The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

bush can not promise he will be successful

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#1New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 01:29:18
Even if you can define his presidency as successful, which many do not, you can in no way offer a guarantee that he will be successful in another term.

Bush says everything is rosy and kerry doesn't really know if he wants eggs or cereal for breakfast

kerry is talking about Iraq. Which we all supported, based on the presidents word concerning WMD. Kerry is saying "Does america believe that it is worth our soldiers lives to continue the "finished" war. According to bush the war is over. Hello?

Is it time now to let that democracy grow, to let those people decide their own future, and to bring our soldiers home.
harry_valentine On December 06, 2004




Little Rock, Arkansas
#2New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 01:59:23
O.K. So what?

The war with Iraq IS over. The war on terror continues because they continue to attack our soldiers. Not only that but the terrorists are attacking the Iraqi's.

As for the soldiers, they still have a choice. Either leave and go to Canada, or go back in time to keep themselves from joining the mlitary. They chose to "serve", and whatever meaning that may hold for some is cool, they still chose it.

The war With Iraq is over. The war In Iraq continues.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#3New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 12:03:51
Fantasy land. The war With Iraq is over, but the "war in Iraq continues?
What ever your drinking i would like two. So the good ole US liberated this country, but can't keep it safe. Hmm massive success story.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#4New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 21:10:59
Quote:
Bush says everything is rosy


Jeoin, I must respectfully point out that this is where I see a lot of stubborn bias. Bush has expressed confidence in the current state of things, but at no point has he made anything out to be rosey. He's been very blunt, in fact, about how hard times are right now, so I'm not sure what Bush you've been listening to, but it's obviously not the one in the White House. That statement is an extreme exaggeration.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#5New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 21:25:58
so why did mCain say that bush wasn't presenting the facts clearly.

https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#6New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 21:42:30
Now, jeion, what McCain said is irrelevant to my above statement. I'll repeat, Bush at no point said things were peachy, and he has said that these are indeed difficult times. Now let's not start point-dodging there buddy.

Why did McCain say that? Hmm...Because that's his opinion. I don't entirely agree with it. :D
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#7New Post! Sep 29, 2004 @ 23:35:58
perhaps it is like the definition of sex.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#8New Post! Sep 30, 2004 @ 01:27:03
Quote:
Bush has expressed confidence


what type of confidence? Is his confidence "Rosy/lets land on an Aircraft carrier and make a fiasco out of the "end" of a war" or
is his confidence Muted? hmm since the war is over and we are in the reconstruction phase? or the insurgency phase?

How many folks have to die before we say its official the war is back on, only we have their leader this time and now the enemy is this new modern breed of testosterone junky that is teleporting into battle with OUR soldiers killing more since the war than during, then teleporting back out to safety in time to whisper a fundamentalist prayer or decapitate someone or both.

Pan recall weren't you the guy that said things were bettter over there since the war?
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#9New Post! Sep 30, 2004 @ 15:09:43
https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/30/iraq.main/index.html

50 more people dead. 50 more families with lost love ones. 50 more launching points for hatred towards america.

We are losing. Perhaps American is safer, but how many lives have to end for that safety. It does not make me feel good knowing every day people die, because our country was "scared" of WMD.

If the price of safety is someone elses life i don't want to pay. Perhaps your different, perhaps my Country is different.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#10New Post! Sep 30, 2004 @ 17:28:09
Please, James...Pan keeps reminding me of that little flute-playing half-horse guy.

I understand what you're saying, totally. But yes, sacrifices have to be made to achieve peace, and we can't betray them and back out like we did in the last Gulf War, lest history repeat.

As I understand, the announcement on the aircraft carrier was done as advised by the general. I'm undecided on that front, as indeed, I still look at it as a war today. On the other hand, however, the military is defeated, Saddam is gone, and what we're fighting are those trying to stop the rebuilding. So I can kinda see it both ways. Perhaps not a full-out war per se, but we're still fighting plenty of remnants.

Just thinking out loud there...

I stick to my previous statement though. Iraq is better off. Far from peachy, but would do you really think it was better with Saddam in power over there? At least they have a chance now.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#11New Post! Sep 30, 2004 @ 18:11:34
the dead iraqis have no chance. the dead children. the dead. Their life was aborted by another country. Our country.

Would they want this?

Did we ever even ask?

Is it more important to make our presidents word accurate than to stop the violence WE began? Is this our job?

