|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 15, 2005 21:45:29 GMT -5
No.
Democrats are simply playing politics. Republicans are fighting back now. About time too.
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore--these are just some of the Dems who said from 1998 to 2002 that Saddam was a threat to the U.S, and that he most likely did possess WMD. Now they change their mind saying that Bush lied and mis led the American people---errr, Bush had the EXACT SAME intelligence as the Clinton Admin, cept the only difference is that Bush acted on it.
Democrat after Democrat before the war said things such as "we can't wait to be attacked again, we have to defeat the enemy before they attack us..." etc etc
Democrats are fucking stupid. I'm sorry. To say this crap (EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE) is foolish. We're fighting a war still. By saying that the war wasnt worth fighting, you're saying that people are dying without a cause which thus will lower morale everywhere (American public and american soldiers)
We have 1 enemy already in the terrorists, we dont need the democrats playing politics turning American people against each other, which was starting to happen.
This seemed like it would work for the Dems. But the 2004 elections came and went and Bush is still the president. Now Bush is answering to his critics.
Iraqi elections will be held in January i believe...this is the begining of the end of U.S involvment and the begining our success.
Every step closer to democracy is a step closer to eliminating terrorists and the hatred they portray. The war will be successful in many areas, and infact has been already. The Iraq and the rest of the world is much safer without Saddam in power--FACT.
And the fact that almost every single Dem supported the war in 2002 and now is against it b/c they claim Bush misled everyone, that is just stupid. As stated, Bush didnt do anything wrong. People may be unhappy at how the war was conducted, and thats partially the miscalculation of the insurgents, but the reasons we went to war (WMD, Saddam going against U.N mandates etc) holds substance, EVEN IF no WMD will ever be found.
I was so sure that the Dems would win the 2008 election, but now i dont think so. Their plan of bashing Bush about the Iraqi War has turned against them. Bush and co are now answering those critics, and great success is begining to occur. The Democrats better conjure up a better reason for them to take power than 'Bush lied, Iraq War was bad' because if that theory couldnt win them the 2004 election, how will it win them the 2008 election when things are only getting better in respect to the situation in Iraq?
BTW, the causlty report excuse is so lame. ITS A FUCKIN WAR. PEOPLE DIE IN WARS!!!!
And also (i've said this many times before): There is no draft. It is the citizens choice to join the army. He/She knows the risk that if he joins the army theres always a risk of going to war. And most soldiers believe they have a purpose and are serving the country....Democrats really need to stop trying to manipulate--that plan is crashing and burning.
-I'm an independent, btw, why does it seem like im a full fledge republican? because what the Dems have done over the last 3 years is wrong in every aspect.
Condi in 2008 (I wish she would run) her or Powell, neither want to run, but we shall see. And if its Condi vs. Hillary, Condi wins easily...same with Powell...but thats another matter.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Nov 15, 2005 22:17:32 GMT -5
nice to hear some positives for change
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Nov 16, 2005 3:37:46 GMT -5
oh, right so your saying its ok for innocent people to die because its a war?
fuckin iditot.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 16, 2005 3:50:15 GMT -5
No. Democrats are simply playing politics. Republicans are fighting back now. About time too. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore--these are just some of the Dems who said from 1998 to 2002 that Saddam was a threat to the U.S, and that he most likely did possess WMD. Now they change their mind saying that Bush lied and mis led the American people---errr, Bush had the EXACT SAME intelligence as the Clinton Admin, cept the only difference is that Bush acted on it. Democrat after Democrat before the war said things such as "we can't wait to be attacked again, we have to defeat the enemy before they attack us..." etc etc Democrats are fucking stupid. I'm sorry. To say this crap (EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE) is foolish. We're fighting a war still. By saying that the war wasnt worth fighting, you're saying that people are dying without a cause which thus will lower morale everywhere (American public and american soldiers) We have 1 enemy already in the terrorists, we dont need the democrats playing politics turning American people against each other, which was starting to happen. This seemed like it would work for the Dems. But the 2004 elections came and went and Bush is still the president. Now Bush is answering to his critics. Iraqi elections will be held in January i believe...this is the begining of the end of U.S involvment and the begining our success. Every step closer to democracy is a step closer to eliminating terrorists and the hatred they portray. The war will be successful in many areas, and infact has been already. The Iraq and the rest of the world is much safer without Saddam in power--FACT. And the fact that almost every single Dem supported the war in 2002 and now is against it b/c they claim Bush misled everyone, that is just stupid. As stated, Bush didnt do anything wrong. People may be unhappy at how the war was conducted, and thats partially the miscalculation of the insurgents, but the reasons we went to war (WMD, Saddam going against U.N mandates etc) holds substance, EVEN IF no WMD will ever be found. I was so sure that the Dems would win the 2008 election, but now i dont think so. Their plan of bashing Bush about the Iraqi War has turned against them. Bush and co are now answering those critics, and great success is begining to occur. The Democrats better conjure up a better reason for them to take power than 'Bush lied, Iraq War was bad' because if that theory couldnt win them the 2004 election, how will it win them the 2008 election when things are only getting better in respect to the situation in Iraq? BTW, the causlty report excuse is so lame. ITS A FUCKIN WAR. PEOPLE DIE IN WARS!!!! And also (i've said this many times before): There is no draft. It is the citizens choice to join the army. He/She knows the risk that if he joins the army theres always a risk of going to war. And most soldiers believe they have a purpose and are serving the country....Democrats really need to stop trying to manipulate--that plan is crashing and burning. -I'm an independent, btw, why does it seem like im a full fledge republican? because what the Dems have done over the last 3 years is wrong in every aspect. Condi in 2008 (I wish she would run) her or Powell, neither want to run, but we shall see. And if its Condi vs. Hillary, Condi wins easily...same with Powell...but thats another matter. If anyone seriously still thinks we weren't mislead over the reasons for going into Iraq, I'd love to hear your argument about it. *waits with baited breath*
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Nov 16, 2005 3:52:19 GMT -5
i'll be waiting for that too globe...not sure itll come tho.
Im not saying wether it was right or wrong to go to war with iraq but we were most definitely misled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2005 5:43:20 GMT -5
No. Democrats are simply playing politics. Republicans are fighting back now. About time too. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore--these are just some of the Dems who said from 1998 to 2002 that Saddam was a threat to the U.S, and that he most likely did possess WMD. Now they change their mind saying that Bush lied and mis led the American people---errr, Bush had the EXACT SAME intelligence as the Clinton Admin, cept the only difference is that Bush acted on it. if there was no need for clinton to act on it why with the same intelligence did bush need to?
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 16, 2005 5:47:09 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now
so i'll make this quick
1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT
ok im out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2005 6:53:03 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 16, 2005 7:37:27 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out Ok then, fair point. So in your opinion, are we (UK, US) more or less likely to be attacked by islamic extremists now that we have invaded and occupied an islamic country? And seeing how mr bush is so dedicated to saving the world from terrorism, i take it he's now gonna take some action on all those americans who have been donating funds to the IRA for the last 30 years?
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 16, 2005 10:51:34 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq 9/11 has NOTHING to do with iraq you sure just the six times is enough?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Nov 16, 2005 12:38:32 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out terrorists everywhere? talk shite mate, how many times have the US came over to my part of the world to tackle terroirsm? Answer? None but maybe if oil was discoverd in tyrone theyd discover an interest
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Nov 16, 2005 18:07:07 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out terrorists everywhere? talk shite mate, how many times have the US came over to my part of the world to tackle terroirsm? Answer? None but maybe if oil was discoverd in tyrone theyd discover an interest well they feigned enough interest to keep the irish-americans just about happy enough and that was it. All politics, welcome to this joke of a world we live in!! BUT BACK TO LIVE4EVR's ORIGINAL POINT... i can't stand arguing with this chap. he's got to be the most naive, "believe-what-my-media-wants-me-to-believe", person ever on this forum. this is the boy who tells us to prepare for nuclear attacks because Ramadan is on. FFS. and don't get me wrong, i'm no michael moore campaigner or such & such, in fact i think he's a twat... but live4evr.... you sir, are an idiot .............and i'm not even going to argue that point any further (why is it generally the only people that annoy me on this forum happen to be 18 or under?!!) [edit: Dom, not having a go at you, keep up the good work man!]
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 16, 2005 18:59:29 GMT -5
i have a class trip to NY and have to leave...umm now so i'll make this quick 1.)maybe misled, but not by Bush--misled by the intel 2.) Clinton didnt act bc he didnt see how serious the threat could be ala 9/11....we need to strike before they can strike us again....we're not just fighting Al-Qaeda mind you, we're fighting terrorists everywhere....Saddam is a terrorist: FACT ok im out Tam typing... ah my friend - misled by intell - don't make me laugh... YOU ACTUALLY BUY IN TO THAT ? is iraq better off without sadaam ? yes of course ! did we need to start a pre-emptive war ? ON OUR OWN ? NO. IS THE MIDDLE EAST MORE UNSTABLE NOW THAN BEFORE ? YES. TRUST ME , WAIT TIL THINGS COME OUT IN THE WASH ABOUT THIS CURRENT ADMIN. AS FAR AS THE BUSH ADMIN. GOES, Ther mafia has more "morals !" ! THE WHOLE LIBBY/CHEYNEY ORDEAL.. AT LEAST THE MOB LEAVES WIVES AND CHILDREN OUT OF IT.. Another example there of the brazen arrogance.. right wing nut jobs that wld not know God if HE was standing in the oval office ! (*fuming mad..*) dude, where's my country ?
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 16, 2005 21:33:14 GMT -5
errr, you all are beliving the media, not me--the media portrays the negative...why? COS IT SELLS!!!! They hardly mention anything positive, so you yourselves are misled on the situation
think for yourselves will you
fine, there may have been no 9/11-Iraq connection, but you fail to see the larger picture. IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER--IT'S ABOUT A PREMPTIVE STRIKE. IT'S ABOUT ELIMINATING THE THREAT BEFORE THE THREAT DEVELOPS INTO AN ACTUAL ATTACK
truth is, noone will probably ever know what The U.S stopped by removing Saddam.
Remember:
If Bush invaded Afgah. pre-9/11, the same reaction would occur, however he would have probably prevented 9/11, but the public and gov would prob never have known about it
btw, Bush has prevented 3 major attacks on the U.S since 9/11...all 3 involved hijackings, i think that speaks for itself...
And we are all safer now. Iraq is the only terrorist base now for Al-Qaeda...if the insurrgents lose this, then they are scrued....So Iraq has indeed become a part of the War on Terror (on millitant Islam), and thats a good thing.
Also, a democratic Iraq will be between Syria and Iran, which will help destabalize the terrorist situtation in those 2 nations.
And, the Iraq War sets an example to Syria, Iran, and N Korea in that the U.S is serious in the efforts to stop terrorist acts.
ok, im done on this topic...just in 10 yrs time think about this topic and think who was right....100% sure it will be me....Iraq may suck now, but in 2015 everyones opinion may have changed dramatically...only time will tell on this issue, but the truth of the matter is the positives are outweighing the negatives, it's just not reported
btw, the main issue of this topic was that the Dems are playing politics with the issue....that's true, they are, and are moranic for doing so
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 16, 2005 22:16:45 GMT -5
TAM TYPING - war on terror - (go ahead believe what you hear on FOX NEWS and talk radio.. it's all politicized and twisted to meet an agenda...)
1.) this has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.. while a pre-emptive strike against AFGHANISTAN was well-founded and logical - BELIEVING that al-queda was LINKED TO IRAQ/sadaam IS WHOLEY NAIVE, YES SADAAM WAS A HORRIBle MAN, KILLED HIS OWN ppl blah blah, BUT again THAT IN NO MEANS SHOWED ANY LINK TO AL-QUEADA AND OSAMA BIN LADEN..
2.) THE RESULTS OF THE BUSH ADMIN. DID NOT STOP ANY TERRORIST ACT HERE post 9/11 , any actions WERE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN 1996, UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMIN. MADE TO THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY , BUT BACK THEN WERE SEEN AS TOO EXPENSIVE.. or were the result of astute borders and customs personnel..
3.the Planning the War in Iraq - with the movement of assets in afghanistan, led to a failure to capture osama becos critical military assets were diverted..(and the taliban still exists..)
4.) al-queda is like a hydra now.. it has let to bombings in the UK, spain, pakistan, india, jordan, not to mention the IEDs that are used against our soldiers DAILY in iraq..
5.) the best that will come about in iraq will be a moderate ISLAMIC state, closely alligned with iran.....the world, iraq and mid east will be lucky if it does not break down into a complete civil war..
6.) iraq now is closer to being like lebanon in the early 80's.. which was another "successful" USA endeavor..
end of sermon...
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 16, 2005 23:02:00 GMT -5
think for yourselves will you i wish you would just think, period. man just stop with your arguments cos you aren't gonna convince anyone with your propoganda. You're just making an ass our of yourself. Unless you're doing it for satire, in which case har har nice one! and you'd like to see to rice as president? ahahahaha like anyone would elect that ugly bitch into office. if i ever see her i'm gonna give her a kick in her face and make that gap in her teeth even wider.
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Nov 17, 2005 2:26:00 GMT -5
think for yourselves will you i wish you would just think, period. man just stop with your arguments cos you aren't gonna convince anyone with your propoganda. You're just making an ass our of yourself. Unless you're doing it for satire, in which case har har nice one! and you'd like to see to rice as president? ahahahaha like anyone would elect that ugly bitch into office. if i ever see her i'm gonna give her a kick in her face and make that gap in her teeth even wider. listen to mape. Plus it must take you ages to type all the bullshit it out so save some time and do something constructive. Like go and play on a motorway
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2005 5:06:41 GMT -5
Remember: If Bush invaded Afgah. pre-9/11, the same reaction would occur, however he would have probably prevented 9/11, but the public and gov would prob never have known about it btw, Bush has prevented 3 major attacks on the U.S since 9/11...all 3 involved hijackings, i think that speaks for itself... First of the war in Afghanistan has failed the Taliban run a large part of the country, secondly many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan and thirdly the point in going to Afghanistan was to capture Bin Laden which didn't happen. I was all for going to war with Afghanistan but again the job was started but not finished. As for Bush preventing 3 attacks, were any of them prevented by going to war I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Nov 17, 2005 5:20:29 GMT -5
i can't stand arguing with this chap. he's got to be the most naive, "believe-what-my-media-wants-me-to-believe", person ever on this forum. this is the boy who tells us to prepare for nuclear attacks because Ramadan is on. FFS. and don't get me wrong, i'm no michael moore campaigner or such & such, in fact i think he's a twat... but live4evr.... you sir, are an idiot .............and i'm not even going to argue that point any further I have to totally agree - once again on this forum - with Feck. live4ever, I mean you no personal animosity but you're a fucking idiot. If it was only the intel that misled everyone, why was Rumsfeld sending out memos in the immediate aftermath of 911 telling people to find evidence to link Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein? Not "see if there is any", just "go and find some evidence to back this up. Seriously, go nuts. Doesn't matter how flimsy it is, we'll make something out of it". The US government was hellbent on "regime change" for almost 2 years before the war began. So yes, while Saddam was awful etc, we as citizens were still misled about the reasons for going to war - it was a bunch of cooked-up bullshit to justify a preemptive strike. Where's the fucking WMD'S?? And please stop going on about 911 when you mention Iraq - THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 911 AND IRAQ! GEORGE W JUST WANTS YOU TO THINK THERE IS!! The saddest thing is, for all your pontificating about how great a democratic Iraq would be, the country at the moment is sliding into anarchy and is a quagmire that we as a generation will spend the rest of our lives having to cope with the fallout of. You think there won't be more wars and bloodshed over this latest bit of US military diplomacy? And is there really any such thing as an independant in the US? The fact you only have 2 real political parties is half the reason why your attitudes are so fucked in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 17, 2005 11:12:26 GMT -5
ok, im done on this topic...just in 10 yrs time think about this topic and think who was right....100% sure it will be me....Iraq may suck now, but in 2015 everyones opinion may have changed dramatically... i work with two iraqi guys, i think they might just know a wee bit more about the country and its history and culture than you or anybody who is part of the US and UK governments. over the last couple of years, ive had many conversations with them about the whole situation and where the country is going. if you honestly believe that iraq will be a peaceful, democratic country in 10 years, your kidding yourself.
