Foxo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 827 times:
I think this guy isnt really involved in whats going on in the world. I mean this is not the cold war, we dont need anybody who thinks communism is the worst thing in the world etc. There are more important things than this SDI trash again.
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 754 times:
With all due respect, you don't get to be PResident of the United States without knowing whats going on in the world. G Dubya doesn't have to be a genius on every world issue, because he has enough advisors around that help keep him updated. Foxo, this topic is absurd, and just another excuse to start a war in the forums.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Foxo, can you back up you story a little. Anway, as we all know, Cheney is the brain, Bush is the mouth. He won't actually have do do any thinking, that's what Cheney's for.
SEVEN_FIFTY7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 957 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 732 times:
I think we should give Georgie Junior a chance. Afterall, he realizes:
1) He doesn't exactly have the reputation of a rocket-scientist.
2) He realizes the circumstances surrounding his recent election "victory."
3) He realizes the popularity and concomitant successes of his predecessor (regardless of whether certain people wanna accept those successes as being valid.)
4) He realizes he needs to prove his ability to stand on his own without the direction of his father.
Yeah. I say give Curious George a chance. Let's reserve our imminent side-splitting laughter for when he f*cks up.
UA752 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 142 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 723 times:
I gotta bone to pick with Bush. He had his chance and blew it! The man isnt even 90 days into office and hes already stiring shit up in the middle east. Hes a power hungary bitch!
Flight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3292 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 722 times:
DeltaRNOmd-80 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 724 times:
Hey, Bush is gonna be criticized for this, right now he is playing the part of the school janitor, sweeping up the many errors of the idiot that was president for 8 years before him. Die Saddam, Go Bush!
We're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5705 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Oh, so now Saddam is Clinton's fault as well? BULLSHIT!
Sorry pal, but Saddam, like everything else in Clinton's Presidency, is a left-over, and you know exactly who didn't finish him.
Now I suggest you take SEVEN_FIFTY7's advise and start saving your energy for the inevitable attacks on Bush. We're going to make what you did to Clinton look like friendly kidding....
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 697 times:
Actually, it was Daddy Bush who didn't finish off Saddam. During the Gulf War, they had the option to push the ground troops to Baghdad and finish it off, but Bush pulled back.
NOTE: I am not taking a side in this particular post, just relaying the facts.
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 45 Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 680 times:
Hell, no. A redneck is not worthy of a presidency...
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
Mls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3069 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 664 times:
Well, the reason Saddam wasn't finished off is because they decided that leaving him in power was better than having lots of terrorism directed at the U.S. and crew, and also to make sure Iran wasn't the predominant power in the immeadiate region.
Hole_courtney From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 659 times:
A good friend of mine said something the other day that i thought was interesting.
We were talking about assassinations and someone brought up that someone was threatening George W Bush (i think this was right after that crazy guy got shot by the secret service).
He said, "I don't care if I don't like the guy or didn't vote for him, he's my president, and nobody messes with my president."
I think we can accept the president of People of the United States.
"[He] knew everything about literature, except how to enjoy it." - Yossarian, Catch 22
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 653 times:
For all of you, who think Bush Sr. failed to finish off Saddam, you all need to check your facts. There was great pressure not to "finish off" Saddam from not only middle eastern nations fearing complete upheaval, but even members of Nato (like the freakin' French, who oppose damn near every U.S. military action, oh, except those times in WWI and WWII), who for some reason, thought it best that we only show Saddam who is boss. Because of this, the war ended the way it did. With Kuwait liberated, and Suadia Arabia feeling "safe" again. Bush Sr. nor justthe U.S. called all the shots in the Gulf War.
Also, Billy Clinton on occasion had fighters attack Iraqi radar sites and such, when they were threatening Coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zone. Why is it that when G. Dubya does it, he gets critized? Why?, because the world and this forum is filled with a bunch of hypocrites. Not to mention, Bush Jr. didn't wake up, and say "Let's bomb Saddam today." You see, Bush has military advisors. Its those advisors job to watch military issues, such as Saddam. Those people recommend to Bush what course of action needs to be taken. 90% of you who are critisizing Bush Jr. for this, are just looknig for another platform to attack him on, and thats pathetic.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 648 times:
Doomfox From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 125 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 632 times:
I had my doubts about him, but he's doing alright. You can't criticize him bombing Iraq if you didn't criticize Clinton for doing the same thing.
I think that Bush was letting Saddam know who's in charge (USA), even after Clinton.
Don't forget that it was the United States that gave Iraq a lot of the technology they have today, including anthrax.
I voted for Gore, but I think that I'm going to have to live with Bush for a while and accept it.
We're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5705 posts, RR: 22 Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 633 times:
>I think that Bush was letting Saddam know who's in charge (USA), even after Clinton.
What the hell do you think Iraq is, the 51st state!?
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 631 times:
>I think that Bush was letting Saddam know who's in charge (USA), even after Clinton.
That is the most absurd thing I have heard since I last read a post on the Affirmative Action tread. Bush was not letting Saddam know "who is in charge." Bush, was acting on what his top military advisors suggested to him, and that was a course of military action, due to the fact, Saddam had his Army keep threatening coalition aircraft patroling the No-Fly zone. There was a logical, and real explenation behind the attacks. If G. Dubya was just flexing the U.S.'s proverbial muscle, then why did the British attack as well?
(I'm all for people having htere own opinions, but the more I read of them, the more I question myself on that)
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 620 times:
Thank you, Redngold! That was bugging the hell out of me!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38511 posts, 
From Iran, joined Sep 2010, 0 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
