Worst President in History???? - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

CDSmith · 04-09-2004, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plan9
As nice as the theories on oil sound, and as inclined as I am to actually believe them - without actual concrete eveidence, its foolish trying to argue that it was one of the motivating factors for the Iraqi invasion. Because it just can not be conclusively proved.
'Interesting Links' aren't exactly proof, eiither, and all the evidence I've seen is circumstancial at best.

That's basically what I've been saying since the beginning, since even before this latest war.

Rich · 04-09-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Yes, rich, I am totally stupid.

Anything else, o captain of the debate team?

I'm still waiting on the 1 good thing Bush has done from you. In four years if you can't name ONE THING the man has done that isn't bad for the nation or criminal, talking about who to vote for shouldn't even be an issue. I'd vote for fucking Ralph Nader over Bush.

DarkBob · 04-09-2004, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Hey Amercians.... get off your fat fucking asses and vote.

No problem, I'm registed to vote (and I'm on a diet too)

Rich · 04-09-2004, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plan9

As nice as the theories on oil sound, and as inclined as I am to actually believe them - without actual concrete eveidence, its foolish trying to argue that it was one of the motivating factors for the Iraqi invasion. Because it just can not be conclusively proved.
'Interesting Links' aren't exactly proof, eiither, and all the evidence I've seen is circumstancial at best.

There is plenty of concrete evidence, but you won't find it on CNN. Read this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ - Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolowitz's little organization. Please don't vote without having read their gameplan, it's all laid out to a fucking tee:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Yes it's 90 pages, if you can't read that then please reconsider voting. It lays out everything from controlling the internet to securing Iraq's oil to fighting two simultaneous "theater wars" at the same to prove the US's dominance.

THIS ISN'T SOME LIBERAL DISTORTION, THIS IS THEIR OWN WORDS, AND IT'S THE PATH YOU'RE CHOOSING FOR THE WORLD IF YOU VOTE BUSH/CHENEY.

It's scary that people like Lauren walk around thinking republicans are all about cowboy hats and Alex P. Keaten. I mean she reads one obviously biased article that contradicts all facts and logical assumptions, and it makes her feel good about what she's been supporting so she eats it up.

CDSmith · 04-09-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBob

No problem, I'm registed to vote (and I'm on a diet too)

Yeah, I was talking mainly about those people who are usually just too lazy to go vote... not the regulars who view it as their right and their civic duty.

I firmly believe that if you are eligible to vote and you DON'T, you forfeit your right to bitch about the government later. Basically, if you bitch about your government, at least VOTE for fuck sakes.

Glad to see at least a few are going to get busy this time.

Rich · 04-09-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith

I firmly believe that if you are eligible to vote and you DON'T, you forfeit your right to bitch about the government later. Basically, if you bitch about your government, at least VOTE for fuck sakes.

I agree with you there

Quote:

Originally posted by bluedevil

Rochard · 04-09-2004, 11:10 PM

Yes sir, it's got to be about oil.

I mean...... After the US...... The world's oil comes from where? Not Iraq.

Try:
Saudi Arabia
Canada
Mexico

CDSmith · 04-09-2004, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
I'm still waiting on the 1 good thing Bush has done from you. In four years if you can't name ONE THING the man has done that isn't bad for the nation or criminal, talking about who to vote for shouldn't even be an issue. I'd vote for fucking Ralph Nader over Bush.

If I go ahead and name one, you will just cock off at me about it, so what's the point? And we are both Canadian, so again... what's the point? Fact is, although I have seen plenty of things and moments in the last 4 years where Bush has impressed me, there are also plenty of things that leave the door open that there could be someone better suited to be president for the next term.

So my answer is.... IF I were eligible to vote in this election, at present I would be undecided but gathering facts to form the basis of my vote. Rich, if you truly feel strongly about your position and want to sway a few votes, would it not behoove you to be a bit less of a condescending dick and to be a tad more encouraging to people? I mean really, get a hard-line republican with a head full of facts on here and he/she will refute every one of YOUR points and url's too, so again I say..... it's all about perspective.

Hank_Heartland · 04-10-2004, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

I'm still waiting on the 1 good thing Bush has done from you. In four years if you can't name ONE THING the man has done that isn't bad for the nation or criminal, talking about who to vote for shouldn't even be an issue. I'd vote for fucking Ralph Nader over Bush.

