"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, 1/23/03

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03

"Sen. John F. Kerry has said he was ?very proud? of his vote to increase the (gas) tax by 4.3 cents per gallon..." -- Michael Kranish, The Boston Globe, 5/4/96

"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." -- John Kerry, 2004

"Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-Communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.? -- Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

more at [url]http://www.kerryflips.com/townhall/quotes.php[/url]

It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."

[quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:

Re: John Kerry quotes

[quote=gokada]"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, 1/23/03

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03

"Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-Communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.? -- Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

more at [url]http://www.kerryflips.com/townhall/quotes.php[/url][/quote]

These are the only smart things he has ever said. He changed his beliefs to fit the rage in his contituency. Even dems were willing the crush Osama and Saddam at the beginning. Then they found out war is actually bloody and hard despite what President Bush said. :lol: They feel betrayed and misled and now they are letting anger tell them what is right and what is wrong. Kerry had to change if he wanted their votes.

Bush is a liar because his [i]predictions[/i] and [i]ambitions[/i] didn't come true. Kerry tells the truth because he "changed his mind". :unsure: The only thing John Kerry has going for him is that his hind sight is 20/20. Both of them sent us to war but only one of them is taking the heat. It makes no sense until you throw blind hate in the mix.....then it all makes perfect sense.

Re: John Kerry quotes

[quote=mylexicon]

These are the only smart things he has ever said. He changed his beliefs to fit the rage in his contituency. Even dems were willing the crush Osama and Saddam at the beginning. Then they found out war is actually bloody and hard despite what President Bush said. :lol: They feel betrayed and misled and now they are letting anger tell them what is right and what is wrong. Kerry had to change if he wanted their votes.

Bush is a liar because his [i]predictions[/i] and [i]ambitions[/i] didn't come true. Kerry tells the truth because he "changed his mind". :unsure: The only thing John Kerry has going for him is that his hind sight is 20/20. Both of them sent us to war but only one of them is taking the heat. It makes no sense until you throw blind hate in the mix.....then it all makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Re: John Kerry quotes

[quote=mylexicon]

These are the only smart things he has ever said. He changed his beliefs to fit the rage in his contituency. Even dems were willing the crush Osama and Saddam at the beginning. Then they found out war is actually bloody and hard despite what President Bush said. :lol: They feel betrayed and misled and now they are letting anger tell them what is right and what is wrong. Kerry had to change if he wanted their votes.

Bush is a liar because his [i]predictions[/i] and [i]ambitions[/i] didn't come true. Kerry tells the truth because he "changed his mind". :unsure: The only thing John Kerry has going for him is that his hind sight is 20/20. Both of them sent us to war but only one of them is taking the heat. It makes no sense until you throw blind hate in the mix.....then it all makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Amen brother... :RockOn:

[quote=dohturdima][quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:[/quote]

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.

[quote=Galapidate]I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

1. Your opinion (highly dubious, debatable, and, ultimately, of little individual consequence. As is mine, for that matter)
2. Your choice (assuming you'll vote, but influenced by 1) and all that follows)
3. USA, last time I checked, is a place where liberals and their opinions roam free. Wouldn't have it any other way :RockOn:

Actually I have found lately that liberals' voices in the U.S. have been the target of scorn.

[quote=Galapidate][quote=dohturdima][quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:[/quote]

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

What? Remember, Kerry voted to go to war too. He can be held accountable as well. So in other words, you'd rather have a President that has no spine, that flip flops on damn near every issue, and one that's a hypocrite? Can you explain one important issue that Kerry truly stands for? At least everyone knows where Bush is coming from. The following was taken from this site:

[url]http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/000937.html[/url]

"John F. Kerry has said that if elected, he will abandon the war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes, and apologize for the mistakes of the Bush administration !"...."Kerry promised that in the first 100 days of his administration that he would travel the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and enemy. Kerry said he would go to the United Nations and travel to our allies and affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations".

