs, or a trained CPA breaks down and takes a job at the corner market, the unemployment rate drops, and Bush looks good, even though things are getting worse.

And please, don't ever say that I, an red-blooded, patriotic, proud-to-be-an American, (see what I did there, nice huh?) don't care what the rest of the world thinks of my country. I care very much how my country looks to the world. :headbang:

but it makes me feel better, :) , so if you dont mind...
Yeah argue with the mods

You say pre-emption only starts war...but they declared war on US. can't you remember 9/11? TERRORISTS attacked us. they pre-emptvivly struck us. why is that hard to understand. secondly, yes, the US gave weapons to many countries in the middle east to fight communism. but we gave them AK-47's and a few tanks. we never gave them anthrax and serin, which saddam has used on his own people. how could he have used them if he never had them to begin with? the guy was able to bury his entire air force in the sands if Iraq before we got there, i think he's capable of sending some barrels of anthrax and serin to neighboring countries. and if you believe that the bush administration is in bed with the saudis, then you are watching to much michael moore and you need to step out into the real world and read a newspaper once in a while. by the way, CNN/Gallup is the organization who put bush at an 11 point lead 2 weeks ago after the RNC...

by the way, CNN/Gallup is the organization who put bush at an 11 point lead 2 weeks ago after the RNC...
Nice, a bounce right after Bush's convention which hasn't been repeated. How about the lead Kerry had after the DNC then?

And, uh, explain to me where Saddam hijacked those airplanes and took out the WTC, and I'll concede your point. But the 9-11 Commission (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/) stated otherwise.

He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, your right, every one else is just "misunderestimating" him. Pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, sorry you stupid germans can't realize that.because a nation less than 1/3 the size of US and powerful enought to give the US a run for there money after lossing the 2 to largest wars in history is with out a dought stupid you'll be attacked soon enough just like russia was, the Russian terroist problem has nothing/very little to do with the middle east. there problem is for the Russain holdings want indenpence from Russian rule.

You say pre-emption only starts war...but they declared war on US. can't you remember 9/11? TERRORISTS attacked us. they pre-emptvivly struck us. why is that hard to understand. secondly, yes, the US gave weapons to many countries in the middle east to fight communism. but we gave them AK-47's and a few tanks. we never gave them anthrax and serin, which saddam has used on his own people. how could he have used them if he never had them to begin with? the guy was able to bury his entire air force in the sands if Iraq before we got there, i think he's capable of sending some barrels of anthrax and serin to neighboring countries. and if you believe that the bush administration is in bed with the saudis, then you are watching to much michael moore and you need to step out into the real world and read a newspaper once in a while. by the way, CNN/Gallup is the organization who put bush at an 11 point lead 2 weeks ago after the RNC...
Terrorists attacked you, so you declared war first on Afghanistan and then on Iraq. Connection? Who needs it anyway? I think connections are overrated anyway

And is he killed? No. Why? Because they don't want to make a martyr *boohoo* If he's such a friggin terrorist just shoot him. Pussies.

He hasn't been killed because we believe in seeing justice brought to him. It started when we took him out of power and handed him over to the Iraqi people he opressed. That is justice. We had to secure him so that once word got out that we knew where Saddam was, Iraqis wouldn't have dragged him out and shot him point blank. Bush wanted to make sure that his trial will show the world just how corrupt he was and just how much help countires like France helped him despite UN resolutions (like the one for weapons embargo even though he used French-made missles to attack our jets that were enforcing the UN no fly zone). Make no mistake, the Iraqi people are playing by the rules and are giving him a fair trial that will end with his death because of the mountains of evidence that he kept in his palaces. Justice will be delivered.


Yeah, your country is really being well run. How's the unemployment going?
It's about the same, if not lower than it was under Clinton in '96 when everyone was saying that the economy was stronger than ever. How the unemployment in your country? A little bitter or maybe jealous of our economy? *stamps "Idiotic Bush-hater" onto your forehead*

Not really, there is no such thing as a "typical American". I understand the temptation to stereotype us all due to a few loudmouthed ones, but speaking as an American, that's really annoying!

