Learning from history teachers is a lot better than learning from the news. Some news stations exaggerate stories. They also get false information (or even make some stuff up). Last year, there was a guy that went into the girls lockerroom after school. A bunch of news stations got a hold of this information and went with it. They (the news people) said he had weapons, like a knife and a gun, but the women that actually witnessed the guy in the lockerroom said he just gave her a look and left. And for all those people that say we went into Iraq for oil, let me repeat myself. Oil goes into the market, where anyone can buy it. China, even Canada, has the same chance of getting that oil as America does.
wait so would you rather ride horses, or drive cars? and you have no evidence backing you up saying that we are only in iraq for the oil. imo we are killing to brids with one stone -- destroying their communistic government and leaders, and supplying ourselves with oil! ride on bush!
sorry to break it to you brother, but there were terrorists long before the army started bombing. im sure the US army would not just start bombing the crap out of villages. and why do you say 'we' when you are tlaking about the army --- are you in the army? EDIT: sorry for the double post
this is the exact ---- i'm talking about. sky: you're officially an idiot with absolutely no clue what you're talking about
this is the exact ---- i'm talking about. sky: you're officially an idiot with absolutely no clue what you're talking about [/b][/quote] thats what i said
this is the exact ---- i'm talking about. sky: you're officially an idiot with absolutely no clue what you're talking about [/b][/quote] I started laughing when i read that it is such a dumb post (skys). I agree with stott lmfao.
That's ----ing ignorant. No one really knows why Bush is in there but we all know that he's a ----ing retard. He just comes up with excuses which end up to be false yet no one realizes until he's done what he's done. And now he has our soldiers in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will. Most of you by this point are thinking "WTF". Well think about it, if we weren't in Iraq would the Iraqi's be blowing their heads into smitherins? No because we wouldn't be there and there would be no point in committing mass murder and sucide. So my answer is yes either way he would've went into Iraq 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq although Bush said Saddam was helping Al-Qieda (which was false as well...)
That's ----ing ignorant. No one really knows why Bush is in there but we all know that he's a ----ing retard. He just comes up with excuses which end up to be false yet no one realizes until he's done what he's done. And now he has our soldiers in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will. Most of you by this point are thinking "WTF". Well think about it, if we weren't in Iraq would the Iraqi's be blowing their heads into smitherins? No because we wouldn't be there and there would be no point in committing mass murder and sucide. So my answer is yes either way he would've went into Iraq 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq although Bush said Saddam was helping Al-Qieda (which was false as well...) [/b][/quote] we all know that hes a ----ing retard? i didnt know that! i know that he isnt a very good speaker. it looks like youve watch farenheiht 9/11 one to many times :lol: and yes, i do think that they would be blowing their heads off if we werent in there, thats kind of the point of being a terrorist edit: and since when did the enemy have to agree with us coming into their country?
I vote 'yes'. Being a New Yorker, I got to watch the Towers crash to the ground from my office in Brooklyn (never felt so sick in my life) but that has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. We've been planning this since the Clinton Administration (possibly prior) because Saddam Hussein ruled his country as a Dictatorship, and committed genocide on the Kurds. I know that it's boastful to say that I am part of the strongest nation in the world, but what good is it if we can't go in and defend the rights of people who have no voice of their own? And when we do, we get blazed with harsh criticism, and our leader compared to the likes of Adolf Hitler. *slaps forehead* Granted, the whole 'WMD' issue got blown way out of proportion, but that wasn't an issue when the plans of the Iraq War were originally being formulated. Al Qaeda destroyed the Twin Towers, and part of the Pentagon, not Saddam Hussein, or Iraq. The search for Bin Laden is a completely different operation than 'Iraqi Freedom'. But I voted yes, because it had been that way before 9/11 happened.
[keep in mind that i hate bush, and will be the first to admit it] bush is not a retard. he went to yale. they don't let dumb people in there, no matter how wealthy you are. he is an AWFUL public speaker. i believe that the truth is he has too many people trying to tell him what to do. he's not an effective decision maker.
we all know that hes a ----ing retard? i didnt know that! i know that he isnt a very good speaker. it looks like youve watch farenheiht 9/11 one to many times :lol: and yes, i do think that they would be blowing their heads off if we werent in there, thats kind of the point of being a terrorist edit: and since when did the enemy have to agree with us coming into their country? [/b][/quote] I haven't even watched Farenheiht 9/11 all I know is that it's about Bush. And they wouldn't even have had terrorist in that country if Bush had went in and started forcing democracy on the people. The whole point of democracy is for the people to have a voice, Bush just took the meaning right out of the word. And the enemy has been long gone, the enemy is Saddam, but somehow Bush can't get it through his thick head that the Iraqis don't want us there.
see, i like bush, and yet i agree with stott. he is a bad speaker he isnt dumb he has too many people trying to tell him what to do but i still like him, and he is doing a better job than kerry would have done we all know that hes a ----ing retard? i didnt know that! i know that he isnt a very good speaker. it looks like youve watch farenheiht 9/11 one to many times :lol: and yes, i do think that they would be blowing their heads off if we werent in there, thats kind of the point of being a terrorist edit: and since when did the enemy have to agree with us coming into their country? [/quote] are you freaking kidding me? dude you have no ----ing idea what you are talking about. you are basicly saying that iraq wasnt a communistic country until bush became president saddam and his terrorists have been around for years, senior bush delt with it, clinton delt with it, not president bush is dealing with it learn your facts kid, then come and argue with me
I haven't even watched Farenheiht 9/11 all I know is that it's about Bush. And they wouldn't even have had terrorist in that country if Bush had went in and started forcing democracy on the people. The whole point of democracy is for the people to have a voice, Bush just took the meaning right out of the word. And the enemy has been long gone, the enemy is Saddam, but somehow Bush can't get it through his thick head that the Iraqis don't want us there.[/b][/quote] sorry, but you're wrong, but i don't blame you, i blame the liberal media bias. the fact is, and this is coming from someone who personally knows a translator that was stationed in iraq: a good portion of the people want us there. the us kicked out their old dictator, and is trying to install democracy. it goes without saying that overthrowing governments is not an in-and-out type of job.