I don't think that opening up a dialogue with the enemy will make them go away. They want [b]all westerners dead!![/b] You can't compromise with them, you can't reason with them. Did you know that terrorists are coming in through Canada? And this has been going on since before we went to Iraq. Look here. [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/9/162022.shtml[/url]

They're setting up shop and waiting for the time to strike. But Kerry wants to talk with them like the wuss that he is...gimme a break and go suck down some ketchup Kerry :MadNow:

[quote=Galapidate]Actually I have found lately that liberals' voices in the U.S. have been the target of scorn.[/quote]

Um, excuse me? I suggest you look to the other side of things before you spout such rhetoric.

It seems that the only thing that the far left can say, including Kerry is 'oh you can't say that'....

If you do not preach the ideals of the far left, you're either an isolationist or a right-wing zealot.

[quote] I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

War was waged on us the last time I checked. We didn't start this mess. Why do people not study history? The history of fascism? The last 20 out of 22 wars have been created because of the fascists that live in tyranny, the middle-eastern fascism that has run rampant.

Just because we have a leader that wants to fight it you call him a Hitler? Everytime I see the Hilter comparison I think somehow that this was brought on to the masses from the Communist party. I see no comparison, so why try to relate the two?

Give me a freakin break.....

Not only that but everytime you compare Bush to Hitler you are down playing how terrible a dictator Hitler actually was. The man is personally responsible for putting nearly 50% of the globe in total warfare so he could make sure that blond haired blue eyed people would have a place to live. The blood of over 50 million people is on his hands including the 30 million Russians who died and the 7 million jews he killed in special death camps. He used the army to overthrow our equivalent of Congress, and he had the undivided support of the people to do it.

To make the comparison requires you to overlook everything that Hitler actually did in his life and everything he stood for. To forget who Hitler actually was, by dumbing yourself down with sensationalism, is to expedite the return of his ghost.

Just think about how stupid liberals must look when they say such outrageous things while there are still people on this globe who actually survived the Holocaust, Hitler's brown shirts and the SS. Ask a Holocaust survivor how Bush stacks up against Hitler, you'll leave feeling pretty foolish.

[quote]Just think about how stupid liberals must look when they say such outrageous things while there are still people on this globe who actually survived the Holocaust, Hitler's brown shirts and the SS. Ask a Holocaust survivor how Bush stacks up against Hitler, you'll leave feeling pretty foolish.[/quote]

I couldn't help but thing about Al Goreleone's speech this past week. Speaking of the digital-brown shirt's throughout America that seem to back Bush.

Should there be no opposition to you Al?

Re: John Kerry quotes

[quote=mylexicon]

These are the only smart things he has ever said. He changed his beliefs to fit the rage in his contituency. [/quote]

Umm, representing the constituency is the job of a senator.

[quote=Galapidate][quote=dohturdima][quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:[/quote]

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

:ROFLMAO: :CrackUp: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.

[quote=Civic_Zen]

:ROFLMAO: :CrackUp: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.[/quote]

Please try to avoid making mistakes when insulting people's intelligence. BTW, "you're" is the contraction of "you are." :twisted:

[quote=Civic_Zen][quote=Galapidate][quote=dohturdima][quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:[/quote]

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

:ROFLMAO: :CrackUp: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.[/quote]

Yeah, definetley speaks for itself.

"I don't care if my president says one thing, then does another. As long as he doesn't try to change the course of the world by trying to eliminate a threat to every living person on Earth."

Nice one. :Wacko:

[quote=Kobe]Perhaps a bit of schooling would do you some good as well. Till then, "you're" is the contraction of "you are."[/quote]

Perhaps it would. I like to type fast, and you know, I could care less if I make a typo here and there.

Your just defending Galapidate here, when he has mouthed the most absurd, nonsensical, and downright foolish idea's since Sebstance said Saddam should go free. Good job buddy. :Bingo:

[quote=Civic_Zen][quote=Kobe]Perhaps a bit of schooling would do you some good as well. Till then, "you're" is the contraction of "you are."[/quote]

Perhaps it would. I like to type fast, and you know, I could care less if I make a typo here and there.

Your just defending Galapidate here, when he has mouthed some of the most foolish, absurd, and nonsensical idea's I've heard since Sebstance said Saddam should go free.[/quote]

Plus, you know your arguement is wearing thin when you start going for typographical errors. :Bingo:

Civic, you just did it again. :D I?ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional this time.

