NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is a far-left fascist extremist. :mad:

This has got to be the most funniest post I think I've seen this week!

-Pushing for abstinence only education. Which in turn, I feel, increases the chance of divorce. Sex playing a good role in any strong relationship.
actually it ironically causes an increase in teen pregnancy

This has got to be the most funniest post I think I've seen this week!

Why is it funny? :confused:

actually it ironically causes an increase in teen pregnancy

ACtually there's been a decrease in teen pregnancy as well as a decrease in teens engaging in pre-marital sex!

Why is it funny? :confused:

Because Bush is to the Right of the center and not the left so what you wrote was funny.

actually it ironically causes an increase in teen pregnancy

No, it doesn't. No offense, but that's liberal-left AKA fascist propaganda.

ACtually there's been a decrease in teen pregnancy as well as a decrease in teens engaging in pre-marital sex!
can you provide recent proof of that, becuase i know i can provide proof of my statement if i went and looked it up again, mgiht take me a while but i know what im looking for

No, it doesn't. No offense, but that's liberal-left AKA fascist propaganda.
i take it a government study conducted by whoever is in charge of education studies that shows a direct correleation between the introduction of abstinence ed only and increase in teen pregnancy is leftist propaganda?

This has got to be the most funniest post I think I've seen this week!


Emphatic, Entertaining and Completely Baffling. Bravo!!!!! :)

can you provide recent proof of that, becuase i know i can provide proof of my statement if i went and looked it up again, mgiht take me a while but i know what im looking for

And likewise for me but I could've sworn I saw a link to it somewhere! I am trying to find it now.

ACtually there's been a decrease in teen pregnancy as well as a decrease in teens engaging in pre-marital sex!



Wow, because teens having sex before marriage is evil. If you try to stop them, they'll want to do it even more. Garden of Eden is the perfect example, the forbidden fruit.

can you provide recent proof of that, becuase i know i can provide proof of my statement if i went and looked it up again, mgiht take me a while but i know what im looking for

All of the websites I've seen, mention both Abstinence AND contraceptives are the reasons why they have seen a drop in Teen Pregnancies. Frankly, whatever the reason, I'm just glad that the rate is dropping and continueing to drop.

BTW: I never mentioned Abstinence was the reason for what I posted.

Wow, because teens having sex before marriage is evil. If you try to stop them, they'll want to do it even more. Garden of Eden is the perfect example, the forbidden fruit.

Actually, I'm not making this up. The evidence is there that BOTH abstinence AND contraceptives are the reason for the drop in Teen Pregnancies.

Actually, I'm not making this up. The evidence is there that BOTH abstinence AND contraceptives are the reason for the drop in Teen Pregnancies.


There was a study done in Canada this year by Mcleans magazine. By the age of 14, 50% of Canadian teens have had sexual intercoarse. Now this was just a poll but it wasn't to justify having sex or not, it was looking at the facts. Maybe it's working the in the US but not in Canada.

i dont care what your point was, my point (and a correct point) was there is a direct correlation between ABSTINENCE ONLY sex education replacing sex ed and the rise in teen pregnancies

i dont care what your point was, my point (and a correct point) was there is a direct correlation between ABSTINENCE ONLY sex education replacing sex ed and the rise in teen pregnancies

Think of the reduced rate of pregnancy caused by my being a bisexual.

So there! And I didn't have to abstain!

There was a study done in Canada this year by Mcleans magazine. By the age of 14, 50% of Canadian teens have had sexual intercoarse. Now this was just a poll but it wasn't to justify having sex or not, it was looking at the facts. Maybe it's working the in the US but not in Canada.

Well that's Canada!

i dont care what your point was, my point (and a correct point) was there is a direct correlation between ABSTINENCE ONLY sex education replacing sex ed and the rise in teen pregnancies

And I'm telling you that Abstinence AND Contraceptives have both reduced it. so we're both right!

Here's a May 2003 article on it:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/em872.cfm

I knew I saw the link somewhere! This was contributed by the Associated Press and on the Fox News webpage!

Fewer Teens engaging in Sex, Study Finds (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141176,00.html)

And this is the AP link if you don't believe me!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LESS_TEEN_SEX?SITE=WVHUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

And I'm telling you that Abstinence AND Contraceptives have both reduced it. so we're both right!

