Author Topic: is bush admitting defeat? (Read 3209 times)

Viper_Fujax · « **Reply #30 on:** December 27, 2004, 12:14:34 PM »

yea. I\'m not pro-kerry or anything like you probably think. I just never post in here. They were talking about actual labels of what is "war" and what is not. To me any battle is a war.

And it\'s pretty damn hard to fight terrorism. It\'s similar to vietnam and that didnt turn out too well. Part of me is glad that we attacked because im for pre-emptive (sp?) strike. But its hard as hell to tell the difference between normal iraqi\'s and terrorists and even if we kill 1,000 there are still a bunch more in random places that are close to impossible to find.

« **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2004, 03:34:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Oh please people. Was Vietnam not a war, yet Congress never declared it one?

Impossible to fight terrorism? :rolleyes:

I wouldn\'t call Nam a real war, no. If I was just using the word war casually, as I would the word conflict, sure.

I wouldn\'t say it\'s impossible to fight, but more accurately, impossible to stamp it out completely. There will always be terrorism as long as there are governments and societies, I\'m pretty sure.

« **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2004, 03:55:12 AM »

I thought the americans stopped calling the Vietnam War a war just to save face.

clips · « **Reply #33 on:** December 30, 2004, 06:21:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by EThuggV3
You\'ve blown my mind. Such undeniably logical reasoning and facts from someone who started a thread about an article they hadn\'t even read for the sole purpose of bashing Bush, can\'t spell Afghanistan, and doesn\'t even capitalize properly. Since you\'re under the impression that Saddam was under control, I won\'t even bother wasting time debating with you. You\'re an idiot. Or so the Bush Administration controlled voice in my head tells me... :rolleyes:

whoa..i take a few days off and come back to this!...wow ethugg i didn\'t know this was some sort of grammar class....please..shut the f**k up!...even when i posted this thread i stated i merely just glanced at it...*giving the hint that i could actually be wrong about the assumption*...didn\'t know i had to break it down for you,..could be you\'re a little slow on the intake...

secondly if you\'ve read any of my other posts you will see that even tho i\'am not big on bush i don\'t bash bush at every chance i get...and because i believe otherwise than saddam was under control i\'m an idiot?trust everybody has opinions in here and if you can\'t take some of them you should just stay the f**k out!...if you can\'t debate with me for the poor reason\'s you listed,..then we all know who the real idiot is....

« **Reply #34 on:** December 30, 2004, 07:04:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by EThuggV3
I wouldn\'t call Nam a real war, no. If I was just using the word war casually, as I would the word conflict, sure.

If Vietnam was not a war and Iraq is not a war WTF has to happen for the US to be considered at war?

You aren\'t even making sense anymore. I can see how the current situation in Iraq could be considered something other than a war; but Vietnam? Come on man. Seriously.

« **Reply #35 on:** December 31, 2004, 12:16:51 AM »

clips - why you gettin all up in mah grill, yo? for real. Seriously, if you didn\'t even bother reading the article, even you must see how uninformed you must be and you shouldn\'t be starting debates on it. Grammar aside, if you tried to debate anyone serious about debating the way you started this thread, no one would debate you. It\'s not just me being unfair. When you wanna harp on someone, you need to, bare minimum, put in enough effort to read the article you\'re basing your post on.

Black- WWII was the last real war. For it to be a war, Congress must declare war. We took a side in a civil war in Nam, we weren\'t at war with the country. There is a difference. It was a conflict.

faston- I\'m pretty sure most Americans actually do call it a war still, they just do so incorrectly.

clips · « **Reply #36 on:** December 31, 2004, 05:44:32 AM »

ethugg let me just say this...from the way the article was posted it seemed like bush was admitting defeat..instead he\'s finally admitting after about a year that the insurgents are having an effect in iraq...point is that i stated i didn\'t read over the article fully and yet you say it\'s a case of bush bashing :rolleyes: yet you come out and say i\'m an idiot...trust you can take up for him and stick your nose up his ass, but the fact is i actually thought bush was the better and stronger prez this election...

i understand what you stated earlier,..but you attacked me even tho i stated i didn\'t fully read the article...now if i stated that i did read the article and still came out with "bush admitting defeat" then i can see your point..capeesh?

« **Reply #37 on:** December 31, 2004, 11:26:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by EThuggV3
Black- WWII was the last real war. For it to be a war, Congress must declare war. We took a side in a civil war in Nam, we weren\'t at war with the country. There is a difference. It was a conflict.

The congressional authorization to use force has been the equivalent of a declaration of war SINCE WW2. For you to sit there and actually say that the only war we have fought in the last 60+ years is WW2 is ridiculous.

If one country declares war on another and we align ourselves with one side in the fight we ARE at war with the opposing country.

