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] The only Iraqi's that don't want us there are the ones that support Saddam Hussein. The leaders of some of the insurgent forces in Iraq have even contacted the newly installed government and said that they wish to amicably take part in the process without further bloodshed. Personally, I can't understand why people would want the US out of there if it only means that once we're out, their rights disappear, their access to medicine and healthcare vanishes, their food supply runs out, and they go back to living in complete and utter fear for the rest of their lives? We're not trying to run the world, we're just trying to make it as free for everyone else as it is here.
In no way or form did I say that Iraq wasn't communist before Bush became president, I didn't even talk about Bush becoming president. What I simply said is that by Bush going into Iraq and staying there while Iraqis want him out of their country takes the meaning out of democracy which he is supposedly trying to do. And Stott, screw the liberal media. So what your telling me is that the U.S. has to have over 100,000 troops in there to put a government in place? I'm mean I'd understand if they had couple troops in there but this is ridiculus(sp?) The message is loud and clear Iraqis want us out of there yet Bush won't comply, I understand his position as president of one of the greatest if not the greatest nation in the world but it just gives him a bad image when he doesn't seem to be withdrawing the troops, not even just a bit. All I'm saying is that we should at least show the Iraqis that we're trying to get out troops out. Edit:: Pro, there are more then just the people who support Saddam who want us out. If we withdraw and the government falls apart once again then it's not our fault. We have set up the "skeleton" of the government if you get my meaning, now its up to the officials who are in charge to keep it going.
no man. the liberal media bias is what makes you believe that they want us out. i'm telling you that a large percentage do not want us out. and do you really think that overthrowing governments and militias is possible with only a couple of troops? i didn't agree with the war, but i'd rather them do it right then ---- it up now
I'm not saying that they all want us out. There are people who want us there as you say a large percentage, and your right they shouldnt all leave I'm saying slowly bit by bit we withdraw our troops, all our troops shouldnt have to stay. And a couple of troops would be enough for now, there really isnt a government left to overthrow just militia.
Nulled Vote and its 51 to 51 damn... anyway, I wont answer cuz I'm only 14, so personally i dont pay much attention to politics or government or anything like that...at least not into much detail
omg. an honest person. you get a +rep and 50 credits [/b][/quote] umm i dont pay attention eather. and im 15 and uhh i didnt vote 50 creds?
Im closer to whats going on in Iraq than some 14-yr-old or some 30-yr-old republican or democrat Why dont you ask yourselves who asked bush to invade iraq? Iraqis in iraq couldnt have, iraqis outside iraq sure didnt, neiter the arab nor muslim community did. In fact along with the rest of europenobody wanted this to happen besides the U.S. goverment, granted that there would be some iraqis who would be willing to start a war to get rid of saddam there is also a large majority who would rather keep saddam than have a war in their homeland, i dont get this from some warped news channel or some biased newspaper i get this from the mouths of iraqis themselves. so if no-one asked bush to invade why did he? If you believe all this dribble about rescuing the iraqi people from saddam then you havent read my last paragraph, they want foreign troops on their soil less than they want saddam, only the hypocritical iraqi polititians who are benefiting from the invasion are truly supportive of the war, and unfortunately they are the only people you see in TV. It cant have been WMD's, the intellignece was sketchy and weak before the war and now we've proven how weak it was, for once saddam had actually held up his part of the bargain, cant say the same for the U.S. goverment. and whats with this 'preemptive strike' sh*t, saddam would have never been able to touch the U.S. from where he is, nor did he have at that point military capabilities to launch an offensive of any kind, there was no proof of him helping terrorists, and even if he was you think attacking an entire country will stop the terrorist cells that are already in the U.S. or canada or Europe? Will you blow up every single country on earth? All the invasion did was generate hate and anger against the U.S. the same hate that causes people to become terrrorists. If you havent learned from Osama Bin Laden then maybe you should figure out that its actions like these that create terrorists, they arent some psychopathic freaks who woke up one day and decided to dedicate their lives to crusade, somehwere along the way the U.S. did something that has caused these people to hate you and what you stand for I dont claim to know why Bush went in but it was definetely to forward some agenda, whether it was oil or not i dont care. Nobody wants the U.S. to act like the Worlds Saviors, nobody asked you to, the reason the U.N. exists is to make sure that when the decision to declare war is made all other resources have been exhausted The war sacrificed more soldiers and innocent than saddam ever would've in another 10 years of his reign, there is NO justification for the loss of human lives, The blood of innocents is on the hands of the U.S. soldiers and goverment just as the blood of the soldiers is on bush's hand.
omg. an honest person. you get a +rep and 50 credits [/b][/quote] Ahh thanks dude...I was wondering why you sent me 50 credits ... I recently got kinda scammed 475 credits so this helps ease the pain a bit too <_< ...a year of hosting got turned into 1 month without me knowing -.- grr
Last time I checked, the president can't make decisions alone. thats what the branches of the government are for.
quoted for emphasis... my opinion on Bush is that he is a good leader. Far from the best, even farther from the worst. Under him the GDP grew as did the stock market. Prices in the US stayed well below inflation as well. Looking back in 50 years, most of the US will probably agree. I doubt anyone liked what Reagan was doing, but he's looked back upon as a great president now. Being a good leader is doing what has to be done even if a lot of people don't like it. The reason why Bush is a good leader is because he has the balls to get the job done. I don't care what you say. Honestly I try not to be biased though I know I am. I feal Clinton was a decent leader, nowhere near as good as most people rate him(there is a reason arkansa didn't give him electoral votes) but still decent. He lead people through good times during a world-wide economic boom. I don't even blame him for the Nasdaq popping and loosing 80% of it's value, nor the stock market dip of 01(the effects of a president aren't fealt too much until they have been in office for a year or two, the descisions of the past president are mostly in power at that time, same will apply for Bush too) Also people give too much credit to presidents for everything. Lincoln didn't single handedly win the Civil war nor did FDR single handedly get us out of the depression through socialist reforms(his effects really should have been cancelled after it was over though), a lot of events are independent of their leadership and would have happened no matter who who was elected. EDIT: schleprok <-thanks
quoted for emphasis... my opinion on Bush is that he is a good leader. Far from the best, even farther from the worst. Under him the GDP grew as did the stock market. Prices in the US stayed well below inflation as well. Looking back in 50 years, most of the US will probably agree. I doubt anyone liked what Reagan was doing, but he's looked back upon as a great president now. Being a good leader is doing what has to be done even if a lot of people don't like it. The reason why Bush is a good leader is because he has the balls to get the job done. I don't care what you say. Honestly I try not to be biased though I know I am. I feal Clinton was a decent leader, nowhere near as good as most people rate him(there is a reason arkansa didn't give him electoral votes) but still decent. He lead people through good times during a world-wide economic boom. I don't even blame him for the Nasdaq popping and loosing 80% of it's value, nor the stock market dip of 01(the effects of a president aren't fealt too much until they have been in office for a year or two, the descisions of the past president are mostly in power at that time, same will apply for Bush too) [/b][/quote] you are the first person on this site that i agree with 100% when it comes to politics
whoa whoa whoa you're totally wrong about bush helping the stock market/economy. our economy is in the toilet right now.
