|
|
Post by LazyBoy on Feb 26, 2004 23:19:36 GMT
Should this romon (rearrange the letters) be reappointed as leader of the world?
Lets think, has the world benfitted from his term of office? a more simple question would be "is the pope jewish", the answer of course being no.
I say dump the retard before him and his mate tony do any more damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by fireball21 on Feb 27, 2004 0:45:00 GMT
i am from the u.s. and i want him gone fast  |
|
Zact
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Zact on Feb 27, 2004 2:00:59 GMT
I think we let him play war long enough. Let's put a REAL politition in there to try and fix the mess this idiot made. Let him go home to Texas and continue to mass slaughter his convicts. That's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by fireball21 on Feb 27, 2004 2:11:33 GMT
yes we need someone good to fix this. anyone but him and his family. he only started the war because saddam made his dad mad while his dad was in office. all it is is revenge
|
|
|
|
Post by Rage of Thor on Feb 27, 2004 16:43:24 GMT
So..... You all think that poor innocent Saddam should be set free and rightfully reclaim his place as dictator of Iraq? Is the world not a better place because he's gone? Life shouldn't be so complicated. Good>Evil. Destroy all evil. Who cares if evil is in another country? (rhetorical question, I really do not care for your answer) Throught the history of the US, many of the great presidents have been despised in their own time. Abraham Lincoln was so hated by the South that he was assassinated. Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb AND fired General MacArthur, and that got him booted out of office pretty darn fast. However, if one looks deeper, you will see that those were wise decisions. In the case of the bomb, sure a lot of people died, but millions of American soldiers would have died in a land invasion. Plus, I would rather go out in an atomic bomb instantly than being napalmed to death like in Tokyo, and watch my skin slowly melt off covered in flaming jellied petroleum. (the point is, how is the atomic bomb any more cruel than an ordinary weapon? Killing is killing.) And General MacArthur, an extremely popular military hero, was actually extremely insubordinate and was going to invade China after he was done in Korea. DID WE REALLY NEED A WAR AGAINST CHINA? No.
My point is many good presidents are hated in their own time. I do not believe that masses of uninformed simpletons have the right to judge someone when they don't have all the facts. Sometimes unpopular decisions must be made if the people are too stupid to make the right decisions on their own. (EX: Banning gay marriages..) It is this tough decision making that makes a great president. Only time will tell if Bush truly was a terrible president, or if the people are only whiny idiots.
Well, that's my too cents. You can try to disprove my points, but I don't respect enough of most peoples's opinions to care what you think. Check the facts for yourselves if you care so much, and only THEN will your judgements matter to me.
|
|
Zact
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Zact on Feb 28, 2004 1:36:56 GMT
I couldn't agree more with you thor. But I never said that Iraq was a mistake. Iraq had a long time coming to it, and the fact that we accomplished our goal (sadams removal and capture) is what makes it a victory for the military and US. But what I don't like is the fact that he continuelly sends more and more troops to afganistan will producing no results. Granted we freed the afgans from the rule of the taliban, but all we did was send the taliban to hide in other parts of the world. And that's not what we wanted, or need. If Bush has any chance in winning this election, I believe he is really going to have to step up his results in Afghanistan.
Now, on gay marriages I think that passing that amendement would be horrid. Let the gays have their marriage. Who cares what it says in the bible? What if Jewish gays want to get married? They shouldn't have to live by a Christian law. and that's my one cent
|
|
|
|
Post by Renegade on Feb 28, 2004 2:25:51 GMT
Should this romon (rearrange the letters) be reappointed as leader of the world? Hmmm.... ormom? momro? rmmoo?  |
|
|
|
Post by fireball21 on Feb 28, 2004 2:51:43 GMT
i dont know why we are still looking for bin Laden in afghanistan. we arent going to find him there unless he is already dead. he is on dialysis(sp?) and you just dont plug them in the mountains. so most likely if he is still in afghanistan he is dead. also another country might be hiding him. there is a possibility there. bush wants to prove he is big and bad and he relly isnt.
|
|
Zact
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Zact on Feb 28, 2004 3:28:35 GMT
He is most likely in Afghany mountains, or in Pakistan. But don't get me started about how screwed up Pakistan is and that going into Pakistan with troops is one of the worst ideas ever. And that's why we are still in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
Post by fireball21 on Feb 28, 2004 5:50:06 GMT
yea pakistan is messed up. he is most likely not in the nountains. iran could also be holding him because they dont like the u.s.
|
|
|
|
Post by LazyBoy on Feb 28, 2004 16:59:52 GMT
the war in iraq doesn't matter to me tbh, i'd rather them just nuked it and then picked up the pieces. The fact is that the man is a complete idiot, there a chimps with higher IQs.
If they find bin laden, great, although whilst there are ANY people who follow his beliefs then there will always be a rebellion, there are always people to follow in his footsteps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rage of Thor on Feb 28, 2004 20:01:39 GMT
If there's always going to be another terrorist, then you probably should care too much that they haven't gotten bin Laden. Stop complaining.
|
|
Zact
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Zact on Mar 1, 2004 23:19:09 GMT
I don't care if they get Bin Laden or not. Is his capture and most likely execution going to make up for the 1000s killed on 9-11? No. No real point in looking for a 70 year guy who waddles around like a duck. Sure, we are preventing SOME terrorist attacks in the future, but you have to know that soon after his capture and/or death there is going to be a huge jump in terrorist attacks. All we can do is tighten our security in every possible position. Or better yet, put more of our "black" funds into inteligence.
Also, I don't believe Bush is a moron, he is just played out to be a moron by the media and appears to be because people think he was handed the presidentsy by his father. That's not true. His attack on Iraq was because Iraq refused to cooperate with the U.N. (american) inspectors and thereby breaking the rules of the former treaty. Sadams removal was long overdue. and even though the life of him cannot be traded for the many lives he ruined, it can help prevent his ruining of many more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rage of Thor on Mar 1, 2004 23:24:45 GMT
Amen to that, dude.  |
|
|
|
Post by LazyBoy on Mar 1, 2004 23:38:41 GMT
they only went to war cos the "U.N (american) inspectors" said there were weapons of mass destruction and thus saddam was causing a threat to the world, which after so many months of trying they havn't actually found.
Post war, is iraq any better off? the total amount of soldiers killed after the conflict was declared finished is now higher than that during the fighting. The fact is, the people of Iraq just aren't ready for capitalism, both economically and socially, so the "liberalisation" the US and UK has given them is just crippling them. (Although credit where credit is due the americans have finally stopped ambushing british patrols and shooting down our planes.)
The remark about George Bush Snr however is interesting. Some have said that, indeed, the current president was just looking for an excuse to invade iraq to try and succeed where his dad failed, and i for one see a little truth in that, and my mind won't be changed until any sort of evidence of WMDs is found.
|
|
