Iraqis cheer Brit troops, shower them with garlands

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Re: Iraqis cheer Brit troops, shower them with garlands

STING2 said:
Basra has been a safer place for British troops over the past 3 years than either Belfast or Derry was in the early 1970s.

In terms of casualties sustained by the British army, that is probably correct but it's a bit like saying Alaska is quite warm compared to the North Pole.
 
Re: Re: Re: Iraqis cheer Brit troops, shower them with garlands

financeguy said:


In terms of casualties sustained by the British army, that is probably correct but it's a bit like saying Alaska is quite warm compared to the North Pole.

Yes
but as we bring democracy to the North Pole it will get warmer. :up:
 
STING2 said:


Not according to the American people:


2004 presidential election results:

George W. Bush 62,040,610


John Kerry 59,028,439





It seems though that Saddam and some of his regime buddies would agree with you though.

If this is the best you got
it is pretty weak

everybody realizes that election result was only attained by fabrications, misrepresentations and lies

and with that
he is the only President to serve a second term without a sizable vote of confidence

look at the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton second election results improvement over their first elections.

and by the way Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all got more votes than the other guy and did not need their brother or father's supreme court appointees to put them in office.
 
deep said:


If this is the best you got
it is pretty weak

everybody realizes that election result was only attained by fabrications, misrepresentations and lies

and with that
he is the only President to serve a second term without a sizable vote of confidence

look at the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton second election results improvement over their first elections.

and by the way Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all got more votes than the other guy and did not need their brother or father's supreme court appointees to put them in office.

Not as weak as a bunch of qoutes all attempting to say "Bush lied, they died". Everyone in 2004 saw all those quotes that liberals so often use in attempt to discredit the president. The results of the election tell you what the American people thought about that.

In terms of misrepresentations and fabrications, you don't need to look any further than Michael Moore and the artist on the "vote for change tour".

Liberals continue to scream the same messages they used in their unsuccessful attempt to unseat Bush in 2004, and attempt to find solace and hope in a few opinion polls which at the end of the day mean little.

One thing that Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton failed to do that Bush succeeded in doing in his re-election was increase the number of seats his party held in both the House and Senate. The 2004 election was the first time in over half a century that the incumbent President increased his own party's seats in both the House and Senate in the re-election.

Its been nearly 6 years of Bush as President and Republican control of the House and Senate despite the liberals most intense attempts in history to change things. A few movies, some music, lots of jokes, protest, as well as a few other things is about all the liberals have accomplished over the past few years. No change in political position, and little if any influence on national policy.
 
Diemen said:
That's your favorite stat, isn't it, Sting? Yeehaw, he got more votes.

Must be a nice distraction from his current numbers.

The difference is, my set of numbers are actually relevant. The party in power sets and implements policy.
 
STING2 said:


Not as weak as a bunch of qoutes all attempting to say "Bush lied, they died". Everyone in 2004 saw all those quotes that liberals so often use in attempt to discredit the president. The results of the election tell you what the American people thought about that.

In terms of misrepresentations and fabrications, you don't need to look any further than Michael Moore and the artist on the "vote for change tour".

Liberals continue to scream the same messages they used in their unsuccessful attempt to unseat Bush in 2004, and attempt to find solace and hope in a few opinion polls which at the end of the day mean little.

One thing that Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton failed to do that Bush succeeded in doing in his re-election was increase the number of seats his party held in both the House and Senate. The 2004 election was the first time in over half a century that the incumbent President increased his own party's seats in both the House and Senate in the re-election.

Its been nearly 6 years of Bush as President and Republican control of the House and Senate despite the liberals most intense attempts in history to change things. A few movies, some music, lots of jokes, protest, as well as a few other things is about all the liberals have accomplished over the past few years. No change in political position, and little if any influence on national policy.

good reply
 
STING2 said:


Not as weak as a bunch of qoutes all attempting to say "Bush lied, they died". Everyone in 2004 saw all those quotes that liberals so often use in attempt to discredit the president. The results of the election tell you what the American people thought about that.


Just because the American people got snowed doesn't change the fact that they are still lies. A lie is a lie, no matter how many people believe it.
 
STING2 said:


The difference is, my set of numbers are actually relevant. The party in power sets and implements policy.
BUSH 271 30 48% 50,456,169
GORE 266 21 48% 50,996,116

Bush should not be president in a real democracy the first time anyway. ( if you count the votes of the voters )
 
STING2 said:

The party in power sets and implements policy.

Good.

Then the voters know where to squarely place the blame for all of the failed policies and uselessness of the Congress.

Since the Republicans control everything and implement all the policies, they should take all the responsibility as well.

:up:
 
STING2 said:

Its been nearly 6 years of Bush as President and Republican control of the House and Senate despite the liberals most intense attempts in history to change things. A few movies, some music, lots of jokes, protest, as well as a few other things is about all the liberals have accomplished over the past few years.

About the best thing the liberals have "accomplished" over the last 5 years is allowing the other guys to run the country into the fucking ground.

They haven't prove they can turn that into anything yet.
It will be interesting to see.
 
Meh, history will be the judge of this presidency. :wink:

At the end of the day, the president is judged on whether the country is better or worse off after their term in office. Compare the last day of the previous adminstration to the last day of the present administration. Go to statboys.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Just because the American people got snowed doesn't change the fact that they are still lies. A lie is a lie, no matter how many people believe it.

A lie is when one KNOWINGLY says something that is false. There is no evidence that proves that Bush has ever lied about anything.

Claiming that WMD is somewhere based on certain intelligence and then discovering that was not the case is not lying. This is something that happens every day when dealing with intelligence. Police all over the world follow up on "leads" that later turn out to not be accurate. The same thing happens with any sort of intelligence, especially intelligence on WMD which can be very difficult to detect.
 
anitram said:


Good.

Then the voters know where to squarely place the blame for all of the failed policies and uselessness of the Congress.

Since the Republicans control everything and implement all the policies, they should take all the responsibility as well.

:up:

Well, the voters have had the opportunity to do that twice now(2002, 2004) and have voted Republican each time as well as voting for Bush in 2004.
 
U2DMfan said:


About the best thing the liberals have "accomplished" over the last 5 years is allowing the other guys to run the country into the fucking ground.

They haven't prove they can turn that into anything yet.
It will be interesting to see.

On foreign policy, the removal of Saddam from power is one of the biggest accomplishments the country has had in years. It has dramatically improved the security situation in regards to one of the worlds most sensitive area's, oil supply from Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and other Gulf States.

In the United States, the economy continues to roar along with excellant GDP growth and a falling unemployment rate. With unemployment at 4.7% now, the country is experiencing one of the best economic climates in its history.
 
trevster2k said:
Meh, history will be the judge of this presidency. :wink:

At the end of the day, the president is judged on whether the country is better or worse off after their term in office. Compare the last day of the previous adminstration to the last day of the present administration. Go to statboys.

Well, I don't know if "statboys" will take into account the benefits US security and Foreign policy from the removal of Saddam. Clinton had comparitively easier time in office because there were few events that happened that required the level of involvment that we see today. As far as the economy, unemployment is on track to be as low as or lower than it was under Clinton which is the record for the lowest unemployment in the countries history.

In terms of the budget deficit, you can certainly look at big differences, but thats simply the difference between peacetime and being involved in a war. The largest budget deficits and increase in the national debt relative to GDP happened in the 1940s because of World War II.
 
STING2 said:


A lie is when one KNOWINGLY says something that is false. There is no evidence that proves that Bush has ever lied about anything.


Keep telling yourself that...

Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

- June 17, 2004.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Keep telling yourself that...

Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

- June 17, 2004.

I don't have to tell myself that, those that fail to understand the basic definition of what a "lie" is are the ones that need to be reminded.

As for the qoute, it is a fact that members of Saddam's regime did meet with members of Al Quada back in the 1990s from documents that have been uncovered after the invasion. It does not say that they planned anything together, or developed any ideas together, but they did meet.
 
Saddam also met with Rumsfeld in the late 80s, so I suppose you will be invading yourselves next.
 
"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

- Bush in October 2002.

Stated that the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

- Cheney in September 2003.

"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."

- Cheney in October 2003.



STING2 said:

It does not say that they planned anything together, or developed any ideas together, but they did meet.



Well then I guess they lied. :|
 
anitram said:
Saddam also met with Rumsfeld in the late 80s, so I suppose you will be invading yourselves next.

Actually that was the early 1980s at a different time under far different circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom