|
Bush a moron or not? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i think Canada needs to send troops into the Congo.. there's genocide being committed there.. but alas, their national resource is sugar cane .. :(
|
as SAD as it is, its completely true |
|
|
| Miss Julia |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
Maybe its just me, but one of the things I look for in a leader of a nuclear power is the ability to think well on his feet :).
That came off somewhat sarcastic, I'm sorry, that was not my intent. |
No, it wasn't sarcastic. I know what ya meant. :) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
"I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Canadians have no right to criticize the US when they keep electing currupt Lieberals into power. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
"I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Canadians have no right to criticize the US when they keep electing currupt Lieberals into power. |
the Canadians who never elected them do .. :D
|
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| Diginut....why do you think the US Government spent almost 130 billion dollars on this war?? To get rid of weapons? To get rid of a tyrant? Why is Iraq so important?? Aside from ISrael security and the rich oil deposits.. why do you think the US spent this much for Iraq?? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Your Mother
What makes me laugh the most is how you actually think the US would spend billions and billions of its own money to overthrow another country because of this whole WMD claim... Why not take out North Korea which is a true threat? Is it because they know North Korea can fight back? Actually, its probably because they stand to gain nothing from taking them out. I mean what does NK have to offer? Not much really. But Iraq on the other hand has been turned from a second world to a third world country due to 12 years of heavy sanctions, so taking them out would be easy.
|
Actually that answer is easy.
There's no geographic, strategic value in North Korea.
Why bother when South Korea is already there?
Besides, NK makes a great buffer with China on the other side :p
Remember the 8 yr. long Iran/Iraq war?
Remember the reason the U.S. (and other countries) funneled $$ and arms to Iraq?
| quote: | Originally posted by Your Mother
They even proposed taking out Iraq back in 1998 but Clinton turned down the suggestion.
-Your Mother |
1998? Not relivant.
And apparently, they should have then and not after the fact... :rolleyes:
Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing - June 2004
It's sad that the U.S. waited for the horror to come to them with antipathy.
Anyone remember their history?
The Munich Agreement
Anyone rememeber who was kicked out of Kuwait? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler.... |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What a stupid question. That's rhetoric if I've ever heard it. There's more oil in the good ole' USA than there is in Iraq. No legitimate critic has ever used the hackneyed oil argument, and when someone says that, it's usually a pretty good indication that they don't have much to contribute on the subject that's relevant.
|
I asked that question because that is the most drastic difference between Bush and Clinton. Bush sent innocent soldiers to kill innocent civilians and in the process risk their own lives. It is that reason why Moore is out to make sure Bush does not get re-elected.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]
Bush's critics after 9/11 insisted then and continue to insist that they had the intelligence before 9/11 itself to prevent the attack if they had launched a pre-emptive strike. This has nothing to do with reaction time AFTER 9/11 (I don't even know what you're talking about there), it's about the period BEFORE 9/11.
|
yeah, I thought you were referring to people criticizing about how slow he reacted with smokin out Bin Laden after 9/11.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]
And I don't think anybody can deny that regardless of the "real" reasons why they went into Iraq, he did the world a favour by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Or are you going to tell us that we're not better off?
|
we'll never know how the world will really be like if Hussein is still in power. I do know that a bunch of people will still have their heads though.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]
As for your earlier comment about "lesser of two evils", most Americans feel that Bush and Kerry are about equal in everything except for national security, where Bush is the clear winner. So there you have it - that's the reason he'll be re-elected. |
I'll shut my mouth (and everyone else's) if US gets attacked while Kerry is in power. Setting up the defense shield is like daring the whole world to try and attack them. |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Actually that answer is easy.
There's no geographic, strategic value in North Korea.
Why bother when South Korea is already there?
Besides, NK makes a great buffer with China on the other side :p
Remember the 8 yr. long Iran/Iraq war?
Remember the reason the U.S. (and other countries) funneled $$ and arms to Iraq?
1998? Not relivant.
And apparently, they should have then and not after the fact... :rolleyes:
Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing - June 2004
It's sad that the U.S. waited for the horror to come to them with antipathy.
Anyone remember their history?
The Munich Agreement
Anyone rememeber who was kicked out of Kuwait? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler.... |
I fail to see how the Munich agreement is truly relevant to the discussion regarding Iraq.
And for Clinton's sake, even if he opposed the war, he would still say he thought it was a good thing. He still has alot of pull within the Democratic party and the swing voters in the US. If any of the Dems opposed the war, it would come back to hurt them during election time. Bush and co. would pounce on them with another smear campaign outlining how weak and unfit they are to run a country. The sad thing with American politics is that you can't always be free to express your true opinion on an issue, because you have to think about the betterment of your party first.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
There's more oil in the good ole' USA than there is in Iraq. No legitimate critic has ever used the hackneyed oil argument, and when someone says that, it's usually a pretty good indication that they don't have much to contribute on the subject that's relevant.
|
Look at the US drop off over time... why is it dropping off you ask? Could it be that the reserves are running low? Perhaps its a good time to start looking elsewhere before we run out and cause a crisis.
http://dieoff.org/42Countries/42Countries.htm
How about a listing of proven reserves. Holy batman, look at all the oil Iraq has.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
Here's another link that extends the above list to show the US. Whats wrong with this picture?
http://www.aneki.com/oil.html
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Your Mother
I fail to see how the Munich agreement is truly relevant to the discussion regarding Iraq.
-Your Mother |
Those that don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
Saddam (and Co.) were pushing the limits of the world's tolerance; much like Hitler who would sign things and then conveniently take over another piece of land just because he thought he could.
The gutless U.N. and most of Europe again instead of taking this man out when they should have instead waited and let him fester behind his own borders.
That's when the U.S. paid a heavy price and then had no other choice.
Anybody seen, "The Ghost and the Darkness"?
Where two lions (you could substitute for Saddam and Osama) terrorize a village.
What do you do?
Wait for them to come to you and scare your citizens to the point of petrification? That gives them control. That's what they want.
Or do you go out and take out that which is causing the problem?
Some people would want to pull up a table and try to talk things out but how do you talk to the opposition when they don't care to listen.
You can't reason with terrorists, period. |
|
|
| magik_ss |
This is the best!!!
Wow!!!
This guy should go to high school!!!
hahahaha |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
let's get back to the basics here before continuing the expansion of a full blown political US bashing debate:
in accordance to the actual topic of the thread, the bottom line is that the most powerful man on earth does not know the definition of sovereignty.
the definition of sovereignty is one of the most fundamental concepts and is the ABC's of Public International Law!!
'sovereignty'/ the right to self-determination is the backbone of the law between states AND is also the reason for many - if not most - regional inter-/ intra-state wars today! i.e. Kosovo
in order to gain sovereignty - combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign intervention -, the right to self-determination and self-government, a 'state' has to be recognized as a legitimate, internationally independent state by the international community, by fulfilling all 4 grounds as set out by the Montevideo Convention (1933) - Rights and Duties of States. I don't have these 4 reasons at hand, however, this Convention declares the criteria for actual statehood, - rules and guidelines a 'state' has to abide by and live up to in order to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries. before it can gain independent, self-governing status over its proclaimed territory and to be recognized as such it must be able to sustain itself on every level of every sector.
as in respect to 'tribal sovereignty':
In the United States, tribal sovereignty refers to the status of federally recognized tribes and 'pueblos', for which court decisions since the ratification of the United States Constitution (1787 -oldest written national constitution!!!...and the moron has no idea!!!) have established legal doctrines that presume them to be sovereign "domestic dependent nations".
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Tribal_sovereignty
... Bush 'also just being human' - as our dear miss julia so innocently & self-apologizingly remarks .... .... i'm sorry, but with this remark my hair stands up on end! ... be prepared to go before the dogs if this insanity and disgrace continues! the guy lives in a dreamworld and is fighting phantom pigeons with cluster bombs. |
|
|
|
|