« **Reply #38 on:** December 31, 2004, 11:57:16 AM »

Black- Congress can still declare an actual war, and \'use of force\' was a power they had before. Just because the facts don\'t work in your favor doesn\'t mean you can creatively interpret them, the two acts are not the same thing just because Congress has not chosen to declare war at a time you feel we were at war.

We have not been in an actual war since WWII. And trust me, I\'m not saying it because I don\'t want us to be at war, if that\'s how it sounds. I like war, I support war. If I were President, I would be declaring as many actual wars as possible until I was out of office or dead.

And... how did we side with a country against another country when they are the same country?

clips- My only problem was that you hadn\'t read it before starting the thread, even if you stated it as such, the way the thread was started appeared to be aimed directly at illiciting a distinctly antiBush discussion. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but either way, disclaimer or no, I\'d suggest reading articles before posting them. But I\'m not the boss of you, and I cetainly can\'t make you.

Viper_Fujax · « **Reply #39 on:** December 31, 2004, 01:18:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EThuggV3

We have not been in an actual war since WWII. And trust me, I\'m not saying it because I don\'t want us to be at war, if that\'s how it sounds. I like war, I support war. If I were President, I would be declaring as many actual wars as possible until I was out of office or dead.

I was with you up until this. Maybe you ment to say "if there was a threat you wouldnt hesitate to make war." It would just be retarded to go to war for the hell of it. I\'m not going to make any personal attacks (ull get plenty of this), but damn dude. Soldiers are ment to protect us, not just to be thrown into a warfield.

If there was an actual threat from Iraq then im for the war. If there wasn\'t than I\'m not for it. And i won\'t believe either or from the media or any other source. Only until i have seen papers or something with my own two eyes will i make a judgement that a war is right or wrong. All wars suck, obviously. Noone (except thuggs maybe) WANTS war. but i still find it necessary to protect from retard dictators like north korea.

Granted i will probably never be able to say whether a war is justified or not, but id rather have that than be For or Against it because of what michael moore or bush says in a speech. Not making a comparison between the two, i have more respect for bush because of his position and decisions he has to make while i hate michael moore.

« **Reply #40 on:** January 01, 2005, 01:32:10 PM »

I thrive on conflict, but I expect few to share, at least openly, this view. That however was mearly my opinion, as long as we\'re on the same page with the rest of the things, it\'s all good.

SirMystiq · « **Reply #41 on:** January 03, 2005, 04:42:22 PM »

C\'mon?=

WMD?...That is a thing of the past. That\'s the old reason.

Now it\'s we are defending America\'s freedom! Remember, they HATE us because we are free. That is final. That is it.

The war is going pretty good in my opinion. A few deaths here and there. But so far nothing big, nothing fancy. Just plain ol\' "let\'s blow the American soldiers".

Meanwhile, the war on "terror" has shifted to the war in Iraq.

I don\'t see us fighting other terrors. All I see is our soldiers dying for a war fought with a bullshit excuse.

Viper_Fujax · « **Reply #42 on:** January 03, 2005, 04:56:30 PM »

Think you missed the point of my post.

To me, theres too many missing pieces to say if a war is right or wrong. So i support the troops and not worry about politics because i A) I cant control it and

I dont know the actual truth. Noone does. How much stuff do we not hear? tons of it, and people dont see that. People complain about 9/11 and how we let it slip by. Do they forget about the billion other threats they dont tell us about?

SO i think attacking iraq is obviously bad. attacking someone with a threat is bad because lives would be lost. but WOULD IF we dont attack, then were attacked again because we didnt. Then people would be bitching like they did at 9/11 because they let it slip by. But at the same time, would if were not doing it for the right reasons? or not a reason worth enough to fight? I have no clue so im not going to make a judgement.

Granted its probably a crappy way of thinking to you, but ill stick to it.

« **Reply #43 on:** January 03, 2005, 05:46:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirMystiq
C\'mon?=

WMD?...That is a thing of the past. That\'s the old reason.

Now it\'s we are defending America\'s freedom! Remember, they HATE us because we are free. That is final. That is it.

The war is going pretty good in my opinion. A few deaths here and there. But so far nothing big, nothing fancy. Just plain ol\' "let\'s blow the American soldiers".

Meanwhile, the war on "terror" has shifted to the war in Iraq.

I don\'t see us fighting other terrors. All I see is our soldiers dying for a war fought with a bullshit excuse.

I thought you left... damn.

Guess wishes don\'t come true.

"Fighting other terrors."

You mean like giant squid, vampires and the sort?

SirMystiq · « **Reply #44 on:** January 03, 2005, 06:33:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I thought you left... damn. Guess wishes don\'t come true.

"Fighting other terrors." You mean like giant squid, vampires and the sort?

No, I mean like other terrorist groups around the world...Jerk.

Hello

Author Topic: is bush admitting defeat? (Read 3209 times)