SPECIAL Birthday thread

Bill_gates · Jul 7, 2004

Amazing how many liberals are in this forum....

Strider · Jul 7, 2004

thats cause conservatists are mostly either old or rich and in which case would most likely not spend time in these forums

N1ghtw0lf · Jul 7, 2004

i don't really know where most of you live, but i dont think its required people from countries other than the USA to make fun of him...i think he gets enough of that from his own people

, i know Proto, Boltz, Strider, Reich and Razor don't live in US...so leave the damned guy alone...

/me gives Bush a drop of oil in a jar to add to his collection

(F)ragnarok(F) · Jul 7, 2004

i feel more like celebrating his death when it comes than his b-day :heh:

Mr.Smith · Jul 7, 2004

Bill_gates said:
Amazing how many liberals are in this forum....

Oooh no!! Since liberals are so evil!!

MrTeamWork · Jul 7, 2004

Jeeze people so much hatred. I just wished him a happy birthday as a person that's all.

Strider · Jul 7, 2004

i don't really know where most of you live, but i dont think its required people from countries other than the USA to make fun of him...i think he gets enough of that from his own people , i know Proto, Boltz, Strider, Reich and Razor don't live in US...so leave the damned guy alone...

the us economy and military affects the whole world, it doesnt matter if we live in the US

Boltzmann · Jul 8, 2004

N1ghtw0lf said:
i don't really know where most of you live, but i dont think its required people from countries other than the USA to make fun of him...i think he gets enough of that from his own people , i know Proto, Boltz, Strider, Reich and Razor don't live in US...so leave the damned guy alone...

His stupid actions/choices affects the whole world. The decisions of his stupid council of bioethics has made many smaller countries change their minds concerning the stem cell research. His reckless military actions are not restricted to the USA, and his equally reckless launching of pre-emptive attacks in his so-called "war on terror" is damaging to the whole world.

Since the USA is the major player in world politics, the actions of it's leader will influence the lives of people all over the globe. This is a simple consequence of the current trend of globalization.

Therefore non-US residents have all the reasons in the world to bash the guy and want him out of power. In my case, I want a more science-friendly president, such as Jonh Kerry

I-Chan · Jul 8, 2004

klatch said:
Remember the wedding that was bombed in Iraq? Do you think he's directly responsible for those decisions too? What do you think tactical officers are for? If my family was standing there, at that time, would I hate Bush for it? NO! I'd hunt down those directly responsible for the order of that act, and only if I'm 100% sure. Does my grasp of justice seem all that weird? Or do you think Bush really could take responsibility (I pay no attention to laws in this, only to reason) for the actions of ALL US troops and their officers?

First) Bush ordered the start of the war. Don't tell me it was to get rid of the WMD threat, because it's already proven they plainly lied. There were no WMD, it was just an excuse to start a war to a) get cheaper oil b) distract USA people's attention from the fact they can't capture Osama. I don't believe that it was just a failure from the inteligence agencies, either. I think Bush and his team already knew, and so they pushed the war without UN's support. An investigation from them would have discovered their lies, probably, a risk they couldn't afford. Of course, these last statements are just hypothesis. But Bush started the war, that's a fact. They acknowledge there are "collateral damages" in war, so don't tell me they were specting a war with no civil casualties, that's just lame. They shouldn't have to be there to start with. If someone committed an error, of course it's his fault, and he is to blame. But it's an error. Bush, knowing that a lot of innocent people, already crushed under Saddam's tirany, would die, did order the war. Jus for petrol. Just to make some kind of vengeance to the 11-S to sell to his voters. So can i blame him? YES YES AND YES.

Second) He is the one in charge. If he is surrounded of uncapable people, then he should change them. So either way, it's his fault. Did he take responsibility? No! He joked with the journalists "where are the wmd's? where?"

klatch said:
Ugh.. what argumental value does that have? My point of him being human is that all those people putting him in a corner as the world's idiot, some of those wanting him dead, would rather treat him as something lower than a human.

As his soldiers did to iraq's? As he does using the term "collateral damages" to talk about the people they cold-bloodly assasinate with their shiny bombs? I show respect to people to deserve it, or at least show respect to others themselves. Bush doesn't fit in neither category.

klatch said:
How can you compare him to the average dictator or terrorist, who've all made clear it was their intention to kill innocents, for whatever reason which makes it justifiable to them.