You were one of the 90,000 that helped get him elected...thank you very much

Rich · 04-10-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin

You were one of the 90,000 that helped get him elected...thank you very much

No, I wouldn't vote for Nader, I hate him and I think he's a Republican in disguise. I'm just saying that Bush is such a terrible leader, if it was him vs. Nader I'd vote Nader. Should have been more clear, I'm for Kerry all the way.

Rich · 04-10-2004, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
If I go ahead and name one, you will just cock off at me about it, so what's the point? And we are both Canadian, so again... what's the point? Fact is, although I have seen plenty of things and moments in the last 4 years where Bush has impressed me, there are also plenty of things that leave the door open that there could be someone better suited to be president for the next term.

So my answer is.... IF I were eligible to vote in this election, at present I would be undecided but gathering facts to form the basis of my vote. Rich, if you truly feel strongly about your position and want to sway a few votes, would it not behoove you to be a bit less of a condescending dick and to be a tad more encouraging to people? I mean really, get a hard-line republican with a head full of facts on here and he/she will refute every one of YOUR points and url's too, so again I say..... it's all about perspective.

lol, it's not up to me to "sway a few votes". When I see an ignorant person posting igrorant things on a message board, I point it out. If you don't like that, go fuck yourself. Of coarse when I post important things like I just did, no one comments because no one who disagrees with me has or will ever take the time to read anything really important. I'm sure you've been impressed by Bush plenty, I'd also be willing to bet that at the time you had on CNN or some other bullshit, and that you weren't looking at anything factual. Of coarse you can't name anything specific that he's done well, you just don't mind him overall, which makes no sense but seems to be the attitude of the remaining Bush supporters.

If by "cock off" you mean explain to you where Bush lied regarding whatever point you'd make, you'd be right.

Hank_Heartland · 04-10-2004, 12:41 AM

Loryn:

Caught up in republican bs I think so:

"John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

I don't think so....Eisenhower the Republican first sent troops into Vietam...

George Bush Sr owns Companies with the Ben Laden family....Think that might have something to do with fixation on Iraq not Osama???

Bush oil rich nation... Bush from oil country in texas mmmmmmmmm.

Bush tax plan favors rich...middle class gets fuckedmmmmmmm.

Kerry served honorably in Vietnam...Bush hid in air national guardmmmmm.

Even his own staff has said Bush Idiot in meetingsmmmmmmm.

Regan only went to sleep in meetingsmmmmmmm.

George Bush Sr only passed out at state dinners and fell every change he gotmmmmmmmm.

Who was the jerk who pardened Nixon, I think he was a republican to mmmmmmm.

Loryn, you can bash the liberals all you want but the fuckin reps ain't done jack shit since Abe

Loryn, lets see you list of best Presidents???

psyko514 · 04-10-2004, 12:49 AM

Hands down, I'd say Bush. I think all the presidents in the last 60-70 years have pretty much sucked ass though.

Magnus · 04-10-2004, 12:58 AM

Quote:

crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,

..Ummmmmm well if you say so.

Hank_Heartland · 04-10-2004, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

No, I wouldn't vote for Nader, I hate him and I think he's a Republican in disguise. I'm just saying that Bush is such a terrible leader, if it was him vs. Nader I'd vote Nader. Should have been more clear, I'm for Kerry all the way.

At this point I have had one two many drinks...I didn't get your post right either

My big post to, what ever her name is, got mish mash...way passed time for bed

Rich · 04-10-2004, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin

My big post to, what ever her name is, got mish mash...way passed time for bed

I enjoyed it.

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

Hold on a second.... the "war on terror" and the "invasion of Iraq" are two different things.

You may have gotten confused with the spelling so here's a tip...

osama... saddam... osama... saddam.. kinda simliar, but they're two different people.

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com

Saddam has been a threat for a long time and everyone knows it. Even these fools new it:

http://flashbunny.org/content/misled.html

But they won't own up to those words now.

A threat to WHOM?

Saddam & company was not a clear and present danger to the United States. You really believe he WAS? IF SO...HOW?

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com

Thank you Sly. I enjoy it myself!!

