The RWP

wkw427 · #1 12th August 2007, 02:22 AM

What do you think about the war on terrorism? Did you support it at the start, then change sides? Have we been in Iraq too long? Should we just nuke the middle east and make another few states and take the oil? Or are we doing the right thing, risking young mens lives for a valiant cause?

I personally think we were right to go there, but now we aren't getting anything good done with it.

Why do most of my posts have the "I personally feel/think" phrase in it?!?!

Mandolin · #2 12th August 2007, 02:37 AM

Defense against terrorism, I approve of.

Invading a non-threatening country for oil and lying about it, I do not.

wkw427 · #3 12th August 2007, 02:40 AM

The defence agenst terrorists involves the invasion of innocent lives. Say someone bombed a building in your town, and he lived near you.

Would you approve the army searching your house, going through your stuff, and screwing up your lives because the guy lives near you??

repobanjo · #4 12th August 2007, 02:41 AM

Invading Iraq because Al Qaueda caused 9/11 would be like invading Mexico when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We shouldn't be there in the first place.

And the tax cuts aren't good also. Bush giving tax cuts is like Jim Jones giving Kool-Aid. It may taste good, but it'll kill you in the end.

wkw427 · #5 12th August 2007, 02:47 AM

If we shouldn't be in Iraq, where should we be ?

We care about some people blowing up our ass.. they havn't done anything in years.. Why don't we go to Sudan and stop the african holocast? It is stupid..

Sometimes I really do think America should make the world a nice, happy, censored place. Or they should conquer it and make America cover the whole planet.. OR just leave everything alone.. >.>

P.o.t.O · #6 12th August 2007, 02:51 AM

We should be in Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11.

We're in Iraq because Bush is trying to do what Daddy didn't, conquer Iraq.

wkw427 · #7 12th August 2007, 02:52 AM

Do ya think current Bush is being controlled by former Bush? My parents do

Mandolin · #8 12th August 2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyme123

The defence agenst terrorists involves the invasion of innocent lives. Say someone bombed a building in your town, and he lived near you.

Would you approve the army searching your house, going through your stuff, and screwing up your lives because the guy lives near you??

That's... not what I meant.

I just meant to say what repo said. Defending ourselves from terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam may have been a terrible man, and acted cruelly to his people, but he was not a threatening enemy to America and as far as I'm concerned it wasn't any of our business messing with the country anyway. Now, I hear that Iran is becoming more openly hostile, and we ought to look into that, but another direct assault is the last thing I'm looking forward to.

repobanjo · #9 12th August 2007, 02:53 AM

I also think that Osama is dead, and has been dead for years. How he died, I dunno. We kileld him, he got liver disease (lots of dictators and terrorists seem to die of liver or colonary failure), suicide, I dunno. But he's dead.

And there was a study that shows that pulling out or staying in Iraq would both have terrible consequences, but pulling out has the least damaging one.

Monkey Boy 64 · #10 12th August 2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.o.t.O

We should be in Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11.

The Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

P.o.t.O · #11 12th August 2007, 03:05 AM

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which in turn caused us to declare war on Japan, which was part of the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan). We did not declare war on either Germany or Italy. Four days after the bombing, both Germany and Italy declared war on us.

After September 11, 2001, President Bush claimed that the Weapons of Mass destruction that Iraq allegedly housed could pose a threat to us, and Congress gave Bush power to use force. We sent the first strike.

Do not argue history with me. You will lose. Good day.

Jinjonator · #12 12th August 2007, 03:31 AM

T.W.A.T. That is all I have to say.

Andre · #13 12th August 2007, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyme123

The defence agenst terrorists involves the invasion of innocent lives. Say someone bombed a building in your town, and he lived near you.

Would you approve the army searching your house, going through your stuff, and screwing up your lives because the guy lives near you??

Um, no.

Gold Jinjo · #14 12th August 2007, 07:22 PM

Iraq has become more dangerous today than it was when the US invaded. This whole thing is a big mess.

They removed Saddam. Fantastic. But now there's a civil war going on and government is doing nothing. Well, I shouldn't say nothing... they're bickering on whether or not to stay and pull out, even though it doesn't matter. American soldiers are babysitting a civil war between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds... meanwhile, Al Qaeda in Iraq... they're on fecking easy street. Soldiers are too busy with Iraqi's that they can't pay attention to Al Qaeda, so they're free to do what they want. As always.

The only difference if the US pulls out is that there will be no one babysitting those three groups, and they'll just get more rowdy. Al Qaeda won't be any different, because they'll want to stay low under the radar. The Iraqi civil war is great for them... keeps all eyes off what they're doing.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, thanks to Bush.

Those are my thoughts.

gdsmzroll · #15 12th August 2007, 07:43 PM

im just DAMN happy he'll be removed from Office Next year!!

ALELUYA
ALELUYA
ALELUYA

Just like everybody already said, we should be looking for Osama Bin Laden, not going to a country that has nothing to do with the conflict, and worse, screwing it up.

Some people think Bush is a convict, that he's and Bin Laden planned 9/11, and their is some evidence that suggests he could.