Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    No, he didnt.
    lol, *one lonely tear slides down my cheek.* not a big loss.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    lol, *one lonely tear slides down my cheek.* not a big loss.
    yes such a shame isn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    yes such a shame isn't it?
    oh yeah.. definitly *rolls eyes* please tell me you're for bush though.. not kerry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    oh yeah.. definitly *rolls eyes* please tell me you're for bush though.. not kerry.
    I could, but i would be lying
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    I could, but i would be lying
    *smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    *smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
    yeah that doesn't quite work in the uk we say arse lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    *smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
    Because Bush has done so much damage! Alienated our allies, lied to the american people, jumped into the iraq war, which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    Because Bush has done so much damage! Alienated our allies, lied to the american people, jumped into the iraq war, which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change.
    You'd prefer to have a man in office that can't make up his damn mind? He's been on every side of every argument in the 20+ years he's been involved in politics. Personally.. I'd think people would want someone who could make up his mind, and stay on ONE side of an argument.. not EVERY SIDE!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    You'd prefer to have a man in office that can't make up his damn mind? He's been on every side of every argument in the 20+ years he's been involved in politics. Personally.. I'd think people would want someone who could make up his mind, and stay on ONE side of an argument.. not EVERY SIDE!
    If he doesnt have an opinion on each issue, why would he run for president? I personly think edwards is by far the best of the four, shame he won't get the nomination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    If he doesnt have an opinion on each issue, why would he run for president? I personly think edwards is by far the best of the four, shame he won't get the nomination.
    Its always been a democrat or republican who has won the election! Have you ever heard of a conservative, green, etc.. person who has won?!? I haven't. Its completely asinine. Why bother having all of these political parties if the only ones that matter are completely stupid. Personally.. I'm conservative. But eh.. who cares right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Its always been a democrat or republican who has won the election! Have you ever heard of a conservative, green, etc.. person who has won?!? I haven't. Its completely asinine. Why bother having all of these political parties if the only ones that matter are completely stupid. Personally.. I'm conservative. But eh.. who cares right?
    If you are talking about the presidential election, there have been plenty of presidents who were not of either party.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    If you are talking about the presidential election, there have been plenty of presidents who were not of either party.
    There has not been a single U.S president that wasn't a member of a major political party of that time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    Alienated our allies,
    which ones? France and Germany could and did alienate themselves.

    lied to the american people,
    no, he didnt.

    jumped into the iraq war
    jumped? or acted in response to an attack on the US, went to the UN twice for international support, built a broad coalition of willing and participating nations and acheived what he set out to do in the country. the funniest thing is knowing that had he been planning this for years, you would use that against him aswell.

    which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change
    its on course in terms of timetable, comparably very few american casualties and the principle objectives acheived. but youre entitled to your opinion of war. how many have you had experience of?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    jumped? or acted in response to an attack on the US, went to the UN twice for international support, built a broad coalition of willing and participating nations and acheived what he set out to do in the country. the funniest thing is knowing that had he been planning this for years, you would use that against him aswell.
    hmmm as micheal moore (i know you're getting tired of hearing from him) points out the coalition of the willing didn't exactly have too many countries with military though to be fair he did "forget" to mention the uk and spain as i remember which i thought was a bit sad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna: What do you make of the view that the Iraq war was a mistake because it massively sidetracked the American efforts in the War on Terror? The resources devoted to it far, far outweigh its role in international terrorism, and at present we have a situation where while Saddam is out of power, Iran's nuclear programme is developing and Afghanistan's warlords are reasserting themselves more and more every day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    hmmm as micheal moore (i know you're getting tired of hearing from him) points out the coalition of the willing didn't exactly have too many countries with military though to be fair he did "forget" to mention the uk and spain as i remember which i thought was a bit sad
    the "willing" covers the broad material contribution to operations in Iraq, represented by some other 30+ countries through contractual work, services, supplies, military personnel and financial support. Moores comment is unsuprisingly short-sighted when you consider that this coalition includes countries such as the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Australia and Japan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyhoo, I just voted for Kerry/Edwards, not only because a Bush/Chaney ticket doesn't exist ( ) but because on domestic issues I prefer the Democrats' line of more investment in programmes such as Medicare through taxation over the Republicans' penchant for tax breaks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Vienna: What do you make of the view that the Iraq war was a mistake because it massively sidetracked the American efforts in the War on Terror?
    Iraq is part of the war on terror. where else would these 'efforts' be applied, if not already?

    The resources devoted to it far, far outweigh its role in international terrorism,
    Bush wanted to counter terrorism at source. in simplified terms, that is by promoting a progressive and democratic set of nations in the middle east, to marginalise fantatical islam. Iraq was the perfect opportunity in this sense. in the context of this long term vision, resource expenditure seems sound.


    and at present we have a situation where while Saddam is out of power, Iran's nuclear programme is developing and Afghanistan's warlords are reasserting themselves more and more every day.
    Iran is a problem, but one step at a time. i think whats becoming evident is that the 'American way' is clearly the only one. Afghanistan is still forecast to hold general elections in the coming months. despite its problems, it is nowhere near the permissive environment that Al-Qaeda had previously used as a material and financial base for terrorism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the "willing" covers the broad material contribution to operations in Iraq, represented by some other 30+ countries through contractual work, services, supplies, military personnel and financial support. Moores comment is unsuprisingly short-sighted when you consider that this coalition includes countries such as the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Australia and Japan.
    i did point that out however the willing did also cover some very small countries. Very ashamed that australia went to war bloody howard
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Iran is a problem, but one step at a time. i think whats becoming evident is that the 'American way' is clearly the only one. Afghanistan is still forecast to hold general elections in the coming months. despite its problems, it is nowhere near the permissive environment that Al-Qaeda had previously used as a material and financial base for terrorism.
    are you referring to the american way of life or the american foreign policy?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.