Btw..while stirring up things..you need to correct who sent the first military personnel into Vietnam. It was NOT Kennedy.
It was Eisenhower.

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
If I go ahead and name one, you will just cock off at me about it, so what's the point? And we are both Canadian, so again... what's the point? Fact is, although I have seen plenty of things and moments in the last 4 years where Bush has impressed me, there are also plenty of things that leave the door open that there could be someone better suited to be president for the next term.

So my answer is.... IF I were eligible to vote in this election, at present I would be undecided but gathering facts to form the basis of my vote. Rich, if you truly feel strongly about your position and want to sway a few votes, would it not behoove you to be a bit less of a condescending dick and to be a tad more encouraging to people? I mean really, get a hard-line republican with a head full of facts on here and he/she will refute every one of YOUR points and url's too, so again I say..... it's all about perspective.

Well I'm not Canadian

and I would also like to hear you (or any other Bush supporter) name ONE significant thing that Bush has done that has improved the well being of the American citizenry.

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
Loryn:

Caught up in republican bs I think so:

"John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

I don't think so....Eisenhower the Republican first sent troops into Vietam...

Glad to see that you caught that one too.

Centurion · 04-10-2004, 01:22 AM

Who's the worst Prez in history.

Hmm...who could it be..just WHO could it be?

<a href="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040406/capt.pmm10704061713.topix_bush_pmm107.jpg">Maybe this guy?</a>

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Yeah, I was talking mainly about those people who are usually just too lazy to go vote... not the regulars who view it as their right and their civic duty.

I firmly believe that if you are eligible to vote and you DON'T, you forfeit your right to bitch about the government later. Basically, if you bitch about your government, at least VOTE for fuck sakes.

Glad to see at least a few are going to get busy this time.

I have voted in every election since I have been old enough to vote...but I may not vote for a President this next election. In my opinion there may not be a lesser of the "two evils" in this next election.

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:34 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MaskedMan

Hold on a second.... the "war on terror" and the "invasion of Iraq" are two different things.

You may have gotten confused with the spelling so here's a tip...

osama... saddam... osama... saddam.. kinda simliar, but they're two different people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are not two different things...the invasion of Iraq is an extension of the war on "terrorism".

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

I'm still waiting on the 1 good thing Bush has done from you. In four years if you can't name ONE THING the man has done that isn't bad for the nation or criminal, talking about who to vote for shouldn't even be an issue. I'd vote for fucking Ralph Nader over Bush.

I will name two for you though they are related. The declared "global war on terrorism" and the doctrince of "pre-emption".

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:39 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
Loryn:

Caught up in republican bs I think so:

"John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

I don't think so....Eisenhower the Republican first sent troops into Vietam...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes...it was Eisenhower...and I believe the year was 1957 or maybe 1959.

Sodo · 04-10-2004, 01:44 AM

Say have you forgotten about Nixon???

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

No, I wouldn't vote for Nader, I hate him and I think he's a Republican in disguise. I'm just saying that Bush is such a terrible leader, if it was him vs. Nader I'd vote Nader. Should have been more clear, I'm for Kerry all the way.

Nader...a Republican in disquise??? Are you preparing material to appear at the Comedy Club?

Roger · 04-10-2004, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
Yes sir, it's got to be about oil.

I mean...... After the US...... The world's oil comes from where? Not Iraq.

Try:
Saudi Arabia
Canada
Mexico

Read about the new american century. It's about oil and world domination. "He who controls the spice...".

Why do you think Iraq was invaded? Was Saddam scaring the US? Or is it because the Bush admin wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people?

Nohahahaha really denies that oil is a big factor. When there was plenty of looting going around in Iraq after Saddam's fall, the oil ministry was the only one protected by US forces.

Rico · 04-10-2004, 01:57 AM

I am not sure any of us are qualified to give a proper opinion on what is what, really... given our limited knowledge of events, other than what the media gives us...

Having said that...

This is pretty cool...

Quote:

can't think of a good think either one ever did.

Can't think of a good THING, not think...

I THINK, you are THINKING too much.

theking · 04-10-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger

Read about the new american century. It's about oil and world domination. "He who controls the spice...".

Why do you think Iraq was invaded? Was Saddam scaring the US? Or is it because the Bush admin wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people?

