World Wants Bush Out!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by Muaddib
If this is true special, then you too are either been paid off by communists, or socialists, or liberals...since all your posts are only at bashing the US and the administration...

Just to be sure I understand your views correctly. Is it your opinion that all who disagrees with the actions of the Bush Administration are either communists or socialists, or paid off by any of those groups?

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]


thats pretty much the republican view... i liked the US untill recently... about 2 or three years ago in fact




posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   


Iraq's Own Terrorist Training Camp


terrorist training camps hrmmm...

i supose its getting harder and harder these days to bunker down and terrorize properly. i mean, not just anyone can master the daunting ordeal of handling a box-cutter, or connecting two wires to blow themselves up.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Most Neocons forget the eighties when it comes to foriegn policy matters... wonder why.
We went to Iraq under resolution 1441 which was accepted by the UN.


Is this why the Russians among other nations, none of them the US, were selling arms to Iraq up to 2003? and tell me...what kinds of weapons do terrorists/insurgents have been, and are still using? Are they American weapons and equipment?




Not only is this totally irrelevant, but it makes me wonder why we are bombing Iraq when Russia is such a terrorist nation. Maybe you should study up on US foriegn policy regarding South American interests, we have done some atrocities of our own.



Maybe you should have understood that my reference on Russia is that they have been doing worse things than us and yet they can tell the whole world to stay away from their problem, yet when we attack countries who have supported and kept supporting those who attacked us in one way or another we can't do # according to you?




Can you name one instance when afghanistan or Iraq has ever attacked the United States prior to 9-11? A UN accepted resolution? LOL Dude if we wen't after every nation that sponsors terrorism, we would be bombing every nation from Scotland to Vatican City.


Both of these countries have aided Al Qaeda, and other terrorists and even had terrorist camps that trained these terrorists against western targets. See below for one of the training terrorist camps in Iraq. The president did say we were going after not only terrorists but those that keep aiding them....and btw...if you didn't know yet we were able to disarm a nation who had wmd programs and this nation is now telling otehrs to do the same...Libya....As you can se by this example if there is perseverance we won't need to go after every nation that sponsors terrorism.



yeah and I have the plans for an h-bomb on cd-rom. Get real man, the WMD is what they call here in Western NC BULL CRAP. The only WMD's they had were the one's your hero's sold them back in 80's. You remeber when WE were sponsoring terrorism on both sides of the Iran Iraq war.


First, i have no idea why you would have plans for an h-bomb, but if that gets you off....it is still a free country.....

BTW....is that why Iraq had Russian tanks and Russian/Chinese, and some other countries' military equipment?

Is this the reason why most if not all of the weapons terrorists use are made by the Russians/Chinese?

I have posted before intelligence reports, and statements from Russian high ranking military defectors who have stated that they had trained Saddam and his forces on how to get rid or hide wmd but keeping the materials and documents needed to pick up the wmd programs once more, when the western world stopped looking for wmd...doing a search on the forums will bring up these links.

Not only this but some of these Russians defectors have said that Russia, among other countries, have sold billions worth of materials and weapns that were for the military as late as 2002.

There is also the evidence and statement from some Iraqi defectors that wmd were moved to Syria among other countries...

Here are some of these reports...again..


Frontpage Magazine: Welcome to Frontpage Interview, Mr. Pacepa. Lets begin. As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take direct orders from the Soviet KGB, you are obviously armed with a wealth of information. You have written about how the Soviets armed Hussein with WMDs, and also taught him how to eliminate any trace of them. Can you talk a bit about this and tell us its connection to the missing WMDs in Iraq today?


Pacepa: Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddams WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddams son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes containing documentation dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear. He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made Srindar plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a spontaneous administration of tribal justice. Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.


Excerpted from.
www.frontpagemag.com...


David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."


Excerpted from.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html


Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.


Excerpted from.
washingtontimes.com...

