LeonardMart Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 ONLY 1 MORE YEAR!!!!!!!sorry that i missed something but what will happen in one year? :-k will bush's presidency expire? Click my main sig to see my fakes :D Proud to be Mexican, yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destro3979 Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 ONLY 1 MORE YEAR!!!!!!!sorry that i missed something but what will happen in one year? :-k will bush's presidency expire? yes elections are in 2008 and i can vote then too my birthday is in the same month! New Sig Coming soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonardMart Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 YAY bush will be sent to hell YAY! by the way destro i suppose you will vote for the socialist party? (if the candidate isnt a jerk :P ) Click my main sig to see my fakes :D Proud to be Mexican, yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Terrorists are the new communists. dont talk rubbish man. terrorism is VERY different from communism They're both alike in that politicians use their associated fears to further their own agenda. How can you not see parallels between the red scare and now? Obviously both are entirely different labels, but most Americans only know them as the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_hobbit22 Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 you want stop them and never will.. the fact you think war is over terorism shows you how good propoganda is these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I find it very hard to believe 9/11 was organised by the Bush Administration in some vast conspiricy, but I think that 9/11 was simply a dream come true for the American government and the perfect excuse to invade Iraq. What I do believe is that the whole WOMD thing was invented by the Administration in order to further the public's want for revenge and invasion. ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'd say just dust the country, but that would create enormous problems with other countries... Glad I'm not the president of the U.S. right now Vienna Raszyn Warsaw Klushino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Above all else, he was only in power for nine months when it happened. It would need more time to organise than that. Firstly, the word 'Terrorism' is often confused with 'Islamic Radicalism'. The two are completely different things, but seem to have gotten confused together. The fact is, terrorism was happening WAY before 9/11. The IRA, for example. Secondly, the concept of a 'War of Terror' is idiotic. It's an ideology, and as proven in the Cold War, you can't crush an ideology. The reason is because it's not a physical substance - it's a mindset. In fact, the more you attack something, the more people become sympathetic of whatever it is you're trying to attack, so in essence you actually fuel the ideology, and not destroy it. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 9/11 was ordered by the american government if you ask me. It was in their interest, war was always used as a method of keeping the people affraid and voting for those who will "protect" them, and that's Bush. Just when they needed a war, an excuse for making one appears just by magic. Heh. So war on terrorism, is just going to make the terrorists unhappy and REALLY wanting to attack the USA, aswell as a way to keep control over the population. Not to mention all the innocent people of that were killed, and I'm not talking about american soliders, they're the ones doing the killing. This war is filth, people should know better than to meddle with things that do not concern them. Leave this thread and never return. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbellz Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 It sucks. We've almost lost 4,000 soldiers thanks to the war. I don't believe President Bush should have gone in there in the first place. If we back out now, we would basically ask the terrorists to kill Iraqies, and Iranies (no idea how to say it, so bear with me). I want to get us out of the war, as before the end of March next year. We need to help ourselves, as a nation, than others. No offense, but we need to help the ghetto cities, abolish poverty, and create jobs before we help a different country. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Of course, but it's the reality. I don't think he's saying we should go and do it, btw. Oh I know, I was being sarcastic (hard to tell I guess). I agree with Assassin, but I think the problem starts on the home front. I mean, G Bush believes himself that he's president because of some divine providence. That can be just as dangerous as the extremist wackos in the middle east imo. And herein lies the problem. Essentially I believe that the American war machine is in a roundabout way on the side of the 'good guys' but we can't really be sure who to trust when the leaders on both sides claim divine instruction. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 9/11 was ordered by the american government if you ask me. It was in their interest, war was always used as a method of keeping the people affraid and voting for those who will "protect" them, and that's Bush. Just when they needed a war, an excuse for making one appears just by magic. Heh. So war on terrorism, is just going to make the terrorists unhappy and REALLY wanting to attack the USA, aswell as a way to keep control over the population. Not to mention all the innocent people of that were killed, and I'm not talking about american soliders, they're the ones doing the killing. This war is filth, people should know better than to meddle with things that do not concern them. You Sir, are an idiot. Not one thing you even said was backed up with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somnambulism Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 but we can't really be sure who to trust when the leaders on both sides claim divine instruction. Surely that just means trust neither. I do not love thee, Dr. Fell,The reason why I cannot tell;But this I know, and know full well,I do not love thee, Dr. Fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 but we can't really be sure who to trust when the leaders on both sides claim divine instruction. Surely that just means trust neither. True. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "Noone died when Clinton lied" I love that sweet little badge, it's on my uni bag :P The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "Noone died when Clinton lied" No, but they are alike in that they're both in a sticky situation. Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "Noone died when Clinton lied" No, but they are alike in that they're both in a sticky situation. I'll criticise Bush all I want, but I have to accept he was given an incredibly difficult situation. However, out of all the options that were presented to him, starting a War on Terror and not clarrifying it between that and a War on Islamic Extremism was probably the worst pathway he could have took. As it happens, his actions have probably created more terrorists than disposed of, through alienation of a few young Muslims in the Middle-East. That is the problem I have with George Bush's foreign policy. Not only is it fairly brutal, it's also self-defeating, and thus unneccesary. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 The war on terror makes no sense. Whoever thought to call it that is just as stupid as the people who think it can be won. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vilageidiotx Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "Noone died when Clinton lied" No, but they are alike in that they're both in a sticky situation. I'll criticise Bush all I want, but I have to accept he was given an incredibly difficult situation. However, out of all the options that were presented to him, starting a War on Terror and not clarrifying it between that and a War on Islamic Extremism was probably the worst pathway he could have took. As it happens, his actions have probably created more terrorists than disposed of, through alienation of a few young Muslims in the Middle-East. That is the problem I have with George Bush's foreign policy. Not only is it fairly brutal, it's also self-defeating, and thus unneccesary. Not only was it difficult, but if my memory serves me correct, he was in charge of an extremly angered, if not blood thirsty, nation. Im not critizising america when i say that, because i was among the blood thirsty, but it was all understandable considering the circumstances. Still, like i said earlier, i think we should have pulled out of the mid east and wiped our hands of the issue instead of war. Some people are like slinkies, normally they are dull, but they always give you a smile when you push them down a flight of stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Say Whatever you like about President Bush. Everyone know that his foreign policies are a mess, and the U.S. is the new laughing-stock of the world. I agree. But in my opinion, the War on Terror is needed. Why? If we turn back the clock to one date... 9/11. On that day, the U.S. was attacked. We retaliated. Look even further back. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We retaliated. Whenever we get blindsided by a country, we retaliate. It's not just because of oil (however I'm sure it has something to do with it). I think that the reason why we have done so bad in the Middle East is because of 2 reasons: 1) Bad Leadership - During WWII, we had some of the best leadership in history (worldwide). Currently, all we have a lame duck president (Bush) and a soon to be ex-prime minister (Blair) trying to bring some order to the chaos 2) Lack of Knowledge of the Culture - We (the modern Western World) have no idea of what their culture is like. Things in the Middle East are not the same as our part of the world. The Western World continues to try to mold the Middle East and other areas of the world into perfect examples of Western society. What if they don't want that!?!? Exactly. In saying this, I have no idea what we can do to prevent more destruction. Maybe we should raise someone (say...Winston Churchill) up from the dead and see what he has to say... (that would be pretty cool) Last.Fm My Bloggy Proud to have served on Tip.it Crew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Churchill hardly mastered the art of diplomacy, he just a very good war time prime minister. We don't need a good war time leader, we need a diplomat. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Churchill hardly mastered the art of diplomacy, he just a very good war time prime minister. We don't need a good war time leader, we need a diplomat. A diplomat in the U.S. is understandable. A diplomat on the other side of the fence, where diplomacy seems non-existant and religous ideologies run governments, however. Bah. If only they wanted peace and the war to stop. You can overthrow the old government and insert democracy but I'd say we've not even made the first dent when it comes to overthrowing the ideology. I'd be much happier if someone could enlighten me of a muslim diplomat from the middle-east who's willing to negociate with the western, christian world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill_Thomas9 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 My opinion? Well... I dont much like war... I dont much like terrorism... But stick an "on" between them, and I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 But in my opinion, the War on Terror is needed. Why? If we turn back the clock to one date... 9/11. On that day, the U.S. was attacked. We retaliated. Look even further back. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We retaliated. Whenever we get blindsided by a country, we retaliate. I fail to see your point. Remeber how we defeated Japan? That's right, dropped a nuclear bomb on them. So you're saying that in retaliating to terrorists, we are following a predestined path set for America and that the end result should be nuclear as well? You know there's no way in hell that will ever work. Due to extremely stupid blunders in the Bush administration no one has a clue where Bin Laden is, the entire continent of Asia would have to be blown up and that would be apocalyptic. Assuming that you know this, what exactly was your point? Just because we were attacked and have retaliated in the past, we should have a War on Terror? sounds like a stupid reason to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonic_Bunny Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Terrorism is an excuse used by a vast majority of Governments in order to take awy citizens remaining civil liberties. Think McCarthyism, but "Ragheads under the Bed." :lol: Communism is not fit for humans. We are not good enough for it. Tip.It is officially Red. o.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now