NationStates Jolt Archive

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Is anyone surprised? That's why the US had no pull-out strategy - they aren't planning on pulling out.

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!



How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones your criticizing) can be so myopic is beyond me.

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!They'd have probably been in there just as long if Kerry had made it...

How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones your criticizing) can be so myopic is beyond me.It's because people are sometimes unable to accept the truth because it violates everything they believe. This is the case for everyone, in case you're wondering. It's a typical human trait...:(

How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones your criticizing) can be so myopic is beyond me.

Oh, you're referring to yourself then? I wasn't criticizing you, so that must be it. :rolleyes:

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

*yawn*

:rolleyes:

We have to stay and complete the job, but hey I think you love using the deaths of our brave soldiers (who volunteer) for political games.

*yawn*

:rolleyes:

We have to stay and complete the job, but hey I think you love using the deaths of our brave soldiers (who volunteer) for political games.

No, Bush does, but that's beyond the point. The Republicans wanted four more years, so they got them...

Bush is one the exploiting the soldiers lives ...putting them in an unjustified war for his own selfish reasons.. not real Americans who are vocing their opinons. :rolleyes:

Bush is one the exploiting the soldiers lives ...not real Americans who are vocing their opinons. :rolleyes:

I agree, but, for the record, I'm Brazilian. ;) Regardless, it's very disturbing to see people trying to quell dissent in a country that supposedly has a democratic tradition. It happened once in Brazil and resulted in a 20-year long dictatorship starting in 1964.

No, Bush does, but that's beyond the point. The Republicans wanted four more years, so they got them...

No and no.

And no.

This war is not unjustified. It is very justified and very proper.

And where the fcuk are we trying to stifle dissent in this country?

The most important picture from " I apologize"

Hope it's big enough to decipher..

Bah it's not.

anyway...

202,000,000 voters
62,027,782 voted for W.
59,026,023 voted for Kerry
464,211 voted for Nader
80,481,984 voted Not

29.5% voted against W.
70.5% voted for W. or didn't care.

No and no.

And no.

This war is not unjustified. It is very justified and very proper.

No, it isn't, but since you're offering no arguments to make your point, I'll not offer any either.


And where the fUCk are we trying to stifle dissent in this country?

Correcting your typo, and here to remind you of how many times you libeled anyone that was anti-war or anti-Dubya as anti-American. If that's not stifling dissent, I don't know what it is.

The most important picture from " I apologize"

Hope it's big enough to decipher..
Can't see it...

Yeah, I saved the pic too small or something.. :( But when I pulled the pic up, I could see it fine , just like my puppies pic.. but when i hosted it.. it was very small.

This is what was on the pic from "I apologize" I was trying to link.


202,000,000 voters
62,027,782 voted for GWB
59,026,023 voted for Kerry
464,211 voted for Nader
80,481,984 voted not at all

29.5% voted against GWB
70.5% voted for W. or didn't care.

Yeah, I saved the pic too small or something.. :( But when I pulled the pic up, I could see it fine , just like my puppies pic.. but when i hosted it.. it was very small.
May I see the small pic?

29.5% voted against GWB
70.5% voted for W. or didn't care.

Most didn't care.

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
You rock! There's plenty of "christian" threads to visit ... ;)

You rock! There's plenty of "christian" threads to visit ... ;)

Nah, I don't rock... what I do is between "rock" and "hard place"... ;)

29.5% voted against GWB
70.5% voted for W. or didn't care.The "didn't care" could well mean that they were so fed up with both that they didn't vote...

May I see the small pic?


yes

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg (http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg)

[img=http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg] (http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg)

Oh cool! the second one is full view!

The "didn't care" could well mean that they were so fed up with both that they didn't vote...

Then they have no right to bitch.

I'd think it was taken from registered voter numbers. I'll look into that.

yes

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg (http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg)

[img=http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg] (http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg)

Oh cool! the second one is full view!
If you click on the first it comes full view too.
Oh and it's right I was mistaken.

Then they have no right to bitch.

They cant stop their opinions changing though

Lessee here

In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq.

Unless things go to hell in a handbasket, the 4 more years won't be needed. Fuck, the Armed Forces of the United States has plans to invade every fucking country in the world. By what logic could you expect them not to have a plan for us to stay for four more years?