Here's a May 2003 article on it:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/em872.cfm
one, thats not a legit source against my argument
and 2, you arnt listening. when schools started switching from sex ed to "abstiennce ed" teen pregnancy started going up, there is no contraceptive use factor because abstiencen ed ELMINATES IT.

I knew I saw the link somewhere! This was contributed by the Associated Press and on the Fox News webpage!

Fewer Teens engaging in Sex, Study Finds (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141176,00.html)

And this is the AP link if you don't believe me!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LESS_TEEN_SEX?SITE=WVHUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
expect the trends to switch as bush approves of the banning of "the pill", encourages the switching of sex ed to abstinence ed, and the banning of abortions

expect the trends to switch as bush approves of the banning of "the pill", encourages the switching of sex ed to abstinence ed, and the banning of abortions

Proof that he plans to do these things?

one, thats not a legit source against my argument
and 2, you arnt listening. when schools started switching from sex ed to "abstiennce ed" teen pregnancy started going up, there is no contraceptive use factor because abstiencen ed ELMINATES IT.

Tell that to an African Nation, I forget which one, that taught only abstinence and AIDS went down. Now why isn't the source I used a legitament one? Is it because it doesn't conform to your ideas?

Tell that to an African Nation, I forget which one, that taught only abstinence and AIDS went down. Now why isn't the source I used a legitament one? Is it because it doesn't conform to your ideas?

The only thing I'm gaining from this is that neither argument can spell.

Why don't we just sever the Union along the Mason-Dixon line and let the South reform their Jesusland. That way we can have our own president and policies and not have to explain-to-the-world/suffer through the far-right's idiocy. That, and we'd actually be able to keep our tax dollars instead of spending it on the Bush states.

Why don't we just sever the Union along the Mason-Dixon line and let the South reform their Jesusland. That way we can have our own president and policies and not have to explain-to-the-world/suffer through the far-right's idiocy. That, and we'd actually be able to keep our tax dollars instead of spending it on the Bush states.

Agreed.

Why don't we just sever the Union along the Mason-Dixon line and let the South reform their Jesusland. That way we can have our own president and policies and not have to explain-to-the-world/suffer through the far-right's idiocy. That, and we'd actually be able to keep our tax dollars instead of spending it on the Bush states.

Well, to be fair, we should do that by the voting district. Which would leave the blue districts without any food.

That would be isolated little islands of urbanity, just like in Escape From New York.

Ok, I buy it. Not a bad idea, especially if we get to build a wall, and shoot people that try to climb out. We can drop food from helicopters just like in the movie.

Why don't we just sever the Union along the Mason-Dixon line and let the South reform their Jesusland. That way we can have our own president and policies and not have to explain-to-the-world/suffer through the far-right's idiocy. That, and we'd actually be able to keep our tax dollars instead of spending it on the Bush states.

the so called Bush states don't just stop in the South. The Midwest, upper midwest the Mountain Region and Alaska also went Red.

the so called Bush states don't just stop in the South. The Midwest, upper midwest the Mountain Region and Alaska also went Red.

Eh we don't need those glaciers, rocks and coyotes anyway.

Well, to be fair, we should do that by the voting district. Which would leave the blue districts without any food.

That would be isolated little islands of urbanity, just like in Escape From New York.

Ok, I buy it. Not a bad idea, especially if we get to build a wall, and shoot people that try to climb out. We can drop food from helicopters just like in the movie.

Come to think of it, that would leave the blue counties without food because most of the country did vote for Bush. Not only did he take the most states but the most counties too.

That USA Today map of the counties won by Bush was quite enlightening.

Basically, if you were in the suburbs and further out, your county went for Bush.

That USA Today map of the counties won by Bush was quite enlightening.

Basically, if you were in the suburbs and further out, your county went for Bush.

Untrue...I'm in a pretty Burby place and mine went for Kerry.

Untrue...I'm in a pretty Burby place and mine went for Kerry.

As did mine but don't matter to me! Bush won, end of story!

Untrue...I'm in a pretty Burby place and mine went for Kerry.

Not untrue. You should check the county map distribution.

As did mine but don't matter to me! Bush won, end of story!

Yanukovich won...end of story?

Yanukovich won...end of story?

HAHAHAHA!!! Now that is a good one. A Kremlin backed President? Bull. There was definitely fraud there and the Ukrainian Supreme Court said as such and thus ordered a new run off I think. That or a new election. The Ukrainian Parliment declared it null and void though that was non-binding.

HAHAHAHA!!! Now that is a good one. A Kremlin backed President? Bull. There was definitely fraud there and the Ukrainian Supreme Court said as such and thus ordered a new run off I think. That or a new election. The Ukrainian Parliment declared it null and void though that was non-binding.

Exactly my point.

Exactly my point.

No its not your point. Your trying to compare apples and oranges and you can't! What happened in Ukraine was not democracy. The opposition party probably would've won the vote if the ruling party did not fraud 3 million plus voters possibly more.

Here, we had democracy. We had an election that was won by Bush who had 60 Million people vote for him with 55 million voting for Kerry. Our election was done legally and fairly.

No its not your point. Your trying to compare apples and oranges and you can't! What happened in Ukraine was not democracy. The opposition party probably would've won the vote if the ruling party did not fraud 3 million plus voters possibly more.

Here, we had democracy. We had an election that was won by Bush who had 60 Million people vote for him with 55 million voting for Kerry. Our election was done legally and fairly.

Yes, it was done fairly when the owner of the voting machines company says that he's supporting Bush.

It's done fairly when the day before the election the higher court overrides and says that the GOP is allowed to send people in to the polls to intimidate minorities. Supposedly just to "question" them.

http://www.cruel.com/discuss/viewTopic.php/112268

It's done fairly when 15,000 votes come from a town with only 5,000 residents.

It's done fairly when 300,000 votes are missing from Ohio.

Yes, it was done fairly when the owner of the voting machines company says that he's supporting Bush.

It's done fairly when the day before the election the higher court overrides and says that the GOP is allowed to send people in to the polls to intimidate minorities. Supposedly just to "question" them.

http://www.cruel.com/discuss/viewTopic.php/112268

It's done fairly when 15,000 votes come from a town with only 5,000 residents.

It's done fairly when 300,000 votes are missing from Ohio.

And when the NAACP pays people with crack to fill out bogus voter registration cards, and both the people and the ones that hired them admit it when caught.

Yes, it was done fairly when the owner of the voting machines company says that he's supporting Bush.

As far as I know, it was done fairly unless you have explicit proof that says otherwise.

It's done fairly when the day before the election the higher court overrides and says that the GOP is allowed to send people in to the polls to intimidate minorities. Supposedly just to "question" them.

Intimidate? No its not intimidation to make sure that they are voting legally. I found that the Democrats where allowed to have challengers at republican controled districts but that the Republicans wheren't allowed to have them at the democratic controled ones. I applauded the court for that decision.

http://www.cruel.com/discuss/viewTopic.php/112268

Biased source

It's done fairly when 15,000 votes come from a town with only 5,000 residents.

sounds like something the democrats tried to do! I remember it being blasted coast to coast.

It's done fairly when 300,000 votes are missing from Ohio.

Proof?

And when the NAACP pays people with crack to fill out bogus voter registration cards, and both the people and the ones that hired them admit it when caught.

Here here

It is the same. Under international law, an attack on an embassy is an attack against that country. That is what the International Law states. Under this, an Embassy is considered part of that nation's homeland, therefore an attack on it is an attack on the homeland of that nation.

Doesn't matter what International Law states. By that same token, if someone bombed an embassy on the US mainland, then you're saying that nation has the right to attack the US, regardless of who was actually to blame. That's absurd and you know it. Homeland implies that it is land that can only be taken away either by force or by voluntary turn over. An embassy is neither. Embassy sits on land that was loaned to us and can be taken away at any time. There is a HUGE difference there.

No but alas, I was playing on your scenerio. Accidental or not, it could've been considered an act of war and under international law, it actually was. Look at the German sub attacks during WWI! Americans were killed aboard the Lusintania and we warned Germany and they stopped unrestricted warfare. They went back to it and killed a couple of more americans aboard another ship. Between that and various other factors, the US declared war on Germany and attacked. We were an innocent bystandered and got dragged into WWI. An accident can spark a war or a battle for that matter. Gettysburg comes to mind of an accidental engagement. Neither side planned it but it occured none the less. And walking outside in a middle of a bombing raid and he gets hit, he gets what he deserved for being stupid enough to do that.

