CokeLite
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2003
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
Ah yes, so being an able speaker automatically make him suspicious? I mean, there's just no way he could still be more able as president. (Not that I'm such a big fan of Clinton's)
The fact that he was a good public speaker is not the reason why I do not trust him. He cannot even admit that he has had sexual relations with an intern, that is what makes me not trust him.
Yeah, **** all! No bloody liberal measured response! Thats for weenies. Never mind that level-minded people worldwide might actually find these actions so outrageous that they turn on him.
See my example.
Becuse of his actions?
You damn moron. Didnt I say it was because of his actions? Did you even read my post at all??? HE MADE THE U.N LOOK BAD BY TAKING ACTION.
Jeeebuz, what neither Bush nor you or people like you understand is that by going about things as he does, he manages to infuriate, as it now seems, a majority of the world.
Let me give an example. I know this will be hard to comprehend, as you're obviously nicely brain washed, but try.
Many people now (not evil moslems or members of radical islamic military factions) now perceive president Bush as the single biggest threat to world peace. Let's say all those people gathered and voted to let the EU invade the US to liberate them from the this threat to world peace. I'm sure everyone in the US would be really happy about that?
That was a rhethorical question. No, of course they wouldn't. Even the people in the US who were against Bush would rally round him. (In fact this kind of national sentiment is exactly what Bush has used to keep his popularity up. When people perceive an attack on their motherland (9/11 anyone), the the people unite. It's a well proven strategy and its used all the time in third world countries, too bad so few recognize it when its close to home)
Oh yeah, and the goal of the UN is to keep Saddam in power... jeez
You sound like a broken record. I even stated that many countries in the world hate us, and still I dont understand? Again I ask you if you even read my post.
The definition of peace is the absence of war, so in a way you are right. But if you think of it that way many countries that are having petty fights and revolutions and all these terrorist attacks is a threat to world peace. What makes them and the war in Iraq different is that Bush is waging this war to make the world a safer and terror-free place in the long run.
And BTW I never said that the goal of the U.N was to keep Saddam in power. You made that up yourself. If you read my post you would realized that I said that the U.N is all talk and little action. But you wouldent want to read too much into the truth I've posted now would you? I might make you feel uneasy about your sheepish beliefs.
You have to be ****ing kidding me! Of course many people in Iraq are happy to be rid of Saddam, but not at any price. Especially not at the price of US soldiers shooting innocents every day. These people have relatives, just as the US soldiers KIA in Iraq have relatives and loved ones.
U.S soldiers shooting innocents everyday? Where did you get that from? You make it sound like our troops are plundering their towns and raping their women. Obviously you have been brainwashed by the liberal media.
Oh, if you seriously can't find anything wrong with his actions, you're just completely and utterly brainwashed and beyond any rescue. Of course, if you turn a blind eye to all evidence to the contrary, nothing will stick.
Take a look around you boy, the evidence is there. Of course it's up to you how to interpret it, after all, most of the people here are residents of a democracy.
Oh yeah, I am looking around.... no evidence is there. What is this evidence you speak of? If it is so obvious I should have heard about it by now. Please enlighten me.
Your arguements are about as sturdy as a house made of cards. Come back when you have something intelligently stimulating to say.
"Cokelite out."