|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 4, 2003 15:53:37 GMT -5
i'm tripping on all the celebrities getting shiz because they're non-supporters of bush and the war. like eddie vedder, dixie chicks and more to come....i'm also tripping on the law that's being made in oregon (i think) saying it will consider anti-war protesters as "terrorists" and will be jailed.....BULL-PHUCKING-S.H.I.T.... are we losing our rights because of this phucked up war....?
AGAINST THE WAR....SUPPORTS THE TROOPS
let me know what's on your mind guys
|
|
|
Post by CoKeS on Apr 4, 2003 18:05:18 GMT -5
This war us fucking everything up. The American people, Muslim people, Islamic people, gas prices, etc. I dont agree with Bush at all, personally, I dont think he gave Iraq enough time to disarm and make their decision. Obviously, Hussein is a terrible person and should be abdicated of his "throne." But now since we're in a war, I fully support the troops over there fighting and dying for our country. It makes me angry that American boys are dying for this country that doesn't like us at all and thinks we're some kind of tyrant trying to dominate their country. I know this is not the feeling shared by all of the Iraqi people, but it makes up a pretty large chunk of them.
|
|
|
Post by powerranger86 on Apr 4, 2003 18:12:32 GMT -5
not enough time to disarm? i guess it takes over 10 years to do so...
|
|
|
Post by powerranger86 on Apr 4, 2003 18:14:03 GMT -5
wars are lost by the people's unwillingness to cooperate. no one said you have to be gung-ho warrior here, but come on... same thing happened in vietnam--people didnt support and that's why there was such low morale, and only resulted in strain on the troops
|
|
|
Post by CoKeS on Apr 4, 2003 18:23:04 GMT -5
Im talking about President Bush, not about his father and Clinton. It seems kind of ironic that when Bush comes to office, a war surfaces and his father was the last president to start a war? Coincidence? Me thinks not. We dont hear anything about Hussein in the past 12 years and suddenly we're at war with him and his country. I know we're saying that we're fighting for the people of Iraq because they've been treated like shit for the past 20 years or so, but if this was happening in the UNited States, no one would give a sh*t.
|
|
|
Post by DigitalDwarf on Apr 4, 2003 19:41:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but what Vedder did was extremely wrong. He spiked Bushes' face(in the form of a mask) on a microphone stand for God's sake. People went to the concert to hear music, not to be brainwashed by somebody's hippie ass statements. If you look at the world around you, you see a hell of a lot more anti-war people then pro-war people speaking up. At my college, pro-war rallies and writings are pretty much being banned, and I go to a liberal arts school. Liberal? I think not. Everywhere you see anti-war chalk writings dissing the president and what our troops are doing, but one time someone wrote a pro-war comment(not even a bad/vulgur statement) and in no less than an hour the college had sent some of their grounds-men to scrub it off. I am getting sick of this Bull Sh*t. People need to realize that this war was pretty much inevitable. It's not about the gas people; we get most of our gas from other countries. It is about a man who has lied to us about weapons he has, treated his people wrong, etc. I am sorry if any of this offends you, but I am an American D*mmit so let's kick some @$$.
Caleb
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 5, 2003 0:33:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 5, 2003 0:35:53 GMT -5
i just wanna tell you guys that this is an unpopular war.................
|
|
|
Post by Kingofcretins on Apr 5, 2003 7:10:53 GMT -5
i'm tripping on all the celebrities getting shiz because they're non-supporters of bush and the war. like eddie vedder, dixie chicks and more to come....i'm also tripping on the law that's being made in oregon (i think) saying it will consider anti-war protesters as "terrorists" and will be jailed.....BULL-PHUCKING-S.H.I.T.... are we losing our rights because of this phucked up war....? AGAINST THE WAR....SUPPORTS THE TROOPS let me know what's on your mind guys Couldn't agree more with you man. This is from my livejournal, I wrote it yesterday afternoon: *Rant alert* Blargh all these people in the US who are now bitching about celebrities who make their anti-war sentiments known really piss me off. In a democracy there's such a thing as free speech. People can say whatever the fuck they like even if you disagree with it. Just cause they are celebrities and so (debatably) have more influence than 'the average person' doesn't mean they don't have that right. In the wankerrific, vacuous celebrity-centred pop culture (perhaps this is a misuse of that phrase though-I'm not sure) that America pretty much started it's pretty pissing off that they complain when these celebrities, who they seem obsessed by and give ridiculous amounts of attention to in shitty gossip mags and even in 'respectable' newspapers and news programmes on tv, then say something they don't like. Besides you don't hear them complaining about celebrities who use their celebrity status to say how they support the war. (*btw all that stuff about celebrity cultures is obvious equally true in Britain, it's just you don't hear many people whinging about celebrities making their views known here as in the states*) *end of rant* I'd just like to add that if that came off as anti-american it was not intended as I am not anti-american. David W
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 5, 2003 18:26:06 GMT -5
this just in , saddam hussein thought to be wearing a disguise and fleeing bahgdad....
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on Apr 5, 2003 18:44:00 GMT -5
I've just written an opinion article for the school paper about this topic. The media keeps using the term pro-troops and pro-war interchangeably, as to suggest someone who is anti-war is anti-troops as well. People don't understand that there are many people who care about the troops and wish for their safe return but disagree with the Bush administrations methods of carrying it out, like me. Then there are some protestors chanting "Violence is not the answer" while chucking rocks at policemen and jumping soldiers in the streets. Now, when a news organization is presented with covering either a peace rally supporting troops but denouncing Bus, or an out-of-hand rock chucking street blocking chatoic rally, they're going to show the out of hand rally, because it'll sell more papers, get more viewers/listeners, etc... This gives the American public a distorted view of everyone who is against the war, painting a negative picture that makes anyone who is anti-war look like a hippie terrorist.
Plus, the Oregon bill about definining the crime of terrorism in Oregon as "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly, placing a manditory minimum sentence(s [gotta love "Prison Song"]) of 25 years to life (phew) is bullshit. If that bill was made law in the South in the 50's and 60's, then Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks would be considered terrorists for their "peaceful protest" sit-ins, marches and other demonstrations, and would be jailed as long as Nelson Mandela.
I'm not saying the law is racist, I'm saying that when applied at a defining moment in America's history when civil rights were obtained for all Americans and were made into law in the Constitution, people that were heroes and innovators of human thinking and the construction of society as we know it would be considered "terrorists" by the standards of this bill, just as bad as Osama bin Laden. Think about that... would the U.S. government be willing to hand us back these civil liberties they're taking away when this fighting is over? Not likely.
I am an American, and I'm proud of it, no administration could ever take that away. I just don't like the fact that we were in this pre-emptive, reactionary war quicker than some of our leaders could consider a.) the long term world-wide implications of such a military action and b.) the kind of sacrifices those few were choosing for the hundreds of millions of lives that are now terrorist targets by starting this war.
:: gets off soapbox and ducks flying "freedom" fries, "freedom" bread and "freedom" dressing bottles coming his way ::
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 5, 2003 21:38:57 GMT -5
preach on brother.......
MERCURY SOLO FOR PRESIDENT!!!
|
|
piesore
Full Member
i see you.
Posts: 224
|
Post by piesore on Apr 6, 2003 16:37:02 GMT -5
While anti-war protests are getting coverage, articulate anti-war voices are not. If you watch the mainstream networks, just about all of the "experts" you hear from are ex-military officials. Without someone being able to come on an explain what this movement is really about makes it seem like all the protesters are simply reactionary, uniformed, anti-bush, anti-american, wanna be hippies. Distilling a group into a few simplistic and often out of context chants is bad media coverage. There are plenty of valid reasons to be against the war, but the cheerleading being done by the mainstream media is doing nothing to convey that. That sort of coverage does breed frustration because the protests have to scream louder and louder just for a sembelence of their voice, no matter how out of context and skewed, can be heard, which is what I think what we've been seeing.
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on Apr 7, 2003 16:06:06 GMT -5
Why settle for president, we're Gods... which reminds me...
First act as God: give Saddam blonde hair like in the above picture, and a matching hairstyle to Bush
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 9, 2003 1:21:16 GMT -5
i'm looking merc man, but for the meantime
|
|
|
Post by clintonbignell on Apr 9, 2003 9:24:05 GMT -5
Its all about religion. THIS WAR. ALL WAR.
|
|
|
Post by CoKeS on Apr 9, 2003 14:03:57 GMT -5
I just watched Empire of the Sun in my English class last week. That movie was really good, Speilberg is a genius.
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 11, 2003 14:39:58 GMT -5
i think we can stop protesting the war now!!
"ANARCHY" said the iraqies
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Apr 26, 2003 16:28:21 GMT -5
ok, war is over! can we fix our economy now?#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on Apr 27, 2003 0:12:55 GMT -5
Bush = Recession, that's the way it seems to go... yeah, the war's over, can Bush stop making us look like international occupying a$ses and bring my uncle and the other thousands of servicemen back home? If he wants a holy war, he can go with Ashcroft, Rumsfield and the rest of the hokies to Syria and jihad to their heart's content... Penzoil fetish is a motherfúcker, ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by Kurtz on Apr 27, 2003 15:32:54 GMT -5
ú=thats the last letter in hebrew... [glow=red,2,300] àáâãäåæçèéëìîðñòôö÷øùú[/glow] maybe i should start giving hebrew lessons..
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on May 4, 2003 22:31:20 GMT -5
bush for pre$ 2004 i'll dance for your vote!!