Should I make some comment about typical Germans now? Seriously.

Not necessary for me, as I'm a Belgian and I acknowledged in the first post the fact that there are also a lot of Americans with brains :)

You say pre-emption only starts war...but they declared war on US.They never declared war, they simple attacked. That called invasion.
Declaering war is when one party(i.e. a Nation,polical party,rebel/terroist faction) sends a message to the other party saying "...for resons stated are parties are now at a state of war with each other...". only In bigger and smarter sounding words.

And please, don't ever say that I, an red-blooded, patriotic, proud-to-be-an American, (see what I did there, nice huh?) don't care what the rest of the world thinks of my country. I care very much how my country looks to the world. :headbang:

*claps* I would have quoted the whole post, but I liked this piece more, the rest I can comment without quoting.
I'm brazilian.. we VOTE and our vote COUNTS. alas, aren't we TEACHING you guys how to make a real election? one that works? we knew we were doomed (read is as "we knew that Lula would be our president") a few hours after voting ended.

but that wasn't what I wanted to say. USA is a country I really would like to visit someday, I have many friends there (which I met on the net) and every single one of them says to me the same "I don't like Bush, don't generalize". It's been a few months since I stop thinking that all americans are dumb and insensate, that they really want Bush on the power.

Let's say I have 100 friends from USA. if 10 of them like Bush, is really too much. The same goes here... 100 of my brazilian friends, if 10 of them like Lula on the power, is too much.

again, *claps* for Troizen.

and about the flame... brazilian Linux's boards have a mote : "don't feed the trolls".

Also, no, Al quaeda was not linked to saddam, any dipshit can see that.

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [government]... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is sadi to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -- 9/11 Commision Staff Statement #15, page 5

He hasn't been killed because we believe in seeing justice brought to him. It started when we took him out of power and handed him over to the Iraqi people he opressed. That is justice. We had to secure him so that once word got out that we knew where Saddam was, Iraqis wouldn't have dragged him out and shot him point blank. Bush wanted to make sure that his trial will show the world just how corrupt he was and just how much help countires like France helped him despite UN resolutions (like the one for weapons embargo even though he used French-made missles to attack our jets that were enforcing the UN no fly zone). Make no mistake, the Iraqi people are playing by the rules and are giving him a fair trial that will end with his death because of the mountains of evidence that he kept in his palaces. Justice will be delivered.


It's about the same, if not lower than it was under Clinton in '96 when everyone was saying that the economy was stronger than ever. How the unemployment in your country? A little bitter or maybe jealous of our economy? *stamps "Idiotic Bush-hater" onto your forehead*
Do you actually think somebody will watch the Saddam trial? There's so much evidence they'll be at it for YEARS (like the Slobodan Milosovic trial... who? Slobodo Milosomething?) And to what end? He'll probably get the death sentence, die of old age during his trial, or shot by radical Saddam-haters (so every American, since they're all allowed to have rifles no too).

And unemployment: I have positivly NO IDEA how our unemployment is, so it can never be that bad, or else it would not have been pointed out thousands of times by millions of people. I have nothing to complain about my country, so why not complain about countries really fucking up in the world? Like the USA

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [government]... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is sadi to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -- 9/11 Commision Staff Statement #15, page 5
....in nineteen-ninety-four. Which means that Saddam ordered planes to attack the US in 2001. Yes, of course.

applause halloccia

right unfree people...the 9/11 attacks were planned overnight.

You say pre-emption only starts war...but they declared war on US. can't you remember 9/11? TERRORISTS attacked us. but we gave them AK-47's and a few tanks. we never gave them anthrax and serin, which saddam has used on his own people. how could he have used them if he never had them to begin with? the guy was able to bury his entire air force in the sands if Iraq before we got there, i think he's capable of sending some barrels of anthrax and serin to neighboring countries.

