It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are you supporting this?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
To deny ignorance = accepting the truth.

Truth is universal if it is true.

"Supporting the troops" but opposing the war is inconsistant, therefore false.

The Bush critics are now in bed with suicide bombers. Hope they don't catch too many STD's while they're whining about WMD's.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Realist05....


Supporting the troops" but opposing the war is inconsistant


What you have mentioned is a lesson that was learned by the anti-war activists/movements from Vietnam, where they supported neither.
This time around, the motto has become what you have asserted and I have quoted above: "Support the Troops, but Oppose the War!"

Almost a double negative of sorts.



Oppps, almost forgot:

as posted by Passer By
SEEKEROF: I think maybe you are over estimating the US laws. How can a Canadian, sitting in a Canadian home, on Canadian land - be under the law of America? Are you effected by Canadian law? So why would any forigner be effected by American?

You think that because you, or whomever that make the threats, are a non-US citizen(s), that you can simply make death threats on whomever you wish? Nada.
One word: extradition.
Btw: you don't have WMDs in your refrig either, do you?





seekerof

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
For the guy that just posted, it is incorrect to judge if we are winning based on terror attacks. If another one happens tommorrow, does that mean we are losing?

The best way to judge it is by who is running away and who is gaining ground. Before, we had Osama in Afghanistan, Sadaam in Iraq, Arafat in Palestine, and the mullahs in Iran. Now we have two bases right in their home turf, surrounding the worst enemy and democracy on the rise.

We have reduced the enemy to suicide bombings and terrorists attacks which never win and are a sign of desperation. Tell me any war that was won by terrorism and guerilla warfare. There isn't none.

As for everyone saying the Iraq War is a mistake, the first thing I have to say is hindsight is 20/20. No one could guarantee that Sadaam didn't have WMDs. Just a year after 9/11 when our mistake was ignoring threats, we couldn't let this one slide.

Even knowing Sadaam didn't have the stockpiles of WMDs, I would have gone in anyways. He did hate the US and wanted to destroy it, and would have no qualms of selling weapons to terrorists. He promoted terror and there would be no doubt that the terror would not end with Sadaam in power.

And the worst part about it is we here people saying "This was an awful decision and that was too" without offering better alternatives. What do you want us to do? Inspect every person and container that comes in the US? Shut down the boarders and just play defense? You know how many people would starve to death if that happened?

As for saying "Oh we could have hired a million new teachers" you are the same people that say we shouldn't have got involved with Hitler, that he was an okay guy and wouldn't hurt us. Why not sit back and watch your Joe Kennedy tapes.

And by the way, you could care less about soldiers that die, or you wouldn't be using their numbers for to raise money for your George Soros organizations. The only thing that you wish will happen is that the death toll would sky rocket to 60,000 so you can say "VIETNAM 2!!!!! I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT" and get a big hug from everyone.

Fact is the taking over two countries and stopping Islamic terrorism with less than 2,000 dead is nothing. I don't know why but everyone loves the idea that guerilla war wins, but it doesn't. We didn't have guerilla warfare in the Revolution, it was straight on fighting. The Vietnamese got the asses kicked whole heartly.

The only way we loose is by we saying we want to loose, which no one will ever allow.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by RedWhiteandBlood]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Is it possible that you folks can say the same thing in another way?
You've become so redundant that there are hardly any threads deserving of a response as it is the same sewage being dredged time and time again.

Is it time to start trashing these types of non-Terror related threads?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   


Very true, but American people are not innocent(In the eyes of those that have been hurt by American force). Are they? They are the ones that put the president in there, they are the ones that elected him to a second term(MYABE) aren't they? In the end, do you think it will matter to the guy who sees nothing but blood now? To all the terrorists this war has created, do you think any individual American's political affiliation will matter? Or is it more likely that they will just strike? Which is why I think so many are against it.


Oh, this is just nonsense. A criminal is a criminal, regardless of the reasons he manufactures for committing criminal acts. If you advocate killing of innocents, then perhaps you advocate someone breaking into your home and killing you because they disagree with your politics?



SEEKEROF: I think maybe you are over estimating the US laws. How can a Canadian, sitting in a Canadian home, on Canadian land - be under the law of America? Are you effected by Canadian law? So why would any forigner be effected by American?


