|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
lymelady Yeah. but it's popuularity....gotta win the popularity contest. Patriotism is so out...let's go be like Europe and get the UN to make yet another resolution. Because it worked the last 20 times. rolleyes Duh we're still looking for Bin Laden; then again, if Kerry showed up for work more often, he might know this. And they call Bush lazy. rolleyes Quote: The little light thing ended up helping Kerry more than Bush. I think Bush just ignored it. xd Quote: Basically, I"m bummed because I'm pro-Bush. But hey, I still believe this country has some brains left in it. A few, maybe.... 9/10 people in france liked Kerry better, according to one poll. So, naturally, I'm deciding to like Bush better because France is not my favorite place right now, no matter how beautifully breathtaking it is and now many nights I've wished I could go there. 9/10 Frenchmen are Pro-Kerry? What a surprise! 9/10 times you ask me, I'm Anti-Kerry! ... And usually the tenth time too, but sometimes I change my mind just to confuse you. wink Quote: China. China scares the hell outta me too. THat irks me about Bush; but he can't very well declare war on the whole world, and he can't declare war on China because of our economy, so I guess oppression, forced abortions, slave labor, religious persecution, etc. will continue until they've successfully assimilated all of asia. Japan's gonna be hard to get though. Communism. Bleck. Not to mention that China has more people then we do, and just about all of them are in the military. sweatdrop I believe all men are required to serve in the military for a certain amount of time, no?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:25 pm
AngelOfMercy87 Amen! Bush all the way. I'm not sure about my Cheney views but I think Bush has done the best job possible in the situation he was presented with. Its not easy to be a president in these sort of times and I believe he has approached it with great responsiblity, poise, and resolve. At least he can make these decisions. Kerry doesn't know WHAT he wants. Bush made his decisions. Its so easy for us to sit here and compain about him and criticize him, but who's to say we wouldn't have done the same things in his position. Also, who's to say that if he did the opposite, that we wouldn't criticize him then too. Its not easy to be under the watchful eye of the good ol' U S of A, especially at a time like this! Also, I know this is a little off topic, but if you don't vote, DON'T YOU DARE COMPLAIN! What frightens me more then the idea that we might be electing a man with no opinion this comming election, is the thought that Kerry -does- have an opinion, and we'll find out what it is when he's elected. eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:27 pm
not a clue about the china thing. But it'd be hot. We should do that here. Oh wait, we tried....and it just brought people protesting, going to france as a US citizen, illegally meeting with the enemy, and then trying to become commander in chief because obviously, a man who's committed acts of treason and basically said that everyone in the national guard sucks is the man who we need leading our military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:53 pm
Speaking from experience, John Edwards was not a good choice for VP (aside from the point that I'm a Bush supporter anyway) As senator, he frankly sucked. He actually, didn't even do anything, let alone anything beneficial or good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:11 am
Just want to interject here- If the war on terror is supposed to be for 9/11, why are we in Iraq when it was Afghanistan? And why would be bomb Afghanistan when it was a small extremist sect in afghanistan? The same logic behind bombing afghanistan is that which spawned 9/11. It propagates itself unless we stop it.
Osama Bin Laden said that the idea behind the bombing was to get word out about American occupation of the middle eastern holy lands- jereusalem, iran. They claim that we side with the jews, which is true. We take sides in the palestinian wars. Admittedly, they went about it the wrong way.
Basically, what they were saying was, "Stop helping our enemies or we'll kill your civilians"- it was terrorism. Our response was to say "Stop killing our civilians or we'll kill your civilians"- in effect, terrorism.
Then of course, any country with either a Q or no vowels in it, and it's a terrorist country. It's a witch-hunt, they're all the same, they all hate america and apple pie and bald eagles and puppies. Thus, the war in Iraq begins for no reason. We found 3 nuclear weapons? Having nuclear weapons is a crime? Then our crimes are a thousandfold.
But in all of this, it's not bad enough that soldiers are dying. No, we kill civilians too. It is part of war, and the part of war which makes war unnacceptable.
Many scoff at this and say "But they are Iraqis who hate America"- you would hate us too, if it was YOUR country invaded by the superpower. If it was Soviet Russia invading in the cold war, or Britain occupying America in the revolution, the tune would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:35 am
...Where are you getting your information? You make it sound like our goal is to kill civilians, or that we in any way, at any time, aim to kill civilians. If this is what you are trying to say, you are extremely wrong. Civilians die as a side effect; A bomb explodes and shrapnel hits a nearby citizen, a civilian gets caught in the crossfire, that sort of thing. It's not like we go through a town -exterminating- civilians, or just mowing down town squares, or, say, running airplanes into buildings filled only with civilians.
The war on terror -began- on 9/11. It wasn't supposed to be -for- 9/11, 9/11 just set it off. The idea was basically that, hey, there are people out there who do this sort of thing. True, most of them aren't attacking America, but they are out there. Hey, we're kind of the big kid on the block. We should stop them.
I don't understand why what seems to me to be a fairly honorable and almost selfless thing (Sending American troops to protect people who aren't American, and probably never will be American, with little to no chance of getting anything back for it) can be seen as selfish or evil. We're not invading. We didn't make Afghanistan and we aren't making Iraq colonies. We aren't receiving any sort of tribute for this. What's this supposed to be doing for us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:38 pm
Us as common folk? Nothing. for General Electric, who make nice contracts, everything.
For the American construction contractors who clean up our bombing runs? Everything.
For the people who can make money of the (very, very profitable) business that is war, everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:28 am
I'm sorry, but I have to say bullshit. You are essentially saying that the "big bad companies" started the war through Bush because there was profit there. That they intentionally started a war that they knew would kill thousands just so that they could clean up afterwards. This basically means that Bush and/or his advisers started a war (Again, killing thousands of people) because it would help their friends in big business, even though there was absolutely no actual benefit to them.
You, my friend, have been watching too many movies and visiting too many conspiracy theory forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:37 pm
Cheney owns shares in construction companies which are contracted across seas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:27 pm
divineseraph Cheney owns shares in construction companies which are contracted across seas. Yes, so? I'm sure that my parents have shares in companies that have profited from the war. You are still saying that these people started a war and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars and our military many lives just so that their friends can make some money, and through them d**k Cheney can make even less money. Not buying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:24 pm
Even less money? for an entire war? It's a moeny laundering system. They companies sell outragiously expensive supplies- I.E., thousand dollar hammers, toilet seats...
The money thus goes from taxpayers to contracted companies that the war-staters happen to have stocks in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:56 pm
divineseraph Even less money? for an entire war? It's a moeny laundering system. They companies sell outragiously expensive supplies- I.E., thousand dollar hammers, toilet seats... The money thus goes from taxpayers to contracted companies that the war-staters happen to have stocks in. I'm sorry, but I really can't respect the conspiracy-theory argument that people would start a war so that they can get a small portion of some money that other people are making through the war. The people starting the war already being very well off, and plenty able to do basically anything they want, without killing people and causing people to be killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:51 am
Ah, but you always want more.
Why do these people never step down? If they made all the money they'll ever need by the age of 35, why not retire and pass on the wealth?
There is always more money to be made. A war is good for economy, and economy is good for business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
