QueenZone discussion #596601

Mr.Jingles wrote: Of course I support this poor man. Anyone who says something like "Is Our Children Learning?" needs some serious help.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Despite the fact that I am neverceasingingly (is that even a word) taking shit for it, I support the President with all my heart.

Dan Corson wrote: There are no politicians I support.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Dan Corson wrote: There are no politicians I support.

Not even Mary Carey? I mean, if she ran for governor in California then that makes her a politician. She gets my support anytime.

Sharron .G wrote: Bill Clinton may have been alot of things.... he was also one of the USA greatest presidents.

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Mr.Jingles wrote:

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Wouldn't make a difference my friend. Bush is a puppet, and even Bush supporters know that. Behind him there's a group of EVIL men pulling the strings. Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, and Cheney knew that they couldn't run for president because their image doesn't sell, so they called a somewhat charming village idiot to become candidate. Bush is indeed the Ashlee Simpson of politics.

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Wouldn't make a difference my friend. Bush is a puppet, and even Bush supporters know that. Behind him there's a group of EVIL men pulling the strings. Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, and Cheney knew that they couldn't run for president because their image doesn't sell, so they called a somewhat charming village idiot to become candidate. Bush is indeed the Ashlee Simpson of politics.

You can say whatever you want, he was still elected democratically.

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

<font><font color=charm>Alex Solan</font> wrote:

pma wrote: I like a good Bush, I hate it when they shave it. [/predictable][/old]

... but always effective xD Predictable... hmm... like FGT, Guy, Miss James, Rip Van Winkle, geeks.. etc etc etc etc etc...? Is that the right word? Yes! :D

D@VID wrote: I know this topic is a tricky one but here is my two cents.... It has been touched on but its not Bush who is the idiot but the percentage of Americans who voted for him.This man really is a mental midget and possibly worse,maybe,if not totally responsible,a main instigator in 9/11.How this event was allowed to happen(and believe it or not it was allowed)is beyond comprehension. Not only are Americans(not all of them)stupid for voting for him but idiotic for not questioning this mans involvement in the worst criminal act in American history.

<font><font color=charm>Alex Solan</font> wrote:

pma wrote: I like a good Bush, I hate it when they shave it. [/predictable][/old]

... but always effective xD Predictable... hmm... like FGT, Guy, Miss James, Rip Van Winkle, geeks.. etc etc etc etc etc...? Is that the right word? Yes! :D

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Wouldn't make a difference my friend. Bush is a puppet, and even Bush supporters know that. Behind him there's a group of EVIL men pulling the strings. Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, and Cheney knew that they couldn't run for president because their image doesn't sell, so they called a somewhat charming village idiot to become candidate. Bush is indeed the Ashlee Simpson of politics.

You can say whatever you want, he was still elected democratically.

Well politics is kinda like music, image plays a huge role whether you like it or not, so in many cases integrity, intelligence and wisdom have to be put aside. Afterall, anyone over 18 is allowed to vote regardless of their educational background. There's just too many idiots who absolutely no knowledge of politics whatsoever, and they just vote for one or the other becase "he kinda seems like a better person". Oh, and don't get me started with those who are 100% sure of who they're voting for before the debates when they don't know what their candidates really stand for.

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Wouldn't make a difference my friend. Bush is a puppet, and even Bush supporters know that. Behind him there's a group of EVIL men pulling the strings. Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, and Cheney knew that they couldn't run for president because their image doesn't sell, so they called a somewhat charming village idiot to become candidate. Bush is indeed the Ashlee Simpson of politics.

You can say whatever you want, he was still elected democratically.

Well politics is kinda like music, image plays a huge role whether you like it or not, so in many cases integrity, intelligence and wisdom have to be put aside. Afterall, anyone over 18 is allowed to vote regardless of their educational background. There's just too many idiots who absolutely no knowledge of politics whatsoever, and they just vote for one or the other becase "he kinda seems like a better person". Oh, and don't get me started with those who are 100% sure of who they're voting for before the debates when they don't know what their candidates really stand for.