Here's some food for thought:

www.editorandpublisher.com...
www.townhall.com...
www.cnn.com...
slate.msn.com...
abcnews.go.com...
mightyspork.blogspot.com...
www.suntimes.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

If it's 'Terror' your being protected from, then you obviously haven't read the latest reports saying Terrorism is worse than before Bush started his war.

Not true. There have been zero terror attacks on American soil since 9/11, that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy.


No it's because the law of averages proves that since Perl Harbor, America has had 3 terrorist attacks on it's soil. 1 by an American and 1 under George W. Bush and if you were to have another one since 9/11 then Bush would of had more terrorist attacks on American soil under his watch than any other President. 1 is bad enough, two would be historically illogical.


You must not realise that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, he was responsable for FBI stand down orders, his government was in charge of procedures that have been working and in place for the last 20 years, he's started wars based on flat out lies as the Downing street memos show.

Yes, 9/11 happened right after Bush took office. It was President Clinton who failed to do enough to prevent the attacks, he was busy with some young girl...what was her name??


No, look it up again. Bush ordered FBI who were following alledged 9/11 hijackers to stand down and stop following them. Bush along with his administration changed protocol for fighter interceps around 3 months before 9/11 when the system had been in place and worked since the mid-70's.
To blame Clinton is to acknowledge Bush's fault because if Clinton is guilty of being a part, then Bush has blood on his hands. 9 month isn't 'right after', thou i guess Bush was on holiday for about 3 of those months right?



What is it again he's protecting America from?

Is this a real question? How about TERRORISTS who want to destroy the United States of America and have killing thousands of Americans.


What Terrorists? The ones on 9/11 who are still alive or the ones who's passports floated out of the Twin Towers while they were crashing to the ground?
Who exactly are you talking about when you say 'Terrorist'?
Bin Laden? Where is he?
Al-Zarqawi? Does anyone even know if this guy exsists besides Rumsfeld?
New Terrorists? What, the ones America is creating in Iraq today which Rumsfeld said this week will super-seed Bin Laden?

So far America is fighting an Adjective because it hasn't done ANYTHING about the alledged Terrorists it's using as it's bait.

America lost UNDER 3,000 people on 9/11 - sorry but get over it because you've killed 10 times that amount in Iraq already and that's not even taking Afghanistan into the equation.

If the buildings didn't come down then the 9/11 death toll would be closer to the late hundreds, maybe peaking into 1000 yet the deaths on 9/11 are still being used 4 years later to justify today's war. Maybe that's why the buildings were brought down - they needed the numbers?
Who would be crying today if 800 people died on 9/11 and the 10 affected floors in the towers were rebuilt and restaffed as of Jun 2005 and everything was back to normal in the twin towers 4 years later?

Your being played. They even rubbed it in your face on the first night of bombing Iraq by using the words 'Shock & Awe' - the EXACT same thing 9/11 was. The shock was the planes hitting the towers and breaking through Americas 'unbreakable' defense, the awe was watching them come down live on TVs across the world. It was a marketing campaign, this is how these people think. They don't see it as human lives, they see it as PR, business deals, bank balances - power. You have to think like them to understand them. They knew those buildings had to come down because they needed a scar and a reference point for their future plans. That's all it was, they couldn't give two sh-ts about the people involved because they are ALL replacable, thats the sad cold truth.

Why wern't you outraged when Bush told American's to just not get sick when he failed to act and get enough flu shot medicine when that kills over 20,000 Americans each year? The lack of action in that alone resulted in more deaths than 9/11!


Patriot Acts, changes and admendments in the constitution to remove rights from people and put more power into corporations

That is incorrect. I am an American and I have had no rights taken away. I challenge you to find an American who has! The Patriot Act hel;p fight terrorists.


Come on, it's only 4 years old - not even that old and already the abuse is obvious. Do you think Hitler had peaked less than 4 years into stepping into power? Ever heard of 'baby steps'?

Critics cite PATRIOT Act abuse and misuse
www.dailytexanonline.com...

ACLU Claims Government Covers-up Patriot Act Abuse
usgovinfo.about.com...

Patriot Act fosters secrecy, governmental abuse
www.thestate.com...

More Signs of Patriot Act Abuse
talkleft.com...


Sliding America into an economical depression so corporations who aren't turning over enough fueling the people will turn their production towards fueling the war machine?

Your statement is unclear? What depression?


An economical depression is America's future. It's easy to see.
Start by reading 'Crossing the Rubicon' as it outlines how Wallstreet works and who is balancing it. It shows how atleast twice Wallstreet has been bailed out of an enevitable crash unbeknownst to public knowledge and that it will be hard pressed to survive another major drop.
When America's economy crashes, people lose jobs, interest rates rise, taxes rise, everything costs more and a 'depression' comes over the country. This means people get desperate, violence gets worse, schools close, hopsitpals close, farms dry up etc etc and like dominos, every action creates another reaction.
America is set for an economical depression because that's their only way to deal with this lack of money. The government has invested all it's pennies into war, it's done this by aligning itself with corporations and moving them out of the public domain and into a governmentorial one. This is because war is expensive and a War Machine needs to be established to fuel this war. The only way to do that when you don't have a majority of the population agreeing that War is right is by collapsing the economy and rebuilding it around the War Machine and this is what will happen.

You'll get a new 9/11 that will cripple your economy by 'forcing' you into more war. This will get funded and supported by the corporations which can fuel, feed and build an army quickly and this will become America's new economic resource. This is how they will fill their army without a draft, the war will be America's focus and military jobs in a time of a depression will be the best option for people who have little other choice.

What exactly are you expecting from the War on Terror? You really think that America can stop terrorism? Haven't you ever asked why Bin Laden who lives in a cave on dyalisis can be walking around while the corporations and people in the government get richer and more powerful the longer this goes?
What do you tell yourself when this question arises exactly?


If you don't like fixing problems with the world because your not a citizen of humanity but rather just a social security number in America, then atleast realise the money being wasted on war could of gone back into America's economy and made your future a lot brighter than it will be.

I thought you said that America went to war to make money for America, now which is it?? Also, I love the worlds people and thats why I support the war on terror and the removal of Saddam!


Oh, America did go to war to make money but none of that money is for America. It's not for you, it's not for your neighbors, it's not for your hospitals or your childrens education.
Your not understanding the links between government and corporations and what that means. If you have corporations which are forced by a government to stick to enviornmental levels and to produce goods at a standard and to offer jobs then you have an industry which serves the people and builds a strong country. Instead you have a government which deals with the corporations and who trade support and money for lowered restrictions and turns a blind eye at offshore industry. When this happens, the corporations stop working for you and your environment and cut you - the middle man - out of the equation and just start dealing directly with the governments. They become war machines and they make billions of dollers doing it. The government gets what they want and the corporations get what they want and your either left behind or your dressed in a uniform doing the work for them.


you have no choice but to oppose what's happening and try to move logic into a progressive compassionate and humanitarian direction, or accept what's happening and have no voice when it's your door they come knocking on - it will happen and the longer you roll with it, the harder it will be to climb out of.

What are you talking about? You are making no sense.


It makes perfect sense to those that understand the relationships your government is making. It makes perfect sense if you can see the glass ceiling your being told isn't there.


I guess some of you deserve it thou, if that's what it takes to wake up and realise how small the world is, so be it. Atleast the world can feel solace in knowing that we did try to warn you.

Thanks I guess...


There's only so much people can say before there's no other option but to let you learn from your mistakes. There's going to be little sympathy for America if facism does reveal itself from behind the mirror and the public cries out for help and support because it's been pointed out for a long time that Bush's government is heading more and more into a facist regime but those that support him believe facism has to look like Hitler before it's real.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


Very true, but American people are not innocent(In the eyes of those that have been hurt by American force). Are they? They are the ones that put the president in there, they are the ones that elected him to a second term(MYABE) aren't they? In the end, do you think it will matter to the guy who sees nothing but blood now? To all the terrorists this war has created, do you think any individual American's political affiliation will matter? Or is it more likely that they will just strike? Which is why I think so many are against it.


Oh, this is just nonsense. A criminal is a criminal, regardless of the reasons he manufactures for committing criminal acts. If you advocate killing of innocents, then perhaps you advocate someone breaking into your home and killing you because they disagree with your politics?


- You are misunderstanding me my friend. I was speaking from the POV of "them", and surely you must admitt there is some logic behind it. We can not hold the people of a dictatorship accountable for the actions of their leaders because they have no say in it. However, as a democracy do we not, at least in theory, have control?

I don't advocate violence of any kind(Other than in sport) and find it horrible. However, I'd be lying if I said that basically, if you go around and try to hurt people, those people will try and hurt you back. This isn't that shocking is it? It is what started the war on terror wasn't it? America got hit and so they went after the Taliban. Now those that preceive themself's as being hit by America, will no doubt do the same. Where is the logically failure there?


I will read those links, but if I am wrong, that there is some legal reason how one countries laws effect those outside that country, then this world has bigger problems than I realized. Thanks for the links.



[edit on 27-6-2005 by Passer By]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   


- You are misunderstanding me my friend. I was speaking from the POV of "them", and surely you must admitt there is some logic behind it. We can not hold the people of a dictatorship accountable for their actions because they have no say in it. However, as a democracy do we not, at least in theory, have control?


I don't blame the citizens of a dictator for the dictator's actions until they attack me or mine. At that point, they're free game. Unfortunately, if the dictator's actions are a threat or cause injury and damage, the citizens of said dictator will often pay. That is the reality of the world.



I don't advocate violence of any kind(Other than in sport) and find it horrible. However, I'd be lying if I said that basically, if you go around and try to hurt people, those people will try and hurt you back. This isn't that shocking is it? It is what started the war on terror wasn't it? America got hit and so they went after the Taliban. Now those that preceive themself's as being hit by America, will no doubt do the same. Where is the logically failure there?


We actually DIDN'T do anything in a large number of cases where our soldiers and citizens were injured and killed by terrorists prior to 9/11. That didn't stop them from attacking us. After 9/11, everything changed and now we go after them. The attack was just too big for any other result.

And much as I hate war, I also hate the idea of standing helpless and vulnerable while someone tries to kill me. I will defend myself, thank you very much.



I will read those links, but if I am wrong, that there is some legal reason how one countries laws effect those outside that country, then this world has bigger problems than I realized. Thanks for the links.


FYI, they can come after you anywhere in the world for cyber crimes. Something to keep in mind about the invulnerability of living in another country.

I don't think you have to worry about the Secret Service in this case, but it's always good to avoid threats.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Is it possible that you folks can say the same thing in another way?
You've become so redundant that there are hardly any threads deserving of a response as it is the same sewage being dredged time and time again.

Is it time to start trashing these types of non-Terror related threads?


You talkin' to me?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I've debated about entering this forum for a few days because it's a very touchy subject. On one hand if i support this war (which i do) then i may sound like that i WANT our troops to be killed every or every-other day. Which of course is ridiculous! I WANT Democracy to flourish in this region so our future soldiers don't have to fight it. On the other hand if i don't support this war then i may sound like a pot-headed wimp. No end is in sight and that is the part that hurts the most, no matter what side you're on.

However, keep in mind that after WW2 coalition forces had to stay in Germany for MANY, MANY years to insure that fascism didn't arrise again like it did after WW1 when the rest of Europe didn't do hardly anything to insure the re-rise of fascism.

After the many years that our troops stayed in Germany to implement Democracy securely, they had MANY road side bombs that killed WAY more U.S. troops in Germany than in Iraq from a group called the Werewolves. Imagine what the world would be like if fascism in Germany went unpunished, only to rise again for a third time.

It's amusing how we, the smartest monkies on the planet forget about our past so quickly.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


- You are misunderstanding me my friend. I was speaking from the POV of "them", and surely you must admitt there is some logic behind it. We can not hold the people of a dictatorship accountable for their actions because they have no say in it. However, as a democracy do we not, at least in theory, have control?


I don't blame the citizens of a dictator for the dictator's actions until they attack me or mine. At that point, they're free game. Unfortunately, if the dictator's actions are a threat or cause injury and damage, the citizens of said dictator will often pay. That is the reality of the world.


- ANd so it follows that those that America has harmed will want revenge as well. Doesn't? Thank you for proving what I was saying. Those that have been harmed will want revenge, and when they come for it, they will not care because you too will have become free game.


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


I don't advocate violence of any kind(Other than in sport) and find it horrible. However, I'd be lying if I said that basically, if you go around and try to hurt people, those people will try and hurt you back. This isn't that shocking is it? It is what started the war on terror wasn't it? America got hit and so they went after the Taliban. Now those that preceive themself's as being hit by America, will no doubt do the same. Where is the logically failure there?


