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.

 

An Email I recieved .... "Best message we all could hear"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
garyo - great signature, my kind of thinking.

netchicken - Here's a handy link for you:
www.glennbeck.com...

Now I'm sure you don't listen to Beck, or mabey you do, at any rate, these quotes are all from Democrats commenting on the Iraqi WMD's. Are you saying all of these folks are liars.
Saddam had WMD's and managed to hide/get rid of them.

What more proof do you require?




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Isolation, depending on your definition, is where America was before WWI.
And it seemed to be working just fine.


News flash, were not in 1890, the world doesn't work like that anymore. We’re not going to bunker down and close the hatch because some psychos think Allah will give them 72 virgins if they kill the “infidels“


[edit on 11-9-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I don't understand.

What is the real point of this "message"? I can just see a bunch of you right-wingers wooting and slapping eachother's backs over this. Hooah, Hooah. Then you all come back to reality and realise none of this will ever happen. None of this "Call France". None of this "Those on list 1 will continue to receive US aid"...Australia receive US aid? Are you serious? Spain? The UK?

The irony of this is that Australia just donated $10 Million to the US for Katrina relief. You are welcome.

I have an idea, how about you all get together and collectively research how inexplicably out of touch with the outside world and reality you are.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
wecomeinpeace...that was hilarious dude !!!! great smack !!!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Pathetic.....
Empty air, and empty rhetoric.
Despite all these quotes from up to 4 years ago, Iraq has been scoured for WMD. Don't you think that if they existed finding them would have been trumpeted from the rooftops?

What does does this link proport to show?

Certinaly it add nothing to the debate. I try to see the truth in the bull# from both sides.

And the truth is there were no WMD's,
And the truth is the Bush administration KNEW this,
And the truth is, America's children are dying in Iraq today for an agenda that has nothing to do with WMD, or even 9/11.

And the truth is the world is a darn sight more unsafer now than it was on the morning on 9/11.


Originally posted by simtek 22
netchicken - Here's a handy link for you:
www.glennbeck.com...

Now I'm sure you don't listen to Beck, or mabey you do, at any rate, these quotes are all from Democrats commenting on the Iraqi WMD's. Are you saying all of these folks are liars.
Saddam had WMD's and managed to hide/get rid of them.

What more proof do you require?




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Pathetic.....Empty air, and empty rhetoric.

That could be said right back at the radical left ya' know.


Iraq has been scoured for WMD.

Yep, I'm sure every sand dune has been dug into. NOT!
I'm sure Saddams good buddies in Syria are telling the
truth when they say they didn't receive the WMD in the
months prior to our well advertised coming invasion.
Sure, they can be trusted. NOT!


What does does this link proport to show?

Simple. That link shows that not only the Bush administration,
but democrats and republicans alike on Capital Hill (and in the
Armed Forces Committee!) agreed that Saddam had WMD.
www.glennbeck.com...


I try to see the truth in the bull# from both sides.

Great! Then take another look at that link that was provided.
The TRUTH is (which you say you try to see) .. the truth is that
just about EVERYONE on Capital Hill agreed that Saddam had
WMD and that he needed to be disarmed. That wasn't just
based on what the Bush Administration gave them, that was
from reports from the FBI, CIA, etc. etc.


And the truth is, America's children are dying in Iraq
today for an agenda that has nothing to do with WMD, or even 9/11.


Nope. The truth is ... America's ADULTS volunteered to go into the
military to keep America and her alies secure as well as to LIBERATE
Iraqis and the rest of the world from Saddam. American ADULTS
volunteered to go to Iraq to stop Saddams mass murders, to stop
the mass rapes in the rape rooms, to help establish a democracy
in the midst of the terrorist strong hold so that the people of the
middle east would have hope and courage to fight against radical
Islamic terrorists themselves.


And the truth is the world is a darn sight more unsafer now
than it was on the morning on 9/11.