I'm sticking up for him because you guys are making cheap ad hominem attacks. If you have a problem with his comment, respond to that with some sort of logic or explanation of why you disagree. We are all stating our opinions, and despite what you may think, yours are no more valid than anyone else's? at least on face value.

[quote=Kobe]Civic, you just did it again. :D I?ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional this time.

I'm sticking up for him because you guys are making cheap ad hominem attacks. If you have a problem with his comment, respond to that with some sort of logic or explanation of why you disagree. We are all stating our opinions, and despite what you may think, yours are no more valid than anyone else's? at least on face value.[/quote]

Oh so "we're" (notice how I used it this time. :lol: ) all ganging up on the poor lil' liberals eh? :lol:

Lets see, there is evangelion, Jenks, mylexicon, cosmo, and myself who are maybe a bit more conservative or just pro-war. Oh ya and now the newcomer gokado. = 6

And then on the other side of the spectrum is everybody else. Ya, seems like your just sticking up for the little guy there. Exactly like Moore sticks up for the little guy. :Bingo: :ROFLMAO:

Not only that, but you pick Galapidate of all people, to defend. After babbling the most hilarious statement of the week. In doing so, you know how you come across right? Its like evangelion said, your going to just attack my gramatical errors, because its the best you can do.

I could point out why Galapidates statement was in fact so histerical, and in doing so, point out how rediculous it was for you to defend him, but like I said, it speaks entirely for itself.

Good day Kobeashimaru

I have nothing against Galapidate personally, i'm sure he's a good kid. I have a hard time taking his political comments seriously because of his age. Yeah, we all have opinions and we're all entitled to them, and that's all fine and dandy. However, the debate in some of these political threads goes way beyond blanket statements, and you actually have to know something about the world besides what the TV gives you...the history of fascism, for example, or global politics from a historical standpoint...having lived in a foreign country, or at least travelled and spent time in other cultures...basically, much more than a high school civics class is going to teach you.

So when he blurts out his one line baseless anti bush comments, i grit my teeth.

Again, no offense personally Galapidate. ;)

And lets all try to leave personal attacks out of debate. You don't know how many times reading through some of these threads i want to post, "you stupid mother fucker..." but i realize in doing so, that makes me the stupid mother fucker. ;)

[quote=evangelion][quote=Civic_Zen][quote=Galapidate][quote=dohturdima][quote=Galapidate]It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."[/quote]

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take. :Rolling:[/quote]

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.[/quote]

:ROFLMAO: :CrackUp: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.[/quote]

Yeah, definetley speaks for itself.

"I don't care if my president says one thing, then does another. As long as he doesn't try to change the course of the world by trying to eliminate a threat to every living person on Earth."

Nice one. :Wacko:[/quote]

Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America, he was only a threat to Iraqis. If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large. He could be planning out another attack for all we know. The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.

^Sadly, capturing BinLaden does nothing to stop terror. The second he's dead, another head steps in line. Ending Saddam's regime, while may look like a mess right now, is better for the middle east, USA, the world, etc.

I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop global terrorism, and it surely won't come in our lifetime. Bin Laden sure isn't the key tho...but it would look nice on CNN if he was captured.

^Well I was afraid once we turned over power another person would step in line as a dictator. I agree it's better without Saddam, but Iraq is in a huge mess. For example, the videos from Iraq show how so many people are unemployed still, which makes me wonder if Iraq will ever fully recover.

I still don't see the connection with Saddam and the war on terror. The original motive was to go after the people who committed 9/11, so how come we didn't put so much emphasis on "smoking out" al Qaeda? Now not only is al Qaeda still functioning, but we have insurgents our troops are dealing with in Iraq. I would be surprised if global terrorism came to an end some point in our lifetime, but as long as the terrorists have their "holy war" it isn't going to stop at all.

[quote=Galapidate]

Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America, he was only a threat to Iraqis. If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large. He could be planning out another attack for all we know. The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.[/quote]

Oh really? Read on...