Unfortunately for you, democracy is a system for the people, not for educated only. Besides, who decides what educated means? Elementary school? High school? First degree? Second degree? If the majority of the Americans were stupid enough to vote for Kennedy merely because he looked better than Nixon in the televised debate, there's cleary a problem with the system. But until you find a better one, you'll have to acknowledge Bush is running the White House because the American people wanted him to.

D@VID wrote: Not only are Americans(not all of them)stupid for voting for him but idiotic for not questioning this mans involvement in the worst criminal act in American history.

geeksandgeeks wrote:

<font><font color=charm>Alex Solan</font> wrote:

pma wrote: I like a good Bush, I hate it when they shave it. [/predictable][/old]

... but always effective xD Predictable... hmm... like FGT, Guy, Miss James, Rip Van Winkle, geeks.. etc etc etc etc etc...? Is that the right word? Yes! :D

Are you saying I'm conservative? Honey, I worked for the Dean campaign. I supported a tax raise. I volunteered at an abortion clinic. I'm about as liberal as they come. I just don't believe in lambasting those with a different belief system than mine.

Mr.Jingles wrote: They're not accusing him of being too liberal, they're accusing him of being too Mexican.

djaef wrote: Bush? Whack-job George Dubbya? support him? I'd hold him up while they put a noose around his neck if that's what you mean...

andylamb_38 wrote: No i do not support him, but then again i'm glad he won the election over John Kerry, who is an idiot.

Sharron .G wrote: I I saw "W" on t.v. the other night in a old clip, he was bashing homosexuality, and referring to homosexuals as "the troubled homosexers" He said "its a troubled mind of a homosexer that feels the need to go homosexing, when clearly this is a sin of the highest degree"

Gecko wrote: i support him cause hes my commander in chief... but im sure there are other people out there who can do a better job (powell)

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

D@VID wrote: Not only are Americans(not all of them)stupid for voting for him but idiotic for not questioning this mans involvement in the worst criminal act in American history.

Bush voters are "stupid"? FYI, my father is an assistant professor of chemistry (an EARNED Ph.D - nothing against those with honorary ones - and 26 papers published in scientific journals). Hardly "stupid" or uneducated.

Sharron .G wrote: The bottom line: Bill Clinton may have fucked a few skanky whores in his married years, but the events of Sept. 11 2001 couldn't have/ wouldn't have happened with Bill Clinton in office.

Fenderek wrote: Yesterday I watched Farrenheit 9.11 for the first time. interesting... I loved the bit when they told him about the plains and he was still sitting in the classrom reading a book with kids... He's one of the erasons why America is being hated all over the world... What? You diddn't know almost 75% of the world hates America? Wake up...!

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - the first WTC bombing happened while Clinton was in office

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - the first WTC bombing happened while Clinton was in office

I'm not so sure about that...

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - the first WTC bombing happened while Clinton was in office

I'm not so sure about that...

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - the first WTC bombing happened while Clinton was in office

I'm not so sure about that...

Ramzi Yousef who was the mastermind and carried the WTC bombing in January 1993 was captured in Febraury 1995. Now where is Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps we should listen to Bush and forget about him.

Fenderek wrote: He's one of the erasons why America is being hated all over the world... What? You diddn't know almost 75% of the world hates America? Wake up...!

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - the first WTC bombing happened while Clinton was in office

I'm not so sure about that...

Ramzi Yousef who was the mastermind and carried the WTC bombing in January 1993 was captured in Febraury 1995. Now where is Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps we should listen to Bush and forget about him.

Ah, that bombing. I somehow forgot about it. Thanks. And about Bin Laden, he's in some cave.

Alex Solan<br><font size=1>Japan soon bastards! wrote:

pma wrote: I like a good Bush, I hate it when they shave it. [/predictable][/old]

... but always effective xD Predictable... hmm... like FGT, Guy, Miss James, Rip Van Winkle, geeks.. etc etc etc etc etc...? Is that the right word? Yes! :D

D@VID wrote: Blieve it or not people with degrees can also be stupid.Some of the dopiest people I have met have been well schooled.It comes down to something called commen sense.This can't be taught.

The Mir@cle wrote: Of course there were some incidents with Clinton in office, but he was able the think rational after it happened.

Bush reacted like a cowboy, gettin his troops ready to conquer the world.

And what's the result beside a lot of deaths??

Well, Sadam (the man that wasn't a real danger for the USA... In fact he wasn't even able to defend his contry for a few days) is arrested and Iraq is one big mess right now.

FreddiesGhettoTrench, open your eyes.. That silly president of your country doesn't make a lot of friends.

The most Europeans hate him, so does the rest of the world.

He's arrogant, he thinks he can tell the rest of the world what to do. I can't stand him.

Well, you seem to be a real fan...

Ever watched in the mirror and realised that you may miss one chromosome??

yamamamia wrote: By the way did a blowjob kill 1800+ American troops.

The toll is rising, and so is the bill to America. He needs to pull out the tampon and grow some balls, nuke the fucks, and get out. I just love paying $3.00 a gallon for gas don't you?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: #1 - You don't "watch" in the mirror, you "look" in the mirror.

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: #1 - You don't "watch" in the mirror, you "look" in the mirror.

Don't ever do that. English is not everyone's native language.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: #1 - You don't "watch" in the mirror, you "look" in the mirror.

Don't ever do that. English is not everyone's native language.

Wasn't saying it to be mean. I was pointing it out. They're the one whose entire post was meant to discredit my intelligence. Why don't you admonish THEM?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So in other words, Iraqi civilians are worth less than your gas? If you don't like paying $3.00 a gallon for gas, why don't you get rid of your car?

Gecko wrote: AL BUNDY for predident

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Let's see - democratic government in Afghanistan

- democratic government in Iraq

- Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program

- election overturned in Ukraine

Guy wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: #1 - You don't "watch" in the mirror, you "look" in the mirror.

Don't ever do that. English is not everyone's native language.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Nope, but it killed a shitload of innocent Serbian civilians when Clinton put us in Kosovo for very little reason (mainly to detract media attention from his scandal).

The Mir@cle wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Nope, but it killed a shitload of innocent Serbian civilians when Clinton put us in Kosovo for <b>very little</b> reason (mainly to detract media attention from his scandal).

For very little reason?? Sorry?? I don't think you realise that Slobodan Milosevic was just as mad as Adolf Hitler. He gave the orders to kill all the men in Srebrenica...

<font color=black>andylamb_38 wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Nope, but it killed a shitload of innocent Serbian civilians when Clinton put us in Kosovo for <b>very little</b> reason (mainly to detract media attention from his scandal).

For very little reason?? Sorry?? I don't think you realise that Slobodan Milosevic was just as mad as Adolf Hitler. He gave the orders to kill all the men in Srebrenica...

The Mir@cle is correct, my brother was at Milosevic's trial at the E.U court of justice a few months ago, and Milosevic didn't even show one bit of remorse for his actions, in fact quite the opposite. So yes, Milosevic is an evil mad man, and there wasn't 'very little reason' for Clinton to get involved.

And Saddam Hussein shows remorse for HIS actions? So in other words, it's okay to overthrow a dictator if you're a Democrat, but not if you're a Republican?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And Saddam Hussein shows remorse for HIS actions? So in other words, it's okay to overthrow a dictator if you're a Democrat, but not if you're a Republican?

The Mir@cle wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And Saddam Hussein shows remorse for HIS actions? So in other words, it's okay to overthrow a dictator if you're a Democrat, but not if you're a Republican?

It's okay to overthrow a dictator if you have the intention to help the people, instead of doing it for other (selfish) reasons. Do you really think Bush invaded Iraq to help the Iraqi people??

Guy wrote: Does it matter? As I wrote in another topic, there are 4,200 less innocent deaths a month in Iraq right now. Nowadays it's 800 a month, while it was 5,000 a month when Saddam was in power. Bush's motives are irrelevant, the consequences are relevant. It's just like you shouldn't care why someone murdered his wife, the fact she's dead is what matters. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq as far as deaths are concerned is better right now.

