The W
Views: 99408655
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.10.14 0332
The W - Current Events & Politics - George, George, George, what are you thinking?
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2252 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (40 total)
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
So he says he's going ahead with the war no matter what the UN says. He wants to oust a world leader from his throne, just because he can basicly, and I don't think it's right.

Ah, what do I know, I'm just a random guy on the internet. Who happens to be a voter. Who voted for the REAL guy who won. Who wouldn't have put us in this position.

But again... what do I know.



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Who voted for the REAL guy who won.

So what are you complaining about since you voted for Bush?


    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Who wouldn't have put us in this position.

    But again... what do I know.


If you were talking about Gore, you're right: this country would've rolled over and died already.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    So he says he's going ahead with the war no matter what the UN says. He wants to oust a world leader from his throne, just because he can basicly, and I don't think it's right.


Hey, thats a great way of thinking. He's only doing it because HE CAN. Not because Iraq basically defaulted thier cease fire agreement after the gulf war, not because the last administration would pull out inspectors as soon as they got on the trail of some of the banned weapons. Not because the guy has gassed his own people and killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, simply for disagreeing with him. Nope, George Bush is only doing it, "because he can".
Santa Sangre
Bockwurst








Since: 21.6.02
From: Germany

Since last post: 449 days
Last activity: 337 days
#4 Posted on
It is strange that Bush said the UN will vote and we'll still go to war either way. I doubt there is anything he said last night that is going to change the minds of Russia, China, France, or Germany. The whole thing about countries showing their true colors is pretty redundant. All four countries have already said they don't support W in this war, so why even have the vote? If he'd declared war last night, he'd look just as bad as doing it after the big four veto the proposal.





"I think it's hightime that you guys get off your high horse and praise the Hogans, the Big Shows, the Warlords, and the Alberts of the world for their tremendous wrestling abilities. "

- lordazzington says something that made me laugh for a long long long time.
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1230 days
Last activity: 1076 days
Y!:
#5 Posted on
Question... what happens if we go in, and the military finds the weapons we've been talking about and the UN demanded that Hussein destroy in UN Resolution 1441? What happens if we go in, and Hussein uses these weapons that he "doesn't have"? What happens if one of those weapons Hussein "doesn't have" makes its way into the hands of Hammas, the Islamic Jihad, or Al Queda, and is used in any terrorist attack (not just on Americans)?
I don't think anyone wants to go to war. I know I sure as hell don't, but the President makes a point. Iraq has had 12 YEARS, not six months, to disarm. The request to disarm was in the original resolution after the Gulf War. The UN voted for Resolution 1441 UNANIMOUSLY. If the UN doesn't want to follow through, then that's the UN's problem.
If we don't find any weapons, I'll be the first person to wonder why we did this in the first place, but until we know for sure, I will stand by our President. BTW, I would do the same if it was the other guy.



Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- 2002 NFL Champions... feels good, doesn't it?

"The NFL should permanently move the Super Bowl here." -- Al Michaels, ABC Sports, during the Super Bowl
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
I guess I'm just a pacifist and don't believe in the need to use FORCE to get people to see things MY way.

Treaties being forced on a nation to agree to so WE stop bombing the shit out of them just doesn't seem all that right to me. They don't have anywhere close to the armament we do, so of course we're gonna get what we want. Why don't we pick on some one our own size and stop being the school yard bully that we are.

...oh yeah, that's right, we ARE the biggest and strongest, so I guess we HAVE NO CHOICE but to go after the smaller kids.



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Santa Sangre
    If he'd declared war last night, he'd look just as bad as doing it after the big four veto the proposal.

So why does Bush look bad. For years people bitched and moaned about the US not playing fair at the UN. Now that the US is ready to enforce a UN requirerment for disaramament that Iraq has wilingly violated, the peaceniks come out and say stop.

