IQ Test
I had a cust today to was trying to replace her old Ericson phone with a new Nokia 3560. I first had the cust try to get into the menu to program the phone, after 5 mins of confusion, I realised the cust had not turned the phone on yet. I told the customer to turn the phone on, but she could not find the power button. I instructed her that it would be on the very top of the phone. After 5 more mins of arguing, the customer said that there was no power button on this phone. I told her it would probably be a clear or white color. Customer replies by saying the only thing on the top of the phone is a set of plug-in ports. I informed cust she was looking at the bottom of the phone. It took 5 more mins before customer could figure out which part ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
lol i said that before.....they should pass something like a drivers exam. and recieve a license to use your phone. if you cant pass...no phone. and the license can be revoked if you do something stupid....just like if you do something assiniine with your car your drivers is yanked, if you do something like try and remove the battery by using a power drill, you can have your phone license revoked. lol. and oh yea..... i know what team your on too. 😈
...
...or just deny her an acct based on the fact that she's a government employee?
...
I was told that Government employees are not allowed to get any phones that have a camera in them, or with Bluetooth or speakerphone b/c the Fed's are too worried about information getting out. Can anyone confirm that?
...
lol yea....they dont want the number of were they keep all there "paid partners" opr the lcations of were they recieved bribes. there afraid that what everyone suspects will come out as truth.
...
It's true, Government employees cannot have a camera phone. This includes anyone in the military.
...
yea and company benefits involve everything from kneepads for the interns to stain remover! at least clinton wasent a war monger.
...
where is he a cheat? where did he steal money? He cheated on his wife, yes, but that's not the definition of "cheat".
But Clinton didn't compromise the american public and destroy our worldly reputation for "revenge" and to better his own financial interests.
But Clinton didn't compromise the american public and destroy our worldly reputation for "revenge" and to better his own financial interests.
...
I really wanna agree with this, Clinton was a much better president besides his little scandles. I dont know how it can happen, but somehow the US allowed someone to rig an election and cheat himself into power ultimately killing thousands of inocent people in the name of oil, and actually re-elect him for a second term. Im glad Im not a part of that.
...
OK, this is a wireless forum... not a political forum. Since I do like to talk politics, I am suspending all comments until I am no longer at work. I am chosing to so such as I wish to give my abusive, irate customers the very best customer service possible. That ain't gonna get done if I pop them on hold for several minutes so that I can post a political comment on the forum.
And yeah. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat... but I suppose that does depend on what your definition of the word "is" is.
And yeah. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat... but I suppose that does depend on what your definition of the word "is" is.
...
I'm sorry?
No need to reply... But let me see if I understand this... You're saying Bush Jr. is a better president than Clinton? Solely on the fact that Clinton cheated on his wife? Well, good to know genocide is no longer shunned on...
No need to reply... But let me see if I understand this... You're saying Bush Jr. is a better president than Clinton? Solely on the fact that Clinton cheated on his wife? Well, good to know genocide is no longer shunned on...
...
No, that's not what I'm saying, and I refuse to get into a political arguement on this forum. This is not the place... and since I am working, this is not the time.
...
coward... confronted by levelheaded questions a bushie just folds like a cheap lawn chair and runs away.Kinda like incurious George II.
...
No, that's not it.
This is not a political forum and thus is not the place for a political discussion.
I am at work. This is not the time for a political discussion.
It's as simple as that.
Clinton is certainly not my favorite president. I didn't like his policies and I voted for the other candidates twice. One difference between me and the democrat of today. I got over my party's loss to a person of Clinton's stature. I endured those 8 years and am presently very thankful that his boy AlGore didn't get an opportunity to continue the "legacy".
Obviously, if the proportion of democrats commenting here in support of Clinton is the same as the democratic ratio in the rest of the country, your people didn't come out to vote...
(continues)
This is not a political forum and thus is not the place for a political discussion.
I am at work. This is not the time for a political discussion.
It's as simple as that.
Clinton is certainly not my favorite president. I didn't like his policies and I voted for the other candidates twice. One difference between me and the democrat of today. I got over my party's loss to a person of Clinton's stature. I endured those 8 years and am presently very thankful that his boy AlGore didn't get an opportunity to continue the "legacy".
Obviously, if the proportion of democrats commenting here in support of Clinton is the same as the democratic ratio in the rest of the country, your people didn't come out to vote...
(continues)
...
actually I am a proud resident of soviet canuckistan, so aside from shaking my head in disbelief at the fact that 50% of the population of the richest country in the world can be so profoundly disconnected from reality that they would actually vote that moron and his cabal of vicious thugs and war criminals into the big chair for another term.
...
I voted for Kerry. I do not want a person that basically is legally retarded in office. Also this war in IRAQ is wrong on many levels. There is a difference to support our troops and supporting the war on "terrorism". My question is this if we are fighting this so called war on terror why are we not taking care of the terror here in our own back yard? What about the hate groups such as the skinheads, kkk, etc etc.....if Bush says mission accomplished aboard a ship in the middle of an ocean as opposed to being in IRAQ there is a problem. This war was never won and never will be. So long as there are people living there will be terrorists and there will always be terror. Also what about Osama? Why has he not be found? You cannot honestly sit t...
(continues)
(continues)
...
It was 51% of morons... But read some of the posts from Bush supporters... They're blind... They don't look at other factors involved... They just take what bush says... Which is said because half the time he looks like he doesn't even understand his own words.
...
After watching Farenheit 9/11, I had faith that the right thing would be done come election time, but to my dismay, George Dubya was RE-elected. Pathetic 😢
...
Farenheit 9/11 was nothign but Micheal Moore being a snarky little punk. If he wasn't so condescending to the public, I might agree with him. xD
You all should watch Fellowship 9/11 ..google it. Funny stuff.
You all should watch Fellowship 9/11 ..google it. Funny stuff.
...
I think it came down to the lesser of two evils... people already knew the damage Bush could invoke... but Kerry was an unkown evil... people fear the unknown... and then add the inbred simple-minded bush supporters... and we have a re-election.
*sigh*
4 more years... just 4 more years...
*sigh*
4 more years... just 4 more years...
...
CLINTON not a WAR MONGER ?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA--- In NO WAY do I support BUSH - But Clinton was a WAR MONGER. He was Just nice enough to do it quitely. He was the most Republican Democrate the country has ever seen. He Bombed... (I'm Drawing a Blank - Either Rwanda or Kosovo..... Somewhere in that Region) He also agreed for Air Strikes at Iraqi Military Targets. The Difference is Clinton had CHARISMA.
...
W. Bush or Clinton their both still part of the same system - Republican / Democrate only difference is the Spelling and 1 letter. It's like saying the difference between Mussonlini and Hitler - Still part of the same dillusional ideal system based on material gain and profit. But enough rambling my pinko opinion.
...
While we are on Politics.... Is COMMUNISM still a dirty word in the USA?
Just Curious.
Just Curious.
...
Don't speak that word again... J/K, no it's technically not a dirty word. It's just an insult now, lol.
...
The difference between Clinton and Bush is Clinton did not go against the United Nations requests...
It was a bombing in Kosovo, but I recall another organization involved in that... What was it again? Oh yeah, NATO! It was a response to a request issued by an ally. Held in high regards on an international basis shall I remind you? That's why our foreign relations was the best with Clinton because we weren't a country that ignored the world's requests... For once.
It was a bombing in Kosovo, but I recall another organization involved in that... What was it again? Oh yeah, NATO! It was a response to a request issued by an ally. Held in high regards on an international basis shall I remind you? That's why our foreign relations was the best with Clinton because we weren't a country that ignored the world's requests... For once.
...
Don't get me wrong I know Clintons a Better guy... No doubt about it. But Being better than W. doesn't make you a good person either. At least CLinton was respected though which reall does go a long way in politics.
...
No politician is a "good guy"... But if they're good for the country we can overlook their flaws... Bush is simply an idiot...
...
You should write for the Times that is the most acurate description of American Politics I've ever read.
I'm not being sarcastic either you've summed it up in 2 lines.
I'm not being sarcastic either you've summed it up in 2 lines.
...
speck said:
No politician is a "good guy"... But if they're good for the country we can overlook their flaws... Bush is simply an idiot...
BRAVO, TESTIFY, YOU GO BOY, etc etc
That really says it all
...
They could use the Patriot Act to Send all you Commies to Guantonamo Bay... Not me though... This Pinko's in Canada!!! 😎
...
🤣 Where we could spend the rest of our lives writing "Bush good." on a blackboard...
...
