The United States.

[Undead Cheese]

we aren't afraid of you... if anything, you're the ones who are afraid.

Enlighten me.

Afraid of what? To my knowledge, you barely have food to feed yourselves. And that problem is only going to get worst.

There aren't any food shortages in the United States. >_>

What bullshit have you been listening to, if that was true he would of signed the treaty to lower pollution, thousands of deaths each year are linked with it. YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD. YOU POLLUTE MORE THAN AFRICA AND EUROPE COMBINED. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE SHIT WE GET FROM YOU.

Our emissions are decreasing.

Pro-life my ass.

"Pro-life" usually refers to abortion, not the environment.

Why the hell did he kill thousands of Iraqis needlessly when the U.N was negiotiating and Iraq was disarming weapons.

ROFL!

* EDIT: My computer crashed when I made the last one, so I didn't think it had gotten through :|

 

[Tipsy]

You agreed with him, without proving anything. Oh wait minute, maybe that comment abou the freedom fries was your proof of the absolut american hate against the french ? Right, I'm sure a two months trend started by a retarded senator, which was followed by other retarded people like him, is demonstrative of the american people....

I never said I had anything against the French, I said he was telling the truth when he said many Americans dislike the French. The big long quote I had proving the statement true was out of an encyclopedia. I can't get much more factual than by citing from an encyclopedia.

Before the gulfwar, Irak supposedly had the fouth strongest military, but this was proven to be pure propaganda. I mean, I doubt that Irak could be in the fourth position : USA, URSS, china, Britain, France... and after that, your not really a military power anymore. Then again, the statement of "one of the strongest in the world" still remains technicaly true... ok then.

I was actually supporting both of you on this point. All I said was that it was one of the strongest militaries in the world, just the gap between Iraq and the actual powerful countries was large.

And because of what is Democracy failed ? All your really need in a democracy to work is educated and dynamic people, who will take part in the political decision process, that all. I dont see why this system is naturaly doomed to fail, like communism.

I stated in my post "Just to point this out real quick, this is just my opinion, not a widespread american opinion", and it is because of one major thing, our democracy is based off the democracy of the ancient Greeks, more specifically Athens. I believe after reading about causes of the Peloponesian War which led to the fall of Athens, which led to the fall of all Greek city-states due to Sparta not being able to rally all the city-states together like Athens did when Greece was invaded, was the democracy in Athens. This is my opinion that I formed after reading the facts about the fall of ancient Greece. As for the other examples in history of failed democracy i'll save for another time because I could make atleasts two posts length on this (aka save it for another topic).
Edit: I think I will make a new topic about this when I have time, don't bother responding to what is above this about democracy because what above is only half assed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Is he ****. What bullshit have you been listening to, if that was true he would of signed the treaty to lower pollution, thousands of deaths each year are linked with it. YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD. YOU POLLUTE MORE THAN AFRICA AND EUROPE COMBINED. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE SHIT WE GET FROM YOU. Pro-life my ass. Why the hell did he kill thousands of Iraqis needlessly when the U.N was negiotiating and Iraq was disarming weapons.


* While we do have the highest emissions in the world, our emissions are decreasing.

* ROFL! That's all I have to say.

Just to point out, what ORC-r0x0r-Roc says had nothing to do with anything because he misunderstood the meaning of pro-life.

 

[cxoli]

Sorry, cxoli, but Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest producer of Oil. There is indeed profit in there. Why won't they attack Saudi Arabia? Because it's an ally, and breaking alliances would provoke a seriously bad diplomatic chaos.

Oh, yeah, and because most of the Oil Wells in that country are under control of American companies as it is.

Oy, meant to say Sudan, sorry >< We won't help countries like Sudan or Africa because it won't profit us. You were right about Saudi Arabia; despite the fact that it's a world center for terrorism, we won't attack Saudi Arabia because we would lose our billion-dollar oil deals. It is, however, in our best interest to have a stable Middle East (not that we're helping much). With an Iraqi government established by the United States in place, we could make oil deals....

I made this topic saying that the reason alot of other countries (france, canada, germany) are afriad of Bush is because he is actually taking action and the others are scared of that. But of course this topic went back to the War in Iraq and I just dont feel like re-stating myself time an time agian. If you want my points, their all up there. Look for the ones in Bullitian form.

