FOX news guy slags off Chris Martin...

[berrywoman]

I dug it up. :wink3:

[colduser]

Good call Camille. I love this thread. It must always remain. :D

[berrywoman]

;) be sure to nominate it for next years coldplaying awards.. ;)

[colduser]

You got it :)

[MrLick]

sooo.........we need a new discussion going.

[berrywoman]

well, I suppose the hot topic here would be how are we going to get out of Iraq????



here's an atricle I found....


Our troops are part of the problem

Heavy-handed occupation is not a solution to the Iraqi insurgency

Robin Cook
Friday July 15, 2005
The Guardian

In the single week since the London bombings there have been 11 suicide attacks in Iraq. One car bomb this week wiped out 30 children, one as young as six, who had gathered to plead for western chocolates from American soldiers.
I do not draw a parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat.

And still those who took us into the war are not frank with us. For months those of us who have asked for a timetable for withdrawal from the occupation of Iraq have been told that it would encourage the insurgents to circle that date in the calendar. Yet at the weekend we learned from another leaked minute that the Ministry of Defence has ticked the middle of next year as the target by when it will have reduced the British presence to about a third of its present level.

This has nothing to do with progress against the insurgents, who are growing bolder rather than weaker. It is entirely to do with American domestic politics. As George Bush sinks in popularity back home, his desperation rises to cut his losses in Iraq. The leaked memo confirms that the Bush administration is planning to cut its occupying forces to a third by the first half of 2006, which would make it politically impossible at home for Britain not to do the same.

Apparently there is a row going on between the Pentagon, which wants "a bold reduction", and the US commanders on the ground, who know that they cannot contain the insurgency with their present numbers and do not see how they will be able to do better with fewer. For once I find myself on the side of the Pentagon.

Heavy-handed US occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it.

Nor is it only the fatalities of US forces that foster resentment. Homes in every neighbourhood have been trashed by US forces in futile searches for insurgents. Every extended family knows of at least one person who has disappeared into the new gulag of detainees. A year after President Bush promised to demolish Abu Ghraib it is being expanded, rather than closed, to accommodate an even larger number than were held there by Saddam.

It is an inexorable law of foreign occupations that the greater the repression, the stronger the resistance. The reduction in US forces may be planned for the wrong reason, but should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It does though present the coalition governments with a rhetorical problem.

They have repeatedly told us that they would stay in Iraq until the job was done. Patently the job is not done if it is measured by success in getting on top of the insurgency. It has therefore been necessary to redefine what was meant by the job they promised to complete. Last week an imaginative new interpretation surfaced.

Apparently, when Donald Rumsfeld warned that the insurgency could take a decade to contain he did not mean the US troops would stay that long to defeat it but that they would expect the Iraqi forces to do the job for them. In short, completing the job now is not bringing peace to Iraq but equipping the Iraqis to fight their own civil war, possibly for another 10 years. The Iraqi government itself appears to have a shrewd grasp of its need to find other allies, hence its surprising agreement last week to a mutual defence pact with Iran.

It is striking how little events on the ground in Iraq have figured in the key decisions of this sorry episode. The timing of the original invasion was dictated not by the reports on the UN weapons inspections but by the momentum of the US military build-up. Now the timing of the exit from occupation is going to be determined not by progress in restoring security in Iraq but by the date of next year's mid-term congressional elections in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1529119,00.html




discuss.. :cool:

[MrLick]

haah from the gaurdian? oh please thats far worse and more bias then the evil foxnews.

[berrywoman]

:lol: :lol: well its still doesnt dismiss the fact that these things are happening though...

[MrLick]

the london attacks would have happened sooner or later, even if no iraq. once they get done with america, then their really going to start going after europe. america is the bigget threat to them as of now. but war in iraq or no they would eventualy come after europe.

[berrywoman]

hmm I dont know about that one.. I really think that England was targeted because they are one of our biggest/strongest allies in this occupation. Bombs on our soil would've happened reardless.. I dont doubt that.. I mean the proof is the WTC bombings in 93... (I think it was 93) and its no secret we have our own home grown terrorists who agree with this movement..

[RJ Fox]

we should all flood his email box.... he;s an asshole!!
heehee, I don't know whether you were joking or not, but I did it anyway.
I Spammed a helluva lot. :lol: :sneaky: :)

[berrywoman]

no no... I wasnt joking... lol I send like 3 e-mails myself back when I started the thread.. lol I dont want FOX news so I dont know if he ever commented on the e-mails or not lol

[MrLick]

london was targeted now because of its help in the iraq war, but sooner or later they would go after it. half of europe they are going to go after in the coming years. except france.

[berrywoman]

exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons...

[colduser]

haah from the gaurdian? oh please thats far worse and more bias then the evil foxnews.

You never can stop can you Nick. There is TRUTH in that article ok. Not fabricated liberal propaganda that you would so like for it to be.

Fox News is pure trash. Deep down, you know this. Keep being ignorant and sheltered :thumbsup:

[colduser]

Oh and thanks Camille for the wonderful read.

[berrywoman]

:)

[MrLick]

exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons...


iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler.

[colduser]

You make a good point here Nick.

[berrywoman]

exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons...


iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler.


hmmm I'm kinda with you on that.. but at the same time.. I have to disagree... (from what I know of) my knowledge on the topic and such.. I will however do some more research and stuff... :)

so, how do you think we should pull out of there.. I mean its pretty deep now..

[Ambergris]

Okay... part by part to understand this.

What's slags off?

I know, my idiomatic expressions suck.

[MrLick]

exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons...


iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler.


hmmm I'm kinda with you on that.. but at the same time.. I have to disagree... (from what I know of) my knowledge on the topic and such.. I will however do some more research and stuff... :)

so, how do you think we should pull out of there.. I mean its pretty deep now..

we have a exit stratigy and a good one. train as many iraqi's as we can, and start having them take the place of u.s and coalitions soldiers, and in a few years we can pull our troops out and let the iraqi's do the security work.

in theory its a great idea, but without the full support of america and europe it might not work, i mean the people who are extremely against the war are only giving fuel to the terrorist and insurgents fire! people against the war have already made it known they dont like it, but its far to late to take back what was done, so everyone must stick together while were in this, we lost vietnam becuase the war was lost at home first. every other war we've won we won with most of the american public backing it, but in vietnam many didnt and we lost. so even if you hate the war the best thing now is not to make as much of a fuss about it, and in a few years if the stratigy doesnt work then people should and have a right to fuss! but as of now we must stop the childishness and support our troops and try to win the war. sadly i dont see this happening with the anti-war people and i fear this will be another nam not because of the military but because of the anti-war people make it and want it to be.

you may disagree with the war, and you have a right to and if its what you believe then you should, but as of now, we cant change what happened and being very vocal agaisnt the war will only make things worse.

[lilchick629]

FOX NEWS IS NOTHING BUT A TRASHY SHOW BUT TOGETHER TO CATCH VIEWERS----IT SHOULDNT EVEN BE CALLED NEWS-------ACTUALLY

ALL AMERICAN NEWS IS NOTHING BUT TRASH-----THEY DONT EVEN DELIVER NEWS BUT MOSTLY TRASH
:P
WHAT I SEE FOR MA NEWS IS BBC IN PUBLIC NEWS CHANNEL----ENGLAND'S NEWS ROCKS (WELL THE INFO GIVEN---NOT CAUSE OF THE TRAGEDIES)
:P

[MrLick]

fox is no worse then any other american news. almost all media is censered(sp?) and spun to the their political opinion, there is NO news that is completely unbiased all is biased.

[lilchick629]

THATS WHY I SAID I HATED ALL NEWS FROM AMERICA
LIKE GREENDAY SAID-----
"DONT WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN IDIOT
ONE STUPID NATION CONTROLLED BY THE MEDIA"

I RATHER WATCH BBC----ENGLANDS NEWS----THATS NEWS :P

[MrLick]

ITS LIKE THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD! not just america. every newstation and paper has a political view, and spins the news to their liking. ITS NOT JUST AMERICA.

[lilchick629]

SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD----FOR THE TOP STORY AT PRIME TIME NEWS THEY TALK ABOUT BRITNEY SPEARS BEING PREGNANT------WHEN OUR TROOPS ARE DYING ACROSS THE SEA

I DONT THINK SO
AT LEAST NOT THE NEWS I WATCH FROM ENGLAND

WE ARE NOT TOLD THE TRUTH----NEWS HERE IS LIKE ANOTHER POINTLESS SHOW----

WHATS UP WITH A CHANNEL NEWS BEING SUED I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY FOR SHOWING NAMES IN MEMORIAL DAY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED IN IRAQ----THAT IS NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS STATED IN OUR FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT AMENDMENT

THE HECK WITH THIS COUNTRY---AND HECK WITH COORPORATE WHITE SUPREMACISTS-----THATS ALL MEDIA IS-----OPINIONS OF COORPORATE WHITE CONSERVATIVE SUPREMACISTS

[lilchick629]

we lost vietnam becuase the war was lost at home first. every other war we've won we won with most of the american public backing it, but in vietnam many didnt and we lost. so even if you hate the war the best thing now is not to make as much of a fuss about it,


FIRST OF ALL-----BACKING UP FROM VIETNAM WAS THE BEST THING WE DID------THAT WAR WAS FOR CRAP
NOW U WANT ME TO NOT MAKE A FUSS ABOUT THE WAR????? I DONT THINK SO
BUSH IS UP THERE----TO REPRESENT ME AND EVERY AMERICAN IN THIS COUNTRY---I AM NOT GOING TO JUST SUBMIT TO HIS AGENDA--------I WONT SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP AS I WATCH HOW HE DRAGS US MORE INTO DEBT, MORE INTO DEATH, MORE INTO THREAT ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS COORPORATE GREED

COMON---ITS MA DUTY AS AN AMERICAN TO PROTEST AGAINST WHATS GOING WRONG--------IF EVERYBODY JUST SAT DOWN AND DIDNT MAKE A FUSS ABOUT ANYTHING------WE WOULDNT HAVE HAD LIVE 8----WE WOULDNT HAVE COME OUT OF VIETNAM---WHICH I AM DAMN HAPPY ABOUT :P

[berrywoman]

well here's my gripe with all this 'so called training' of Iraqi troops.. etc. Who the hell do you think 'trained' Osama and his foot soldiers???? See what I'm getting at...

[lilchick629]

i dont get what ur getting at :P

[berrywoman]

we trained them... and they used it against us... as well as our weapons!

[lilchick629]

THE SAME HAPPENED WITH US IN AMERICA WHEN WE FOUGHT FOR OUR INDEPENDANCE, RIGHT?

MA POINT IS----CHANGE THE US PRESIDENT----GET OUR TROOPS BACK HOME----AND CHANGE THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF US----U SHOULDNT BE THE BULLIES OF THE WORLD :P

[berrywoman]

why are you yelling.. :embarrased: you're scaring me.. :uhoh:

[lilchick629]

LOL-----I LIKE USING CAPITAL LETTERS CAUSE THEYRE COOLER-----IM NOT
SCREAMING THOUGH
AT LEAST NOT ANYMORE---HE HE HE HE
:P

[berrywoman]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :stunned: :P

[colduser]

exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons...


iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler.


hmmm I'm kinda with you on that.. but at the same time.. I have to disagree... (from what I know of) my knowledge on the topic and such.. I will however do some more research and stuff... :)

so, how do you think we should pull out of there.. I mean its pretty deep now..

we have a exit stratigy and a good one. train as many iraqi's as we can, and start having them take the place of u.s and coalitions soldiers, and in a few years we can pull our troops out and let the iraqi's do the security work.

in theory its a great idea, but without the full support of america and europe it might not work, i mean the people who are extremely against the war are only giving fuel to the terrorist and insurgents fire! people against the war have already made it known they dont like it, but its far to late to take back what was done, so everyone must stick together while were in this, we lost vietnam becuase the war was lost at home first. every other war we've won we won with most of the american public backing it, but in vietnam many didnt and we lost. so even if you hate the war the best thing now is not to make as much of a fuss about it, and in a few years if the stratigy doesnt work then people should and have a right to fuss! but as of now we must stop the childishness and support our troops and try to win the war. sadly i dont see this happening with the anti-war people and i fear this will be another nam not because of the military but because of the anti-war people make it and want it to be.

you may disagree with the war, and you have a right to and if its what you believe then you should, but as of now, we cant change what happened and being very vocal agaisnt the war will only make things worse.


Seeing as how you never reply to me I'll continue my chat with myself I guess.

Nick, you amaze me more and more every time. You want us to all blindly close our eyes and come together over this war. Your thinking is that just by us coming together we will change the tide in Iraq :huh: This makes absolutely no sense. The insurgents over there will continue their attacks, more and more of our men and women will continue to die, as this administration digs itself into a deeper and deeper quagmire. Just because the republicans created this problem does nat mean that we have to blindly support a war now. Sorry man but no way. Nick, it's as if you don't want there to be dissent in this country and that is what really bugs me about your views.

[MrLick]

i never said agree with the war, or blindly close your eyes, anti war people have made their point, we all know what you think, but now your opinion wont change the war, wont undo it, wont stop it, only will hurt our troops and fuel the enemy. as for now just keep quiet. we've all said what we feel about the war, we all know how each other feels, its too late for the whole stop the war blah blah blah, that has come and PASSED. now we must stick together and try to finish and win the war, and if in a few years it doesnt work then by all means complain, yell, do whatever you may, but as of not it wont help your cause AT ALL. will only hurt our troops.

as we've seen in history we can lose wars because of public opinion, we lost nam that way. it may not win it, but for sure will help and make it more likely. the anti war people are only fueling the insurgents

DO YOU not get it man? the inurgents can beat us through man power or their military, they are waging a war like the vietnamese did, by prolonging teh war and turning public opinion against the war, and its working. united we stand divided we fall, they are fighting that way, divide america more and more and win the war. they cant kill us all, hell they havent killed that many americans, 2,000 in 3 yrs! crying out loud that good for a war, its not good, but for a war it is.

im not asking you to support the war, im asking people the left, to be quiet.

i want people to have their own views, that good, great and awesome, but not a to point where it wont have any affect and only hurt our country, you've made your point, until the next elections IT WONT CHANGE ANYTHING, but only help the enemy, by all means keep your views, hate teh war, just please, the left and anti-war people just shhhhh for a little and let us try to win teh war.

if people dont care enough about their country and their troops to do that much, then i feel sorry that they even call themselves americans.

im glad you have an opinion even though its not the same as mine! thats great, but as of now it wont change what has been done. if the left would just be quiet and let us try to win this, i beleive we can, and if it doesnt vote a democrat in office in '08! and let him change it, but until the left wont change the war.

[MrLick]

we trained them... and they used it against us... as well as our weapons!

yeah, it was very dumb to, but at teh time it seemed the right thing to do and all. i mean the soviet empire was one of the biggest threats ever to america. but we should have played it smarter. but we didnt and created a huge mess.

[lilchick629]

want people to have their own views, that good, great and awesome, but not a to point where it wont have any affect and only hurt our country, you've made your point, until the next elections IT WONT CHANGE ANYTHING, but only help the enemy, by all means keep your views, hate teh war, just please, the left and anti-war people just shhhhh for a little and let us try to win teh war.

if people dont care enough about their country and their troops to do that much, then i feel sorry that they even call themselves americans.



I WONDER HOW THIS WORLD WOULD BE LIKE IF EVERYBODY JUST SHUT UP AND DIDNT QUESTION THEIR GOVERNMENTS

FOR STARTERS---WE WOULDNT HAVE HAD A LIVE 8 CONCERT ALERTING OUR LEADERS--------WE WOULD FOLLOW BLINDLY WHAT PEOPLE IN POWER WANTED

THAT IS---IN MA OPINION---A STUPID THING TO ASK---FOR US TO SIT BACK AND SHUT UP

NO--NO----WE MUST STAND UP------WE MUST QUESTION OUR GOVERNMENT-------THEY ARE THERE TO REPRESENT US AND TO DO WHAT WE WANT-----LAST I HEARD--GOVERNMENT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE---OR DID THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED?????????

I WISH WE WERE LIKE FRANCE----THERE GOVERNMENT LISTENS TO ITS CITIZENS CAUSE IF THEY DONT-------- :P THEY ARE OUT OF THERE

ALSO-----U WANT US TO SIT BACK AND SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT IN 2-3 YEARS??????? I WANT YOU TO GO AND TELL THAT TO ALL THE FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS DEAD-----GO TELL THAT TO FRIENDS OF SOLDIERS WHO HAVE DIED

I KNOW CAUSE I LOST A FRIEND---AND WILL NOT SIT BACK AND OBSERVE WHILE MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE DYING

YOU SAY ITS ONLY 3000 RIGHT--------WELL IN MA OPINION----I THINK EVEN 1 LIFE LOST IS AS IMPORTANT AS 1000000 LIVES-------ITS OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OUT THERE---SO AT LEAST GIVE THEM THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE
THEY ARE NOT "JUST PEOPLE"

:P

[MrLick]

i hope that everyone doesnt shut up and not question the goverment, that would suck. you didnt understand a thing i just said.

please re-read and think for a minute. questioning goverment good! but at a time like this for now atleast be quite, we all have our views and we all know each others, it will do nothing and change nothing in teh war except help the enemy. your anti-warism wont stop it, change it or brin our troops. people have to understand for now since its bush's second term he doesnt care as much about pubic opinion, so all your crying and screaming, however noble it may be, wont change the fact were there and wont undo ANYTHING, it will only help the enemy, not until we have another elections will it make a difference. now people are just complaining about the war just to complain and hear themselves.

[MrLick]

"I WISH WE WERE LIKE FRANCE----THERE GOVERNMENT LISTENS TO I"TS CITIZENS CAUSE IF THEY DONT-------- tongue3.gif THEY ARE OUT OF THERE"


hahaha and look at france goverment, its a shame, its pathetic.


"ALSO-----U WANT US TO SIT BACK AND SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT IN 2-3 YEARS??????? I WANT YOU TO GO AND TELL THAT TO ALL THE FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS DEAD-----GO TELL THAT TO FRIENDS OF SOLDIERS WHO HAVE DIED "

all your yells, and screams agaisnt the war wont stop it, it will only help get more americans killed. im saying by not speaking out against the war for a year or 2 it wont kill more americans. because no matter how much you hate the war, you cant stop it now. all the anti war people and all their screams wont change what has happened. now its in the hands of bush, and he's not going to pull out til we win or it gets way too bad. crying out loud.



"YOU SAY ITS ONLY 3000 RIGHT--------WELL IN MA OPINION----I THINK EVEN 1 LIFE LOST IS AS IMPORTANT AS 1000000 LIVES-------ITS OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OUT THERE---SO AT LEAST GIVE THEM THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE
THEY ARE NOT "JUST PEOPLE""

its like 2,000. and thats sad, 1 life is not worth more then 1000000. i'd rather have one person die then thousands, that is truly sad.

i give them respect they deserve, IVE NEVER disrespected them, so dont go talking that shit. please read and think before you respond with childish crap. as of now complaining about the war will only fuel the enemy and thus make it harder to win and cost more lives. closing your mouth for a little bit wont do ANY damage, it wont keep the war going.

i may be wrong and being quiet about it wont help much, but atleast i know for a fact being quiet about it wont cause anyone to die, or pro-long the war. so we know or atleast should know that whatever you say wont change the war and wont stop it, so why not try being quiet? if you really care about the troops, people should try it for a little bit, it wont cause any harm.

[lilchick629]

just please, the left and anti-war people just shhhhh for a little and let us try to win teh war.


im not asking you to support the war, im asking people the left, to be quiet.


if people dont care enough about their country and their troops to do that much, then i feel sorry that they even call themselves americans.


HA HA HA
I AM NOT AN AMERICAN IDIOT CONTROLLED BY THE MEDIA
YOU TOLD ME TO SHUT UP AND LET U WIN THE WAR?????
TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO WIN THIS WAR?????
:P

NO I WILL NOT SIT BACK AND SEE HOW OUR COUNTRY GOES MORE INTO DEBT-----LOSES HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS-----FIGHTS FOR A STUPID CAUSE----

I LOST A FRIEND AT WAR FOR A STUPID CAUSE---GO TELL HIS FAMILY TO SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE RIDE----GO TELL THEM TO SHUT UP AND IN 2-3 YEARS TO SPEAK UP IF THEY HAVE TO

[MrLick]

ohh my how old are you really?


im saying let ME win the war, crying out loud, THINK before you post! im saying the terrorist way of winning the war is to beat us on the public opinion front like teh vietnamese did in vietnam. ok are you still with me? yes? ok now if people just SHHH for a little bit it will help, it will hurt the terrorist will to fight, because they cant win through military means, they dont have enough men or money to do so.

ok i hope your still with me now...... you have a right to hate and be against the war, but the left.liberals whatever you call them, are hurting us by opening their mouth's over and over again. divide and CONQUER. but if we for now until elections stick together and dont let them divide us we can win, and sooner then later with less loss of life.


if you dont get it by now you never will, and im sorry for our troops in iraq if half of america cant realize this.




"NO I WILL NOT SIT BACK AND SEE HOW OUR COUNTRY GOES MORE INTO DEBT-----LOSES HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS-----FIGHTS FOR A STUPID CAUSE----"

so by being against the war and bush its going to fix it? stop the war, bring our troops home and get us out of debt? NO, not until elections can we stop the war or fix the debt problem, then and only then can we through the power of vote change things. as of now your blowing smoke up your ass, your not helping a thing. it wont change teh debt or the war. it wont bring our troops home. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. you can play a role in getting them home, and changing our country, YES YOU, but you cant until elections. as of now the only good we can do is stick together and be quiet, you've made your point, now lets get over it. it wont change anything.



"I LOST A FRIEND AT WAR FOR A STUPID CAUSE---GO TELL HIS FAMILY TO SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE RIDE----GO TELL THEM TO SHUT UP AND IN 2-3 YEARS TO SPEAK UP IF THEY HAVE TO"

and fuelign teh terrorist will get him back? im sorry but you cant undo what has been done, you can only try to fix it. no matter how much anyone wants to our troops wont be home til the commander in cheif brings them home, and while bush is in office they wont be home unless we win. your not going to bring them home, the left is only hurting them now.

[berrywoman]

:) I love this thread..

[lilchick629]

NICE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT AGE---CAUSE I JUST REALIZED U ARE JUST A HIGH SCHOOL KID-----I AM IN UNIVERSITY AND STUDYING FOR MA POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJOR-------SO OBVIOUSLY YOU STILL DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE WORLD------DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN NAM TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT????

WELL---LIKE I SAID----YOU SAY "ITS ONLY 2000 LIVES" I DONT THINK SO----THATS CAUSE YOU ARE ONLY 17 BUT EVER SINCE THIS WAR STARTED---I WATCHED ME FRIENDS GO TO WAR AND TWO OF THEM DIDNT MAKE IT BACK----SO-NO----I AM NOT GOING TO SIT BACK AND SHUT UP

IF BEING AN AMERICAN ISNT STANDING UP AND QUESTIONING UR GOVERNMENT----AND PROTESTING FOR WHATS RIGHT----THEN WHAT IS?
STAYING QUIET AND LETTING THE COORPORATE LEADERS TAKE US TO A WAR FOR OIL--- I DONT THINK SO

OBVIOUSLY---YOU STILL DONT HAVE MUCH UNDERSTANDMENT WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS---OFCOURSE IF YOU ONLY HAVE HIGHSCHOOL GOVERNMENT CLASS :P

[MrLick]

we all know how each other feels about the war, debating how the war is right or wrong or complaing about it wont change or help at all. lets get past that and try to win it, or get out of there. thats what im trying to say, you've made your point and we know your opinion, lets get past weather its right or wrong. and try to finish it as quick as possible with a little of loss of life as we can. and by fueling the terrorist its only making things harder and longer.

[lilchick629]

I WONDER WHAT IS FUELING THE TERRORISTS

TERRORIST 1
"HMMM, LOOK AT THE AMERICANS---HALF THE COUNTRY ARE AGAINST THE WAR AND HALF ARE FOR THE WAR----THE COUNTRY IS DIVIDED---YAAAAAY
LETS GO ATTACK THEM NOW THAT THEY ARE DIVIDED"

TERRORIST 2
"HMMM LOOK AT THE AMERICANS----THEY DONT CARE ABOUT ANYBODY BUT THEMSELVES----COMING OVER HERE TO CAUSE A WAR---KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES IN OUR LAND----BOMBING OUR CITIES FOR "WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION"---LETS GO ATTACK THEM"

I WONDER WHICH TERRORIST IS MAKING MORE SENSE :P

[berrywoman]

so what do we do.. live in fear for the rest of our lives?? I agree with lilchick.. we do have to question our gov't.... our government is 'suppose' to work for us..

[lilchick629]

DITTO :P

[MrLick]

"NICE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT AGE---CAUSE I JUST REALIZED U ARE JUST A HIGH SCHOOL KID-----"


and your point? crying out loud, act mature.


"I AM IN UNIVERSITY AND STUDYING FOR MA POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJOR-------"

please forgive me, being at a university makes you all knowing and smart, im sorryl


"SO OBVIOUSLY YOU STILL DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE WORLD------DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN NAM TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT????"

i spend alot of my time studying history and politics, i know what im talking about. i know alot about nam, from alot of the politics down to the military stratigy both sides used in the war.




WELL---LIKE I SAID----YOU SAY "ITS ONLY 2000 LIVES" I DONT THINK SO----THATS CAUSE YOU ARE ONLY 17 BUT EVER SINCE THIS WAR STARTED---I WATCHED ME FRIENDS GO TO WAR AND TWO OF THEM DIDNT MAKE IT BACK----SO-NO----I AM NOT GOING TO SIT BACK AND SHUT UP"

well then, have fun adding fuel to the insurgents fire, their alot smarter then most republicans give them credit for. they have played us against each other brilliantly, sad but true. divide and conquer as ive said 4 TIMES. and thats exactly what their doing. it worked in nam and if we dont stop will work in iraq. im sorry about your friend but as of now people are just adding fuel to teh fire.





"IF BEING AN AMERICAN ISNT STANDING UP AND QUESTIONING UR GOVERNMENT----AND PROTESTING FOR WHATS RIGHT----THEN WHAT IS?
STAYING QUIET AND LETTING THE COORPORATE LEADERS TAKE US TO A WAR FOR OIL--- I DONT THINK SO"


oh my, you havent heard a thing ive said all day.

"OBVIOUSLY---YOU STILL DONT HAVE MUCH UNDERSTANDMENT WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS---OFCOURSE IF YOU ONLY HAVE HIGHSCHOOL GOVERNMENT CLASS tongue3.gif"


its sad, you havent understood a thing ive said.
it has nothing to do with age.grow up and realize whats going on. the left is playing right into the hands of the terrorist. keep us fighting between ourselve and they can win the war. wake up.

[berrywoman]

lets play nice kids.. I have to interject here.... remember.. if things get 'out of hand' I have to say buh-bye to are secret politics thread.. :kiss:

[lilchick629]

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK-------AMERICAN FOREING POLICIES ARE WRONG AND DESTRUCTABLE

I WONDER IF THERE WILL EVER BE A TIME WHERE US STOPS TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD

IF WE WANT TO BE A DEMOCRACY----YAAAAY
IF OTHERS DONT-------OH WELL

THATS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE----US TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD :P

BUSH=HITLER

[MrLick]

so what do we do.. live in fear for the rest of our lives?? I agree with lilchick.. we do have to question our gov't.... our government is 'suppose' to work for us..

i never said dont question it, but as for the war goes, it wont change a thing, we dont have to live in fear. buti fear for america, if we dont unite to win teh war every war for now on we will lose, all our future enemies have to do is divide us and beat us at home, instead of win with a military. alll they have to do is play each side agaisnt each other, its quite brilliant, but its sad america isnt seeing what thier doing, if most americans did we could win.

listen- being against the war and voicing it wont change or stop it, it will only fuel the enemy as of now. wait til elections, not now. this isnt the time or the place.

i know your against the war, you know im for it. what good will debating weather the war is right or wrong do, now? NOTHING. thats what im saying let s get past that.

[MrLick]

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK-------AMERICAN FOREING POLICIES ARE WRONG AND DESTRUCTABLE

I WONDER IF THERE WILL EVER BE A TIME WHERE US STOPS TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD

IF WE WANT TO BE A DEMOCRACY----YAAAAY
IF OTHERS DONT-------OH WELL

THATS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE----US TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD :P

BUSH=HITLER

wow, thats just stupid. grow up.

[lilchick629]

lets play nice kids.. I have to interject here.... remember.. if things get 'out of hand' I have to say buh-bye to are secret politics thread.. :kiss:

LOL---ITS FUNNY ABOUT THE SECRECY THING
HA HA HA HA

AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR-----ME USING THE CAPS IS NOT ME SCREAMING OR MAD

ITS JUST HOW I LIKE TO WRITE---WITH CAPS
I LOVE DEBATING AND ARGUING AS LONG AS ITS CLEAN

AND I HOPE THATS WHAT IS GOING ON HERE

[MrLick]

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK-------AMERICAN FOREING POLICIES ARE WRONG AND DESTRUCTABLE

I WONDER IF THERE WILL EVER BE A TIME WHERE US STOPS TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD

IF WE WANT TO BE A DEMOCRACY----YAAAAY
IF OTHERS DONT-------OH WELL

THATS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE----US TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD :P

BUSH=HITLER

that is exactly want the terrorist want! until america realizes it, we will be doomed.

[MrLick]

now days the terrorist dont have to win throuhg military, but just defeat us politicaly and at home, divide us to win, as their doing now. its sad people complain about americans dying in the war, yet they wont open there eyes to actually do something about it. our goverment could, but its not going to, and you can change that.

[lilchick629]

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK-------AMERICAN FOREING POLICIES ARE WRONG AND DESTRUCTABLE

I WONDER IF THERE WILL EVER BE A TIME WHERE US STOPS TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD

IF WE WANT TO BE A DEMOCRACY----YAAAAY
IF OTHERS DONT-------OH WELL

THATS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE----US TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD :P

BUSH=HITLER

wow, thats just stupid. grow up.

LIKE I JUST SAID IT IN THE PREVIOUS POST
ALL I AM DOING IS DEBATING AND DEFENDING MA POINT
AND IF IT CAN BE FUNNY-----WHY NOT
I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
(THATS WHY I LOVE THE POLITICAL COMIC STRIPS IN THE NEWSPAPER)
HA HA HA


BUT SERIOUSLY THOUGH-----IT MAKES SENSE

[MrLick]

but its dividing us, we know your view, you know mine. lets let it be, we cant chagne anything til elections. dont let the terrorist win, dont play into their stratigy.

whats wrong with it, its the terrrorist stratigy to win. do you not get that?

[lilchick629]

now days the terrorist dont have to win throuhg military, but just defeat us politicaly and at home, divide us to win, as their doing now. its sad people complain about americans dying in the war, yet they wont open there eyes to actually do something about it. our goverment could, but its not going to, and you can change that.

YOU ARE TELLING ME TO OPEN MA EYES AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT----THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WONT DO IT SO ITS UP TO ME TO CHANGE THAT

THEN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU ALSO WANT ME TO SHUT UP UNTIL NEXT ELECTION?

[berrywoman]

I am watching MTVs Real World.. (I know.. dont ask) :embarrased: Anyhoo... this girl.. one of the roomates was in Iraq, she's a soldier and she just got into an argument with this other roommate... because he asked her why are we at war...