Grrrr...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Ubermonkeys
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02
From: Michigan

Since last post: 3497 days
Last activity: 3371 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
A few points:

I know I sure as hell don't, but the President makes a point. Iraq has had 12 YEARS, not six months, to disarm. The request to disarm was in the original resolution after the Gulf War.

Remind me again why if this was so important, Bush didn't tackle it head first when he entered office 2 years ago. What was it about the terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and the plunging economy that yells out "Hey, what about Saddam?!?! I can't believe I forgot that fucker!" Basically what I'm saying is, what was so special about 12 years that wasn't special about 10? I think a lot more people would be swayed about going to war if the details made more sense. (See also OFB's quote from Bill Maher.)

Then again, when Clinton ordered attacks on Iraq in 98 right before the impeachment debates, another example of questionable timing, we got a lot of the same quotes we're hearing now, just from the opposite sides. So, basically, more than anything, everybody is full of bullshit.

Ah, what do I know, I'm just a random guy on the internet. Who happens to be a voter. Who voted for the REAL guy who won. Who wouldn't have put us in this position.

This is just me, but I'm of the opninon that anyone who makes any comment about politics pretty much shoots themselves in the foot with this shit. IT'S OVER, LET IT GO.

(edited by Ubermonkeys on 7.3.03 1334)


JG: You need to do one anyway, in honor of the recent Rock/Coach reunion.

Waspie: Wait, I've just discovered something awesome. Transpose the first letters of their names.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1294 days
Last activity: 60 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on
I think the vote in the UN is the way to go. It gets all of those nations on record. When we do go in there, and start pulling out all of the shit Hussein does have, all of those other countries are going to have some serious egg on their face. I mean, how can they then claim that the inspection process "worked" when after the war he is found to have 10x the number of missiles than he destroyed, tons of nerve agents.. etc etc?

I think 9-11 is a big reason for the change in attitude about Iraq. Like Bush said last night- "9-11 changed the way we think about national security." Al Quaeda got to us on 9-11 because we had a "wait until they actually attack" attitude. Clinton let bin Laden go because he had not really done anything serious to this country. Sure there was the Cole bombing, a few embassy attacks, but those were par for the course. It was not until the bastard flew some planes into buildings did we all think that it was a mistake to even let him get to that point. ALL of us were blind, and were lax about protesting ourselves. Bush, in this instance, is trying to avoid making that mistake twice.

Hussein already invaded Kuwait. He has made the destruction of Isreal a national policy. Just because he has not attacked yet does not mean he is not going to. And lets talk about his WOMD... why else is he developing them? All arguments about his "defensive" intents with those weapons went out the window when he used them. It is not like some past leader of Iraq used those weapons, and a new regime was in place with different ideals- it is the same guy.

The comparisons to Hitler ARE valid. Hitler's Germany was not a threat to the world, at first. But at the beginning, when he was flagrantly violating the treaty that ended WWI by building up his forces, and massing them in the Rhineland, the world ignored him. Sure there were "protests" that it was wrong, but it amounted to nothing. The world sat and watched as he continued to build up, and then as he annexed his neighbors. Europe did not want another war, after all! Then they were forced to fight a full strength Germany, and how many millions died?

Granted, this is a different world, and the liklihood that Iraq could ever build up a force large enough and powerful enough to take on the United States is slim. That is where the VX gas comes in. That is where the nuclear weapons come in. Iraq CAN hurt us now, and if we let them continue the odds of a successful attack on our soil from Iraq increase. No, he does not need to send troops. All he has to do is to smuggle in his little drone planes with their spray nozzles, and douse us all.

He already wants to do it. After all, who was it that stopped him from claiming Kuwait? It may have been an international effort, but the vast majority of the forces were the United States, the leadership was the US, and the damned general that negotiated the surrender was an American. Are we not the Great Satan here? Isn't he firing on our planes over the no-fly zones (which were imposed so that he would stop mass-murdering his people, if you recall...) on a daily basis?

Hell yes it is necessary to take him out. Whether it is with the UN or not. In my opinion, they are irrelavant already and we should not need to ask the permission of the rest of the world to defend ourselves.

After all, no one is crying that the terrorists did not ask the UN's permission to attack us.




spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#10 Posted on
If we have issues with Iraq because it's led by genocidal maniacs and is creating WOMD, why is it we seem so reluctant to offend North Korea, other than the fact that Iraq will be a relatively simple conflict as opposed to the nightmare that another Korean War would be? And I mean that honestly, as the last few weeks I really have had trouble making up where I fully stand on this issue, so Grimis and Pool Boy, convince me as the man on the fence.



The Most Bitter Place On The Net.

The current artist tickling my fancy: Brenda Weiler


Immortality
Santa Sangre
Bockwurst








Since: 21.6.02
From: Germany

Since last post: 449 days
Last activity: 337 days
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Santa Sangre
      If he'd declared war last night, he'd look just as bad as doing it after the big four veto the proposal.

    So why does Bush look bad. For years people bitched and moaned about the US not playing fair at the UN. Now that the US is ready to enforce a UN requirerment for disaramament that Iraq has wilingly violated, the peaceniks come out and say stop.

    Grrrr...



What I'm saying is, Bush is already not liked by a section of the American public. He's also not well renowned by a lot of people in the countries that represent the U.N.(I know that's a real general statemnet, but I don't have all day). These people are giving him shit now and are going to up the ante when he declares war. If he'd declared war last night these people would denounce him and they'll do the same thing when Bush does declare.

I do agree whole heartedly with what Bush is doing. First Iraq said they had no weapons. Then they only had a few and they didn't exceed their limit. We told them to destroy them, they refused. Finally, Bush said we'd use force if they didn't start disarming and Iraq started to slowly destroy their missiles.

This is where it gets tricky for me.

Bush then said another condition was for Saddam to go into exile. I'm not sure if this is something they must do for us to not come in with force or not. Bush has been very vague about that.

It does seem like Bush keeps pushing the envelope. It seems like he didn't think they would disarm, so when they started to, he had to bring in the part about exiling Saddam. Like I said, though, I'm with him 100% If Saddam won't leave office, we will get him out.





"I think it's hightime that you guys get off your high horse and praise the Hogans, the Big Shows, the Warlords, and the Alberts of the world for their tremendous wrestling abilities. "

- lordazzington says something that made me laugh for a long long long time.
rabidzebra
Linguica








Since: 23.6.02
From: Charleston SC

Since last post: 2802 days
Last activity: 1633 days
#12 Posted on
I just can't grasp Bush's foreighn policy. Iraq claims to have no weapons of mass destruction North Korea says they are building them. We are afraid Iraq might sell thier arsenal of weapons, North Korea would love to sell thier weapons on Ebay . We are willing to go it alone and invade Iraq but Rumsfield is thinking about removing troops from the DMZ. We are willing to fight alone in Iraq but we are screaming for international talkes with North Korea. Why two standards?
IMO the Bush administration is a bully. They need a war they can win with relative ease because war is the only thing they can do right. This is a PR job it certainly isn't about ideals or the safety of the free world or they would be just as fanatical about North Korea. They have to show something positive to go along with the news that 308,000 people lost thier jobs last month.

(edited by rabidzebra on 7.3.03 1444)

The way of Hercule is the philosophy of daily training, constantly pushing your limits, and never giving up to build a powerful body and mind... and having a wild time all the time.
I am a H-Fer.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by spf2119
    If we have issues with Iraq because it's led by genocidal maniacs and is creating WOMD, why is it we seem so reluctant to offend North Korea, other than the fact that Iraq will be a relatively simple conflict as opposed to the nightmare that another Korean War would be?

Because the PDRK has the bomb and Iraq doesn't. Plain and simple. We have issues with the PDRK but:

1. We have 37,000 US troops, plus families and civilians, in the ROK while the PDRK has 1 million troops sitting across from the DMZ. Lots of Americans would die in an invasion quickly.

2. China is involved. The Chinese don't want the PDRK to have the bomb anymore than we do for the simple fact that China doesn't want to be involved in a nuclear exchange with anybody right now.

3. Iraq has been a problem for years and some of our "allies" refuse to stand up to the fact that the Iraqis are in material breach. The PDRK is still a developing situation where somebody already has the bomb and a delivery mechanism that puts millions in danger. I do not hesitate to think that the PDRK woul use its bomb against Japan or the ROK if the US attacked, even though doing so defies and loigic and would result in the certain destruction of at least Pyongyang.

Remember though; the PDRK really is selling weapons to rogue states and probably terrorists which complicates things too...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 283 days
Last activity: 4 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
I kept listening to the various 9-11 references last night (11 as counted by CNN), and it struck me to the entire point of going into Iraq:

Bush is afraid.

They knew that Afghanistan had weapons before 9-11, and did nothing. They knew that Iraq had weapons before the Gulf War, and did nothing. In both cases, previous US governments GAVE the weapons and training to them, then it came back to bite the US in the ass in a horrible way.

3000 people died on 9-11 because of lack of foresight. Now, Bush is rushing into a hasty war because he doesn't want the blood of 3000 more Americans on his hands.

How many more innocents have to die before somebody does something about Hussein?



The Chase Is On:
8th: Oilers [28-23-8-8] 72pts; 15 games left
14th: Flames [21-31-10-4] 56pts; 16 games left
Flames must win 7 more games than the Oilers do to make playoffs
Any combination of 8 Oilers wins or Flames losses eliminates them from the playoffs
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 13 days
#15 Posted on

Did anyone notice that Bush dodged every question regarding opposition for the war? When one reporter asked (and I am paraphrasing), "If we share intelligence with our European allies, how come most have come to a much different conclusion than us?", he basically said that we shared intelligence and that Saddam had WMD and was not disarming.

He did a similar thing when asked about the protests. He just repeated the same rhetoric over and over without evening acknoledging the significant amount of people who question going to war.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 539 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Its not Bush's job to explain why other counties donít want to go along with this war. Like he said last night Bush's job is to protect and defend the U.S. It would have been very bad if he answered why he think some (not alot mind you) are against us.

(edited by calvinh0560 on 7.3.03 1543)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1294 days
Last activity: 60 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on
The political game with North Korea is really just starting, and there are a great many more factors involved there than Iraq. Iraq has been a problem for the last 12 years, North Korea has been an issue, but nothing more.

War in Korea would be a brutal thing, and nothing like what we would be facing in Iraq, or faced in Afghanistan. The moment the war starts, the million troops sitting on the border would pour across and we would have to fight tooth and nail to get them out. Then there is the complications with Russia and China right there. The very real nuclear complication. The fact that any conflict withh cost THOUSANDS of American Lives there... Bush is handling that situation very carefully, and I do not blame him.

What people don't seem to get about the North Korea vs. Iraq situation is that the NK situation is just beginning, whereas the Iraq situation is coming to a close. We went to war in 1991 to boot Sadaam out of Kuwait, and we stopped from rolling into Baghdad then because the UN would not stand for it. Instead, we tried peace. We embargoed Iraq, and people started starving because Saddaam was building palaces. We had to implement no-fly zones because he started using helicopters to slaughter the Kurds and the Shiites who were standing against him. We let inspectors in COUNTLESS times to verify that he was indeed disarming, and each time they left because Iraq was not cooperating. We patrolled those no-fly zones for 12 years, and our planes continued to be fired upon, even though we were supposedly "at peace."

Fast forward to today, we have tried 12 YEARS of diplomacy, and it has failed horribly. Hussein has done everything he can to continue to develop and hide weapons, and has played the UN like the saps they are by destroying a few missiles (reluctantly), making everone forget about all of the really serious crap he has.

Think about it- those missiles have a range a mere THREE MILES over what Iraq is supposed to be limited to. In my opinion, that is nothing. But Hussein has masterfully made those damned things the focus of the world's attention, and when he "caved" and destroyed some, the world rejoiced. THE INSPECTIONS ARE WORKING!!! Never mind that he never stopped building the damned things in the first place, and that they were a very, very small tip of a huge ass iceburg.

If not war at this point, then what? The response I have heard to this question for the anti-war folks is "I don't know, but we need leaders who can come up with a better option than war!" Ok then, take a look at the leadership who is anti-war... what is their solution? It is their job to come up with one after all... their answer is "give the inspectors more time."

Well, they have had 12 years. How much more time do you need than that? OK then, you want to give them more time, this is how you convince me. DEFINE that amount of time. And make it realistic. Unlike that garbage that Germany is proposing, that sets a wide range of time limits for each kind of weapon system, miring the process down in confusion, pretty much guaranteeing that nothing will ever be done about it, again...

Here is MY proposition. Iraq has 2 weeks. Period. In two weeks, they have to present a full accounting of all the weapons they have. They have to present a full accounting of how these weapons were destroyed. They have to admit the UN into their nation to take-over the destruction of their remaining weapons. They have to answer, satisfactorily, any and all questions we have about specific weapons systems that were banned to them, and their eventual fate. Where is all the VX? (And, no, saying "we destroyed it" without the documentation is not good enough). Where are the mobile biological weapons factories? Where are your nuclear research materials?

It is damned clear to me. Total and complete disclosure and cooperation is obvious when it happens, and it damned sure has not. Put the burden on them. Say two weeks- and if it has not happened in two weeks, kiss your ass goodbye. No more negotiation, no more stallng tactics, nothing but a systematic compliance with these demands. That is what 1441 demanded, and that is what the US is insisting upon now. If the UN can't back up what it unanimously voted on, then I say they are worthless and we should pull out and handle this sort of crap on our own.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.3.03 1239)



spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#18 Posted on
I'm intrigued by the fact that Grimis basically says "PDRK scares the piss out of us, hence we're not attacking." I would ask though, you mention they would drop a nuke on Tokyo or Seoul if we attack? What reason do we have to believe they are not already planning this. We assume that they have basically dispensed with logic, so why should we assume a lack of concurrent aggression? Also one more question, you maintain China does not want the PDRK to have the bomb. I am not sure that I would agree with that. An armed PDRK would be able to act as a lever for China to use to push American interest away, as is already happening in Bush's equivocation last night about wanting China and Japan and SK and Russia to handle the issue along with us. When the hell did the U.S. ever worry about multilateralism when our security is at stake. China is loving the whole situation, and if they play their cards right could very well become the primary power broker in the region and have PDRK as a proxy front for any designs they may have one day on military action.

Pool-Boy I would ask one question, you say the PDRK situation is still developing and thus is a relatively new situation. However, haven't they essentially been engaging in duplicity and deception for 8-9 years now, since they obviously had no intention of honoring their agreement with us?

Shouldn't we be more worried about and willing to risk our military to stop those who HAVE the bomb and want to use it on us and others than on those who might have it one day? I do not deny Hussein has arms and is most likely not going to give them up without force. I merely question the priorities of the administration, and am forced to skepticism about the motives. Are we invading Iraq so our President can say he did "Something" in the war on terror and have a victory to show the American populace? Because otherwise I still do not see how they are the primary threat other than that we've grown tired of suffering their lies.

I am not a pacifist, and I recognize sometimes thousands must die so millions can be free. I am just not convinced that strategically this is the best move to protect American security. Kim Jong Il scares me more than Saddam Hussein.


(edited by spf2119 on 7.3.03 1459)


The Most Bitter Place On The Net.

The current artist tickling my fancy: Brenda Weiler


Immortality
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
Oh gosh, so many things come to mind here...

Grimis says: "For years people bitched and moaned about the US not playing fair at the UN. Now that the US is ready to enforce a UN requirerment for disaramament that Iraq has wilingly violated, the peaceniks come out and say stop."

