Reply With Quote
Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.
Close minded? I think not...I think it is you that are close minded if you buy into the popular leftist criticism and demonization of President Bush. Because calling Kerry anti-american is a lot more valid than much of the criticism aimed at Bush.
Um...Germany wasn't on our side in WWII or WWI, and France was a liability in both and pretty much an enemy in WWII....Spain is always having an iden y crisis. You should be happy the Italians are helping us...He's just merely saying that we wen't into this war without the support of our allies, was he wrong for saying that? Every war we have been in, we have won because of support of our allies. This war is not on one country, but on the entire world becasue guess what smart ass? Terrorist are harbored everywhere. Korea, china, canada, japan, russia, even in the U.S. How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
We've done just fine historically with the British and Aussies as our allies...we have seldom had the support of the entire world in our wars.
And you piss on the contributions other countries have made in this effort.
I'm sorry but this is why you are stupid...the allegations of Saddam having WMD were there before Bush was even in office. Those allegations, coupled with the determination of Al-Qaeda, made ing around with Saddam any longer a stupid idea.And I don't know why the , your talking as if this war was started be him. He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president. He then did not support the war because evidence started to point that the President was wrong. How is this flip-flopping when he was lied to?
It was obvious he went into this war for personal agenda, not terrorism. He went in before he was 100% sure of WMD, he went in before there was any escape plan or support.
If he went into this war for a personal agenda why did he first try to get the support of the UN? He didn't have the luxury of being 100% sure.
Don't say Bush faked the ing intelligence, Clinton said he was working on the them when he was President...John Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Commitee for the entire Clinton administration...he thought Saddam had them...as did Chiraq, as did just about every one.
You have not been paying attention if you think these accusations of Saddam and WMD were new, they were being made by Democrats before Bush was ever in office.
So I ask you...what kind of man tries to paint Bush as war profiteer in Iraq, and harm our soldiers efforts, to advance his political career?
Well, the same kind of man who lets(encourages) his fellow soldiers be sterotyped as baby killers, and who negotiates with our enemy for us to lose a war, to advance his political career. John Kerry is that type of man.
No, it's not about revenge...Clinton was saying the same things...Clinton didn't have the balls to act because he felt like he would be judged harshly for sending men into war when he himself was a draft dodger., he even mentioned Saddam as the man that was trying to kill his father. This is about revenge, not terrorism. After who else must feels the pain? Just only the thousands of families that lose their children and grandchildren in a sensless war as the president's kids are at a inpressive and expensive university with less than impressive grades and getting wasted every night.
I suggest you people think before you talk instead of letting you conservative little minds take over your actions.
And I suggest you stop getting history lessons from Michael Moore and the Democratic Party...you are the one being lied to.
Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.
"BUT...."Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.
I'm sorry, Joe, but his actions speak much louder than his words.
Well, that's my view and I'm sticking to it, you know, "stay the course".
And we all know that AQ is operating exclusively in Iraq, and has NEVER attacked outside its borders.
Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.
How does calling kerry anti-american more valid. He fought for this country when his country was in need. Something our own beloved president did not do. How is he fit to be an kind of commander in chief when he wan't even available when he had a choice to serve?Close minded? I think not...I think it is you that are close minded if you buy into the popular leftist criticism and demonization of President Bush. Because calling Kerry anti-american is a lot more valid than much of the criticism aimed at Bush.
Did I say these allegations were new? Yes, I agree that Saddam had to be dealt with because the bas was pretty much comitting genocide. However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan? He went into a country were he thought had WMD, but yet there are many countrys that clearly have them. i.e. Korea and Iran. Why didn't he go after them? Now, your telling me he doesn't have it out particularly for Iraq.I'm sorry but this is why you are stupid...the allegations of Saddam having WMD were there before Bush was even in office. Those allegations, coupled with the determination of Al-Qaeda, made ing around with Saddam any longer a stupid idea.
You are such a dumb . Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies.Um...Germany wasn't on our side in WWII or WWI, and France was a liability in both and pretty much an enemy in WWII....Spain is always having an iden y crisis. You should be happy the Italians are helping us...
I agree that it was part clinton's fault, but bush made things worst.
It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is.
He continues to send troops as if they were expendible while he and his family live the good life. Where are his kids in this war if he believes in it so much?
I didn't take lessons from any democrat because this is what I truly feel toward the current state of the u.s. I could care less if the president democrat, republican, green party, or independent. As long as they are a model of what America really is, I'm satisfied. However, Bush has been the complete opposite, yet in this election, people insist to vote for him just based solely that he's a republican.
I don't think it was necessary to "finish" in Afghanistan before going into Iraq. That move was based on a lot of intelligence I have not had the opportunity to review. Maybe there were key reasons for going at that time. I don't know. Maybe it was secretly thought to be where some AQ was hiding. That's just specualtion. Of course, even in hind sight, most of this discussion is just that. I still think it is remarkable that there have been no more attacks on US since 9/11. I think people are being very quiet about that fact and maybe they should. (Knock on wood.)However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan?
For the millionth ing time........However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan?
The war on terror is not a linear war. Terrorists are fighting us on multiple fronts, and we'd be doomed to failure if we just fought in one place at a time.