I ask the same question... initially it was all about 9/11... retaliating.. blah blah.. then it was about looking for Osama... then it was about looking for Sadaam.. then it was about liberating a nation... and now its about terrorism again... oh O almost forgot about the WMDs.... lol So which is it??? :huh:

[MrLick]

yes, but not now, you wont CHANGE A THING! not UNTIL elections. how hard is that to understand?

[lilchick629]

but its dividing us, we know your view, you know mine. lets let it be, we cant chagne anything til elections. dont let the terrorist win, dont play into their stratigy.

whats wrong with it, its the terrrorist stratigy to win. do you not get that?


AGAIN----HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERRORIST STRATEGY IS?????
ME PROTESTING AGAINST GOVERNMENT CHOICES IS NOT THEIR STRATEGY----STRATEGY FOR WHAT ANYWAYS

[MrLick]

I am watching MTVs Real World.. (I know.. dont ask) :embarrased: Anyhoo... this girl.. one of the roomates was in Iraq, she's a soldier and she just got into an argument with this other roommate... because he asked her why are we at war...


I ask the same question... initially it was all about 9/11... retaliating.. blah blah.. then it was about looking for Osama... then it was about looking for Sadaam.. then it was about liberating a nation... and now its about terrorism again... oh O almost forgot about the WMDs.... lol So which is it??? :huh:

ok from DAY 1, its been about wmd's, liberation and terrorism. it hasnt been one thing then another! its just the main reason was wmd's thats what the world media played up the most.

[lilchick629]

I am watching MTVs Real World.. (I know.. dont ask) :embarrased: Anyhoo... this girl.. one of the roomates was in Iraq, she's a soldier and she just got into an argument with this other roommate... because he asked her why are we at war...


I ask the same question... initially it was all about 9/11... retaliating.. blah blah.. then it was about looking for Osama... then it was about looking for Sadaam.. then it was about liberating a nation... and now its about terrorism again... oh O almost forgot about the WMDs.... lol So which is it??? :huh:


I STILL DONT QUITE GET IT EITHER
YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK IT IS---AND I MIGHT BE A BIT TOO BIAS ON THIS----FOR THE OIL (BIAS TOWARDS FAREINHEIT 911)

I THINK ALL THE OTHER REASONS WERE ONLY EXCUSES THAT SOUNDED REASONABLE TO DRAG ALONG AMERICANS-----ITS ALL ABOUT COORPORATES WANTING THE OIL

[MrLick]

but its dividing us, we know your view, you know mine. lets let it be, we cant chagne anything til elections. dont let the terrorist win, dont play into their stratigy.

whats wrong with it, its the terrrorist stratigy to win. do you not get that?


AGAIN----HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERRORIST STRATEGY IS?????
ME PROTESTING AGAINST GOVERNMENT CHOICES IS NOT THEIR STRATEGY----STRATEGY FOR WHAT ANYWAYS

BECAUSE I USE COMMON SENSE and learned from history! they cant beat us with a military, its a fact. but they can defeat bush politically! thats what saddams plan was from day one. he helped plan this, and we've found evidence that he did. he knew he would be beaten, but he planned a long war that would defeat bush politcally and divide us.

[berrywoman]

I am watching MTVs Real World.. (I know.. dont ask) :embarrased: Anyhoo... this girl.. one of the roomates was in Iraq, she's a soldier and she just got into an argument with this other roommate... because he asked her why are we at war...


I ask the same question... initially it was all about 9/11... retaliating.. blah blah.. then it was about looking for Osama... then it was about looking for Sadaam.. then it was about liberating a nation... and now its about terrorism again... oh O almost forgot about the WMDs.... lol So which is it??? :huh:

ok from DAY 1, its been about wmd's, liberation and terrorism. it hasnt been one thing then another! its just the main reason was wmd's thats what the world media played up the most.



no no no... I was there..... when Bush came to Ground Zero.... and he told everyone there... that we were going to get the people responsible... as if he were planning payback...

[lilchick629]

I am watching MTVs Real World.. (I know.. dont ask) :embarrased: Anyhoo... this girl.. one of the roomates was in Iraq, she's a soldier and she just got into an argument with this other roommate... because he asked her why are we at war...


I ask the same question... initially it was all about 9/11... retaliating.. blah blah.. then it was about looking for Osama... then it was about looking for Sadaam.. then it was about liberating a nation... and now its about terrorism again... oh O almost forgot about the WMDs.... lol So which is it??? :huh:

ok from DAY 1, its been about wmd's, liberation and terrorism. it hasnt been one thing then another! its just the main reason was wmd's thats what the world media played up the most.


YOU GOT ONE THING RIGHT------THE MEDIA----THE CORRUPTED COORPORATE MEDIA
OFCOURSE WHO CONTROLS THE MEDIA
CAPITALIST WHITE MALE SUPREMACISTS

THE MEDIA IS HOW WE GOT INTO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE---AND MEDIA IS THE ONE WHO DRAGGED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO THE WAR


I GOTTA TELL YOU---AT FIRST I WAS ALSO WITH BUSH---I TRUSTED MA GOVERNMENT---I DEFENDED THEM THINKING "WHO AM I TO QUESTION WHAT THEY ARE DOING---IF THEY ARE GOING INTO WAR---IS BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY KNOW WUTS UP AND PROBABLY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE WMD--SO I WILL SUPPORT THEM"

BOY WAS I WRONG

[MrLick]

yeah, and he went after bin laden and alqeada.

[MrLick]

"THE MEDIA IS HOW WE GOT INTO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE---AND MEDIA IS THE ONE WHO DRAGGED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO THE WAR"


actualy it was the goverment who got us into this. the media wel half of it was agaisnt teh war, cbs, cnn.




"I GOTTA TELL YOU---AT FIRST I WAS ALSO WITH BUSH---I TRUSTED MA GOVERNMENT---I DEFENDED THEM THINKING "WHO AM I TO QUESTION WHAT THEY ARE DOING---IF THEY ARE GOING INTO WAR---IS BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY KNOW WUTS UP AND PROBABLY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE WMD--SO I WILL SUPPORT THEM"

BOY WAS I WRONG"

again you dont get what im saying AT ALL! DONT BLINDLY follow or trust the goverment. crying out loud, everything went in one ear and out the other.

[lilchick629]

VIN LADDEN????? YOU MEAN HIS BEST BUDDY WHOSE BUSH'S FAMILY HAD BUSINESS WITH????

THEN HOW IS IT THAT WE WERE NEVER ABLE TO CAPTURE HIM?

AND HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME DAY 911 HAPPENED---VIN LADDEN'S FAMILY WERE THE ONLY----AND I MEAN ONLY----PEOPLE FLYING OUT OF THE COUNTRY

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN

[berrywoman]

yeah, and he went after bin laden and alqeada.


and we all know how productive that has been the past 4 years.. lol

[lilchick629]

I GOTTA TELL YOU---AT FIRST I WAS ALSO WITH BUSH---I TRUSTED MA GOVERNMENT---I DEFENDED THEM THINKING "WHO AM I TO QUESTION WHAT THEY ARE DOING---IF THEY ARE GOING INTO WAR---IS BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY KNOW WUTS UP AND PROBABLY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE WMD--SO I WILL SUPPORT THEM"

BOY WAS I WRONG"


THAT WASNT AN ATTACK----I WAS SHARING WITH U MA BELIEFS FROM BACK THEN WHEN I DIDNT KNOW BETTER :P

[MrLick]

actually alot more then the left and the media wants us to believe. go read teh book shadow war. alot has been done against alqeada. alot. bin laden is good at hiding, but all in all we've done alot agaisnt them. its only a matter of time before we defeat them, but we must go after all terrorist or another group will take their place.



there are so many victories won against alqeada that the public has no clue about.

[lilchick629]

actually alot more then the left and the media wants us to believe. go read teh book shadow war. alot has been done against alqeada. alot. bin laden is good at hiding, but all in all we've done alot agaisnt them. its only a matter of time before we defeat them, but we must go after all terrorist or another group will take their place.



there are so many victories won against alqeada that the public has no clue about.


THE BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THAT THEY KNOW WHERE VIN LADDEN IS----SOMEWHERE IN SAUDI ARABIA OR PAKISTAN OR IRAN---CANT REMEMBER WHICH ONE---ANYWAYS
MA POINT IS---IF THIS WAR WAS ABOUT THEM
WHY ARENT WE GOING TO GET THEM??????

WOULD IT BE MAYBE HMMM BECAUSE OF THE OIL?????? HMM MAYBE CAUSE THEY ARE OUR ALLIES?????
CAUSE THEY WONT ALLOW US TO DO THE SAME TO THEM AS WE DID WITH IRAQ????

[MrLick]

they are, but its very complicated, i'd think someone who's in "university" would understand this. there are political boundry's and things holding us back in some cases, not to mention we dont know the exact location. you see if he's in pakistan we mostly for political reason have to let the pakistani army go after him. and if he's in iran, which that is where i think he is, we'd start another war if we went in for him.


the whole war for oil thing is dumb, we could have bought the oil CHEAPER FROM SADDam and not had ot have gone to war in the first place.

[lilchick629]

tHE OIL IS NOT FOR EVERYDAY USE--------WE ARE SET RIGHT NOW-----BUSH'S MAIN POINT BY GETTING THE OIL WAS FOR THE FUTURE
DID YOU KNOW THAT SADAM WAS DIRECTLY GOING TO SELL THE OIL TO CHINA---MAKING THEM THE NUMBER TWO COUNTRY THAT BUYS OIL (IRAQ HAS THE MOST OIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST) THE NUMBER TWO BIGGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD HAS A STEADY SOURCE OF OIL------IT WOULD CRUMBLE THE US IN FUTURE------THE IRAQUI OIL IS LIKE GOLD OIL-----READY TO BE SENT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

AND U TELLING ME THAT THIS WAS NOT FOR THE OIL????

IF THE COUNTRY IS AN ALLY----WHY DONT WE ASK FOR THE MAN?????
HE IS BEING PROTECTED BY THE COUNTRY AND OBVIOUSLY WE DONT WANT TO ASK FOR HIM CAUSE WE WANT NO PROBLEMS WITH THEM
SO HOW YOU TELL ME THAT THIS WAR IS TO FIND VIN LADDEN AND NOT FOR THE OIL

BY THE WAY----QUICK QUESTION----DO YOU KNOW WHAT JIHAD IS???? :P

[MrLick]

"tHE OIL IS NOT FOR EVERYDAY USE--------WE ARE SET RIGHT NOW-----BUSH'S MAIN POINT BY GETTING THE OIL WAS FOR THE FUTURE
DID YOU KNOW THAT SADAM WAS DIRECTLY GOING TO SELL THE OIL TO CHINA---MAKING THEM THE NUMBER TWO COUNTRY THAT BUYS OIL (IRAQ HAS THE MOST OIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST)"


see this is what im talking about, whats done is done, no point in argueing about it now, it wont help anything, its serves no purpose at all.

i respect your views on weather it was right or wrong. but lets get past that as a country, whats done is done. thats whats fueling the enemy.




BY THE WAY----QUICK QUESTION----DO YOU KNOW WHAT JIHAD IS???


do you even have to ask that? crying out loud my 4 yr old nephew knows what it is.

[lilchick629]

OK---THEN CAN U DO ME A FAV. GO ASK UR 4 YEAR OLD WHAT IT IS??

NAH SERIOUSLY---WHAT IS IT? :P

[MrLick]

ok let me call him up and ask him, you have to pay for the long distance cost though!

its a muslim holly war. i have many islamic friends. i knew that from common sense, but i like to talk about stuf like this with them.

[lilchick629]

WHY DO YOU THINK THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US IN THE FIRST PLACE?????

ANOTHER QUEST

DO YOU FEEL SAFER NOW, THAN BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11???????
:P

[MrLick]

the terrorist attacked for many reasons, ill give you the textbook reasons and my personal beliefs about it. because of our support for the evil jews(israel) us being in saudi arabia and our influence on the region, along with many arabs believe we are the reasons that the evil goverments in the mid east are in power. and because we are the most powerful country on the planet.


i feel safer now.


may i ask where this is leading?

[lilchick629]

WELL ITS GOOD THAT YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD NIGHT SLEEP CAUSE I DONT FEEL SAFER NOW

IF WE HAD THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST US BACK THEN---------NOW WE HAVE THEM AND THE WHOLE WORLD TOO

AND SINCE WHEN ARE WE THE POLICEMEN OF THE WORLD???? SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE IF WE LIBERATE A COUNTRY OR NOT???

ITS NOT JUST A COINSIDENSE THAT THE WHOLE WORLD HATE US AT THE SAME TIME

AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH SOMETHING CALLED "THE UN"---I THOUGHT WE PROPOSED IT TO PREVENT ANOTHER WORLD WAR---YET HERE WE ARE

AND TO QUOTE THE UN CHARTER "A COUNTRY COULD ONLY GO TO WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY IF IT WAS PROVOKED"

WAS VIN LADDEN FROM IRAQ??????????? :P

[MrLick]

WELL ITS GOOD THAT YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD NIGHT SLEEP CAUSE I DONT FEEL SAFER NOW

IF WE HAD THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST US BACK THEN---------NOW WE HAVE THEM AND THE WHOLE WORLD TOO"

we had alot of the world agaisnt us since before the iraq war. you wouldnt believe how many anti-america newspaper articles were written days after 9/11 throughout europe, asia and the mid east. it amazed me. german, france and even south korea not to mention belgium, have been agaisnt us since years ago. did you know there were articles in arab press that said france's president chirac should be of the arab league or whatever its called. its amazes me people dont remember back before iraq how bad it was already.


"AND SINCE WHEN ARE WE THE POLICEMEN OF THE WORLD???? SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE IF WE LIBERATE A COUNTRY OR NOT???"

if the un isnt going to do anything and no other country's. the UN isnt doing its job, that would interfere with hating america, and we wouldnt want to interfere with that, would we?



"ITS NOT JUST A COINSIDENSE THAT THE WHOLE WORLD HATE US AT THE SAME TIME"

sorry, but not at the same time, its been happing since way before iraq and bush. i used to think as you do about that, til i did some research and read so many newspaper articles and speech's that were agaisnt america that were from before or right after 9/11, it left me speachless.

"AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH SOMETHING CALLED "THE UN"---I THOUGHT WE PROPOSED IT TO PREVENT ANOTHER WORLD WAR---YET HERE WE ARE"


what did happen to teh UN? im not sure, its stopped doing its job and is corrupt and needs to be fixed, its pointless now. and we will NEVER be able to prevent world wars, their going to happen, sooner or later.


AND TO QUOTE THE UN CHARTER "A COUNTRY COULD ONLY GO TO WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY IF IT WAS PROVOKED"


oh the UN charter, crying out loud the un made laws and harldy enforced them, they put Libya in charge of human rights a few years aga, LIBYA ! crying out loud, thats pathetic

WAS VIN LADDEN FROM IRAQ??????????"

no but terrorist were, like ive said, we can beat alqeada but another terrorist group will just take its place, we have to go after all the islamic terrorsit groups, not just alqeada.

[lilchick629]

YEAH YOU HAVE THE POINT----WORLD DID HATE US BEFORE 911 BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF AMERICA CARRIED OUT BY CLINTON, BUSH, AND REAGAN(THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER)

THIS IS EARTH NOT THE WORLD OF UNITED STATES----WE HAVE TO WORK AS PEOPLE UNITED----SO WHY NOT LISTEN TO UN
THEY ARE NOT CORRUPT----HOW???? AND WHAT WOULD YOU FIX?????

:P

[berrywoman]

I heard this Democrat Senetor from I dont know where.. I forgot actually, say on CNN last weekend.. that the reason this is sooooooo important is because we cannot afford to have these rebels take control of the oil that is there.. this is why it is imperative that democracy be instilled there...

I am all for democracy.... but to hear this guy say this statement about the oil.. it led me to believe that THIS is the main reason for this occupation.. not 'liberating' the country..