Nohahahaha really denies that oil is a big factor. When there was plenty of looting going around in Iraq after Saddam's fall, the oil ministry was the only one protected by US forces.

Among other reasons Iraq was invaded as an extention on the global war on "terrorism"...as Iraq is geographically strategically located to face our real/or potential enemies in the AO...and with an additional goal of establishing a democratic republic in the mid-east...as a "jewel of the mid-east"...in an effort to change the face of the mid-east. If the mission succeeds it will be good forward thinking...if it does not succeed it will still have been an attempt for a good cause.

makefuckingmoney · 04-10-2004, 02:04 AM

Im voting for Hank in 2k4

time has come for a black president..

theking · 04-10-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger

Nohahahaha really denies that oil is a big factor. When there was plenty of looting going around in Iraq after Saddam's fall, the oil ministry was the only one protected by US forces.

If this is true...it of course would be because oil is the life blood of the Iraq economy...thus it was a wise move to protect the oil ministry.

icu33774 · 04-10-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Among other reasons Iraq was invaded as an extention on the global war on "terrorism"...as Iraq is geographically strategically located to face our real/or potential enemies in the AO...and with an additional goal of establishing a democratic republic in the mid-east...as a "jewel of the mid-east"...in an effort to change the face of the mid-east. If the mission succeeds it will be good forward thinking...if it does not succeed it will still have been an attempt for a good cause.

You cant send 125k christain soliders in a muslim nation. Now with the holidays here you are gonna see the holy war begin!

Corleone · 04-10-2004, 02:10 AM

Good morning

2000 new votes on cnn.com lets see what the americans are thinking :

One year after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, are Iraqis better off?

Yes 33% 1994 votes

No 67% 4093 votes
Total: 6087 votes

theking · 04-10-2004, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by icu33774

You cant send 125k christain soliders in a muslim nation. Now with the holidays here you are gonna see the holy war begin!

We did send "christain soliders" into "a muslim nation"...and with great success. If a "holy war" begins...our toops will not have a problem with killing the fighters of this "holy war".

Goose · 04-10-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com
Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. This will put things in perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point:

We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and
mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst
president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

So nana nana boo boo stick your head in doo doo!!

I must admit: good thoughts are in there, but some things you mention are not correct...
1st are the taliban or al-quaida absolutely not crushed. They are stronger than ever as you can see on CNN. They splitt in smaller terror cells, not under the name of taliban but under another one. I don't think that he solved the problem.
2nd he found Saddam, that was very good coz Saddam was a very very cruel dictator and it was clear that he had to be put away. But sadly that didn't change much.
3rd they won't find any nuclear material, coz there is non. I can't say whether there never was or there has been but brought to neighboring countries, but the iraquis are the masters of deseveing and hiding.
4th Germany did attack America in WWII, with their submarines in the gulf of mexico AND even in the Mississippi, they sunk about one thousand transporting ships on their way to england.
I really like the policy of america in these times, coz it was to not intervene in foreign countries problems. They didn't want to play the world police, that they can't be without any help. I just don't like that arrogant behavior.

Roger · 04-10-2004, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Among other reasons Iraq was invaded as an extention on the global war on "terrorism"...as Iraq is geographically strategically located to face our real/or potential enemies in the AO...and with an additional goal of establishing a democratic republic in the mid-east...as a "jewel of the mid-east"...in an effort to change the face of the mid-east. If the mission succeeds it will be good forward thinking...if it does not succeed it will still have been an attempt for a good cause.

Here's a good way to fight real/or potential enemies. Stop creating and supporting them. Providing Islamic and Jihad textbooks to Afghani children to encourage them to fight the communist threat eventually backfired on you.

You of all people should know that it's not about democracy. If it was about democracy they'd have been more serious about it and sent more troops. The US is more than willing to support tyrants. Kuwait and Egypt are big allies, you'd think that they'd be the ones who'd be willing to switch to a democracy but obviously it doesn't really matter to the US.

theking · 04-10-2004, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goose

I must admit: good thoughts are in there, but some things you mention are not correct...
1st are the taliban or al-quaida absolutely not crushed. They are stronger than ever as you can see on CNN. They splitt in smaller terror cells, not under the name of taliban but under another one. I don't think that he solved the problem.
2nd he found Saddam, that was very good coz Saddam was a very very cruel dictator and it was clear that he had to be put away. But sadly that didn't change much.
3rd they won't find any nuclear material, coz there is non. I can't say whether there never was or there has been but brought to neighboring countries, but the iraquis are the masters of deseveing and hiding.
4th Germany did attack America in WWII, with their submarines in the gulf of mexico AND even in the Mississippi, they sunk about one thousand transporting ships on their way to england.
I really like the policy of america in these times, coz it was to not intervene in foreign countries problems. They didn't want to play the world police, that they can't be without any help. I just don't like that arrogant behavior.

