Bush doing a 180º with Europe

[spillmind]

iraq would be the same as it was before the invasion

except tens of thousands of people that have been murdered would be alive today.

saddam would be in power, getting rich on oil for food instead of buying food for his people, he would be writting checks to hamas' suicide bombers and harbouring the al queda operatives that fled afganistan to iraq

who finances oil for food?

france germany china and russia would be getting rich on oil for food and continuing to sell weapons systems to iraq all in violation of the UN embargo

and we know the united states has NEVER violated any UN embargo, let alone EVER traded weapons behind anyone's back, or EVER tried to revamp a political landscape ANYWHERE in there world. sure man, whatever. i've got some property in iraq for sale, you interested? real estate is HOT there, dude!

the UN would continue to pass resoltuion to do something yet do nothing

back to the old this resolution is far more important than other resolutions. this only makes sense to bush supporters. the rest of the educated world can see the glaring hypocrisy.

oday an cosay would raping women, beating soccer players and feeding whomever, feet first into wood chippers

and iraq is the only place in the world were human rights were violated. why don't we invade an occupy every country where such atrocities are commonplace?

the left would be complaing about the human rights problems in iraq and begging the neocons to do something about it

those damn liberals are on the wrong side of the fence about EVERY single issue, no comprimise.... yes, i know this is how you feel. congratulations.

 

[manu1959]

a) bush is LYING about not wanting to invade iran, like he LIED about not having any plans to invade iraq, simply repeating his behavior.

b) we have neither the funds nor the manpower to invade iran, let alone maintain the occupation in iraq.

c) bush is now sucking up to europe because he cannot do the cowboy song and dance anymore, the selections are over, and his advisors have shown him the numbers and given him (sound) advice to solicit help from the EU because we cannot continue alone as we have so far.

where is my chest thumping and my bush bashing? that i find it all predictable and amusing that he's rubbing elbows with people you love to bash rubbing you the wrong way?

a) where is your proof that he is lying

b) agreed

c) so

everything you post bush bashes

the sentance structure of your last question is unclear to me so i can't respond

 

[OCA]

Seems like Bush is paying a lot more attention to Iran's potential nuclear capabilities than North Korea's actual nuclear capabilities. Is Iran more evil than NK? Is it a low-hanging fruit, comparatively? Is it more dangerous, even though it doesn't currently have weapons and delivery systems? Is North Korea worth neglecting because their missles can only reach the Western seaboard? Coughbluestatescough.

Help me out.

The left is funny, very funny. You see what they do, right people? They want 1 thing, then when they get it they take the opposite side and ridicule. Now if Bush was to take NK head on militarily we would hear all sorts of stuff about preemptive war and occupation and such. Hypocrisy at its fullest. How do you guys sleep at night?

 

[OCA]

except tens of thousands of people that have been murdered would be alive today.



who finances oil for food?



and we know the united states has NEVER violated any UN embargo, let alone EVER traded weapons behind anyone's back, or EVER tried to revamp a political landscape ANYWHERE in there world. sure man, whatever. i've got some property in iraq for sale, you interested? real estate is HOT there, dude!



back to the old this resolution is far more important than other resolutions. this only makes sense to bush supporters. the rest of the educated world can see the glaring hypocrisy.



and iraq is the only place in the world were human rights were violated. why don't we invade an occupy every country where such atrocities are commonplace?



those damn liberals are on the wrong side of the fence about EVERY single issue, no comprimise.... yes, i know this is how you feel. congratulations.

You neglect that the overwhelmong majority of Iraqi dead have been murdered by the insurgents(lol what a term!) themselves. Your blind allegiance to a long dead ideology is astounding.

 

[manu1959]

except tens of thousands of people that have been murdered would be alive today.

who finances oil for food?

and we know the united states has NEVER violated any UN embargo, let alone EVER traded weapons behind anyone's back, or EVER tried to revamp a political landscape ANYWHERE in there world. sure man, whatever. i've got some property in iraq for sale, you interested? real estate is HOT there, dude!

back to the old this resolution is far more important than other resolutions. this only makes sense to bush supporters. the rest of the educated world can see the glaring hypocrisy.

and iraq is the only place in the world were human rights were violated. why don't we invade an occupy every country where such atrocities are commonplace?

those damn liberals are on the wrong side of the fence about EVERY single issue, no comprimise.... yes, i know this is how you feel. congratulations.

you are right...we should not have killed anyone we should have let saddam and his son's continue to do as they please, their people loved them

you are right...the UN members should have kept traiding oil for food....you got me why his people were starving...wasn't the sanctions we kept traiding food for oil...what was he doing with all the money

you are right ... since the US has made mistakes in the past and since they were part of the problem originally they should do nothing to correct their mistakes

you are right .... the UN shouldn't make resolutions ... they just hurt peoples feelings ... and make hypocrits out of those that try to enforce them

your right ... since there are atorcities everywhere nothing should be done anywhere

you are right .... see i agree with you liberals are right about everything

 

[OCA]

Its clear from reading Spill's posts that he is a pacifist. He does not foresee any situation short of a nuke attack on his hometown where force is an option. He would've rather us bury our head in the sand and move on after 9/11...and yes Spilly there is a tie between Sadaam and Al Qaeda and in a roundabout way 9/11. You've been here long enough to where you have sen this posted many times, you simply choose to ignore it.

Now I know you are gonna ask me to find this for you but i'm not an errand boy, you'll have to do some searching and refresh your memory.

