Election 2004 (country, American, effect, member, show)

Pimp_racer · 02-01-2004, 07:12 PM

what ever happened to Bush finding Osama i havent heard **** about that lately...Bush started another war before he finished the one with Osama

Edgil · 02-01-2004, 07:17 PM

I have 1 thing to say, everyone stop bitching and

whatever you do. . .

DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN CARREY

IamAlejo · 02-05-2004, 03:14 PM

Okay, you think an economy is going to boom because of 4 years. No, the effect of the economy is normally from the president 1-3 terms before him. And recently the economy has been on an upward trend. But why don't we look at the democratic canidates. Like Edwards, who wants to get NATO involved in Iraq. NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization) Iraq is no where near the north atlantic. So he is a complete retard for even mentioning that. Or what about that General, Dean I believe. He's great job in Kosovo in which he bombed hospitals, civilian convoys, and all other sorts. Newport News is very close by, I go there all the time. And we are STILL looking for Osama. But when no country in the middle east is willing to work with you it doesn't make it easy. And the electoral system has been around forever. No need to complain now. Maybe if Gore could have won his HOME STATE there would be no complaining?

Rockafella Skank · 02-05-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edgil

I have 1 thing to say, everyone stop bitching and

whatever you do. . .

DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN CARREY

Do you mean Kerry?

(I really like Kerry.)

jibber · 02-05-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Hey, I see all you guys saying that you hate Bush. I'm just wondering why. And if you say one thing I'm gonna ask you why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia which is the probably the most rich oil country in the world. So just wondering.

Now on to why the US would never attack Saudi Arabia. Saudi has been the US's biggest resource in the middle east, giving them access to HUGE ammounts of oil (the majority of oil consumed in the US comes from Saudi oil feilds). If one strategically placed attack on one of the oil fields took place, it would be enough to basically cripple the economy. Scenario: a single attack takes place on the Abqaiq extralight crude complex stableizing towers (towers filled with hydrogen sulfide used to refine the oil for it to be useable by consumers) and one of the most vital parts of the saudi oilt pipeline is gine, not to mention the effects the hydrogen sulfide has on the people living there. Abqaiq is only one of hundreds of vital oil fields, if only five of these fields were hit, Saudi would be out of the oil producing business for about 2 years, and seeing as how they are the main supplier of oil to the US (and much of the rest of the world), I doubt any preseident would want to go for that.

IamAlejo · 02-05-2004, 08:06 PM

You are kind of agreeing with me. If Bush only cared for oil he wouldn't care about the effects his actions may have on anything else. But he does, this war was not started for oil. It was started based on the beliefs of the American people. CONGRESS voted to go to war in Iraq, not Bush.

jibber · 02-05-2004, 08:22 PM

I gotta disagree with you there. Bush's main argument for the war in Iraq was the threat he presented to the US, and the alledged "weapons of mass destruction." However, now the Bush administration has admitted that they have not found anything yet, and made a mistake. But they went on after that saying that they did find the materials to create them, and the resources to house them in the country. Bush says they have evidence of qualified scientists who can develop these weapons. well no s*** sherlock. The reason that Iraq has all these resources and all these specialists to develop the weapons is that the US supplied them to Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. The US had a problem with the fundamentalist regime in Iran at the time, so they figured that an easy and convenient way to get rid of it would be to give Saddam all the toys he wanted and let him go nuts. which worked, Iran was effectively screwed up to an extent that it could no longer pose a threat to the US. But now we've got another problem, Saddam has a bunch of weapons and resources, which he then used to attack Kuwait in the Gulf war. now it looked as if Iraq would go after Saudi Arabia, and the US could never have that (oil) so they got a mandate from the UN to only remove Saddam from KUWAIT, not unseat him from his own country. So when Saddam was forced back into Iraq, he went about screwing over his country, but never posing a specific threat to the US. Of course Bush cites alleged links to the Taliban, but there's never been even the slightest shred of evidence. were there any actual CONCRETE link to the Taliban, Bush would have presented it already, especially now, the Bush administration would want to put out ANYTHING that would somewhat validate thier reasons for going into Iraq in the first place, especially since its now obvious there were never any weapons of mass destruction. So basically, Bush went to war with a country for a number of loose, poorly constructed reasons with no concrete evidence to back them up.

Rockafella Skank · 02-05-2004, 08:35 PM

I agree with most of what you say, jibber. Well put. However, I think that the Bush administration knew from the beginning that there were no "weapons of mass destruction".

jibber · 02-05-2004, 08:46 PM

U'r right, they most likely knew there was nothing there. It does bring up the question of the real reason they went in there. You have to assume that at least part of it is for oil, maybe also to get a stronger link in the middle east. When you think about it is actually kind of scary, the US is kind of setting themselves up for a really disturbing pattern of attacks, especially with the whole "axis of evil" syria, north korea and the rest.....

Rockafella Skank · 02-05-2004, 09:27 PM

Yeah, I'm actually sort of worried about it myself. Yes, we did "free" a country, but there are a lot of countries out there that are doing as poorly as Iraq and you don't see us "freeing" them. What scares me is that we're looking like a power hungry land grabbing country.

02-01-2004, 07:12 PM	#11 (permalink)
Pimp_racer Screamo Specialist Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Myers, Florida Posts: 228	what ever happened to Bush finding Osama i havent heard ** about that lately...Bush started another war before he finished the one with Osama __________________ Whos better than Thrice... NOONE**

02-01-2004, 07:17 PM	#12 (permalink)
Edgil Musical Dictator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: SoCal Posts: 222	I have 1 thing to say, everyone stop bitching and whatever you do. . . DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN CARREY __________________ "It's better to try and fail, than to never try at all" - Edgil

02-05-2004, 03:14 PM	#13 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	Okay, you think an economy is going to boom because of 4 years. No, the effect of the economy is normally from the president 1-3 terms before him. And recently the economy has been on an upward trend. But why don't we look at the democratic canidates. Like Edwards, who wants to get NATO involved in Iraq. NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization) Iraq is no where near the north atlantic. So he is a complete retard for even mentioning that. Or what about that General, Dean I believe. He's great job in Kosovo in which he bombed hospitals, civilian convoys, and all other sorts. Newport News is very close by, I go there all the time. And we are STILL looking for Osama. But when no country in the middle east is willing to work with you it doesn't make it easy. And the electoral system has been around forever. No need to complain now. Maybe if Gore could have won his HOME STATE there would be no complaining? __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

02-05-2004, 08:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	You are kind of agreeing with me. If Bush only cared for oil he wouldn't care about the effects his actions may have on anything else. But he does, this war was not started for oil. It was started based on the beliefs of the American people. CONGRESS voted to go to war in Iraq, not Bush. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

02-05-2004, 08:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	I gotta disagree with you there. Bush's main argument for the war in Iraq was the threat he presented to the US, and the alledged "weapons of mass destruction." However, now the Bush administration has admitted that they have not found anything yet, and made a mistake. But they went on after that saying that they did find the materials to create them, and the resources to house them in the country. Bush says they have evidence of qualified scientists who can develop these weapons. well no s*** sherlock. The reason that Iraq has all these resources and all these specialists to develop the weapons is that the US supplied them to Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. The US had a problem with the fundamentalist regime in Iran at the time, so they figured that an easy and convenient way to get rid of it would be to give Saddam all the toys he wanted and let him go nuts. which worked, Iran was effectively screwed up to an extent that it could no longer pose a threat to the US. But now we've got another problem, Saddam has a bunch of weapons and resources, which he then used to attack Kuwait in the Gulf war. now it looked as if Iraq would go after Saudi Arabia, and the US could never have that (oil) so they got a mandate from the UN to only remove Saddam from KUWAIT, not unseat him from his own country. So when Saddam was forced back into Iraq, he went about screwing over his country, but never posing a specific threat to the US. Of course Bush cites alleged links to the Taliban, but there's never been even the slightest shred of evidence. were there any actual CONCRETE link to the Taliban, Bush would have presented it already, especially now, the Bush administration would want to put out ANYTHING that would somewhat validate thier reasons for going into Iraq in the first place, especially since its now obvious there were never any weapons of mass destruction. So basically, Bush went to war with a country for a number of loose, poorly constructed reasons with no concrete evidence to back them up.

02-05-2004, 08:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rockafella Skank Management Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Connecticut Posts: 609	I agree with most of what you say, jibber. Well put. However, I think that the Bush administration knew from the beginning that there were no "weapons of mass destruction".

02-05-2004, 08:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	U'r right, they most likely knew there was nothing there. It does bring up the question of the real reason they went in there. You have to assume that at least part of it is for oil, maybe also to get a stronger link in the middle east. When you think about it is actually kind of scary, the US is kind of setting themselves up for a really disturbing pattern of attacks, especially with the whole "axis of evil" syria, north korea and the rest.....

02-05-2004, 09:27 PM	#20 (permalink)
Rockafella Skank Management Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Connecticut Posts: 609	Yeah, I'm actually sort of worried about it myself. Yes, we did "free" a country, but there are a lot of countries out there that are doing as poorly as Iraq and you don't see us "freeing" them. What scares me is that we're looking like a power hungry land grabbing country.