We actually DIDN'T do anything in a large number of cases where our soldiers and citizens were injured and killed by terrorists prior to 9/11. That didn't stop them from attacking us. After 9/11, everything changed and now we go after them. The attack was just too big for any other result.

And much as I hate war, I also hate the idea of standing helpless and vulnerable while someone tries to kill me. I will defend myself, thank you very much.


- No need to thank me at all. It is your right as a person to make whatever actions you feel. As it is their right as a person to take whatever actions they feel. As for attacking America before 911, well, couldn't it also be said that "American imperialism" or whatever they call it, was going prior as well? Isn't that a chicken and egg thing? No one disputes America's right to go after the guys that hit you, but when there are questions as to actually who hit you, combined with a war in a country that didn't hit, combined with accusations of torture and illegal detentions, disregard for the geneva convention - surely you can see that maybe the enemy isn't really "over there" at all. But if you hurt them, they will hurt you. If you hurt them for no reason - they have every right to hurt you for no reason. It may not be popular but it is fair.





Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


I will read those links, but if I am wrong, that there is some legal reason how one countries laws effect those outside that country, then this world has bigger problems than I realized. Thanks for the links.


FYI, they can come after you anywhere in the world for cyber crimes. Something to keep in mind about the invulnerability of living in another country.

I don't think you have to worry about the Secret Service in this case, but it's always good to avoid threats.


CYber crimes? Definition please? I haven't written any malicious code, I haven't hit any of their sites, I haven't "attacked" them in any way. Heck, I didn't even say anything - heck the other guy didn't even say anything. He merely referenced "Moron".

Besides, if free sperch is a crime, then I welcome being criminal. Wouldn't you?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Gipper21...
" I think he has the nations best interests at heart "
What about the deaths of US Servicemen for no real reason?
What about the money spent on killing iraqi's, rather than healing disease, feeding the hungry, or helping the poor?
Just because he is the American President, doesnt mean all other nations deserve 2nd best....


Off_The_street
Why not? I support our troops, sorry YOUR troops..
I support any serviceman who has enough courage to wear the uniform and standup for human rights. I DONT support the SUPERIORS who SEND these brave, trusting service men into fight a UNJUST war... regardless of WHAT There doing, troops need to be supported.
GOVERNMENTS need to be removed.... not hte troops.

BoatPHONE
correct, 0 terrorist attacks... but what is the differencei n killing americans over sea's or at home?....
And Sept11 wouldnt of happened had bush NOT BEEN in office.. No man in his right mind would ignore serious warnings abotu an impending attack, unless it served you well... which in bush's case it served him down to the bone.

What difference is it Terrorists theoretically DESTROYING america and 1000's of its citizens, compared to AMERICA destroying IRAQ, and 1000's of its citizens/

ThomasCROWN You dont have to be here to read this threat.. if you dont want to read it dont read it.. stop crying about the post. This is a public forum where people are ENCOURAGED to voice their opinions.
Just because u THINK You've read it all, doesnt mean you have





The United States Government allowed a terrorist attack to happen,
THey then turned on the propoganda machien and pumped fear and lies into the public for a couple of years.
They then put the country on alert for an attack from IRAQ just prior to invasion.
They invaded a country, raped, pillaged and MURDERED its citizens.
They took anyone who look odd at them, anyone who spat at them, locked them up and tortured/humiliated them.
They destroyed the countries governemnt, its basic nessecities such as WATER, POWER and SEWAGE, and all for what?

What has the USA gotten out of it?
Accept increased threats, many soilders dead and an extrememe dent in its reputation.

Should this war of happened.. NO...
But we turned this country to S**T, and now we're stuck there until its fixed.

problem is the terrorists are now flooding into IRAQ to stop it from being fixed.
They dont need to attack america, and hurt the American way of life..
They can keep IRAQ going for an infiniate amount of time, and do twice as much damage to the American MACHINE Than any terror attack.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder

BoatPHONE
correct, 0 terrorist attacks... but what is the differencei n killing americans over sea's or at home?....
And Sept11 wouldnt of happened had bush NOT BEEN in office.. No man in his right mind would ignore serious warnings abotu an impending attack, unless it served you well... which in bush's case it served him down to the bone.




