Hating America The new world sport
#201 Guest_Flint_*
Posted 21 December 2006 - 11:01 PM
#202
Posted 21 December 2006 - 11:45 PM
Hotshot101, on Dec 22 2006, 01:15 AM, said:
Well maybe they're saying it because they think he's bad. And that the democrats could do it better. As for reliability, if the media isn't reliable, then who is a reliable source?
Hotshot101, on Dec 22 2006, 04:46 AM, said:
As for you question. Maybe thousand people dead in a WMD attack or definitely killing 3000 soldiers and 5000 Iraqi's in Iraq. It's a tough call, but is the WMD the real reason for Iraq's invasion?
#203
Posted 26 December 2006 - 03:38 AM
As for whether they were actually there or not, I do believe they were. Everytime the UN sent an inspector down there to look for them, Saddam only let them look in one place. Now because the UN is a pushover, and would just as easily let terrorists run amock as keeping Bush from takeing out all the terrorists, they didn't force Saddam to allow them to look everywhere. Now it is true that the places Saddam allowed to be searched were different every time, he could have easily moved them before the next inspection. Just as easily as he could've smuggled them away before the US went in there.
Like I've said before, the reason for invadeing Iraq was because that's where the terorists who caused 9/11 were camped. Yes, they were'nt of Iraqi origin, but do you ohnestly believe that just because the people were of different nationality, that they couldn't have been in Iraq? The religion they all followed, Islam, stated that the 'holy land' was located in Iraq, or somewhere nearby. That is why they were there. But not only did Iraq house the terrorists responsible for 9/11, it housed many other terrorist cells, that because of 9/11, were becomeing more active. Now I doun't know about you, but when thousands of people begin to show signs of hostility towards me, I'd definately do something about it before they attack me.
#204
Posted 26 December 2006 - 11:00 AM
#205
Posted 27 December 2006 - 06:36 PM
You see this couple had a son who died in Iraq and well they went over to Iraq to see if he died in vain. When they got there, they found out the soldiers where being treated as heroes. They found out it was worth while and there son died not in vain, but as a hero. (well this is a true story although the fancy liturature was added in)
SS if you really want to know who to trust then go to the soldiers that were there. My cousin who just went there said the war was going great and that we where winning.
As for the death toll, cmon compare that to what the other wars had as death tolls. 8,000 casualties give me a break. Other wars costed the lives of millions! Don't whine because of that! Those people chose to fight because they knew it was worth fighting and dieing for. They knew the risk. So don't blame Bush and us because they chose to fight for American freedom.
#206
Posted 27 December 2006 - 06:38 PM
#207
Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:16 PM
Its the world that doesn't know WTH is going on! They just hate us for no reason. Therefore they think everything we do is wrong. Even after we came in and fought the world wars to defend you! I don't really know what the world has against us except there stupid ambitions. Anyone who has study us from your side didn't have an open mind to really get the feel of what we are about!
The war in Iraq is no different. The libral media here and the media of your countries all hate bush, because he just doesn't sit around and do nothing, like Clinton and Carter! just leave us alone.
#208
Posted 27 December 2006 - 10:20 PM
... and, who I am suppose to get my info from? The media of course, I doubt I'd ever go to Iraq, and if I ever do it will definetly be after the war... I like life!
#209
Posted 28 December 2006 - 06:39 PM
I haven't flown to Iraq, my cousin told me everything, because as I said he was there fighting the war.
You know I find it really wierd that most countries hate us for no reason. What did we ever do to you?
#210
Posted 31 December 2006 - 02:01 PM
I don't know why people hate America. I'm not even sure that all that many do. There's bias in the media, Hotshot, there always will be. It's called freedom of speech.
#211
Posted 31 December 2006 - 02:40 PM
Why would Americans honestly lie about something like this? The whole world watches these stations...
... I mean come on, why would every newspaper lie? <__<
#212
Posted 31 December 2006 - 05:08 PM
Eugine, on Dec 31 2006, 03:40 PM, said:
Why would Americans honestly lie about something like this? The whole world watches these stations...
... I mean come on, why would every newspaper lie? <__<
Its the Republicans that want everyone to believe we are winning the war and lying to themselves that we are. I don't see how anything has been solved since we entered this war though...Thats just my opinion, but I'm expecting an argument back from "someone"...
#213
Posted 31 December 2006 - 07:27 PM
Oh ya when the democrats are in office, the media says "everything is going great, are economy is up everything is just sky high"
It is serously like this.