The above is even more of the suspicious things that Saddam did...if he wasn't hidding wmd and banned matterials, then why the need for all this hide and seek? why the need to dissapear security cameras that were installed in facilities in Iraq that were monitored by the UN...why pospone inspections to some facilities in Iraq unless they ahd a week or more of notice of the inspector's visit, and in some cases not allow inspections at all having soldiers shooting in the air at the weapons inspectors and not allowing them close to some factories....


Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:


Excerpted from.
www.2la.org...

This is just part of the controversy on this topic.

Some info about the Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda link. Even thou there is no direct evidence that seems to point that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda with the attacks on 9/11, i have excerpted the following which made news in Spain...


* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.


Excerpted from.
www.techcentralstation.com...

Somehow the above info...which in Spain did made it to the press, never made it to any major news sources in the US....at least i didn't see it reported...this was reported thou not only in Spain but in the UK...


Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

David Rose
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators.

Excerpted from.
observer.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden

Just to be sure I understand your views correctly. Is it your opinion that all who disagrees with the actions of the Bush Administration are either communists or socialists, or paid off by any of those groups?

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]


Didn't you read the response special gave to Edsinger? about Edsinger being paid off? ....i was using a sarcastic comment back on Special since it is true that all of his post, or most of them, are devoted entirely to bash and blame the US in one way or another.....

and of course now Asian is resorting to his attacks once more....ignoring that i made a sarcastic comment, unless the comment is true....


[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84

terrorist training camps hrmmm...

i supose its getting harder and harder these days to bunker down and terrorize properly. i mean, not just anyone can master the daunting ordeal of handling a box-cutter, or connecting two wires to blow themselves up.


and of course, you are so smart that you can figure that what you stated above are the only things needed to highjack an aircraft...or how to properly set up explosives, etc, etc....


I guess you think that terrorists learn on how to plant explosives only on trial an error.....there is no need to be taugh on how to properly do any of these stuff.......


Tsk, tsk....



[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Unless we get a paper ballot, I fear it isn't going to matter much who the H*ll you actually vote for. All of the major voting machine manufacturers are outspoken supporters of the GOP and in many cases have already been busted installing software on the machines that wasn't supposed to be there. Our electoral process has been compromised.









Twitchy, thats one of the reasons why the Democrats are asking "Kerry" supports to vote by absentee ballots. The absentee's leave a paper trail that the Republicans can't mess with, unless of course the people that will be counting the ballots are all republicans,............. then I'd say we gonna see another "2000 election" stolen again, and then in that case the people that DID NOT vote for Bush need to take to the streets in a "up-rising"



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 05:13 AM
link   


and of course, you are so smart that you can figure that what you stated above are the only things needed to highjack an aircraft...or how to properly set up explosives, etc, etc....


dood they have books and stuff about chemical combustion and bomb making, im sure even some sites online. yeah it helps to have some military oversight one guy could teach 1000 men to do this, you dont really need a facility to teach bomb making. flying could be learned any where in any country in the world.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Before the Australian election I would have said that the world wants rid of Bush given that Howard was a elected for a fourth term it appears that minorty spoke louder then the majority of people.
I know what happened in Australia dosnt represent what the rest of the world thinks and I also realize that just because people voted for Howard dosnt mean they support Bush.
Perhaps there are many people with moderate political views that support Bush but dont have much interest in politics. The same gose for Kerry supports If you dont live in the USA and you dont take a great interest in politics you wouldnt bother making your views known.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Well, whoopie do, the rest of the world dont like Bush. Well, duh......this topic has been so beat to death a million times, i dont think anyone questions that.

The more people from around the world complain about Bush......the more people here are going to support him. Doesnt anyone see that? Not like it matters.

I have a feeling Bush will win the election quite legally, and alot of people might vote for him, simply because the rest of the world hates him. They may take it as a sign that if the rest of the world hates us and him, that means hes doing something right. Thats the feeling I keep getting.

