The United States.

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
Ok, so anyway. Ive got to thinking. About how other countries are so agianst Bush. Not just cause their all liberal assholes but because they are afriad of his power. Yes, I said afriad. Kinda like this Osama tape. He wants Kerry to have been elected because he knows he would have been lighter on terror. Other countries just dont like a president when hes tough. They like ones that are layed back and belive in no war. Take France and Canada for example. Both very liberal countrys.Why do you think that they hate Bush so much? Because hes tough and shows that we will fight you if your a threat to us and our allies. And thats why I and many other American cant stand France. Their pussy liberals and they want to control the US. And that wont happend with a conservative president. Other countries are agianst Bush because they dont like the fact that hes in power and they cant do anything about it.

So all you Canadian liberals and European nuts, and even a Russian (I think we know who Im talking about) STFU and live your own life! I here that people think the War in Iraq is like the fall of Rome, but if thats the example dont you think Vietnam would have been a better example? And we arnt losing in Iraq! So we arnt falling. Other countrys are pissed because were finally taking a stand for ourselves

So bring all the hate comments! Im actually intrested for once in what you pussy Liberals are gonna say!!!!
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
I think i am just gonna report you for flaming in Arcane.

But before i do that:

Iraq never messed with America for one thing. Another thing you may have won the war but you haven't accomplished your goals, those people of Iraq are not yet broken as you want them to be, they are not as weak as you want them to be, they have pride in their country and you are the agressors. I hate Bush because he is an idiot, no better term for it, its quiet simple. That war was completely unjustified and a first act of agression from US. Sooner you americans realize that you are nothing without europe and you should just sit down and not piss people off with pointless show of power. Guess what i am not liberal, i am just against Bush, that doesn't make me a liberal. I am not a democrat, i think Kerry is a hippi and a tree-huger but he is a lesser of two evils. Hey guess what tomorrow Russia will suddenly say: Hey Americans are showing power, why shouldn't we? And here we go you have a nuclear desert in place of Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, maybe even Turkey if we feel like it. There is a balance of power in the world and you are unstabalizing it. Thats why we are pissed.
You for some reason fail to put up a valid argument to your claims that any of us are liberals and that Bush is not an idiot. But then we tell you the prooven facts you dare to call them bullshit and call us liberals. Anyways, reported.
ands sit d
 

B~E

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
3
Location
Montreal, in a ghost town.
Website
Visit site
Here, I'll quote what I said in another topic.

Here's the reason I hate Bush, its not because of the war itself, but because the moron went in Irak alone, ****ing alone ! . And dont give me this "coallition of the willing" crap, because, who do you see dying in Irak ? americans. Who's country had to start digging into emergency fund to pay for a war that nobody know when it will end ? The United States.
This is the main problem I have with the monkey man, he managed to alienate most of his allies. If you can't ****ing convince anybody that your war is a good thing, maybe its not a good idea to go, dont you think ?
Do you have any idea how stupid, lunatic and impossible the task of implementing a successful democracy in an hostil country is ? Addoption by non-Western societies of Western democratic institutions give access and encourage the power to nativist and anti-Western movements. In the 1960 and 1970, Westernized and pro-Western government in developing country where treatened by coups and revolution, but in the 1980, 90 and in 2000, pro-Western government are even more in danger of being ousted by elections.

Democratisation conflict with Westernisation, and politicians in non-Western societies dont win election by showing how pro-Wetsern they are, but electoral competition insteed stimulate them to fashion what they believe will appeal to the mass and those are ethnic, nationalist and religious caracter.

You'll never have a durable democracy in Irak, your stuck there defending something that will never live on its own, your stuck there for a very long time, and your stuck there alone.
How long can your frail economy support this war ?

And dont compar this situation with the succesful implementation of democracies in Germany and Japan in WWII, those where different times. For once, those countries where irremediably crushed and occupied by western forces. Secondly, Western values and culture had a tremendous apeal that they dont have today, on the contrary.

Good luck, republican cretin.
 

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
Go ahead and report me. I feel this Is a seroius topic. 2nd you other countrys arnt educated properly on the War in Iraq. Your biest media is to blam but let me point out a few valid points for the war.


-Sadam attacked our ally Isreal. Although not a full scale war

-Sadam has killed thousands of his own Kurds. Hell, If Bush killed thousands of us Americans Id want someone to come in to the US and help us out.

-WMD's. Now I know there arnt any in Iraq. But 12 intellegance agancys said he had them. Including the all good of them, your very own country, Russia. And after 9/11 and this High # of intellagance agancy's I wouldnt want to risk it either.

-United Nations sactions. The 17 of them he agreed to after the Gulf War in Kuwait he never followed. Yep thats right. All 17 of them. Flew right by his head for 12 years. Who is to enforce them Kuzmich?


You say that there is an unbalance of power? We arnt taking over Iraq, were freeing them. I know you might not be a liberal but every piont you are bringing up is pouring with liberal allllllllll over it.


btw I just saw the other post. We didnt go into Iraq alone. We have the new Iraqie government on our side with troops, UK, and countless other countrys giving us Aid in the country
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
dreamcrusader said:
Go ahead and report me. I feel this Is a seroius topic. 2nd you other countrys arnt educated properly on the War in Iraq. Your biest media is to blam but let me point out a few valid points for the war.
Wow an american talking about my media beign biased, an american. How hypocritical of you. Anyways our media is not biased atleast much less then yours, looking at the fact that you are clueless of the fact how wrong you are.


dreamcrusader said:
-Sadam attacked our ally Isreal. Although not a full.
They had enough power to defend themselves, Iraq wasn't really a threat to them.

dreamcrusader said:
-Sadam has killed thousands of his own Kurds. Hell, If Bush killed thousands of us Americans Id want someone to come in to the US and help us out.
And you killed thousands of Iraqies, and unjustly imprisoned and interigated thousands more.

dreamcrusader said:
-WMD's. Now I know there arnt any in Iraq. But 12 intellegance agancys said he had them. Including the all good of them, your very own country, Russia. And after 9/11 and this High # of intellagance agancy's I wouldnt want to risk it either.
Even if he did have them, he had no means of using them against anyone, if he did it would be suicide and he isn't that stupid no matter what you think of him

dreamcrusader said:
-United Nations sactions. The 17 of them he agreed to after the Gulf War in Kuwait he never followed. Yep thats right. All 17 of them. Flew right by his head for 12 years. Who is to enforce them Kuzmich?
Well what you could have done to keep everybody happy (foreign powers, Iraiqies, your own people) you could have supported a revolution given them money and guns and then after everything settled down come in and inspire democracy.


dreamcrusader said:
You say that there is an unbalance of power? We arnt taking over Iraq, were freeing them. I know you might not be a liberal but every piont you are bringing up is pouring with liberal allllllllll over it.
I thought we already discussed this and you have agreed with me that no country would jepertize its own interests just to help another country. You aren't freeing them, you are setting up a puppet gov't fully controled by you, like you have in Afghanistan and then if you suddenly need to run an oil pipe throug the country you will have no problem getting the countrie's agreement, infact you might make them pay you. This is imperialism there is no such thing as freeing people there is only dominating in order to meet selfish political goals. Thats true for every country, not just US.


dreamcrusader said:
btw I just saw the other post. We didnt go into Iraq alone. We have the new Iraqie government on our side with troops, UK, and countless other countrys giving us Aid in the country
Yet you still cover 90% of the costs. Also in that colaition of yours there are countries like Moroco and New Zealand that don't have an army. All they provide is moral support, there was even one South American country that gave you few thousand specialy trained monkeys to run across a mine field and blow up the mines.
 

B~E

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
3
Location
Montreal, in a ghost town.
Website
Visit site
dreamcrusader said:
Go ahead and report me. I feel this Is a seroius topic. 2nd you other countrys arnt educated properly on the War in Iraq. Your biest media is to blam but let me point out a few valid points for the war.


-Sadam attacked our ally Isreal. Although not a full scale war

-Sadam has killed thousands of his own Kurds. Hell, If Bush killed thousands of us Americans Id want someone to come in to the US and help us out.

