Bush for 2004! (yeah, right)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victor Vance
  • 169 comments
  • 4,552 views
RacyBacy
That has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on this site when you consider the context in which it was written. And from a moderator too.

To compare a "giant fart cannon" on a 4-cylinder car to the war in Iraq is delusional.

Can no one accept the view that some people just don't agree with the war in Iraq instead of coming out with stupid, childish comparisons which have no substance or relevance?

Can no one accept the views of Kofi Annan?

Seems not on this site anyway.
I've long since accepted that many many people just don't agree with the war in Iraq. I myself have mixed thoughts about it. It is not your opposition to the war that I (or anybody, though no one in your position ever seems to realize it) am opposed to and 'don't accept'. It's the way you have formed and defend that opposition that fails to earn our respect and attention.
 
neon_duke
I've long since accepted that many many people just don't agree with the war in Iraq. I myself have mixed thoughts about it. It is not your opposition to the war that I (or anybody, though no one in your position ever seems to realize it) am opposed to and 'don't accept'. It's the way you have formed and defend that opposition that fails to earn our respect and attention.

I also respect and understand that people have mixed views on the war in Iraq. I don't like it when people try and pretend that Iraq is normal and stable though. That I will object to.

In terms of gaining respect from posts people have made then talking about a giant fart cannon on a four cylinder car and comparing it to Iraq doesn't earn much respect in my books.

It's the arrogant stance of some posts that is really unbelieveable. But then, you probably think this is arrogant. Hope it doesn't come across that way.

To be honest I think we already had a little clash earlier on in this thread when you accused me of selective blindness, which was unjustified IMO (you never did take it back), so I'm not surprised that my posts fail to earn your respect.

I think you make valid points neon_duke, but I do disagree with you on some. But it works both ways, there are people who will not respect your posts or the way you form your opinions.
 
Don't bother RacyBacy. there is no way to publicly oppose this war, no matter how Neon tries to tell us it's our argument and the way it's formed that are the real reason he doesn't agree with us. America and Americans have an answer for everything.
 
Nobody said you can't publicly oppose the war. This is the opinions forum, you can basically post just about anything here. But just remember that when you do post, you're playing with a double edged sword - People can (read: will) post replies opposing your opinion. When the elevator hits the basement level of childish namecalling and "AMERICA IS SUX!!!!!!!!1111111" (basically) with no logic or reasoning, though, you're going to attract attention from some mean people who don't particularly like you or your opinion.

So, if you don't want your opinions to be opposed, keep them to yourself.
 
You're posting saying we will think that you're wrong no matter what. We're posting saying that you will think America is wrong no matter what. Same difference.

Anderton, you among others keep saying that you are "not allowed" to publicly oppose the war or America. You are wrong, totally. If you were "not allowed", I'd have just banned you all out of the equation weeks ago. But I didn't, and never will.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, America doesn't work that way. You have every right to voice your opinion in a public place. NOTE that this is not a public place - it is Jordan's private property - and yet that privelege has still been extended to you. You have excercised that privelege every day.

So how exactly are you "not allowed" to oppose the war? Just because we refuse to agree with you?

Voicing your opinion does not give you any right to expect that people will agree with it. You're still allowed to have that opinion... but it's up to you to persuade people to agree.
 
the guy is an idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. what can i tell you. you know it, i know it, and everybody in this god forsaken world knows it. yet we still see people supporting, oh he can protect us from terrorists, he knew about sept 11 all along yet he did not do anything to prevent it. yes, yes, yes, i voted for that moron and there isn't a day that i regreted that one day i supported that idiot.
he is a puppet for cooperate america, all the actions that where taken wheren't his, it was that of the republican party. and no i do not support democrates, though clintons presidency was way better than this morons.
there are so many other parties to choose from other than "R" or "D", maybe it's we as americans are too lazy to look into other options.
i will be voting for bush this time around, because he haven't been exposed to the public the way he should be. our countryis going down if we vote for bush, but hey if that what it takes to make americans see the truth, then the hell with it. i ooficialy declare that we are a super power no more if "W" is elected.
god save us, and god bless what will be left of America.
 
Anderton
You're right, I shouldn't say I am not allowed to oppose the war. I am allowed to, and I do.
i raise my hat to you dear sir. rest assured you are not the only one who is being aggrivated by pro W. dear sir, this is a never ending battle and i would recomend to come in prepared evry time you argue with them. because they will pull all the stops to put you at fault.

