Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.
Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.
Thanks.
Printable View
Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.
Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.
Thanks.
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/w...overeignty.mp3Quote:
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.
Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.
Thanks.
Is this good enough?
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Kefka]
Not really. I don't know about you but even when I know the answer to something, when you're put on the spot, sometimes things don't click. I've been in a board room doing a presentation and someone asked me how this will help the company, and I completely forgot the whole reason why it would help us make more money. It was a stupid moment, it happens.Quote:
Originally posted by Kefka
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/w...overeignty.mp3Quote:
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.
Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.
Thanks.
Is this good enough?
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Kefka]
What I can never understand is people's insistance the the President needs to "finish off" Iraq because George the first couldn't. Folks, seriously, if we had wanted to take Iraq for real back then, WTF could he do to stop it? His forces where running away from us for Gods sake. The goal there was simple, we wanted Iraq out of Kuwait, and beleive it or not folks, that goal had the backing of the UN!! wow..what a concept, huh? We never once said we where there to conquer Iraq, we never made an attempt to do so, if we had, we would have done so, period. Get this through your heads, at the end of that "war" his forced we're surrendering to unmanned drones...does that sound like a force that could have stopped us from taking the fucking country had we really wanted to? Show me ONE, one single instance that George the first EVER said we where there to conquer Iraq? Anyone? Just one?
Oh wait....what am I talking about...this is about "those evil Bush people"...where do facts fit into it...silly me
Please get it right. People say he was after Saddam, not Iraq. People were saying he was trying to get Saddam because his daddy couldn't. It was Saddam, not Iraq, that threatened Bush Sr.Quote:
Originally posted by Slider
What I can never understand is people's insistance the the President needs to "finish off" Iraq because George the first couldn't. Folks, seriously, if we had wanted to take Iraq for real back then, WTF could he do to stop it? His forces where running away from us for Gods sake. The goal there was simple, we wanted Iraq out of Kuwait, and beleive it or not folks, that goal had the backing of the UN!! wow..what a concept, huh? We never once said we where there to conquer Iraq, we never made an attempt to do so, if we had, we would have done so, period. Get this through your heads, at the end of that "war" his forced we're surrendering to unmanned drones...does that sound like a force that could have stopped us from taking the fucking country had we really wanted to? Show me ONE, one single instance that George the first EVER said we where there to conquer Iraq? Anyone? Just one?
Oh wait....what am I talking about...this is about "those evil Bush people"...where do facts fit into it...silly me
Now that they have Saddam, they proceeded to Operation Iraqi Liberation. Codenamed O.I.L.
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.
For the more historically minded of you, might i point out that one of the reasons that the US went to war with Germany in WW2, and started the Manhattan Project as well, was because the US intelligence thought that Germany MIGHT be devoloping nuclear weapons...of course, after the war, we found out that Germany was no-where near to completing any such weapon (thanks to Albert Einstein). But of course...i guess that means that we never should have gotten involved in that war either...right? Or that FDR "lied" to the US about why we went to war with Germany ...right? I mean, Japan i can see...but Germany never attacked us did they? So i say we all condemn FDR for lying to us, dragging us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of US lives, and in general that we should never have gotten involved in.
I guess you missed the part where it says Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. soon after we declared war on Japan. And so you know, it wasn't resolutions that Bush was spouting on a daily basis. It was wmd's. Resolutions wasn't gonna cause that mushroom cloud. Resolutions didn't put us in imminent danger. Bush sold the war based on stockpiles of missiles.Quote:
Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.
For the more historically minded of you, might i point out that one of the reasons that the US went to war with Germany in WW2, and started the Manhattan Project as well, was because the US intelligence thought that Germany MIGHT be devoloping nuclear weapons...of course, after the war, we found out that Germany was no-where near to completing any such weapon (thanks to Albert Einstein). But of course...i guess that means that we never should have gotten involved in that war either...right? Or that FDR "lied" to the US about why we went to war with Germany ...right? I mean, Japan i can see...but Germany never attacked us did they? So i say we all condemn FDR for lying to us, dragging us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of US lives, and in general that we should never have gotten involved in.
I don't know about you, but every single political show on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BLOWMETV are talking about every single reason you listed except the fact that "daddy got threatened" by Saddam. Not to mention the domestic and foreign news press. I've maybe heard it mentioned, but if I were to tally that reason against the others, it would be such a minor % that I would have to come back here to ask you who the hell you're listening to?Quote:
Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.
i don't like it when people make comments like that but can't prove it. Show me where everyone is talking about a war daddy didn't finish and not about anything else and then I'll concede a point to you.
seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. it does no good for your cause.
That's why they call it 'Hidden Agendas'. It's not one of those things you let people know when you're trying to get them to support you. Do you think you'd ever hear a speech saying that Iraq's oil would be better served under our control?Quote:
Originally posted by Chyrain
I don't know about you, but every single political show on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BLOWMETV are talking about every single reason you listed except the fact that "daddy got threatened" by Saddam. Not to mention the domestic and foreign news press. I've maybe heard it mentioned, but if I were to tally that reason against the others, it would be such a minor % that I would have to come back here to ask you who the hell you're listening to?Quote:
Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.
i don't like it when people make comments like that but can't prove it. Show me where everyone is talking about a war daddy didn't finish and not about anything else and then I'll concede a point to you.
seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. it does no good for your cause.
Chyrain > Kefka
Dear Kefka, please reread Chyrains post.. especially this part:
"Seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. It does no good for your cause. "
Thanks.