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on May 4, 2003 22:46:22 GMT -5
he's gonna cheat anyhow....i'm a better dancer than that george dubya bush...watch and see
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on May 5, 2003 19:19:33 GMT -5
RUN!!! BUSH IZ MONKEY!!!!!! MONKEY BUSH ARMY WANTS WORLD DOMINATION!!! NO SURVIVORS!!!! RUN FROM MONKEY!!!!! DON"T HURT ME MONKEY!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on May 6, 2003 0:03:17 GMT -5
President Bush has announced that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been found. U.S. forces removed Saddam from his hideout:
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on May 6, 2003 23:54:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on May 9, 2003 1:49:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Nov 11, 2003 22:17:11 GMT -5
|
|
saetia
New Member
Yep.
Posts: 4
|
Post by saetia on Nov 12, 2003 17:29:25 GMT -5
how bout this...
lets say during the years after the gulf war and duing the presidancy of Bill Clinton you lived in Iraq. seems liek it would be an ok life cuase during that time no one was on the news complaning about problems in Iraq, right?
Wrong, during clintons office time he may have cut out fund for the military but led an almost bi monthly campaign of bomb dropping that was on the news every once in a while when he hit a TV station or rado station, fact is he bombed the living shit out of that country in his last couple of years, then bush comes along and wants them to completly disarm, when a couple years ago they didnt even fire a single missile back at us. but Iraq is crazy, you cant trust them with WMD. not to mention the fact that we gave the biological weapons factories to them, in the mid 80's and then put suddam in power.
so what do we do about this mess that we created?
simply bomb the fuck out of them again.
the war was a stupid excuse to divert attention from Bush's other problems, such as a great economy (oh ya, great liek a fox) and how do you make a poor economy better? well, ofcourse, you have bush drop bomb that cost almost 4 millions dollars a piece, wasting somethign along the lines of 23 billion dollars on a war we could have stopped inthe 80s by either not giving them weapon facilities, or not putting hussein in power. and then we also had the chance to kill him in the first gulf war, but yeah why fix problem before they start.
the big question is, what happend to "our highest priority" Mr. Bin ladden. most deffently can't find him, cuase if we found him they we would have no reason to be scared at night and then we wouldnt let bush just randomly attack and "rebuild"(even though i think the rebuilding is the first good idea out of bush regeme)
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on Nov 13, 2003 1:35:21 GMT -5
Maybe the reason America cannot find bin Laden is because they're not looking hard enough. The War on Terror started with Bush invading Afghanistan because the Taliban government was hiding bin Laden. Yet the military has yet to capture bin Laden. Troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. The war with Iraq was legitimized because the Bush administration wanted to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Saddam's government and military allegedly possessed. They made it sound like Iraq was as much a threat to the security of Americans as countries with nuclear missle capability. Yet after the war ended, with all the captured scientists spilling the secerets Hussein wanted covered up, no WMD's have been found in Iraq. The administration even admitted to receiving bad intelligence, which would nullify any reason the US originally intended for military occupation of that country. Yet, troops are still there, and twice as many troops have died in Iraq since Bush declared the end of military operations in Iraq on May 1st than those who died during the actual war (114 casualties during the war, 234 casualties between May 1st and November 7th). What is the reason we are still there? Consider this: When the Department of Defense, the Pentagon and other DC politicians contracted out $8 billion for corporations to help rebuild Iraq, most of the corporations were closely linked to the Bush Administration, and have donated $49 million dollars to political interests, with 2/3 of that money going to the Republican party and $500,000 going to Bush's 2000 campaign. These corporations were to be hired because they were the best corporations for the job. Halliburton, an oil services and logistics company that was run by Dick Cheney until Cheney resigned to join Bush's campaign, received the most expensive contract, with $2.3 billion dollars. Bechtel, an engineering company with intrest in several Republican administrations, got the second most expensice contract, with $1.3 billion. Halliburton claims that they were "selected on merit" and was the "only company with the right skills and experience to handle such wartime emergencies." Bechtail stated that they were hired beacause they have "the highest technical competence at one of the lowest costs." Those claims might be true, but the fact that they have contributed a lot of money to republican intrests implies a different criteria for hire. What startled me was that one of the corporations hired, SAIC, which is a tech company that works closely with the Pentagon, was contracted "to train Iraqi journalists." A tech company hardly seems qualified to train journalists, yet it was the corporation that Washington D.C. felt most qualified to train journalists. Unlike Halliburton and Bechtel, SAIC declined to comment. So, why can't one of the most advanced militaries in the world find WMD's, bin Laden, or Hussein, two of the most recognized and notorious people on the planet? It seems that something shady is going on here. As an American citizen, I can't help but feel duped by the government for stationing thousands of Americans, sacrificing the lives of three hundred U.S. troops as well as other troops from across the globe and civilians caught in the crossfire, all under false pretenses. Maybe pulling out of Iraq immediately would not be the best solution for the situation, as the country has no government, constant skirmishes and a shattered economy, but the fact of the matter remains that, if Bush is not re-elected in 2004, he will have left America neck deep in global problems the goverment created under capital pretenses, instead of the "National Security" the government has championed for over two years. (statistics taken from www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-30-contracts_x.htm )
|
|