Since you were making what you beleive to be corrections you could have added the fact...that Germany officially declared war on the US...which is a primary reason for the US declaring war on Germany.

theking · 04-10-2004, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger

Here's a good way to fight real/or potential enemies. Stop creating and supporting them. Providing Islamic and Jihad textbooks to Afghani children to encourage them to fight the communist threat eventually backfired on you.

The methods used accomplished the desired goal at that point in time. Actions almost always have reactions...which are sometimes predictable...but usually not...and are sometimes good reactions and sometimes not. Because there may be a reaction to an action does not necessarily mean that one should not act.

Quote:

You of all people should know that it's not about democracy. If it was about democracy they'd have been more serious about it and sent more troops. The US is more than willing to support tyrants. Kuwait and Egypt are big allies, you'd think that they'd be the ones who'd be willing to switch to a democracy but obviously it doesn't really matter to the US.

Please explain to me how troop numbers corelates to establishing a Democratic Republic?

You may beleive your last statement but I do not. All things in time.

Corleone · 04-10-2004, 02:51 AM

best friends

theking · 04-10-2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corleone
best friends

Wrong...friends of convenience...is appropriate.

Roger · 04-10-2004, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
The methods used accomplished the desired goal at that point in time. Actions almost always have reactions...which are sometimes predictable...but usually not...and are sometimes good reactions and sometimes not. Because there may be a reaction to an action does not necessarily mean that one should not act.

So we created the situation, we shouldn't be surprised when shit like that happens.

Quote:

Please explain to me how troop numbers corelates to establishing a Democratic Republic?

You may beleive your last statement but I do not. All things in time.

It doesn't. The number of troops would've established greater security. You need security first.

You really think that the Bush admin wants democracy in Iraq? They need to fix the Israeli/Palestinian situation before even thinking about that.

theking · 04-10-2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger

It doesn't. The number of troops would've established greater security. You need security first.

You really think that the Bush admin wants democracy in Iraq? They need to fix the Israeli/Palestinian situation before even thinking about that.

I doubt that many are "surprised when shit like that happens".

Yes to the question.

And I do not agree with your last statement.

Roger · 04-10-2004, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Yes to the question.

And I do not agree with your last statement.

We'll see about that

The Israeli/Palestinian situation has been affecting the whole ME and more and more the world. Yet somehow you don't think that this is the way towards a politically stable ME.

theking · 04-10-2004, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger

We'll see about that

The Israeli/Palestinian situation has been affecting the whole ME and more and more the world. Yet somehow you don't think that this is the way towards a politically stable ME.

Of course the Israeli/Palestinian situation has been affecting and has an affect on the whole ME...but in my opinion it only plays a minor role in the political stability in the ME. BTW the polictical stability in the ME in general...nor the Israeli/Palistinian situation...in my opinion...has much to do with...if anything...establishing a Democratic Republic in Iraq.

Corleone · 04-10-2004, 03:29 AM

Roger · 04-10-2004, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Of course the Israeli/Palestinian situation has been affecting and has an affect on the whole ME...but in my opinion it only plays a minor role in the political stability in the ME. BTW the polictical stability in the ME in general...nor the Israeli/Palistinian situation...in my opinion...has much to do with...if anything...establishing a Democratic Republic in Iraq.

It plays a huge role. Not to mention that Israel will have no interest at all in seeing a democratic Iraq. So if the aim is to actually create a democracy, that's not how it goes.

You're underestimating the seriousness of the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Joesho · 04-10-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Personally, I would like to see 3 things come from this election.

1) A stronger US dollar

2) A friendlier stance on freedom of expression online

3) A man in office who can make the rest of the world understand that a hard line on terrorism in the world is the right way to go.