Perhaps. Perhaps not. The eyes of the world are slowly opening to
see the danger of radical Islam and Wahabbism. That is a good thing.
Afghanistan and Iraq are on their way to becoming democracies.
That is a good thing. Saddam is gone so his mass murdering of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis has stopped. That's a good thing.
Saddams rape rooms have stopped. That's a good thing. Saddam
can no longer start wars with Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in a
quest to take over the area. That's a good thing. Saddam can
no longer mass murder Kurds by the thousands with his WMD.
That's a good thing. The UN Security Council has been shown to
the world to be what it truly is .. a corrupt anti-American eurocentric
cesspool of thieves more interested in taking million dollar bribes to
line their pockets with instead of being interested in helping humanity
- which is what they were supposed to be doing. This revealing of
what the UN truly is .. is a good thing. Now perhaps it can be cleaned
up and they can start doing the job they were supposed to be doing.

The world is more unsafe? Perhaps. But it would have been much
worse off just to sit by and appease the terrorists or to do nothing
and let them run amuk. To do nothing or to appease would have
made the world even more unsafe than it is now. America is doing
the right thing going after the terrorists. Psychology 101 - you must
have firm and overwhelming punishment immediately administered
to correct bad behavior otherwise if you start small and build as the
bad behavior continues, then the organism behaving badly will build
up a tolerance to the punishment and then no punishment will work.



[edit on 9/12/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Anyway, garyo isolationism doesn't work, it will buy us short term security then bite us in the A just like it did on 911, you still haven't learned that?


Are you saying isolationism caused 9/11? Are you saying we were isolationists before 9/11? We were never isolationists. Remember that pic of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, US bases in Saudi Arabia?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I say go for it. Cut off ALL aid to every country in the rest of the world and keep all the money to yourself and fix your country. Do you honestly and truly believe that American foreign aid is just free? That American government officials just drop off a huge satchel of cash and say "Hey buddy, you use this to buy food for your people and help them, okay? Don't be going and buying bad stuff."

If the United States cut off financial and military aid to ISRAEL, then the crisis in the Middle East would be resolved. If the US cut off military aid to dictators around the world, these dictators would not be able to keep a stranglehold on power. The amount of HUMANITARIAN AID that you supply compared to military aid is significant, since it's almost non-existent.


The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.


Your government is the FATTEST and MOST CORRUPT, so save your slings and arrows.


On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.


Yeah, just like over the last 4 years you've totally destroyed Al Qaeda, right? Right? The way you killed bin Laden?


A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.


Haha... um, no chance. We will continue to piss you off whenever we want to, and you will take it, because we also help you when you need it and comfort you when you need it, because that's what friendly neighbors do. If you don't like it, close the border completely.

If you want, how about this. We will stop shipping you electric power, water, wood, and oil (we are the largest exporter of oil that the US has).

And then you can all just use some of that remarkable "American ingenuity" and try to make a go of it yourselves.

But bear this in mind:

Canada is the leading export market for 39 of the 50 U.S. States.

In 2004, the total merchandise trade between the two countries (census basis) was $445 billion.

The U.S. is Canada's leading agricultural market, taking nearly one-third of all food exports.

The U.S. and Canada enjoy the largest energy trade relationship in the world, with Canada being the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States--providing some 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand.

Canada is the sixth-largest foreign investor in the United States. At the end of 2004, Canadian investment in the United States, including investments from Canadian holding companies in the Netherlands, was $134 billion at historical cost basis.


So do it. We'll survive, we have the exports to do it. Everyone needs what we have.

And you don't pay for tab. America's trade deficit with Canada hit $32.6 billion for the first half of the year. That's 32 BILLION dollars you owe us in 6 months.

That's because American companies exported goods worth $105.4 billion to Canada between January and June of 2005. But American imports of Canadian goods were valued at $138.0 billion during the same six-month period.


To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought. Drop dead.


Without the countries on list 2, YOU would drop dead. Your country produces nothing, consumes too much, and has hardly any natural resources left to speak of.

You would starve to death within months if you only had List 1 to rely on.

Whoever was the author of this letter was a simpleton.


If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English,
thank a soldier.


