at the time, America supported him because his motives were way different then they are now. Had anyone known what was coming from him, nobody wouldve stopped Russia.Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
at the time, America supported him because his motives were way different then they are now. Had anyone known what was coming from him, nobody wouldve stopped Russia.Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
UCP's NO. 1 Source for Enzo & 69 Camaro pic's
I'm done with this thread, it is way off topic. I'm sorry about the fake email, I got it from a friend yesterday, and honestly did not check it to see if it was really written by him. But it did have some good points.
UCP's NO. 1 Source for Enzo & 69 Camaro pic's
Theres only so much hogswash you can use I guess.
erm, they do.Originally Posted by werty
It's called the UN.
The US ignores it
Germany and France have fought terrorism for decades before GWB woek up America.seems like the only ones are France and Germany...but then again, when they denied help on the war on terrosim they became the "butt of the jokes"
they did NOTHING
I think your confusing BUSH's "war on terrorism" with the necessity to address terrorists all over the world.
They had a stronger belief in due legal process than Blair did. BUT, Blair had to use the whips to ensure he got HIS way, so even his own party were not in agreement over the backing. Dont' take our joining in to mean that the political representatives or the people believed in it.
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
I didnt vote for John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) and certainly didnt want our troops to go to IraqOriginally Posted by Matra et Alpine
Last edited by charged; 10-21-2005 at 06:33 PM.
SA IPRA cars 15, 25, 51 & 77
Sharperto Racing IP Corollas
http://www.sharperto.com.au/
woah woah WOAH stop a minute,Originally Posted by werty
Bin Laden was leading "freedom fighters" to kill Russians and locals supporting Russia by any and all means. His motive ? to free his people.
Bin Laden THEN leads "freedom fighters" and this time happens to kill Americans. His motive ? to free his "people"
How are his motives different ? OTHER than not doign what America wanted ??
Funny last comment coz at the time quite a few were questioning the involvement of special forces to support them and some WERE warning of ulterior motives. There were LOTS of people saying that it should be resolved via the UN and diplomacy.
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
Impeach Bush!
100% OWNED.Originally Posted by werty
"Way off topic" ?? title is "BAD AMERICAN".
Your attitude demonstrated in your posts woudl seem to suggest the discussion was spot on topic for once
But yeah lets drop it as there are already too many points being avoided.
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
Funny, I always thought america was ruined by that guy who incurred several billions dollars of debt, sent thousands of americans to their deaths, changed his justification for a war AFTER he invaded and found no WMD's, takes month long vacations during one of the most destructive storms in American history, has a terrible approval rating, can't speak coherently except in a scripted speech, made an act which has left many, many children behind, found out he could no longer pay for social security, lowered the rest of the worlds 5.5 billion peoples' opinion of America, fixed his first election by having his brother count only the 'good' votes, and sold out the American people to his VPs company. What was his name again?Originally Posted by QuattroMan
No I guess you're right, the problem with this country is that liberal rubbish.
apparently, I'm a bad American because I don't like Cheesecake
pondering things
Bush didn't "change" his justification for war. If you go back and watch video, Bush mentioned Iraq's threat to its neighbors more often than WMD.Originally Posted by Bob
A President really is never "on vacation." They are always working.
Lol. Bush's brother recused himself during the entire recount. Bush's brother did not count one single vote! Lol.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
That's revisionist. You KNOW at the time the BIG EMPHASIS was on the so-called ability to strike with WMD in 30 minutes. It's all in the UK Hansard reports if you cant' find any sources !!Originally Posted by Fleet 500
Yeah, it's silly.A President really is never "on vacation." They are always working.
Measure a person by their RESULTS, not by how much time they spend in the office or on vacation.
The answer to THAT speaks for itself.
Silly comment. You KNOW what was meant. Trying to make the comment sound silly by twisting it is LYING, Fleet. We've given you the dictionary references for LIE. You know the coat fits ... wear itLol. Bush's brother recused himself during the entire recount. Bush's brother did not count one single vote! Lol.
BTW see the Presidents PR person - undersecretary for public diplomacy ( 1984 double-speak? ) - is in hot water having TWICE said Saddam had gassed 300,000 and when questioned about that statement said it was at least over 200,000 and that the mass graves existed. Those are the lies that are spread by idiots. But I'll give Fox it's dues, they DID report it was only () 5,000 that were gassed. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173084,00.html
When a person at that level gets it wrong to that level AND repeats it then it does NOT bode well for what's going on in that circle
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
re the 'plans' previosuly proposed to say that the US should have killed Bin Laden adn Saddam years ago.
Strange that NOW the Bush adminstratino does NOT support assissination.
Or maybe it's one rule for them and a different rule for us
" President Bush on Friday said the U.N. should deal quickly and seriously with a report implicating Syria in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, " PS: I'm giving the FOX angle on it again ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173043,00.html
Wonder what will happen if someone asks the UN to deal quickly and seriously with someone misleading the world to war ??
Does this alter the opinion of those who would call for the US/UK et al to assissinate other leaders of nations or "freedom fighters" ????
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
Back to the "L" word again? Don't you realize when the best you can do is call the other person a liar, it weakens your argument?Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
There was not one Democrat (or anyone else) who criticized Bush's brother regarding the 2000 election because he had no part of it.
There you go again... being more tolerant of Saddam than Bush!
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
maybe its because bush is the one who started a war while saddam was accused of maybe having the ability to.Originally Posted by Fleet 500
You can call me scott.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)