My dislike of Bush and his 4 years as president are my own, and Id like to see him out of office. But to tell you the truth, I dont know if I really want Kerry in either. The man has a Clintonesque slickness about him, and might be too eager to appease jilted allies and enemies alike.

So, who is America safer with? Who is best for America? Forgetting world opinion, who is gonna help us out? Who is gonna save us? Who is gonna restore some sanity to us? So far, niether candidate has convinced me..........

It is somewhat good that world opinion is brought up regarding our presidency. It gives Americans a different picture. It helps us to understand the candidates better. Which one do foreign leaders support, and then examine the nature and culture of those nations to see why.

Sometimes, just that alone is enough to convince Americans to vote for the leader the world hates.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Twitchy this is one of the ignorant claims that quite a few Americans and other people in the world don't seem to have gotten straight....
First, the 9/11 comission and every other agency that investigated this connection have said that there were links between Iraq/Saddam and Al qaeda, but that there was no direct evidence linking Ira/Saddam with the attacks on 9/11....still Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda members and training them and other terrorists...

Ignorant claims? Oh you must mean the intelligence that indicated that they were a military threat to the western world. LOL Do you mean the proven to faked documents uranium documents from Nigeria? Or do you mean the Convoys or mobile bioweapons platforms? Every bit of intelligence we had prior to the Invasion of Iraq pointed to not only no credible links between Iraq and Alqeada, but to little or no offensive capability or stock piles, and every scrap of it was mandated, not assesed, mandated by the Bush Administration.
You said "every other agency that investigated this connection have said that there were links between Iraq/Saddam and Al qaeda..."
This is a ridiculous statement and represents a very narrow awareness of world events. The only agencies that have demonstrated any connection betqween Iraq and Alqaeda were once again, mandated by the Bush and Blair administrations. Subsequent investigations were blocked or railroaded entirely by the whitehouse both before and after 9-11. Let alone Richard Clarke, even the CIA has repeatedly washed it's hands of the WMD's to be found in Iraq. The only ones still running around trying to claim Iraq had WMD's capable of being a threat to the free world, and that they were supporting Alqaeda are the rhetoric machines of wartime nationalism. Did you not read my post at all? Have you not read your recent history? After our first offensive in Iraq we took down an estimated 80% of their military, then 12 years of harsh sanctions and frequent inspections, are you actually suggesting that Iraq was a threat to us? If we had stayed the hell out of eastern politics instead of manipulating and pissing these peopel off, we wouldn't have to worry about being targets of international terrorism would we. You are in serious need of some understanding of the forces that govern our foriegn policies. Believe me, righteousness, spreading democracy, all that sounds nice, but what actually happens is a little more complex. The american military is not a notable charitable organization, and our reasons for being there are murky and scandalous at best.


Ok let me give you excerpts and see if you can understand the difference...which many people don't seem to understand....

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."


So did many other sources, UN inspectors familiar with Iraq after 12 years of inspections, US Weapons Inspectors, etc.


The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

Yeah, keep believing Bush... It's a good thing Enron went down before the election or Bushie boy would be campaigning from a Federal Prison.




Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...
And if you read the 9/11 comission report you will se clearly that they do say there was an Al Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq link...but no evidence seemed to point that Iraq/Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda on the attacks on 9/11...

Do you understand the difference?

That's right, a link. Do you understand the difference between a link, and "axis of evil"? The 9-11 comission makes reference to two meetings between SUSPECTED alqeda agents and the Iraqi Government Officials. Two meetings is a far cry from collusion or even support. Our own intelligence met with Osama himself more occasions than one would care to recollect, and we have been far more accomodating to the Alqeada folk than Iraq ever thought of being. The very man that wired Atta 100,000 bucks a few days before 9-11 was meeting with intelligence commitee senators the morning of... Don't try to hand me that Alqeada/Iraq connection. It was not a safe haven for Alqeada, there were no government sponsored alqeda cells as asserted by the Bush mandated intelligence. Rumsfeld must feel particularly honored to be the first man to ever arm and support a soverign nation while arming and supporting their opposition, then a decade or two later, he gets to invade them, hell maybe both of em... Hell of a business war...



