BF2S Forums Historians vs. George W. Bush

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

What about India, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Chechnya, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Thailand, Egypt, Bangladesh, Turkey, Morocco, Lebanon? Are they all responsible also?

Did they send in and house troops in Saudi Arabia during the '90s (particularly the 'Gulf War') (and are they still there)?

No, but they have certainly been victimized by the wrath of Al-Qaeda.

Maybe, but what we are debating is how responsible Saudi Arabia/US were/are in regards to the attacks on 9/11.

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No, but they have certainly been victimized by the wrath of Al-Qaeda.

Maybe, but what we are debating is how responsible Saudi Arabia/US were/are in regards to the attacks on 9/11.

My mistake, I thought it was broader. Such as the justification Al-Qaeda provides for it's deeds.

No, but that is explained in the first quote I posted

blisteringsilence wrote:

Do either of you actually know anything about Perot, or his proposed policies? Hell, he represents the center position better than any president in American history.

He was all about balancing the budget, an increase in gasoline taxes, reforming the corruption in Congress, against NAFTA, pro-choice, opposed to gun control, protectionist in trade, and supported the work of the EPA.

Hell, what DO you actually disagree with, other than your parent's didn't like him?

you are right; he was before my time, but i was still able to learn about him through his 'independent party'.  when Ventura became governer of my state, i had a good look at the party, and really, they weren't/aren't so bad.  for me, it really doesn't matter what party they belong to as much as the policies they stand for. 

this brings me back to your question about what i disagree with.  "*puking*" was a little harsh, but mainly, i don't like the idea of a billionaire president (i understand they all are rich, however), and i wouldn't have liked the image he puts out as a representation of America.  i guess.

Smitty5613 wrote:

Miller wrote:

He's still always better than the alternative.

I agree, would you rather have a guy that was in Vietnam and everyone who served with him said he was an asshole? they either did or are trying to take Kerrys medals cuz he didnt deserve em..

Yes, because clearly if you don't vote for George Bush, you MUST vote for John Kerry.

Plus, I would rather have the asshole who actually served, than the dumbass who sat back and blew lines in his neato Texas National Gaurd flight suit.