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 17, 2005 11:19:37 GMT -5
i think what i think, but it's not worth typing them down because you will all jump down my throat because my opinion happens to go against the majority.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 17, 2005 13:32:10 GMT -5
i think what i think, but it's not worth typing them down because you will all jump down my throat because my opinion happens to go against the majority. i dont know what your opinion is but i think you'll find the silent majority of the public have different views to the more extreme ones aired so far in this thread and in the media at large. So please post yours sad thing is the media and the public always take more notice of the extreme views WROTE IN CAPITALS or shouted from the hilltops by a religious nut or a fat bearded twat, than the centre ground, more considered and placid views of the silent majority Personally i find it a little strange that people are still debating WMDs, the reasons for Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. Everything and anything has already been said many many times about those things and debating them is pointless. There have been elections in both the UK and US since it all happened and the public made clear choices (right or wrong) Time to move on to the current issues facing the world. Put all this political rhetoric into something worthwhile. Fact is, the world isnt ready for peace. The infrastructure of humanity as a whole is not ready. There are still too many people who want more, or hate others or havent grown up yet. People who have different opinions and beliefs. The idea that everyone should all get along and be nice to each other is just profoundly naive. we all sit around posting our thoughts on this stuff, yet we dont think about the true nature of our basic behaviours - life is a slugfest. We're all scrapping for the best we can get to make us and ours, happy. and every person from president to Joe Public, every country from America to Zimbabwe is doing exactly the same thing. And fact is, different things make different people happy. there will inevitably be contradictions, leading to conflict, leading to wars. Put people and countries into positions of power and fuck knows what they will do. All i know is - given the choice between the current leaders of Iran, North Korea, China, and America - i know who i'd pick. America rid the western world of nazi's, led the way against the communist Soviet Union and now leads the way against terrorists. In each case they made mistakes along the way - but i dread to think what the world would be like if America hadnt made a stand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2005 13:41:28 GMT -5
i think what i think, but it's not worth typing them down because you will all jump down my throat because my opinion happens to go against the majority. The idea that everyone should all get along and be nice to each other is just profoundly naive. The idea that eveyone should get on is not naive the idea that everyone could get on is.
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 17, 2005 13:48:41 GMT -5
hmmm yes. agreed. Finally someone who doesn't believe in all that world peace stuff. Like he said as long as we are all different, we speak different languages, have different beliefs, and have other different qualities, there will always be conflict brought upon by it. There will always be some bad apples out there who will want to push their own agenda and ruin it for the rest of us. But with that said, there are right ways and wrong ways for going about solving certain problems. In recent times we have seen a lot of the wrong ways. All i know is - given the choice between the current leaders of Iran, North Korea, China, and America - i know who i'd pick. lol nice choices you had there. Hmmm but how bout comparing america to other countries such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany etc would you be as willing to stick with your choice ?
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Nov 17, 2005 13:49:28 GMT -5
"America rid the western world of nazi's, led the way against the communist Soviet Union and now leads the way against terrorists. In each case they made mistakes along the way - but i dread to think what the world would be like if America hadn't made a stand."
thank you and amen , I don't see anyone on here complaining about US actions which history shows us were correctly taken, all the armchair generals of the world are complaining about things we really can't know yet, but hey we're in the free worldt so we should be allowed to do that.....hmmmmm, isn't that what America has been fighting for all along ?
|
|