OK Mets, you're getting me mad.... Heh

1) STOP MENTIONING 9/11!!!!! (ALL REPUBLICANS) It is not a political toy used for your own benfits. 3,000 people died. That is a horrible, terrible tragedy. Whoever was responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. HOWEVER, Sadaam Hussein, in no way, shape, or form, participated in 9/11. That con only be used as a reason for going into Afghanistan and after Al-Queda. After that, stop, cease, desist, your 9/11 privledges have been revoked.
If you want to go into Iraq, fine, there is a case for that, and a logically was to do it. A) Sadaam is evil. If not immediatly, he poses a threat to the world because of what he is capable of. The UN needs to contain him. B) Sadaam is liable for war crimes against the people of Iraq (HE GASED THE IRAQI KURDS!!!!) However, Bush chose to spit in the face of the UN and wave his gentials in the air (so to speak) as he went into Iraq [for all intents and purposes] alone. No Lichtenstien doesn't count in the 'Coalition of the Willing'.

2) we never gave them anthrax and serin, which saddam has used on his own people. how could he have used them if he never had them to begin with? the guy was able to bury his entire air force in the sands if Iraq before we got there, i think he's capable of sending some barrels of anthrax and serin to neighboring countries.
Not going to touch the Iraqi Air Force thing, but... He had weapons, but but but but but but... There is a strong possibility that they were no longer in Iraq. If he buried them in the desert, then AT LEAST he doesn't have them. (You would have to blow up Iraq to find them in the desert. Going it alone is not a good way to find weapons buried in the desert.)

3) If Sadaam needed to be taken out, I am willing to admit, that in a time of economic recession, the United States, as a SuperPower, is too economically and militarily weak to go into another soverign nation and try to change their government while preventing the Iraqi people from killing themselves and us.

....in nineteen-ninety-four. Which means that Saddam ordered planes to attack the US in 2001. Yes, of course.
applause halloccia
applauds unfree people and METS for two posts making one really funny one

oh yeah...and bush was in on them too, as were the saudis. we're just in iraq for the oil

right unfree people...the 9/11 attacks were planned overnight.
No, but they sure weren't planned in '94 by Saddam.

lichtenstien may not count, but great britain, spain, austrailia, japan, and sweeden do. not to mention the other 40+ countries who were there with us. and i'm not using 9/11 for politics. i had an uncle who was killed. it was terrible. that's why i want to kill the bastards who killed us. and by the way, bush didn't ignore the UN, he went there to put a resolution through, but france vetoed the showing of it, they wouldn't allow it to appear.

....in nineteen-ninety-four. Which means that Saddam ordered planes to attack the US in 2001. Yes, of course.

"[A detained senior al Qaeda terrorist] says that a militant known as Abu Abdulla al-Iraqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in aquiring poisons and gases. Abdulla al-Iraqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful." -Colin Powell, at the UN

You know, why would Saddam have connections to Osama? Osama offered mujahedeen forces to kick out Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.. doesn't sound like a good relationship between the two to me.

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [government]... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is sadi to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -- 9/11 Commision Staff Statement #15, page 5

Brittian and Nazi Germany held talks about a possible Allaince between the two nations. Hitler saw the Brits as equals to the German people.

Brittian and Nazi Germany held talks about a possible Allaince between the to nations. Hitler say the Brits as equals to the German people.
And the USSR was in an alliance with Hitler








until he decided he did not need them any longer. Such good friends they were

Do you actually think somebody will watch the Saddam trial? There's so much evidence they'll be at it for YEARS (like the Slobodan Milosovic trial... who? Slobodo Milosomething?) And to what end? He'll probably get the death sentence, die of old age during his trial, or shot by radical Saddam-haters (so every American, since they're all allowed to have rifles no too).