The big difference between them and Bush is that Bush is on the winner side. Bush started wars on Afghanistan and Iraq just to kill as many people as he could in response to 11-S. They have proven to have better, cleaner ways to take people out of the way, ask in South America... Again, thinking that he was unaware that war kills innocents is just lame.

klatch said:
Has Bush ever been caught saying it was his intention to kill innocents? And did he give direct orders to do so?

Lemme think... he declared a war? An unjustifiable war agaisn't the intentions of most of the world? A war based on lies, just for the money? Don't misunderstand me. I blame Aznar (spaniard president that days) too for supporting him, and Blair either. But please, don't tell me poor Bush declared war on behalf of the poor iraq's people under the tirany, and 2 bad, stupid soldiers killed innocents. Bush himself approved the bombs, the planes, the troops... to be sent there. And they weren't equipped with paintball guns.

klatch said:
He said to kill/capture/stop terrorists, and I haven't heard him making claims that the killed innocents were jews being responsible for bad economy for which they have to die, or that something as mass-murder (in peace-time!) like Osama's men did is acceptable in some way or another.

Oh yes, every person killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were terrorist. So the use of lies and excuses make you a better person? Acknowledged that.

klatch said:
No you didn't, and I don't see the point either. But some of the reasons given in this thread why not to congratulate them are laughable at best. It is such utter crap that makes me wish people would reason beyond that which the oppurtunists at the media tells them to. What I misinterpreted as "compassion" earlier is what more suitably would be called a "cry for justice", as their is no justice in some of these posts.

There's no justice on kids without legs and arms, watching days go by in an hospital bed, with no future, with no hopes, with no expectations. And 100000x that, is Bush legacy.

klatch said:
Some of you just see this thread as an oppurtunity to say how much of an idiot Bush is, and although I agree to some extent, some of you take it to the edge where it insults my intellect by just reading it. I'm not trying to defend Bush for any other particular reason than that some of the statements here are of the same level as those that are pro-bush. If I'm the only non-US resident seeing this, than I might aswell ignore the thread entirely as I wouldn't get anything done here besides feeding my already gigantic ego, which is pointless.

It's nothing to do with the US. I like many things from the USA, but i can't stand their foreign policy, that "we are the leaders of free world". No one asked them to take charge, ok? Thanks. Would have it been right if Europe had bombed all the USA in the civil war, just to stop the war? I bet Usa would take that as an offense, and not as a help. And in this last 4 years, it's gotten worse than ever. I know 11-S was a terrible tragedy, but it's not an excuse to kill half of the arab world to feel relieved. 11-M happened here in Madrid, Spain, less than 2km where i live, and i don't want to kill every muslim out there. Just want the responsibles to be caught and judged, not a war agaisn't everyone just in case they were helping, without true proof.

klatch said:
It's called being impartial. Some of you should try it.

I do. It's a fact that Bush is the one in charge of the country that has killed more people in the last four years. Either he is reponsible or cannot stop it, what is his to blame for. And the reasons are so dark that they (he and his government) lie to everyone to justify their actions.

He is not alone. Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Putin, and probably many others are people who like to sell to killing of their enemies to their people rather than finding real solutions to their problems. Just as Hitler did in his time. Agreed, these people haven't reached that extent at this time, but that doesn't deny the fact that they dismiss human life as soon as it gets on their way. And i won't respect that in my whole life.

KillerShots · Jul 8, 2004

I-Chan said:
First) Bush ordered the start of the war. Don't tell me it was to get rid of the WMD threat, because it's already proven they plainly lied. There were no WMD, it was just an excuse to start a war to a) get cheaper oil b) distract USA people's attention from the fact they can't capture Osama.

OK, as I've said before, it was the combination of Saddam's history (genocide, previous possession of WMD's), the fact that he's insane, and the suspicion of current WMDs along with the possibility of underhanded strikes (biological weapons shipped into major US population areas - who says he's limited to conventional warfare?) that caused our strike. The reasons you state are a mass opinion shared by many but involving only circumstantial evidence (there's oil in Iraq, that must be the reason). Due to my reasoning, I flatly reject that until actual proof comes along.

I-Chan said:
But Bush started the war, that's a fact.

Granted, he did indeed begin the war - there's a good fact.

