Nobody cares.

Nobody cares at all.

Look, I'm a Democrat, and I'm proud of it as well. My opinion is that Bush is doing a very poor job in Iraq. The whole reason he started this war was because he said there were WMD's in Iraq, and even when it was announced there were none, to keep the war going, he said it was because they could make them. So could North Korea, but did he attack them, no. Look Republicans, you know it's about the oil. Stop covering for your crappy government party.

At 3/7/05 04:54 PM, protomanx1 wrote: Look, I'm a Democrat, and I'm proud of it as well. My opinion is that Bush is doing a very poor job in Iraq. The whole reason he started this war was because he said there were WMD's in Iraq, and even when it was announced there were none, to keep the war going, he said it was because they could make them. So could North Korea, but did he attack them, no. Look Republicans, you know it's about the oil. Stop covering for your crappy government party.

1) The whole world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's... not just the United States. There was documented proof that he had weapons of mass destruction during operation Desert Storm. The two powers "opposing" America entering Iraq were France and Germany; both are influencial nations in the European Union and that NEVER liked America. Their government's hatred for us has little to do with our invasion of Iraq.

2) I guess you would be happy if we invaded North Korea, too. Is that what you suggest? There are many countries threatening to use nuclear/biological weapons on us; most are Islamic. They hate us because we stand with Israel in their struggle to exist, but if we expect to rid the world of terror (which I personally believe is impossible), then America has to start somewhere. Iraq seemed like an immediate threat, at the time.

3) The reason we rely so heavily on Middle Eastern oil is because of liberal environmentalists. They refuse to let us use fossil fuels provided by our OWN land, so we are forced to look elsewhere; this seems like a "no-win situation" to me. I don't believe that oil was a major reason to invade Iraq, but it certainly is motivation.

I agreed with Bush when he invaded Iraq, but I don't think it is right that we are STILL there. We can't actually attempt to democratize the Middle East because they want to separate themselves from the rest of the world. They see Western society as corrupt, and they hate the fact that we have many Christians here supporting the Jews. If you'd look into the ways they treat us (Jews and Christians) in those countries, then I'm sure you'd understand what I mean. But it really gets me; everytime you see a democratic politician with a smile on his face, you can bet your bottom dollar that something terrible has happened to our troops in Iraq. Unfortunately, their concern is not for American soldiers overseas... it is for the advancement of their own poltical agenda. v_v

At 3/6/05 07:54 PM, Rancorman wrote: You must not go to the General forums much.

I try to avoid them.

At 3/6/05 07:31 PM, Chris1985 wrote: Can anyone tell me their proof the war was for oil. How about enforcing the treaties of the U.N.? The U.N. had 16 resolutions against Iraq. Can a liberal tell me why it is ok not to enforce them. Why is it ok to ignore treaties? What is the point of having treaties if they are not enforced? Ill tell you why its not okay, the world didnt enforce WWI treaties against Germany that limited military production, and look what happened. So tell me why its ok to let countries violate treaties.

ok mr double standard. Republicans can just bypass the UN and start a war ( no security council passed a resolution to go to war). but its the liberals fault that they didnt enforce treaties or something. HELLO ARE YOU THERE??????????? REPUBLICANS CONTROL ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. how is a liberal gonna do anything but talk?

At 3/6/05 11:15 AM, Nomader wrote: Ill tell ya Im a republican and im proud of it. i might only be a teen but i think president bush is doing the right things in Iraq, and all that other stuff. ya me too

go republicans

Im a republican but i voted for Kerry.

What is this, an RA (Republicans Anonymous) meeting?

"Hello, my name is Nomader and I... am a Republican."

Crowd responds: "Hello Nomader."

At 3/8/05 11:43 PM, dart336 wrote: go republicans

Die.

At 3/6/05 11:15 AM, Nomader wrote: Ill tell ya Im a republican and im proud of it. i might only be a teen but i think president bush is doing the right things in Iraq, and all that other stuff.