The Mir@cle wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And Saddam Hussein shows remorse for HIS actions? So in other words, it's okay to overthrow a dictator if you're a Democrat, but not if you're a Republican?

It's okay to overthrow a dictator if you have the intention to help the people, instead of doing it for other (selfish) reasons. Do you really think Bush invaded Iraq to help the Iraqi people??

The Mir@cle wrote:

Guy wrote: Does it matter? As I wrote in another topic, there are 4,200 less innocent deaths a month in Iraq right now. Nowadays it's 800 a month, while it was 5,000 a month when Saddam was in power. Bush's motives are irrelevant, the consequences are relevant. It's just like you shouldn't care why someone murdered his wife, the fact she's dead is what matters. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq as far as deaths are concerned is better right now.

Of course... Sadam was/is a monster. Some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed in 23 years time. And I hope they get rid of the terrorists in Iraq, so they have the chance to build a democracy there. Though it's gonna be very hard with all the different kinds of people there. It's just the arrogance of Mr. Bush that most foreigners (even non-muslims like me) find offensive. He doesn't need the opinions of others, he thinks he can invade a country based on lies he gave to the American people and he treats Europe as the "Lap Dog" of United States.... Clinton is a far more "social intelligent" person than Cowboy Bush is.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

yamamamia wrote: Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him now???

Wouldn't make a difference my friend. Bush is a puppet, and even Bush supporters know that. Behind him there's a group of EVIL men pulling the strings. Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, and Cheney knew that they couldn't run for president because their image doesn't sell, so they called a somewhat charming village idiot to become candidate. Bush is indeed the Ashlee Simpson of politics.

You can say whatever you want, he was still elected democratically.

Well politics is kinda like music, image plays a huge role whether you like it or not, so in many cases integrity, intelligence and wisdom have to be put aside. Afterall, anyone over 18 is allowed to vote regardless of their educational background. There's just too many idiots who absolutely no knowledge of politics whatsoever, and they just vote for one or the other becase "he kinda seems like a better person". Oh, and don't get me started with those who are 100% sure of who they're voting for before the debates when they don't know what their candidates really stand for.

Dan Corson wrote: There are no politicians I support.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: - democratic government in Iraq

The most Europeans hate him, so does the rest of the world.

And we care... why?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The most Europeans hate him, so does the rest of the world.

And we care... why?

Oh yes, the self-centred American patriotic mentality of "as long as we're okay, then screw everyone else and what they think."

Guy wrote: If every country in the world had to listen to what every other country in the world had to say, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Guy wrote: If every country in the world had to listen to what every other country in the world had to say, we wouldn't get anywhere.

100% disagree. If every country listened to every other country, then we would at least have a world where everyone understood the worldview of everyone else. Everyone would build tolerance and understanding of differences. There would be much less war, because we wouldn't attack people for "being different" than us. And there certainly wouldn't be bigotry in the masses towards other countries, because our politicians would be the ones telling us to be accepting of others, even though we don't agree with or understand the culture, mentality, and history of some countries and their people.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Guy wrote: If every country in the world had to listen to what every other country in the world had to say, we wouldn't get anywhere.

100% disagree. If every country listened to every other country, then we would at least have a world where everyone understood the worldview of everyone else. Everyone would build tolerance and understanding of differences. There would be much less war, because we wouldn't attack people for "being different" than us. And there certainly wouldn't be bigotry in the masses towards other countries, because our politicians would be the ones telling us to be accepting of others, even though we don't agree with or understand the culture, mentality, and history of some countries and their people.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

Cute and ironic statement, sir.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

Cute and ironic statement, sir.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Guy wrote: If every country in the world had to listen to what every other country in the world had to say, we wouldn't get anywhere.

100% disagree. If every country listened to every other country, then we would at least have a world where everyone understood the worldview of everyone else. Everyone would build tolerance and understanding of differences. There would be much less war, because we wouldn't attack people for "being different" than us. And there certainly wouldn't be bigotry in the masses towards other countries, because our politicians would be the ones telling us to be accepting of others, even though we don't agree with or understand the culture, mentality, and history of some countries and their people.