Lessee here



Unless things go to hell in a handbasket, the 4 more years won't be needed. Fuck, the Armed Forces of the United States has plans to invade every fucking country in the world. By what logic could you expect them not to have a plan for us to stay for four more years?

This is me pointing out that things ARE going to Hell in a handbasket.

How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones your criticizing) can be so myopic is beyond me.
How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones you're criticizing) can be so naive is beyond me, NR.

This is me pointing out that things ARE going to Hell in a handbasket.

Not really; every war's planners have a contingency for the worst case scenario, and this is just an example of that. They have to be prepared for the worst, because if they don't the results could be disasterous. Personally, I think it's a good sign that they have a plan, because that means they are ready to deal with the situation and get the troops out ASAP.

This is me pointing out that things ARE going to Hell in a handbasket.
No they're not.

For it to be considered to be a HiaH scenario quite a few things would have to happen.

1. The Iranians and Syrians would have to pump a lot more materiel to the jihadis than they currently are.
2. The fledgling government would have to completely collapse.
3. The amount of outright support for the jihadis by the iraqi people would have to reach at least a third of the total populace.


Number 3 will probably never happen because they've killed wayyy to amny civvies.

Number 1 probably won't happen because we definitely would notice it, and would retaliate. The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't want this because their grip on the country is slipping fast. The Syrians don't want it because we would basically let loose Israel on them and just provide plenty of air support.

Without number 1 or 3 occuring number 2 is highly unlikely to occur.

Bush is one the exploiting the soldiers lives ...putting them in an unjustified war for his own selfish reasons.. not real Americans who are vocing their opinons. :rolleyes:

Congress voted yes on the war, including John Kerry.

I guess they are not real americans.

And where the fcuk are we trying to stifle dissent in this country?
Correcting your typo, and here to remind you of how many times you libeled anyone that was anti-war or anti-Dubya as anti-American. If that's not stifling dissent, I don't know what it is.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been on the receiving end of veiled threats, abusive TGs, and trumped-up finger-pointing in Moderation from one particular NSer who shall remain unnamed. And it never amounts to more than an attempt to muzzle & stifle.

. Well if you really must know, you nosy noses, it's the guy who can't spell 'fuck'.

1. The Iranians and Syrians would have to pump a lot more materiel to the jihadis than they currently are.
Without number 1 or 3 occuring number 2 is highly unlikely to occur.
Number 2 depends on the outcome of the talks on the Iranian nuclear program. Note that the Iranians don't necessarily have to pump material into the country to incite the Shia to stop being peaceful. They hinted that they could help in keeping the Shia passive, which is a veiled threat for "We can incite them too, if we'd want to".
I think Bush has realized that 2 can be a reality, which is why he's letting the EU handle Iran instead of giving the Iranians reasons to actually try.

Canada City']Congress voted yes on the war, including John Kerry.

I guess they are not real americans.Some people consider it a strength of character to be able to admit one was wrong. And I don't really know how Democrats voting for the war has anything to do with them not being real Americans...

Most didn't care.

Not voting means you're a-okay with whoever wins the election.

Anyway, if the US pull out now, Iraq is going to be ripped to shreds from the inside. "Get our boys home" is selfish. Iraqi boys will die in their place.

I think Bush has realized that 2 can be a reality, which is why he's letting the EU handle Iran instead of giving the Iranians reasons to actually try.
No, he's letting the Eu handle it so he can laugh at them when they fail. Which at the current rate they are.

Not voting means you're a-okay with whoever wins the election.

Anyway, if the US pull out now, Iraq is going to be ripped to shreds from the inside. "Get our boys home" is selfish. Iraqi boys will die in their place.To which the peace protester argues that it was wrong to risk their lives at this kind of scale in the first place. You shouldn't be using the arguement of selfish considering that the Iraqis that are dying because we started the war to hit the terrorists there and not in the US, not very "unselfish" if you ask me.
(I can say this because I don't support the idea of getting them out)

To which the peace protester argues that it was wrong to risk their lives at this kind of scale in the first place. You shouldn't be using the arguement of selfish considering that the Iraqis that are dying because we started the war to hit the terrorists there and not in the US, not very "unselfish" if you ask me.
(I can say this because I don't support the idea of getting them out)

Unfortunately, the war is started and the cat is out of the bag. All I'm saying - and I think you agree - is that getting out now is not an option. Especially as the only peg Bush has left to hang his war on is the toppling of a dictator. There are enough candidates to fill that position left in Iraq, Saddam or no Saddam.