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war, President Vladimir Putin said Friday. Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. However, he said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Indeed, after Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

found this at [url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155982/posts[/url]

..and the same thing here: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C123051%2C00.html[/url]

..and here: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/[/url]

So there you have it. Anyone that says otherwise is either misinformed or a liar. Notice I grabbed the story from a conservative source, a liberal source, and an independent source. Free republic may not be independent, but the actual story was reported by AP which is...:Rolling:

[quote=Galapidate]The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.[/quote]

Says who...you? Liberals? All of the brainwashed masses having just seen your buddy Moore's movie and all of sudden think they "know what's going on?"

Why does everyone either forget or ignore the fact that Iraq is a free counrty now? Yeah, there is still a huge mess to finish cleaning up but that is a definite sign of progress. For the first time in over 30 years the Iraqi people are free to choose their leader...which they will do early next year. And this means nothing???

[b]TAKE OFF YOUR BUSH-HATING BLINDERS AND SEE THAT THERE IS GOOD COMING OF THIS!!!!!!![/b]

[quote=Galapidate]Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America[/quote]

Only as long as U.N. sanctions were choking his people to death......so on that note we can add the U.N. to the list of people/organizations we are saving the Iraqis from.

[quote]he was only a threat to Iraqis.[/quote]

Ask DaveTLV about this one.....when the U.N. mobilized to expel troops from Kuwait, Scuds started landing in Israel. Is it just me or does Saddam seem to pick fights with a lot of people.

I'm sure Kuwait and Iran wouldn't particularly care for that comment either.

[quote]If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large.[/quote]

k, i kinda agree with you on this one, but only because i want Osama's head on a stick for justice reasons. But like Jenks said he is more of a figurehead now. He will never carry out an attack himself, and as long as we keep his minions in check or 6 feet under, he is pretty much useless.

[quote=evangelion][quote=Galapidate]The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.[/quote]

Says who...you? Liberals? All of the brainwashed masses having just seen your buddy Moore's movie and all of sudden think they "know what's going on?" [/quote]

No, most of the world (see the Gallup poll in the "Is bush winning the WOT thread). The US couldn't even get the Security Council to pass a vote to "liberate" Iraq. More people protested this war around the war than nearly any other even in history...were all those people also brainwashed by Michael Moore's movie?

[quote=delirious][quote=evangelion][quote=Galapidate]The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.[/quote]

Says who...you? Liberals? All of the brainwashed masses having just seen your buddy Moore's movie and all of sudden think they "know what's going on?" [/quote]

No, most of the world (see the Gallup poll in the "Is bush winning the WOT thread). The US couldn't even get the Security Council to pass a vote to "liberate" Iraq. More people protested this war around the war than nearly any other even in history...were all those people also brainwashed by Michael Moore's movie?[/quote]

And this means what? Bush should not do what he thinks is right because the world doesn't agree? Let's see...the two most outspoken opponents to this war: France and Germany. What kind of stature do they hold in the world opinion, especially when it comes to matters of war.

Most people protest every war. I can not think of a war in history that had a 100% approval rating, so that agrument means nothing. So more people protested this world than any other? Guess what...the next big war that happens will be protested more than this one. As time passes the general populations of most countries are becoming less and less tolerant of war of any knind, for any reason. So that arguement means nothing.

Your question about the people who protested this war being brainwashed by Moore shows just how thin your arguement is getting. These protests you're referring too happened last year. How could they have been brainwashed by a movie that wasn't even out yet. Yet, you made the statement anyway. Listen man, take a break, get some sleep.You must be exhausted from all of your chart, poll and quote finding missions. We'll pick this up again later. :WinkNSmi:

[quote=evangelion] And this means what? Bush should not do what he thinks is right because the world doesn't agree? [/quote]

No, if Bush is fighting a war on terrorism that requires allies and credibility. He shouldn't be allienating the world and diminishing the opinion of the US worldwide. That's called LOSING THE WAR ON TERRORISM. Less people trust the US. More Muslims are becoming extremist. There are more terrrorist attacks. According to the US's own stats.