[lilchick629]

THAT WAS EXACTLY MA POINT----------I DONT WANT MA FRIENDS FIGHTING OVER THERE TO LOSE THEIR PRECIOUS LIVES JUST FOR A WAR FOR OIL----I DONT THINK THAT IS WORTH SACRIFICING OUR CHILDREN----CAUSE THEY ARE STILL CHILDREN---LOTS OF THEM STILL TEENS RIGHT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL LIKE SOME OF MA FRIENDS :P

[lilchick629]

HMMMM. MAYBE A POLITICS THREAD WOULD BE INTERESTING----DONT YOU THINK?????

SHOULD WE MAKE ONE-----IVE BEEN WANTING TO MAKE MA OWN THREAD BUT I DONT KNOW WHAT :P

[MrLick]

YEAH YOU HAVE THE POINT----WORLD DID HATE US BEFORE 911 BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF AMERICA CARRIED OUT BY CLINTON, BUSH, AND REAGAN(THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER)

THIS IS EARTH NOT THE WORLD OF UNITED STATES----WE HAVE TO WORK AS PEOPLE UNITED----SO WHY NOT LISTEN TO UN
THEY ARE NOT CORRUPT----HOW???? AND WHAT WOULD YOU FIX?????



you've lost all respect, ragean worst president ever? carter is way worse, he let iran become what it is now, a terrorist haven. reagan defeated the soviet union, but thats because he's the worst president ever, of course.

the un is very anti american, its doesnt enforce most of the rules it makes, it lets nations like libya in charge of human rights, if you have to ask how its corrupt then you really dont know much about the modern world.

fix it, we need to totaly change it to fix. a prime example for the un being corrupt is the food for oil program that was in iraq. the un pathetic. its a shame anyone wants to listen to .

[MrLick]

THAT WAS EXACTLY MA POINT----------I DONT WANT MA FRIENDS FIGHTING OVER THERE TO LOSE THEIR PRECIOUS LIVES JUST FOR A WAR FOR OIL----I DONT THINK THAT IS WORTH SACRIFICING OUR CHILDREN----CAUSE THEY ARE STILL CHILDREN---LOTS OF THEM STILL TEENS RIGHT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL LIKE SOME OF MA FRIENDS :P

sorry their adults, who chose to join the army, they are grown up who made their own decision to join. its a freaking volunteer army of adults, not kids, not teens. crying out loud. they chose to join.

they joined knowing their was a big chance of going to a war, they made the decision, if it was a draft army then i'd see where your coming from. but its not.

[MrLick]

I heard this Democrat Senetor from I dont know where.. I forgot actually, say on CNN last weekend.. that the reason this is sooooooo important is because we cannot afford to have these rebels take control of the oil that is there.. this is why it is imperative that democracy be instilled there...

I am all for democracy.... but to hear this guy say this statement about the oil.. it led me to believe that THIS is the main reason for this occupation.. not 'liberating' the country..

even if it is, we liberated a country, and stopped saddam from killing almost a 100,000 A YEAR, for the next 5-10 yrs! even if the reasons were wrong, we did something good. its like if i were to save someone's life because they were rich, it may be for the wrong reason but good still happened.

[lilchick629]

JOHN---A VERY INTELLIGENT GUY----HE WAS VALECDITORIAN OF OUR CLASS
HE JOINED BECAUSE HIS FAMILY DIDNT HAVE MONEY TO SEND HIM TO UNIVERSITY----HE WANTED TO GO TO MIT BUT DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY
HE WAS KILLED OVER THERE

WHERE WE COME FROM----THE ARMY IS A SOLUTION NOT A CHOICE :P

[MrLick]

its always a choice, always. he could have choosed something else a lesser college or job, im not saying thats a good thing, but its no the only choice. 2 jobs, a scholarship, a lesser college. if i had to i join the airforce or navy their less dangerous, but its always a choice.

[lilchick629]

HEY---YOU KNOW YOUR A GOOD DEBATOR AND YOU SEEM TO KNOW YOUR SHIT----------YOU THINK MAYBE IT WILL BE A GOOD IDEA TO START A THREAD ABOUT POLITICS WHERE MORE PEOPLE COULD ENTER THE DEBATE??????????

:P

I RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS AND ITS ALL KOOL
THE ONE THING I DONT AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL AND THAT IS WHY I STARTED GOING AT YOU IS WHEN U SAID TO STOP PROTESTING ABOUT THE WAR AND SHUT UP AND WAIT

NO POINT IN REPEATING WHERE I STAND ON THIS----BUT I WONT STOP BUGGING MA GOVERNMENT UNTIL I AM HEARD AND UNTIL I AM WELL REPRESENTED-----I SHOULDNT WAIT TILL ELECTION DAY TO COME :P

[MrLick]

and thats the problem, you wont be heard or make a difference til election year, as for now your only fueling insurgents in iraq, bush isnt listening, it wont change his mind nor will it get us out of iraq, its pointless and only hurts our country. come election year i say everyone against the war unite, vote in a democrat, speak and say what you want about the subject but as for now, its only doing harm and no good. its only going to bring us down.

as an american you have the right to do it now, but also as an american you should have it as your duty to what you can to help your soldiers and country, not hurt it with pointless argueing. but anyways thanks and i look foward to debating with you in the future

p.s. keep the caps on, lol ;)

[lilchick629]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAY *lilchick jumping up and down* :P

FINALLY A FAN OF MA CAPS
:P

[berrywoman]

if 18 is an adult.... why can't 18yr olds drink... legally.... :huh:

[RJ Fox]

no no... I wasnt joking... lol I send like 3 e-mails myself back when I started the thread.. lol I dont want FOX news so I dont know if he ever commented on the e-mails or not lol
Okay, I thought you were joking anyway. I just done it for a laugh. It was fun. just a lot of dots and one of them I done a code, I don't know if he understood it. Maybe I should send another email. One last time..............

[berrywoman]

go for it!! :lol:

[RJ Fox]

I did it. It was VERY long too. A huge jumple of letters. And there was a message inside of it aswell. For some reason, I called the whole thing 'The Drunkard'

[MrLick]

if 18 is an adult.... why can't 18yr olds drink... legally.... :huh:

i dont know, but your an adult at 18, the goverment is being stupid about not letting us drink at that age. if we can vote and fight a war at 18 we should be alowd to drink too. that annoys me. partly because im almost 18 ;)

[colduser]

and thats the problem, you wont be heard or make a difference til election year, as for now your only fueling insurgents in iraq, bush isnt listening, it wont change his mind nor will it get us out of iraq, its pointless and only hurts our country. come election year i say everyone against the war unite, vote in a democrat, speak and say what you want about the subject but as for now, its only doing harm and no good. its only going to bring us down.

as an american you have the right to do it now, but also as an american you should have it as your duty to what you can to help your soldiers and country, not hurt it with pointless argueing. but anyways thanks and i look foward to debating with you in the future

p.s. keep the caps on, lol ;)


Nick, Nick, Nick. :o You amaze me more and more everyday.
How unamerican of you to say not to protest the war for now until 2008. Just because I protest the war does in no way mean I am against the troops over there. I respect the troops just as much as any other american. It is essential for democratic socieites to voice their disapproval of what they see as wrong. IT IS AMERICAN to voice dissent Nick and I will continue to make mine heard loud and clear until Bushy is out of office. Just because my protesting may not make any bit of difference, it is still a warranted and necesarry part of democracy. It sounds almost like you would rather have us living in a dictatorship where censorship is king. Open you eyes.....

[berrywoman]

agreed^ :cool:

[MrLick]

How unamerican of you to say not to protest the war for now until 2008. Just because I protest the war does in no way mean I am against the troops over there. I respect the troops just as much as any other american. It is essential for democratic socieites to voice their disapproval of what they see as wrong. IT IS AMERICAN to voice dissent Nick and I will continue to make mine heard loud and clear until Bushy is out of office. Just because my protesting may not make any bit of difference, it is still a warranted and necesarry part of democracy. It sounds almost like you would rather have us living in a dictatorship where censorship is king. Open you eyes.....

oh my you guys will never get it, and im sorry for our troops, we've all made our points, no need discussing the war anymore, were playing right into the terrorist hands, into their stratigy, and from what ive seen its going to take alot more death and destruction for america to realize this. go ahead and get all speach happy, at the expense of our country and soldiers. you've already stated you views, no need to stat them and state them and state them forever and ever, its started there is no undoing what has been done. its sad when people put politics above thier country and soldiers lives. as a whole, not just talking to you guys the media and politicans must drop it for now, it will not help nor solve a thing.

we've all used our right of speech on this subject from the little kid in the street to the highest politician, we all know how each other feels, no need discussing it more, what we need to discuss is how to win and to help the iraqi people. its clear or alteast should be that were not going to leave for a while, not UNTIL a new president, as of now all the people complaing might as well jsut call up a terrorist and insurgent and t alk with them and complain, because for every one else your complaints are falling on deaf ears not matter how noble or right they may be.


for the sake of our country and soldiers lets talk about something else instead of fueling the terrorist, like ive said we lost nam because of this reason. the anti war people are putting their poltical beliefs above the country and our mens lives, which is truly sad. how unamerican for such a thing.

it amazes me how people care more about whining about a war then winning it or the safety of our troops. nothing you or any politican as of now say will change a damn thing except worsen the situation in iraq, how wrong teh war may be is too far to talk or complain about. were in it, no changing that, no more need whining or complaning about it.

as of now were on teh verge of letting teh terrorsit win by playing foolishly into their simple stratigy. and for the sake of our troops i hope people wise up, against the war or for it, we have to help now.



"I0T IS AMERICAN to voice dissent Nick and I will continue to make mine heard loud and clear until Bushy is out of office. "

to what extent? just to hear yourself scream? to just make a noise? at the expence of america and its soldiers, i would wish people would realize by now their not helping, their not going to change us being there UNTIL elections as of now your just hurting the country you love. and im sad to say many americans are.

you've(you as in antiwar people) have made your point, but put your country above your selfish desire to be loud and to speak, just because you can talk doesnt mean you should every single time you get a chance, im glad you've and many have used their american right to protest the war and voice against it, but now its only hurting the country, many of you claim to love.


when your hungry theres and you cant find anything to eat there is no need, to repeat your hungry over and over just to say it. people need to know when and when not to speak.

THE TIME FOR WHINING AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WAR IS LONG GONE, the time now is to finish it, not by complaining or whining.

if people would learn to shut their mouths every once and a while, things would be alot better in teh world. sadly lots of people put their want to make noise above their soldiers and country.

[lilchick629]

Nick, Nick, Nick. You amaze me more and more everyday.
How unamerican of you to say not to protest the war for now until 2008. Just because I protest the war does in no way mean I am against the troops over there. I respect the troops just as much as any other american. It is essential for democratic socieites to voice their disapproval of what they see as wrong. IT IS AMERICAN to voice dissent Nick and I will continue to make mine heard loud and clear until Bushy is out of office. Just because my protesting may not make any bit of difference, it is still a warranted and necesarry part of democracy. It sounds almost like you would rather have us living in a dictatorship where censorship is king. Open you eyes.....



FINALLY SOMEBODY HELPS ME FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OUR RIGHT TO PROTEST :P

[MrLick]

you act like im not for freedom of speech, im all for it, but one should know when enough is enough and put aside their selfish speach for the greater good. im all for protesting the war and talkign agaisnt it but the time for that has come and gone, we must move on for teh sake of the troops.

sadly most dont seem to get it or care.

[berrywoman]

nick, you need to quote better.. I am getting confused here!!! :lol:

[lilchick629]

you act like im not for freedom of speech, im all for it, but one should know when enough is enough and put aside their selfish speach for the greater good. im all for protesting the war and talkign agaisnt it but the time for that has come and gone, we must move on for teh sake of the troops.

sadly most dont seem to get it or care.

I WILL NOT SHUT UP UNTIL I AM HEARD--------U SAY THAT US PROTESTING AND SPEAKING UP DOES NO DIFFERENCE--------WELL THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT OF LIVE 8????????? THATS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS GOOD TO SPEAK UP AND SAY UR MIND

THERE IS NEVER A TIME ENDING FOR PROTESTING WHEN WE DONT GET WHAT WE WANT---------IF PRESIDENT BUSH KEEPS FUCKING UP---------I WILL KEEP SPEAKING UP----------I DONT CARE HOW LONG IT TAKES

[MrLick]

how do you quote? p.s. if you wondering why im responding so fast, i have alife, lol im just grounded and have nothing else to do. :lol: and very very bored.

[lilchick629]

how do you quote? p.s. if you wondering why im responding so fast, i have alife, lol im just grounded and have nothing else to do. :lol: and very very bored.

I DONT HAVE A LIFE-----SO THATS WHY IM HERE
HE HE HE HE :P

[MrLick]

you act like im not for freedom of speech, im all for it, but one should know when enough is enough and put aside their selfish speach for the greater good. im all for protesting the war and talkign agaisnt it but the time for that has come and gone, we must move on for teh sake of the troops.

sadly most dont seem to get it or care.

I WILL NOT SHUT UP UNTIL I AM HEARD--------U SAY THAT US PROTESTING AND SPEAKING UP DOES NO DIFFERENCE--------WELL THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT OF LIVE 8????????? THATS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS GOOD TO SPEAK UP AND SAY UR MIND

THERE IS NEVER A TIME ENDING FOR PROTESTING WHEN WE DONT GET WHAT WE WANT---------IF PRESIDENT BUSH KEEPS FUCKING UP---------I WILL KEEP SPEAKING UP----------I DONT CARE HOW LONG IT TAKES


your heard and ignored, not by the terrorist though, they hear you loud and clear and they love it.

you complain about friends in iraq, do you want them back? well by helping the enemy prolong the war and playing into their hands your just hurting your friends even more.

sadly people like you are the reaon why we might lose, and were the reason we lost nam.

yes yes we know, you will speak to speak to hear yourself talk, at the expense of america and its troups, screw them! i mean c'mon my voice is worth more then them right?

[berrywoman]

hahah!! aawww!! well you can quote by two methods... clicking on this little diddy... http://forum.coldplaying.com/templates/ficoldplay/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif then typing your response after the [/quote] thingy... most people skip a line... or you can select text copy and hit the 'quote selected' button below the quick reply box.. OR when you click post reply button and hit the quote button before you start typing.. and after.. :)

[MrLick]

thanks camille.

[lilchick629]

your heard and ignored, not by the terrorist though, they hear you loud and clear and they love it.

you complain about friends in iraq, do you want them back? well by helping the enemy prolong the war and playing into their hands your just hurting your friends even more.

sadly people like you are the reaon why we might lose, and were the reason we lost nam.

yes yes we know, you will speak to speak to hear yourself talk, at the expense of america and its troups, screw them! i mean c'mon my voice is worth more then them right?



LET ME REPEAT SOMETHING AGAIN IN CASE U FORGOT
TERRORISTS DONT GIVE A FUCK IF AMERICANS ARE FOR THE WAR OR NOT
DONT GIVE A FUCK IF WE ARE ALL UNITED FOR WAR OR IF SOME OF US ARE NOT FOR IT


DONT U GET IT???? THEY ARE CAUSING ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS CAUSE THEY HAVE A BIGGER ISSUE THAT DOESNT EVEN CONCERN WITH THE PEOPLE
BUT IT CONCERNS AMERICAS POLICIES :P

[MrLick]

your heard and ignored, not by the terrorist though, they hear you loud and clear and they love it.

you complain about friends in iraq, do you want them back? well by helping the enemy prolong the war and playing into their hands your just hurting your friends even more.

sadly people like you are the reaon why we might lose, and were the reason we lost nam.

yes yes we know, you will speak to speak to hear yourself talk, at the expense of america and its troups, screw them! i mean c'mon my voice is worth more then them right?