Well then you obviosly don't pay attention to whats going on in the world. The world has a certain hatred for us BECAUSE of Bush's unwarrented acts of "terrorisim".
He says he's fighting terror... Ummm.... Looks like he's part of the problem, why don't you wipe the fog from your eyes and come back to reality, Bush is a lying, murdering son of a bitch and anyone who supports him in my opinion is an accomplice to all the atrocities that he and his administration have done.

At 3/6/05 04:54 PM, Maciej_Leczowski wrote: Sure be proud of being a republican. Be proud of you f*cking republican president Bush. I'm not an america and I'm happy of that. Be pround of america were people die every day, were people are getting more stupid than in any other country in the world. Be proud! God bless america!!

Sad but true, people in this country are such dumb asses. I do love the idea of freedom and justice but what the retards in this country are doing now is beyond me.
Its sad for those of us who live in this country and have to suffer everyday. Sorry rest of the world, we would help if we could but the morons have us outnumbered...

At 3/7/05 05:23 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: 1) The whole world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's... not just the United States. There was documented proof that he had weapons of mass destruction during operation Desert Storm. The two powers "opposing" America entering Iraq were France and Germany; both are influencial nations in the European Union and that NEVER liked America. Their government's hatred for us has little to do with our invasion of Iraq.

NEVER liked us? I'm sure that France NEVER liked us as we were driving the german forces back out of their country in WWII and I'm just as positive they NEVER liked the US as they gave us the necissary support to win the revolutionary war. You can't go through life and just completely ignore those that don't like you cause like it or not, sometimes they will be right and you will be wrong.

2) I guess you would be happy if we invaded North Korea, too. Is that what you suggest? There are many countries threatening to use nuclear/biological weapons on us; most are Islamic. They hate us because we stand with Israel in their struggle to exist, but if we expect to rid the world of terror (which I personally believe is impossible), then America has to start somewhere. Iraq seemed like an immediate threat, at the time.

Terrorism comes from alot more than the islamic nations being pissed off that we help out israel. Let me just say Afgani-Soviet War! Learn the facts and it should be pretty obvious how we really did fuck that one up. As for North Korea, if you are going to be pushing around those that threaten the US... try actually pushing around someone that is a threat. If you really wanted to make an impact in the islamic world, we would have done more in afganistan.

3) The reason we rely so heavily on Middle Eastern oil is because of liberal environmentalists.

Oh god not this again T_T

:They refuse to let us use fossil fuels provided by our OWN land, so we are forced to look elsewhere; this seems like a "no-win situation" to me. I don't believe that oil was a major reason to invade Iraq, but it certainly is motivation.

If America were to rely soley on our own oil supplies, we would be completely out of oil in less than a decade. Does that sound like a better solution to you?

I agreed with Bush when he invaded Iraq, but I don't think it is right that we are STILL there.

Actually I would say the exact opposite. It was a stupid idea to go there in the first place but now that we are there, leaving would only cause more problems. As fucked up as things were with Saddam, they were also stable. Now that we have removed the keystone in their system, we need to be the ones to hold the nation together or else it will fall into civil war which will undoubtely lead to another generation of american hating terrorists.

We can't actually attempt to democratize the Middle East because they want to separate themselves from the rest of the world. They see Western society as corrupt, and they hate the fact that we have many Christians here supporting the Jews. If you'd look into the ways they treat us (Jews and Christians) in those countries, then I'm sure you'd understand what I mean. But it really gets me; everytime you see a democratic politician with a smile on his face, you can bet your bottom dollar that something terrible has happened to our troops in Iraq.

I'm not sure if I should be confused or enraged so I'll leave it as "No comment"

Unfortunately, their concern is not for American soldiers overseas... it is for the advancement of their own poltical agenda. v_v

Agreed (although I'm not to sure if this is what you were saying but) both parties are guilty of it and our soldiers are paying the price.

Lolols. This is fun.

Hi, my name is FAB0L0US, but my boys call me FABIE poo. I like long walks on the beach, playing with rocks, eating spaghetti. And I am also a lifelong Fascist.

FASCISM RULES. SUCK NUT to all you who disagree.