Now about no terrorsit camps in Iraq...perhaps you should read the following...that is if you want to get informed.

Salman Pak - Iraq's Own Terrorist Training Camp
Two Iraqi Military defectors, an unnamed former Lt. General and a Captain Sabah Khodada recently gave details of an Iraqi school at Salman Pak which includes training for the hijacking of passenger airliners and other modes of transportation. The former Iraqi General said that there was a old Boeing 707 resting next to rail tracks on edge of Salman Pak being used in terrorist training, the existence of this aircraft has been confirmed by UN. Inspectors.
The General, who had been the Security Officer in charge of the camp also reported that there were mixed nationality units including Saudis, Egyptians and Chechens at Salman Pak. Usually about 40 strong, these terrorist units received upto five months of intensive training. However the terrorist units were actually under the control of Iraqs Al- Mukhabarat Intelligence Service and in particular a section called the Division of Special Operations. Much of this was also confirmed by Captain Khodada.



Wow, terrorists camps, in the middle east no less. Do you have any idea how many nations have 'terrorist' training camps? What you and alot of other misinformed folks seem to fail to grasp, is that these terrorists camps are military training for many opposing Factions, from the Sheite to the Sunni. What you call a terrorist camp they call militia. If you really want to narrow down the term terrorist camp, you will have to realize that terror is not a military institution my friend, it's a NOUN. Terrorism is not a soverign nation. If it were we would be held accountable for some of our own atrocities. A terrorist training camp is a nation bombed into the third world and then exploited by foriegn interests and occupied by a hostile military, that's your training camps dude.
And if BinLaden was our objective, then why would Bush himself say March 13, 2002 "I don't know where BinLaden is, I have no Idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority". Wake up, neither Afghanistan or Iraq had any links to 9-11. Infact, Israel and particularly Saudi Arabia were implicated by subsequent investigations as I remeber...(yes remember afghanistan, the taliban we supported while unocal courted them for the pipeline from halliburton, then when they backed out we threatened to bomb them a few months prior to 9-11? Wow we installed a UNOCAL consultant as their president...)


..now you would have to post credible evidence about the other rubbish you posted.

Reality check here man, your argument is the one that lacks any evidence what so ever. You post some credible evidence asserting a link between alqeada and Iraq, or Iraqi stock piles of nukes and anthrax, the GOP would love to hear from you cause they have been looking themselves... You got some proof worthy of a preemptive invasion and occupation of TWO soverign nationsm then hell your doing ebtter than the CIA and the entire western world for that matter. Cut off the tv, switch to a non-flouride toothpaste, and skip a flu shot or two and you might catch something other than what's handed to you by a coporate consoidated media. Follow the money, and read some 80's articles and you will hopefully have a better understanding of whats going on because your obviously not learning much from these boards if you still contest WMD's and Alqeada connections.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Is this why the Russians among other nations, none of them the US, were selling arms to Iraq up to 2003? and tell me...what kinds of weapons do terrorists/insurgents have been, and are still using? Are they American weapons and equipment?


Like I said man, read your history, we have sold both Iran and Iraq weapons. We have supplied both nations with logistic support, sattellite and other intelligence. You forget who put Saddam in power. BinLaden and Carlyle, BinLaden and Bush, Osama Himself was a CIA asset.


Maybe you should have understood that my reference on Russia is that they have been doing worse things than us and yet they can tell the whole world to stay away from their problem, yet when we attack countries who have supported and kept supporting those who attacked us in one way or another we can't do # according to you?


I don't know why you keep bringing up Russia, think about that for a minute. Chechzenia(sp?) is a province of the former soviet union the reason they don't need international support is because Chechzenia(sp?) is a province of the former soviet union. If Texas rose up and declared it's independence and started shooting do you think for a minute that we wouldn't be bombing them? Leave russia out of it, it is a poor example in comparison to our record as "police of the world". And yes we can do S*it, but where I'm from we believe in going after those who are actually, well you know, like uh... RESPONSIBLE for the attack. Even your own media is calling it 'pre-emptive' to counter the lack of credible reasoning behind the invasions. That is what they are selling and your buying it.