#214
Posted 25 February 2007 - 12:24 PM
**** Bush! **** Bush! **** Bush!
#215
Posted 25 February 2007 - 01:12 PM
#216
Posted 03 March 2007 - 10:18 AM
#217
Posted 03 March 2007 - 02:40 PM
Golden Djinn13, on Dec 31 2006, 03:08 PM, said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are winning the war. Yeah, I'm Republican, and no, I'm not lieing. The Democrats are trying to say that we're losing becasue they can't stand being wrong. As of now, the only thing hindering us, is the fact that the Democrats in the Government are trying to do everything they can to keep American soldiers here in America. All that does is hinder our troops who are already there, and thus increasing the death rate of our soldiers. We're there, we've been there, we might as well finish what we started.
Bush doesn't just want power. You're only saying that becasue that's what people tell you. He doesn't care about the oil the hold in the middle east, and we havn't pilfered a single barrel of oil either. We wen't to the middle east to take out the terrorists who bommed us, and now were takeing out more of them. The only difference now, is that once we're finished in Iraq, the Iraqi people will finally be able to stand on their own two feet without a dictator. And to those of you who say Sadam was better left in power, let me remind you that he tried to build a super cannon. One that was meant to demolish the israelis and other countries around him. Luckily, us Americans intercepted the last 8 parts of it before it could be assembled.
#218
Posted 03 March 2007 - 05:14 PM
And with that said, I have no idea why we're in Iraq still and in my opinion Bush had no rights to go in there in the first place.
#219
Posted 03 March 2007 - 11:26 PM
#220
Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:07 PM
A giant cannon? Could I hear more about that?
Why we are in Iraq at the moment is almost completely distaching itself from why we entered. There's little point of connection; as noble as it sounds, we did not enter Iraq for the sole purpose of removing a despotic dictator who happened to be in the "posession" of nuclear weapons. The Libby trial has already established that the grounds for entering Iraq were shaky at best, unless you'd like to claim that there was more perjury in a trial about perjury.
All the while, I do believe that we are responsible for the situation that Iraq is in right now and that we shouldn't pull out for the time being. Not because it would be reputation-damaging -- loath as I am to pull off an overused Vietnam parallel, but we've been there before. We've been wrong before, and in fact, if Schwarzanegger's turnabout is any clue, humility does help one's reputation.
Eventually, however, we'll have to say "This is too much." We can't afford to hold steadfast to the end. And in the case that Iraq erupts into civil war, I suppose we could mark that off as inevitable. I honestly don't see the purpose of pressing further, but I think that we owe it to the Iraqis to push the troop involvement a little more before breaking away. What happen will happen, whether or not we leave now or ten years from now.
Domestic Affairs
And to address the nation's affairs, President Bush cannot be credited with helping the economy. Although, granted, he was put into a difficult set of circumstances when September 11th occurred, that in no way makes for the billions, if not reaching a trillion, in debt we have incurred. Small gains in jobs and other things can be measured, certainly, some to his credit; then again, President Bush is also responsible for the No Child Left Behind act, a system that teaches a class according to the pace of the slowest child, not the average. I can't say that it was a terribly impressive idea.
Former president Clinton did actually do things, and I don't just mean the charming Lewinsky scandal. Saying that he did absolutely nothing damages his reputation as a man who finally leveled out the national debt and actually caused us to have a surplus, the first time in years. He was a conservative spender, much more than we could ask of the current government; most of all, he was a moderate.
I find it bothersome when people say that a president didn't do anything because he was a moderate and catered to both sides. I also find it bothersome when a president leans too much to one side without any touch of bipartisanship on the plate.
I would think that is why any nation is hated; being much too partisan. Venezuela and South America are leaning towards the far left, and nobody likes them. Highly conservative nations such as the Middle East are seen as oppressors of freedom. Meanwhile, the United States is no longer striking a chord of harmony.
Moderation is key. There is none, or none that I can see. Please prove me wrong; I'd like to believe there's still hope for us in the next two years. Saying that the Congress is Democratic and the White House is Republican does not count.
#221
Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:31 PM
Shikonaurum, on Mar 7 2007, 05:07 PM, said:
And on a side note, WMD's doesn't specifically mean nukes. They thought it was more likely he had chemical weapons, such as nerve gas. And it still would have been easy for Saddam to evacuate his WMD's (if, which I believe he did, have any) before allied forces could find them. For all we know, he could have had them stored somewhere in Switzerland the whole time.
#222
Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:47 PM
I'm kidding, to those Swiss out there. XD My apologies.
Wow. I find it fascinating and somewhat expected that Iraq would build such giant cannons for the purpose for destroying Israel; in fact, most nations in the Middle East seem for the entire destruction of Israel, especially Iran. Israel's reputation definitely hasn't increased after dropping cluster bombs on Lebanon's civilian areas. Israel is possibly bringing it upon themselves now, but that's probably for another topic.
Ah, forgive me on the WMD-nukes discrepancy. Canisters of nerve gas, hm? Now, I need to jolt my memory -- was it on the basis that Iraq was producing WMDs, or that it was in the possession of them?
And while the U.S. government couldn't obtain concrete proof because weapons were probably shipped if there were any at all, I believe that there's a problem in going into a situation without concrete evidence. Wars can't be initiated by speculation, and the White House can shove all the blame they want onto Scooter Libby, but in the end most of them are at fault.
"Suspecting," or even "strongly suspecting" a justifiable reason doth not make.
#223
Posted 07 March 2007 - 08:00 PM
It's true I was speculating about the evacuation of the WMD's, but it's still possible that he could have done that.
And Saddam was accused of possesing WMD's, but I'm not sure if he was also accused of makeing them. I know Iran is being accused of makeing weapons grade radioactive material though.
#224
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:36 PM
And yes, I agree, strong suspicion should be the basis of investigation. However, there was no reason to incite a war when U.N. officials were being allowed into the nation of Iraq, where diplomacy may have gotten somewhere, and where in the first place bent as many rules as possible taking the decision from what ought to have been the U.S. Senate's.
I find something curious about the situation; Saddam used nerve gas in the genocide of the Kurds in the 1980's, didn't he? I seem to recall an explanation so as to where the nerve gas went, or something or other, but it didn't seem to be a prime suspect in the days before the war in Iraq. Would you happen to remember what the reasoning was?
(On an off tangent, I believe the "War in Iraq" to be a misnomer. War? War seems just too strong for a country that was easily overrun. It's just a fight for democracy now... I guess it doesn't have that much of ring to it on the evening news?)
#225
Posted 08 March 2007 - 04:30 PM
As for the name of the situation in Iraq, the media is yet again, using something inacurate just to grab the attention of viewers. All of the information associated with it is accurate (mostly), but they use an innacurate name to entice people to watch. Obviously, "the War in Iraq" is a lot more catchy than "The Fight For Democracy." It used to be a war, but that was when we were invading. Now it's more of a defence.
#226
Posted 11 March 2007 - 01:15 PM
I will agree with the claim that they possibly had chemical weapons.
The evidence for the War in Iraq is definitely a touchy topic. However, as evidenced by the Scooter Libby trial, much of the evidence the United States used to get us into the war in the first place was false. I'd like to correct something I'd overlooked before: WMDs were not specifically talking about chemical weapons in this situation. They were talking about nuclear weapons as well.
The claim that Iraq was definitely getting Uranium from Niger? False. The truck suspected to have contained nuclear weapons? Never had them. Every piece of "solid evidence" used to get us there and to convince the Congress to get us there was a lie.
Why? Because the rest were unsubstantiated claims due to speculation. This was not the Bush administration's choice alone. They had to get Congressional approval. And this war would not have went the way it was had they just said "They have a despotic dictator and a history for using chemical weapons, are located in the Middle East and possibly harbor terrorists, and we only have suspicions."
Yeah, bureaucracy is a pain, but perhaps there are safeguards for a reason.
Excuse me for the tone, I'm a little off-kilter today. x_X
It's a defense in Iraq indeed, for what it's worth. Funny things happen when you try to protext a country from itself.
#227
Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:03 AM
A conspiracy theorist might say that all the evidence was planted by Saddam as an ultimate humiliation for the U.S. He planted the evidence to reel 'em in, and then when their evidence was no where to be found, America looks like the bad guy, and the Iraqi's look like innocent bystandards. But that's just what a conspiracy theorist might say.
#228
Posted 15 March 2007 - 04:52 AM
#229
Posted 16 March 2007 - 03:19 PM
My friend had an idea once, saying that perhaps we should let Parliament vote whether or not we should stay in Iraq. If they vote that we should leave, then it was a democracy and we can leave. If they vote that we shouldn't, it still shows that it was a democracy and we could still leave. XDD
He was kidding, but I found it amusing.