Now I want everyone whos fascist to stand up proud with me and do a few Heil Fascism salutes.

At 3/9/05 05:01 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 3/7/05 05:23 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: The two powers "opposing" America entering Iraq were France and Germany; both are influencial nations in the European Union and that NEVER liked America.

NEVER liked us?

You forgot the Statue of Liberty. They hated us so bad, they gave it to us.

I remember the petition to send it back.

You apparently didn't read any of my post. Or you would know that it was specifically to refute the claim that Democrat always meant against the war. And please, don't be so egotistical, I'm not here to "prove" you wrong. It really doesn't matter to me what your specific opinions about Iraq are. And if you want everyone to include proof so bad, you could start by providing some proof yourself.

One thing I do agree with you on, Bush certainly is screwing around in Iraq. If he had a bit of intelligence, he'd do a strike on Afghanistan, and he'd have just bombed them to the ground. Take care of those warlords, and the entire damn misinformed population. Then maybe we could nuke iran, and then iraq, then north korea, and then Pakistan if we're in a good mood. Oh yah, I'm sure the rest of the world would like that. The U.S. would be toast as soon as it started bombing the countries on the U.N. Or on the other side, we could just sit back, do nothing, wait for them to get their hands on some nukes, and get bombed to death there. Hell, we're probably still going to get bombed to death now anyway, Iran is getting a nuke right now. Who're we kidding, no matter what we do, we get nuked. But at least if we go in there and smack them up a good bit, we get a good bit of satisfaction before we sizzle away in crispy ashes, yes, the victims will literally be vaporized before they know what the hell is going on, but at least we stopped some of those those damn suspected terrorists with suspected relations to Al-Qaida and other suspected Terrorist organizations!

I agree with you on your last point. I also wasn't asking people to provide it, I was saying that I could provide it if people were so damn eager to know. I am sorry that I seemed like I was being an ass (no pun intended). I don't think that we're gonna get nuked, but if Iran gets that nuke, just as a caution measure, I'm moving up to Canada. lol, Bush is seriously gonna get us blown up.

At 3/9/05 05:18 PM, Maus wrote: You forgot the Statue of Liberty. They hated us so bad, they gave it to us.

I remember the petition to send it back.

Those were sent by Freemasons in France to Freemasons in the United States (probably to assist the masonic movement in North America). This had nothing to do with liking or disliking Americans; it was done for 'religious', not 'political' reasons.

At 3/9/05 06:00 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Those were sent by Freemasons in France to Freemasons in the United States (probably to assist the masonic movement in North America). This had nothing to do with liking or disliking Americans; it was done for 'religious', not 'political' reasons.

America probably could not have won its freedom from the British during the American Revolution without the help of the French. France provided arms, ships, money, and men to the American colonies. Some Frenchmen - most notably the Marquis de Lafayette, a close friend of George Washington - even became high-ranking officers in the American army. It was an alliance of respect and friendship the French would not forget.

Almost 100 years later, in 1865, according to Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, a successful 31-year-old sculptor, several French intellectuals opposed to the oppressive regime of Napoleon III were at a small dinner party discussing their admiration for America's success in establishing a democratic government and abolishing slavery at the end of the Civil War. The dinner was hosted by Edouard Rene Lefebvre de Laboulaye. Laboulaye was a scholar, jurist, abolitionist and a leader of the "liberals," the political group dedicated to establishing a French republican government modeled on America's constitution.

During the evening, talk turned to the close historic ties and love of liberty the two nations shared. Laboulaye noted there was "a genuine flow of sympathy" between the two nations, and called France and America "the two sisters."

As he continued speaking, reflecting on the centennial of American independence only 11 years in the future, Laboulaye commented, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if people in France gave the United States a great monument as a lasting memorial to independence and thereby showed that the French government was also dedicated to the idea of human liberty?"

Laboulaye's casual question struck a responsive chord in Bartholdi. Years later, recalling the dinner, Bartholdi wrote that Laboulaye's idea "interested me so deeply that it remained fixed in my memory."

So was sown the seed of inspiration that would become the Statue of Liberty.

Ya, the French were a vital part of out victory against Britain, though the Quasi war(late 1790ish) kinda jarred their relations with each other.

I've always seen Britain as our closest ally, though. After the war of 1812, anyway.

At 3/9/05 05:01 PM, jmaster306 wrote: NEVER liked us? I'm sure that France NEVER liked us as we were driving the german forces back out of their country in WWII and I'm just as positive they NEVER liked the US as they gave us the necissary support to win the revolutionary war. You can't go through life and just completely ignore those that don't like you cause like it or not, sometimes they will be right and you will be wrong.

The French "used" us to fight for them in Europe; this doesn't mean that they like us, does it? They may like the fact that we saved their country from the Nazis, but that does NOT mean that they are happy about our global influence. They generally despise us, and you know it; their prejudice certainly didn't start with Iraq.

Terrorism comes from alot more than the islamic nations being pissed off that we help out israel. Let me just say Afgani-Soviet War! Learn the facts and it should be pretty obvious how we really did fuck that one up. As for North Korea, if you are going to be pushing around those that threaten the US... try actually pushing around someone that is a threat. If you really wanted to make an impact in the islamic world, we would have done more in afganistan.

I never said that all terror stems from hatred toward Israel. Don't put words in my mouth, dude. I said that the main reason Islamic nations hate the U.S. is because of our support for Israel. I didn't say it was the reason for ALL terrorism.

Oh god not this again T_T

Hey, it's the truth. Liberals complain that the reason for the war in Iraq is free access to oil; yet the same people are the folks that prevent us from drilling in our own country.

If America were to rely soley on our own oil supplies, we would be completely out of oil in less than a decade. Does that sound like a better solution to you?

My point is that we rely too heavily on foreign oil. You don't see this as a problem?

I agreed with Bush when he invaded Iraq, but I don't think it is right that we are STILL there.

Actually I would say the exact opposite. It was a stupid idea to go there in the first place but now that we are there, leaving would only cause more problems. As fucked up as things were with Saddam, they were also stable. Now that we have removed the keystone in their system, we need to be the ones to hold the nation together or else it will fall into civil war which will undoubtely lead to another generation of american hating terrorists.

I think we should let them decide things on their own. I don't believe it's our job to modernize OR democratize the world.

I'm not sure if I should be confused or enraged so I'll leave it as "No comment"

Oh brother... <_<

Agreed (although I'm not to sure if this is what you were saying but) both parties are guilty of it and our soldiers are paying the price.

Indeed, you are right. Both are guilty parties (pun intended).

At 3/9/05 06:12 PM, Maus wrote: sorry, it exceeds the word limit...

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/statue_of_liberty.html
http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma1.htm
http://www.freemasonrytoday.co.uk/issue19-news.shtml

At 3/9/05 07:52 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: The French "used" us to fight for them in Europe; this doesn't mean that they like us, does it? They may like the fact that we saved their country from the Nazis, but that does NOT mean that they are happy about our global influence. They generally despise us, and you know it; their prejudice certainly didn't start with Iraq.

Hence my last line of "You can't go through life and just completely ignore those that don't like you cause like it or not, sometimes they will be right and you will be wrong."

Oh god not this again T_T

Hey, it's the truth. Liberals complain that the reason for the war in Iraq is free access to oil; yet the same people are the folks that prevent us from drilling in our own country.

Yes I know that but that wasn't my point it was.....

If America were to rely soley on our own oil supplies, we would be completely out of oil in less than a decade. Does that sound like a better solution to you?

My point is that we rely too heavily on foreign oil. You don't see this as a problem?

The only way we can rely less on foreign oil is to use less oil. Face it, the US doesn't have the supplies of oil to even come close to sustaining a country of our consuption. Now if you really wanted to break these oil ties, lets put more emphasis into alternative fuel sources.

I think we should let them decide things on their own. I don't believe it's our job to modernize OR democratize the world.