I've read everything you posted in this thread so far. Pretty much everything here has been on-topic, seeing as why people are against the War in Iraq could explain why other countries don't like Bush. Perhaps they're afraid of him and what he'll do (so are 49% of Americans, apparently), but my guess is they're also annoyed with the whole situation.

no, I wouldn't. Christianity doesn't support what he did. Genocide=wrong in every single religion.

The point I was making is that 1. just because someone calls themselves Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) doesn't mean they are, and 2. someone who commits crimes not condoned by their religion may still think they are doing the right thing (i.e. the "Will of God" or whatever you want to call it; the 9/11 hijackers, Hitler, and Bush are all examples). And

apart from that, bravo, great post.

Thank you ^^

Tipsy, I can understand voting for Bush because he opposes abortion, but why would you vote for a man who wants to deny people the rights granted to them by the constitution? Bush opposes gay marriage and wants to ban it. Kerry opposes gay marriage and wants to give them the same rights as everyone else. Why? Because it's the law. Personal opinion shouldn't matter.

so tell me,...why's Bush's position better than Kerry's? And you think Bush'll actually stop abortions from happening? People will simply turn to back-alley abortions performed by god knows whom. Personally, I'd rather have people having abortions in hospitals as opposed to back-alleys.

True. Legalization would allow for safe abortions as well as education about it.

In response to your Gay marrige comment. A liberal on theis forum(and he admited to be liberal) opposed gay marrige and brought up an excellant point. He said that its like a seperation between church and state. Basicly in the last few years liberals have been whining about all sorts of this religious. They try and perrty much make the word "god" a banned word. Out of the pledge, our money, our parks, our courts. Because it was a seperation between church and state. So why is it now that the state(meaning the liberals in congres) are now trying to change the church into allowing gay marrige. Isnt that "seperation between church and state"??? They are only contridicting themselves by saying that.

Hmm, I'm liberal and don't want God to be banned. I simply feel that the government should allow homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Let churches do what they want; the government shouldn't interfere.

The point is you can't pick and choose which of the teachings of the church you follow, you either attempt to follow them all of you choose not to be in that religion.

Of course you can pick and choose, people do it all the time. Christianity says not to masturbate, cut your beard in a certain way, or eat pork, but people do those things all the time. It says "do not kill" but our war has cost tens of thousands of people their lives. Christianity is full of hypocrisy, personal opinion, and thousands of different interpretations. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want.

Tipsy, it confuses me how you can be against abortion but not against a war that has caused the deaths of as many as 100,000 Iraqis and over 11,000 American soldiers.

If this is refering to the United States, I don't know what you're talking about. There are no food shortages here. >_>

So you deny the fact that there are people who starve to death in the United States.

 

[B~E]

I never said I had anything against the French, I said he was telling the truth when he said many Americans dislike the French. The big long quote I had proving the statement true was out of an encyclopedia. I can't get much more factual than by citing from an encyclopedia.

Oh, its the darnest thing, I hadn't seen it. I saw some comment about freedom fries on top of page two, and assumed that was your proof. My bad, im sorry.

And I think I pretty much agree with everything I quoted you now. thats good, I guess. =)

 

[Tipsy]

The point I was making is that 1. just because someone calls themselves Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) doesn't mean they are, and 2. someone who commits crimes not condoned by their religion may still think they are doing the right thing (i.e. the "Will of God" or whatever you want to call it; the 9/11 hijackers, Hitler, and Bush are all examples).

Gotta say it, Bravo.

Tipsy, I can understand voting for Bush because he opposes abortion, but why would you vote for a man who wants to deny people the rights granted to them by the constitution?

If you are refering to abortion, then I think the constitution is wrong if it legalizes murder. If your talking about gay marraige i'll answer that after next quote.

Bush opposes gay marriage and wants to ban it. Kerry opposes gay marriage and wants to give them the same rights as everyone else. Why? Because it's the law. Personal opinion shouldn't matter.

There is only 1 difference between Kerry's stance and Bush's stance on gay marriage. Bush wants to have a constitutional ammendment passed to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states. Kerry wants each of the 50 states to vote for it themself. I pick Bush in this matter because he has a more aggressive stance on trying to ban it.

True. Legalization would allow for safe abortions as well as education about it.

Legalizing other forms of murder such as shooting people would make it safer for people around them who would act as witnesses of a crime, as well as edutcation about it, but I don't forsee people able to just walk up and shoot somebody on the street.
(Note: extreme example but it gets the point across)

Of course you can pick and choose, people do it all the time. Christianity says not to masturbate, cut your beard in a certain way, or eat pork, but people do those things all the time. It says "do not kill" but our war has cost tens of thousands of people their lives. Christianity is full of hypocrisy, personal opinion, and thousands of different interpretations. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want.

Cutting your beard and eating pork are only in certain sects of Judaism and I'm pretty sure not in any sect of Christianity, though I only speak on the Roman Catholic behalf when I speak of Christianity. As for the do not masterbate part, there is a difference between doing something that is wrong and believing that it is okay. For the "It says "do not kill" but our war has cost tens of thousands of people their lives.", the ten commandments say more than meets the eye. The 10 commandments cover a very vast amount of topics, do not kill does not only mean do not kill, it means much more. As for hypocrasy, find me any hypocrasy in Roman Catholic teaching and I will gladly clear up any misconception you have on it.

Tipsy, it confuses me how you can be against abortion but not against a war that has caused the deaths of as many as 100,000 Iraqis and over 11,000 American soldiers.

Let's see, would I rather see 111,000 people die in a war, or 1.3 million get murdered... I think I'd rather see the 1.3 million saved. The War on Terror was most definately not at the top of my list for who to vote for. As for why I support the war on terror, I have my own opinions formed on facts I see presented. Also, I don't think I've actually stated that I support the War on Terror, but your assumption that I do is correct (If I have stated it please inform me ). Do I support everything Bush has done 100%? No, I don't. Do I support his concept of the war on terror? Some parts. Also, the bottom line in my mind about John Kerry vs George Bush on the war on terror is I believe Bush can run a better war on terror than Kerry could, because regardless of who is president, the war is going on now and you can't pull out.

So you deny the fact that there are people who starve to death in the United States.

People do starve in the United States.

I posted this one the fourth page of this thread, but I'm going to copy and paste it here to re-emphasize this point:
You asked for people to tell you a reason Bush is a good president. I have read everything you have said and it has disproved none of my beliefs. All you can do is attack what I believe by saying someone else may believe something else. Well then, maybe that other person doesn't support Bush, but I have given you the reasons why I voted for Bush and why I believe Bush is a good president. I voted on my morals and values and when I looked into it, Bush's beliefs are closer to mine than John Kerry's are so I voted for Bush.

The last sentence is the kicker.

 

[cxoli]

Gotta say it, Bravo.

Thanks ^^

There is only 1 difference between Kerry's stance and Bush's stance on gay marriage. Bush wants to have a constitutional ammendment passed to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states. Kerry wants each of the 50 states to vote for it themself. I pick Bush in this matter because he has a more aggressive stance on trying to ban it.

And I support Kerry because regardless of what measures he takes to either ban or legalize gay marriage, personally he thinks it should be legalized. I wasn't asking about which measures each candidate planned to take.

Legalizing other forms of murder such as shooting people would make it safer for people around them who would act as witnesses of a crime, as well as edutcation about it, but I don't forsee people able to just walk up and shoot somebody on the street.

Murder is taking the life of another human being; it is debatable whether or not getting an abortion is actually taking a human life.

Cutting your beard and eating pork are only in certain sects of Judaism and I'm pretty sure not in any sect of Christianity, though I only speak on the Roman Catholic behalf when I speak of Christianity. As for the do not masterbate part, there is a difference between doing something that is wrong and believing that it is okay. For the "It says "do not kill" but our war has cost tens of thousands of people their lives.", the ten commandments say more than meets the eye. The 10 commandments cover a very vast amount of topics, do not kill does not only mean do not kill, it means much more. As for hypocrasy, find me any hypocrasy in Roman Catholic teaching and I will gladly clear up any misconception you have on it.

I'm saying that Christianity preaches from the Bible but does things that go against it, like in the examples I gave. Christians are a people of the book, so anything Christians do or say against the Bible would be considered hypocrisy.

