View Poll Results: Votes?
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
Bush or Kerry?? Political Thread Here. No Flaming Alowed!
03-05-2004, 05:27 PM
#32
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know Bush couldnt have said that but the least he could of done was admit he was wrong. In the case of Saddam admitting it Ill bet you 50 bucks nobody would have believed him, they didnt just before the war so why would they have believed him 6 years ago. As for interests in the reigion, I understand initial investment by the government but if it ends up that in 20 years the oil and other resources is still owned 100 percent by foreign investment then I believe it will appear that Bush was in it for the oil Im afraid.
I agree there is a big riff in between the countries of the UN but they do it to themselves
1.America owes a large debt to the UN and refuses to pay it back yet the United Nations is in New York and the building collects a lot of money from tourists for the state and country'
2.No WMD. The problem is not that there were none (I said it before it is good Saddam is gone) but the problem is now that the countries that refused it can say "I told you so" and a bigger rift is created
3.France lying about why it didnt want to go into Iraq, saying it was for peaceful reasons but they were maintaining and selling tanks to the Iraqis, now this is not bad as America has been selling weapons to enemies for years but the timing was horrible on the French side.
**gets off soapbox**
I agree there is a big riff in between the countries of the UN but they do it to themselves
1.America owes a large debt to the UN and refuses to pay it back yet the United Nations is in New York and the building collects a lot of money from tourists for the state and country'
2.No WMD. The problem is not that there were none (I said it before it is good Saddam is gone) but the problem is now that the countries that refused it can say "I told you so" and a bigger rift is created
3.France lying about why it didnt want to go into Iraq, saying it was for peaceful reasons but they were maintaining and selling tanks to the Iraqis, now this is not bad as America has been selling weapons to enemies for years but the timing was horrible on the French side.
**gets off soapbox**
03-05-2004, 05:34 PM
#33
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
When i said interests it isnt just money its also security. With our presance growing in the mideast we can put more preasure on countires such as syria and lebanon to stop supporting terrorism. The bigger the influence we have over there i believe the more peaceful and prosperous the region will become
03-05-2004, 05:43 PM
#34
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jachin
When i said interests it isnt just money its also security. With our presance growing in the mideast we can put more preasure on countires such as syria and lebanon to stop supporting terrorism. The bigger the influence we have over there i believe the more peaceful and prosperous the region will become
As for terrorism if you truly want to stop it we must not just concentrate on Arab terrorists. What of skinheads, some militias in the states and Street gangs especially the Crips and Bloods, I believe if the American government truly wants to stop terrorism they have to go after these people too
03-05-2004, 05:56 PM
#36
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is a bigger deal but not in the country of America. I think right now its most dangerous to soldiers posted outside of europe and North America as there is almost no sense of authority other than the soldiers and these terrorists are able to blend right back into the civilian population after an attack
03-05-2004, 06:24 PM
#37
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ab,ca
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratmfan2118
Originally Posted by 1992 trofeo
Im not a very bright person, but even I know that bush needs to smarten up, "they misunderestimated me" "do you have blacks there also" atleast your last president could speak...
03-08-2004, 03:58 PM
#39
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Va Beach VA, Where ever I may Roam!
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratmfan2118
I know Bush couldnt have said that but the least he could of done was admit he was wrong. In the case of Saddam admitting it Ill bet you 50 bucks nobody would have believed him, they didnt just before the war so why would they have believed him 6 years ago
2.No WMD. The problem is not that there were none (I said it before it is good Saddam is gone) but the problem is now that the countries that refused it can say "I told you so" and a bigger rift is created
**gets off soapbox**
2.No WMD. The problem is not that there were none (I said it before it is good Saddam is gone) but the problem is now that the countries that refused it can say "I told you so" and a bigger rift is created
**gets off soapbox**
and those where some basic planes that had little value in the overall war,
How deep do you think the WMD is in the ground?
03-08-2004, 06:23 PM
#40
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a tough call about the depth. The problem is Saddam due to constant foreign military presence was never much of a fixed missle guy, he preferred to have mobile launchers that were harder to find and destroy. If there were some underground I dont think they would be that deep cause there is only so far you can go down and still make a lab a viable financial option.