|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 10:31:38 PM | What really bothers me is that so many people trust W Bush to actually make the ultimate decision about right and wrong. Thats a travesty.
I believe in democracy, the will of the people, and if you do a poll the war is actually supported by far fewer than 50%, so kiss my ass warmongers! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 11:13:17 PM | According to many polls, support for this "war" seems to be steadily declining.
"NEW YORK, Oct. 10, 2005
(CBS/AP)
Fast Fact
In previous polls, adding Saddam Hussein’s name to the question has caused opinion toward the war to become more favorable. That isn’t the case in this poll.
(CBS) Public support for U.S. involvement in Iraq continues to fall. By two to one, Americans reject financing the war through an increased federal deficit, and 62% would finance paying for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast by cutting spending in Iraq.
More than half of Americans think Iraq is not secure enough to hold its constitutional referendum in just under a week, and many doubt that country will ever become a stable democracy.
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ
Public opinion is now fairly solidly against the war in Iraq. More than half of Americans – 55% - think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (the highest figure to date), while 41% think taking military action there was the right thing to do. As the war began, Americans overwhelmingly approved of U.S. action against Iraq; 69% said the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action (the highest level of support in our polls for the war). Support for the war waned in 2004." | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 1:01:11 AM | To respond Halftime....
Well, obviously I would call that a war as well. In fact, that IS what it was called. The Persian Gulf War to be precise. None of this "illegal invasion" crap. Sure it was an illegal invasion on the part of Iraq but it was still a war when the UN went in. My point is that there is a term that applies every time one country invades another : War. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:59:05 AM | "George W Dumbya Bush is retarded just like his big daddy. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, this war is all about oil, and I am against stupid oil wars, always! "
No one of any importance, no one from this administration ever said that iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that we were invading iraq to retaliate for 9/11
thank you for playing | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 8:00:29 AM | "According to many polls, support for this "war" seems to be steadily declining."
And I will once more and again point out that what is right is not always what is popular! We learn that in grade school.
The only "poll" that matters is election day! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 8:33:35 AM | OC,
This isn't a "majority Rules" Democracy. Never has been. It's a Republic.
Although I agree with you in one sense. We should have a nationwide polling of people to get a true and much more accurate reflection of peoples stance on the war. I am sure the results will be ample enough to get the leftists panties in a bunch and guaranteed to get the libs into their hatred spouting mode further. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 8:47:53 AM | "No one of any importance, no one from this administration ever said that iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that we were invading iraq to retaliate for 9/11
thank you for playing"
This is known as selective memory. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 9:01:33 AM | | Um...please enlighten us. No really, because although I do recall some mention of Iraq being a possible base of operations for Al Qaida I don't recall the US gov't citing this as a primary reason for the invasion. WMD's, "freedom", yada yada yada, but nothing about retaliating for 9/11. Correct me if I'm wrong though. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 9:57:11 AM | You are not wrong. What we have is another LIEberal that has been spoonfed and swallowed everything.
You see, Bush at one point, said Iraq, Al quaida, and 911 all in the same speech or press conference. And since he used all three of those in the same speech/conference, he OBVIOUSLY was saying that saddam was behind 911
See how that works?! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 2:08:22 PM | " You are not wrong. What we have is another LIEberal that has been spoonfed and swallowed everything.
You see, Bush at one point, said Iraq, Al quaida, and 911 all in the same speech or press conference. And since he used all three of those in the same speech/conference, he OBVIOUSLY was saying that saddam was behind 911
See how that works?! "
EXACTLY!! THAT'S how it works. The Bush regime is very clever about not actually coming out and saying.....ANYthing really. They just sort of slip these things in there and let the sheep connect the dots; sort of "guilt by word-association". And the little sheep all buy into it. Too ba-a-a-a-a-d. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 2:16:20 PM | well maybe you want to omit all of the other words and paragraphs in what the man said between Iraq, 911, and Al quaida, but I choose not to. I prefer to read his comments COMPLETE and IN CONTEXT.
Allow me to demonstrate on your comment...
EXACTLY!! THAT'S how it works. The Bush regime is very clever about saying.....ANYthing, really. They just connect the dots;
WOW..
you said "thats how it works, bush regime, clever and connect the dots" all in one set of remarks. And by me eliminating other words, it appears you support what is going on!
And I did not even insert my own spin on it which is something the LIEberals thrive upon.
No one on my side of the fence thinks we invaded iraq because they had anything to do with 911. The dots you claim we are connecting, you have connected, not US.
Imbecile | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 62 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 4:22:06 PM | ^^^
Well could you please explain exactly why Iraq was invaded?
I tend to agree that 9/11 was not given as the reason
The reason I remember was trumped up accusations of Weapons of Mass Destruction
At least that was the First reason we were told
The others seem to have been invented once that one was proven totally false
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 4:47:21 PM | "No one on my side of the fence thinks we invaded iraq because they had anything to do with 911. The dots you claim we are connecting, you have connected, not US."
"Imbecile "
Oh dear! Looks like I hit a sore spot!!! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 5:39:26 PM |
"No one on my side of the fence thinks we invaded iraq because they had anything to do with 911. The dots you claim we are connecting, you have connected, not US."
That would mean that you acknowledge that Bush lied.
That's a start, I guess. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:30:54 PM | How do you figure I am saying Bush Lied? How are you drawing this conclusion?