WHOA! Talk about Liberalism twisting the facts! My GOD! LOL! First of all the attack on the U.S.S. Cole happened on your beloved Clinton's watch.(probably while molesting his intern) What about the first time the Twin Towers were bombed- attempting to bring them down? That also happened while Clinton was president. It's amazing how Liberals forget so quickly. After 9-11 happened we ALL saw the Al Quida videos showing terrorists shooting automatic machine guns at what??? A MASSIVE picture of PRESIDENT CLINTON. It's not a matter of Islamic Extremists hating Bush, it's a simple matter of them hating ALL AMERICANS.

I will never understand how a liberal thinks, they act SO smart yet they make very little sense.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Starters, im neither... I live in Australia.

IF clinton recieved warnings that the Twin towers were going to be bombed, or the USS cole... then im pretty sure he would of done SOMETHING to avoid it, or stop it from happening ALL TOGETHER..

Bush knew the attack was coming, and isntead of telling his forces to be ready and defend, he told them to stand down and let it happen.

Any SANE man would stop a terror attack if he had of be warned,
Who gives a Fying PHARK if clinton was banging some hot braud.. id be doing it, shows how petty some of you are... Your president did WONDERS for your country, but strike him down for being a horney male.

YET Bush can invade a country and murder thousands of INNOCENTS and yet you DEFEND THIS ACTION.

I dont understand you americans.
liberal, republic either way..

Your LEADER IS LEADING YOU INTO A MAJOR DEFEAT and ECONOMIC MISERY yet your defending him...

pssht, nice thinking!



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Faust,

You got it right on the money! It comes down to many people here either just hating Bush or wishing it was still the 60's.

Liberals are confused by a man (President Bush) that sticks to his guns and takes on hard tasks. I know President Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time, and the world will agree once they see that once again America has stepped foward to stop the world from being destroyed.

People say this and that, but the fact is they have no proof just fear of the government.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

as posted by GlobalDisorder
IF clinton recieved warnings that the Twin towers were going to be bombed, or the USS cole... then im pretty sure he would of done SOMETHING to avoid it, or stop it from happening ALL TOGETHER..


Oh really?
You can make the above assertion, with such "sureness," all the while also ignoring, nor mentioning, that Clinton was bombing Iraq, doing operations in Iraq, and believed and had documented that Iraq had those "evil Bush regime" declared WMDs, huh?!


You are also aware that the Iraqi Liberation Act, advocating regime change in Iraq [ie: removal of Saddam] was signed, sealed, and delivered under Clinton's watch?


Do not be so "sure," as you seem to be concerning the "evil Bush regime," k?




seekerof

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
HAHAHAHHA. The greatest man in American HISTORY.

You guys really are brain washed..
or perhaps just on the same IQ level as Bush hey?

Worldwide he's considered a JOKE...

a DISGRACE to the AMERICAN people.

More like what he's done to your country, and brought to the world will be known as the greatest STUFFUP in the history of America.

But im sure when that happens, you'll still be there waving your flah cheering for some more bush'isms



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I'm pretty certain that George Bush will go down in history as one of the best Presidents in American history.

He faced a serious problem with the terrorist attacks, grabbed it by the horns, and made policy decisions that will change the global political trajectory in the Middle East for time immemorial.

He's a good President. Reactionary Europeans and other World Citizens don't like good American Presidents and never have.


[edit on 6/28/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yeah okie dokie,
I see intelligent discussion has just left the building too, huh, GlobalDisorder?
You make unsupported assertions, get called on them, then resort to "HAHAHA....you guys are brainwashed...HAHAHA...."

Righto, mate.
Keep up the good work.








seekerof

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
George didnt face a serious problem with the terror attacks.

George faced the decision on how to break his plans to the americans, in a way they'll feel forever threatend by these attacks which he let through.

And Seeker of im am SURE if Clinton knew of the attacks impending on the WTC and Cole he would of avoided it.

Why?
Because he had NO Agender NO Plan and NO DESIRE to invade and occupy the middleeast.

Which is exactly WHY he bombed it..
he knew it could be contained with limited strikes...
There was NO NEED for the lengths Bush has pulled.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join