LET ME REPEAT SOMETHING AGAIN IN CASE U FORGOT
TERRORISTS DONT GIVE A FUCK IF AMERICANS ARE FOR THE WAR OR NOT
DONT GIVE A FUCK IF WE ARE ALL UNITED FOR WAR OR IF SOME OF US ARE NOT FOR IT


DONT U GET IT???? THEY ARE CAUSING ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS CAUSE THEY HAVE A BIGGER ISSUE THAT DOESNT EVEN CONCERN WITH THE PEOPLE
BUT IT CONCERNS AMERICAS POLICIES :P

ignorance must be bliss.

their stratigy, which was mainly saddams idea, WHICH WE HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE OF, was a long pro-longed war to defeat bush and the pro war people politicaly, saddam made these plans, he knew he could not match us with a military but he could divide us and defeat the pro war policaly. this is a known fact. if you cannot see this that is right in front of your face then im sorry.

but if we unite we will defeat them, because that was their stratigy to divide us and defeat us poltically. and were lettign that happen.

ITS A SIMPLE MILTARY STRATIGY USED BEFORE, AND IS BEING USED ONCE MORE, IT WORKS VERY WELL IN THE RIGHT CONDITION, AND THE CONDITIONS IN AMERICA'S POLITICAL SYSTEM ARE RIGHT.

i mean c'mon do you believe they think they can beat us with their military? crying out loud how much more ovious do you want it to be?

how simple does it have to be before you understand? this stratigy was put into motion by saddam before the war.

[lilchick629]

BESIDES THE VIETNAM WAR--------NAME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF UR LITTLE STRATEGY

HOW WOULD U FEEL IF PEOPLE CAME AND INVIDE UR COUNTRY???????? HOW WOULD U FEEL???????
THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVE A MESSAGE--------
OK WE FREED THEM-------NOW ITS TIME TO LEAVE AND LET THEM BE :P

[MrLick]

BESIDES THE VIETNAM WAR--------NAME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF UR LITTLE STRATEGY

HOW WOULD U FEEL IF PEOPLE CAME AND INVIDE UR COUNTRY???????? HOW WOULD U FEEL???????
THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVE A MESSAGE--------
OK WE FREED THEM-------NOW ITS TIME TO LEAVE AND LET THEM BE :P


my little stratigy, iwish it was my stratigy, i'd be a miliary genius if i had come up with this.

if my goverment was killing almost a 100,000 a year, and i have hardly any freedoms, and they came to feed and free me, i'd wnat their help, i;d fight by their side.

you dont seem to understand anything about this war, or any war for that matter. the people fighting us are saddam loyaliist and foreign terrorist, lots of alqeada members. they dont want to be free, they want to rule iraq likeit was before and kill americans and defeat us. their not fighting for freedom or for their country, their fighting to instal a extremist islamic state in iraq and to hurt america.

my friend are over now gtg

[berrywoman]

excellent use of quoting kids... keep up the good work.. ;)

[MrLick]

now is not the time to leave, we leave we would undo all we fought for, terrorsit would take power and get control and the iraqi people would be worse off, worse then under saddam. it would be tragic to do that, and it would be a defeat to america, terrorsit would rally against us even more, because they would realize all they had to do to win a war is just put up a fight for a few years and america would give up. it would be stupid.

leaving now would cause more violence and problems, for iraq and america. it would have been pointless to free them to leave before they were completely free adn let another dictator take control.

you cant simply leave before the war is over. its not good for iraq or america. it would only benifit the terrorist and saddam loyalist. it would be foolish.

[lilchick629]

BESIDES THE VIETNAM WAR--------NAME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF UR LITTLE STRATEGY

HOW WOULD U FEEL IF PEOPLE CAME AND INVIDE UR COUNTRY???????? HOW WOULD U FEEL???????
THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVE A MESSAGE--------
OK WE FREED THEM-------NOW ITS TIME TO LEAVE AND LET THEM BE :P


my little stratigy, iwish it was my stratigy, i'd be a miliary genius if i had come up with this.

if my goverment was killing almost a 100,000 a year, and i have hardly any freedoms, and they came to feed and free me, i'd wnat their help, i;d fight by their side.

you dont seem to understand anything about this war, or any war for that matter. the people fighting us are saddam loyaliist and foreign terrorist, lots of alqeada members. they dont want to be free, they want to rule iraq likeit was before and kill americans and defeat us. their not fighting for freedom or for their country, their fighting to instal a extremist islamic state in iraq and to hurt america.

my friend are over now gtg


YOU SAY THAT I DONT UNDERSTAND THIS WAR OR ANY????
WELL I THINK BY QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENT---U GET A CLEARER IDEA

I DONT FOLLOW ANYTHING BLINDLY-------THATS WHY I HATE MATH-----I AM GIVEN A FORMULA AND TOLD THAT ITS THE WAY IT IS----I NEED PROOF AND I NEED TO SEE FOR MA SELF WHY THE FORMULA IS LIKE THAT--------------

SAME HERE--------I DONT FOLLOW WHAT I AM TOLD BY MY RIGHT SIDED MEDIA-----RIGHT SIDED GOVERNMENT-------
I QUESTION EVERYTHING----AND IF I DONT LIKE WHAT I SEE-----THEN IT FUELS ME TO SAY SO

SO NO----I WONT SHUT UP AND WAIT TO SEE HOW BUSH FUCKS US MORE------EVEN IF HE CANT HEAR ME-----I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHO AMERICA DIDNT ELECT

[lilchick629]

now is not the time to leave, we leave we would undo all we fought for, terrorsit would take power and get control and the iraqi people would be worse off, worse then under saddam. it would be tragic to do that, and it would be a defeat to america, terrorsit would rally against us even more, because they would realize all they had to do to win a war is just put up a fight for a few years and america would give up. it would be stupid.

leaving now would cause more violence and problems, for iraq and america. it would have been pointless to free them to leave before they were completely free adn let another dictator take control.

you cant simply leave before the war is over. its not good for iraq or america. it would only benifit the terrorist and saddam loyalist. it would be foolish.


IF WHAT U SAY ITS TRUE--------IF WE REALLY ARE IN THIS WAR FOR THE IRAQUI PEOPLE-----TO LIBERATE THEM FROM EVIL---------IF WE ARE THERE, IF AMERICA REALLY WERE THERE TO HELP OTHERS AND HELP PEOPLE IN NEED------------

WHY DIDNT WE JUST GO TO AFRICA AND HELPED ALL THE CHILDREN AND PEOPLE DYING EVERY MINUTE--------IT WOULD BE SAFER FOR US AND THEM----IT WOULD BE HUMANITARIAN LIKE WE ARE SUPPOSIBLY DOING IN IRAQ-----------AND WE WOULD STILL BE SAVING LIVES RIGHT?

PLEASE----OPEN UR EYES AND STOP BELIEVING EVERYTHING UR GOVERNMENT TELLS U--------QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT

[colduser]

Nick, us uniting will make no difference in the war. These people will be blowing shit up 1,2,10 years from now. This war is not going to end in your flawed vision of us all coming together. Please realize how foolish this sounds. Just because the insurgents see us holding hands and uniting would have no effect on their resolve to kick our ass. We created this unfortunate mess and now it's time to pack up and get the hell out of there.

[colduser]

Nick, Nick, Nick. You amaze me more and more everyday.
How unamerican of you to say not to protest the war for now until 2008. Just because I protest the war does in no way mean I am against the troops over there. I respect the troops just as much as any other american. It is essential for democratic socieites to voice their disapproval of what they see as wrong. IT IS AMERICAN to voice dissent Nick and I will continue to make mine heard loud and clear until Bushy is out of office. Just because my protesting may not make any bit of difference, it is still a warranted and necesarry part of democracy. It sounds almost like you would rather have us living in a dictatorship where censorship is king. Open you eyes.....



FINALLY SOMEBODY HELPS ME FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OUR RIGHT TO PROTEST :P


You've been doing a nice job posting in here. Keep it up :D

[lilchick629]

Nick, us uniting will make no difference in the war. These people will be blowing shit up 1,2,10 years from now. This war is not going to end in your flawed vision of us all coming together. Please realize how foolish this sounds. Just because the insurgents see us holding hands and uniting would have no effect on their resolve to kick our ass. We created this unfortunate mess and now it's time to pack up and get the hell out of there.

DITTO

I DONT THINK ITS GETTING THROUGH HIM--------IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A WHILE BUT HE WONT SEE BEYOND HIS "UNITED WE WILL WIN" IDEA :P

[colduser]

I know. Nick's a good guy just misguided :lol: :lol:

[MrLick]

lol all i had time was to read the comment, so thanks, im leaving in a minute to go out of town, fora week or 2, i look foward to talking more later! lol im like the only republican on here too.

[lilchick629]

NICK, I JUST SAW UR PIC IN THE ALBUM
U LOOK KOOL :P

[gentleparachute]

Nick, my turn to join the fray...

You got to start understanding that YOUR war (i.e. your perception of the US-initiated war on Iraq) is a helluva different from the TERRORISTS' war.

You (and the Bush admin's excuse) are saying this war is justified and that it should be founght because it frees the Iraqis and brings democracy and stops the oppression (as well as the killing) of the people there. Also that America needs to get rid of the terrorists (which u think originate from there).

Nick, you need to know a couple of things (if you don't already):
1) First of all, terrorists do NOT just come from Iraq (or Afghanistan) for that matter.

2) These terrorists don't know/understand/care about your intentions to free the Iraqi people... They are freaking mad that apparently innocent people- their friends, family and loved ones are getting killed/shot at by American soldiers (and their allies) who are justifiably shit-scared too. Many Iraqis are just poor peasants/farmers who would be struggling to put food on the table rather than fight over ideologies like us. Besides most of them wouldn't be very educated (or have gone to school) - they'd be just struggling to survive. Anything that messes with that and it'll be enough for them to go to war and kill themselves (as well as others) over. They view American soldiers as a direct threat to them, they don't care that you guys went over to liberate them from Saddam in the first place :rolleyes: . Besides, Saddam wasn't targeting them for extermination/oppression, they were too busy just trying to survive than go protest / try to overthrow Saddam.

The better educated people who end up as terrorists - the engineers, store-keepers, rich-man's sons - it's the same thing although their motivation is different. They see their countrymen (or people of their own race/religion) being attacked and killed by outsiders. Deep in their psyche and culture, it feels like history is being repeated all over again - the Crusades (i.e. Jihad to them). So what do they do? Same as what you and I would be doing in the same situation... They'd be outraged and angry that the people they care about are suffering and dying. But where we scream and shout and protest, they do something more substantial/extreme... They end up taking up arms and "sacrificing themselves" to kill the enemy. It's just their culture... dying was never too big a deal given the harsh conditions they've had to survive historically, and there's glory in becoming a matyr too (for their own people, religion, whatever).

3) Therefore, for the terrorists... War is about eliminating the threat US is causing them. Remember, whether it's the truth now or not, that the 1st Iraq war started by Bush senior WAS all about the oil, even if it was for the "just cause" of protecting Kuwait from Iraq. People have memories... Of course the middle eastern people will be suspicious of US intentions. You don't just have a war brought upon your country and forget that it ever happened, and the reasons why it happened in just 15 years!!! Especially if it was about something as stupid as oil :rolleyes: ... You see where this is leading us?

Eliminating the threat. You view them as a threat, they view you as a threat. Both sides are equally bent on eliminating each other, even at the cost of human lives... The US has backing of its government who will keep supplying soldiers; the terrorists are "terrorised" and thus defend themselves by taking out the enemy; terrorist attacks happen and the Bush government "strengthens its resolve to eliminate the terrorist threat".... So there is more war, more casualties on both ends. The same old cycle will repeat itself. It is not going to end or go away.

Nick, the terrorist threat cannot be eliminated by force/arms. Can't you see that? For every terrorist you kill, there'll be people who love them who'll want revenge; there'll be sympathetic countrymen who feel "here's another example of invasion of my country by outsiders" and be inspired to become suicide bombers... Haven't you ever heard them say, "for every one of our brothers you kill, ten more will spring up and take our place"? If you haven't, this is how it happens, and it ain't going away unless the US changes its approach. Killing terrorists and freezing their arms/militant-training funding can help, but it'll never solve the root of the problem. This is not a war against drug cartels or the mafia, it is far more than that - people will fight to the point of death when their way of life and own people are being threatened- it's all about survival. Think about it, if somebody wanted to remove democracy from your country or was attacking your country on its own land, you'd pretty much enlist in the army to defend your country and even kill the invaders wouldn't you?

As for removing the military presence your country has placed in Iraq in the first place, as I've said earlier elsewhere, the US has landed itself into a quagmire it started in the first place. And the fault lies with none other than George W Bush. You see, if he hadn't gone on and on about "freeing the people, bringing democracy to Iraq" etc and destabilising the whole country by toppling Saddam using US forces, there wouldn't be all this mess. Of the various methods previous presidents have tried- to assasinate him, bomb him, use economic and political means so that the Iraqi people themselves finally removed him - none of which has worked so far to be fair - to remove Saddam, you know why the US never declared war? I sure know that one of the reasons was so that the military needn't be involved. Now that Bush has made this into a moral war as well, the US government cannot justifiably remove US troops unless and until the situation there has settled and peace is maintained. This day ain't gonna come since the troops keep accidentally killing Iraqi civilians. Here's "Collateral damage" for ya :dozey: . Bush has also made things messier for your next president coz it looks likely the war will still be when he steps down. Then the next prez will have to figure out how to remove the troops without being condemned worldwide for abandoning this situation.

All this of course is assuming that the war isn't about oil and US military presence in the middle east. If the war is because of oil, then good luck folks cause your people are going to remain there... And the casualties ain't going away. With prolonged military presence in the middle east, the people there will of course be justifiably angry and agitated and terrorism will fluorish. All the bloodshed and bad-blood caused by politics and greed. When will we ever learn? :rolleyes:

[lilchick629]

WELL SAID MS. GENTLEPARACHUTE----I AGREE WITH ALL YOUVE SAID AND YOU BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT-----THE NEXT US PRESIDENT IS IN A STICKY SITUATION---CAUSE BUSH AINT GONNA FIX ANYTHING ANYMORE---HE AINT GONNA FIX IT----ALL HE HAS TO DO IS CHILL, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION AND THEN WHEN IT COMES-----STEP BACK

I WISH USA STOPED PLAYING THE DEMOCRACY POLICE OF THE WORLD AND JUST WORRIED BOUT OUR OWN SELVES----BUSH WAS JUST A BIG MISTAKE IN OUR COUNTRY----ACTUALLY NOT EVEN MISTAKE CAUSE WE DIDNT VOTE FOR HIM----HE CHEATED HIMSELF IN :P

BY THE WAY------GENTLEPARACHUTE---WHERE ARE U FROM??? UR FLAG???

[gentleparachute]

^Thanks for the compliment... You're great yourself too you know. I just gotta say some things sometimes when I see certain things not being put right. ;)


BY THE WAY------GENTLEPARACHUTE---WHERE ARE U FROM??? UR FLAG???

I'm from Malaysia. That's the Malaysian flag you're seeing there... It quite resembles the good ol' star-spangled banner doesn't it? :P My country's alright by and large, though I guess I do get into a huff over some things sometimes. But seeing how a single person can mess up a whole country (actually make that three including Iraq and Afghanistan) makes me very thankful that my country is what it is. :D Dubya messed up beyond my wildest dreams (and I didn't mean that in a good way)... It's amazing how one single person can so screw up the world :angry:

[lilchick629]

IF THAT SADENS YOU--IMAGINE ME---- I GOTTA LIVE HERE AND I AM THE ONE REPRESENTING AMERICA-----WHEN I GOT OUT TO ANOTHER COUNTRY----I GOTTA LIE ABOUT WHERE I COME FROM CAUSE I AM DISGUSTED AT WHAT MA COUNTRY NOW REPRESENTS :P

THATS WHY WE GOTTA SPEAK UP AND QUESTION OUR GOVERNMENTS :P

[berrywoman]

I dont hate my country... in fact I love it. I just hate my governemnt. :)

[lilchick629]

SAME HERE----BUT I AM ASHAMED OF WHAT WE STAND FOR----BUSH TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD----BUT WE ARE THE MOST HATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

"I LOVE MA COUNTRY---IS THE GOVERNMENT I FEAR"
THATS WHAT MA BUMPER STICKER SAYS :P

[berrywoman]

yea, that does suck.. :disappointed: I remember after the elections.. a whole bunch of people wanted to leave the country!! lol Myself included!!

[berrywoman]

with all this to do about the London bombings and stuff.. does anyone here in the US feel any safer with the precautions their local law enforcement has put forth thus far??

[colduser]

I feel no safer since the 9/11 bombings and now the recent bombings in London.
The war in Iraq was an unneeded war that has now made the world less safe. I'm not at all optimistic about the future :(

[berrywoman]

its so sad isnt..... I think this is part of the reason I dont want to have kids.. :embarrased: :cry:

[colduser]

I totally understand that. What kind of world can we expect our children to have 10-20 years from now :huh: It is a scary prospect :/

[berrywoman]

:embarrased: yup... on a happier note.. go check the Interpol thread!! :wink3: :P

[colduser]

:o I did and I am beyond pleased :wink3: :kiss:

[lilchick629]

:bigcry: i'm scared *feels like a target*

[berrywoman]

wow! no caps!!! You must be scared..........

[colduser]

I feel an overwhelming need to state once again how much Bush and company eat pure shitballs.

[MrLick]

I totally understand that. What kind of world can we expect our children to have 10-20 years from now :huh: It is a scary prospect :/

it will be scarier if people continue to look teh other way all the time. most the world hasnt learned the lessons from ww2, and it will come back to kick us in our ass sometime soon.

[lilchick629]

wow! no caps!!! You must be scared..........

arent u happy---ma recovery is doing very well
i hope drinking was as easy to let go of :P

[MrLick]

How 'bout them yankees?

[lilchick629]

How 'bout them yankees?

BOOOOOO the yankees :P

[berrywoman]

:angry:

[jdo145]

Maybe Chris mispoke a little bit, shareholders aren't as bad as corporate CEOs, I mean look that what happened with Enron, the CEOs screwed the shareholders and employees. So corporate CEOs can be pretty nasty, but overall the biggest evil right now in the world looks like terrorism to me. Misusing (and ultimately dishonoring) Islam to try and justify killing civillians seems mighty evil to me. ;)

[colduser]

Bush Sucks

[lilchick629]

colduser---whats ur name??? and do u mind if i use ur quote in ma sig :P

[colduser]

My name is Aaron and no I don't mind. What is your name? :)

[lilchick629]

laura---live in LA----and i hate bush----oh so so so so much i hate him :P

[colduser]

:lol: :lol: Well, nice to officially meet you Laura from LA. I love California :cool:

[MrLick]

Bush rocks. Kerry sucks. stupid commie

[Kapone]

Bush rocks. Kerry sucks. stupid commie

i like you mr cool, i really do but please, please keep it to yourself

[MrLick]

why should i? i mean no one else is keeping thier hatred of bush to theirselve!

[Kapone]

yeah but *whispers* republicans suck dude

[MrLick]

because we democrats suck even more.

[Kapone]

:lol:

[lilchick629]

americas government should completely change------i agree----bush sucks--kerry sucks----so why not get a third option--or a fourth one---why have to chose between a lying and corrupted bush or a "kerry" (with all thats implied)

and also----capitalism only exists for the top 10% of americans-------capitalism is the reason why i cant afford my surgery and my medications---it sucks along with bush :idea2:

[MrLick]

CAPITALISM is a good thing. we wouldnt be rich if it wasnt for that. it works for the almost all the country, far more then 10 percent. its sad you dont see that. what we dont want or need is socailism thats just bad for everyone.

[lilchick629]

we should have free health care-----money shouldnt determine wether u live or die-----wether u get medicated or not

capitalism is free enterprise----anyone could build a business---right???
well not really---now that Walmarts are spreading---big stores buying busineses
little private businesses cant compete----i dont like capitalism :angry:

[colduser]

Bush rocks. Kerry sucks. stupid commie

Nick you keep spouting off like an incolent boy. Carter was a great peace loving president who unfortuantely had to clean up Nixon and Ford's messes and deal with a falling economy. Again, you speak of what you know not.

[MrLick]

lol you go and spout bush sucks like a incolent child. when you do the same thing dont get mad at me for doing it. thats childish.

we have carter stupidity to thank for modern day iran and the terrorism it supports. thanks carter.

I speak of what i know. i know my history of presidents.

[lilchick629]

bush sucks :P

[MrLick]

the duke of york sucks.

[berrywoman]

:lol: :lol: :lol: down with the Queen!! Down I say!!!






































I am kidding your majesty!!! *curtsies*

[mc_squared]

The Queen is slowly and surely being DRAGGED down by her family!! :P

[colduser]

]I speak of what i know. i know my history of presidents.

I beg to differ with you. Don't you realize that Reagan and Bush hurt the situation over there even more. Reagan supplied Saddam with weapons for the Iran/Iraq war. Now Saddam has his army use those same weapons in the 1st and 2nd gulf wars. Nick, nothing will ever make you see that you are wrong and it is unfortunate. I know that you will give me the same run around about how I never think that I am wrong etc. etc. etc. I know for a fact that I am on the "right" side of the political spectrum my friend. Keep your eyes closed to the real world if you must.

[MrLick]

sorry but reagan all and all did good for america. the good outweighed the bad with reagan. bush however its too early to tell.

hey your the one keeping your eyes closed. open them up and you;ll see the truth

[colduser]

No my friend it is you who's eyes are closed. In time you will see why. As far as Reagan, I would love to have him as president over Bush the 43rd. Reagan would have never led this country in such a wreckless and uncaring fashion.

[MrLick]

i cant in time see why, when my eyes are open. i'd rather have reagan in office too, that man was a amazing president did alot of good. and if we had a man like him now we would be doing alot better. i can only hope we find another leader like reagan to help us out, we need it.

[colduser]

Nick, I don't know why I get so frustrated with you but I do. I apologize for being rude to you sometimes but I really see your views as close-minded. Anyways, I think I've had enough stress. I call a truce for today ;)

[MrLick]

my views are close minded because they are not your views. im opened minded.

[colduser]

ok :/

[MrLick]

ok ok truce for today. hope you have a good day colduser and cya later. :)

[colduser]

you have a good one too Nick ;)

[MrLick]

I feel really bad and rude, i forgot your name. :/

can you tell me it again?

[lilchick629]

Reagen was the worse president in the US
under his administration, more than a million latinos and hispanics were killed-----the highest number ever under a president---and i blame it all to him
me being a latina---ofcourse this pisses me off :P

[colduser]

compared to bush, reagan is a saint.

[mc_squared]

compared to bush, reagan is a saint.

Plus he starred in "Bedtime For Bonzo"!! :P

[Bijeli_Miš]

Oh dooods politics, again, Nick you're just like Eric, wonder where is he now?
Anywho Chris dissapointed me by saying something like that, I mean if you are gonna bash something than better learn something about the subject.
I mean just cuz your album is delayed or whatever doesn't justify saying share owners are "evil".
Especilly dumb was saying such thing to FOX, THE conservative tv station in US!

[MrLick]

Reagen was the worse president in the US
under his administration, more than a million latinos and hispanics were killed-----the highest number ever under a president---and i blame it all to him
me being a latina---ofcourse this pisses me off :P

if he was the worst then we'd had a bunch of great presidents.

yes he was the cause to all the deaths of hispanics. he did some of the greatest things for our country, in terms of foriegn policy, laws, taxes and when he took office our national pride was the lowest ever, he helped americans love there country again. not only that he helped the economy and did wonders in fighting communism around the wolrd and in eastern europe. if not for him we'd be in alot more trouble now.

[Kapone]

he was just like thatcher. a complete **** but amatuer compared to todays lot.

[berrywoman]

so how 'bout them Knicks!!! :wink3:

[MrLick]

how 'bout them?

[colduser]

I feel really bad and rude, i forgot your name. :/

can you tell me it again?

Aaron

[lilchick629]

i am doing good and being nice so i wont end up in hell with bush and reagen down there----not because its hell, but because those evil fuckers will be there
:P

[MrLick]

why would bush and reagan be in hell?

[colduser]

Well, one could say that their use of executive power to launch military maneuvers leading to the deaths of people would possibly make them guilty of sin that could lead them to hell.

[MrLick]

or one could say them actually doing something to stop saddam mass killing would get them into heaven. but then again good deeds dont get you in. but no one has the right to say who is or who isnt going to hell.

[colduser]

I agree with you here. I was talking theoretically to back up lilchick's statement.

[MrLick]

ohhh. i thought you were saying that because you dont like bush.

[colduser]

Well I don't like bush the 43rd but can't say if he is goign to hell or not.

[gentleparachute]

What if Bush went to heaven? :o Would you go to hell just so you wouldn't be the same place as him? :lol:

[colduser]

Well I am Jewish and we don't have a hell :P :lol:

[colduser]

I just read this the other day and think it needs to be shared:

New Rule: The people in America who are most in favor of the Iraq war must now go there and fight it. The Army missed its recruiting goal by 42% last month. More people joined the Michael Jackson Fan Club. "We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit." And now we need warm bodies. We need warm bodies like Paula Abdul needs...warm bodies!

Now, last week, a Baptist minister in North Carolina told nine members of his congregation that unless they renounced their 2004 vote for John Kerry, they had to leave his church. Well, if we're that certain these days that George Bush is always that right about everything, then going to Iraq to fulfill the glorious leader's vision would seem the least one could do. And, hey, if it makes it any easier for you, just think of it as a reality show: "Fear Factor: Shitting Your Pants Edition." "Survivor: Sunni Triangle." Or maybe it's a video game, "Grand Theft Allah."

Now, I know you're thinking, but, Bill, I already do my part with the "Support Our Troops" magnet I have on my Chevy Tahoe. How much more can one man give? Well, here's an intriguing economic indicator. It's been over a year since they graduated, but neither of the Bush twins has been able to find work. Why don't they sign up? Do they hate America or just freedom in general?

And that goes for everybody who helped sell this war. You've got to go first. Brooks and Dunn, drop your cocks and grab your socks! Ann Coulter, darling, trust me, you will love the Army. You think you make up shit!

Curt Schilling, b-bye! You ended the curse on Boston. Good. Let's try your luck in Fallouja. Oh, and that Republican Baldwin brother, he's got to go so that Ted Nugent has someone to frag.

But mostly, we have to send Mr. And Mrs. Britney Spears. Because Britney once said, "We should trust our president in every decision that he makes, and we should just support that and be faithful in what happens." Okay, somebody has to die for that. Or at least go. Hey, maybe she'll like it. Hell, she's already knocked up. That'll save the MP unit about ten minutes.

And think of the spiritual lift it will provide to troops and civilians alike when actual combat smacks the smirk off of Kevin Federline's face and fills his low-hanging trousers with dootie.

In summation, you cannot advocate for something you wouldn't do yourself. For example, I'm for fuel efficiency, which is why I drive a hybrid car and always take an electric private plane. I'm for legalizing marijuana, and so I smoke a ton of it.

Bill Maher

[Egghead]

Well I am Jewish and we don't have a hell :P :lol:

yeah but your idea of heaven is studying beside God for eternity. :rolleyes: :P

[MrLick]

Now, I know you're thinking, but, Bill, I already do my part with the "Support Our Troops" magnet I have on my Chevy Tahoe. How much more can one man give? Well, here's an intriguing economic indicator. It's been over a year since they graduated, but neither of the Bush twins has been able to find work. Why don't they sign up? Do they hate America or just freedom in general?


because you dont have to be in the army to be american or love freedom. thats so dumb. its a volunteer army for a reason.



And that goes for everybody who helped sell this war. You've got to go first. Brooks and Dunn, drop your cocks and grab your socks! Ann Coulter, darling, trust me, you will love the Army. You think you make up shit!




just because you help sell a war does NOT mean you should fight. many people are NOT soldiers and do other things. like women in ww2, they didnt fight alot of them worked in factory's to help support the. to simply say if you helped sell the war to fight is ignorant and stupid. many people are not cut out to be soldiers no matter how much they want to or how much they support a war. like me i'd fight if they needed me, but lets face it they wouldnt accept me. i'd end up shooting my own side by accident.


But mostly, we have to send Mr. And Mrs. Britney Spears. Because Britney once said, "We should trust our president in every decision that he makes, and we should just support that and be faithful in what happens." Okay, somebody has to die for that. Or at least go. Hey, maybe she'll like it. Hell, she's already knocked up. That'll save the MP unit about ten minutes.




im all for sending mr and mrs spears, they annoy the hell out of me.


And think of the spiritual lift it will provide to troops and civilians alike when actual combat smacks the smirk off of Kevin Federline's face and fills his low-hanging trousers with dootie.






hhahahaha


In summation, you cannot advocate for something you wouldn't do yourself. For example, I'm for fuel efficiency, which is why I drive a hybrid car and always take an electric private plane. I'm for legalizing marijuana, and so I smoke a ton of it.

how ignorant of him. when it comes to wars and fighting many supporters simply cannot

[colduser]

Well I am Jewish and we don't have a hell :P :lol:

yeah but your idea of heaven is studying beside God for eternity. :rolleyes: :P

Thanks for the reminder Kyle :lol:

[MrLick]

i didnt know you were jewish. i heard the other day that most jews vote democrat in america. does anyone know if thats true?

[colduser]

Nick, I appreciate your response. It was a satire. It is just funny and I think a bit too honest for some folks. However, this war we are fighting against terrorism is in no way comparable to WW2 and the only reason why there has not been a true rising of the people here against the gov. is because of the lack of a draft. Bush and Co. know that a draft would tear apart the country, therefor, they will do everything in their power to prevent it. We need to stop starting unilateral wars or else we will need a draft. I just like how Bill Maher is calling out the gross hypocrisy shown by the gung ho war people who would never have enough balls to fight in the war.

[colduser]

i didnt know you were jewish. i heard the other day that most jews vote democrat in america. does anyone know if thats true?

As a voting block, Jews tend to vote democratic. I am more of a socialist though.

[MrLick]

but i will point out just because your for the war does NOT mean you should fight, may people are simply not cut out to fight. you dont seem to understand this. just because you support it does not mean you should go and fight in it.

[colduser]

Nick, I understand you well. I don't think you should fight the war because you support it. Bill was kidding just to point out the hypocrisy that some show by being all for war yet not wanting to fight in it.

[MrLick]

we should make the ones that dont want to fight, fight! jk. but ok, now i see what your saying.

[Egghead]

Thanks for the reminder Kyle :lol:

Dating a jewish girl is educational ;)

[colduser]

As I can see :lol:

[colduser]

poor bush :lol:

Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET Aug. 14, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s standing with an American public anxious about Iraq and the nation’s direction is lower than that of the last two men who won re-election to the White House — Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — at this point in their second terms.

But solid backing from his base supporters has kept Bush from sinking to the depths reached by former presidents Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bush’s father. Truman decided not to run for re-election. Nixon resigned. Carter and the first President Bush were defeated in re-election campaigns.

“This president should be glad he’s not running for re-election,” said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute. “But the president is clearly holding his base. It’s very important for him to keep the base support in terms of getting things done.”

Indeed, Republicans in Congress already are starting to fret about the 2006 election. If Bush’s approval ratings sink lower, more of them may be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear it could cause backlash for them with voters.

Bush’s job approval in recent polls ranges from the low- to mid-40s. It was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His ratings on everything from handling Iraq to the economy to Social Security and other domestic issues are at their lowest levels so far.

Stark partisan divide
Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling at the time.

The partisan divide for Bush is stark — 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.

Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally, said Republicans are sticking with Bush for two reasons: personal affection and loyalty.

“I haven’t seen anything like it since Reagan,” he said. “Bush follows through on issues that are largely popular with the base, even when it’s not popular with the general public to do so.”

Bush may have a hard time pushing up his numbers because issues like the violence in Iraq and gas prices are largely out of his control.

But Bush’s efforts to put conservatives on the Supreme Court and overhaul the federal tax code are likely to please his conservative base.