You're right, there is a lot of evidence, but Saddam isn't being tried by the UN. He is being tried by the new Iraqi government and the prosecutors are limiting their evidence and testimony to the most devistating in the interest of time. This trial will not last years and years as with Milosovic, the Iraqi people have made sure of that. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam is out of power and the Iraqi people now control his life (and death) and the US has provided a focal point for terrorists to attack our troops who are more than prepared to eliminate them. Will more American troops die defending Iraq and though Iraq, America? Unfortunately, yes. But we never went into this war expecting it to be a cakewalk.

Your comment about radical Saddam-haters was idiotic.... and insulting to all of the Iraqis who suffered under his rule. I have never met the tyrant and I hate him for what he did to his people. There is nothing radical about that, period.

And the USSR was in an alliance with Hitler








until he decided he did not need them any longer. Such good friends they were
Htiler wanted to conquer the Russians from the get go any-way. Plus the Birts said NO to the alliance over the jewish issuse and the the ivansion of the neither lands which birttian had long ago sign a treat to help defend against any ivaders.

I guess that settles that... ;)

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [government]... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is sadi to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -- 9/11 Commision Staff Statement #15, page 5


you fail to disprove me. Sure, they met, Im not arguing that, but osama has a horrible grudge on Sadam for 2 reasons

-Osamas biggest cause for rage isn't "american Imperialism" or any shit like that, its that he considers that sauidi rabaia is not being run by "true muslims". Just like Saddam wasnt a true muslim. You know, under Saddam, Iraq had synagogues and christian churches? This pissed Bin laden to no end.

- It was Saddams fault that american Troops are in muslim land, due to the gulf war. ( actually, is more like the royal Saudis fault, since the U.S only stepped in after the saudis asked them to, since they feared an attack by saddam.) And the troops are probably the biggest reason why he hates the U.S.


Osama isnt stupid, hes crazy like anne coulter, but not stupid. He knows that these things are saddams fault, and he has branded Saddam an enemy. In fact, they hate each other so much, they cant even band together to defeat " big infidel america"

Osama isnt stupid, hes crazy like anne coulter, but not stupid. He knows that these things are saddams fault, and he has branded Saddam an enemy. In fact, they hate each other so much, they cant even band together to defeat " big infidel america"
Perhaps crazy isn't the best word . . . although I hate to say it, no matter how much I hate Bin Laden, but a man who can plot terrorists attacks successfully has a very high level of mental coordination.

Perhaps psychopath is the best word to describe him

lichtenstien may not count, but great britain, spain, austrailia, japan, and sweeden do. not to mention the other 40+ countries who were there with us. and i'm not using 9/11 for politics. i had an uncle who was killed. it was terrible. that's why i want to kill the bastards who killed us. and by the way, bush didn't ignore the UN, he went there to put a resolution through, but france vetoed the showing of it, they wouldn't allow it to appear.


dude, in those 5 countries you mentioned by name, you listed all serious powers in the coalition. Of those, only japan, Spain, the uk and mayb Australia ( i dunno) gave troops, and the people of all of those countries oppsed the war by a majority.

the other 40? second-rate nations, who either have no military might or have their whole power interested in fighting their internal civil wars ( my home country, Colombia, among the latter.)

ps: In Colombia, and many of the smaller nations that make part in your coalition of the willing, pools show that 80% of the people didnt even know that they were part of it, and 60% of politicians were also misinformed.

thanks...i forgot that britain didn't send any troops. they're 100,000 + troops in Iraq right now are just an illusion. and spain didn't send any troops either. until the april 2nd election when they removed their troops from iraq, they had none in there if you don't count the 50,000 + they had there. check your facts, your wrong on everything. australia sent more than 1000 troops. and the majority of the country's populations are not against the war.

thanks...i forgot that britain didn't send any troops. they're 100,000 + troops in Iraq right now are just an illusion. and spain didn't send any troops either. until the april 2nd election when they removed their troops from iraq, they had none in there if you don't count the 50,000 + they had there. check your facts, your wrong on everything. australia sent more than 1000 troops. and the majority of the country's populations are not against the war.