Not really; every war's planners have a contingency for the worst case scenario, and this is just an example of that. They have to be prepared for the worst, because if they don't the results could be disasterous. Personally, I think it's a good sign that they have a plan, because that means they are ready to deal with the situation and get the troops out ASAP.

I agree, it is the Pentagon's job to make contigency plans, things could be far far worse, imagine if the Shii'tes had joined the insurgency en masse... I shudder to think... anyway there are other plans for a troop drawdown within a year, and I'm sure there are several other plans in between. It'd be far worse if the worst case scenario did happen and there were no plan, you cannot blame them for taking precautions.

They'd have probably been in there just as long if Kerry had made it...
...what if someone aside from Bush or Kerry 'made it'...

(Is it bad to be depressed by the fact so many people in my country/world/city/general area have unbelievably narrow minds o.o?)

No, it isn't, but since you're offering no arguments to make your point, I'll not offer any either.




Correcting your typo, and here to remind you of how many times you libeled anyone that was anti-war or anti-Dubya as anti-American. If that's not stifling dissent, I don't know what it is.


Then you must not know what it is, because stifling dissent would involve mitigating or stopping it for good. By labeling you what you are, we aren't stifling dissent, we are just voicing our frustration with foolishness.

While I tohught Bush was a fuckwit long before the Iraq war, I think we have to stay. The war is being fought against insurgents who want to turn the country back into a dictatorship, and islamic fundamentalists who want a theocracy like Iran. If we pull out now, after having removed the government, security forces, military and general infrastructure, then it can only lead to civil war.

Some may say let the Iraqis deal with their own problems, but this is a problem we created, and weve got to stay until there is some kind of stability in the country.

Then you must not know what it is, because stifling dissent would involve mitigating or stopping it for good. By labeling you what you are, we aren't stifling dissent, we are just voicing our frustration with foolishness.

You say I'm anti-America when I don't believe in countries. So you're lying. I can also say you like to eat the babies you kill, but that's not true either. If you resort to name-calling though, I'll either take it to the mods or make sure you get your share. So, you'll stop slandering me or should I react?

Unfortunately, the war is started and the cat is out of the bag. All I'm saying - and I think you agree - is that getting out now is not an option. Especially as the only peg Bush has left to hang his war on is the toppling of a dictator. There are enough candidates to fill that position left in Iraq, Saddam or no Saddam.What I said wasn't it :)
My opinion is that the war best compares to setting a car in a muddy ditch. There isn't much else to decide on what to do, we can either use planks or get another car too pull it out, but I'll be damned if you don't give the guy that set it in there hell all the way home for getting into the mess in the first place. :D

Then you must not know what it is, because stifling dissent would involve mitigating or stopping it for good. By labeling you what you are, we aren't stifling dissent, we are just voicing our frustration with foolishness.I don't think he was argueing that you specifically were responsible for stifling freedom of speech but the general political direction you belong to. Some members of that group shot into the air with their shot guns in the viscinity of the protesters or ran over their flags and crosses with a truck. I hope you don't think that falls under "labeling". ("What" "are" "we", Neo R?)

No, he's letting the Eu handle it so he can laugh at them when they fail. Which at the current rate they are.Meh, maybe he doesn't want the biggest ethnic group to remain peaceful because he can't afford a conflict with Iran. See how hard it is to keep Iraq pacified with only the Sunnis being aggressive? Imagine what would happen when a conflict with the Iranians (which are also predominately Shia, which explains why they've been getting along so fabulously ever since Saddam was gone) and the Shia disagree. That would get ugly and I don't attribute that to Bush's arrogance or stupidity, as much as I would like to. ;)

...what if someone aside from Bush or Kerry 'made it'...

(Is it bad to be depressed by the fact so many people in my country/world/city/general area have unbelievably narrow minds o.o?)The chance that Kerry would have made it is far more likely than anything else, wouldn't you agree?
(As for your second question, by nature, people of all persuasions hate to ever admit they were wrong about something, which is why a lot don't. If you can't live with that, you will be depressed for a very long time...)

How some people (and I'm not referring to the ones you're criticizing) can be so naive is beyond me, NR.