Other presidents have seen their political bases dissolve, in Gallup poll figures:

Truman’s approval dipped to 24 percent in the late spring of 1951 after he removed popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command in Korea.
Nixon’s approval dropped to 31 percent in August 1973 as the war dragged on in Vietnam and revelations of administration misdeeds kept spilling out of the Senate Watergate hearings.
Carter’s approval plunged to 29 percent in the early summer of 1979 amid economic troubles and news of increasing problems with new Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
The first Bush’s approval sank to 32 percent in July 1992 as his presidential rivals Clinton and Ross Perot gained momentum in the campaign and the jobless rate rose.
For the current president to fall to those levels, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would have to abandon him in large numbers. So far there’s no indication that is happening, though there are some rumblings of discontent.

“I voted for Bush,” said Jerry Fleming a GOP-leaning independent from Athens, Ala. “I feel like he’s pretty much a straight-shooter as far as his religious background. I respect that part of him.

“But if the situation in Iraq keeps dragging out for a long period of time with no hope for peace, I would eventually get fed up with it,” Fleming said.

‘A true leader’
For Trisha McAllister, a Republican from Grenada, Miss., Bush’s willingness to ignore public opinion wins her over.

“I may not approve of every single thing he does,” McAllister said, “but he’s a true leader because he’s not leading by the polls.”

Presidential scholar Charles Jones cautioned against reading too much into low poll ratings for a president at a given point of his term.

“Truman got some of the lowest poll numbers any president ever got,” said Jones, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Now when we look back on Truman, he’s the highest ranked of the post-World War II presidents.”

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Egghead]

yep. ignoring the public is what people want in a president. :cool:

[berrywoman]

:lol: :lol:

[colduser]

Iraq is what will sink this president. Americans get wrestless quickly when we get in a quagmire.
Bush is and will always remain a fool.

[TimJordan]

I second that!

[MrLick]

Iraq is what will sink this president. Americans get wrestless quickly when we get in a quagmire.
Bush is and will always remain a fool.

americans get wrestless when we dont even get in a quagmire. its the way politics work. the democrats are doing a good job promoting this as quagmire when it is not one, not even close. but the average american is taken in by the crap they see on the liberal news and they fall for it. just talk to soldiers from iraq, most will tell you be careful what you watch on the news, alot of its taken out of context and spun to make it seem different the what it really is. i just talked another person who got back from iraq. as many say its not as bad as the news would like you to believe.

[MrLick]

U.S. National Security (1 of 3): Imminent Threats

Mark Alexander
From Patriot No. 05-28 Published 7/15/2005 | Print | Email

"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." --John Adams

Since the dawn of the American Republic, perilous national-security threats were symmetric, emanating from clearly defined nation-states with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests.

Such symmetric threats are tangible, which is to say that American political leaders have been able to define them sufficiently so that the American people could generally grasp what constituted "the enemy." World Wars I and II involved symmetric threats and well-defined adversaries. Military campaigns in Korea and Vietnam, on the other hand, lost public support because the purpose of those campaigns (and "the enemy" in the case of Vietnam) was not clearly defined, and thus, American casualties in those conflicts were not tolerated.

Regarding Vietnam, not only did Kennedy and Johnson err grievously in their arguments for escalating our involvement in that "police action," but they, and Nixon after them, had to contend with a new arbiter of presidential messages -- TV news networks, and their political agendas which were, and still are (with one exception), overwhelmingly left of center. The Leftmedia can completely undermine a President's call to rally public support against a national security adversary, unless that call is clear and concise.

Having learned hard lessons from Korea and Vietnam, George Bush(41) did a far better job of both defining the enemy and defining American objectives when it came time to engage Saddam Hussein's million-strong army in Desert Storm. The result was overwhelming public support. But defining the enemy and our objectives in the second round with Iraq has been much more difficult for Bush(43), because the enemy and our objective was, and remains much larger than just "containing Saddam."

There is an imminent national-security threat, which defies all the elements and definable characteristics of symmetric threats. Thus it is difficult to sustain public support in defense against this threat -- particularly when some American political leaders and their Leftmedia minions attempt to deny the threat in a brazen effort to undermine public support for the current administration. This political folly is tantamount to treason as there is, today, a clear and present danger of a catastrophic WMD attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Islamist terrorism is an asymmetric form of warfare, one that emerged in the late 1960s when Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel and Western military targets in the Middle East, and then, given rapid growth in the number of Jihadi adherents over two decades, striking targets in Europe. This threat congealed at the end of the Cold War, and in 1993 our homeland became a front line in this escalating conflict with Islamists.

On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his al-Qa'ida terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that tower into the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties. Fortunately, due to Ramzi's lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb didn't cause the collapse of the building, though it created a six-story crater in the parking garage.

Although Ramzi escaped, several other terrorists were captured and tried. Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, as he was formulating plans to bomb simultaneously a number of U.S. international flights. After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad -- the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- all without reprisal from the Clinton administration.

In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three thug in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan. Rather than bombing civilian aircraft, they planned to hijack civilian aircraft simultaneously and use them as missiles. On 11 September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade earlier, bringing down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and targeting the Pentagon and Capitol Building.

The intent of this Jihadi sleeper cell was not just to bring down the WTC towers, but also the U.S. economy, thus breaking the will of the American people in their effort to hold the line against Jihadi expansionism around the world.

On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our collective sense of invincibility had all but vanished.

In reality, Western democracies, particularly those seen as the true beacons of liberty, have been at war with Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitute al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, for at least a decade.

A borderless nation? Indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." They thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors we at The Patriot call Jihadistan, in an effort to make this enemy more tangible.

Just who are these "enemies of Allah"? In the wake of the most recent Jihadi attacks, the murder of more than 50 civilians in London, a Muslim "scholar," Hani Al-Siba'I, leader of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, made clear just who these Islamist Jihadis consider to be their enemies.

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani. "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not." Dar Al-Harb refers to the House of War -- anyone who is outside the House of Islam or the Muslim faith. In other words, if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, the enemy of Allah. Even if you are Muslim, but advocate political and economic liberty for your brethren, you are a target. (Consider the number of Muslim citizens in Iraq murdered daily by Jihadis.)

How many members of the Muslim faith subscribe to the notion that non-adherents are infidels? Perhaps fewer than five percent of all Muslims take such a hard line. But to put this in perspective, if just one percent of Muslims worldwide inhabit the national brotherhood of Jihadistan, then there are ten times more Jihadis than there are uniformed American combat personnel in our military service branches.

There has been much hand-wringing this past week by those who just can't understand how four "British" citizens could have carried out the London bombings against their fellow citizens. But the attackers were not British citizens -- they were Jihadi warriors first and foremost. Until Western leaders can clearly articulate this distinction, such attacks will continue to be viewed as detached incidents of terrorism -- and not part of a uniform warfront with Jihadistan. Thus, rallying public support for that warfront will remain a daunting task.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has yet to articulate this distinction in such a way that the American people, who tend to have a very short collective attention span when it comes to national-security issues, can grasp. Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, millions of Americans can recite all the sordid details about a runaway bride, a celebrity child molestation case and a girl missing in Aruba. But these same Americans know almost nothing about an adversary, which is actively seeking to slaughter us by the tens of thousands.

Fortunately, the Bush administration understands our Jihadi adversary well. As President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."

Because Jihadistan lacks any central governing authority (other than the Islamist protagonist of the day -- currently Osama bin Laden) or any central funding mechanism (other than the Saudi government and Islamist support groups in the West), its methods are unconventional. That is to say, it will use the most devastating weapon in its arsenal to succeed in its objective of destroying "the infidels."

Indeed, given that objective, and past performance, what's to prevent surrogate terrorists from detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center? The answer -- nothing short of a determined Doctrine of Preemption as outlined by the President Bush, and a good measure of fortune -- the continued grace of God.

(Part Two of this series, "The National Defense," will be published next week.)

Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist Patriot's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Federalist Patriot is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist Patriot's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave home without it!

[berrywoman]

:stunned: jinkies.. thats too much to read for me at the mo!!

[Egghead]

psst, camille: i dont know why he posted it.

remember ronnie raygun? :stunned:

[MrLick]

because some people need to read some good stuff for once and stop listening to the lies of the liberal media....... they makes some damn good points in that article i posted. it could open someones eyes.

[Egghead]

i read half of that. if you think thats all the truth, then i feel sad for you.

[MrLick]

hey now, hey.....

[colduser]

Nick, that article is crap. Thanks for sharing ;)

[Kapone]

:lol: He does his best

[MrLick]

Nick, that article is crap. Thanks for sharing ;)

the truth can be crap... thats how life works.

[colduser]

But your crap article is not truth ;)

[carpediem]

I have to agree to disagree with everyone that may have praised Fox news on here. Because any News station that goes around blaming other news companies of being Liberal and then claims they are balanced, even though they are not truly balanced, then they loose their credibilty in my opinion.

I agree with the studies that prove there is a Liberal slant in media. But it is no different then what Fox has been doing, accept slanting it completely to the right. There is no such thing as balanced news. News companies know very well that there is two large groups of audiences. Liberal and Conservative. In other words (Liberal) not so religious or even spiritual people. Although Liberal does have its Catholic bunch who believe in seperation of state and church. Then you have Conservatives the ones that sware on traditional values and religious scriptures. And the bunch that think church and state should reunite and create policy. There isn't a large group of people in the middle of this equation. Which is why the biggest media companies will always gear the content to those two groups.

Liberal media gears to those people who want freedom to just be and not forced to be. Conservative media here in the west is starting to gear its content to the patriotic reilgious right. Their making the Libearl out to be an enemy. I guess in a sense it is an enemy, because Libearl doesn't represent capitalism and globalization. It also doesn't represent any religion. Liberal accepts changes in society. Sort of like the lyric in "Scientist" science and progress. Liberal will accept science and physics as a human choice to study. That's what Libearl is all about. Conservative/Religious will never accept changes in society. They would much rather keep things hush hush. Know the problems are there, but try to forget its there, that's the religious approach. The religious approach also say's physics should be taken out of our schools because its based on theory, and that the bible should be taught instead because its fact?.

Now for those who will say I shouldn't be connecting conservative with religion. Remember the conservative government you all elected in the U.S uses God and preaches in his speeches for a reason. To attract the Christian right to the party. Because they will work well together. Capitalists get what they want, and (the loss of LIBERTY) the religious right get what they want.

I got side tracked.

Fox news is no better then any brain washing Liberal media source. They are both out to attract an audience that is already there, and all the while trying to brain wash the middle people one way or the other. Myself I choose to stay in the middle where I agree with a little bit of both ideologies from Conservative and Liberal.

Now let me rant a litle bit about Fox news. This same station allows this right wing nut Anne Coulter to say that Canada is lucky that the U.S allows them to exist. She also say's Canada is lucky the U.S doesn't just roll over one night and destroy Canada. She also went on to say that the U.S should attack all those countries in the middle east and convert them to Christianity. What arrogance.

Fox news in my opinion is a right wing nut news source. Just as many other outlets are left wing nuts. I recall a show where Bill O'Rielly claimed that if Canada didn't go along with the U.S invasion of Iraq, that the U.S could stop trade with Canada and make Canada bankrupt. Now this is coming from someone who is educated. Or at least we think so. Because if he only know that there is like 32 states that their highest trade is dependant on Canada. He also forgets that the U.S has allot of interest in our water. Since we have a richer source of it then they do.

Bill O'Rielly also claimed that France lost billions of dollars and almost went backrupt when the U.S put a stop on trade. He was quoting an article from a magazine that didn't even exist. And even if it did, the source was not very credible. Yet he choose to use it. Cause that is just what they do, use any source to make their point no matter how much crap it is. Its the same tactics Liberal media used for centuries, and now their using it.

The best source for news today is anything that is independent (internet) and doesn't rely soely on Reuters. They supply to many many networks, which causes one to question their part in the brain washing arena.

As for Gibson. Well he can have all the economic knowledge in the world and have economist backing up his economic plan. But for every 10 economist that prove the capitalist system, there is 10 economist that will prove it to be wrong. These economic plans are all based on a theory. The capititalist system for those religious believers in a anti-christ, should think about how this group is pushing towards a globalization system, which will lead to a one leader (maybe not in our time). The capitalist will create a one world government.

Kevin

[colduser]

^^Great post

[Bijeli_Miš]

"Libearl doesn't represent capitalism and globalization"
Huh well, I disagree.Didn't George Soros donated milions to campaign against Bush?
I'd choose to be liberal to conservative anytime, but I support capitalism.

[carpediem]

Just my personal understanding of it all. Not going to do the narrow minded thing and say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm open minded and will accept anyones disagreement with what I just said in that post.

I mentioned that right wing nut who made those comments about Canada. Well I edited the post again and included her name. Anne Coulter I would like to rant about as well.

Anne Coulter shows a real dislike for Canada. Claiming that we are too Libearal. And you know what. I agree with her to an extent. If she means too Liberal that we should be more like the U.S. Then I disagree with her. We may need to slant a little to the centre, but not far right like the U.S.

I guess hopping on the capitalist train is a natural outcome of a country that grows in population. Because the conservative right start telling us we can't afford all the luxury this tax system gives to EVERYONE. They tell us we Can't afford to help everyone anymore. Now I agree with this to an extent. Because some of those people our tax system supports are a bunch of lazy free loading humans. The solutions is not to lower tax. The solution is to learn from other countries.

Take for example Norway who has one of the highest standard of living with crime, health, poverty and education. Why is that? well for one there is only 8 million people who live there. But the other reason is their system that will not leave people behind the success of the countries wealth.

Now who knows maybe the conservative right will take over that country sooner or later as well. Its a disease that hits everywhere :wink3: Claiming to save us from Liberal. In exchange they want to take our Liberty through a connection between church and state.

I'm not pretending here to have the answers. Because to be honest I think the liberal system is flawed as well. Flawed because it doesn't seem to have a plan for order in society. Which is something conservative and religious system has solved (Bible = Laws). The problem I have with that system is the hypcrosiy of their causes. Below is just two example of their hypcrosiy.

A religious right in the U.S will come out screaming of the idea of Canada legalizing marijuana. But that same preacher is going home to have a bottle of man made alcohol drink, or a man made tampered tobacco.

They basically tell us every time they speak out against marijuana, that anything legal by man, made by man, that still kills millions of people every year in every country, is good for you. But anythhing made by God at time of creation is bad for you.

The marijuana issue is comical. Because although the U.S is trying to bully Canada to put stricker laws on marijuana. Saying that if we legalize marijuana it will make the border harder to cross for Canadian products and people. But on the other hand the current level at the border is o.k for all those illegal hand gun's crossing over to Canada. That's o.k apparently. I guess though this is our government lack of leadership on this issue.

Another example of the hypocrisy. Is the Terry Schiavo case. This girl who probably never once asked for a religious group to speak for her, or never once told them what her wishes were. Had them screaming their lungs out on the news. They were claiming to pull the blug was evil. The plug of a system that was never created by their God in the first place. I'm a little confused by this. They accept all man mad technologies, even if it means deciding whether one lives or dies. But they preach that only God decides who lives or dies. Back in the times when there was religious rule, I don't think someone had to decide whether someone died or lived just from unplugging a machine.

My heart goes out to Terry and her family. That really touched me that story. I had no agenda. The religious groups surrounding her did have an agenda. Their agenda is that they are looking for any means to get noticed in society. Because slowly with Liberal ideologies they are loosing power on society. So they want to start influencing policy to reflect religious scriptures.

In my opinion those religious people should have been on the streets and on the news when their government was spending millions of dollars to change a lens on a aging scope in space, while there was millions of Americans starving in poverty. Oh and I DON'T mean those who choose the streets, I mean those who are legitimately poor because of the capitalist globalization system (re:downsizing). The people they pushed down that they don't talk about when they preach the capitalist system.

Now I understand this is not for all religious people in the U.S. I understand there is millions of religious people out there doing allot of leg work without government help to deal with poverty in the U.S. through private organizations. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of religions trying to make policy and how they would not be consistent in making policies that make sense.