ok, fine, so I relied too much on the default " conservatve stupidity" to carry me through. ( the britain thing just slipped my mind though)

Still, beleive me, yes, in every country the people were against the war, except maybe britain, whre I havent looked it up.

still, i do know that, in britain, 86% of poeople saisthat they only supported the war if it was U.N backed.

ok, fine, so I relied too much on the default " conservatve stupidity" to carry me through. ( the britain thing just slipped my mind though)

Still, beleive me, yes, in every country the people were against the war, except maybe britain, whre I havent looked it up.

still, i do know that, in britain, 86% of poeople saisthat they only supported the war if it was U.N backed.


Whilst it was the cry of those opposed to the war that the majority of "the people" were on their side - the polls seemed to show a far more even split with the pro-war majority often edging in front. In this case however those in opposition seem to have been far louder in their cries.

Since the war however, the tide has turned somewhat and more people seem to be coming to the conclusion that going into Iraq was a mistake. I, incidentally, am now one of those people.

Will more American troops die defending Iraq and though Iraq, America? Unfortunately, yes. But we never went into this war expecting it to be a cakewalk.

Is the we you refer to the American people of the Bush Administration, cause I get the sinking feeling that they thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. Cough... Lack of exit strategy... Cough ... The Iraqis will welcome us with open arms as 'liberators'... Cough ... Iraqi oil will pay for this... Cough...

I think I have bad allergies. Sorry for the cheap shot on Bush :cool: :rolleyes:

I like the way America is going now. Especially banning queer marriage.

Going back to the start of this thread... I just realized...
You have to be sarcastic or.... that's just not right. You have a right to like the way our country is going now, but I just can't seem to comprehend the big deal with gay marriage, and you don't have to deride to like that.

He's not an idiot, he's doing what he thinks is right, and picking up the ball after Clinton dropped it.

Enlighten me to as how Clinton dropped the ball? Was it when his eight years were over? Was it when he gave us a tax raise to get us out of the Regan and Bush I defecits/recession? Or was it when the Republicans endlessly hounded him about WhiteWater, Monica Lewinsky, and Infidelity? (But its OK for Cheney to have been addmittingly the CEO of Halliburton during times of corruptions and for Bush to be in bed with Kenny-boy Lay?

Is the we you refer to the American people of the Bush Administration, cause I get the sinking feeling that they thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. Cough... Lack of exit strategy... Cough ... The Iraqis will welcome us with open arms as 'liberators'... Cough ... Iraqi oil will pay for this... Cough...

I think I have bad allergies. Sorry for the cheap shot on Bush :cool: :rolleyes:

They never put up an exit strategy just like there was no exit strategy in the Cold War until Reagan was in office and began to pressure the Soviets wherever possible which led to their downfall (Reagan and his allies knew there were fundamental problems with Communism and the USSR, so they pressed until it caved). President Bush is doing the same thing today. There is no way to know how long it will take to aprehend/kill the terrorists flooding Iraq right now. You got that sinking feeling of Bush thinking it was a cakewalk because our media colored it that way. If you go back to the White House and Bush statements about pre-Iraq, you'll see that they want to finish this ASAP but they realize that it's war and things will go wrong like in all wars. They never said it would be a cakewalk.

The Iraqi people did and still are welcoming us as liberators. When we first rolled tanks into Baghdad, civilians were cheering "USA USA USA!" and "Bush Bush Bush!" I've seen photos of Iraqi women and children giving flowers to our soldiers and our soldiers giving the starving Iraqis their MREs (meals ready to eat) and water because of the poor infrastructure there. Even today, while there was an explosion targetting Iraqi policemen and many died, these terrorists know that America is not the only one who wants to rebuild Iraq. The Iraqi people are serious about getting their own country under control with US help.

