Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I just think it's sad that these so called Americans would use the deaths of innocent civilians just to trash a guy because he is a Republican,because that is what it boils down to,Demos hate Republicans,some smart guy is talking about 150,000 dead,these terrorists want us all dead,and if Bush didn't have the balls to do something about it we might all be dead,but at least we would have 2 trillion dollars to put into social programs,we could help stop AIDS in Africa,or give it to the kids of lazy drunk lowlifes so they can have better health care and go to college,I'd like to know who is going to put my kids through college because I can't seem to save up money for their college funds,meanwhile I see people buying drinks and snacks with a benefit card,getting big tax returns but don't work,because they get to claim a few kids,and you people are complaining about the cost of your freedom,whomever said Bush let 9-11 happen on his watch for the millionth time is the dumbest Demo ever. 1) I was a bush supporter - I dont hate him. he fucckked up! 2) please please please stop talking about terrorists in Iraq - there were none until we invaded! 3) bush borrowed the money from the chinese for this war and our grandkids will pay it back someday. 4) and yes - many of us think that sending your kid - and lots of other kids to college is a hell of alot more important than invading a country that did not threaten us - has no means to threaten us and not a fraction as dangerous to us as about 20 other countries in the world - including the one we are borrowing money from! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 so you don't consider frieing surface to air missiles at American pilots on a daily basis a threat. wow, you are pretty tough! you should have gone to Afghanistan, you could have single handedly wiped out al qaeda and the taliban in a matter of minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 what did he lie about??? 1) there were WMD's in iraq, most of them got moved to syria and buried but some were found. 2) iraq WAS still working on their nuclear program, the NY Times just LIED to us about them not doing it. 3) al qaeda, and many other terrorists organizations were operating in iraq. so what again did he lie about? Just out of curiosity, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria - Iran - North Korea - China - Kazikstan - Sudan - Pakistan - Bellareus - Ukraine? They all have more terrorists - all have more wmd - all support terrorism a heck of alot more than Iraq ever thought of doing. So we invaded Iraq why? and yes - Bush lied about many things and yes - the other poster is correct. I get tired of making the list again every time one of you yahoos who dont read a newspaper or watch the news decide to live in your fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 i get tired of people who LET the incredibly biased news COMPANIES tell them how to think, lemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 so you don't consider frieing surface to air missiles at American pilots on a daily basis a threat. wow, you are pretty tough! you should have gone to Afghanistan, you could have single handedly wiped out al qaeda and the taliban in a matter of minutes. Well, just to keep it real: It was not on a daily basis, more like a monthly basis. And yes, I supported force and he paid a huge price for that in material and lives and economic hardship. as far as the rest of your post. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about - you saying we should not have invaded Afghanistan? I disagree. I supported that war strongly and still do. In fact, I think it needs a surge of it's own. But none of that and none of what you say justifies invading a country and spending 2 trillion dollars and killing 5000 of our own troops and wounding over 30,000 - not to mention the 150,000 Iraqui's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 i get tired of people who LET the incredibly biased news COMPANIES tell them how to think, lemming. I agree - Rush - Fox news and all those "news" outlets are so incredibly biased, I don't even know how they pretend to be news organizations any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 saddam paid a price??? you got to be kidding me! perhaps you missed the video of american LIBERATORS inside of saddam,s dozens of palaces. the only people that suffered economic hardships were the iraqi people, not their DICTATOR. the only way that saddam was going to pay for his actions was for another country to come in there and TAKE his country away from him, then have his dums a$$ hung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 First of all, Saddam's Iraq was most definitely on the State Dept's list of state sponsored terrorism. You accuse others of lying but yet you engage in the same. Second of all, you forget (conveniently) that Bush's SOTU Address where he uttered those 16 words (you know what I'm talking about) was months after Congress' war approval. So much for Bush lying us into war. Actually, it was Joe Wilson lying about Iraq NOT seeking yellowcake as the British claimed they did......a report, I might add, that is still supported by British Intelligence and many in the Intelligence community. You, as do most Dem/Libs love to throw around that word "lie", but you show no ability to understand what it means. Bush knew? Sorry if I don't simply take your word for it. I require proof......or at least a well reasoned argument. You provide neither. You are indeed correct about itraq being on the list - sorry for the error. Saddam offered monetary rewards for the family of any Palastinian who died in a suicide bomb against Israel. My mistake - sorry. As far as the speech being months after the congressional vote. Me - and many otehr people were leery and leaning against the war (actually the majority of Americans were against it til that point) until the speech - which scared the bejesus out of me and many other people. Public opinion swung wildly to the side of invading, with my fullest support. And no, British intelligence does not still support that claim and no american Intelligence Agency does either. Not he Cia - not the NSA - none of them. and when Bush made the speech, he knew it was a lie. It is unfortunate. I think he could have garnered support without doing that and I believe that there were many other reasons