-WMD's. Now I know there arnt any in Iraq. But 12 intellegance agancys said he had them. Including the all good of them, your very own country, Russia. And after 9/11 and this High # of intellagance agancy's I wouldnt want to risk it either.

-United Nations sactions. The 17 of them he agreed to after the Gulf War in Kuwait he never followed. Yep thats right. All 17 of them. Flew right by his head for 12 years. Who is to enforce them Kuzmich?


You say that there is an unbalance of power? We arnt taking over Iraq, were freeing them. I know you might not be a liberal but every piont you are bringing up is pouring with liberal allllllllll over it.


btw I just saw the other post. We didnt go into Iraq alone. We have the new Iraqie government on our side with troops, UK, and countless other countrys giving us Aid in the country

Yes, I'll admit its always reconforting to hear that 10 times more iraky soldier than marines died in a battle. It lower the death toll for the american side, which is important, in order to keep the population satisfied. Seriously, the new iraky government is a precious asset I haven't mentioned in my previous post.
Still, compare the current coalition with the US-lead coalition in the Gulf War. We had a much larger coalition back then, and as such, we had much more diplomatic and military support and troops avaliable. And more importantly, the members of the US-lead coalition helped to pay for the war, to share the cost of it, which isn't the case right now.
Beside britain, there isn't many country who can offer a significant help, military or economicaly speaking. Would Bush have managed to creat a real coalition, the cost of the current war wouldn't be the unique burden of the USA. But he failed at this primordial task, and americans are paying the prices for it. Just imagine if half of the money you put in the war would be directed in educaion, or another important sector. This is the main reason why I'm pissed off at Bush, he's going after what seem the whole midle-east (afganistan, Irak, and maybe Iran, who knows, four years is a long time) all alone. It would all have been much more acceptable if he could have dragged down Europe with him, because, even in the case of failiur, the cost of it would have been shared by every member.
 

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
Kuzmich said:
Wow an american talking about my media beign biased, an american. How hypocritical of you. Anyways our media is not biased atleast much less then yours, looking at the fact that you are clueless of the fact how wrong you are.




They had enough power to defend themselves, Iraq wasn't really a threat to them.



And you killed thousands of Iraqies, and unjustly imprisoned and interigated thousands more.



Even if he did have them, he had no means of using them against anyone, if he did it would be suicide and he isn't that stupid no matter what you think of him



Well what you could have done to keep everybody happy (foreign powers, Iraiqies, your own people) you could have supported a revolution given them money and guns and then after everything settled down come in and inspire democracy.




I thought we already discussed this and you have agreed with me that no country would jepertize its own interests just to help another country. You aren't freeing them, you are setting up a puppet gov't fully controled by you, like you have in Afghanistan and then if you suddenly need to run an oil pipe throug the country you will have no problem getting the countrie's agreement, infact you might make them pay you. This is imperialism there is no such thing as freeing people there is only dominating in order to meet selfish political goals. Thats true for every country, not just US.




Yet you still cover 90% of the costs. Also in that colaition of yours there are countries like Moroco and New Zealand that don't have an army. All they provide is moral support, there was even one South American country that gave you few thousand specialy trained monkeys to run across a mine field and blow up the mines.

Iraq isnt a huge threat to Israel, but its still a valid point.

And btw yes I know that American news is Biased BUT I do no the difference between liberal news and more balanced news. There are a few news organizations that are great. Like Fox News.

And why would he build WMD's and have no means of using them? He already did in the early 90's on his own people. You cant trust a person like that.

And we are supporting a revolution. But the former Iraq military was one of the strongest in the world. Militia wouldnt do shit agianst them. That is one thing we are trying to do. They are gaining more responsibility for their own country but we are helping them out alot. Giving them time to organaize an army and train troops.

And yes I agree that we are setting up some of their governments but to say that it is solely based on the idea of helping us and getting us oil breaks is asanine. But even you have to admit that relations between Iraq Afghanastan and the US would be alot more friendly once this is settled. I think that you are right to an extant on that point but think of it in alot different means. I think in the long run it will help both our economys.
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
I don't think so, since Arabs still hate you, and they will continue to hate you for a while.
An Iraqie man isn't just gonna say:"Americans killed my wife, my children, they imprisoned and interigated me, they stripped my people off their pride, but what the hell, they not that bad, i go work in Starbucks now."

Everything is biased because it is made by a person and every person has their own view on the matter, somethings might be less biased but everything is biased to some degree.

He never built WMDs, even if he had any then those would be the ones you gave to him. He didn't have the means because he couldn't just take a nuke and carry it all the way to US across the nation, he didn't have the launching sites and that means no nuclear capability.

Iraqie army was not not that powerful if you look at it. Look you wiped out their army in few days, but you are fighting the rebels who are using guerilla tactics for several years now. Iraqie army would eventually fall apart if you gave the rebels your best tech like you gave to Israelies. Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.
 

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
Kuzmich said:
I don't think so, since Arabs still hate you, and they will continue to hate you for a while.
An Iraqie man isn't just gonna say:"Americans killed my wife, my children, they imprisoned and interigated me, they stripped my people off their pride, but what the hell, they not that bad, i go work in Starbucks now."

Everything is biased because it is made by a person and every person has their own view on the matter, somethings might be less biased but everything is biased to some degree.

He never built WMDs, even if he had any then those would be the ones you gave to him. He didn't have the means because he couldn't just take a nuke and carry it all the way to US across the nation, he didn't have the launching sites and that means no nuclear capability.

Iraqie army was not not that powerful if you look at it. Look you wiped out their army in few days, but you are fighting the rebels who are using guerilla tactics for several years now. Iraqie army would eventually fall apart if you gave the rebels your best tech like you gave to Israelies. Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.

Saddam never built WMD's? He shure as hell did and I cant belive you didnt know. It was in the eary 90's. Thats what he used to kill his own people. Some of them were bio logical too. And statisticly speaking Iraq had the 4th most powerfull army in the world. We might have one Kuwait easily but that was because of the small land mass we fought in it. Ill try and find some of these statistics, but ill have to look through some achives.
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
He didn't build them, you gave them to him. Also statistics haqve a funny thing of being wrong, like USSR and Afghanistan.
 

Ntrik_

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
9,687
Reaction score
4
Take France and Canada for example. Both very liberal countrys.Why do you think that they hate Bush so much? Because hes tough and shows that we will fight you if your a threat to us and our allies. And thats why I and many other American cant stand France. Their pussy liberals and they want to control the US. And that wont happend with a conservative president. Other countries are agianst Bush because they dont like the fact that hes in power and they cant do anything about it.
Bush only knows of war, he doesnt care for education, health care, etc...

http://www.costofwar.com/

I suggest you study that part


I now created a theory in this "Bush-Supporters' Serious Discussion"
-Bush was tough with biggest troops in the world
-Bush is cool

But
-Anyone can be tough with Bush's troops
-Bush is dumbass, WTF lets just spend all the money on War and make our country economy to shit! :D


Think this to yourself, does War resolve anything? Has it resolved anything? No.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Well what you could have done to keep everybody happy (foreign powers, Iraiqies, your own people) you could have supported a revolution given them money and guns and then after everything settled down come in and inspire democracy.
That sounds oddly familiar. Giving guns to a revolutionary who at the current time is on our side? If I remember correctly, this created the opportunity for Saddam to get in power in the first place. The United States gave guns to revolutionaries that were on the United States' side at the time and it came back to bite it in the ass.

Beside britain, there isn't many country who can offer a significant help, military or economicaly speaking. Would Bush have managed to creat a real coalition, the cost of the current war wouldn't be the unique burden of the USA. But he failed at this primordial task, and americans are paying the prices for it. Just imagine if half of the money you put in the war would be directed in educaion, or another important sector. This is the main reason why I'm pissed off at Bush, he's going after what seem the whole midle-east (afganistan, Irak, and maybe Iran, who knows, four years is a long time) all alone. It would all have been much more acceptable if he could have dragged down Europe with him, because, even in the case of failiur, the cost of it would have been shared by every member.
I personally like Bush for pretty much an opposite position on this. Bush doesn't care what most of the world thinks. He does what he thinks is the best thing for the United States regardless of what it means. I agree with the war on terror, including the war in Iraq. Bush said that we're going into Iraq because it a front for terrorism. Regardless of whatever is fact or fiction about the last statement there is one thing that you can see. After "Operation Iraqi Freedom" Iraq has become the front for terrorism. It has taken the big bulls eye off the civilian population in the United States and moved it onto the soliders of the United States in Iraq.