As for the "cheap shot" about Iraqi oil paying for this war, Bush never said anything about doing that except that he wouldn't support it. It was actually the Democrats in the Senate who suggested it even though they were and still are the ones screaming "No war for oil! No war for oil! Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!". Point is that before this war, several companies (including Halliburton) were biding against each other years and years ago so that in case a situation like this occured, they wouldn't need months and months biding before actually starting to rebuild whatever country needed it. This took place years and years ago and is done again and again to make sure the US gov't gets the best deal for its money. The fact of the matter is that Halliburton is one of the few countries that can do what it does quickly and effectively (in large part to Cheney being CEO for years there and turning a small company into one of the best of its kind).

Also, with Enron and all these other major corporate scandals everyone is hearing about in the news. Bush's administration, not Clinton's, is the one who is tracking down and taking out corporate corruption.

you fail to disprove me. Sure, they met, Im not arguing that, but osama has a horrible grudge on Sadam for 2 reasons


Actually, I did disprove you. Bin Laden asked for training camp space and some help getting weapons. Looks to me like OBL was willing to look past any disagreements with Saddam so that he could arm his group and strike his true enemies in the West.

You moron, home ownership is the highest its ever been in the history of the US and the tax cuts saved our economy from another depresion. jobs are being created everyday; 1 million new ones were created in the last 2 months alone. just shut up if you don't live here because we don't give a flying shit what france or germany has to say about our awesome country.
Of course home ownership is going to go up every year. Your population is growing by 3,153,600 every year.

Obviously you have no idea about the job creation picture in the US?

Sunny Side Down: Why 1.4 million new jobs haven't ended the jobless recovery.

http://www.slate.com/id/2103111/

The labor market is nowhere near its late-1990s heyday—and it may still be deteriorating.

Consider the employment–to-population ratio, a broad gauge that measures the percentage of Americans over the age of 16 who have a job. (Data is available going back to 1948. To see the history, go here and click on the box that reads "Civilian-Employment Population Ratio" and then "retrieve data.") The ratio rose steadily in the 1990s, from 61.4 percent in January 1993 to 64.7 in the spring of 2000. In January 2001, it stood at 64.4 percent, very close to an all-time high. Since then, it has deteriorated steadily, even after the recession ended in November 2001. In May 2004, it stood at 62.2 percent, more than 2 percentage points below the rate of January 2001.*

Go here (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln), then check the box labelled:

Civilian Employment-Population Ratio - LNS12300000

Then hit the Retrieve Data button at the bottom of the page.

If 64.4 percent of Americans had jobs today, as they did in January 2001, there would be nearly 4.8 million* more Americans employed.


Perhaps then you will have a better understanding?

They never said it would be a cakewalk.
I do recall a cheap publicity stunt by Bush though in May 2003:

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".......OOOPS!!

The Iraqi people did and still are welcoming us as liberators. When we first rolled tanks into Baghdad, civilians were cheering "USA USA USA!" and "Bush Bush Bush!"
I didn't see too many pictures like that. For the most part, there was widespread condemnation for invading in the first place. When you say "Iraqi people", are you trying to intimate that the majority prefer American occupation? I don't think so and that is why violence still reigns supreme in Iraq.
The Iraqi people are serious about getting their own country under control with US help.
How is it possible for the Iraqi people to get "their own country under control", while the US still occupies the country militarily and controls the economy under Bremer's Orders?
As for the "cheap shot" about Iraqi oil paying for this war, Bush never said anything about doing that except that he wouldn't support it. It was actually the Democrats in the Senate who suggested it even though they were and still are the ones screaming "No war for oil! No war for oil! Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!"
However, the facts speak louder than words and the Iraqi oil money has been missused and abused. Halliburton has played a large part in that abuse.

Point is that before this war, several companies (including Halliburton) were biding against each other years and years ago so that in case a situation like this occured, they wouldn't need months and months biding before actually starting to rebuild whatever country needed it.
Why is it that there is more effort going into reconstructing the Iraqi economy than the Afghanistan economy? Oh I know, there is no oil in Afghanistan, and there are only 15,000 US troops there. Cultivation of poppies for opium is the main business. Control of certain regions still rest with the powerful "warlords". Yeah forget Afghanistan and forget about whats his name......Osama Bin Laden.

This took place years and years ago and is done again and again to make sure the US gov't gets the best deal for its money. The fact of the matter is that Halliburton is one of the few countries that can do what it does quickly and effectively (in large part to Cheney being CEO for years there and turning a small company into one of the best of its kind).
Oh you mean this kind of companies?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2119981.stm

Judicial Watch alleges that Halliburton overstated profits to the tune of $445m during the period 1999 to 2001, resulting in some investors "suffering huge losses".

I can add many more links to that one. This one lists most of them:

http://www.costanzo.org/Rex/Commentary/cheney_halliburton_circle.htm

Not really, there is no such thing as a "typical American". I understand the temptation to stereotype us all due to a few loudmouthed ones, but speaking as an American, that's really annoying!

Should I make some comment about typical Germans now? Seriously.

I disagree. The average American, and being American I'm sure of this, is ignorant. They believe whatever the government tells them. Fools.

this was mentioned in the heated argument above
i should quote but i wont
something on we dont care what you think of our country we are gonna do what we want **** france and germany
right well if we try that then saddam would still be in power now wouldnt he
ok more from me later

You say pre-emption only starts war...but they declared war on US. can't you remember 9/11? TERRORISTS attacked us. they pre-emptvivly struck us. why is that hard to understand. secondly, yes, the US gave weapons to many countries in the middle east to fight communism. but we gave them AK-47's and a few tanks. we never gave them anthrax and serin, which saddam has used on his own people. how could he have used them if he never had them to begin with? the guy was able to bury his entire air force in the sands if Iraq before we got there, i think he's capable of sending some barrels of anthrax and serin to neighboring countries. and if you believe that the bush administration is in bed with the saudis, then you are watching to much michael moore and you need to step out into the real world and read a newspaper once in a while. by the way, CNN/Gallup is the organization who put bush at an 11 point lead 2 weeks ago after the RNC...


Can we please require that the pre-teens at least be a little coherent in their postings??

Can we please require that the pre-teens at least be a little coherent in their postings??
Did you mean co-hear-rant? :rolleyes:

And is he killed? No. Why? Because they don't want to make a martyr *boohoo* If he's such a friggin terrorist just shoot him. Pussies.

I´m shure he is going to be hanged. The Iraqis are going to give him a trial first. That may help to reveal his brutality and decrease the support he still has in Iraq.

i'm just sorry that your head isn't on straight and your hat is on backwards and you can't tell what the right thing to do it. war on terror means ALL terrorists, not just al qaeda. saddam was a terrorist. he deserves to get the electric chair for the hundreds of thousands he killed.
All terrorists? The Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka as well? Or the terrorists in Colombia? Or "terrorists" (civil wars) in Africa?
The dispute is really about what this is all about. I think it ought to be a war against islamists terrorism and against threats from the Middle East. Iran is in that sense a much greater concern than Iraq in the last 13 years ever was. Though it is of course preferable to have Iraq on the side in order to establish a more serious threat to Iran.
I see that as the main reason for the Iraq intervention by the US.

I´m shure he is going to be hanged. The Iraqis are going to give him a trial first. That may help to reveal his brutality and decrease the support he still has in Iraq.
That's just naive

That's just naive
That he is going to be hanged is realistic. Iraq has reestablished the death penalty. Regarding the resistance in Iraq - difficult to tell. Iran plays a role.
But there are also domestic reasons. It is a very difficult country after all.

Ask the Kurds about Saddam's wmd . he had them , America sold him
some of them , so there . and he could not show that he destroyed them
and that alot of desert to hide stuff in , so some people said that means
he must still have them (mostly Iranian double agents I hear).
I really liked the oil refinerery inside a mountain , that was cool.

me I do not think we should be in Iraq, or anywhere else but in American.
you want Binny dead , use the CIA . one guy and his rifle is cheaper.

check your facts, your wrong on everything. australia sent more than 1000 troops. and the majority of the country's populations are not against the war.

Traditionally, Australia has been rather apathetic as a community when it comes to most politics. Throughout our history, only the most important issues have got us out onto the streets in any real numbers

Vietnam was one

Iraq 2 was another. Even since 9/11, it would appear that most Australians are content to live out their lives and bugger the politicians.

And yet, a few months before the war started, 100,000+ demonstrators went out onto the streets in the Melbourne CBD to protest their stringent opposition to this farcicle of a war. This number, in a city of roughly 4 million. Also note that it is possible more did not attend due to the immensly sprawling nature of the city (roughly 70 clicks at it's widest points). Same story with Sydney, and I am 90% sure same with Adelaide.

At no stage have a majority of Australians supported the war. Had they, Packer's media would have jumped on it (Packer is similar to Murdoch for those that do not know. Only real difference: Packer has not yet become a US citizen). Let's get your facts right, mate.

full disclosure: i am an american.

i think it's funny when americans say that the war on terror was started on 9/11 by whomever did the plane-thing. it's kind of like when the news talks about how israeli tanks demolish houses, kill people, build walls to annex land that isn't theirs, etc...and when the palestinians try to fight back, they get bitch-slapped by the U.S. backed israeli war machine. newspapers say the palestinian "attack" and the israeli "response," as if to say israel is only "responding" to palestinian aggression. it coneveniently crops out discourse pertaining to the atrocities and the creeping genocide of the israeli government. it's easy to paint the palestinians as stupid and violent when you cut out discussion of israeli oppression. i guess we could talk about colonist attacks and british responses when we discuss the american war of independence, right? i mean...those terrorist colonists "attacking" (with terrorism!) the lawful british government...and the british government "responding" through various means. i guess the U.S.A. is founded upon terrorism. yes yes, i know that's not exactly true, but the power of discourse is amazing...the power of cropping out history can do incredible things to shape discourse.

so to say that the terrorists started the war by destroying the world trade center (and simultaneously apologizing for any U.S. "response") conveniently crops out of the discourse any topic pertaining to U.S. foreign policy in the region. let's not talk about the U.S. corporate lust for oil, let's not talk about the market looking for new places to spread it's corporate mono-culture, let's not talk about the dictatorships sponsored by the U.S. government (because it's terribly embarassing that the U.S. supported and sold weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons, to its then-darling sadaam hussein). no, the media (and gwbush's admin) has conveninetly cropped and framed the discourse so that all we get to see is what THEY consider the start: 9/11. just like the media crops the story so that all we see of the israeli-palestinian conflict is the suicide bombings from the palestinian...THAT becomes the start....if we ignore all the history before that moment.

america...poor america. subject to the greatest brain-washing propoganda machine since nazi germany....only this time, the techniques are far more effective, the television far more pervasive. they've had years and years of the highest academic minds working on cracking the code for human behavior...all in the name of science, of course. but we see how science gets turned toward making profit. just like the scientists who made the first nukes, scientists are slaving away at universities to crack the human code of behavior and seem to be soooo far away from doing actual harm. they're just trying to get published and produce knowledge. they lack the breadth of vision to see how their work can and is used for better marketing techniques, to keep this downward spiral of consumerism going ever-faster towards the brick wall of ecological destruction.

sigh. LOVE. LOVE EVERYBODY. damnit, jesus said love everybody (he did not make the church which perverted his ideas). buddha said compassion for all things. mohammad...well, i don't know what he said, but i'm pretty sure it didn't have hate all over it.

ok, peace out.