Did we have a good plan? Bush said " I didn't think the war would end so fast so we didn't adequately prepare."
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835941/
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#12New Post! Sep 30, 2004 @ 19:58:13
Jeoinn, jeoin, jeoin, your a classic victim of liberal brainwashing, but never fear, for James in all his genius is here to save you.

The dead Iraquis had a chance with Saddam? Hmm...how about no?

Aborted...heh heh...I'm not EVEN gonna touch that one, the I am sooo tempted! You're trying to get me in trouble, aren't you?

Violence WE began? See, this is more of that topsy-turvey liberal brainwashing that you're a victim of. Sure, it sounds appalling and highly emotive that big nasty America began this, but here in reality, Saddam started this, and has been for what -- the past two decades or so? My only complaint is that we didn't go into Iraq sooner.

And you know the one question no liberal will answer? It's amazing, no matter how many liberals are asked this, they never answer it, they always just duck it by asking a counter-question to try to change the focus. That question is: Would they be better off under Saddam and his death camps? Maybe we should just let him go, apologize to everybody, and let him resume where he left off.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#13New Post! Oct 01, 2004 @ 00:24:03
Quote:
The dead Iraquis had a chance with Saddam? Hmm...how about no?

Get real here. Your saying they would rather be dead than alive?
must be a right wing moral point. you know what I mean? Abortion is bad but its fine to kill some civilians on accident. Uh. conflict. hello?

Quote:
See, this is more of that topsy-turvey liberal brainwashing that you're a victim of.

perhaps i am brainwashed. I at least watch the news. maybe the republican party is slipping something into my milk. Dude I know your not name calling, but these words leave me wondering.

Quote:
Would they be better off under Saddam and his death camps? Maybe we should just let him go, apologize to everybody, and let him resume where he left off.

Ok i will answer this for you.
lets break this big "they" down. They is mothers, fathers,daughters, sons, etc. now Yes saddam was killing lots of folks in torture camps. All the olympic people. Etc.
The flaw in your argument is that your saying the current dead(only those that died as a consequence of the war)would eventually have been killed by saddam. I guess you must have some stats on the number he killed. Yes he called them rats. Kurds. Well take those numbers and compare them in a statistically equal time period. I.E. if americas solution has been in effect for the same amount of time as saddam then who would have the largest kill number. Of course your going to say that the flaw in my argument is that things will get better. They haven't yet and in fact continue to worsen. Remember there was no insurgency during his reign and kids got fed with out the fear of what occured this morning.(see above article)
Quote:
Would they be better off under Saddam and his death camps? Maybe we should just let him go, apologize to everybody, and let him resume where he left off.

I say yes. they had basic necessities and are human people. They would figure ways out to stay under the radar. I equate this to people who are starving in Sudan. Yes we are now working on this. thank god. However these people are in a simliar situation. they have no options. Now answer this. IF we went in there and removed their "structure" would it help or hurt? If our actions cause an insurgency, shouldn't we be prepared and ready to stop it. When do the childrens lives again become important. Because what is happening as a result of our actions is lots and lots of death.
Quote:
Maybe we should just let him go, apologize to everybody, and let him resume where he left off

That is a silly question. You know it is. What is done is done. You look back at the situation and you determine the cause of the decline. I am sure its not bushes fault. It probably is all Osama Bin Laden. Man it would have been nice to STAY ON TARGET. We may have had him.

Heres some questions for you.
Would you rather have Saddam or Osama?
Should we go in and "help" free Iran?
Would we be able to do it better now.
Do you really thing Saddam was or is a threat?
What about North Korea?
What about Suda?
What about China?
How does the recent events with Russia affect your opinion?
Did you know that our leadership has held high level talks with those chechen rebels?
Last Question: Would america still be okay if the war had never occured, would we be nuked yet or chemically destroyed?

check out this little story about the WOOL BEING PULLED OVER
https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040930/pl_afp/us_iraq_allawi_letter&cid=1521&ncid=1480
lookitsmeholls On March 13, 2005




#14New Post! Oct 01, 2004 @ 06:50:49
So vote Nader. Problem solved. :D

(Note the sardonic tone. I am a Nader supporter but am not implying that he would be able to instantly solve all this nation's problems. So go with the lightheartedness here. This message has been brought to you as a preemptive measure. :wink
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#15New Post! Oct 01, 2004 @ 12:05:32
Nader isn't the man for you. I promise there will be a day when new parties are added. It will take time. so vote Kerry. not really
just vote.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:26
0 358
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:16
0 341
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:39
2 776
New posts   Politics
Thu Nov 02, 2006 @ 19:05
28 1180
New posts   Politics
Tue Jan 17, 2006 @ 10:01
11 477