If Bush is not that man, then find and elect one who is. If not, all the bitching, arguing, childish name-calling, posting of links, crying, etc, will accomplish what amounts to squat diddly on a cracker.

Bottom line: Americans need to vote. A lot of them. More than usual. If you're over 18 and haven't exercised your right to vote, then get your ass in gear and do it on election day.

Wow that was excellent

04-09-2004, 10:46 PM	#201
Babagirls Text Writer Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 18,812	Bush __________________ Need a Text Writer? Blogs\|Reviews\|Descriptions\|Paysites\|TGP's\|Stories ICQ: 397892500

04-09-2004, 11:10 PM	#208
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,297	Yes sir, it's got to be about oil. I mean...... After the US...... The world's oil comes from where? Not Iraq. Try: Saudi Arabia Canada Mexico __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

04-10-2004, 12:41 AM	#213
Hank_Heartland Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: chicago, il Posts: 3,987	Loryn: Caught up in republican bs I think so: "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us." I don't think so....Eisenhower the Republican first sent troops into Vietam... George Bush Sr owns Companies with the Ben Laden family....Think that might have something to do with fixation on Iraq not Osama??? Bush oil rich nation... Bush from oil country in texas mmmmmmmmm. Bush tax plan favors rich...middle class gets fuckedmmmmmmm. Kerry served honorably in Vietnam...Bush hid in air national guardmmmmm. Even his own staff has said Bush Idiot in meetingsmmmmmmm. Regan only went to sleep in meetingsmmmmmmm. George Bush Sr only passed out at state dinners and fell every change he gotmmmmmmmm. Who was the jerk who pardened Nixon, I think he was a republican to mmmmmmm. Loryn, you can bash the liberals all you want but the fuckin reps ain't done jack shit since Abe Loryn, lets see you list of best Presidents??? __________________ Icq = 459565429 AIM = butlerhankb http://stripperpins.com Twitter = @stripperpins Facebook = Stripperpins.com [email protected]

04-10-2004, 12:49 AM	#214
psyko514 See sig. Join Epic Cash. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec. ICQ: 214702014 Posts: 22,366	Hands down, I'd say Bush. I think all the presidents in the last 60-70 years have pretty much sucked ass though. __________________ Bad Girl Bucks - 50% Revshare through CCBill. Promote BrandyDDD, Pixie's Pillows, Action Allie and more! Phoenix Forum Pics \| Webmaster Access Montreal pics email: psyko514(a)gmail.com \| icq: 214-702-014

04-10-2004, 01:34 AM	#225
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MaskedMan Hold on a second.... the "war on terror" and the "invasion of Iraq" are two different things. You may have gotten confused with the spelling so here's a tip... osama... saddam... osama... saddam.. kinda simliar, but they're two different people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are not two different things...the invasion of Iraq is an extension of the war on "terrorism". __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

04-10-2004, 01:22 AM	#223
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	Who's the worst Prez in history. Hmm...who could it be..just WHO could it be? <a href="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040406/capt.pmm10704061713.topix_bush_pmm107.jpg">Maybe this guy?</a>

04-10-2004, 01:39 AM	#227
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin Loryn: Caught up in republican bs I think so: "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us." I don't think so....Eisenhower the Republican first sent troops into Vietam... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes...it was Eisenhower...and I believe the year was 1957 or maybe 1959. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

04-10-2004, 01:44 AM	#228
Sodo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 17	Say have you forgotten about Nixon??? __________________ <a href="http://www.maximumcash.com/0209/signup.php?sodo"><font face=impact><H1>MAXCASH<BR><font size=2>The Program For The Serious Webmaster Since 1996</font></font></H1></a>

04-10-2004, 02:04 AM	#233
makefuckingmoney Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,277	Im voting for Hank in 2k4 time has come for a black president..

04-10-2004, 02:10 AM	#236
Corleone C.R.E.A.M Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,262	Good morning 2000 new votes on cnn.com lets see what the americans are thinking : One year after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, are Iraqis better off? Yes 33% 1994 votes No 67% 4093 votes Total: 6087 votes

04-10-2004, 02:51 AM	#242
Corleone C.R.E.A.M Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,262	best friends

04-10-2004, 03:29 AM	#248
Corleone C.R.E.A.M Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,262