--Well, if it's as bad as they are saying, why didn't Clinton or George Sr. take any action? It's looking to me like SOMEONE is trying to keep GW in office as long as possible. Also, I've been saying no to war for as long as I can remember, it's only when there IS a war, that we get any notice.

_______________________

mountinman44 says: "...what happens if we go in, and the military finds the weapons we've been talking about... What happens if one of those weapons Hussein "doesn't have"... If we don't find any weapons, I'll be the first person to wonder why we did this in the first place, but until we know for sure, I will stand by our President."

--So you want to risk thousands of lives on 'ifs'? This is absolutely ridiculous and utterly assinine. AL GORE wouldn't be doing this shit, THAT'S for damn sure. GW's getting some fucked up advice from people, and it sickens me that THIS is what the office of the president of the United States has come to.
_______________________

Ubermonkeys says: "This is just me, but I'm of the opninon that anyone who makes any comment about politics pretty much shoots themselves in the foot with this shit. IT'S OVER, LET IT GO"

--Sorry, I live here in Florida, I didn't vote for the moron, I don't know anyone who DID vote for him, and as far as I'm concerned, his brother GAVE him the presidency on a silver platter. Florida will NEVER 'let it go' or 'live it down' for that matter.
_______________________

Pool-Boy says: "Whether it is with the UN or not. In my opinion, they are irrelavant already and we should not need to ask the permission of the rest of the world to defend ourselves.

After all, no one is crying that the terrorists did not ask the UN's permission to attack us."

--Ok, so the terrorists are wrong for thier cowardly attacks, I agree with this whole heartedly and the people responsible for 'those' attacks should be brought to justice. I think we are all in agreement on this, right? So we should resort to THIER tactics to do this? No I don't think so. Someone should take the high ground here. Al-Queda isn't through with yet, why are we NOT finishing one job before tacking on another. Wasn't Bin Laden the bad guy here, What about him?

The UN has no jurrisdiction of terrorist, that's why they are called TERRORISTS. Saddam is a world leader. He rules a
country that is part of the UN. If the majority vote is NOT to attack, and we still do, we are then terrorists; which goes back to my saying that GW is getting the worst possible advice EVER.
_______________________

calvinh0560 says: "Its not Bush's job to explain why other counties donít want to go along with this war. Like he said last night Bush's job is to protect and defend the U.S. It would have been very bad if he answered why he thinks some (not alot mind you) are against us"

--Yes he most certainly DOES have to explain himself. What intel information do we have that makes US feel so strongly about going to war that is turning away others? WHO is telling him other world leaders are wrong. The ONLY reason I can think of that he doesn't want to explain why other powers are against is is that WE'RE WRONG; if WE are so right about this, then they must all be wrong, right?

(edited by Cerebus on 7.3.03 1426)


Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 316 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Cerebus
      Who voted for the REAL guy who won.

    So what are you complaining about since you voted for Bush?


      Originally posted by Cerebus
      Who wouldn't have put us in this position.

      But again... what do I know.


    If you were talking about Gore, you're right: this country would've rolled over and died already.



(with apologies to David Cross)

Right, cause Gore would've holed up in a hotel room with a bottle of Jack Daniels, sobbing, "I don't know what to do!! I don't want to be president anymore!! I don't wanna!! I don't wanna!!!"

Cause, as our Republican masters will tell us, Democrats are weak Communist Godless pussies. They don't have backbone and strong moral compasses like our millionaire playboy of a president.

Even Ralph Nader would've bombed Afghanistan after that shit. But we cream our jeans after Bush does the job that we sort've, not really elected him to do. Why? I don't throw the guy at Subway a motherfucking parade when he gets my order right.





-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Poll: Unnamed Democrat leads Bush
Next thread: Hot Robert Reich Nude Pics
Previous thread: More developments in the Miguel Estrada nomination
(2252 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The question remains: why is the NEA taking on positions that support gun control and handouts for Prescription drugs...
The W - Current Events & Politics - George, George, George, what are you thinking?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.338 seconds.