Politics

posted on November 4th, 2004, 12:27 am

This is fun to watch. Baron, you are way off base claiming that the US is bombing hospitals. I don't know where you're getting that from and invite you to cite sources.
Sfera, thank you for the non-batsh*t-insane lefty viewpoint. So many who believe as you do are simply nuts and unable to properly articulate their arguments.

I do wish you guys would stop and think a little before claiming that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and over a 1000 of our troops to "steal the Iraqi oil." If we wanted all the cheap oil we would have done like the French and supported the whole corrupt UN Oil for Food thing and got our oil for half market price (like the French). As it is we're paying the Iraqi government full price for every drop of their oil we take. So shove it up your collective asses.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:08 am

Sfera, thank you for the non-batsh*t-insane lefty viewpoint. So many who believe as you do are simply nuts and unable to properly articulate their arguments.

Yep I know, all statesments should have arguments. I think i gave them enough. Also thank you all for reading my long article (I think that it's very objective and correct point of view).
Now, as the USA President is still Bush we can just wait and watch how things will happening in Iraq.

[ewm90]

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:13 am

Last edited by ewm90 on November 4th, 2004, 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

the hard facts are diss aree or not thes are the facts:

1. us wint to wore in irack for
A. for deffting traisam?
B. helping the iracks
C. to make the world safer
D. unoftheabove

the anser is unof the above. we win for privit resons.

2. duss bush have an idea on haw to fixs the mager ishowes that have come up becose of of some of the disishons he made:
A. yes he will do some thing difrant
B. he will Stay the cores. and contune doing what cost probloms be for.
C. he will saty the cores and some howw evry thing will fixs its self.
D. un of the above

anser: B.

the usa is very divited duss he have a chace of unifing the contry?

not a chase in hell. win he ran for years ago he sed he was a uniter not a divder he divited a nashon deeply. the ishuwe he wonts to fine midal grawnd on ar opistes thare is no realy mital grand. what evry he seys or duss some one will be pissed of. its gona get wors not beter.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:19 am

more pepal voted aginsted him than eny uther definding press in histry.

this eletion was not about facts but abour moral vowes. religin was the desiting fater. wish is crasy to just vote a press in to ofise bast one 1 or 2 religes vowes. like abortion and gay rites.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 4:03 am

haw can so miny pepal be so blind to the facts.it makes me deprest that awer contery can be liyed to so ealy.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 4:20 am

Well, we don't believe all the lies we hear. In fact I believe very little of what you say, ewm90. I also find it instructive that our grunts over there getting shot and blown up polled at around 80% for Bush, so they believe in what we're doing, and they have the best vantage point to see what a difference our Coalition has made in the Iraqi people's lives.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 5:58 am

I really never understood why people ever said we went for oil, I know thats not true and the facts are right in front of everyone. Finally there are people here that make sense besides yours truely. Now ewm you are wrong on pretty much everything, but you say Georrbe Bush is the most hated president in history?

Lets go over that. Now when the 2000 election took place, Bush won when 500,000 more people disliked him and he did not win the popular vote. Yesterday, he won with a few million extra people supporting him compared to last election. What does that say? It means more people like him now then 4 years ago. Now if you could look at the facts, you might be able to type a rational thought.

And again in reply to Barons saying we bombed a fictitious hospital, or a few apparently, your making stuff up. The only time I heard anything of the sort was early in the war when a bomb blew up in a market. Later I believe it was found that Saddam had set it so he could rally people behind his cause. If thats not true, then I sadly must say even the innocent die in war. More civilians died in WWII then soldiers. The trick is to get more precise with your weapons and maybe one day war will become obsolete altogether. Until then we will just have to 'check our fire'.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 9:05 am

U just dont wanna belive it, the fact is that last week I saw on TV that you bombed yet another hospital, I can give u the link but its in Slovene so it wont do you any good.
And we gave u enough arguments, its u2 who refuse to see the truth which is right in front of you. Just take a look at the poll results

Oh and wanna say something about that argument u gave me when I said Iraq had obsolete weapons. U said that u have M-16 and that handpistol and Tomcats which are also old. Its strange u didnt tell me that u have knifes from the 18. century my point being that technology in handweapons and machineguns isnt advancing at all, or is but very very slowly. Thats why alot of countrys still have the WW2 German machineguns MG-42 and are still pretty good, even for todays standarts.
And about the Tomcat just tell me how much tomcats are still the same as they were, meaning they still have the same hardware and software as they had when they were built. I can anwsaer that for u, non. Thats because you've been upgrading them every couple of years and so they are still one of the best aircrafts, but I wouldnt even say they are the same planes since NEARLY everything has been replaced.
Its like I have a comp which is 5 years old but its still one of the best cause I constantly upgrade it
And so when I said they had obsolete weapons I ment tanks and aircraft in particular, so just tell me how to fight tanks without beeing able to penetrate their armor?? Of course u can but its nearly suicidle.
So plizz dont try to be smart with me on warmachines, cause I can guarantee I know more about them than u

posted on November 4th, 2004, 11:04 am

I have to agree to some people that the USA have started the war against Iraqe due to the possibility that they have chemical or biological mass destructive weapons.