How some people (and I'm not entirely sure to whom I'm refering) can suffer from cognitive closure is beyond me.

I'm bush like. This war in Iraq is going really good its just all those "laberals" who are so upset over just one or two of our soliders getting killed. And there all upset over all the precious "earl", shit, I mean trying to help oppressed people. Who have oppression. My good friend Dick, who also happens to be vice president, said that the radicals are in "there last throws". Means there about to be done, for those of you who are not as smart as I the president am. I sometimes forget how smart I am, thats why I have to break everything down for all you people.

I agree, but, for the record, I'm Brazilian.

Then why do you care?

Then why do you care?

The same craziness that led Bush to attack Iraq could lead him to attack Brazil.

I'm bush like. This war in Iraq is going really good its just all those "laberals" who are so upset over just one or two of our soliders getting killed. And there all upset over all the precious "earl", shit, I mean trying to help oppressed people. Who have oppression. My good friend Dick, who also happens to be vice president, said that the radicals are in "there last throws". Means there about to be done, for those of you who are not as smart as I the president am. I sometimes forget how smart I am, thats why I have to break everything down for all you people.Please tell me you were being sarcastic or some kind of puppet...

The same craziness that led Bush to attack Iraq could lead him to attack Brazil.



I could explain how Brazil has a nearly 0% probability of ever being invaded by the US the way things are currently, or I could just mock your paranoia. I think I'll go with the second :p

I could explain how Brazil has a nearly 0% probability of ever being invaded by the US the way things are currently, or I could just mock your paranoia. I think I'll go with the second :p

I'd like to point out neocon newspapers supporting an invasion or, even worse, US help for a military coup JUST LIKE the one they did in 1964...

I'd like to point out neocon newspapers supporting an invasion or, even worse, US help for a military coup JUST LIKE the one they did in 1964...



*chuckles*


I'm sure that, if I looked hard enough, I could find a random article written by a Brazilian that would advocate an invasion of the US. Does it mean I would take them anymore seriously than I am taking you right now?

*chuckles*


I'm sure that, if I looked hard enough, I could find a random article written by a Brazilian that would advocate an invasion of the US. Does it mean I would take them anymore seriously than I am taking you right now?

If their ideology matched the one of those in power at the time, yes. Regardless, I'm against indiscriminate murder, and that's precisely what the war in Iraq is.

If their ideology matched the one of those in power at the time, yes. Regardless, I'm against indiscriminate murder, and that's precisely what the war in Iraq is.



If you consider the war in Iraq "murder" then you are undeniably incorrigible. I have nothing further to say.

*yawn*

:rolleyes:

We have to stay and complete the job, but hey I think you love using the deaths of our brave soldiers (who volunteer) for political games.

Seconded, despite the fact I believe the invasion was merely international bullshit politics are its finest.

If you consider the war in Iraq "murder" then you are undeniably incorrigible. I have nothing further to say.

By all means, let me correct you then.
Murder: Illegal killing of another human being.
Is it killing people? Yes. Is it legal? No. Are the victims people? Yes.
So, it's illegal, it's killing and it's done to human beings. Murder it is.

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
Only four more years. I thought it may take a decade, and I'm not joking. Hopefully, by that time, the US military will be better at occupation than it has been. But it can learn a lot from the Philipines. The Filipino insurrection was the only real encounter the US had with occupation up to this point, and it was successful.

By all means, let me correct you then.
Murder: Illegal killing of another human being.
Is it killing people? Yes. Is it legal? No. Are the victims people? Yes.
So, it's illegal, it's killing and it's done to human beings. Murder it is.



Actually, Iraq violated several resolutions, therefore it is legal. You libs just don't want to admit it :p

Actually, Iraq violated several resolutions, therefore it is legal. You libs just don't want to admit it :p

The UN didn't approve the war. The WMDs didn't exist. Illegal.

Actually, Iraq violated several resolutions, therefore it is legal. You libs just don't want to admit it :pNow please quote the parts of the resos that legalized force in ousting Saddam.

The UN didn't approve the war. The WMDs didn't exist. Illegal.



The U.N. is a corrupt organization that needs to be disbanded and reformed, therefore one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Oil-for-food comes to mind.

The U.N. is a corrupt organization that needs to be disbanded and reformed, therefore one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Oil-for-food comes to mind.