I know a guy exactly like Spilly, he always talks about past U.S. forien policy and actions, but he has no understanding of the phrase "context of the times".

 

[manu1959]

In my opinion Iran is indeed more dangerous, you can't really believe that they have any peacful intentions, do you?

NK reaching the western seaboard? coughbluestatecough.
I never thought about it like that yet, good thinking! now I don't really feel to bad if they do it!

hey now.... there are some red dots out here fighting the good fight

 

[manu1959]

Its clear from reading Spill's posts that he is a pacifist. He does not foresee any situation short of a nuke attack on his hometown where force is an option. He would've rather us bury our head in the sand and move on after 9/11...and yes Spilly there is a tie between Sadaam and Al Qaeda and in a roundabout way 9/11. You've been here long enough to where you have sen this posted many times, you simply choose to ignore it.

Now I know you are gonna ask me to find this for you but i'm not an errand boy, you'll have to do some searching and refresh your memory.

I know a guy exactly like Spilly, he always talks about past U.S. forien policy and actions, but he has no understanding of the phrase "context of the times".

spill is in palo alto, which means stanford, which means silver spoon liberal, which means guilt, which means help the poor as long as they stay in east palo alto with the rest of the darkies

 

[Avatar4321]

hey now.... there are some red dots out here fighting the good fight

Dont you mean there are some blue dots tainting the rest of the state?

 

[manu1959]

Dont you mean there are some blue dots tainting the rest of the state?

dude, califorina gave us reagan, not sure what happened after that....

 

[OCA]

spill is in palo alto, which means stanford, which means silver spoon liberal, which means guilt, which means help the poor as long as they stay in east palo alto with the rest of the darkies

I spent my first few years in America in San Francisco, although I was young you don't need to tell me about politics there. :teeth:

Its a cesspool of everything that is wrong with America.

 

[OCA]

dude, califorina gave us reagan, not sure what happened after that....

Look up Jerry Brown and the California 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals, that will be all you need to know.

 

[Avatar4321]

dude, califorina gave us reagan, not sure what happened after that....

San Fransisco and Los Angeles happened. the rest of the state stayed with Reagan

 

[theim]

except tens of thousands of people that have been murdered would be alive today.

Um...no. Saddam would still be in business. Perhaps you like to see the Mass Grave as half full. I see it as half empty.

who finances oil for food?[

is that really relevant? Obviously its not the same people who are taking kickbacks.

and we know the united states has NEVER violated any UN embargo, let alone EVER traded weapons behind anyone's back, or EVER tried to revamp a political landscape ANYWHERE in there world. sure man, whatever. i've got some property in iraq for sale, you interested? real estate is HOT there, dude!

You are equating American desire to spread democracy with the Soviet and Islamist desire to spread tyranny. You are sick.

back to the old this resolution is far more important than other resolutions. this only makes sense to bush supporters. the rest of the educated world can see the glaring hypocrisy.

You just go around insulting your own country and then wonder why people think you to be unpatriotic. Funny. Sad, but kinda funny.

and iraq is the only place in the world were human rights were violated. why don't we invade an occupy every country where such atrocities are commonplace?

Next time you get pulled over for speeding tell the officer that the guy right next to you was going just as fast, if not faster. See what he says.

those damn liberals are on the wrong side of the fence about EVERY single issue, no comprimise.... yes, i know this is how you feel. congratulations.

thank you. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to a solution.

 

[jimnyc]

as far as the war on terror goes, if that is your reasoning (these days, it used to be WMD, but we all know how that reason was quickly cast aside)

Can you please show me where anyone EVER claimed it was solely about WMD? I never saw anyone write that here and I know the administration never came close to stating that. In fact, the very resolutions that layed out the entire thing ALWAYS contained more than just WMD.

I'm just curious why you would invent something that just isn't true to bolster your argument.

The problems with Iraq have ALWAYS been about WMD, Kuwaiti bodies and belongings, shooting at our planes, illegal missles, AND YES THE HUMANITARIAN REASONS TOO. You know, the torturing, raping, maiming, shooting, stabbing that was a daily part of too many lives while Saddam was in charge. Hell, the very people who now complain that "It used to be WMD" were the same who ridiculed us back at the beginning when we spoke those words. And it was this way when Bush entered office. It was this way while Clinton was in office. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 1991!

Don't mean to vent on you, Spilly, but I guess I had a bad day. If I read you wrong I apologize in advance.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

except tens of thousands of people that have been murdered would be alive today.

Oh, so everyone killed by US troops was murdered? Even the terrorists and people who shot at the troops first leaving them no choice but to fire back in self-defense were murdered? I see. How typical of a liberal who claims to support the troops but then stabs them in the back with comments like that.

and we know the united states has NEVER violated any UN embargo, let alone EVER traded weapons behind anyone's back, or EVER tried to revamp a political landscape ANYWHERE in there world. sure man, whatever. i've got some property in iraq for sale, you interested? real estate is HOT there, dude!

I see. If the US did it at some point, then that makes it okay for other countries to do it. Got it.

and iraq is the only place in the world were human rights were violated. why don't we invade an occupy every country where such atrocities are commonplace?

So nothing should ever be done in a certain situation unless the same thing will be done in similar situations regardless of the fact that it's impossible for any nation to fix all problems even if that nation wanted to?

those damn liberals are on the wrong side of the fence about EVERY single issue

You got that straight.