And that's the proof.

jako

ps. FlyerFan: The War on Terror will totally bankrupt your country. It's useless and an unwinnable war. Ask the British how to fight terrorism. The Irish. Not with weapons, that's for sure. Your best and brightest young minds are dying screaming in the sand for nothing.



[edit on 12-9-2005 by Jakomo]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Cut off ALL aid to every country in the rest of the world and keep all the money to yourself and fix your country.

I agree. Let's do it now.

If the United States cut off financial and military aid to ISRAEL,
then the crisis in the Middle East would be resolved.

Yeah, sure. Resolved in so much as Hamas and the Palestinian
Authority would make good on their promise to wipe Israel off
the face of the planet. Jews have a right to their homeland.
There can never be peace in that part of the world and it isn't
the fault of the Jews. Just their being alive is enough to tick off
the uncivilized PA and Hamas.

Your government is the FATTEST and MOST CORRUPT

Haven't been keeping up with the UNs illegal activities have ya?

FlyerFan: The War on Terror will totally bankrupt your country.

NOT to go to war would backrupt our country. UBL has promised to take
down our economy. Our only hope is to answer his declaration of war
with a punishing blast of reality on top of his head.

It's useless and an unwinnable war.

Useless? Unwinnable? They started it. We have to fight. We have
to win. There is no alternative. You'd suggest just to sit back and
let them kill us all. That's ridiculous. Psychology 101 - as I said before -
Punishment has to be strong and immediate otherwise the organism
with the offending behavior continues on and on and on. Talking
with those who don't want to talk does no good. They just want
infidels dead. That's it. And UBL is a meglomaniac who wants to
rule the world. It's not about honor or religion for him .. it's power.

Ask the British how to fight terrorism.

You'd suggest Chamberlain I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   


Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the
world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. I t is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.


I agree with the first couple of points. yes the US does need to look after its own.

But eliminate "Soccer" (Football to the rest of the world)? What the hell is wrong with Soccer? Far more interesting than Baseball or American Football (football? They run around with the ball in their hands!!)

And as for Flyersfans point about the "Jews" having a "right" to a homeland.

No they don't.

Over 80% of the worlds Jews today do not have any genetic link to the hebrews that lived in that area 2000 yrs ago. 80% of the worlds Jews are converts from eastern Europe/Ukriane/Russia.

So perhaps they should make their "homeland" there?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Flyers:

Yeah, sure. Resolved in so much as Hamas and the Palestinian
Authority would make good on their promise to wipe Israel off
the face of the planet.


No. Much in the way that if Israel realizes it does not have a bottomless pit of military and economic aid from the US, it may begin to actually have discourse with its' neighbours AS EQUALS instead of some US welfare state.


quote: Your government is the FATTEST and MOST CORRUPT
Haven't been keeping up with the UNs illegal activities have ya?


Yes I have. If you want to say that no, you are in fact the SECOND fattest and corrupt government in the world, then yeah, I can swallow that. My mistake.


NOT to go to war would backrupt our country. UBL has promised to take
down our economy. Our only hope is to answer his declaration of war
with a punishing blast of reality on top of his head.


Riiiiiight. Because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are FREE! They don't cost a dime! You've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and Al Qaeda is not only still kicking, but they appear stronger than ever. They can threaten to attack Los Angeles AND Melbourne and it makes people genuinely afraid.

The power in LA can go out because some idiot cuts a powerline and people are calling their families in tears and panic.

So, um, yeah, great job so far. Money well spent.


Psychology 101 - as I said before -
Punishment has to be strong and immediate otherwise the organism
with the offending behavior continues on and on and on.


? You should have kept going to Psychology 202 and maybe even a little further.

Your approach would work fine with, say, A DOG, but not with an actual living breathing person. I hope to God with an attitude like that you don't have children, and if you want to give me a warning for saying it, go ahead. But essentially you're saying that when you punish someone it needs to be swift and brutal. Seek aid.


Talking with those who don't want to talk does no good.p
They just want infidels dead. That's it. And UBL is a meglomaniac who wants to rule the world. It's not about honor or religion for him .. it's power.