Of course, your government is a very serious organization? Enron and the WMD fiasco come to mind.

The U.N. is a corrupt organization that needs to be disbanded and reformed, therefore one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Oil-for-food comes to mind.Does the fact that the US government is willing to trust the UN with the aid money for the tsunami victims come to mind too? :p
Or the fact that what the entire case against the legality of the war was drafted and signed by... you betcha, the United States of America. It's not the UN's fault that what the US did violated the charter since, A) it wasn't involved in writing it up in the first place and B) it was the US and not the UN that violated said charter.

Of course, your government is a very serious organization? Enron and the WMD fiasco come to mind.



We are not communist: The government does not own, nor is it responsible for, the businesses. Perhaps you are confusing us with Soviet Russia?

We are not communist: The government does not own, nor is it responsible for, the businesses.

It is, however, responsible for overseeing them and making sure that they either operate in a legal manner or face the consequences, no?

We are not communist: The government does not own, nor is it responsible for, the businesses. Perhaps you are confusing us with Soviet Russia?

It's not responsible for overseeing the CIA about their "slight" mistakes either? And by "mistakes" I mean "They forced the CIA to tell them what they wanted to hear to start a war".

It is, however, responsible for overseeing them and making sure that they either operate in a legal manner or face the consequences, no?



If I recall correctly, were the perpetrators not tried?

It's not responsible for overseeing the CIA about their "slight" mistakes either? And by "mistakes" I mean "They forced the CIA to tell them what they wanted to hear to start a war".



That's a pretty radical statement you're making, concerning Bush "forcing" the CIA to tell him what he wanted to hear. Perhaps you could provide a credible source for this information, and an explanation as to why the Dems haven't sought impeachment over it?

If I recall correctly, were the perpetrators not tried?That's because we civilized people believe in the concept of "rule of law" and "innocent until proven guilty". There's hearings that are going on right now and soon people will be tried. The UN just doesn't want anyone to get away with it so they're going to investigate properly before actually starting a trial.
Not everyone ships people to Gitmo because they "might" have done something.

The U.N. is a corrupt organization that needs to be disbanded and reformed, therefore one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Oil-for-food comes to mind.

You know, call me a cynic if you will, but I consider the obviously flawed oil-for-food program to be less of an indication of a 'corrupt organization' than supplying the obviously despotic dictator Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

That's because we civilized people believe in the concept of "rule of law" and "innocent until proven guilty". There's hearings that are going on right now and soon people will be tried. The UN just doesn't want anyone to get away with it so they're going to investigate properly before actually starting a trial.
Not everyone ships people to Gitmo because they "might" have done something.



Misquote? We were discussing Enron, not Gitmo.

...and an explanation as to why the Dems haven't sought impeachment over it?Because...
How can I asnswer a trick question? The dems have already sought impeachment over it. It just didn't get anywhere in a Republican dominated government.

If I recall correctly, were the perpetrators not tried?

Whether they were or not in this case is irrelevant: in the end the US is responsible for the actions of companies operating under its flag: if they were not then trials would be merely optional.

Misquote? We were discussing Enron, not Gitmo.Sorry, but depending on how you read that, it can mean both...
I apologize.

Because...
How can I asnswer a trick question? The dems have already sought impeachment over it. It just didn't get anywhere in a Republican dominated government.

Thanks. Furthermore, should I mention the ethics scandals? Halliburton? Abu Ghraib? Gitmo?

The U.N. .... one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Oil-for-food comes to mind. NeoCons...one cannot take their judgements of legality very seriously. Watergate, IranGate, FloridaGate, WMDgate, etc,etc,etc

The chance that Kerry would have made it is far more likely than anything else, wouldn't you agree?
(As for your second question, by nature, people of all persuasions hate to ever admit they were wrong about something, which is why a lot don't. If you can't live with that, you will be depressed for a very long time...)

It wouldn't be so likely if other options were available. (yes i know there are other parties, etc etc, but really there is only 2 that 'matter')
People don't hate being wrong by nature, people hate that by conditioning. (infact I'm pretty sure that by nature, humans dont hate or love anything outside of what is directly connected with necessity/survival)

I believe that bias/pressure/etc should be completely removed from ones vote, in that way people could directly decide what they conclude is the best selection by using their jugement (not what their friends/parents/favorite comedians/etcs judgement)

Then again I don't understand why we must use this form of voting, its so excessivly primative (socially speaking)

For all of those that asked for four more years of Dubya, four more years of dying soldiers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview

Weren't the republicans the ones to go:
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
Good Flamebait, could have been more well thought out, though.

Good Flamebait, could have been more well thought out, though.

Why, thank you, any suggestions you make will be greatly appreciated.

I'd like to point out neocon newspapers supporting an invasion or, even worse, US help for a military coup JUST LIKE the one they did in 1964...


That was 1964 and we were fighting the communists. The U.S. will never attack Brazil in the near future unless you guys fire a missile at us.

That was 1964 and we were fighting the communists.

I'll let that poor excuse go on the sole reason that the grunts here didn't need the US help. But I hope you'll be just as understanding in case someone you love ever gets tortured to death after a coup in your country that was helped by other countries. Oh, you wouldn't like it? Then don't expect anyone to. Brazil wasn't even close to communism, and even if it were, the US had no right to meddle here, unless you accept that the Taliban has a right to try and enforce a regime change in US. You don't? Good for the gander, good for the goose.

The U.S. will never attack Brazil in the near future unless you guys fire a missile at us.

Not only does Bush have a history of attacking random countries, I also am against unprovoked killings. Like the ones the terrorists did in 9/11 and like the ones the USA did in Iraq.

Not only does Bush have a history of attacking random countries, I also am against unprovoked killings. Like the ones the terrorists did in 9/11 and like the ones the USA did in Iraq.

I do not believe that there were unprovoked killings in Iraq. However, if you call defending yourself when your in a firefight when your fighting insurgents then okay you might call it 'unprovoked killings'

I think if Bush was going to attack a country for no good reason Brazil would be pretty low on the list.

If you click on the first it comes full view too.
Oh and it's right I was mistaken.


except that the pic is severly flawed... (unless you use the bush method of counting voters i guess...)

Did you know before you saw it that there were 202,000,000,000,000,000 voters in the USA? (it says 202,000,000 BILLION)




edit: add his links which didnt get quoted
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg

[img=http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg]

....a little late on creating this (stupid random liberals) think of it this way mr. look at me im an activist. If it werent "four more years" it would be "two more regiems!" of the mass murder of thousands.

....a little late on creating this (stupid random liberals) think of it this way mr. look at me im an activist. If it werent "four more years" it would be "two more regiems!" of the mass murder of thousands.
Whudju talkin' bout, Willis?

4 more years in Iraq? have fun with that! :rolleyes:

Yeah, the Iraq "War" was decided on stupid, possibly fixed intelligence and too many people are dying in a disorganized military fiasco, not to mention the fact that the U.S. looks more like shit than usual. But let's look at the positives: no Saddam anymore, at least. One less psycho to worry about it. And let's look at the facts: we're stuck there. We're just going to have to deal with it. Bush was re-elected by a democratic majority (however slim it may have been), no matter how much I didn't want him to be. The beauty of a democracy is that the people have the right to re-elect an asshole if they so wish, because it's up to them. No one can change the past. Let's just stop whining and decide what the best way to handle this situation is.

except that the pic is severly flawed... (unless you use the bush method of counting voters i guess...)

Did you know before you saw it that there were 202,000,000,000,000,000 voters in the USA? (it says 202,000,000 BILLION)




edit: add his links which didnt get quoted
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.jpg

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4871/votepercentapologypic6ee.th.jpg
lol, you know what he meant!

I do not believe that there were unprovoked killings in Iraq. However, if you call defending yourself when your in a firefight when your fighting insurgents then okay you might call it 'unprovoked killings'I don't know, I wouldn't call shooting at a family in their car a "firefight"...

The UN just doesn't want anyone to get away with it so they're going to investigate properly before actually starting a trial.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha. Sooo this is why they were caught shredding OiF documents like crazy? Interesting.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155067,00.html
NEW YORK — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he won't take disciplinary action against his former chief-of-staff who shredded documents related to the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Meanwhile, lawyers for former Oil-for-Food chief Benan Sevan are furious that the United Nations won't pay Sevan's legal fees. And France's former interior minister on Friday denied any involvement in suspected corruption benefiting Saddam Hussein in the program and said the detention of his former aide in an investigation into the program did not concern him.

Regarding Annan and the paper shredding issue, the secretary-general wrote in an April 19 letter to Iqbal Riza — which was released Thursday — that while he said his former staffer's acts were "careless," "I do not believe they can be construed as deliberate attempts to impede the work of the Independent Inquiry Committee."




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162641,00.html

UNITED NATIONS — The man who abruptly retired as Kofi Annan's cabinet chief after shredding papers related to the Oil-for-Food (search) program has been shredding still more documents at the United Nations, an eyewitness told FOX News.

Iqbal Riza (search ), who has been working on a $1-a-year salary as a special advisor to Annan, has been shredding large quantities of unknown documents in his new 10th-floor U.N. office across the street from the U.N. Secretariat building, the source said.

According to the eyewitness, a U.N. staffer who works on the same floor as Riza, the retired cabinet chief arrived within days of leaving his old job, loaded down with many cartons of papers and files.

Riza was not in his new office daily, but every day he appeared, he would put large numbers of material through an office shredder located in a public area.

"It became the office joke," said the eyewitness, who did not wish to be identified for fear of reprisals from superiors. No one knew what the documents were, the eyewitness said.

Annan's office would neither confirm nor deny the fresh round of destruction. A spokesman for the secretary-general told FOX News that Riza was now working as a special adviser on a newly launched project to foster dialogue between the Islamic and Western worlds.

"As part of his work on the Alliance of Civilizations ... he may have had to routinely destroy documents related to that project," the spokesman said.

The spokesman said that all material previously in Riza's possession related to Oil-for-Food remained in Annan's office.

Riza has not returned calls to FOX News for comment. A U.N. spokesman said he was out of the country.

Before becoming Annan's top aide, Riza was a Pakistani diplomat who had worked at the United Nations for more than 25 years.

On Dec. 22, Annan announced that Riza would be retiring from his position effective Jan. 15. Annan said he agreed to Riza's departure "with very mixed emotions," saying "he ... has always provided me with wise and trusted counsel."

One fact undisclosed at the time of Annan's announcement was that it came on the same day Riza admitted to investigators with the Independent Inquiry Committee (search) into the Oil-for-Food program that he had destroyed documents related to the program.



Completely innocent, Annan is.

lol, you know what he meant!


well i am less likely to believe some picture off the web, without sources or references that makes an error of NINE orders of magnitude, in something that is easy to check. This makes the rest of his info less believable by default.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha. Sooo this is why they were caught shredding OiF documents like crazy? Interesting.

Completely innocent, Annan is.
I think you mean OfF, but I doubt you made the mistake intentionally (it happens to me too :))

But, please don't use Fox news to back your stories up. Otherwise I'll take it that we get to use Michael Moore's stuff for fact.

I don't know, I wouldn't call shooting at a family in their car a "firefight"...

Link?

Link?
The Calipari Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4325253.stm)
You'll remember this. No one shot back.
Tagesschau.de (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID3872904,00.html)
Der Vorfall ereignete sich im Bagdader Armenviertel Sadr-City, als der junge Iraker aus einem irrtümlich von US-Truppen beschossenen Müllauto schwer verletzt herausfiel.
Translated: The incident occured in the Bagdad slum quarter Sadr-City, when the badly injured young Iraqi fell out of a garbage car that was mistakenly fired upon by US troops.

It refers to an incident where a US soldier killed an Iraqi and was convicted of murder, but this was because he shot him after the shooting, wanting to put him out of his misery.

Now that there's been a couple examples of civilians being fired at without ever shooting back (hence why I said "no firefight") here's the story about the family (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/1.stm):

US soldiers in Iraq approach a car after opening fire when it failed to stop as requested. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January.
Chris Hondros a photographer with Getty News was on hand to record these pictures.

WARNING: This gallery contains graphic images

Here's some sites that I didn't want to use as my basis for the story:
www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588391419.html?oneclick=true)
usa.today.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-02-checkpoint_x.htm)
www.democracynow.org (http://www.democracynow.org/static/Checkpoint.shtml)
Shootings like this happen almost everyday in Iraq. The Sgrena case happens to be receiving media attention because of who was killed.
peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk (http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=707)
www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general36/aner.htm)
I'd like to add that this doesn't mean that I claim that the US soldiers did it because they like killing children. I'd be very insulted if anyone tries to interpret anything else into my words.

I make the effort of searching for links and no one appreciates it :(