" I dont agree "


Recommended Posts

Copy & Paste Method

> Estimates now 128,000 people dead due to Bush and Blair, and maybe more >

I guess its bush and blair's fault, for setting up road bombs and cutting people heads off right. :rolleyes:

I dont support governements and all that bs, and its true , that everything bad that happens is man's fault, but i dont understand why people blame bush and blair. All because someone starts a war, does not mean people actually have to go to war and fight.

Thats like saying, someone goes outside and pull a drive by on someone and then they point the finger at the gun shops or something along the lines of all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree either. Using the gun shop analogy, if the gun store owner gives them guns and TELLS them to do the drive by, it IS his fault...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get blamed because they started a war under false pretences, saying that there were WMD's (which still havent been found). Basically it was an excuse to overthrow Saddam Hussain and generally appear to save the day. To be honest the sooner the likes of Bush and Blair are gone, the sooner the world can get back on the rails again in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get blamed because they started a war under false pretences, saying that there were WMD's (which still havent been found). Basically it was an excuse to overthrow Saddam Hussain and generally appear to save the day. To be honest the sooner the likes of Bush and Blair are gone, the sooner the world can get back on the rails again in my opinion.

586398596[/snapback]

They get blamed because the world is better friends with Saddam than Bush. If there were WMDs, we'd never find them, thanks to the months we gave Saddam to get rid or destroy such weapons. While I don't like Bush, the world is going to get back on its rails under who? If everyone else had their way, that would be Saddam, Putin, and Chirac. Not much better, and in fact probably much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we were really on track before W's first term weren't we?

WASHINGTON ? The State Department warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Usama bin Laden's (search) move to Afghanistan would give him more fertile ground to spread radical Islam, according to newly declassified documents.

The documents, released by the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch on Wednesday, say that bin Laden would feel comfortable moving from Sudan to Afghanistan, which "has become an even more desirable location for extremists. Afghanistan may be an ideal haven as long as bin Laden can continue to run his businesses and financial networks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html

The documents that were ignored back when we weron tracki>:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/Usama.pdf

Isn't it nice how out of a speech that focused on humans rights violations, mass exterminations of thousands of people, scores of UN violations, that all anyone recalls is three letters? WMD

Thank God the first settlers in America weren't this impatient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

way to go on starting a future flame-filled thread :)

586399060[/snapback]

Nah its cool, if i can talk about this subject in a mature matter, so can other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest the sooner the likes of Bush and Blair are gone, the sooner the world can get back on the rails again in my opinion.

586398596[/snapback]

How do you explain all the past wars? Was it bush and blair's fault too?

And who is this WE? Are you only concern about yourself and this land and not all the other people on this earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt have a problem with afghan war but I do have a problem with Iraqi war.

1. It was based on lies...WMD, nuclear material and what not

2. International community and UN were alienated

Clinton was targetted by right for lieing about his affair, so why shouldnt bush be criticised for lieing to entire world?

Yeah we were really on track before W's first term weren't we?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html

The documents that were ignored back when we were on track:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/Usama.pdf

Isn't it nice how out of a speech that focused on humans rights violations, mass exterminations of thousands of people, scores of UN violations, that all anyone recalls is three letters?  WMD

Thank God the first settlers in America weren't this impatient.

586398928[/snapback]

The articles speak about bin laden...any relavance to iraqi war? I hope you are still not disillusioned about the link between osama and iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt have a problem with afghan war but I do have a problem with Iraqi war.

1. It was based on lies...WMD, nuclear material and what not

2. International community and UN were alienated

Clinton was targetted by right for lieing about his affair, so why shouldnt bush be criticised for lieing to entire world?

The articles speak about bin laden...any relavance to iraqi war? I hope you are still not disillusioned about the link between osama and iraq.

586399289[/snapback]

ziadoz stated the need of 'getting back on the rails'. I pointed to the fact that we weren't on track before W took office. The Clinton Administration ignored their own state departments warnings about bin laden. I made no mention or hint of a comment about Iraq.

To be honest the sooner the likes of Bush and Blair are gone, the sooner the world can get back on the rails again in my opinion.

586398596[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt have a problem with afghan war but I do have a problem with Iraqi war.

1. It was based on lies...WMD, nuclear material and what not

2. International community and UN were alienated

Clinton was targetted by right for lieing about his affair, so why shouldnt bush be criticised for lieing to entire world?

The articles speak about bin laden...any relavance to iraqi war? I hope you are still not disillusioned about the link between osama and iraq.

586399289[/snapback]

1. Fair enough about the WMDs because we'll never know, but nukes? Sorry, on that front Bush's objective was to prevent Saddam from getting nukes, not that he already had him.

2 International what? I'm sorry did I hear you say community? What "community" is this? Besides the fact that this International Community usually only breaks down into Western Europe and Canada...what if they were alienated? They alienate countries like the U.S. and Israel all the time? So I see, when you side with Saddam and Chirac you're part of an "International Community" and when you side with the United States you're a warmongerer, gotcha. So its good that Western Europe picks Saddam over the United States, but its bad that Eastern Europe picks us over Saddam. Some friends we have. And you know what? Bush actually did go to the UN. I read resolution 1441, and I wonder why nobody did take action. So Bush wants to put a UN resolution to the table to authorize use of force, except France spells out that it won't accept any resolution before it goes to the table. What is it now? Now who's doing the alienation? Hey I don't care if you let your country sign itself off as a pawn of the UN, but I sure don't want mine to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ziadoz stated the need of 'getting back on the rails'.  I pointed to the fact that we weren't on track before W took office.  The Clinton Administration ignored their own state departments warnings about bin laden.  I made no mention or hint of a comment about Iraq.