LOL, I do not recall ever hearing even the vaguest inference that Osama bin Laden EVER wanted to Emperor of Earth. Didn't he want the US Army out of the Middle East? Away from Muslim holy cities? And a bunch of other stuff?

I sure don't remember him acting like a megalomaniac with plans for world domination. How's he going to rule the entire world? You can drive planes into buildings and this will eventually make you King of the Planet?

How about you walk me through that one.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Over 80% of the worlds Jews today do not have any genetic link to the hebrews that lived in that area 2000 yrs ago.


So what? If you want to go by genetics then there
aren't any such thing as Palestinians. Most are decended
from migrants from Egypt and Jordan and the rest. Jews
still have a right to a homeland. All they want is that scrawny
piece of property. Muslims have dozens of homelands.
Genetics? Who cares? At this point it's about religion.

So YES, the Jews do indeed deserve a homeland.
They have one. The UN says so and common sense says so.
(one of the few times you'll see the UN acting in harmony
with common sense)

[edit on 9/13/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
They can threaten to attack Los Angeles AND Melbourne and it makes people genuinely afraid.

That Adam idiot is just a disenfranchised whack job looking for attention.
He's a nothing.

The power in LA can go out because some idiot cuts a powerline and people are calling their families in tears and panic.

Panic? Yeah right. There wasn't any. Try again.


Your approach would work fine with, say, A DOG, but not with an actual living breathing person. I hope to God with an attitude like that you don't have children, and if you want to give me a warning for saying it, go ahead. But essentially you're saying that when you punish someone it needs to be swift and brutal. Seek aid.


Ahhhh, the rantings of the unlearned. Yes, you DO deserve a warning
from the mods for that childish (and uneducated) outburst. To build
tolerance towards punishment is doing the child (or the group of people
such as terrorists) injustice. You say I shouldn't have children??? Yeah,
right back at ya Read and learn ....

Quote from 'Learning and Behavior' fifth edition, Paul Chance author.
Pages 198-199 - Chapter on Operant Punishment

The problem in beginning with a weak punisher and gradually increasing its
intensity is that the punished behavior will tend to persist during these
increases. In the end, a far greater level of punisher may be required to
suppress the behavior .. studies by Neal Miller (1960)... Jules Masserman
(1946). .... A punisher that might have suppressed a behavior entirely had
it been used at the beginning became ineffective when a series of weaker
punishers was used first. It follows that if punishment is to be used, one
must begin with apunisher that is intense enough to suppress the
behavior dramatically.

It is common practice for parents, teachers, and judges to attempt to
punish a behavior with a very mild consequence and then, if the result is
not satisfactory, gradually increase the level of punishment. A parent may
give a child a stern look at first, slap him after the fourth offense, and
paddle him after the fifth offense. Judges often do essentially the same
thing. A person conviced of drunk driving may get off with a warning on
the first offense, pay a small fine for a second offense, have his license
suspended for a few months for a third offense, and so on. IT IS AS IF WE
WERE TRYING TO INCREASE THE PERSON'S TOLERANCE FOR SUCCESSIVELY
HIGHER LEVELS OF PUNISHMENT. In any case, that is all too often the
result.


[edit on 9/13/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
FlyersFan: Whoopee, a warning for saying someone who says "Punishment should be swift and brutal" shouldn't have children.

So, Flyer, I hope you have all the children you want, and I hope you happily and mercilessly beat them whenever they need punishment. If that's another warning, no problem, I got plenty of points.

Punishment is NOT effective in shaping children’s behaviour. Children often can’t say how they feel so they often communicate with their behaviour. For example, a 3 year old boy who is fearful of losing his parents’ affections may hit his newborn sister, or an 11 year old who is upset about a fight with one of her friends at school may come home and be rude to her parents. Punishing children for misdeeds does nothing to address the underlying cause of the behaviour.

They're children, not adults, and when they do something "wrong" it's not always as simple as slapping them and telling them not to do it again.

Nothing in your copied and pasted link says anything to change that.

What you're purporting is that if a child (or an insurgent) does something wrong, instead of admonishing him/her, you should come down with a fast and brutal punishment to make sure they understand never to do it again.

Sounds positively Cro-Magnon I would say, and I would love to hear another parent's views on it.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I do not recall ever hearing even the vaguest inference that Osama bin
Laden EVER wanted to Emperor of Earth. ... I sure don't remember him
acting like a megalomaniac with plans for world domination. How about
you walk me through that one.


Sure. First but you'll have to learn what a megalomaniac is. Considering
you don't understand operant learning, punisher intensity studies,
reinforcement of punished behavior, et al .... It would be best if you
read up on what a megalomaniac is. Go to the library. READ.

As far as the psychology behind terrorism … here is a link that will
help educate you.

www.fas.org...

UBL wants to be named the Islamic savior of the end times.
Read up on Islamic end times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 9/13/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
So, Flyer, I hope you have all the children you want, and I hope you happily and mercilessly beat them whenever they need punishment. If that's another warning, no problem, I got plenty of points.


Yep. You deserve another warning.

BTW - I have never raised a hand against my child. You still don't
understand even the basics of operant punishment. When it comes
to children, punishers can be anything from a time out corner to
withholding spongebob. The level of intensity of each punishment
depends upon the receiving organism. What is too easy for some
is strong for others.


Punishment is NOT effective in shaping children’s behaviour.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.


Punishing children for misdeeds does nothing to address the
underlying cause of the behaviour.

Who said anything about using a singular schedule of reinforcement
in punishment? And frankly, many times children who have tantrums
have been taught to do so by their parents. They unwittingly reinforce
bad behavior in their children. The child screams for attention and the
parent shoves a lollipop in his/her mouth to shut them up. Often the
cause of bad behavior in children are the parents themselves. At
least in the toddler age.


Nothing in your copied and pasted link says anything to change
that.

There isn't enough band width to educate you. Go to school.
Psychology. Scientific studies with results.


What you're purporting is that if a child (or an insurgent) does
something wrong, instead of admonishing him/her, you should come down
with a fast and brutal punishment to make sure they understand never to
do it again.

Insurgent - yes, fast and brutal. Child - yes, fast and strong.
And no .. It's not what I am purporting. It's what SCIENCE has
proven to be the right thing to do with people.


I would love to hear another parent's views on it.

Only if it agrees with you I'm sure.



[edit on 9/13/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Flyers:

Yep. You deserve another warning.


I think I got 5 more to go within 72 hours before I get banned on posting for a while, and considering I've only received 3 warnings total since I've been here, do what you need to do to make yourself feel important.



First but you'll have to learn what a megalomaniac is.


You know, Flyer, ever since I've seen you here, you love to throw around phrases like "go to a library" and "educate yourself" and "learn something" and yet you consistently throw out gems like this that prove that you're actually trying to imply that YOU are far more educated than you really are. I've been known to tell people the same thing, but only when I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.


Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "me-g&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur


Mania for grandiose performance? Bin Laden wears dingy robes, has an unkempt beard, and sends out videotapes of himself speaking in a DARK CAVE. No lighting, no make-up, no dancers.

Personal omnipotence and grandeur? Osama may be a murderous scumbag but he's not insane, and I doubt he has delusions of grandeur. So he's not megalomaniacal, according to the Webster definition of the word. Bush is 100% more megalomanical than bin Laden. Bank on it.

jako


ps. SADDAM HUSSEIN was megalomanical. JOSEPH STALIN. ADOLPH HITLER. POL POT. OLIVER STONE.



[edit on 13-9-2005 by Jakomo]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Discuss the subject, stop poking fun at other's intelligence, calling names, cursing others reproductive capabilities, ect. If you can't behave then you will be removed from the equation. If you don't understand what I just said then send me a U2U for a more information on how you can help this thread by actually discussing a subject instead of discussing others.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
What a puerile and asinine composition. The person who wrote that obviously has the political mind of a Neanderthal with half his brain removed by some curious extraterrestrial visitor.