IT'S GONNA GET UGLY............ :grumpy:
 
Anderton
You, sir, are a CHILD. And I fear you live in a nation with many more children masquerading as adults blah, blah, blah...
Look who's calling people names now. Very hypocritical for you to accuse me of name calling, yet you do it at your own will and without basis.

Oh, the irony.
 
RallyF1
the guy is an idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. what can i tell you. you know it, i know it, and everybody in this god forsaken world knows it. yet we still see people supporting, oh he can protect us from terrorists, he knew about sept 11 all along yet he did not do anything to prevent it. yes, yes, yes, i voted for that moron and there isn't a day that i regreted that one day i supported that idiot.
he is a puppet for cooperate america, all the actions that where taken wheren't his, it was that of the republican party. and no i do not support democrates, though clintons presidency was way better than this morons.
there are so many other parties to choose from other than "R" or "D", maybe it's we as americans are too lazy to look into other options.
i will be voting for bush this time around, because he haven't been exposed to the public the way he should be. our countryis going down if we vote for bush, but hey if that what it takes to make americans see the truth, then the hell with it. i ooficialy declare that we are a super power no more if "W" is elected.
god save us, and god bless what will be left of America.

I certainly hope you all didn't actually read all of that just because I quoted it, I know I didn't.

Rally, you're an idiot. A hypocritical idiot, at that. You call Bush out for being "an idiot", yet your intelligence rivals that of stale crackers. Go away.
 
the guy is an idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. what can i tell you. you know it, i know it, and everybody in this god forsaken world knows it. yet we still see people supporting, oh he can protect us from terrorists, he knew about sept 11 all along yet he did not do anything to prevent it. yes, yes, yes, i voted for that moron and there isn't a day that i regreted that one day i supported that idiot.
he is a puppet for cooperate america, all the actions that where taken wheren't his, it was that of the republican party. and no i do not support democrates, though clintons presidency was way better than this morons.
there are so many other parties to choose from other than "R" or "D", maybe it's we as americans are too lazy to look into other options.
i will be voting for bush this time around, because he haven't been exposed to the public the way he should be. our countryis going down if we vote for bush, but hey if that what it takes to make americans see the truth, then the hell with it. i ooficialy declare that we are a super power no more if "W" is elected.
god save us, and god bless what will be left of America.

With logic like that you must be right. I especially like the part about corporate America. Like all these companies are really a big super organization running the country. You've talked me in to it Rally - I'm going to vote for Bush too.
 
RallyF1
the guy is an idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. what can i tell you. you know it, i know it, and everybody in this god forsaken world knows it. yet we still see people supporting, oh he can protect us from terrorists, he knew about sept 11 all along yet he did not do anything to prevent it. yes, yes, yes, i voted for that moron and there isn't a day that i regreted that one day i supported that idiot.
he is a puppet for cooperate america, all the actions that where taken wheren't his, it was that of the republican party. and no i do not support democrates, though clintons presidency was way better than this morons.
there are so many other parties to choose from other than "R" or "D", maybe it's we as americans are too lazy to look into other options.
i will be voting for bush this time around, because he haven't been exposed to the public the way he should be. our countryis going down if we vote for bush, but hey if that what it takes to make americans see the truth, then the hell with it. i ooficialy declare that we are a super power no more if "W" is elected.
god save us, and god bless what will be left of America.
I thought all it took was a Michael Moore movie to show America the Truth.

Has anybody but me noticed that nearly all non-American Bush haters assume that he determines American policy singlehandedly as if he were a fascist dictator, while most American Bush-haters assume he's a brainless stooge of the military-industrial complex?
 
I've noticed. I've also noticed that our government has a legislative branch, which includes Democro-socialists, which signs of on everything Bush does.
 
danoff
With logic like that you must be right. I especially like the part about corporate America. Like all these companies are really a big super organization running the country. You've talked me in to it Rally - I'm going to vote for Bush too.
i read what you guys had to say, and i will allow myself to say, your responses are the most pathetic i have ever heard.
and regarding cooperate america controlling american policies, on top of my head i will give you two examples, japan and guatemala. japan was forced by the U.S. navy to trade with the united states for the benefit of the fat cats who influence our goverment. in guatimala a civil war erupted, fueled by the U.S. goverment thus insuring that "sunkist" would be able to buy lands at cheap prices, so that the american public can have bannanas. i'm not gonna go into detail, but our country was established by rich white men. the history books don't lie, so do your self a favor and your country and get some education.
and this one is for neon duke, i really like the way you make anti-goverment citizens into un-american. but i guess in that little world of yours being an american is beleiving what the goverment tells us. we are so dependent on the goverment, we can't even cross the atlantic without asking for permision. this is so pathetic............................
and i'm sure you will find a way of weasling yourself and making me un-american.
 