586399350[/snapback]

just for your information, so did the bush admin before 9/11 and they made an even less of an effort than clinton did to stop bin laden. so really, we arent on track now either. we need to get on track and that will happen in what 3 years or so unless we get another fool in the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we were really on track before W's first term weren't we?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html

The documents that were ignored back when we were on track:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/Usama.pdf

586398928[/snapback]

(1) There's already a thread on this where all that 'Clinton was weak on terrorism' nonsense is refuted.

(2) What else, exactly, did you want Clinton to do? He asked for more terrorism funding (the Republicans in Congress denied the request), he authorised the CIA to assassinate bin Laden (guess they didn't get him), he asked the Saudis to hold him before your 'documents' were even written (they wouldn't do it).

I guess what he could have done, if he wanted to be really tough on bin Laden, was spend 2 or 3 years and a few-hundred-billion dollars fighting insurgents in some totally random country. That'll show 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had no intentions of stopping Bin Laden and still don't. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. They ignored him all this time when he was in Afghanistan and now they think he is in Saudi Arabia but we are in Iraq. Saddam is a scape goat and the oil in Iraq is just some incentive. I cannot see why no one realizes Bush isn't looking for Bin Laden. They (Mainstream Media) have to throw some UBL in there somewhere just for good measure. But in actuallity, Bush doesn't care about UBL. The police state has started and will only get worse. If they make the rules, who says they can't break em? Read the Patriot act if you don't believe me. Americans have no rights, we just don't know it yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the Patriot act if you don't believe me. Americans have no rights, we just don't know it yet...

586401333[/snapback]

Could you please point me toward that provision in the Patriot Act? I must of missed it when I was forced by work to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have time right now but here is a quick link as to what it threatens...

http://www.arlingtonujp.org/clib/USA_PATRIOT_Act_fact_sheet%20UJP.html

I am not trying to force my beliefs on you or anything, but I suggest you go over it again. Either you can't read or the big words confused you. No disrespect or anything. When I find more links, I will share them with you...

Here are some more links. More will be added once I find them...

http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/080305_cvr_onenation.php

http://www.westerncourier.com/media/paper650/news/2003/04/18/Opinion/Patriot.Act.Takes.Away.Important.Privacy.Rights-445118.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1481-2003Apr9

Bottom line is, I am moving to another country. This government is going to stage attack after attack until we submit.

Edited by C-Squarez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yea, remember those "conspiracy nuts" years ago that told about a Human ID Chip?

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55999,00.html

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1114279610

This next one is a christian site but it has links to the ID Chip...

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Chip_Implants/

I am 20 years old and I heard about this chip when I was in the 6-7th grade. Still think they are nuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have time right now but here is a quick link as to what it threatens...

http://www.arlingtonujp.org/clib/USA_PATRIOT_Act_fact_sheet%20UJP.html

I am not trying to force my beliefs on you or anything, but I suggest you go over it again. Either you can't read or the big words confused you. No disrespect or anything. When I find more links, I will share them with you...

Here are some more links. More will be added once I find them...

http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/080305_cvr_onenation.php

http://www.westerncourier.com/media/paper650/news/2003/04/18/Opinion/Patriot.Act.Takes.Away.Important.Privacy.Rights-445118.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1481-2003Apr9

Bottom line is, I am moving to another country. This government is going to stage attack after attack until we submit.

586401622[/snapback]

I have read your articles. Most of them are refering to the Patriot Act II, which in all honesty I did not read. I have read the original Patriot Act, because of it's impact on the Banking and Finance industry which up until May of this year I work for.

I was required to know the Patriot Act as a part of my BSA (Bank Secercy Act) training, because certain measures in the Patriot Act were geared toward tracking the money that funds terrorism in the US.

A few notes however, your Washington Post link simply did not work for me (could just be me), your first link is from an organization based on repealling the Patriot Act (one would hope we could get something a little less biased), and your link to Western Courier Article is an opinion piece.

You'll forgive me for not accepting this as factual evidence that the Patriot Act has taken away all my rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain all the past wars? Was it bush and blair's fault too?

And who is this WE? Are you only concern about yourself and this land and not all the other people on this earth?

586399127[/snapback]

There will always be wars, but thats not what my statement about getting on the rails was about. Its about the abuse of the power of the war, and supposedly resulting terror acts (on London), and how they've been used to scrub out more civil liberties. Blair and co have really screwed over Britain the whole time they've been in power, and we've got 5 more years thanks to the idiots who believe what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read your articles. Most of them are refering to the Patriot Act II, which in all honesty I did not read. I have read the original Patriot Act, because of it's impact on the Banking and Finance industry which up until May of this year I work for.

I was required to know the Patriot Act as a part of my BSA (Bank Secercy Act) training, because certain measures in the Patriot Act were geared toward tracking the money that funds terrorism in the US.

A few notes however, your Washington Post link simply did not work for me (could just be me), your first link is from an organization based on repealling the Patriot Act (one would hope we could get something a little less biased), and your link to Western Courier Article is an opinion piece.

You'll forgive me for not accepting this as factual evidence that the Patriot Act has taken away all my rights.

586401731[/snapback]

I am biased against the patriot act myself and so are you. It is hard to read anything and not feel one way or another about it. So people that realize what the patriot act actually is will seem biased because they are against it. As I said, I don't really have time right now as I am working on my new computer as we speak. When I can find more factual evidence, like direct quotes from the patriot act, I will post them. Thanks for reading the articles though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.