I-Chan said:
They acknowledge there are "collateral damages" in war, so don't tell me they were specting a war with no civil casualties, that's just lame.

Who said they weren't expecting any civillian casualties? That's a fact of war, there is no way around it. They tried to minimize it, but there's no way to eliminate it. They surely didn't go out of their way to inflict civillian casualties.

I-Chan said:
They shouldn't have to be there to start with. If someone committed an error, of course it's his fault, and he is to blame. But it's an error. Bush, knowing that a lot of innocent people, already crushed under Saddam's tirany, would die, did order the war. Jus for petrol. Just to make some kind of vengeance to the 11-S to sell to his voters. So can i blame him? YES YES AND YES.

OK, at least you're consistent - you believe war is bad for any reason whatsoever - I believe I understand you better at this point, though I still thoroughly disagree with you.

I-Chan said:
Second) He is the one in charge. If he is surrounded of uncapable people, then he should change them. So either way, it's his fault. Did he take responsibility? No! He joked with the journalists "where are the wmd's? where?"

As I stated above, the existence of WMDs were only a suspicion. If they are never found, that doesn't change the motives for the war.

I-Chan said:
As his soldiers did to iraq's? As he does using the term "collateral damages" to talk about the people they cold-bloodly assasinate with their shiny bombs? I show respect to people to deserve it, or at least show respect to others themselves. Bush doesn't fit in neither category.

Not sure where you're going here, can you elaborate? What assassinations? What do you mean by "shiny bombs"? Are you talking about the war in general? That people fight and die? I'm honestly confused here.

I-Chan said:
The big difference between them and Bush is that Bush is on the winner side. Bush started wars on Afghanistan and Iraq just to kill as many people as he could in response to 11-S.

Sure, that's the ticket. Kill for the sake of killing. I don't think so.

I-Chan said:
They have proven to have better, cleaner ways to take people out of the way, ask in South America...

Can you be more specific? Again, I think I've lost where you're going.

I-Chan said:
Lemme think... he declared a war?

Yes

I-Chan said:
An unjustifiable war agaisn't the intentions of most of the world?

Unjustifiable - read my reasoning above for justification. Against the intentions of most of the world? Forgive me, but the President of the USA's responsibilities are to his people first, the rest of the world comes at best second.

I-Chan said:
A war based on lies, just for the money?

Again, that mass opinion thing

I-Chan said:
Don't misunderstand me. I blame Aznar (spaniard president that days) too for supporting him, and Blair either. But please, don't tell me poor Bush declared war on behalf of the poor iraq's people under the tirany, and 2 bad, stupid soldiers killed innocents.

In all honesty, I believe that Iraq's freedom was at best a side effect of the primary mission. So we agree there. I'm not entirely sure Spain sent the right message to terrorists when they gave in to their demands, but we'll see if it helped them. Certainly didn't help the rest of us.

I-Chan said:
Bush himself approved the bombs, the planes, the troops... to be sent there. And they weren't equipped with paintball guns.

Good thing - I'm not sure how much good even a shot in the eye would do a soldier equipped with only a paintball gun in a fire fight when the enemy is equipped with AK-47's. Yes, Bush can be held accountable for sending in the troops, whether it's a good thing or it is shown to be a bad thing.

I-Chan said:
Oh yes, every person killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were terrorist.

I know you're being sarcastic here, but the troops certainly didn't intentionally kill civillians.

I-Chan said:
So the use of lies and excuses make you a better person? Acknowledged that.

I'm still not even vaguely convinced Bush is lying yet. Perhaps more solid evidence?

I-Chan said:
There's no justice on kids without legs and arms, watching days go by in an hospital bed, with no future, with no hopes, with no expectations. And 100000x that, is Bush legacy.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

I-Chan said:
It's nothing to do with the US. I like many things from the USA, but i can't stand their foreign policy, that "we are the leaders of free world". No one asked them to take charge, ok? Thanks.

I'll grant you that - The US has a history of getting involved where it shouldn't.

I-Chan said:
Would have it been right if Europe had bombed all the USA in the civil war, just to stop the war? I bet Usa would take that as an offense, and not as a help.

That's diametrically opposed to what the US has been doing. It doesn't bomb people to stop other people's wars, that would be incredibly stupid. I'm going to let slide the fact that bombs back in the civil war would have been a much different thing than nowadays, and that you are simply attempting to make a point.