Imagine this. Tampered tobacco and all alcohol illegal in society. Marijuana legal in society to cook with, take as a pill or smoked through a vaporizer. All of the above has no evidence of health risk. Smoking it has some health risk, but still not as much as acohol or tampered tobacoo. Get this. It takes only a ratio of 1:4 to die of alcohol poisoning. And it takes a ratio of 1:40,000 to die of overdose to marijuana. That means it takes 4 times the amount it took to get drunk to get alcohol poisoning and 40,000 times the amount it took to get high from marijuana.

A book could be written about the difference between alcohol and tobacco risk and marijuana risk. Marijuana would probably get a chapter if that. The other two would fill up another 20 chapters or more. May as well even throw in caffein in there. Since it has just as much chemicals as marijuana, and has chemicals that caused cancer in rats.

I got side tracked again. Sorry about that. I often do that. My brain just goes on and on and I sometimes have to bang it against the wall to make it stop :idea2: Anyways all I'm saying here is consistency in policy. Either legalize marijuana or make illegal caffein, tobacco and alochol.

Kevin

P.S...There is actually a book written on this topic of marijuana. Its called "Perscription Pot". Written by two guy's who are fighting the American government on this issue. Because the Republicans had put a stop on any new claims to use marijuana for medical reasons. So only those who were signed up during Clinton can still use it, while any new applicants have to suffer when all conventional drugs fail. Refuse a human a God made drug. Yah that makes allot of sense.

[carpediem]

Bijeli_Miš,

Argue it that's fine. I'm talking about those religious people who want to push laws and rules on society. I'm going to assume that George Soros has no interest in Church and State connecting to make our policies. If he did he wouldn't have donated to a Liberal party. Because truthfully a Liberal party would want to keep seperated the two.

I figure there is a difference between Liberal having support by someone who has no agenda to push the bible on society. And the Conservatives who have someone who supports them with their agenda to push the bible on society.

Kevin

[carpediem]

Back on topic.

(Re: stockholders are evil).

I would disagree with that statement when its put in that short context too. However, if you dig deep into that statement, you do find some truth to it.

If a person is driving his car 150 and drunk, drives around a corner and hits a mini-van with 4 kids kills them all. Is this person evil? How about the guy who one day decides taking his own life and his wife and kids is better then dealing with his house that is being taken away from creditors. Is he evil? How about the guys who run into a bank and steals all the money. Are they evil?

One could probably say yes to all those questions. But the guy who drove that car drunk and high speeds. Didn't he have at his disposal the option to not drink, not drink and drive, or even not drive at high speeds. The part of him that could have chose the moral choice. Is he still evil if he chose the moral route? How about the guy who kills his wife and kids. Couldn't he have chose not too, and deal with the problems head on. If he chose not too. Is he still evil? And the guys who rob the bank who all decide their going to get a job and make a living, rather then steal the money from the bank. If they did, are they still evil?

Now the answer would probably be No if the actions were different. So now on the idea that stockholders are evil. Do they not make moral choices when purchasing stocks? If they choose a to purchase stocks from a company who is doing harm to the earth, or harm to humans using or consuming their products. Is that a evil thing to do? Let me see. If someone is buying a stock into a tobacco company. Knowing that their products kill millions every year to cancer. (My brother died of cancer so this is a touchy subject for me). Are they evil for choosing that company?

Well a stockholder isn't interested in the company whole behaviour in the market. They just know profits. But if they support (example if we say donate) to a company that is killing people. Does that make them evil? Not exactly.

Evil is a thought or an action. A person could be either good or evil with their thoughts or action. Its like there is a tipping point. The tipping point of a stockholder I guess is whether he will support good companies that are doing good for the earth and human life. Caring about what they are doing, rather then just bottomline. Problem is what stockholder will prosper doing that kind of investing? Probably not many.

But you know what. We can go even deeper and put the blame on consumers. Because consumers have the power to create change. We have seen in recent years a change to organic foods being popular, or fuel efficient cars and no GMO food interest. But still not enough.

So if consumers are buying that pack of smokes, and the stockholder buys stock in that company, there is two moral wrongs. So I guess this goes out to those bashing stockholders here, while even they themselves are probably supporting the same companies by using their product or service. So think about what you say :wink3:

Kevin

[colduser]

Kevin, thanks for your very insightful views. I agree with you on everything you posted. My brain would hurt too much to type out responses as lengthy as yours :lol:
Thanks for posting ;)

[Bijeli_Miš]

Back on topic.

(Re: stockholders are evil).

I would disagree with that statement when its put in that short context too. However, if you dig deep into that statement, you do find some truth to it.

If a person is driving his car 150 and drunk, drives around a corner and hits a mini-van with 4 kids kills them all. Is this person evil? How about the guy who one day decides taking his own life and his wife and kids is better then dealing with his house that is being taken away from creditors. Is he evil? How about the guys who run into a bank and steals all the money. Are they evil?

One could probably say yes to all those questions. But the guy who drove that car drunk and high speeds. Didn't he have at his disposal the option to not drink, not drink and drive, or even not drive at high speeds. The part of him that could have chose the moral choice. Is he still evil if he chose the moral route? How about the guy who kills his wife and kids. Couldn't he have chose not too, and deal with the problems head on. If he chose not too. Is he still evil? And the guys who rob the bank who all decide their going to get a job and make a living, rather then steal the money from the bank. If they did, are they still evil?

Now the answer would probably be No if the actions were different. So now on the idea that stockholders are evil. Do they not make moral choices when purchasing stocks? If they choose a to purchase stocks from a company who is doing harm to the earth, or harm to humans using or consuming their products. Is that a evil thing to do? Let me see. If someone is buying a stock into a tobacco company. Knowing that their products kill millions every year to cancer. (My brother died of cancer so this is a touchy subject for me). Are they evil for choosing that company?

Well a stockholder isn't interested in the company whole behaviour in the market. They just know profits. But if they support (example if we say donate) to a company that is killing people. Does that make them evil? Not exactly.

Evil is a thought or an action. A person could be either good or evil with their thoughts or action. Its like there is a tipping point. The tipping point of a stockholder I guess is whether he will support good companies that are doing good for the earth and human life. Caring about what they are doing, rather then just bottomline. Problem is what stockholder will prosper doing that kind of investing? Probably not many.

But you know what. We can go even deeper and put the blame on consumers. Because consumers have the power to create change. We have seen in recent years a change to organic foods being popular, or fuel efficient cars and no GMO food interest. But still not enough.

So if consumers are buying that pack of smokes, and the stockholder buys stock in that company, there is two moral wrongs. So I guess this goes out to those bashing stockholders here, while even they themselves are probably supporting the same companies by using their product or service. So think about what you say :wink3:

Kevin
First of, stock owners don't have to buy shares of tobacco companies.
2nd companies go public(that is get listed on exchanges) mainly because they are ready for a project that requires a lot of money.
However companies with lots of money got from IPO or price increase of their equities can't force anyone to buy their products.
So as you can see people CHOOSE to smoke regardless of how bad it is, so it's really lame to accuse stockowners as "the great evil".
Oh and tobacco advertising is illegal in most countries, so you can't say they use the money they get from the stock market to advertise their unhealthy products!

[carpediem]

If anything I thought my posts were light on stockowners. And I never said stockowners "as great evil". I apologize for not being clear enough. I guess by saying there is some truth to the statement, automatically makes it seem like I mean I agree. But like I said I disagree with the context as it was put. And I thought I explained that pretty well.

I was talking about their choices and action being evil. That could be said for anyone or any organization, not just stockowners. Maybe my example was a bad one. It was maybe too general for some. I hope others understood it as an example.

Kevin

P.S....Isn't war making money? :P According to those companies that profit from it. It sure is money.

[berrywoman]

If anything I thought my posts were light on stockowners. And I never said stockowners "as great evil". I apologize for not being clear enough. I guess by saying there is some truth to the statement, automatically makes it seem like I mean I agree. But like I said I disagree with the context as it was put. And I thought I explained that pretty well.

I was talking about their choices and action being evil. That could be said for anyone or any organization, not just stockowners. Maybe my example was a bad one. It was maybe too general for some. I hope others understood it as an example.

Kevin

P.S....Isn't war making money? :P According to those companies that profit from it. It sure is money.



where have you been all my life...

[carpediem]

where have you been all my life...


Um to be honest. If you are 29 years old like your profile say's, then the first 3 years I didn't exist. As for the other years. Well I was a young boy in a small town of 300 people in Nothern, Ontario. Grew up on a farm with all kinds of animals. And now I'm living in the city with all kinds of animals still :D I hope to be able to move back to the small town. Can't get it out of my blood.

I think I took your question literally :wink3:

Kevin

[lilchick629]

Kevin---u are one smart boy----great said back there :P

[Bijeli_Miš]

Nah war doesn't make money, but it does produce poverty.

[colduser]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.

[MrLick]

Nah war doesn't make money, but it does produce poverty.

in some cases it can help a nations economy, like it did to america in ww2.

[Bijeli_Miš]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.CERTAIN industries sure do, but it is generally expense for the country.
Just look where wars are today, they sure aren't in Sweden, Norway or any other rich ass country.

[MrLick]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.CERTAIN industries sure do, but it is generally expense for the country.
Just look where wars are today, they sure aren't in Sweden, Norway or any other rich ass country.

war can bankrupt country's while in some cases can cause more wealth in some, IE america after ww2, and some other ocasions. it all depends on the war and the country.

[MrLick]

We should stay in Iraq -- for decades


The usual Demo-gogue suspects -- Kennedy, Kerry and company -- are increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit to a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. A few misguided Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik constituency in the run-up to next year's midterm elections. Dangerous, because challenging the administration to agree to a timetable only emboldens Jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of the Long War from their turf to ours.

The Demos know President George Bush will not agree to such a timetable. As the president has said repeatedly, "Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld protests that any such deadline for withdrawal would "throw a lifeline to terrorists." Indeed, but it is always easier to sell anti-war rhetoric like "give peace a chance" than it is to advocate peace through superior firepower, and to use force in defense of critical U.S. national interests.

For eight long years, the Clinton administration pursued a policy of appeasement, particularly in regard to Middle Eastern policy and pursuit of Islamic terrorists. Terrorists were classified as mere "criminals" then, including those Jihadi fanatics who first bombed the WTC's north tower in 1993, who bombed the Khobar Towers in 1996, who bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and who bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Consequently, Clinton's negligent inaction emboldened this enemy, and the result was a devastating attack on our homeland just months after the Bush administration took office in 2001.

"Peace" had its chance under Clinton, but President Bush made the difficult decision to give war a chance. Remarkably, the outcome has, to date, pre-empted any further attacks on U.S. soil -- which was, after all, its primary objective. The transition from an ineffectual policy of containment to one of pre-emption was the most significant strategic military shift since WWII. To be sure, there have been setbacks, and President Bush bears a heavy and heartfelt burden for those uniformed Patriots who have given their lives to protect ours.

If we did check out of Iraq, as suggested by a growing chorus on the Left, al-Qa'ida and other Islamists will not only rule that nation -- they will eventually control the entire region, with the possible exception of Israel. The "exit timetable" crowd knows this, but that hasn't prevented them from using this issue as political fodder -- and from using it to undermine support for our military personnel and our operations in the Middle East. Of course, this places both those personnel and our national security in peril.

One need only ask the exit advocates, "Exit where, and for how long?" Because we didn't finish the job in Operation Desert Storm, we had to return with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reality dictates that if we don't finish the job now, we'll have to return again, and likely at a far greater cost in terms of American lives.

Not only should we not set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but we should seek to establish an alliance with the Iraqi government in order to maintain a strong military presence in the region. How long? As long as there are Islamofascists bent on detonating a nuclear device in some U.S. urban center and sending our nation into economic ruin.

According to The Patriot's well-placed military and intelligence sources, one closely guarded objective in securing a free Iraq is to establish a forward-deployed presence in the Middle East -- a presence that would certainly include personnel but whose primary component would be massive military-equipment depots that could be tapped for future rapid-deployment military operations in the region.

This forward-base objective is critical, given that it will ensure our military presence in the heart of Jihadistan, and an ability to project force in the region quickly without having to ramp up via sea and airlift. This alone will pay rich dividends by way of maintaining peace through preparedness.

The new Iraqi government will likely extend an invitation to the U.S. to establish two bases in southern Iraq now that, as you may recall, our friends the Saudis have expelled our fighting forces from their country. The proposed base locations are nowhere near Iraqi urban centers -- which is to say, they are highly securable. We expect this new military presence to consist primarily of limited personnel, but with substantial assets transferred from bases in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Of course, those who claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is the problem will wail about the establishment of permanent base operations in the region. Fact is, however, until the last Israeli is dead and the West no longer dominates the world economy (and, thus, culture), Jihadis will not rest.

Previously, this column has outlined the nature of asymmetric threats like Islamist terrorist regimes -- some given safe harbor by Islamic states, some seeking to create new Islamofascist states. (See the three-part series on U.S. national security at FederalistPatriot.US/Alexander) On the importance of our holding the frontline against Jihadistan in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently wrote: "The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, culture and religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled."

Indeed, the safety and stability of the free world would be imperiled.

This is the Long War, Islamofascism is the enemy, and Iraq is the front line. If we are serious about pre-empting Jihadi terrorism (despite Demo political mischief), we must not abandon Iraq. Of course, if we follow the Kennedy and Kerry plan, Islamofascists, who will control the region, won't have to attack on U.S. soil, they will just cut off U.S. oil -- and bring the entire West to its knees -- until it submits to Islam.

Of course, no Western political leader is going allow that scenario -- not even Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. These Jihadi cave dwellers, the Islamists who fly planes into buildings and bomb Iraqi children at open markets, don't share Western (predominantly Judeo-Christian) values. To be sure, they have no compunction about reducing your standard of living to something less than their subsistence -- and they will, given the opportunity.

[Bijeli_Miš]

But seriously Nick what does this have to do with stocks or coldplay?
Please open a politic thread and post all things related to Iraq or whatever you find appropriate!

[MrLick]

umm if you look back we've talked about all kinds of politics on this thread. we've basically used this as the politics thread if you look through the pages.

[lilchick629]

this is our secret politics thread---shhhhhh :sneaky:

@nick------its too long---i'll read it when im not sleepy

[Bijeli_Miš]

Yeah I know that's why I said, I doubt this article would be so intersting. :lol:
Btw it seems you just copy-paste articles(no offence), why don't you post somethong of your own.

[lilchick629]

he has posted lots of thing of his own---havent you nick

@ bijeli--shhhhh :dozey: dont get him started :wink3:
:P

[carpediem]

"Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete."


Exit strategy; :huh: There is no strategy, and anyone who believes they know what to do next, are the same naive people who believe the same leaders who claim to protect them now, are the same people who were leading the country when thousands died in the World Trade Centre.

It goes something like this. "We will protect you, no one else could, but just forget that it was our mistake in the first place." "Trust me before, and I failed you, trust me again, maybe I won't fail you again".

I can't believe the Americans didn't stick it to those politicians after failing so miserably to keep them safe. Or not only keep them safe by security, but to keep them safe, from not creating enemies in other countries.

This war isn't going to solve the problems. It will "add wood to the fire". The fire the U.S started with the match called 'oil interest', or in other words 'economic interest'. Two different matches, used at the same time to ignite the attacks on American soil.

Maybe some positive outcomes will come of this. I hope there is. But for now I can't help but disagree with this war. Personally it's a concern when the country leading this war, has a leader who uses GOD to "legitamize" the war. Religious history is dark with so much evil with the name of God used. Wars, slavery, discrimination and racism. How could this man "Mr. Bush" be the one to claim "God Wants" this war to happen.

Kevin

[Bijeli_Miš]

They might one day invade Alberta, who knows?! :lol:
I don't get it yanks have been in so many wars, whilst only few of them in entire history have been fought defensevly on their own soil.