I wonder why they wrote such a lengthy piece, when the entire thing could have been expressed in one sentence:

America stroooong! *grunt grunt* Strong GOOOOD! *beats chest* Other country, BAD! *drools on self*



Amen...

I was thinking the same thing...

Completely ignorant, selfish, and belligerant.


Look at the wording:

'don't mess with us'
'might want to try to not piss us off'
'drop dead'

And this is coming from a mind that voted republican most likely, it just goes to show how far astray these people have gone to their parties original principles.

Indeed, very neandrathal-like...



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Punishment is NOT effective in shaping children’s behaviour.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.



I've seen nasty devil eyed children scream to get what they want, throw tantrums, and hit their parents.
And i've seen them turn into angels when they are ignored, put into isolation for a couple of minutes, depending on how old they are so they can remember why they were put there, come out, get a talking to at their eye level by their parents. Told to apologise for their belligerant behaviour, and stand corrected.

These children learn not from being physically punished, but from being isolated (they hate not getting attention, which is why they scream in the first place, they learn to manipulate and control using those tactics) and from being ignored, and then talked to about their behaviour.

And if they do it again, the lesson is repeated until they GET IT.
It's like training a dog, you don't beat a dog into submission, do you get that?
------

It is not the job of the united states to go into other countries and 'punish' through physical means, but rather use tactics like embargo's.

If they don't want to play fair, they will be isolated and ignored in an economic demeaning way. That is more damaging to them then physical means.

Look at Cuba and look what happened in Iraq with the embargo's.
People went hungry. Sadam didn't of course, and sadam didn't take careof the people, as a dictator.. Selfish, evil, and VIOLENT. Can you imagine, your ENDORING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, yet you wanted sadam removed for commiting acts of VIOLENCE on his own people.

Hypocritical?
----

This email is basically about not screwing with america or else...

This is completely tasteless, ignorant, and juvenile.
---------

Children retaliate with violence, adults should know better.

Psychology 101 is the introduction to psychology, and frankly, I haven't seen you exhibit any lessons past intro to psych, your posts come across as very authoritative and one sided. You lack the ability to be objective, and seem unable to speak in a calm fashion.

Is this the personality of the Bush follower's?

Those who claim to be republican's but reak of an authoratative nature and endorse big government and world policing?

Logic tells me that Sadam did in fact need to be removed, his baath party too.

And they were, quite easily I might add. However the war on terrorism should have remained inside of Afganistan where it was originally.

Why spend more american tax dollars rebuilding a country when it could of been one?
Why occupy a citizenry of a country for 4+ years in the name of fighting terrorism? Why couldn't they stay in afganistan, they have more of an open area to fight in. They would have more of an open area to bomb that isn't inhabited with buildings and communities.

Being on List 2 is more of a compliment then being on list 1.

These people on list 2, see the logic, aren't afraid to ask questions, and can look at this messy situation objectively and without partisan sun glasses.

Those who back bush's decisions without an exit strategy lack the ability to be objective, and at the same time threaten other countries who ask questions with stopping aid... I'm sorry but when a country that can't even supply aid to their own people for 5 days is threatening other countries to stop aid, I find that humorous because it's so juvenile and down right silly.
Not to mention petty.

I wonder if this guy was a teenager.

This war is breeding a new bunch of 'terrorists' because america is occupying holy land, and as these religious follower's follow the rule of attacking any country that occupies holy land, they are only fighting for what they think is noble.

There is a difference between barbarism, terrorism, insurgents, and civilian freedom fighters. Instead of dealing with barbarism and terrrorism, we have a host of people who are fighting against american might because they think it's right.

What would you do if your country was being used as a battle ground without your consent for 5 years now?

Would you get sick of it or just sit at home hoping that you don't get your community blown to shreads including your children.

I find it ignorant that those who only stay on one side of the fence, think they know everything about the other side.

That's like living in a cave your whole life with other's like yourself who share the same ideas and opinions, but declare you know what color grass is, what color the sky is, and knowing what inhabits the earth because your leader told you even though he has no clue either.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join