to go to war in Iraq other than that issue of nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I agree - Rush - Fox news and all those "news" outlets are so incredibly biased, I don't even know how they pretend to be news organizations any longer. i don't watch much cable news. fox slants right and every other news company on the planet slants left. i form my opinions from a good knowledge history and current events. and since when has rush even said he was a unbiased news reported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 saddam paid a price??? you got to be kidding me! perhaps you missed the video of american LIBERATORS inside of saddam,s dozens of palaces. the only people that suffered economic hardships were the iraqi people, not their DICTATOR. the only way that saddam was going to pay for his actions was for another country to come in there and TAKE his country away from him, then have his dums a$$ hung. so we invaded to "free" the citizens? I think there are about 20 countries on the list that do worse things to their people than saddam did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 You are indeed correct about itraq being on the list - sorry for the error. Saddam offered monetary rewards for the family of any Palastinian who died in a suicide bomb against Israel. My mistake - sorry. As far as the speech being months after the congressional vote. Me - and many otehr people were leery and leaning against the war (actually the majority of Americans were against it til that point) until the speech - which scared the bejesus out of me and many other people. Public opinion swung wildly to the side of invading, with my fullest support. And no, British intelligence does not still support that claim and no american Intelligence Agency does either. Not he Cia - not the NSA - none of them. and when Bush made the speech, he knew it was a lie. It is unfortunate. I think he could have garnered support without doing that and I believe that there were many other reasons to go to war in Iraq other than that issue of nukes. at least you will admit being wrong. but your entire second paragraph is OPINION, namely YOUR opinion. provide proof of anything you just stated in there. those are pretty bold statements there, it should not be hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 i don't watch much cable news. fox slants right and every other news company on the planet slants left. i form my opinions from a good knowledge history and current events. and since when has rush even said he was a unbiased news reported? about every day of the week he states that he is the only unbiased oh - and that is how I form my opinions too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 so we invaded to "free" the citizens? I think there are about 20 countries on the list that do worse things to their people than saddam did. so you think we invade them also??? you are more hawkish than i thought. the journey of a million miles starts with a single step. if you want to change the world you can't start at the finish line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 at least you will admit being wrong. but your entire second paragraph is OPINION, namely YOUR opinion. provide proof of anything you just stated in there. those are pretty bold statements there, it should not be hard to find. The unfortuantely, were not opinion - all facts - all truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 so you think we invade them also??? you are more hawkish than i thought. the journey of a million miles starts with a single step. if you want to change the world you can't start at the finish line. So Iraq was the start and there are many to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 about every day of the week he states that he is the only unbiased oh - and that is how I form my opinions too show me 1 single direct quote where rush says he is unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 So Iraq was the start and there are many to go? freedom has to be the future of the planet, and its people. we don't have to invade all the countries to achieve this goal there are other ways. but forcefully taking iraq, a muslim country in the heart of the islamic world, away from one of the worst dictators on earth and giving it back to the people is a good first step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 freedom has to be the future of the planet, and its people. we don't have to invade all the countries to achieve this goal there are other ways. but forcefully taking iraq, a muslim country in the heart of the islamic world, away from one of the worst dictators on earth and giving it back to the people is a good first step. You see - now that I agree with. there were many reasons to invade Iraq, I think that is one of them we agree on something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 The unfortuantely, were not opinion - all facts - all truth show me proof, not your opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 You see - now that I agree with. there were many reasons to invade Iraq, I think that is one of them we agree on something did hell just freeze over??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coulter Moonbat Alert Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 i don't watch much cable news. fox slants right and every other news company on the planet slants left. i form my opinions from a good knowledge history and current events. and since when has rush even said he was a unbiased news reported? :lol: :lol: Since WHEN????????? :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonsiesdrvgcat Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I agree - Rush - Fox news and all those "news" outlets are so incredibly biased, I don't even know how they pretend to be news organizations any longer. did you just arrive at this on your own???? did you just enter earths atmosphere??? propoganda has been here for quite some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonsiesdrvgcat Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 moonbat doesnt know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonsiesdrvgcat Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 bush is not a war president. the only thing there is living proof of, that he did, rests in the history books at phillips academy. he was head cheerleader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.