So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Guy wrote: If every country in the world had to listen to what every other country in the world had to say, we wouldn't get anywhere.

100% disagree. If every country listened to every other country, then we would at least have a world where everyone understood the worldview of everyone else. Everyone would build tolerance and understanding of differences. There would be much less war, because we wouldn't attack people for "being different" than us. And there certainly wouldn't be bigotry in the masses towards other countries, because our politicians would be the ones telling us to be accepting of others, even though we don't agree with or understand the culture, mentality, and history of some countries and their people.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Typical fucking conservative. Ignoring ALL possible positives of someone's comment, and picking out the one possible exception that is entirely negative, hoping to make them feel like their suggestion is pointless in all cases. There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

Rip Van Winkle wrote: Sir - Please tell me how your personal attacks help foster "open dialogue" (as you so eloquently put it).

Why did you not respond to FGT's Hitler comparison?

Guy wrote: We have different points of view, obviously. As much as I'd like to have world peace, it's just not going to happen. One word springs to mind... Utopy.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Typical fucking conservative. Ignoring ALL possible positives of someone's comment, and picking out the one possible exception that is entirely negative, hoping to make them feel like their suggestion is pointless in all cases. There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

The Mir@cle wrote: You're so right Bob... If you don't even try to understand others, you're not gonna bring peace to this world. We have to live with each other instead of destroying each other. And the only possibility to realise that is to respect each other.

The Mir@cle wrote: But you can't just ignore people because they have a different way of life or different opinions.

The Mir@cle wrote: I wasn't pointing at you Guy!! I meant it in general.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Typical fucking conservative. Ignoring ALL possible positives of someone's comment, and picking out the one possible exception that is entirely negative, hoping to make them feel like their suggestion is pointless in all cases. There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So... let's see... during World War II everyone should have just stood around "understanding the worldview" of Hitler? That would have REALLY helped.

Typical fucking conservative. Ignoring ALL possible positives of someone's comment, and picking out the one possible exception that is entirely negative, hoping to make them feel like their suggestion is pointless in all cases. There is no talking with you. You are pathetic. You suck. You and people like you are the reason why there is intolerance, lack of open dialogue, and war in this world.

Oh, yeah... I'M intolerant. Yet "typical conservative". "People like you" Now if you were to put any other group of people - homosexual, African-American, Hispanic, etc. after "typical", that would be obvious prejudice. But it's fine for you to say "typical conservative", and then say I'M intolerant? Sure.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Rip Van Winkle wrote: Of course Hitler is a grave exception to the idea I've suggested, but I was just speaking of an ideal.

Actually, he's not. You suggested that Bush would do better to enter into a dialogue with people before he insists on declaring war on them. The problem with this idea is that, generally, the people that *can* be reasoned with are not the people that we end up declaring war on. We have dialogues. We just can't have dialogues with lunatic dictators. For instance, if we have a problem with France, we go tell France. "France, you're being an asshole." France goes, "Oh, okay, let's discuss it. By the way, we think YOU'RE being an asshole." We don't go, "Bomb Paris!" Whereas, with someone like Saddam, if we go, "Saddam, you're an asshole," he goes, "Come and stop me from being an asshole." So we did. It's like, if you are in a hostage negotiation with a guy who is an illegal alien who is afraid of being deported. You can go, "Okay, let's talk about this. We can discuss the programs you can go through, just put down the hostage and we can talk." However, if you're in a hostage situation with a guy who enjoys killing, who, when you go, "Just put down the hostage" he shoots one of the hostages in the head and laughs about it and is about to go after another one, what do you do? You shoot the guy.

But that doesn't mean it can't be possible on a smaller scale with those who are willing to give it a try. In fact, most of those who are able to do it are doing it. Not on the list: United States Of America.

How does the USA not try to have dialogues? Unless you count a dialogue as ignoring Iraq's rights abuses as the U.N. did.

The Mir@cle wrote: I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote: I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.

If someone is going to bring ruthless leaders and dictators into justice, then let it be someone who actually has integrity, which is something that Bush lacks. If there was any justice in the world, then Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Kim Jong Il, Al-Zarqawi, Ali Khamenei, Tony Blair, and all those sick bastards would be sharing the same prison cell. They're all fuckin' extremist cowards who don't have the balls to fight the wars they started.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote: I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.

If someone is going to bring ruthless leaders and dictators into justice, then let it be someone who actually has integrity, which is something that Bush lacks. If there was any justice in the world, then Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Kim Jong Il, Al-Zarqawi, Ali Khamenei, Tony Blair, and all those sick bastards would be sharing the same prison cell. They're all fuckin' extremist cowards who don't have the balls to fight the wars they started.

What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair? And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair? And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair? And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!

They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists. Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.

<font color=black>andylamb_38 wrote: Why can't everyone in this world just get along, and treat one another with respect? I know it's a stupid question but it's soooooo frustrating!!!

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair? And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!

They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists. Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.

Roosevelt, the greatest American president ever, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Truman, the president who ended WWII by using the nuclear bomb, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Churchill, arguably the best prime minister Britain ever had, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Your definition of the word 'responsible' would bring each of the above to the electric chair, or, if you're forgiving, to imprisonment.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair? And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!

They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists. Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.

Roosevelt, the greatest American president ever, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Truman, the president who ended WWII by using the nuclear bomb, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Churchill, arguably the best prime minister Britain ever had, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Your definition of the word 'responsible' would bring each of the above to the electric chair, or, if you're forgiving, to imprisonment.

As far as I'm concerned Roosevelt and Churchill sent their troops to battle the Axis right on the battlefield. Of course there's the strong possibility that there would be some innocent lives lost on the crossfire, but for the most part they clearly aimed at military targets. On the other hand, the Russian Army showed no mercy when taking over Berlin in April 1945. Soldiers would shoot at anyone they felt like it, as well as rape some of the women. Now, when it comes to Truman I don't know what to think of him. He brought an end to WWII on the expense of more than 100.000 innocent lives, not including those whose bodies were deformed by radiation. I can't blame Truman completely, but I think for the most part it was Hirohito's fault for not surrendering on time. Once against, my stand is for the loss of innocent lives. I know that accidents can happen on the crossfire, but for the most part I believe that this 'War On Terrorism' is only breeding MORE TERRORISM. Do you think orphans who have lost their loved ones on air bombings are just going to let their feelings go? I'm not justifying by any means that they end up joining a terrorist cell, but what nobody can deny is that it's very likely that they will.

Guy wrote: Maybe there weren't weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter. Iraq, Iran & Syria contribute so much to the instability of the middle east that they each, in their time, must be taken care of.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Now if you were to put any other group of people - homosexual, African-American, Hispanic, etc. after "typical", that would be obvious prejudice. But it's fine for you to say "typical conservative", and then say I'M intolerant?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: So, who's going swimming today? I am!

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Guy wrote: Maybe there weren't weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter. Iraq, Iran & Syria contribute so much to the instability of the middle east that they each, in their time, must be taken care of.

...and the United States and Israel don't? C'mon, let's be real for once. They ALL have their share of blame. They're all idiots who think that war is the only solution. When it comes to foreign affairs, what the United States and Israel need are people like Jimmy Carter and Yitzak Rabin who pushed things forward for diplomatic talks instead of waging war against anything or anyone who doesn't agree with them. I know leaders in Iran are hard to deal with, but Bush and Sharon follow that same path. Once again, you can't fight TERRORISM with more TERRORISM! If you're willing to enlist for an invasion to another country, then it's obvious that you have a vengeful mentality, and that's why the world so fucked up. I was recently reading the story of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, the Vietnamese girl who was pictured running naked after her home was destroyed by a napalm bomb in 1972. She could have well grown to become an anti-American militia leader or a terrorist, but instead she chose to work for those who just like her were victims of war, and was willing to forgive those who destroyed her home and left her on the verge of death. People like Kim Phuc Phan Thi are the kind that we need in this world, instead of people who let themselves be taken over by revenge and hatred in order to allow war to prevail. link