""No one on my side of the fence thinks we invaded iraq because they had anything to do with 911. The dots you claim we are connecting, you have connected, not US."
That would mean that you acknowledge that Bush lied.
That's a start, I guess. "" | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:33:57 PM | Longte
Three reasons given from the beginning....
1) saddam and his regime harbored and supported terrorists and terrorism
2) saddam had unchecked WMD programs and intel supported this (i disagreed with the administration quantifying what they expected to find)
3) removal of a tyrant dictator and to plant the seed of democracy in the middle east.
Three reasons given from the start, never changed
One reason they did not give, I scratch my head to this day as I do not know why, is that he was in violation of the cease fire agreement and was hostile toward our military forces, firing upon our pilots almost weekly for 12 years | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 11:17:01 PM | Well, I'm a moderate at heart,
I tend to agree with both sides, does this war suck....of course it does
every War sucks, whether it is started by a bible thumping republican or a flip flopping democrat....It sucks, It means people will die.
Do I agree with the Basic Objective of the war?? Yes. I don't believe that people should be wiped out by there own 'president' or dictator in this case.
Do I agree with how the war is being run?? Well, I know a few people in the Marines who say that Bush is doing a hell of a job. Because there is so much that you have to do. And that there have been so few casualties. Yes, there are casualties, but you have to admit, it could be a hell of a lot worse. So, I can't really answer that question. I haven't seen it.
Do I think that we should pull our troops out of Iraq right NOW?? Absolutely NOT.
I think that our Military will basically say "WTF was it for"
We sent them, they are doing well, don't pull them out and make it for nothing.
I know there are people out there that will not agree with me, but hay, its my opinion against yours, who's right, neither of us. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/21/2005 11:29:41 PM | Well, to edit my post a little,,or to....add to it
Remember back in 1993, Warlord Mahamed Fahhra Aidhid (Who care about how to spell his name, he doesn't deserve to be looked up) He was starving out the people of Somalia, So, the UN went in with peacekeepers and Military, it was cleaned up, and order was restored, but it soon went to crap, and then we went back in with the US Army. Then we lost the 4 or 5 choppers and 19 men at Mogadishu. And when the 90 days of the presidents (Clinton) jurisdiction was up, Congress said, Nope, we don't need to go in 'officially', and Clinton Pulled them out. Thank the **stard that wasted that little warlord. I'm pretty sure that it was one of his own men. but my point is, we send them in, we get shot up, and then we leave with our tail tucked between our legs......of course this is what i just read.....i was what, 5, 6 when this happened......
But what I’m trying to say is, If we pull out of Iraq, right now, those 3,000 Marines that were killed....their deaths would be for nothing.
What if we stay, and in a few years, the insurgents stop, and Iraq will be freed of the suicidal **stards.
of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:53:45 AM | To: Garo, I'm not attacking you but you are wrong, Clinton pulled out because he had the forsight ( Very good thing when your a leader) to see that staying there would only result in more deaths of American and UN personel and for what?
If I come to your home because its reported that you and your family are starving, and I attempt to bring you food, but you start shooting at me, and as a result your family starts shooting at me and killing my people, why the hell should I stay?? and would I be justified in bombing your house cause I came unwanted and you rejected my trespassing??
Thats what happened in Somalia, and futhur Aidhid's ( I agree, not worth looking up his name) Son is now running that country. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
As far as tail tucked goes, one American Submarine could have erased all of somalia off the map without loosing one moe american soldier, so I dont think you can say we ran with our tail tucked between our leggs, I would say that we gracefully decided to walk away rather than obliterate they many for the actions of a few.
Hard decisions made with minimal time and that can effect many lives, Clinton did well to avoid the quagmeyer, I wish Bush knew how to do the same. | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/22/2005 8:31:25 PM |
If I come to your home because its reported that you and your family are starving, and I attempt to bring you food, but you start shooting at me, and as a result your family starts shooting at me and killing my people, why the hell should I stay?? and would I be justified in bombing your house cause I came unwanted and you rejected my trespassing??
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I am, but I could be, But, The militia was attacking the soldiers not the average joe samali, so to your comment
it would not be me who would be shooting you, it would be the Local police......
Thats what I got out of that......
I would say that we gracefully decided to walk away
no, we ran away. We lost men, and then we pulled out. In my book, that is running away, why did we go in the first place?? We knew the risks, We sent them in, Risking their lives, and then when we lose some of them, we pull out. That just confuses me......
whatever | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/22/2005 8:33:55 PM |
Thats what happened in Somalia, and futhur Aidhid's ( I agree, not worth looking up his name) Son is now running that country. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
This is disturbingly familiar, eh? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 3:46:35 AM | | Funny how all we hear is about bad GWB...but not Bad Sadam. Last I heard Sodam insane might be put to death for killing his own people in the 80's. WOOT WOOT! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 6:31:32 AM | >>>
Black Sheep
If they are dying and one has to ask "for what"? they should have never been there in the first dammned place. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 6:37:29 AM |
Funny how all we hear is about bad GWB...but not Bad Sadam. Last I heard Sodam insane might be put to death for killing his own people in the 80's. WOOT WOOT! I don't think it's funny. There is concensus on the latter. What is there to debate? Discuss? There are, however, people who support George, and people who don't. That's why it's a more attractive discussion for most.
Incidently, we do here about Saddam. The beginning of his court proceedings were on TV last week. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 54
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