Both of these countries have aided Al Qaeda, and other terrorists and even had terrorist camps that trained these terrorists against western targets. See below for one of the training terrorist camps in Iraq. The president did say we were going after not only terrorists but those that keep aiding them....and btw...if you didn't know yet we were able to disarm a nation who had wmd programs and this nation is now telling otehrs to do the same...Libya....As you can se by this example if there is perseverance we won't need to go after every nation that sponsors terrorism.

Just about every arabic speaking nation in the modern world has at some point crossed paths with Alqeada. We have aided many such groups ourselves. You live under the paranoid illusion that all arabs are terrorist supporting monsters that are out to destroy your baseball and apple pie, an illusion perpetuated by manipulative foriegn policy and endless propaganda. They are people, nations, cultures, the only difference between us and them is military strength, wealth and dependence on foriegn resources. I'm not condoning terrorism, but like all things terrorism is causal, but when you create a monster, you have to feed it. Lybia? LOL here again you need to read your history, we were duped into attacking Lybia by intercepting decoyed communications courtesy of Israeli Intel.




BTW....is that why Iraq had Russian tanks and Russian/Chinese, and some other countries' military equipment?
Is this the reason why most if not all of the weapons terrorists use are made by the Russians/Chinese?

BinLaden runs around with an American made anti-tank rifle that was presented to him personally as a gift from us. You seem to think that Arms dealers are strictly shady terrorism supporting evil folk. The U.S. is hands down the largest exporter of arms in the world. If I bought an AK-47 does that make me a communist? If I buy a swiss army knife, does that make me a sweede? If I buy US military strains of anthrax or suitcase nuke technology in clandestine deals with US Intelligence does that make me a terrorist? Hell, I have a japanese sword in my house, but I'm not going to go slicing up Triad members. The source of their weaponry has little to do with government sponsored terrorism, and yes we have sold Iraq some nastiness ourselves.


Not only this but some of these Russians defectors have said that Russia, among other countries, have sold billions worth of materials and weapns that were for the military as late as 2002.

Wow you mean despite strict trade sanctions imposed and enforced by a multinational coalition after the first gulf war, "Russia among other countries" openly defied the world and sold billions worth of materials and weapons? I must have missed that one in the news. Billions of dollars in weapons, yet they had no organized military offensive or defensive capability? Get real. Iraq was no threat, to assert that there was is ridiculous. Camels, rifles, improvised esplosives... real world threatening stuff there. They weren't even allowed to buy alot of medical equipment and industrially critical chemicals, and your trying to say the world sat back and let russia defy openly defy UN sanctions that they voted for? Yeah...

Just to give you an example of how propoganda works, Let me just sum up the rest of your argument here by quoting a portion your own post...


"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. ...what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."




posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
Of course many in the world want Bush to lose. They want a push-over president that can be taken advantage of. If the USA always worried so much about what everyone else wanted, they wouldn't have been formed. Now this doesn't mean that everything the president does is correct, nor does it mean that the USA shouldn't have friendships with other nations.
It does mean that if the USA has interests, whether it be oil, or helping people become a voting society, these are in their best interests while also helping others in the future.


Yes, just colonialism and world domination. Why should the other care? Let's start importing black people from Africa or Chinese as slaves and pretend that this poeple keep quiete!

Let's take other people resources, they do not deserve it, as they are not Americans!



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
hhahahaha - thats not true man ! what do u mean - the world - eastern Europe is with Bush ! aUSTRALIA is with Bush , UK is with Bush !!!

Which world are u talking about ??



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Its pretty simple. After 9-11, most of the World was backing Bush & the US's War on Terror. Its when the Iraq issue popped up that everything when downhill. Bush basically told the World something along the lines of "Either you're with us or you're against us, so you better agree to whatever we want or you'll suffer the consequences". How do you think citizens of the rest of the World would react to that kind of blackmailing, bullying tactics?

That explains (IMHO) why most non-Americans wants Bush out. Not because he looks out for US interests, not because he doesnt looks out for other nations' interests, but because he's throwing a hissy-fit whenever he's opposed and he's pushing a narrow-minded, confrontational, hostile, unilateral and archaic brand of foreign policy that belittles the legitimate sovereignty of other nations of the world.

I dont think anyone, from anywhere, including US citizens; would have a favorable opinion of any foreign head-of-state that'd try to strong-arm your own government into obedience by using insulting hostile threats. Dont you think?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
- Who gives a # about the rest of the world - GO U.S.A.!
- The rest of the world only wants what's worst for the US.
- The rest of the world hates the US, so why should we care about what they think?


You forgot this one.

The rest of the world is the world beyond our Allies and they don't dictate the policies of the United States. Never have and never will. If they don't like it, tough! What are they going to do about us anyway? Nothing is the answer. A big, fat NOTHING! (But flap them jaws!)



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
Of course many in the world want Bush to lose. They want a push-over president that can be taken advantage of. If the USA always worried so much about what everyone else wanted, they wouldn't have been formed. Now this doesn't mean that everything the president does is correct, nor does it mean that the USA shouldn't have friendships with other nations.
It does mean that if the USA has interests, whether it be oil, or helping people become a voting society, these are in their best interests while also helping others in the future.


I agree with you on this one. Both candidates have good/bad qualities, but I think Bush is a much stronger leader he does not put up with "any" nonsense. I hope Bush wins!



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The rest of the world is the world beyond our Allies and they don't dictate the policies of the United States. Never have and never will. If they don't like it, tough! What are they going to do about us anyway? Nothing is the answer. A big, fat NOTHING! (But flap them jaws!)


Would you mind elaborating a little further on this one, 'intel'earthling? Are you saying that you're fine with the US committing atrocities against other nations and that the rest of the world should butt out?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
Would you mind elaborating a little further on this one, 'intel'earthling? Are you saying that you're fine with the US committing atrocities against other nations and that the rest of the world should butt out?


The only people that says the United States commits atrocities, are the people that hate this nation. That goes for the people within this country that is voting against President Bush.

A vote for Kerry is the display of hatred for the American way of life.

People overseas who wish President Bush to be out of office are the people who know that Kerry is a wimpy, K-O-S-A, yellow-back and they can get away with anything if he was in control!

[edit on 15/10/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The only people that says the United States commits atrocities are the people that hate this nation. That goes for the people within this country that is voting against President Bush.

A vote for Kerry is the display of hatred for the American way of life.

Is that your answer? I'm sorry, but you really sound more like you're chanting propaganda than actually trying to use actual reasoning behind your argument. Try again, why don't ya.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
Is that your answer? I'm sorry, but you really sound more like you're chanting propaganda than actually trying to use actual reasoning behind your argument. Try again, why don't ya.


Conservative Republicans don't chant propaganda. The whiny, spineless, good-for-nothing Democrats are the masters of propaganda!

As for my reasoning? That is the reason that the world and so-called- Americans wants Bush out! The anti- american "Americans" is a better term for Democrats!

And plus, I haven't got to give you a reason! I'm an American! I don't need a reason, remember?

[edit on 15/10/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Conservative Republicans don't chant propaganda. The whiny, spineless, good-for-nothing Democrats are the masters of propaganda!

Impressive reasoning there 'intel'earthling.



As for my reasonong? That is the reason that the world and so-called- Americans wants Bush out! The anti- american "Americans" is a better term for Democrats!

Hm...what was the reason again?


And plus, I haven't got to give you a reason! I'm an American! I don't need a reason, remember?

Now you don't need a reason? So you don't think there should be a need for proper reasoning for committing atrocities against another nation?


[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]





 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join