Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we don't want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.

No, We didn't propose to only find Osama Bin Laden. The government proposed a war against terror because many incidents of terror attacks were happening around the world. For example, Europe.

Osama is an issue, shoot me for stating the obvious but hear me out... The position he is in is strategic toward his advantage. Terrain wise, he is in a mountainous area with thousands and thousands of caves. he is olmost completely undetected. You cant just waltz into a country blow everything up and hope that osama is all that is left standing. this is not something that brute military force can handle. You need dedicated inside men. people who are willing to get close, to die for the cause. find a date, then contact the u.s. with coordinates. thats the best way to handle the osama issue.

Allright, you just lost the arguement and now you are criticizing me directly.. Real admirable. Anyways you said nothing that i read about not killing Osama. Also how would it not take a large military force to find Osama?

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

Quoted for Truth.

the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic.

But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...

Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.

...how am I ignorant? It is fucking obvious that the topic is about whether to decide about McCain or Obama. Now you really went off topic there, even if by calling ME ignorant...

I didnt change the subject lol. I said there were many ppl involved in the choice to go into Iraq. You said elaborate, then i elaborated. Then someone else said americans were hypocrites because when the towers fell we all wanted to move into iraq, and krayzee said, no, we wanted to assassinate Osama. I then said assassinating Osama is moving into Iraq because it would require a large military force to pursue him in Afghanistan, and any followers or helpers of the cause in Iraq.

This was all in defense to Bush, and none was off topic, or involved a major subject change. As about my grammar that doesn't have too much to do with Bush or Obama, so I don't think YOU, krayzee should change the topic.

Also what I was saying about toxin shells was in defense against Bush as rushing into Iraq was not a bad idea, nor only Bush's sole doing.

So if krayzee can't come up with some valid statements that are on topic, rather than criticizing me and my grammar which are both totally irrelevant to the topic, he should stop "posting for minerals"

As far as I know, he didn't went to Iraq? The point of the war on Iraq are the weapons of mass destruction, not Osama Bin Ladin. You need to get your facts straight and actually read the headlines of trusted news network rather than jumping to conclusions, calling me changing the topic, where in reality, I'm not. The reason that the United States of America declared war on Iraq were the weapons of mass destruction and oil. That's it. Where the fuck did you get your information about Osama Bin Ladin involved with any Iraqi activies? Be fucking serious, how the hell did you GET that information in the first place? Osama is hiding somewhere, but we did not declare war on Iraq to find him there. Fucking ridiculous, and you call my statement invalid.

And I don't post for minerals, you're the one who has negative minerals at the moment. And as far for grammar, it is hard to understand to whatever the hell you are saying.

Jeez.

Look, I am a former US Marine and how the hell can you tell me the reasons why we went to war on Iraq? Fucking ridiculous, since when was Osama involved?



This topic is a discussion about an election between McCain and Obama. Keep that in mind. I did not start the off topic bullshit.

Because at the time they were thinking 'Kill those damn muslims', not 'Incapacitate a major oil supplier and increase government spending drastically'. In my defense, I was too young to care when the war started .
The president wields heavy influence over who is inside his administration - hence, we call it the 'Bush Administration'. The president is also responsible for introducing ideas and convincing Congress to follow them, so even the same people would behave differently under a less retarded president.

Fox News? Kill yourself now. Not only is that the most conservative bullshit around, but it flat-out lies. We shall repeat: There have been 0 weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as there are currently no such weapons in Iran.



Silent, you're arguing like a twelve year old. Your arguments are horrid and randomly topic-changing. Krayzee wins, 'kay? His source is being there, your source is Fox News. He wins.

Not only is the FBI called 'Federal Bureau of Investigation' for a reason (which is, it deals in things inside the states.. You're thinking of the CIA. They're different)... well, other then that those reports were obviously false, either from lack of investigation, or as most people think of it, lying in order to remove the regime in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I can't even really imagine from where Iraq would've gotten nuclear technology. I'm stumped there. Pakistan? Or maybe France! As for chemical weapons, those were present in the Iraq-Iran War but seem not to be powerful enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction. When we went in and found no weapons of mass destruction, why would you expect other countries to waste time and money on something like Iraq? Plus, many other countries stayed for a long time - I'm pretty sure Britain and Australia only pulled out recently. Continuing on, Bush has a lower then 25% approval rating, and just because another president is considered good even while he had low approval ratings, I'm sure we could think of a few more who we consider bad while they had low approval ratings. A horrid argument. By 'staying strong', I think you're meaning 'staying stubborn'. 'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'? You mean the concept of Democracy? Yeah, you seem to be going for dictatorship . Gogo Castro! Franco!

Oh, and as to how this is relevant, you know the whole 'I'm going to be out of Iraq in 16 months' by Obama and 'WE CAN STAY THERE FOR A CENTURY' by McCain .

Thank you Centreri. This argument is done for.

Now off with this discussion and return to the discussion of the election between Obama and McCain.

I already put many of my reasons along to a request for McCain's supporters, neither of which have been challenged/answered. Disappointing .

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2008, 6:09 am by Centreri.

Yea for real, Fox News makes me want to throw up. Seriously, O)Silent, you should watch this video and enlighten yourself.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=out+foxed&sitesearch=#sitesearch=&q=outfoxed

Fox News is biased, but that doesn't mean it's "bullshit." If you want bullshit, then you should watch specific programs like O'reiley factor or Sean Hannity (omfg I can't stand that guy) who use their bias to become assholes. Sometimes I watch fox news when only certain news anchors are on or if they're just doing plain news just so that I can sometimes get a conservative view on a certain issue (of course if I want a liberal one, I can look anywhere on the internet)

yea I meant CIA,
That doesn't mean they couldn't get some? I trust the fucking CIA over you anyday.
I didn't say that I said it would make us look bad?? cuz it does?
You quoted me wrong GJ.
You didn't finish that, and I didn't say that low approval ratings make a good ratings, I'm just saying it doesn't makes him bad. Its not a horrid argument because its not an argument. Its a statement showing even one of the greatest presidents had low approval ratings which was implied not argued.

Ya thats partially the concept of democracy, but I think it was Ben Franklin who said that common people shouldn't even be allowed to vote. The smart people should run the country, but way to twist my words and mock me anyway. I seem to disagree with a pure democracy i believe it is. If 100000000 million people voted for one law and 4 smart guys voted another law I think the second law should be passed. Democracy means rule by many, not rule by everybody. I think all the smart people should be put into government to make descisions, I know myself that I, my teachers at school, and my parents don't know SHIT about politics or whats going on they don't care. I don't think they need to vote. So yea I would prefer a president that didn't listen to the majority of Americans just the smartest your right. I like how you turned that into dictatorship so you could mock me more. Says a lot about you.

Anyway does anyone know the potential vice presidents??
LOL trusted news networks.

No, it's bullshit, especially because of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

As I've stated, Fox News occasionally outright lies. I'd call that bullshit. And yes, this is not something I picked up, I've actually seen it .

Well, that's stupid of you. I only report things that have been verified to be true, while the CIA lies. Trust me moar!

Guess I did. My apologies.

You're defending Bush against my argument that he was a bad president, so it's an argument. Learn what 'argument' means. 80% of presidents with bad ratings were bad, so.. yeah. Except that Bush really IS bad, no matter of how cool you think it is to 'go against the flow'. How do I know? A ruining economy, repression, many America-haters running around, and the US having less and less influence world-wide. Bush oversaw a few steps of America going down as a superpower.

No, no, I'm firmly against a full democracy. However, that doesn't change that your argument is firmly against democracy as well, and closer to dictatorship.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2008, 6:48 am by Centreri.