Jump to content

The Democratic National Convention


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No I think we would have to pay someone to take him off our hands. We don't have enough to pay anyone for that. It would bankrupt our already bankrupt government. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question

If you were a terrorist, who would you want elected?

 

Bush or Kerry?

Bush.. he helps to swell the ranks with new recruits, helps to draw attention to their cause, plus his inept ability to isolate himself and his country makes it easier for them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

are you talking about the U.N. again?

 

most americans DO NOT like the U.N., we've lost faith in it, we don't trust it, if our government didn't reflect this, what kind of government would it be?

 

 

have we alienated france? the american people, sure. the government? no.

:rolleyes::lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites

why won't you elaborate?

Your government has lied to and bulliedFrance, Germany, Russia etc remember the words "yer either with us or against us". Pathetic words from a moron.

 

If what you say is true and your government truly represents the wishes of its people, why oh why don't you quit the UN instead of destroying it from within like a cancer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

Your government has lied to and bulliedFrance, Germany, Russia etc remember the words "yer either with us or against us". Pathetic words from a moron.

 

If what you say is true and your government truly represents the wishes of its people, why oh why don't you quit the UN instead of destroying it from within like a cancer.

well, sure, they were greasing their pockets with saddams money in the oil for money/food program. they WERE against us.
Link to post
Share on other sites

well, sure, they were greasing their pockets with saddams money in the oil for money/food program. they WERE against us.

Black and white thinking in a colorful world. There is obviously more then two sides and the United States would have done the exact same thing in their situation. If the United States could have provided real evidence instead of making up a dog and pony show then maybe her allies may have helped her. Why try and pass the blame for a problem that was created by your country?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

Black and white thinking in a colorful world. There is obviously more then two sides and the United States would have done the exact same thing in their situation. If the United States could have provided real evidence instead of making up a dog and pony show then maybe her allies may have helped her. Why try and pass the blame for a problem that was created by your country?

what problem was created by our country?

 

also, now that we know how involved russia, germany, and france were in the oil for money/food scandal, we know WHY they we're against it, and it wasn't because of the people, it was because of their pockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what problem was created by our country?

Where do I start? Should I start with the United States giving the weapons to Iraq during the Cold War to combat the Soviets, or should I start with Bush making up a story and making up intelligence so he can bully other nations into attempting to follow his lead?

 

Anyways, it is common knowledge that many of the weapons in question were provided by the United States during the Cold War. Iraq was relatively close to the USSR so having weapons placed in Saddam's hands would provide the United States a stronghold in the middle east.

 

The whole song and dance that Bush made up about the weapons is quite that, just a dog and pony show. He has made Americans despise nations that did not goto Iraq such as France and Germany... and has continued to fuel the fire. Bush has no proof of his allegations and until then the United Nations was 100% correct in not authorizing force. Kind of like your neighbour thinking you have a grow operation is your basement so he phones the cops and doesn't wait for them to finish their sting operating, he just goes into your house and beats the :censored: out of you and then finds out you do not have a grow operation in your house.

 

This war's premise is based on "if" and "buts" and is not based on fact.

Edited by cpuguru
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

every factual study based upon the war and what bush said has shown that he didn't lie. what bush, powell, and cheney said was based upon british intelligence, american intelligence, israeli intelligence, and russian intelligence.

 

putin himself said that at the time, russian intelligence had very strong evidence to suggest saddam planning attacks against the us using terrorists.

 

i've seen plenty of evidence myself to convince me that saddam HAS used terrorists to attack the us in the past.

 

the arms buildup is what destroyed communist russia.

 

if i tell you that tomorrow i'm selling a car, and you then tell a mutual friend that i'm selling a car, and i don't, are you lying to the mutual friend? no, that's not a lie.

Edited by fragged one
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colonization was a cause of this, there have been many causes and many of these causes relate to the United States herself. I am not avoiding the truth at all, I am just seeing it from a different perspective then you are. The truth is how you percieve it, and the government certainly will not give you any help for the quest for truth. The government spin doctors are running around making sure you believe what they want you to believe. I am sure I am not 100% right but I am also sure you are not right either.

 

Many people and many different opinions, many different prejudices as well. We see the world in black and white, left and right. This problem is far greater then I will ever understand and I will admit that right now. Just as the 1=0 theory though I will just work with what I know to be facts and the rest will either fall into place or it will not. The thing is 12G the truth is different for me and you. You can say I do not understand or I am being shortsighted all you want but the matter of fact is I do not have all of the information and neither do you. To say your opinion is based on facts and mine is not is ludicrous, it is a battle of wills and not a battle of facts.

 

You say that colonization caused this, and I say giving the weapons to them caused this. Who is right? They are both resonable and both colonization and arms trading did occur so the truth is not concrete it is all a matter of how you percieve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt say your opinion wasnt based on facts, I only said that it doesnt go back far enough in History and that your not taking in everything that has occured to form your opinion (at least this is my perception of your argument). You cannot blame arms trading and you surely cant blame it on the US because every country has "arms" and most major countries do in fact produce and sell their own weapons. If the US declined to arm some of these countries someone else either would have or they would have been destroyed by whom ever they were fighting and would further hate the US because we declined to provide them weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

every factual study based upon the war and what bush said has shown that he didn't lie. what bush, powell, and cheney said was based upon british intelligence, american intelligence, israeli intelligence, and russian intelligence.

It's called plausible deniability. It didn't work for Nixon and it's not working for Bush.

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...