[quote=evangelion] Let's see...the two most outspoken opponents to this war: France and Germany. What kind of stature do they hold in the world opinion, especially when it comes to matters of war. [/quote]

There you go about France and Germany again. They weren't the only countries opposed to the war. They were merely the countries on the Security Council which opposed the war. For your information, the following countries also condemned the war:

New Zealand Russia China Belarus Malaysia Indonesia Vietnam Pakistan India Mexico Venezuela Brazil Argentina Chile Belgium Switzerland Sweden Norway Greece Austria Liechtenstein Serbia The Czech Republic Croatia Slovenia Finland The Vatican City Canada

The Entire Arab League, with the exception of Kuwait:

• Egypt
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Lebanon
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• Yemen
• Libya
• Sudan
• Morocco
• Tunisia
• Algeria
• United Arab Emirates
• Bahrai
• Qatar
• Oman
• Mauritania 3
• Somalia
• Palestine
• Djibouti
• Comoros

As well as the African Union, consisting of 53 member states including:

• People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
• Republic of Angola
• Republic of Benin
• Republic of Botswana
• Burkina Faso
• Republic of Burundi
• Republic of Cameroon
• Republic of Cape Verde
• Central African Republic
• Republic of Chad
• Union of Comoros
• Republic of the Congo
• Republic of C?te d'Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Republic of Djibouti
• Arab Republic of Egypt
• State of Eritrea
• Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
• Republic of Equatorial Guinea
• Gabonese Republic
• The Republic of The Gambia
• Republic of Ghana
• Republic of Guinea
• Republic of Guinea Bissau
• Republic of Kenya
• Lesotho
• Republic of Liberia
• Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Republic of Madagascar
• Republic of Malawi
• Republic of Mali
• Islamic Republic of Mauritania
• Republic of Mauritius
• Republic of Mozambique
• Republic of Namibia
• Republic of Niger
• Federal Republic of Nigeria
• Republic of Rwanda
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• Democratic Republic of S?o Tom? and Pr?ncipe
• Republic of Senegal
• Republic of Seychelles
• Republic of Sierra Leone
• Republic of Somalia
• Republic of South Africa
• Republic of Sudan
• Swaziland
• United Republic of Tanzania
• Togolese Republic
• Republic of Tunisia
• Republic of Uganda
• Republic of Zambia
• Republic of Zimbabwe

Just because the US media reported the France and Germany criticism the most, it doesn't mean they were the most outspoken. Read the comments by some of the other countries before you form such an opinion.

[quote=evangelion] Most people protest every war. [/quote]

They do?

Where do you get the figure that over 5 billion people protested the war?

[quote=evangelion] I can not think of a war in history that had a 100% approval rating, so that agrument means nothing. So more people protested this world than any other? Guess what...the next big war that happens will be protested more than this one. As time passes the general populations of most countries are becoming less and less tolerant of war of any knind, for any reason. So that arguement means nothing. [/quote]

That's absolute rubbish. People were against THIS war specifically. If you don't see that, you've been living in some sort of shell. How many people protested the Afghan war? Show me some reports of "millions" protesting it.

Why was there such a difference?

[quote=evangelion] Your question about the people who protested this war being brainwashed by Moore shows just how thin your arguement is getting. These protests you're referring too happened last year. How could they have been brainwashed by a movie that wasn't even out yet. Yet, you made the statement anyway. Listen man, take a break, get some sleep.You must be exhausted from all of your chart, poll and quote finding missions. We'll pick this up again later. :WinkNSmi:[/quote]

Read your previous comment. You implied that Moore's movie had just made the liberals think they know what's going on. You just proved my point by showing that the movie was out way before all the worldwide protests :lol:

[size=6]Again, why did millions and millions of people around the world protest the Iraq war but not the Afghan war?[/size]

Get some sleep? It's the middle of the day! :?

^More than half of those countries are laughable.

My city's street budget is more than the gdp of a lot of them combined.

John Kerry classic:

"I actually DID vote for the 87 billion dollar military bill, before I voted against it"..

[quote]No, if Bush is fighting a war on terrorism that requires allies and credibility. He shouldn't be allienating the world and diminishing the opinion of the US worldwide. That's called LOSING THE WAR ON TERRORISM. Less people trust the US. More Muslims are becoming extremist. There are more terrrorist attacks. According to the US's own stats. [/quote]

Do you really think we should go with polls in other countries before we fight our enemies? Where is the logic in that accusation?