RallyF1
i read what you guys had to say, and i will allow myself to say, your responses are the most pathetic i have ever heard.
and regarding cooperate america controlling american policies, on top of my head i will give you two examples, japan and guatemala. japan was forced by the U.S. navy to trade with the united states for the benefit of the fat cats who influence our goverment. in guatimala a civil war erupted, fueled by the U.S. goverment thus insuring that "sunkist" would be able to buy lands at cheap prices, so that the american public can have bannanas. i'm not gonna go into detail, but our country was established by rich white men. the history books don't lie, so do your self a favor and your country and get some education.
and this one is for neon duke, i really like the way you make anti-goverment citizens into un-american. but i guess in that little world of yours being an american is beleiving what the goverment tells us. we are so dependent on the goverment, we can't even cross the atlantic without asking for permision. this is so pathetic............................
and i'm sure you will find a way of weasling yourself and making me un-american.

Here's a tip... do the PCP after you post next time.
 
RallyF1
i read what you guys had to say, and i will allow myself to say, your responses are the most pathetic i have ever heard.

[snip]

i'm not gonna go into detail, but our country was established by rich white men. the history books don't lie, so do your self a favor and your country and get some education.
I think the red words above are pretty telling, and more true than you know. You're not doing yourself any favors by listening to Al Franken. Try P. J. O'Rourke instead - he's funnier, smarter, and more correct.
and this one is for neon duke, i really like the way you make anti-goverment citizens into un-american. but i guess in that little world of yours being an american is beleiving what the goverment tells us.

[snip]

and i'm sure you will find a way of weasling yourself and making me un-american.
Can I let you in on a little secret? I'm a Libertarian. 'Libertarian' means 'in support of liberty'. I've voted Libertarian in every election since 1984, except one, and in that one I also voted for an independent candidate. That's probably longer than you've been alive. I am about as anti-government as it gets, short of stocking up on assault weapons and moving to Montana. But I consider myself extremely American - more American than the American government itself currently is.

That means I think for myself and I speak for myself. I've got years of practice at it. Why you call that 'weasling', I don't understand. I don't support Bush and will never vote for him - read that again, never vote for him - but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize his strong points as well as his weak points.

Those of you with a simplistic, knee-jerk vision of Bush as a retarded big-money stooge are every bit as blind as you think Bush supporters are, and you're every bit as self-righteous about that blindness. It's a bad combination either way.
we are so dependent on the goverment, we can't even cross the atlantic without asking for permision. this is so pathetic............................
First off, do you realize that the Democrats are all about making people even more dependent on the government, not less?

Second off, since when is it necessary to have anything more than a passport to cross the Atlantic? You do so at your own risk, of course, but that's not the same thing as needing permission.

I appreciate the excitement of youthful rebellion. But by following the whole anti-Establishment party line, you're letting the Establishment dictate your thinking just as surely as if you were a Young Republican.
 
Viper Zero
Look who's calling people names now. Very hypocritical for you to accuse me of name calling, yet you do it at your own will and without basis.

Oh, the irony.
I wish we could have been friends, Viper. But I've never been known to befriend someone who calls me a tool. I will never forget, and I will never forgive. And you are a child. Only children call others names like TOOL.
 
neon_duke
I thought all it took was a Michael Moore movie to show America the Truth.

Has anybody but me noticed that nearly all non-American Bush haters assume that he determines American policy singlehandedly as if he were a fascist dictator, while most American Bush-haters assume he's a brainless stooge of the military-industrial complex?

I think that's a misperception. It's basically a little more complex than that. We Europeans for one think that Americans vote for a president, an individual, not a party. This is how we are not surprised for instance to see a Jerry Springer become mayor, Mr. Universe become governor and Ronald Reagan become president.

In the meantime, we are in complete amazement of how much money goes into a political campaign in the U.S., particularly since we are much more cautious of the dangers of buying political influence and favors as a result of this. We do very much recognise the power of large industries.

Comparatively less amazing is how much of that money goes into making candidate 1 more popular than candidate 2 - in the light of the first paragraph, we think we start to understand how the Americans vote. Certainly the parties seem to think this two, as where elections here actually focus on political issues, in the U.S. we see two parties push their leaders as the ultimate solid rocks in times of turmoil without which the world would fall apart.

So with that understanding, we Europeans have started to look more closely at the candidates of the parties. In Clinton, Europe recognised all that it found appealing about the U.S. In Bush, the Europeans recognise all that we find appalling about the U.S.

However, it is very important to realise that we are talking about the Europeans who care to actually interest themselves in politics outside their own villages and countries. They are appalled by someone who seems to care and know so little about other countries. There are many more Europeans than you'd think based on what you hear here and elsewhere, who would vote Bush if he was a local guy. But they don't care enough to have an opinion on anything outside their own small world, let alone voice it.

Bear in mind that the above is a generalisation and does not necessarily represent my own standpoint. It contains oversimplifications on all levels that I myself generally tend to prefer to keep viewing in their full complexity.

Having said that, I think Bush lack of understanding (giving him the benefit of the doubt of purposely ignoring) the world is an insult to everyone both in the U.S. and outside, and the policies of the Republican party and the forces behind it border on the criminal.

I hold to the theory though that once a president is elected in the U.S., he'll be allowed to stay on for the full 8 years. For what reason I have no idea, but except for a vice-predident who came into power because a president was murdered and so wasn't really elected into presidency, I cannot think of an exception. But I don't know all of them by heart (just Kennedy, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush), not even sure who was president before ol' Ronnie.

Hillary for president! ;)
 
Jimmy Carter was the one-term, four year Democrat president before Reagan. Bush Sr. was the one-term, four year Republican president after Reagan.

Even when he was president, I never understood the popular misconceptions about Reagan. People always seemed crestfallen: "You mean Ronald Reagan, the actor? How on earth did he become president?!" Never mind the fact that his career in politics was far longer and more wide-ranging than his acting career, even excluding the presidency, and that 90% of the people who uttered those words never would have heard of Ronald Reagan at all if he hadn't become president.
 
So with that understanding, we Europeans have started to look more closely at the candidates of the parties. In Clinton, Europe recognised all that it found appealing about the U.S. In Bush, the Europeans recognise all that we find appalling about the U.S.

Right. You guys like it when we ignore terrorists plotting to kill our civilians. You guys also like it when our government becomes more like yours - socialist. What did Clinotn's presidency buy us? A destroyed world trade center and a recession. I guess we did have a little entertainment with the Monica thing and it was fun to impeach a sitting president...

Having said that, I think Bush lack of understanding (giving him the benefit of the doubt of purposely ignoring) the world is an insult to everyone both in the U.S. and outside, and the policies of the Republican party and the forces behind it border on the criminal.

I would say that he's purposely ignoring select European countries that you call "The World". I, for one, am happy about that.

Second off, since when is it necessary to have anything more than a passport to cross the Atlantic? You do so at your own risk, of course, but that's not the same thing as needing permission.

The guy donated money to organizations known to support terrorism - that's what we know. Apparenty there is more dirt on him that hasn't yet been released. The only thing I have a problem with was that he was allowed to get on the plane at all, not that he was turned around alfter he got here.
 
Oh, wait, was the original comment about that Cat Stevens thing? Well, duh, that's such a specialized and bizarre case that it never ocurred to me that was what he was referring to.

Cat Stevens was chanting for Salman Rushdie's head on a pike 10 years ago. He foams at the mouth when he discusses America. He's a raving lunatic. I wouldn't have let him anywhere near here. If that's what RallyF1 means by 'needing permission', then the comment is silly.
 
danoff
Right. You guys like it when we ignore terrorists plotting to kill our civilians. You guys also like it when our government becomes more like yours - socialist. What did Clinotn's presidency buy us? A destroyed world trade center and a recession. I guess we did have a little entertainment with the Monica thing and it was fun to impeach a sitting president...

I understand. Kenneth Starr was a real hero. Also, you'll understand that we choose to be a little more socialist for good reasons. We have a democracy here too, you know, and by all means not a less efficient one. For this reason, we think you'd be better off with a little more socialism too. Too bad the distance between those that need help and those that don't is so big that the first group is too busy making a living to even think about voting, or to realise it could matter.

I would say that he's purposely ignoring select European countries that you call "The World". I, for one, am happy about that.

I would say that he is basically ignorant of them. But if you're right, I'm not sure what he wants to achieve that way. I'm not sure that he wants to achieve anything other than please his Republican friends, in fact. The only thing I think might be coming from himself entirely is his stance on abortion. I'm really looking, but so far I've not found anything. The whole silly axis of evil and you're either for us or against us rhethoric is basic strategy when you want to force your way onto others.

You go ahead and believe that Clinton's policies (well, Democrat policies) were the ones that provoked the WTC attack and that Bush's (well, Republican) policies will help prevent them. I personally believe that solving the Palestine-Israel conflict is a much more important first step. It remains a major cause of instability in the region, and the U.S. dedication to supporting Israel combined with fuel interests is what keeps U.S. military presence required in the region. If you want to deal with terrorism effectively, you need to take away the cause for it, not the symptoms of it.

Worst of all, Iraq had compartively nothing to do with the whole thing. The money spent there could have been much better spent. You think Iraq was a bad place under Saddam, but that doesn't make it much different from the other countries there. Iraq didn't pose a threat, and a regime change there isn't necessarily going to make the region more stable - the contrary may well be true.

I also wonder, had all this money been spent on implementing nitrogen, solar power and wind energy to make the world 90% less dependent on fossil fuels, what would that have done to the region? (never mind the environment)

In the meantime, Israel is starting to look like the Iraq that would have been allowed to take over Kuwait and nobody is doing anything.

I'm just a lowly computer programmer and I wish that I could tell myself that the people up to dealing with this issue have a much better perspective on the matter than me and are doing the right thing, but I can't seem to convince myself. That's I guess why I keep coming back to these forums - hoping that I can find a reason not to be bothered by it and focus my time on less important stuff like my first car and driving the Nurburgring, both in the BMW demo and in real life.

EDIT: Thanks Duke, I had forgotten that Bush Sr. only served the one term. 👍
 
Arwin
If you want to deal with terrorism effectively, you need to take away the cause for it, not the symptoms of it.
I am so sick of hearing this. The cause of terrorism is terrorists. Period. The solution is to defeat them. You talk like terrorists represent something noble, rational, or justifiable. They are vermin.

Your pity is deadly.
 
milefile
You're just picking up on that? We already are.
YOU THINK THIS IS A WAR?! What the hell is wrong with you? You boggle my mind. Or perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean by you and I already being at war? No, you can't, because what you and I are doing is DEBATING AND ARGUING over something, not fighting and killing each other. That you seem unable to differentiate between the two is dangerous indeed...
 
milefile
I am so sick of hearing this. The cause of terrorism is terrorists. Period. The solution is to defeat them. You talk like terrorists represent something noble, rational, or justifiable. They are vermin.

Your pity is deadly.
Care to explain how you think we can defeat the terrorists?

Are terrorists scum? Of course, they try to make political statements by inflicting harm and terror upon innocent people, regardless of if their victims care about the political motive at hand. There is nothing more I'd like to see than just throwing all these terrorist douchebags into a large room, and then just blowing it up.

But, that is not going to happen. And, even if we keep on killing every terrorist we see, there will always be more coming, impressionable youth are tought to hate their enemy from a very young age, so they are eager to fight. So, how can we defeat them? Remove their source of hatred. Find out why they hate us so much, and reverse it. It will work. For example, would any of us hate Nazi Germany so much had they never unjustifyably invaded another country or committed genocide? (*Disclaimer* I am not comparing America to Nazi Germany, this is just for the sake of an example).
 
If the **** really hits the fan, that would unfortunately be the only way to defeat the terrorists.

One host on my radio station suggested that the only way to stop these terrorists would be to strike them where it hurts, by killing the families of anyone who commits an act of terror. This would very likely work, but by killing off whole families including seniors, children, and babies, that would be steeping to their level, which would make us no better than them.
 
Ev0
Care to explain how you think we can defeat the terrorists?

Are terrorists scum? Of course, they try to make political statements by inflicting harm and terror upon innocent people, regardless of if their victims care about the political motive at hand. There is nothing more I'd like to see than just throwing all these terrorist douchebags into a large room, and then just blowing it up.

But, that is not going to happen. And, even if we keep on killing every terrorist we see, there will always be more coming, impressionable youth are tought to hate their enemy from a very young age, so they are eager to fight. So, how can we defeat them? Remove their source of hatred. Find out why they hate us so much, and reverse it. It will work.
No it won't. It's ludicrous, and downright immoral, to suggest that Western Civilization should alter it's destiny to placate a handful of Muslim maniacs with bombs and suicidal tendencies. What are you on? Furthermore the mere suggestion of conceding to them is called "losing the war". It won't happen. Ever. War is the only solution to war.

One way to fight them is for every non-combatant they decapitate nuke a villiage in Iran. For every Suicide bomber take out a city block in Mecca. 👍

War is still war as much as we'd like to think things have changed since 1945. If you think you've seen death...
 
milefile
No it won't. It's ludicrous, and downright immoral, to suggest that Western Civilization should alter it's destiny to placate a handful of Muslim maniacs with bombs and suicidal tendencies. What are you on? Furthermore the mere suggestion of conceding to them is called "losing the war". It won't happen. Ever. War is the only solution to war.

One way to fight them is for every non-combatant they decapitate nuke a villiage in Iran. For every Suicide bomber take out a city block in Mecca. 👍

War is still war as much as we'd like to think things have changed since 1945. If you think you've seen death...
War is the only solution to war? Unfortunately, that is a true statement. Are we fighting a winning war though? Hell no. Al Qaeda is still in existance, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, anti-American sentiments around the world are growing stronger, terror attacks are still common around the world, Afghanistan is still ruled in many parts by ruthless warlords, and Iraq has undergone a change from an evil, despotic dictatorship to a country in anarchy that is going through a bloddy war in which thousands have died so far.

Sometimes you have to know when you've lost. Just cut your losses and admit defeat before you lose too much. Because this is the path we are walking down now unless some major change in strategy occurs.

If we took out a city block in Mecca or do something of a similar nature everytime an act of terror is committed, not olny would we be stepping down to their level of warfare, but it would also incite more terrorism. You have to ask yourself would the ends justify the means?

And things have vastly changed since 1945. Back then, it was easy to tell who was and was not the enemy. But in this war on terror, we don't know who specifically the enemy is. That is what makes it so very difficult to fight, unless you wanted to kill every Muslim on the planet just because of the actions of a small group of maniacs.
 
what a pitty..............this is really pathetic. milefile you are a disgrace to political debating. how old are you son, 12,13, because if you'r over 18 then you are a shame to society with such anology.
this is what you said, and i quote:"One way to fight them is for every non-combatant they decapitate nuke a villiage in Iran. For every Suicide bomber take out a city block in Mecca." milefile.
are you out of your mind, who have you been listening to. hold on, under your avitar it says you live in caucasia which means your white. but not any white, your the whites who are confinded to the town they live in and are afraid to get out because they will feel lost and powerless. and the only policy they beleive in is the policy of revenge. are the 1000+ soldiers who died in iraq, that's what the goverment is proclaiming i'm sure there are thousands more, worth the freedom that our goverment is promising the iraqis. from the way things are, it doesn't seem that they want to be freed by us.
do you know anything about the iraqi history or about it's people, these people need some one like saddam hussein. it's like a can of worms the U.S. have opened, shiats are raging so are the sunis, and then we have the other relegious factions who are doing damage to our troops but they are not grabbing headlines because they are not as big as the first two but they are getting there and they vary from christians, to tawehedien another islamic faction, to beleive it or not iraqi jews who are laying low for the time being. iraq is like a melting pot that our intelligence failed to recognise. all in all, and like the intelligence committe concluded last week, iraqs situation is not inviting and it's heading to a civil war. our troops pull out of there and these people will start killing each other.
arabs have a saying that i know:"i stand with my brother against my cousin, and i will stand with my cousin against the enemy" and this is true, they will kill each other if no one interfeers, but if someone like the U.S. steps in they will stand together against theire common enemy. and that's what's going on right now in iraq. there are 2 billion muslims around the world, that's 46% of the worlds population, do you think if the U.S. blows something in Mecca which is the holiest shrine in islam, these 2 billion will do nothing.
and you mentioned something about iran. excuse my language, but are you stupid or what? we have afghanistan, iraq, the israeli conflict, N. Korea which by the way posses nuclear wepons and we went aftr iraq instead, our interests in asia bein attacked, the threat of the new sleeping giant China, our deteriating relationship in europe, and our commitment to fighting terrorists around the world, and the so called coalition which is breaking down by each paaing day, and now you want to add iran to the whole equation..................
what else should i also mention, the economy the job losses, our national debt, illegal immegrants, what else can you aimply think of adding. yeah will nuke all of them. mphhhh how pathetic.
 
Back