History - Gulf War I - Same reasons as current ones.
Vietnam - prevent the spread of communism. I'm a little perplexed on this one, but I wasn't even born at the time.
World War II - Pearl Harbor got us involved

Which of these happened because we wanted to stop someone else's war?

I-Chan said:
And in this last 4 years, it's gotten worse than ever. I know 11-S was a terrible tragedy, but it's not an excuse to kill half of the arab world to feel relieved. 11-M happened here in Madrid, Spain, less than 2km where i live, and i don't want to kill every muslim out there. Just want the responsibles to be caught and judged, not a war agaisn't everyone just in case they were helping, without true proof.

I understand and agree with your point here. The US should go after UBL and Al-Queda for those reasons. Saddam was not warred against due to any aid he may have given UBL (I doubt he gave any, in fact), but because he is a homicidal madman with a tendency for genocide and a history of having and using WMDs, along with the suspicion of having them at the time the US moved in. I see no link to 9/11 there except perhaps more motivation to the average citizen in the extremely unlikely case UBL got ahold of some of Saddams suspected WMDs - but I think we both agree that's quite a stretch.

I-Chan said:
I do. It's a fact that Bush is the one in charge of the country that has killed more people in the last four years. Either he is reponsible or cannot stop it, what is his to blame for. And the reasons are so dark that they (he and his government) lie to everyone to justify their actions.

Here we go again with this mass opinion thing. I remain unconvinced until some actual non-circumstantial evidence appears or is dug up.

I-Chan said:
He is not alone. Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Putin, and probably many others are people who like to sell to killing of their enemies to their people rather than finding real solutions to their problems. Just as Hitler did in his time. Agreed, these people haven't reached that extent at this time, but that doesn't deny the fact that they dismiss human life as soon as it gets on their way. And i won't respect that in my whole life.

Can you name a way to peacefully eliminate terrorism from the world? No? Then we'll just have to settle for getting rid of the worst of the symptoms rather than the source before it overtakes us.

Note - I respect your opinions, I believe I know where they come from, but I have a diametrically opposed view and I'm trying to share that. That's all.

I-Chan · Jul 8, 2004

KillerShots said:
OK, as I've said before, it was the combination of Saddam's history (genocide, previous possession of WMD's), the fact that he's insane, and the suspicion of current WMDs along with the possibility of underhanded strikes (biological weapons shipped into major US population areas - who says he's limited to conventional warfare?) that caused our strike. The reasons you state are a mass opinion shared by many but involving only circumstantial evidence (there's oil in Iraq, that must be the reason). Due to my reasoning, I flatly reject that until actual proof comes along.

Iraq's been under a commercial block (u know who made it) wich made difficult for them to even have medicines, you really think they have the resources to make WDM's? BUT. Let's follow this. Given so, UN's inspections would have found signs of them. Not a single one was found. And i'm talking about the UN, not mass media. USA gov didn't agree, and showed what now have been proven as false facts. So UN's were to send more inspections. But that would've avoided war, so Bush (or someone from his gov, but obviously with his consensus) decided to strike before that could happen. I f you do, you gotta be totally sure that your theory is true. But it's not. No WDM. Only corpses.

KillerShots said:
Granted, he did indeed begin the war - there's a good fact.

Go ask Iraq's killed children mothers how good was it.

KillerShots said:
Who said they weren't expecting any civillian casualties? That's a fact of war, there is no way around it. They tried to minimize it, but there's no way to eliminate it. They surely didn't go out of their way to inflict civillian casualties.

OK, but then i won't accept that 'they didn't want civilian casualties'. They didn't care about them, they were just some muslims - wow, potential terrorists. To me, starting an offensive war (remember, you weren't counterstriking an offensive on your country... or were you - aka vengeance of 11-S) is ordering the death of hundreds or thousands of innocent people. When there's no way to avoid it, i agree war is needed. Until then a president who starts a war is a genocide, for me. An Bush is. But that's just my opinion. Remember, it's not only Iraq. Afghanistan is still there. Barely.

KillerShots said:
OK, at least you're consistent - you believe war is bad for any reason whatsoever - I believe I understand you better at this point, though I still thoroughly disagree with you.

For the reason that it doesn't bring any good, only death and destruction. Again, war is the last resource, not a funny way to show that your army is the most powerful ever. We already know that... with the permission of Russian and Chinese armies.