Yes we should let the decide for themselves, but the nation is so unstable that if the US were to leave it would most likely collapse. I don't like the idea of trying to make iraq into something it's not/doesn't want to be, but we still have the obligation to maintain stability until they can stand on their own to feet. That is the burdon of overthrowing a dictator, you have to more than get the guy out of power.

At 3/9/05 08:02 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/statue_of_liberty.html

Source: "By Neo"... *gasp*!!! Perhaps he is, THE ONE!!!

http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma1.htm

Source: Uhhhh.... ?????

http://www.freemasonrytoday.co.uk/issue19-news.shtml

Source: The Author is.... Freemassonry.com? I love ambiguity.

Although I am not going to argue that it was a Mason who was one of the original people on the project, this does not mean that this statue was created FOR masonry.

This constant arguing is annoying! There is no opoint to continue!
BTW: "there is no such thing as pro kerry there is only anti-bush" said by a true liberal
I would also like to commend the author of this thread for not reading around and taking time to realize that most of the people her are liberal.

At 3/10/05 09:34 AM, hayindahiz wrote: My advice is wait until you're 18 and then say your with a party. Things change and so do people. 5 years ago I would have said the same thing as you, now I'm a hardcore moderate who hates both parties and the sysytems which produced them. Just saying...

Me too, except I'm under 18.

Not that you'd know that, I unspecified.

At 3/9/05 10:45 PM, rabidrabbit wrote: This constant arguing is annoying! There is no opoint to continue!

Sadly, political discussion do tend to boil down to childish rantings. Some people are cut out for it, others aren't. Although I try and refrain from coming down to this level of debating, it sometimes can lighten the mood or provoke arguments that may not have been thought up before (activates critical thinking on issues).

At 3/6/05 07:56 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 3/6/05 07:31 PM, Chris1985 wrote: So tell me why its ok to let countries violate treaties.

Funny, that's the first thing I thought when the US went into Iraq without the permission of the UN.

The U.S. had resolution 1441 passed which allowed for serious consequences if Iraq didnt follow the rules of the weapons inspectors. Telling weapons inspectors to wait a few hours before they can inspect a building is not following the rules. Bush allowed many months of this behaivor and many violations before going to war. So now that that was cleared up tell me why it is ok for Iraq to violate their treaties.

ya no it would stink to be you blammed for putting a war lord in the white house north korea built bombs to protect themselves

PS im a democrat and im prouder

At 3/10/05 07:41 PM, StoneGuy wrote: ya no it would stink to be you blammed for putting a war lord in the white house north korea built bombs to protect themselves

Just shut up. I'm so sick of hearing all you people bash Bush 24/7. You know, I don't like the guy either; but for people that can't stand him, you sure can't stop talking about him. He's been elected, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I'm sure we've all heard enough about this, okay? If you wanna bad-mouth Bush, then take it to the "Official Bush Topic". Otherwise, SHUT THE HELL UP. >.<

PS im a democrat and im prouder

Whatever... you're a simpleton, and you're ignorant.

At 3/10/05 04:52 PM, Chris1985 wrote: The U.S. had resolution 1441 passed which allowed for serious consequences if Iraq didnt follow the rules of the weapons inspectors. Telling weapons inspectors to wait a few hours before they can inspect a building is not following the rules. Bush allowed many months of this behaivor and many violations before going to war. So now that that was cleared up tell me why it is ok for Iraq to violate their treaties.

It's great that America followed a law that it created and was not given the approval of by the UN to use it in this context. Nazi Germany did the same thing back in WWII before the UN was created... doesn't make it right. It's because of these laws that were abused that we created the UN... so that it could be prevented in the future.

Simple... it isn't right for Iraq to violate the laws. But just because Iraq jumped off a bridge does it mean that the US should too? The United States is a big boy now, and is held accountable for it's own actions. You break a law, you pay the price. Iraq breaks a law, Iraq pays the price. Remember though, it isn't your job to punish them, just as it isn't their job to punish you. If it worked that way, America would have a big debt that it owes to the world (aside from the financial one it owes of course).

At 3/10/05 07:41 PM, StoneGuy wrote: PS im a democrat and im prouder

PS. I can spell, and I'm prouder.