Let's see, would I rather see 111,000 people die in a war, or 1.3 million get murdered... I think I'd rather see the 1.3 million saved.

This isn't an either/or situation. If another candidate had been elected president (I'm talking about the 2000 election), there's no saying that we would still be at war with Iraq. So now we have deaths from both instead of (potentially) just one, and you didn't really answer my question.

The War on Terror was most definately not at the top of my list for who to vote for. As for why I support the war on terror, I have my own opinions formed on facts I see presented. Also, I don't think I've actually stated that I support the War on Terror, but your assumption that I do is correct (If I have stated it please inform me ). Do I support everything Bush has done 100%? No, I don't. Do I support his concept of the war on terror? Some parts.

You might have mentioned it before, but mainly I'm just stereotyping and making assumptions based on the other beliefs you hold ^^;;

Also, the bottom line in my mind about John Kerry vs George Bush on the war on terror is I believe Bush can run a better war on terror than Kerry could, because regardless of who is president, the war is going on now and you can't pull out.

[/quote]

I agree with you on that, actually. I understand that it's risky to change leadership during a war and I have no idea how Kerry would have handled it, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about the results of the election.

People do starve in the United States.

That's the point I was making. Maybe I should point out my sarcasm next time.

I voted on my morals and values and when I looked into it, Bush's beliefs are closer to mine than John Kerry's are so I voted for Bush.

The last sentence is the kicker.

Of course you should vote based on your morals and values. I don't really care if you voted for Bush (at least you can back your opinions up), it just makes for a good topic to debate

 

[amrtin77]

That's the point I was making. Maybe I should point out my sarcasm next time.

that doesnt mean there is a food shortage. that means it costs more for farmers to ship the food then to burn it. america produces more than enough food to sustain itself. the problem isnt a shortage in food, the problem is money.

and if your so poor that your starving to death, then you could easily be on welfare getting paid more than a minimum wage job. i think welfare should pay less, because it can be more worth it to stay on welfare than to work. but i highly doubt many people in america starve.... unless theyre locked in a basement or something.


now i wont deny that there are plenty of poor hungry people. but i seriously doubt many people are starving to the point of death in america.

 

[Kamikaze]

Enlighten me.

prove to me your not

you don't see my country waging a war against terrorists... maybe because we're not afraid of them because we've never ****ed their countries over and bombed their houses

 

[Undead Cheese]

Gah... My computer crashed when I posted last night, so I accidentally posted twice. :|

prove to me your not

you don't see my country waging a war against terrorists... maybe because we're not afraid of them because we've never ****ed their countries over and bombed their houses

So you don't think you should eliminate problems before it's too late?

 

[Kuzmich]

For his country its never gonna be too late. Terrorists aren't just doing what they doing for fun of it. They want your influence out of their area.

Look at Spain before they started helping you in Iraq they had no problem with terrorists. And then a ****ing train gets blown up by terrorists in Spain. So they pull out, and no more terrorist acts has occured since then.

US isn't fighting a war on terrorism, it is fighting a selfish war, the only reason for which is to expand its influence and get oil and other natural resources.

 

[B~E]

US isn't fighting a war on terrorism, it is fighting a selfish war, the only reason for which is to expand its influence and get oil and other natural resources.

There's nothing wrong with that. Only thing that bothers me really is that I think their gonna fail, and I hope they dont.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Look at Spain before they started helping you in Iraq they had no problem with terrorists. And then a ****ing train gets blown up by terrorists in Spain. So they pull out, and no more terrorist acts has occured since then.

Correction. They didn't have any islamic Terrostit Attacks. But they still have ETA (even though it's dead by now).

 

[Kuzmich]

There's nothing wrong with that. Only thing that bothers me really is that I think their gonna fail, and I hope they dont.

Then did you start suppostng war in Iraq all the sudden?

 

[amrtin77]

dont be stupid. he says he hopes america doesnt fail. if america fails, that would be a major ****up for the world... america is an essential par6t of todays world whether you accept it or not. america failing in iraq would hurt a lot of countries. if our economy gets screwed over the world economy has some shit to worry about.


just because you dont support the war doesnt mean you have to think without any regard to the condition of the world.

 

[Tipsy]

And I support Kerry because regardless of what measures he takes to either ban or legalize gay marriage, personally he thinks it should be legalized. I wasn't asking about which measures each candidate planned to take.

This is exactly what I was talking about, you don't support Bush because of your morals and values, I support him because of my morals and values.

Murder is taking the life of another human being; it is debatable whether or not getting an abortion is actually taking a human life.

I posted in the beginning of the string of posts talking about why I voted for Bush was due to my morals and values, thus you can see what I think here.

I'm saying that Christianity preaches from the Bible but does things that go against it, like in the examples I gave. Christians are a people of the book, so anything Christians do or say against the Bible would be considered hypocrisy.

I didn't see a working example in your post.

This isn't an either/or situation. If another candidate had been elected president (I'm talking about the 2000 election), there's no saying that we would still be at war with Iraq. So now we have deaths from both instead of (potentially) just one, and you didn't really answer my question.

To me it is, if Al Gore was elected in 2000 partial birth abortion would probably still be legal, there would have been a different course after 9/11, and he would probably have been re-elected last week. So, if another canidate was elected in 2000 those 1.3 million people would not have a fighting chance. It is easy to be pro-choice when you aren't the one being killed. It is an either/or situation.

I agree with you on that, actually. I understand that it's risky to change leadership during a war and I have no idea how Kerry would have handled it, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about the results of the election.

I was actually refering to Kerry vs Bush policies here.

that doesnt mean there is a food shortage. that means it costs more for farmers to ship the food then to burn it. america produces more than enough food to sustain itself. the problem isnt a shortage in food, the problem is money.

and if your so poor that your starving to death, then you could easily be on welfare getting paid more than a minimum wage job. i think welfare should pay less, because it can be more worth it to stay on welfare than to work. but i highly doubt many people in america starve.... unless theyre locked in a basement or something.

now i wont deny that there are plenty of poor hungry people. but i seriously doubt many people are starving to the point of death in america.

I may have missed something, but I keep seeing talk about starving in the United States, what does this have to do with Bush and Kerry?

 

[B~E]

Then did you start suppostng war in Iraq all the sudden?

Its all in shades of grey, really.

On the topic of war in Irak, I am agaisnt the flawed reasons it got started, how it got started (shaky arguments and lies), the fact that not enough countrie are involved, and the actualy goal of the war (democracy).

Other than that, I support it, because failiur would deal an enormous blow at the United State's credibility, and sucess would mean and important ally in the center of the Middle-East, and thus, a powerfull lever to exercess power in this region and the world.

 

[Kuzmich]

dont be stupid. he says he hopes america doesnt fail. if america fails, that would be a major ****up for the world... america is an essential par6t of todays world whether you accept it or not. america failing in iraq would hurt a lot of countries. if our economy gets screwed over the world economy has some shit to worry about.


just because you dont support the war doesnt mean you have to think without any regard to the condition of the world.

Heh, you are overestimating effect of war in Iraq on your economy and world economy. If you fail then it will be better for your economy because you will not have to spend a shitload of money on keeping your troops in Iraq.

Also even if your economy becomes shitty it doesn't affect my country, our main resource is natural gas and our main buyer is european countries, and euro is already stronger then dollar. Basically whatever happens to your economy means nothing to my country.

I want to see you fail, about time you calm down with that arrogant bullshit you keep pulling out of your ass. I am talking about your so called "war on terrorism".

Other than that, I support it, because failiur would deal an enormous blow at the United State's credibility

Why do you care about US credibility, i say let those fat ass ignorant bastards wake up and realize that they don't mean shit by themselves.

 

[dreamcrusader]

He means that if we dont win the War in Iraq then other countrys wont trust us in the future if they need our help with a war

 

[Laharl]

The United State's credibility? Don't worry about things which are dead. Bush (on behalf of America) lied to the world about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. That is not debatable.

Note: I'll be adding that quote of B~E's into my siggy. To honour him for saying something that could be considered a great quote. Good job, B~E.

 

[dreamcrusader]

So homo, If 12 intelligance agancys from around the world told you that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction you would push them off? I know he didnt have any but Bush didnt "lie". He was misinformed from other intelligance agancys. But you shouldnt judge the enitre war effect on the one point.