We fought WWII on more than one battlefront, are you that dense that you think we should fight a much more global (given the proliferation of radical Islam worldwide) war on a linear fashion? Or do you just like losing?
bush signed up for the military he didn't dodge the draft... if a person signs up for the military and serves for 20 yrs, but nevers sees combat that doesn't make him any less of a solider, sailor, airman or marine...
this is not bigger than WW I or II. When over 50 million people die, then you can say it is bigger.You are such a dumb . Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies.
unemployment is at the same rate it was during clinton's term. 5.4%... and outsourcing is enevitable. why would a company pay some american $20/hr, when some foreigner can do the same work, but will work for $3. that is like you paying me $40/hr, when you could pay the neighborhood kid $5. why would you do it???It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is.
Actually, he joined the reserves to avoid combat just like Bush did. He got 5 deferments and tried to get a final deferment to study in Paris.
He just got ed in that his branch of the reserves got called into the war, and his choice of duty was not supposed to be involved in the war, once he got ed and was heavily involved in the war, he raped the rules and got out after only 4 months of active duty...he then came home, held private meetings with the enemy, while he was still a member of our armed forces, in itself a treasonous act. He negotiated terms for us to lose the war, he then came home and branded the US military as bunch of traitors and aligned himself with a group that was at one point considering going around and asassinating US politicians. He has written books that defame the American flag and IwoJima Marines on the cover...all this just to ride the political wave.
And he's doing it again right now.
Bush never sold out to the enemy, helped us lose a war, in which millions of Vietnames were killed after we pulled out and even more when Laos and Cambodia were later invaded by that same communist regime that he helped strengthen in power(along with our anti war movement).Something our own beloved president did not do. How is he fit to be an kind of commander in chief when he wan't even available when he had a choice to serve?
Serving in our military does not excuse him from a lifetime of questionable activities in the international arena.
Even now, this ing moron, belittles our allies that our fighting and dying alongside us..and sucks up to countries that have traditionally been the people we fought wars again, and who were arming Saddam Hussein illegally...and who opposed us because they were being bought off and many of those individuals are set to be indicted by congress...even the Democrats in our congress are set to indict them.
That is the ing reality.
Korean and Iran haven't invaded other countries, gotten their ass kicked, and negotiated a cease fire and then spent 12 years violating the terms of that cease fire.Did I say these allegations were new? Yes, I agree that Saddam had to be dealt with because the bas was pretty much comitting genocide. However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan? He went into a country were he thought had WMD, but yet there are many countrys that clearly have them. i.e. Korea and Iran. Why didn't he go after them? Now, your telling me he doesn't have it out particularly for Iraq.
By the way, don't be in such a hurry, technically we are still at war with North Korea. No one will argue it is harder to defeat a country with nukes than it is one without, which is why it was better to err on the side of caution with Iraq...ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE THOUGHT HE HAD WMD DAMMIT.
Would you rather we find out the hard way that our intelligence was accurate, while we leave a brutal dictator in power? Then it would be Iran, Iraq and North Korea with Nukes. Is that better? Would you rather we wait until Saddam nukes us?
Bill Clinton was saying there needed to be a regime change in Iraq as far back as 1998.
You just don't hear it now because the Democrats are selling out our troops, and our country, in an attempt to regain control of the white house.
I'm sorry dude...it's you that are the dumb here...do some research with an open mind.You are such a dumb .
The main countries who are our enemies? Those that promote Islamic fanatacism and or who have nuclear technology they are selling.Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies.
It's a hard and fast list...indeed some of them are our allies right now. But we can't attack all of them at once. We can't pressure all of them at once. I think the way the US is approaching this is very intelligent. And toppling Iraq in the face of world wide disapproval has sent those countries a clear message that we are not iing around with this. That will be to our benefit when it comes time to negotiate.
But basically...Syria, Saudi Arabie, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Jordan, France, China and Russia.
That's just it you don't get it...he didn't cause this anti-Americansim..it was always there...you guys were just too stupid to realize it. Read any European literature of the past 50 years.I agree that it was part clinton's fault, but bush made things worst.
It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is.
Our service is volunteer, those that serve take an oath..we don't force them to join...it's not the 60's, there is no draft, we were attacked...and liberals need to get their head out of 1968's ass. Bush's dad served by the way...doesn't keep liberals from labeling him as evil. If you aren't willing to die for this country, you should seek any other occupation other than the US military. That is a lousy career to have if you aren't willing to make that commitment.He continues to send troops as if they were expendible while he and his family live the good life. Where are his kids in this war if he believes in it so much?
Dude, you sound like the DNC website. You propagate the same lies and myths they do.I didn't take lessons from any democrat because this is what I truly feel toward the current state of the u.s. I could care less if the president democrat, republican, green party, or independent. As long as they are a model of what America really is, I'm satisfied. However, Bush has been the complete opposite, yet in this election, people insist to vote for him just based solely that he's a republican.
I'd say you guys have demonized Bush for being the candidate of big oil about as much as you can...that was relevant in 2000, it's not any longer.
If you really want to protest, then STFU and stop driving a car.
Last edited by whottt; 10-21-2004 at 07:59 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions