Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee

[Soggy_Popcorn]

So you pick one thing out of the many in that video to defend? Convenient.

My point is he's untrustworthy and will send us to war with Iran immediately.

1) I only watched the first 30 seconds before being overwhelmed by the stupidity.

2) The other candidates have made supposed "war-mongerish" comments about Iran and Pakistan. Don't make me track them down. The point is that Iran is clearly dangerous, so war with them would most certainly not be the U.S.'s fault, regardless of whether the President is McCain or Obama, honestly.

 

[Zur]

Also, the reason you Swedish/Euro dudes can get universal healthcare is because 1) you have far smaller populations than the U.S. and 2) you often get the majority of your income taxed away. We Americans really don't want (any more) of that.

Bang on target. There's about 10-11 million people in Belgoland (like Legoland but not as fun) which is a smaller population than London I think. For each working person the corresponding employer has to dish out 100% of the paid salary to the state if not more (for unemployed, pensions, health care, etc). But that's just the tip of the iceberg because there's loads of taxes also.

In short, socialism is bloody expensive, it's totally overrated but at least you'll get good health care, can stay without work for long periods and not worry to much about getting old. Of course there's that major flaw that if the country collapses all of this will be lost.

 

[Armagon917]

Soggy here it is. I completely agree with you on everything you've posted. I got this emailed to me today so I happened to have it on hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A

If Bush said this people would freak out while this gets very little coverage. Double standard.
The McCain video was so stupid. Here we have Iran talking about wiping Israel off the map. Where is your outrage there? The video I supplied above shows that likely everyone running for president knows Iran is a threat. France has even threatened Iran with nuclear retailiation under these conditions. Scroll down a bit Could it be they're a bit dangerous? We would attack to defend while Iran would out of its vicious hatred of Israel and the west. Theres the difference because I know a few of you will try to make the US seem hypocrytical on this. 3-4 years is the estimate and Iran has been trying to increase its delivery system capability. This is why everyone is threatening them~!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1864693,00.html

I think we should take out their capability but not invade if they continue. I hope Iran just stops. I don't want anymore war.

 

[das_ben]

thats not what your supreme court said and you know it.

You know, based on his following comment I'd say he doesn't.

 

[gregori]

As far as "defending ourselves" goes, we weren't defending ourselves from Iraq, per se, but demonstrating out complete destructive power against Al Qaeda and its allies. And don't even try that "there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq" BS. Because we found plenty of them.

Oh, you mean the Al Qaeda that the war attracted into Iraq in the first place?


Besides that, Attacking Iraq to "demonstrate our complete destructive power against Al Qaeda" should be constructed as a war crime as it praises indiscrininate offensive violence as a means to threaten - which has all the morality of a Mafia Don ordering murders/beating to make people know he means business. Al Qaeda and Saddam were no allies, nor was terrorists in Iraq the reason for the invasion.

 

[MonsOlympus]

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

Just gonna chime in here! If the US had UN peace keeping logo's you think anyone would be portesting about the troops being there? The actual "war" was more of a landslide victory with the allies basically flogging the **** all the way to the capital. They didnt find those weapons of mass destruction we heard so much about but we certainly saw them used in the first gulf conflict.

I would have been more comfortable with the whole thing myself if it was UN sanctioned, ofcoarse the UN might have been stalling but it takes time. If the US wanted suddam out that badly, 1 man and 1 long ranged rifle could have done a much cleaner job. As people have said though thats not the real issues with all the factions, rebels n whatnot over there. Maybe if the truth was used the UN would have sanctioned a peace keeping force instead of fart arsing around with weapons inspectors

 

[das_ben]

Peacekeeping forces cannot be used against a country's will and only if the Security Council recognizes at least "a threat to international peace".

 

[MonsOlympus]

I was lead to believe that Iraq was gonna start ww3, hmmz!

 

[Crotale]

Saddam was a thorn in the world's side, and although a thorn normally isn't detrimental to one's survival, it does affect the overall health of the region in which it is stuck. Eventually, if left to fester it can cause widespread problems, as Saddam was proven to have been doing.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Agreed but with the US going against the UN like that and calling in the help of acouple of other countries, well it kinda just showed what they are capable of. Not that I think the US is gonna go totally crazy but for other countries like perhaps north korea and china Im sure it made them think twice. Not so much so in oh theyre scared but with the US and allies flexing their muscles Im sure they went on atleast orange alert.

Im for removal of weapons of mass destruction as they call them but its really gotta be across the board, suddam ofcoarse was using them on his own people much like what happened in eastern europe. Its always been a rather unstable area of the world though, its good to see things are starting to quieten down its just a shame it took what it did.

Anyways yeah I rekon a hit woulda been much cleaner, ofcoarse keeping it under wraps is the hard part but hell if he died of a heart attack (poison) no one woulda been the wiser. It might sound alittle cold on my part since Im not totally up on suddams resume but he did enough to warrant it I think. I mean really was it worth it? Not that I dont think a free Iraq is kinda nobel but Im wondering if the losses were acceptable, I cant really agree with that.

Maybe by putting out a hit it woulda turned him into some sort of martyr, I dont think the execution was any better in terms of that though. Trade blockades can do wonders as well but I guess where Iraq is situated that woulda been a hard one.

 

[Armagon917]

Nobody is going to change each others minds here but I take comfort in knowing there is going to be a government elected by the people of laws and not guns. So some of you call Bush a war criminal. Amazing that a "war criminal" is trying to bring democracy to the country. Yes how extremely evil of him. haha. All those Iraqis voting. Terrible. We shouldn't give them the opportunity to debate issues in the arena of ideas. I think they should just continue fighting each other.

 

[Exus Tecius]

The Iraqi regime should have been taken out in 91 after the first Gulf War for what it tried to do to Kuwait. The only reason Saddam's ass was saved was because of the favorable deals he was able to get through the UN with the oil for food program. Sure, Saddam had to kind of be the U.N.s bitch on the backside, but he never really had to answer for anything else, as he was still involved in supporting terrorism and kept taking potshots at aircraft. Some U.N. nations were even kind enough to stall the whole process leading up to 2003 so Saddam could prepare to get his ass kicked by the US, potentially hiding anything he might have had--maybe not nukes, but certainly other types of weapons not appropriate for defense purposes.


Socialized medicine will not work here in the U.S.. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in some governments, but the U.S. government is usually best suited leaving us citizens alone and staying out of our lives as much as possible. Whenever the government gets involved in a part of your life, not only do they control it, 9 times out 10 they botch it up good. I'm not sure why anyone would want the U.S. government to have sway over your health and wellness.

WTH? lol
you are obviously a fanatic.i wonder why ppl like you are allowed to post here.
and what's it with your sig?you dumbass blame an entire religion for
what some criminals did?
mods should delete this offending anti islam signature.
k.tnx.bye.

 

[hal]

WTH? lol
you are obviously a fanatic.i wonder why ppl like you are allowed to post here.
and what's it with your sig?you dumbass blame an entire religion for
what some criminals did?
mods should delete this offending anti islam signature.
k.tnx.bye.

The pic says "Islamic Terrorists" not "Islamists". I think that's a fair distinction. I haven't looked at the website though, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Exus Tecius]

The pic says "Islamic Terrorists" not "Islamists". I think that's a fair distinction. I haven't looked at the website though, so I can't comment on that.

come on hal.we all know how he means it.it is sarcastic.
stuff like that doesnt belong to here.pls.

 

[hal]

come on hal.we all know how he means it.it is sarcastic.
stuff like that doesnt belong to here.pls.

Okay then, tell me "how he means it".

 

[Exus Tecius]

Okay then, tell me "how he means it".

oki.
first:there are no islamic terrorists.
second:terrorists dont represent any religions.
third:as a muslim i feel very offended by his sig.i dont care for his stupid posts.

plus i strongly doubt if thats no provokation or harrasement.
if you read some of his posts you will see what i mean.
i repeat...this kinda things dont belong here.we dont want that.
i tell you i would think the same if he would target christians or jews with his stupid sig.

 

[hal]

oki.
first:there are no islamic terrorists.
second:terrorists dont represent any religions.

You serious?

Would it be better if he called them Islamic extremist terrorists?

Look, I appreciate that you're protective of your religion, but I think pretty much all of them are attacked equally here and I don't think many people would defend either of those two points you just made.

 

[Exus Tecius]

look hal.
i dont want get in any discussions with freaks again (surely soon some of them popup again).had enough.

islam is no religion of terror.

dont think arabs or whatever who do terror acts are muslims.
they are criminals or terrorists.k?
dont get that missunderstood.pls.

 

[hal]

look hal.
i dont want get in any discussions with freaks again.had enough.

islam is no religion of terror.

dont think arabs or whatever who do terror acts are muslims.
they are criminals or terrorists.k?
dont get that missunderstood.pls.

Islam may not be a religion of terror, but terror is being performed in the name of Islam - there's no denying that. If it makes you feel any better, you could say the same of many religions at one point in history or another.

 

[Crotale]

Dude, I personally don't give a flying f*ck what religion any terrorist claims to belong to, but the fact of the matter is that many terrorists from the Middle East and Southwest Asia do their bidding in the name of Islam. If you want to be offended, you should be offended by the a-holes I just described, not the rest of us. TBH, religious extremists who carry out such acts are all in the same boat. It doesn't matter if they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Vulcan, they all do their bidding in the name of their religion and they are extremely misguided in doing so.