The problem with Clinton's flaws is that they were felonious in nature. Lieing about sex I have no problem with. Lieing about sex UNDER OATH I do have a problem with. No matter how you slice it: if you are under oath and you lie...about anything...age, sex, weight, crimes, anything...you commit perjury. Perjury is a felony. If you commit a felony, you cannot run for or occupy political office. It's that easy. Black and white.
Morality aside, I could care less if Clinton had a freakin' orgy in the oval office. All I care about is that he lied to a federal independent counsel under oath to tell the truth. That much is proveable. That's why he was impeached: perjury not sex.
Also, while on the topic of Clinton's flaws...how about the "it'...
(continues)
Morality aside, I could care less if Clinton had a freakin' orgy in the oval office. All I care about is that he lied to a federal independent counsel under oath to tell the truth. That much is proveable. That's why he was impeached: perjury not sex.
Also, while on the topic of Clinton's flaws...how about the "it'...
(continues)
...
Clinton was respected?!?! 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum all day. bwahahaha
That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum all day. bwahahaha
...
He was. Maybe not by you. Or some Republicans... But Democrats and foreign leaders as well as the UN truly respected him.
...
Yeah...I mean yes he cheated on is wife, but I don't understand how that adversely affected the country's well being. If anything, people liked him more for that. haha. It's showed he was indeed human, and not a puppet.
...
You should be tested to see if you can tell the diifference between a political forum and a GOD GAMN PHONE FORUM. You also have to prove you can stay on topic and it's immediately rejected if you use the forum as a friggin chat room. Also if you don't have anyting positive to contribute and just comment on every on elses information and wealth of knowledge you get an immediate life time revocation.
...
Thank you. 🙂
It seems that wireless phones are the last thing anyone wants to discuss here anymore.
It seems that wireless phones are the last thing anyone wants to discuss here anymore.
...
Small stuff is what this forum is about.
I'm still not going to talk politics here, so hang it up.
I'm still not going to talk politics here, so hang it up.
...
dumbass. Rwanda is in Africa, Kosovo in the Balkan Region of southern Europe. Clinton grenlighted atacks in both the balkans and in north africa ( the target later turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory) The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton is a pragmatic cynic, and Bush is genuine believer in evil, even if he is to simple to recognize it.
...
Well put minus the dumbass comment directed at myself --- I meant it was one or the other I'm aware of their Geography. But my english sucks and I did put "that regions" instead of those regions... I'm sorry Plz Forgve me 😢
...
ok i dont know how we got on this.... but i think clinton was a way better president then bush was. why? he didnt go against the UN and nato when it came time to unleash the firepower. he acted in what appeard to be concern for world issues, not control of overseas oil. clinton cheated on his wife. big freakin deal! everyone has cheated on someone or at something. just because hes the president dosent mean he wasent human. get over it. bush is a dumbass...and should be impeached for being an idiot.
...
rep1of2000 said:
bush is a dumbass...and should be impeached for being an idiot.
No, Bush shouldn't be impeached for being an idiot. He should be impeached for being a murderer and international terrorist.
...
I understand that Bush is worse than Clinton.... But Hitler was worse the Mussolini... It doesn't make him a good person. Yes Clinton went throught NATO but Clinton was a very Republican/Democrate. No questions about it. He still bombed countries like Kosovo (B/C he didn't feel he should send in ground troops since they wern't worth dying in a country like Kosovo) The Wife (Cheating) thing I could give 2 sh*ts about (If anything this makes him closer to people - he's in the upper 50 percentile) And he played the Sax which is cool... But in all Honesty saying he's a good President b/c W. is an War-Mongering Idiot doesn't hold ground. Clinton wasn't bad but Corporate American had him by the Testies Just like Cheny (Satan) and Corpor...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Yep, you guys are absolutely right. Bush is worse than Clinton because he did what he thought was in the best interests of the America people. Clinton went along with the UN because he was a triangulationist. If the polls showed the people wanted something, he would give it to them. Pretty spineless if you ask me. Did it ever occur to you that there were 17 resoultions againt Sadaam from the UN to disarm? He was given chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, after chance to disarm (yes, that's 17). And it was always "or else..." Or else what? He put a bounty George H....
(continues)
(continues)
...
Let's get this clear... How was invading Iraq good for the American People?
If I recall Al Qaida resided in Afghanistan... In fact, The majority of muslims in Iraq including the regime despised the Al Qaida and vice versa... So once again, How did this benefit the American people? It is hindering our economy and not to mention our troops are still dying... even at that we are shipping more troops out and throwing more money at the war... So how is this benefiting the American people? The CIA (US Government Agency) did a full investigations, the kind of investigation the UN was "incapable" of doing and present a novel of a report indicating the points that a) saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, b) destroyed his weapons of mass...
(continues)
If I recall Al Qaida resided in Afghanistan... In fact, The majority of muslims in Iraq including the regime despised the Al Qaida and vice versa... So once again, How did this benefit the American people? It is hindering our economy and not to mention our troops are still dying... even at that we are shipping more troops out and throwing more money at the war... So how is this benefiting the American people? The CIA (US Government Agency) did a full investigations, the kind of investigation the UN was "incapable" of doing and present a novel of a report indicating the points that a) saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, b) destroyed his weapons of mass...
(continues)
...
You are correct: Al Qaeda did reside in Afganistan. However, not a majority of the muslim world looked at them as evil. Many countries in that part of the world donated money to support front organizations for Al Qaeda. If you don't think that liberating 20 million people with the U.S. behind it doesn't help our chances in building an ally in that country you are deluding yourself. Saddam did not destroy all the munitions he claimed destroyed. True, we did not find the weapons he was suspected of having, but if you recall--our intelligence was based on American, Russian, French, and British intelligence...every piece pointed the same way. And you are grossly in error about the not planning to build any weapons of mass destruction. There have...
(continues)
(continues)
...
I don't believe there was any sort of resistance in action in postwar Germany. The US shouldn't be in Iraq, the president and his cabinet lied to justify this ilegal war (I am not gonna call this war imoral, all wars are imoral, including WWII -- the US fought a war of retribution against the axis powers, *nobody* outside of the ss and the german administration new about the death camps). The US will fail in Iraq, its a given because there was never any coherent plan in place to re-establish the rule of law after the war. There are countless thousands of civilians now dead because of american aggression, and god alone knows what the american death toll will be -- not that it will matter to Bush or Cheney or anyone else who signed off on Amer...
(continues)
(continues)
...
speedywalk said:
You are correct: Al Qaeda did reside in Afganistan. However, not a majority of the muslim world looked at them as evil. Many countries in that part of the world donated money to support front organizations for Al Qaeda.
This is true but Iraq was not one of those countries. The Saddam regime despised the Taliban and vice versa... So What point are you making with this statement?
If you don't think that liberating 20 million people with the U.S. behind it doesn't help our chances in building an ally in that country you are deluding yourself.
I've no doubt we'll have an ally in Iraq... But we've lost face in front of the UN for what? The Bush administration is n...
(continues)
...
Just for clarification, 90% of the country returning to normal means that the hospitals are reopening, schools, etc. Most of which was either non-existant during Saddam's regime or woefully inadiquate.
For more information on the case for Iraq:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm »
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just lacks duct tape!"
For more information on the case for Iraq:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm »
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just lacks duct tape!"
...
Woo-hoo.
And we still have kids graduating high-school without being able to read a sentence. Our President's priority should be our country. That's why we elected him.
I'm glad iraq seems to be getting better according to the article you posted, but we really don't have a right telling other countries what they can and can't do when we do them ourselves (i.e. Allowing ourselves to use nuclear weapons, but not anyone else.)
And we still have kids graduating high-school without being able to read a sentence. Our President's priority should be our country. That's why we elected him.
I'm glad iraq seems to be getting better according to the article you posted, but we really don't have a right telling other countries what they can and can't do when we do them ourselves (i.e. Allowing ourselves to use nuclear weapons, but not anyone else.)
...
The problem with eductation is simple: quit just throwing money at the problem. The U.S. spends more money per student than any other nation in the world. So obviously money is not the problem. The problem is apathetic educators for the most part. I went to public school and had a great experience, took many classes that wouldn't have been available in other schools in the area. Why is that? My school district didn't get more dollars per student than the other schools in the city... The problem is poor management decisions. If I ran a business the way that most cities run their schools, I'd be out of business in no time. The solution? Let the schools earn their piece of the pie. If a school is not performing the way they should be, why shoul...
(continues)
(continues)
...
speedywalk said: Even while the rest of the world spits on us because they don't agree with the fact that a nation could be as powerful and rich as we are. Without the US, do you know how different of a world climate we would be living in?
I don't understand how you can think you know why other nations spit on us. "They're just jealous." What a converful mentality.
And as for a world without america, I don't know what the world would be like without it. Do you? Course not. Unless you have access to a parallel universe in which the revolutionary war was not won. Well, now I know what would be wrong...We'd be speaking with british accents. That would suck terribly.
...
Wrong.
It implies that the state of the country has reached 90%, of it's previous 100%...
Mathematically speaking you cannot measure percentages without a constant. In this case the only constant we have to go by would be Iraq's previous state. We would equal that constant to 100%... Anything non-existent would be variable... To measure a percentage based on variables would develop inaccurate results e.g. 35% when the constant would measure 70% etc... To have a credible percentage to use in this discussion you would have to agree that the constant was Iraq's previous state and any variables involved could only be measured in excess (over 100%).
Of course... I can't blame you... After all... Bigger military... lower education... Obv...
(continues)
It implies that the state of the country has reached 90%, of it's previous 100%...
Mathematically speaking you cannot measure percentages without a constant. In this case the only constant we have to go by would be Iraq's previous state. We would equal that constant to 100%... Anything non-existent would be variable... To measure a percentage based on variables would develop inaccurate results e.g. 35% when the constant would measure 70% etc... To have a credible percentage to use in this discussion you would have to agree that the constant was Iraq's previous state and any variables involved could only be measured in excess (over 100%).
Of course... I can't blame you... After all... Bigger military... lower education... Obv...
(continues)
...
While your math is true, I think he was referring to the potential of the country, not the actual effectiveness. With that constant, the original state of Iraq would have been around 40% compared to the current 90%.
...
The difference between WWII and the war in Iraq is that nobody really opposed WWII. I'm sure there were some but no where near the opposition to this war. Hitler was a THREAT. He was conquering countries and obviously HAD weapons that his army was USING. Saddam did not have a military force spanning most of europe. You cannot compare this war to WWII. You can, however, compare this to vietnam. Very similiar. I am neither rebulican nor democrat. I can spot an idiot president tho
...
you are wrong about WW II not being opposed. EVERYONE opposed it, that's why we did not come into it until WE were attacked. We had no choice but to retalliate, and if you think I'm wrong, refer to any historical report on the war.
...
Wenadin said:
EVERYONE opposed it, that's why we did not come into it until WE were attacked.
I don't understand the logic behign this statement. Since it was opposed, that's why we stayed pretty much neutral?
...
Yeah, it was opposed by everyone in the country, that's why we didn't enter the war: Because the public didn't want it to happen.
...
Correct...as I recall it (revisionist histroy excluded) we only supplied our allies with supplies (iron ore, copper, etc.). At least until this tiny little incident called Pearl Harbor. That is the act that lead the US into war. America was hesitant to go to war after WW I because we saw how costly WW I was. If Japan had not decided to attack us (and there is historical evidence they tried to recall the attack, but were too slow to get the message delivered) we might not have gotten into WW II until Britain fell or was close.
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
...
Bush is worse thatn Clinton because he and his cabinet are presiding over the dismantling of rights and freedoms that the american people should regard as their birthright, he is committing thousands of young lives to an unwinnable war that never had any legal justification, that he used the deaths of 4000 civilians to push through legislation that will cost generations of american citizens billions of dollars over the next several decades, and he has guaranteed the exsistence of radical terrorists who will threaten the globe for the next century at the very least.
...
so what your saying is if bush believed he needed to bomb kansas, stuck to it, and followed through, its OK? hmm.... I see a problem with your theory
...
Who the heck is talking about bombing Kansas? Geez, talk about tossing in a red herring...
...
No, I totally got the whole "bling following the stupid" thing he was trying to get across. But since he's talking about bombing Kansas, the entire arguement loses any credibility it may have otherwise had.
...
Not really.
Listen the guy he was responding to thinks that since Bush did what he thought was right and stuck to it when he decided to invade iraq, that he is a better president for the country than clinton, the guy who was a bad president for doing what the country wanted(which doesn't make any sense), becuase he does what HE thinks is right, even though most of the country opposed the war.
His response stating so if he wanted to bomb kansas becuase he thought it was right and stuck to it, that'd make it ok, becuase he's not a spineless president who does what the people want.
Bush is more toward a dictator or King than a president.
Listen the guy he was responding to thinks that since Bush did what he thought was right and stuck to it when he decided to invade iraq, that he is a better president for the country than clinton, the guy who was a bad president for doing what the country wanted(which doesn't make any sense), becuase he does what HE thinks is right, even though most of the country opposed the war.
His response stating so if he wanted to bomb kansas becuase he thought it was right and stuck to it, that'd make it ok, becuase he's not a spineless president who does what the people want.
Bush is more toward a dictator or King than a president.
...
Bush = 👿
Hey look, i think Kansas has weapons of mass destruction!
I think we need an "average joe" (no reference to the TV show) president. Someone that knows what its like to be an average working class man/woman. Not someone who is justing living off of mommy and daddy. But hey the way things are right now you cant become president unless you have MILLIONS of dollars, which is BS imo.
Hey look, i think Kansas has weapons of mass destruction!
I think we need an "average joe" (no reference to the TV show) president. Someone that knows what its like to be an average working class man/woman. Not someone who is justing living off of mommy and daddy. But hey the way things are right now you cant become president unless you have MILLIONS of dollars, which is BS imo.
...
I hate to remind you guys of this, but the president you admire so much reminded us about the WMD's in Iraq that Sadaam had. Clinton told us that we needed to be careful of the situation in Iraq with WMD's in 1998. 1998!! Also, the entire DNC leadership had jumped on the bandwagon too. Do the searches. Read the quotes. Tell me that they don't sound just like Bush did a couple of years ago. The argument then becomes "well...well...Bush went and DID something about it...Clinton lobbed a cruise missile at an aspirin factory to LOOK like he did something!"
This discussion is pointless because the DEMOCRATIC leadership called the shots the SAME way in 1998. The only thing that changed is that 4 years passed and a Republican president is saying...
(continues)
This discussion is pointless because the DEMOCRATIC leadership called the shots the SAME way in 1998. The only thing that changed is that 4 years passed and a Republican president is saying...
(continues)
...
For all that disagree and think this was "invented" by the bush administration I submit the following for your approval:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm »
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/tr ... »
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-34 ... »
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Article ... »
Like I have said before: NOTHING has changed. It was shown that the entire intelligence community was incorrect, but the president was just acting on what they had to go on at the time--BOTH of them!
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm »
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/tr ... »
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-34 ... »
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Article ... »
Like I have said before: NOTHING has changed. It was shown that the entire intelligence community was incorrect, but the president was just acting on what they had to go on at the time--BOTH of them!
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
...
Wow, you must be American, because I never heard anyone else try so hard to justify his actions. So, you feel that Bush is better? Becaus ehis daddy breeded him from birth to despise Saddam and like a brainwashed ant with no mind, waltzed thru this life, then , in some deranged twist of fate, became president, only to claim an illegal war on...who? You guessed it. I'm glad to see Saddam gone, but there are international laws for a reason. An ALL should comply. The U.S. president is not above the LAW. I would be fine with it all if I was not convinced that his alterior motive to invading Iraq was to fix his daddy's mitakes. Pathetic.Oh, and if Clinton WAS listening to what the people wanted, isn't that what his job is? A voice for the people?...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Now, really...raised him from birth to despise Sadaam? Give me a break. And you obviously haven't done any research on Bush's back ground have you...yeas, he may have had a better upbringing than most but he didn't just "waltz" through life. The war wasn't illegal, as mentioned before it was a resuming of hostilities since Desert Storm never oficially ended. As I stated before, my father and my whole family were stationed in Turkey as support for the cease-fire enforcement. Thus, it was legal. That's what the resolutions were all about...hostilities would not be resumed IF he complied, he failed, they resumed.
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just lacks duct tape!"
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just lacks duct tape!"
...
That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard... I'm glad your family has been serving in wars for 300 years... I'm glad you've got the american flag tattooed on your forehead... But the fact of the matter is that afghan was the initiative... Bush figured since we're already at war... Why not bomb Iraq too?
And all your ceasefire violations... Though it may be very likely that it was saddam's regime that had broken the ceasefire... there's no proof... Iraq tanks did not go to US stations and start bombarding for three days straight... So regardless of the likelihood... It's not definite that it was Saddam's Regime... Also, I highly doubt that we have upheld our end of the ceasefire 100% of the time... I mean... How humane our own US...
(continues)
And all your ceasefire violations... Though it may be very likely that it was saddam's regime that had broken the ceasefire... there's no proof... Iraq tanks did not go to US stations and start bombarding for three days straight... So regardless of the likelihood... It's not definite that it was Saddam's Regime... Also, I highly doubt that we have upheld our end of the ceasefire 100% of the time... I mean... How humane our own US...
(continues)
...
Have you read reports from the pilots that were enforcing the no-fly zones? There was rarely a time when the planes were not "painted" by SAM sites or harassed by MiGs from the Iraqi air force. Under international law, it is absolutely legal for a pilot to return fire if he is fired upon as happened with the MiG encounters. The SAM sites were located IN the no-fly zone, a violation of the agreement. As far as our soldiers being humane...I would take my chances surrendering or being captured by the US forces over ANY other in the world. Why? Because we ARE the most humane in our treatment of prisoners. Need I remind you of the treatment of POWs by the Viet Cong? Or how about the conditions of mid-eastern prisons, let alone the conditions they...
(continues)
(continues)
...
One thing i've learned over my years is that it's pointless to argue with any gun-ho tomahawk missile hugger... Anybody with a mind would choose reason...
Any military driven individual who still thinks it's okay to Nuke 4 million people will always find a way to justify War... I've accepted war is unavoidable... But as pointless as Vietnam was so is this war on Iraq.
There is no good in war... You can never justify it... The only thing you can hope to accomplish in war is honor... and there is nothing honorable about Iraq.
Any military driven individual who still thinks it's okay to Nuke 4 million people will always find a way to justify War... I've accepted war is unavoidable... But as pointless as Vietnam was so is this war on Iraq.
There is no good in war... You can never justify it... The only thing you can hope to accomplish in war is honor... and there is nothing honorable about Iraq.
...
Well done speck. I'm glad someone else doesn't have their head in the sand about the travesty that is still taking place. Kudos.
...
WELL I THINK loyalty to his OWN WIFE is a HUGE sign of what will be his loyalty to his country! Everyone cheats?
...
I think cheating on a person, when you are such an important person (of all things) is very important. Definatly a sign of his character, not that that matters, but it does lead to other important things.. okay im starting to not make sence. But i know you know what i mean.
...
I think lying and/or cheating is required to be in such an important position. It's how they get elected, it's how we avoid wars, and how we avoid paying our deficit. Politics is lying, and I'd rather have a smooth talker who's been in the pants of everyone than someone who can barely put on their own pants.
...
ralph_on_me said:
... I'd rather have a smooth talker who's been in the pants of everyone than someone who can barely put on their own pants.
Bravo!
...
... do you think its okay to cheat on your wife? or are you just trying to say clinton is better then bush, in all of this.. ?
...
Oh YES, I AM SAYING THAT CLINTON WAS BETTER THAN BUSH. 35% + OF MEN CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES, SO WHO ARE MOST OF THEM TO JUDGE? I WOULD RATHER A HORNY PRESIDENT THAN AN IDIOTIC DADDYS BOY WITH A BLOODLUST AND POWER TRIP. 😈
...
I would rather a politician get some oral sex on the side and NOT round people up to be held indefinately without trial or access to counsel, who doesn't involve his armed forces in unwinnable wars, or gut the public treasury to benefit war profiteers like Haliburton.
Dunno, I guess I am just funny that way.
Dunno, I guess I am just funny that way.
...
yea i agree with you. while cheating on your wife is inexcusable for someone in public office, most people in that power are smart enough not to get caught. if clinton was never exposed we would think hes great, adn really care less about his other faults. as far as the war goes... clinton acted in acordance with un doctrine and supported the un and nato in its endevours. bush basiclly went on a vengence/power trip and ignored the UN and nato. for that i call him a warmonger. did sadam need to be taken out? yes. was iraq in trouble? yes... were they making wmds? who the heck knows. i sure dont. i agree with the results...just not the way he did it. the end does not justify the means. that is why bush should be tried as a war criminal and be ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It blows my mind that these people are able to sustain full time jobs, and have the brain power to walk into a store, or dial a toll free number, and go through the entire process of initiating a wireless account.It surprises me that they know how to dial a number, let alone, dial from memory, and not a scrap peice of paper. I had 7 hillbillies in the South having so hard of a time programming a NOKIA (the most basic) that after 25 minutes, I had to refer them to the store. HA 🤣
...
