Bush has a sense of humor?!?

[phoenix64]

On a side note has anybody else noticed that bush keeps threatening Iran? I bet they're next. I hear they have WMD's. ;)

[MustangEater8251]

Originally posted by phoenix64:
On a side note has anybody else noticed that bush keeps threatening Iran? I bet they're next. I hear they have WMD's. ;)

Is this a joke? Or are you serious?

I am sure a country that 85% of its exports are fossil fuels is dieng to find and research alternative sources of fuel.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...430649,00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m.../iran.nuclear/

SOme non-american sources
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3676008.stm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI24Ak02.html

[Snuffalofogus]

Originally posted by phoenix64:
I wish saddam was still in power. If the people want a revolution, its the peoples responsibility. You can't force freedom upon people, and if Saddam was such a bad guy why did bush have to lie to the American people about why we were going in?

About the land grab go read a history book. East germany, poland huge chunks of china, and a whole bunch of small eastern countrys were swallowed up by USSR at the end of WWII.

The first country hitler invaded, we, and all of europe allowed him to invade because he said he needed a "buffer" zone between himself and poland I beleive it was. Brilliant idea isin't it? The point is that he said he was making his country safer, just like bush says we are safer. But like you said hitler's real intention wasn't to make his country safer. What do you think bush's real intentions are?

he lied as to what we were going in for? War of terror=war on countries that had connections with terrorist organizations, and harbored terrorists. iraq did both.

gotcha, on the stalin part.

afaik hitler annexed austria because it was part of the old empire, not because of a "buffer zone", but i havnt really researched much on his intentions.

i personally think that you watch too much tv, and read too much on conspiracy theories if you honestly think bush is going for world domination (in the sense of hitler)

[phoenix64]

Obviously I didn't mean Bush is trying to take over the world, I just don't think he actually beleived that there were WMD's. I was originaly for the war because I thought hey if he has nukes, and has intentions to use them on us then I'm all for it. The problem is he didn't have nukes, or even the capacity to build them. He only wanted them. Bush needs to admit he made a mistake. If we're going to invade every country that wants nukes or has nukes and might use them on the US then we have a long road ahead of us.

I'd really like to see the proof that saddam help or was conneted to terrorists.

I have no idea what Bush's real intentions are or were. Maybe bush is nieve enough to have beleived his own BS. All I know is that the reputation of the US has gone down the tubes around the world, and the american people were, and are being lied to.

Make no mistake we will never win the "war on terror", we will only create more terrorists.

[Snuffalofogus]

Originally posted by phoenix64:
Obviously I didn't mean Bush is trying to take over the world, I just don't think he actually beleived that there were WMD's. I was originaly for the war because I thought hey if he has nukes, and has intentions to use them on us then I'm all for it. The problem is he didn't have nukes, or even the capacity to build them. He only wanted them. Bush needs to admit he made a mistake. If we're going to invade every country that wants nukes or has nukes and might use them on the US then we have a long road ahead of us.

I'd really like to see the proof that saddam help or was conneted to terrorists.

I have no idea what Bush's real intentions are or were. Maybe bush is nieve enough to have beleived his own BS. All I know is that the reputation of the US has gone down the tubes around the world, and the american people were, and are being lied to.

Make no mistake we will never win the "war on terror", we will only create more terrorists.

remember, WMD are not just nukes, but also chemical and biological weapons. we do have proof of saddamn having, and using these weapons.

our proof, the numerous mass graves of kurds, who were hit with all sorts of chemical and biological weapons.

[phoenix64]

Good point I forgot about the chemcical weapons although I don't think they found any of those either when we invaded, but that brings up another interesting point. Think anout how this looks to the people in Iraq, we let Saddam torture a kill large numbers of his own people, and we didn't do a damn thing untill he threatens us. Then we decided to "Liberate them".

Have you guys noticed that GW has stopped talking about the social security "lock box"? Maybe cause every cent that clinton built up is now gone, 8 years of work gone. Or the national debt, trillions of dollars that my generation is never going to have the earning power to repay.

The more I discuss this the more I realize that I'm just dissatisfied with the system as a whole, and truth be told its not going to get signifigantly better no matter who wins.

[chas]

Originally posted by whiteshark:
EU is at least third though, but if the keep recruiting countries like the have they'll probably be #2 soon.

nope the EU will always be a distant third. firstly, its fractious. its just a bunch of countries that have agreed to respect each other. however, they dont get along well typically and tend to ignore each other anyway. how long is it taking them to switch to the euro?

i would argue that when america's enconomy is weak that we might run a #2 to china. china has an trade surplus because they block/tariff imports. so economically i would call them stronger. political and military strength the US is still #1 at all times. btw, even notice how people say US is the leader of the "free world". china is a very close rival.

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by memphis_raines:
You have no idea whatsoever that it isn't either. I see some pretty supportive evidence. For one, his father did the same exact sh*t. And two, isn't it funny anytime there's a Bush in office, something goes on with oil? I mean, even down in Florida, the supply of gas was cut off like 4 or 5 days before the hurricane even got there, which created a HUGE demand for gas, thus inflating prices. You can bet your a$$ anytime a Bush is in a political office of any kind, gas prices are gonna go up. They have too much personal involvement with oil to leave it alone.

Now are you STILL that stupid and naive?

GW hasn't owned an oil company since his sale of Harken stock on June 22, 1990.

Either way, gas prices will continue to rise until OPEC decides to stop hiking prices up. So of course if the suppliers have to pay higher prices then the consumers will pay higer prices. It's simple supply and demand. The supply is low and the demand is high. Of course the prices will be high.

I don't see where Bush makes money off something where he doesn't have an ownership in? I also don't understand how Bush can control the prices the oil companys set. He must have a heck of a lot of influence on the 7 major oil players to pull that off.

I forgot to add. You can't blame the high prices of OPEC on Bush. It was the Clinton administration the persueded OPEC to raise prices because a oversupplied market would lead to extreme volatility. The only problem now is OPEC has monopolized the oil industry. Which unfortunately we can't do anything about peacefully.

Show me some hard facts from a credible source that support your claims. This is not intended to be a flame war. Like I said in another post, which was deleted unfortunately, I'm for neither candidate at the moment. I want all the facts to help me vote for the best man to run the country.

[ October 16, 2004, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Th3 RiCk ]

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by memphis_raines:
I mean, even down in Florida, the supply of gas was cut off like 4 or 5 days before the hurricane even got there, which created a HUGE demand for gas, thus inflating prices.

OK, that's just asinine! You're saying President Bush had something to do with the delivery trucks' policy on when to go into a future DISASTER AREA? You're saying that if you were in control of a company that delivers refined fuel that you would choose to send your truck drivers into a state that's about to be pounded to deliver fuel, and then possibly get caught in that state and be stuck in there for the hurricane? You'd do that to your folks? I'd hate to see what you'd do to combat personnel if you're willing to risk non-combat civilians like that...

Don't let your hatred for President Bush blind you to why decisions are made for real. There's no conspiracy theory here, just your hate. Oh and don't get mad at me because I'm trying to figure you out... [img]tongue.gif[/img]