I don't think so, since Arabs still hate you, and they will continue to hate you for a while.
Regardless of the war on terror or not, the Arabs will hate the United States as long as we support Isreal and/or the Jewish population in the Middle East.

He never built WMDs, even if he had any then those would be the ones you gave to him. He didn't have the means because he couldn't just take a nuke and carry it all the way to US across the nation, he didn't have the launching sites and that means no nuclear capability.
As stated above if the intellegence had shown that the world that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction the entire war would be different. Failed intellegence in multiple countries gave Bush evidence that Iraq had WMD's. Bush went on what he was told by intellegence agencies and told the world what he believed to be true. As Saddam not being able to reach the United States with WMD's, I believe that is true. The main question is of the countries that Iraq could reach with WMD's.

Iraqie army was not not that powerful if you look at it. Look you wiped out their army in few days, but you are fighting the rebels who are using guerilla tactics for several years now. Iraqie army would eventually fall apart if you gave the rebels your best tech like you gave to Israelies. Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.
The Iraqi army was listed as one of the most powerful armies in the world. The thing is that the gap between one space (not implying Iraq + US are 1 rank apart) can be large. They were one of the most powerful armies in the world, they just went up against an army much more powerful than theirs.

Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.
Those are completely different circumstances especially considering the terrain of Vietnam.

I now created a theory in this "Bush-Supporters' Serious Discussion"
-Bush was tough with biggest troops in the world
-Bush is cool

But
-Anyone can be tough with Bush's troops
-Bush is dumbass, WTF lets just spend all the money on War and make our country economy to shit!


Think this to yourself, does War resolve anything? Has it resolved anything? No.
Anyone who the American people believe is doing what is in their best interest will support that person. If any random person, for example if Al Sharpton was president and he was doing the exact same thing as Bush, he would be supported. If it not a matter of we support Bush because he is Bush, it is we support Bush because we believe he is doing what is in the best interest for the United States.

-Bush is dumbass, WTF lets just spend all the money on War and make our country economy to shit!
To answer this in the same...form...
WTF lets just spend all the money on making our economy great and have some terrorist blow us to shit!
(/\ What I said right there is an exaggeration, I'm just trying to show that you can say whatever to exaggerate on fiction)

As for the website you showed above, costofwar, you can mess with facts just as much as you can mess with a graph. If you go look at George Bush's website everything is shown twisted in the exact opposite direction. That website is biased against him, his website is biased for him. Biased sources never show anything worth while.
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
He cost billions of dollars to your economy, no matter what you might think US can't survive without foregin powers so it is in its interest to not get them pissed. The thing is Bush hasn't been doing the best for US, actually he has been doing the opposite.
 

B~E

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
3
Location
Montreal, in a ghost town.
Website
Visit site
But as I said, would he managed to bring a coalition with him, the economical burden on the USA would have been only a fraction of what it is now. And his failiur to do so should have been reason enough to vote agaisnt him.
 

Forged

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
5,433
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Website
www.securegamers.com
Yes, we all make mistakes, however some are far worse than others.

You come off as a blubbering moron, which is why people ridicule you and your ideas. It isn't because we hate bush(we do) or because we think the iraq war was unjust and 1000's of people are dying because of it(and we do) it is because you are a blind ignorant supporter.

Hopefully by the time you can vote you will have reached maturity (before you say something stupid no maturity does not mean being liberal(a word you tend to misuse btw))
 

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
Forged said:
Yes, we all make mistakes, however some are far worse than others.

You come off as a blubbering moron, which is why people ridicule you and your ideas. It isn't because we hate bush(we do) or because we think the iraq war was unjust and 1000's of people are dying because of it(and we do) it is because you are a blind ignorant supporter.

Hopefully by the time you can vote you will have reached maturity (before you say something stupid no maturity does not mean being liberal(a word you tend to misuse btw))
Oh wow. I think I know why I use liberal so much. Maybe because most of you are liberal. Dont deny it. Its plain obvious, especially in your case. Your stance on the war is pathetic. You look only at the bad and not the good we are bringing.
Read all the facts above. If you can stand my intolorable spelling at least.

Its all there.
 

Iliaran

Member!
Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
460
Reaction score
0
Location
...
What's wrong with being liberal? I'm liberal. I'm proud of it. Without change, there can be no progress. Change = GOOD.

all liberal assholes
Yes. You're right, we're ALL "liberal assholes" (note the sarcasm. Don't generalize)

afriad of his power
Yes, he's all powerful and we're all just shaking in fear. (dreamcrusader, stop worshipping Bush. He's only human.)

Because's he's tough
That's right. Thats what the US needs, a "tough" war president. Yep. Who needs diplomacy when you've got nukes? Right? Right? WRONG.

dreamcrusader, you're an idiot.

I and many other American cant stand France
you can't speak for others, so **** the **** up.

And we arnt losing in Iraq! So we arnt falling
Nice straw man. Dumbass.

12 intellegance agancys said he had them...Including the all good of them
riiiight...whatever that meant...

We didnt go into Iraq alone. We have the new Iraqie government on our side
idiot. When the US mounted an attack on Iraq, the "new Iraqie government" didn't exist. Dumbass.

I don't think so, since Arabs still hate you, and they will continue to hate you for a while.
Try sticking to stuff you know about...kay? (on second thought...that might not really work with you...you know...cause...)
 

Induhvidual_1

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
0
Location
USA California
OMG I love Bush... Bush bashers are morons. I'd like to kiss Bush's a$$ every single day....

I have to say, everyone has their views, Liberals are not pussies and neither are Conservatives. They're both out there to run for political office, gain power and protect the American people.

Bush is certainly not the smartest cookie in class and his decision to invade an already helpless Iraq (figuring that it would be a piece of cake) was a terrible miscalculation. Iraq has already been thoroughly weakened by UN sanctions. The so called "war" in Iraq ended rather quickly. In fact the "war" in Iraq had less casualties than the "post war" Iraq.

The reason why "liberals" find this to be completely retarded is because, Iraq proved to be of little harm or no harm to Americans. Bush's so called satellite photos were bullcrap. He refused to accept CIA intelligence. There were no WMDs in Iraq!
And to focus on Iraq when it lacks the supposed WMDs is like saying let's attack a ailing country for no apparent reason. Bush should have focused on North Korea or something because we knew for sure they had the weapons.

Furthermore, if we attacked Iraq because of their socalled "terrorist ties" and "terrorist harboring" crap, why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? It's all in the oil...

See, this is blood for money sort of deal. Saudi Arabia has 10 percent in the American market. Invested 10 trillion dollars...

Other countries are not stupid. France is not stupid. One of the reasons why France does not want to attack Iraq is

a. They do have certain economic ties
b. But most importantly, a large portion of their population are middle eastern.


DreamCrusader, you suggest that the War in Iraq will bring good...

I will agree to that. But unfortunately this good that it'll bring....
is much more of a side effect. This good is of course democracy in Iraq.

It is a side effect because the reasons that justified this war were lies, fabrications, government agenda....

I'm afraid that you've been a victim of fear. Fear induced by the government. Fear used as a weapon to stir up hate.

Sure we Americans live in frightful times, especially with the Terrorist spreading fear with their many beheadings, plane crashings, etc etc... but the government has paralleled it, used it as excuse to start a war. And sure some people disagree, other countries may disagree but that doesn't make them morons or pussies as you've worded it.

Different views and different opinions is what democracy is all about.

And one more thing. Sure, being a leader is about being tough but it's also about thinking smart.
 
Top