Look, plain and simple, it's hard to get countries involved in a war that is against you. Especially if they don't give a shit about YOUR future.

You claim more people are becoming extremists, WHO CARES. That is a part of fighting a war. Do you expect us to not retaliate? Let's do what Clinton did for 8 years and talk about a peaceful solution to all of this.

You have to wage a battle on their battlefield to end this.

If you do not agree, give me a [i]solution[/i] to this.

[quote=Jenks]^More than half of those countries are laughable.

My city's street budget is more than the gdp of a lot of them combined.[/quote]

But, they're still countries. Just because you're lucky enough to be born in the States it doesn't mean, you have to disrespect others. I am going to report your post! :wink:

And you know what I find laughable? Countries whose leadership decided to support the American campaign in Iraq, inspite the contradicting public opinion. So much for your "allies", a bunch of :KissMuhAzz: s.

[quote=cosmo]John Kerry classic:

"I actually DID vote for the 87 billion dollar military bill, before I voted against it"..[/quote]

Probably [b]the[/b] best.

Just imagine..."I did mean to hit the Launch button, before I didn't."

As for delirous' rather lengthy response: when will people come to the realization that just because some pissant country (no matter how many) opposes what we do because they are either a. not involved b. stand to gain nothing or c. just blindly oppose anything the U.S. does is not going to affect the way things play out. And don't even try to say that these countries don't exist and don't ask me to back up my statement with one of your famous page long quotes or list of links because we all know they exist (see France and Germany...[b]OOPS[/b]...there they go again).

[quote=brakada][quote=Jenks]^More than half of those countries are laughable.

My city's street budget is more than the gdp of a lot of them combined.[/quote]

But, they're still countries. Just because you're lucky enough to be born in the States it doesn't mean, you have to disrespect others. I am going to report your post! :wink:

And you know what I find laughable? Countries whose leadership decided to support the American campaign in Iraq, inspite the contradicting public opinion. So much for your "allies", a bunch of :KissMuhAzz: s.[/quote]

Why didn't people like this bitch when we bombed Serbia?

We have allies because the leaders believe in what we are doing, despite public opinion.

Let me ask you something. If you have a football team, what would be the implications of not having a head coach, a leader to lead you in the right direction?

[quote=evangelion] As for delirous' rather lengthy response: when will people come to the realization that just because some pissant country (no matter how many) opposes what we do because they are either a. not involved b. stand to gain nothing or c. just blindly oppose anything the U.S. does is not going to affect the way things play out. And don't even try to say that these countries don't exist and don't ask me to back up my statement with one of your famous page long quotes or list of links because we all know they exist (see France and Germany...[b]OOPS[/b]...there they go again).[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure that countries like Sweden, Norway and a lot of other countries do NOT oppose American campaign because of the formentioned reasons. And while I could agree that France is contradicting the US because they are no involved and blindly oppose anything that Bush does (not the US; they were never opposing Clinton that much), I think this is not the case with Germany. If any country in the world learned that going to war and invading souvereign countries is wrong, this would definitely be Germany and they were probably the only ones who learned something.

[quote=cosmo] Why didn't people like this bitch when we bombed Serbia? [/quote]

I bitched, although Serbia was a bit different than Iraq and the intervention was a "bit" more justified. There was a war going on there at the time. There was NOTHING going on in Iraq before the "allies" invaded it, in fact Sadam was kinder than ever... :lol:

[quote=cosmo] We have allies because the leaders believe in what we are doing, despite public opinion. [/quote]

So, why don't they enroll the US army and go fight there. They are wasting their taxpayers money and they send their taxpayers to war. For what? If we were sending any troops to Iraq, I would definitely rant why we are spending money for an ill and carelessly planned campaign. I'm surprised that none of the Americans ever bitch about the huge amount of your money spent.

[quote=cosmo] Let me ask you something. If you have a football team, what would be the implications of not having a head coach, a leader to lead you in the right direction?[/quote]

If it's a coach with a great ability to screw everything up, I'd rather choose: "NO coach". :WinkNSmi: