|
Post by Im sorry on Aug 16, 2004 14:13:13 GMT -5
That liberal Masachussetts senator (Ted Kennedy's partner) thinks WE should allow our ALLIES to dictate actions taken by US troops! When we go to the UN, we have ONE VOTE and yet provide MOST of the manpower and money.
The socialists running France and Germany don't think AMERICA should be fighting against terrorists. They won't support us BUT LET THEM BE ATTACKED and they will whine for us to protect them.
Face it, Europe is in decline. They have allowed their colonial territory to become independent and now they have no power or influence. They resent Americans.
Too bad Helmut Kohl isn't running Germany and Mitterand in France. They weren't like the chickenshi+ running these countries today.
|
|
|
Post by Really now on Aug 16, 2004 18:15:43 GMT -5
That liberal Masachussetts senator (Ted Kennedy's partner) thinks WE should allow our ALLIES to dictate actions taken by US troops! When we go to the UN, we have ONE VOTE and yet provide MOST of the manpower and money. This is more or less the principle that democracy is founded on - one person, one vote. Are you suggesting something different? The ability fo richer nations to buy votes perhaps? I doubt you could support this stand with facts. I think they were against the US attacking Iraq to remove the WMDs. They probably read the intellegence reports and decided there really was no connection between sept 11 and Iraq. Decline? By what measure? So not only are you against democracy but you support imperialism. I can see why France and Germany would not be YOUR friend!
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 16, 2004 21:17:08 GMT -5
This is more or less the principle that democracy is founded on - one person, one vote. . . . . Which is why democracy does not work in a greedy or immoral society. The United States had survived as long as it has largely because it is not a democracy! The more like one it becomes, the faster its demise will occur. inatent
|
|
|
Post by to really on Aug 17, 2004 20:14:10 GMT -5
America has EVERY right to fight terrorism. If the FRENCH are not for us, they are against us and we should boycott their products!!
I don't know where you get such stupid ideas? Liberal college professors cramming liberal baloney into your skulls?
You may be the younger generation of touchy feely "can't we get along" types.
If the French and Germans aren't FOR US, they are sworn enemies and should be treated that way. I guess the French think Saddam was a decent leader who was attacked by the evil US! Chirac and Shroeder should be defeated! French and Germans were kissing Saddam's butt defying sanctions! FRANCE is our enemy!
|
|
|
Post by Confused on Aug 18, 2004 0:34:27 GMT -5
America has EVERY right to fight terrorism. Yes it does. Just why did we decide to pull back from trying to fight them? Wht does Bush no longer care where bin Laden is? Why did we invade Iraq? The first step might be a little introspection to see if perhaps the US overstepped its bounds. I see a question mark but I fail to see a question. Well, it seems clear that this was not the case for you. Or just a human being who is reluctant to continue killing.
|
|
|
Post by to confused on Aug 18, 2004 7:31:09 GMT -5
Stop listening to the liberal media. Then you won't be confused. America had better be strong and respond to any threats abroad. I guess you think Iraq was better off under Saddam and his mass graves/torture chambers!!
Again, I find too many 18-29 year olds who think that we need to be nice guys who should get along with these terrorists.
There is NO PROOF that US has abandoned the fight against Bin Ladin. Maybe your friend Clinton should have taken care of Osama after the FIRST World Trade center and some embassies in Africa. No Janet Waco Reno was too busy worrying about some religious compound in Texas!!
Ok liberals, let's go back to 911. I know you peace loving "let's get along" types don't want to admit it. But Bush had been in office 8 months after Clinton had been in office for EIGHT YEARS!! Hello! Hello!
Taking Saddam out of office didn't hinder the fight against Afghanistan.
The French are so afraid of the Muslims immigrants from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia that they will steer clear of helping us. A bunch of cowards. Didn't they see what happened to Madrid last spring??
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 24, 2004 13:24:31 GMT -5
Stop listening to the liberal media. Then you won't be confused. America had better be strong and respond to any threats abroad. America does not have the resources to respond to any threat made at home or abroad. It is hampered even more when the efforts to stop terrorism are directed at a country that is not heavily tied to terrorist activity. What does this have to do with fighting terrorism? It's that damn Christian ethic of turning the other cheek. Things run much better when you follow an eye for an eye policy. In no time the whole world is blind. Troop count would be one indication. The words of the commander and cheif would be another. Remember, Bush stated he was no longer interested in bin Laden. I think I have somehow missed your point here. Actually one had very little to do with the other. Bush was looking to go into Iraq and really had little interest in finding bin Laden. As to being afraid - look around you.
|
|
|
Post by To present on Aug 24, 2004 18:06:44 GMT -5
I can debate your liberal views all day long. I would bet much money that you are under 30. It seems like the 20 somethings raised under Clinton tend to believe what their college professors tell them. America is NOT better off with the values ot John Kerry, Teddy Chappaquadack Kennedy, Janet Waco Reno, HILLARious Rotten Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, etc.
They kill innocent babies in America and oppose killing TERRORISTS in the Middle East. Why do you liberals believe a woman has the RIGHT to have her baby killed? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by To Present on Aug 24, 2004 18:09:20 GMT -5
Ok liberals, let's go back to 911. I know you peace loving "let's get along" types don't want to admit it. But Bush had been in office 8 months after Clinton had been in office for EIGHT YEARS!! Hello! Hello! I think I have somehow missed your point here. ----------------- Maybe some people WANT to miss the point when it proves to them that Clinton, Reno, Albright, Sock man Berger and Holbrook were ignoring signs of terrorism is 93 and 98. I don't know if you knew that the World trade center was bombed in 1993! Just thought I would let you know that in case you forgot.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 25, 2004 2:37:46 GMT -5
I can debate your liberal views all day long. I would bet much money that you are under 30. It seems like the 20 somethings raised under Clinton tend to believe what their college professors tell them. Don't quit your day job for gambling. You would have lost 'much money'. Your cute little names are so original. That level of wit almost leaves me speachless. Do you have a quote from any of the above stating they were not in support of attempting to eliminate the terrorists? Or are you just foaming at the mouth as usual. No one has said anything about a baby. That would imply that it was an individual that can live without support of the mother. If you are serious about talking about this why don't you start by defining exactly when you think an individual is formed.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 25, 2004 2:57:11 GMT -5
Maybe some people WANT to miss the point when it proves to them that Clinton, Reno, Albright, Sock man Berger and Holbrook were ignoring signs of terrorism is 93 and 98. I don't know if you knew that the World trade center was bombed in 1993! Just thought I would let you know that in case you forgot. OK. So Clinton's cruise missile attack did not kill bin Laden. And at the end of his term bin Laden was still at large. If it was so clear that bin Laden was a threat, exactly what was Bush doing for those 8 months? The threat was clearer. The August 6 memo should have raised the flag. Yet Bush, for 8 months, did nothing. Did you read the 9/11 report? Neither administration had the infomation they needed to accomplish the task. But it is a moot point. Bush has said he is no longer interested in bin Laden.
|
|