Are you saying the German sub attacks were accidents that lead to war? I'm not sure here. If so, then that's absurd, since they were deliberate attacks anyway, it wasn't a stray torpedo that randomly curled around, spun out of control and shot off at some random ship out in the middle of nowhere. And we weren't really innocent bystanders.
You just proved my point. The man that got hit by the bomb because he walked outside. He was stupid to do that. So does that mean his nation should suddenly declare war over a stray bomb?

When it comes to national defense, it should. We tossed foreign relations out the window after Pearl Harbor for the most part. When a country is bent on war, you can't negotiate. When a nation is known to harbor terrorists and won't give them up...then they can be accused of abiting the terrorists thus making themselves a target. Afghanistan comes to mind as does Iraq.

Afghanistan was a necessary and valid target. Iraq was not. I'm not going to bother debating it because it's been done to death as it is, but there is enough documentation and research to prove that there were no outright terrorist connections in Iraq and it has been noted before in the past that Saddam was not a friend of terrorism, regardless of the fact that he used it among his own people. There's evidence to counter just about every excuse Bush has used to ratify going to Iraq...so ick to it.



There was an verifiable act of war done by terrorists. That being a Declaration of War by Osama against the US and all the terror attacks committed by them from the 1993 WTC attack to the embassy bombings, to Kobar towers, to the USS Cole! All of these were acts of war and we knew who did it. Clinton did nothing but lob cruise missiles that did little damage. Now on to your statement about doing something if they're harboring criminals. You just made the case for Iraq and Afghanistan. Both nations have harbored terrorists and should've been dealt with alot sooner than 2003 and 2001 respectively.

Iraq I just discusses earlier, so yeah. We're off Clinton at this point since I already admitted that he made a bad move with all the terrorist things.
You have to then put into consideration why the terrorists have done what they did. They have reason. They weren't born with a genetic disposition to hate Americans. What did we do to them to spark such hatred in the first place? Could we fix that problem now? Probably not, whatever it is. It's too entrenched in the terrorist world at this point that we're evil doers. Something has to be done about it and i supported Bush for Afghanistan, he did a great job with that at first. I was satisfied, then all went to hell and he hit Iraq. I at first furiously supported his attack there, not knowing a damn thing about it. Then I wised up and started to read and well, I don't support him in this. I support the troops 100 percent, I want them home. I support our war on terrorism, and I support the war on Afghanistan, but everything else has gone to the shitter. I dunno anymore, I'm just scared for this country at this point.

Point of Fact: Under those conditions, the rest of the world should have no say in what the US does to defend itself.

I'd beg to differ. There's a line the US cannot cross. We do that, well all hell will break loose and I'd prefer not to be overrun by orientals or some other national or a bunch of pillow fluffing diplomats or whatever. I like the US sort of as it is, has its problems, but yeah.

Doesn't matter what International Law states. By that same token, if someone bombed an embassy on the US mainland, then you're saying that nation has the right to attack the US, regardless of who was actually to blame. That's absurd and you know it. Homeland implies that it is land that can only be taken away either by force or by voluntary turn over. An embassy is neither. Embassy sits on land that was loaned to us and can be taken away at any time. There is a HUGE difference there.

No! Never said that at all. The group that bombed that embassy would be held responsible. The only way we can be held responsible is if we didn't cooperate with that nation and turn over the people that did it. For example, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were both bombed by Al Qaeda. Both nations helped us in investigating them which lead to the blame of Al Qaeda thus instituted a search for the culprits in both nations in cooperation with the US Secret Service and the FBI! If they didn't cooperate then they could be found as an accomplis of it. Also, and I'm getting tired of repeating it, the ground where the Embassy sits on is considered territory of that nation. Therefor an attack on that nation's embassy is an attack on the homeland of that nation since that embassy, by international law, is attached to the land back home. And yes, the embassy can be turned back over. Your right, it is a loan but to take it back at anytime would seriously damage relations with that nation.

Are you saying the German sub attacks were accidents that lead to war? I'm not sure here. If so, then that's absurd, since they were deliberate attacks anyway, it wasn't a stray torpedo that randomly curled around, spun out of control and shot off at some random ship out in the middle of nowhere. And we weren't really innocent bystanders.

Never said they were accidents. The attacks where on purpose because the Brits were dumb enough to haul war materials on them thus making them a legal military target. Problem was, Americans got killed and our government hates it when our people get caught in the cross-fire of foreign wars going on.

You just proved my point. The man that got hit by the bomb because he walked outside. He was stupid to do that. So does that mean his nation should suddenly declare war over a stray bomb?

Now your proving my point and also added words to what I said. The man getting hit because he walked out in the middle of a raid was stupid and cost him his life. As for stray bombs, no its not grounds for war which is why nothing happened after a stray bomb hit the French Embassy in the 1980s in Libya after it was found that they were responsible for Pan Am flight bombing and the accidental hit of the Chinese Embassy during the Bosnian Campaign though I love the conspiracy theories that have evolved from these two incidents. LOL!!!!

Afghanistan was a necessary and valid target. Iraq was not. I'm not going to bother debating it because it's been done to death as it is, but there is enough documentation and research to prove that there were no outright terrorist connections in Iraq and it has been noted before in the past that Saddam was not a friend of terrorism, regardless of the fact that he used it among his own people. There's evidence to counter just about every excuse Bush has used to ratify going to Iraq...so ick to it.

Actually Iraq was a necessary targets for a whole slew of different reasons. Your right, it has been debated to death and doesn't deserved to be rehashed here. However, I shall disagree with you on the terror link. Its been proven that he supported the terrorists in the Middle East. Most notably the Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iraq I just discusses earlier, so yeah. We're off Clinton at this point since I already admitted that he made a bad move with all the terrorist things.
You have to then put into consideration why the terrorists have done what they did. They have reason. They weren't born with a genetic disposition to hate Americans. What did we do to them to spark such hatred in the first place? Could we fix that problem now? Probably not, whatever it is. It's too entrenched in the terrorist world at this point that we're evil doers.

I could tell you why! Its because of Osama Bin Laden stating that Christians were on Muslim Holy Ground FORGETTING that we were invited BY the SAUDI government. Funny thing is, none of our people did anything to the Saudis and our forces respected the culture of Saudi Arabia. Also, our support for Israel. I can see both sides of this arguement and I can agree with both sides. How to fix it? That is an interesting question and if I could answer that, I would be rich and not having to worry about college. LOL!!

Something has to be done about it and i supported Bush for Afghanistan, he did a great job with that at first. I was satisfied, then all went to hell and he hit Iraq. I at first furiously supported his attack there, not knowing a damn thing about it. Then I wised up and started to read and well, I don't support him in this. I support the troops 100 percent, I want them home. I support our war on terrorism, and I support the war on Afghanistan, but everything else has gone to the shitter. I dunno anymore, I'm just scared for this country at this point.

I knew alot about it. I was 8 when the first one broke out but I remember alot of it because my dad was over there fighting it. He told me alot about the culture and as I got older, had a better understanding of why we did what we did and how we did it. When this one broke out, I supported it 100% because I knew what type of person Saddam was and I knew he needed to be taken out. I still support it to this day, never wavering! Just curious but what did you read? Did you read the history of Saddam Hussein or did you read something else?

Bush is a Judaizer
He is a communist
He worships homosexuality
He is anti-Christian
He is a traitor

Bush is a Judaizer

A what?
He is a communist

Bull

He worships homosexuality

He's against Homosexuality

He is anti-Christian

100% false

He is a traitor

Nope nada sorry

A what?


Bull



He's against Homosexuality



100% false



Nope nada sorry


They are all true...

They are all true...

No they're not unless you have proof to back them up!

Corneliui, have you ever gotten the impression that a lot of Democrats are smoking a lot of hash, and not sharing?

Never said they were accidents. The attacks where on purpose because the Brits were dumb enough to haul war materials on them thus making them a legal military target. Problem was, Americans got killed and our government hates it when our people get caught in the cross-fire of foreign wars going on.

Oh, okay then. I thought that was the point you were trying to draw on and I was having trouble figuring out what the heck you were talking about. As for the Americans, well our fault for putting them there I guess, but no I don't like Americans dying either. It sucks.


Now your proving my point and also added words to what I said. The man getting hit because he walked out in the middle of a raid was stupid and cost him his life. As for stray bombs, no its not grounds for war which is why nothing happened after a stray bomb hit the French Embassy in the 1980s in Libya after it was found that they were responsible for Pan Am flight bombing and the accidental hit of the Chinese Embassy during the Bosnian Campaign though I love the conspiracy theories that have evolved from these two incidents. LOL!!!!

Maybe I'm missing the point of bringing this up to support your argument (not this particular bundle, but eh whole section on stray bombs and what not). But no need to argue, I don't think it's that important anyway. And conspiracy theories are oh so fun sometimes ;)


I could tell you why! Its because of Osama Bin Laden stating that Christians were on Muslim Holy Ground FORGETTING that we were invited BY the SAUDI government. Funny thing is, none of our people did anything to the Saudis and our forces respected the culture of Saudi Arabia. Also, our support for Israel. I can see both sides of this arguement and I can agree with both sides. How to fix it? That is an interesting question and if I could answer that, I would be rich and not having to worry about college. LOL!!

I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't like us beforehand. But yeah, that's a really lame reason to hate someone...lol

I knew alot about it. I was 8 when the first one broke out but I remember alot of it because my dad was over there fighting it. He told me alot about the culture and as I got older, had a better understanding of why we did what we did and how we did it. When this one broke out, I supported it 100% because I knew what type of person Saddam was and I knew he needed to be taken out. I still support it to this day, never wavering! Just curious but what did you read? Did you read the history of Saddam Hussein or did you read something else?

The bit I've learned on Saddam was actually from a biography/documentary from the History Channel. It was pretty long and I missed the end section of it, but I got everything from his birth to halfway through his assumption of power. It talked a lot about his spoken word on people like Bin Laden and his policies at the time. It was interesting. There was another documentary I watched that dealt a lot with how Saddam treated "criminals" (I use quotes cause his idea of a criminal is..well pretty messed up compared to what the US considers a criminal). He did gruesome stuff. See, I totally agree that Saddam needed to be taken out. I think if we had lobbied more allies and what not and Bush said "look at all this crap Saddam is doing, he's a horrible man, look at this and this, these pictures, this and this, etc etc., please support me in getting rid of him" and I might have been like, Jesus get that bastard out. But first it's WMD's, then Terrorists, and who knows what else. Nevertheless, Iraq probably wasn't the best second target. There are better targets out there who are involved in terrorism, and it would have been more beneficial to clean out Afghanistan first and then move on, or lobby support from allies to take over the cleanup in Afghanistan so we could move on. I dunno. The fighting is stilling going on over there and it's not fair to our military to have to fight on two fronts when it isn't necessary. Blah, anyway. Good arguing with you by the way :P Glad it didn't come to calling eachother names, I have that affect on people sometimes. Usually when politics comes up in real life conversation, a person can't stand talking to me without getting angered lol.

Tell me something. How the hell can we trust U.N. reports on the WMDS if they were part of the oil for food scandal??

Corneliui, have you ever gotten the impression that a lot of Democrats are smoking a lot of hash, and not sharing?

I wonder at times but there are a few dems on here I like debating with!

Corneliui, have you ever gotten the impression that a lot of Democrats are smoking a lot of hash, and not sharing?

They have too, it's the only way to deal with losing to the Baboon...:P

Oh, okay then. I thought that was the point you were trying to draw on and I was having trouble figuring out what the heck you were talking about. As for the Americans, well our fault for putting them there I guess, but no I don't like Americans dying either. It sucks.

I don't like it either myself!


Maybe I'm missing the point of bringing this up to support your argument (not this particular bundle, but eh whole section on stray bombs and what not). But no need to argue, I don't think it's that important anyway. And conspiracy theories are oh so fun sometimes ;)


There are doseys of the ones I described above. BUAHAHAHA

I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't like us beforehand. But yeah, that's a really lame reason to hate someone...lol

He did but our presence on Muslim Holy Ground did it!

The bit I've learned on Saddam was actually from a biography/documentary from the History Channel. It was pretty long and I missed the end section of it, but I got everything from his birth to halfway through his assumption of power. It talked a lot about his spoken word on people like Bin Laden and his policies at the time. It was interesting. There was another documentary I watched that dealt a lot with how Saddam treated "criminals" (I use quotes cause his idea of a criminal is..well pretty messed up compared to what the US considers a criminal). He did gruesome stuff. See, I totally agree that Saddam needed to be taken out. I think if we had lobbied more allies and what not and Bush said "look at all this crap Saddam is doing, he's a horrible man, look at this and this, these pictures, this and this, etc etc., please support me in getting rid of him" and I might have been like, Jesus get that bastard out. But first it's WMD's, then Terrorists, and who knows what else. Nevertheless, Iraq probably wasn't the best second target. There are better targets out there who are involved in terrorism, and it would have been more beneficial to clean out Afghanistan first and then move on, or lobby support from allies to take over the cleanup in Afghanistan so we could move on. I dunno. The fighting is stilling going on over there and it's not fair to our military to have to fight on two fronts when it isn't necessary. Blah, anyway. Good arguing with you by the way :P Glad it didn't come to calling eachother names, I have that affect on people sometimes. Usually when politics comes up in real life conversation, a person can't stand talking to me without getting angered lol.

I can buy what your saying but I believe that the situation is way to complex to study all of it without going insane. Your right, it was fun debating with you without the name calling. To much of that on here. I love these types of debate. Ever want to debate more, there are ways to contact me!

Tell me something. How the hell can we trust U.N. reports on the WMDS if they were part of the oil for food scandal??

And not cooperating at all in this investigation going on. I say we withhold our money till the investigation is over.

They have too, it's the only way to deal with losing to the Baboon...:P

HAHAHA!!!

i say America make there own league of nations RIGHT this time and allow and not allow dictartorships or oppressive goverments that cruelly treat there people. If you look at the U.N. they have many dictatorships and opressive goverments in it.

I can buy what your saying but I believe that the situation is way to complex to study all of it without going insane. Your right, it was fun debating with you without the name calling. To much of that on here. I love these types of debate. Ever want to debate more, there are ways to contact me!

Well, if we're arguing I hope it's not on Bush or anything with current US politics. Neither of us will convince the other because we feel far too strongly and hold on to our evidence like starving pygmies. I actually got in a debate with some guy the other day who was arguing WW2 info. It was on the Operation Sea Lion bit (Germany's plans to invade Britain) and all the evidence he supplied to say it couldn't happen were from an alternate history website. I gave up trying to argue right there. I was quoting from a book by Peter Fleming and he was quoting from some dilusional fiction writer lol. But yeah, his facts were just..yeah we won't go there, needless to say I had a migraine for a whole day reading his posts. I'm not sure why I found it necessary to babble about that, but hey, whatever right :P.
Arguments are good :).

i say America make there own league of nations RIGHT this time and allow and not allow dictartorships or oppressive goverments that cruelly treat there people. If you look at the U.N. they have many dictatorships and opressive goverments in it.

Yup, just look at the LoN :). It failed miserably...lol.

Well, if we're arguing I hope it's not on Bush or anything with current US politics. Neither of us will convince the other because we feel far too strongly and hold on to our evidence like starving pygmies. I actually got in a debate with some guy the other day who was arguing WW2 info. It was on the Operation Sea Lion bit (Germany's plans to invade Britain) and all the evidence he supplied to say it couldn't happen were from an alternate history website. I gave up trying to argue right there. I was quoting from a book by Peter Fleming and he was quoting from some dilusional fiction writer lol. But yeah, his facts were just..yeah we won't go there, needless to say I had a migraine for a whole day reading his posts. I'm not sure why I found it necessary to babble about that, but hey, whatever right :P.
Arguments are good :).

Germany had the capacity to do so but alas, Operation Barbarossa got in the way. Besides, I love alternate history. And your right, we won't convince eachother but argueing about it is fun when done in a civilized manner.

Yup, just look at the LoN :). It failed miserably...lol.

Yea it did because they went with appeasement instead of doing something. Sounds like the modern day UN :-p

Germany had the capacity to do so but alas, Operation Barbarossa got in the way. Besides, I love alternate history. And your right, we won't convince eachother but argueing about it is fun when done in a civilized manner.

They had a pretty big window to do something, but they didn't. I like alternate history, but not when people use it to validate legitimate historical arguments. It was retarded. But the possibilities were there to successfully invade, whether they could defeat all of the British forces is pretty much a flip of a coin. But yeah, civilized argument is fun.