Well of course he ain't but he was in the present, no?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cliton ain't present day brother.sergeriver wrote:
Present day.usmarine2005 wrote:
Washington
Thats the problem with liberals, there quick to tell you whats wrong, but never provide an answer.Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
Wouldn't you be the same if you ran it? Maybe he doesn't have a choice (ironic). Maybe the best thing he can think of is to use instinct and fight back.
So the next time you want to say "I hate Bush", just think about what you would be like if you were the president.
Sure, you may say "I would run the country much better than he does, and I would be extracting the troops as we speak." But actions speak louder than words.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Search for the keyword in your sentance.Ryan wrote:
Well of course he ain't but he was in the present, no?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cliton ain't present day brother.sergeriver wrote:
Present day.
He's the previous president, he seems very present to me. Same times, different outcomes.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cliton ain't present day brother.sergeriver wrote:
Present day.usmarine2005 wrote:
Washington
I'm not sure what nabbing Osama would do asides from the penis size increase. We celebrate a few weeks, and during those weeks al-Qaeda already has another leader and have even more anger towards the US government.golgoj4 wrote:
September 11th 'rolls around'. maybe I just read too much tom clancy as a kid, but terrorism is important too me. Not so much to Bush before sept 11. Or rudy's dumbass who put the command center BACK in the WTC. After it had been attacked.Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
Wouldn't you be the same if you ran it? Maybe he doesn't have a choice (ironic). Maybe the best thing he can think of is to use instinct and fight back.
So the next time you want to say "I hate Bush", just think about what you would be like if you were the president.
Sure, you may say "I would run the country much better than he does, and I would be extracting the troops as we speak." But actions speak louder than words.
So assuming i miss all that. Imma get osama. And we aint going home till his head is on a pike. end of story. not going to iraq, not some other bs adventures. eyes on the prize.
call me crazy, but Im an American before any party. And whatever your views (except maybe neo-cons) you have to admit that Bush has take liberties with the capital he gained on 9/11. Personally, he went heavy into debt on that day. 7 minutes...
as for domestic policy, thats a different can of worms. But i would be pushing actual immigration reform and a national health care system.
just my 2 cents.
p.s. its probably good that im NOT President @ the moment cause im in favor of invading and annexing mexico.
Hell, I don't think Osama is even much of a leader now. I'd imagine him to be the PR guy if anything; relaying the threats of the real leader to the masses.
Was, is, it's all the same.usmarine2005 wrote:
Search for the keyword in your sentance.Ryan wrote:
Well of course he ain't but he was in the present, no?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cliton ain't present day brother.
Yep, thank God we fought the Bosnians off our soil in that sneak attack.sergeriver wrote:
He's the previous president, he seems very present to me. Same times, different outcomes.
You are not answering my question. When was America better? With Clinton or Bush? Be honest. America, not the World.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yep, thank God we fought the Bosnians off our soil in that sneak attack.sergeriver wrote:
He's the previous president, he seems very present to me. Same times, different outcomes.
Nope... I'll show you specifically in one minute . I believe the loophole revolves around needing to provide a fast response in which waiting for congressional approval is not an option. Such as having an attack on US soil (Yes it's exploited).sergeriver wrote:
But they needed the Congress authorization.Kmarion wrote:
Common mistake. The President can declare war in certain circumstances. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam, the first Gulf War were not declared by Congress. The balance of power is in the form of funds to engage in conflict.ThomasMorgan wrote:
1. Bush didn't declare war on Iraq because of 9-11.
2. The president cannot declare war. Congress does.
Acting as Commander in Chief he can interpret threats as an immediate danger and respond directly. Whether those threats were interpreted accurately is a whole different story.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Exactly!! I dont bash him for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . quite to the contrary!! I support those actions he took!!Deadmonkiefart wrote:
The only reason I really dislike Bush is his immigration policy. I don't exactly dislike him just because he has handeled the war in Iraq poorly.
However, when he is willing to sell out his party, his country, to a bunch of "big business" CEO's and illegal immigrants, I GO APESHIT!!!
He is a fucking idiot!! He is simply out of touch of reality!! I am not saying he needs to kiss Europe's ass, or the Mullahs in Iran, I just want sound solid decisions with calculated thought. He hasnt made a personal calculated thought that hasnt rested on some sponsor or financial backer his whole tenure as President!!!
I WAS giving him the benefit of the doubt for years now, and now that has come to a close. It has come to a close as a direct result of his support for the reprehensible immigration reform bill.
Not sure I see the difference...except for gas prices.sergeriver wrote:
You are not answering my question. When was America better? With Clinton or Bush? Be honest. America, not the World.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yep, thank God we fought the Bosnians off our soil in that sneak attack.sergeriver wrote:
He's the previous president, he seems very present to me. Same times, different outcomes.
And we've seen what great successes all of those were.Kmarion wrote:
Common mistake. The President can declare war in certain circumstances. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War were not declared by Congress. The balance of power is in the form of funds to engage in conflict.ThomasMorgan wrote:
1. Bush didn't declare war on Iraq because of 9-11.
2. The president cannot declare war. Congress does.
First Gulf War was ownage..so was the one in 2003. Occupation is a different story.ThomasMorgan wrote:
And we've seen what great successes all of those were.
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
It is not war...at least they won't let them fight it like war should be fought.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
An occupation is not a war. By your logic, World War 2 has not yet ended because we still have tons of troops in Germany and Japan...and that's just plain silly.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
And what is it then?usmarine2005 wrote:
It is not war...at least they won't let them fight it like war should be fought.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
Are people dying because of that? I don't think so.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
An occupation is not a war. By your logic, World War 2 has not yet ended because we still have tons of troops in Germany and Japan...and that's just plain silly.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Yeah, an occupation is not a war. The war is already over, and in record time if I recall correctly.
It's an occupation with an insurgency. Why must you continue with the petty charades?sergeriver wrote:
And what is it then?usmarine2005 wrote:
It is not war...at least they won't let them fight it like war should be fought.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.
Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-23 17:54:25)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarCerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's an occupation with an insurgency. Why must you continue with the petty charades?sergeriver wrote:
And what is it then?usmarine2005 wrote:
It is not war...at least they won't let them fight it like war should be fought.
It is war, albeit a very complicated, multi-sided one but it's still war. Our troops have taken on so many roles in Iraq that they should get multiple paychecks.
ur right, there are no terrorists in Iraq!!!!EVieira wrote:
Yeah, thats a great way to run a country:Ryan wrote:
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and being dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
"Sir, we've been attacked by terrorists!!! What now?!?"
"Lets invade Iraq, dammit!"
"Ehm, but sir, we are pretty sure it was the al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan"
"Its close enough, right?"
What do I care anyway, I just want cheap gas...
sergeriver wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarCerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's an occupation with an insurgency. Why must you continue with the petty charades?sergeriver wrote:
And what is it then?
Wikipedia
Bollocks.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarCerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's an occupation with an insurgency. Why must you continue with the petty charades?
Wikipedia