Then I say : ATTACK THE USA THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!ATTACK RUSSIA AND CHINA ALSO!ATTACK FRANCE!ATTACK.....................................

Do you see what i mean? You can't attack a country only because they got these weapons.And no country has the right (if they have these weapons) to judge about other countries which want to build them.And what never was said BEFORE the attack of Iraq that the americans want to free them is simply a lie!
80% of the senators of Bush goverment have something to do with oil and the war was started in the same moment saudi arabia wanted to reduce the oil for europe and to close the oil for the usa.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 11:22 am

I agree with you Azmodan, and welcome to the forums BTW

To attack a country just because it might have WMD, its insane, its like kill all the people in the world that have guns, that way they wont shoot anyone in the future;)
I also find funny how afraid you are that other countrys are going to use their WMD on you, and its ironic u were the only country in the world that used nukes against another country.
And for the Iraqs WMD, I think that even if they had them, they wouldnt have used them. FEAR is what keeps the countrys away from using these WMD, cause they know that if they will use it against another country they will get bombed in return. Thats why u never threw nuks on Soviet union during Cold war and thats why Soviet union never nuked you. And if poor little Iraq would poison or whatever ANYONE in Europe, they would get wiped from the face of the earth.
Thats at least what I think, and I am going to stop posting in this topic now cause noone is going to change their mind, you belive whats u want, but know that there was something wrong with the Iraqs invasion and that there is something wrong with your president.

[ewm90]

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:00 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on November 4th, 2004, 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

this is what i cant understand...

the facts are thare to back up what i am saying. but for some reson thay are discawnted. i just cant understand this.


ether that or some pepal are wiling to exsept alot less that i am from the presadent than i will. if this is so its realy sad.

[ewm90]

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:24 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on November 4th, 2004, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. I really never understood why people ever said we went for oil, I know thats not true and the facts are right in front of everyone. Finally there are people here that make sense besides yours truely. Now ewm you are wrong on pretty much everything, but you say Georrbe Bush is the most hated president in history?

2. Lets go over that. Now when the 2000 election took place, Bush won when 500,000 more people disliked him and he did not win the popular vote. Yesterday, he won with a few million extra people supporting him compared to last election. What does that say? It means more people like him now then 4 years ago. Now if you could look at the facts, you might be able to type a rational thought.

3. And again in reply to Barons saying we bombed a fictitious hospital, or a few apparently, your making stuff up. The only time I heard anything of the sort was early in the war when a bomb blew up in a market. Later I believe it was found that Saddam had set it so he could rally people behind his cause. If thats not true, then I sadly must say even the innocent die in war. More civilians died in WWII then soldiers. The trick is to get more precise with your weapons and maybe one day war will become obsolete altogether. Until then we will just have to 'check our fire'.

1. i did not say he is the most hated man in histry in the usa. what i sed was more pepal cawn out to vote aginst him thany eny uther definding presadent in histry.
with meens not all the pepal voting agint him hated him thay just dont wont him as presadent.

2. in the 2000 eleshtion i have to say he lost. he was abul to cheet his whay in as presadent. the dimacrats had more votes. thay just wornt all cawted.

3. can we stop useing WW2 as an egsampal? irack is not ww2.

and one thing just to get it out thare i dont hate bush i think he is an intresting giy. but i do hate what he is doing to the cuntry and th world i dont think he makes a exsptibal presabent.

posted on November 4th, 2004, 1:28 pm

Well, we don't believe all the lies we hear. In fact I believe very little of what you say, ewm90. I also find it instructive that our grunts over there getting shot and blown up polled at around 80% for Bush, so they believe in what we're doing, and they have the best vantage point to see what a difference our Coalition has made in the Iraqi people's lives.

let me see some facts to back up what you say !!!!

posted on November 4th, 2004, 5:09 pm

:cry: bush won :cry:

he won because kerry backed out.
kerry, i have a couple things to say: SISSY, INCOMPOTENT,

posted on November 4th, 2004, 5:15 pm

karry backed out be cuss he was not gona do a bush 2000.

evin if he had he probly still whood have lost.