KillerShots said:
As I stated above, the existence of WMDs were only a suspicion. If they are never found, that doesn't change the motives for the war.

Of course doesn't change anything, because WMD were not the motive. BUT. Given so, it does indeed change everything. If really poor Bush knew Saddam had WMD's, but no one believed him, and he indeed destroyed a big menace, then i could acknowledge my mistake (i was agaisn't the war from day 1) and agree with him. But, as was clear before all started, they had no real, consistent proof. And the weak ones they had, have been proven false - or mistaken, if you like it. Will they learn an wait until they really are sure of it until they perform their next weapon show? I'm afraid not.

KillerShots said:
Not sure where you're going here, can you elaborate? What assassinations? What do you mean by "shiny bombs"? Are you talking about the war in general? That people fight and die? I'm honestly confused here.

Klatch stated that Bush deserves to be treated with more humanity. At most, he deserves the same that iraq's soldiers received in Guantanamo, or in that Iraq jail wich name i cannot recall. At most, he deserves the same that the people your/his bombs killed just because they were near some strategical point. Yes, people die. But not only those who fight.

KillerShots said:
Sure, that's the ticket. Kill for the sake of killing. I don't think so.

Then next time wait until it really proves to be a threat. Until then, i only see a mountain of corpses (including your soldier's) that grows everyday. Watch Iraq's people, they aren't exactly 'grateful'.

KillerShots said:
Can you be more specific? Again, I think I've lost where you're going.

USA's dirt game has changed many governments in many south american countries. And they didn't need a war. Just give money to the appropiate terrorist there

. You know, as it's supposed to have happened with Osama or the same Saddam in the past (i won't assure it as you will start again with that 'mass media' argument).

KillerShots said:
Yes

And i believe that is a direct order to kill people

.

KillerShots said:
Unjustifiable - read my reasoning above for justification. Against the intentions of most of the world? Forgive me, but the President of the USA's responsibilities are to his people first, the rest of the world comes at best second.

I know, that 'screw the others, i have the bomb' attitude is very tipical of yours. And because of it, USA has been getting where they shouldn't (as you have agreed), and collected a lot of hatred all over the world. Acting like you can screw everyone if you wish to (and, in fact, doing), please, don't be surprised when people express their hatred to you. There's a difference between caring about you first and starting wars wich threaten all the world just for the sake of it. But of course, if anything happens, it's a "collateral damage"

KillerShots said:
Again, that mass opinion thing

At best, the reasons to start war were as strong as mass opinion

KillerShots said:
In all honesty, I believe that Iraq's freedom was at best a side effect of the primary mission. So we agree there.

Then, i don't wanna hear again that crap about freeing Iraq from the tirany. USA never cared about it in the last 30 years, excepting the first gulf war. And that was because of oil to...

KillerShots said:
I'm not entirely sure Spain sent the right message to terrorists when they gave in to their demands, but we'll see if it helped them. Certainly didn't help the rest of us.

Oh. So i use mass media opinion, and you are an expert on Spain's policy. Let me *please* doubt it, ok? Spanish gov was kicked out of power because many times they showed they didn't care about what the people of Spain had to say. Lots of problems arised last 2-3 years, and people expressed many times. They made the wrong decissions that led to an ecological disaster over the shore of Galicia (ever heard of Prestige?). Built a high speed train over a terrain that's sinking under the rails (many holes have appeared already) to give more money to their fellow builders. They disregarded 90% of spanish population, that expressed their reject to Iraq's war. And when 11-m, it was the lies they spread about being ETA and not Al-Qaeda the authors of the attack what ended destroying them. They were already aware that it was Al-Qaeda, and still said it was ETA to avoid losing votes. Will you support a gov that you know that already lied? Oh, sorry, din't remember you are already doing. A lot of people were unhappy with them. 11-M was only the tip of the iceberg. Of course, i'll gladly hear the reasons were you base your opinions about Spain's policy.

KillerShots said:
Good thing - I'm not sure how much good even a shot in the eye would do a soldier equipped with only a paintball gun in a fire fight when the enemy is equipped with AK-47's. Yes, Bush can be held accountable for sending in the troops, whether it's a good thing or it is shown to be a bad thing.

Then i don't wanna hear 'Bush didn't order civilian deaths'. It was in Iraq's terrain, so no USA civilians aside from journalist (who are there because they want, so i won't talk about them) can die there, so don' tell me that 'people fight and die'. Bush indeed ordered civilian deaths. Wether they were the objective or just "collateral damage" is on a second place, he is the responsible.

KillerShots said:
I know you're being sarcastic here, but the troops certainly didn't intentionally kill civillians.I'm still not even vaguely convinced Bush is lying yet. Perhaps more solid evidence?

As solid as the one Bush used to justify the war? Yes, i mean the one that's been proven false. I'm not blaming troops, they just follow orders. In fact, they are the ones bleeding and dying there. unlike Bush, that nows war because of CNN. Of course, that makes easier to start a war

KillerShots said:
Not sure what you're getting at here.

It was about the justice Klatch claimed for Bush. I'm giving him the same justice hi dispatches.

KillerShots said:
I'll grant you that - The US has a history of getting involved where it shouldn't.

And i do believe this is what happened in Iraq.

KillerShots said:
That's diametrically opposed to what the US has been doing. It doesn't bomb people to stop other people's wars, that would be incredibly stupid. I'm going to let slide the fact that bombs back in the civil war would have been a much different thing than nowadays, and that you are simply attempting to make a point.

History - Gulf War I - Same reasons as current ones.
Vietnam - prevent the spread of communism. I'm a little perplexed on this one, but I wasn't even born at the time.
World War II - Pearl Harbor got us involved

Which of these happened because we wanted to stop someone else's war?

Gulf War 1 was about what? USA got in the middle of a war between Kuwait and Iraq. Vietnam was about a local fight, too. In Somalia you were "trying to help", too. Anyways, my point was that now the excuse, after the WMDs have been proven inexistant, is that USA freed Iraq from a dictator. That's THEIR rpoblem, as your civil war was yours. So no right to destroy a country "to help", and no WMD's, why did you do it? (some words come to my mind... oil... vengeance...)

KillerShots said:
I understand and agree with your point here. The US should go after UBL and Al-Queda for those reasons. Saddam was not warred against due to any aid he may have given UBL (I doubt he gave any, in fact), but because he is a homicidal madman with a tendency for genocide and a history of having and using WMDs, along with the suspicion of having them at the time the US moved in. I see no link to 9/11 there except perhaps more motivation to the average citizen in the extremely unlikely case UBL got ahold of some of Saddams suspected WMDs - but I think we both agree that's quite a stretch.

first) the tirany argument - I already stated that's none of your business. It's not country with a declared war, as happens in many countries in Africa, why don't you go there?
second) WMDs - Does people go to jail when there's only suspicion in your country? In mine, not, and neither in yours. But people on Iraq has died for your suspicions. Not fair court, nor right to have defense. That's your idea of democracy? What have i to fear from communism, then?
third) So we agree terrorists should be the objective. Spain knows already. In about 30 years of democracy, ETA's terrorism has been always present. And we have never bombed Pais Vasco/Euskadi/Vasque Country. If you agree to fight terrorism, fight terrorism. Don't work out that 'source of evil' to attack half of the arab world. Who's next, Iran? I cannot remember.

KillerShots said:
Here we go again with this mass opinion thing. I remain unconvinced until some actual non-circumstantial evidence appears or is dug up.

Well, is there any investigation on duty? (really asking, i honestly don't know, never heard of it, at least) I hope that, at least, one is being held. Until then, the fact that they already admitted that their proofs were "mistaken" is suspicious enough for me. And even so, that so-called "proofs" were far to show anything totally clear of doubts. Why did they have to push the war so hard? Anyways, i'll have to grant this for you. They have the right to defend themselves, hope they have to

.

KillerShots said:
Can you name a way to peacefully eliminate terrorism from the world? No? Then we'll just have to settle for getting rid of the worst of the symptoms rather than the source before it overtakes us.

Funny indeed. Spain has have terrorism since the half of last century. Never started a war

. Besides, have this wars (don't forget Afghanistan) eliminated terrorism? Let me answer for you: NO.

KillerShots said:
Note - I respect your opinions, I believe I know where they come from, but I have a diametrically opposed view and I'm trying to share that. That's all.

And this is what forums are for, show our opinions

. Don't take mines the wrong way, i don't wanna offend anyone, but i'm totally agaisn't useless killing of innocent people. At least, soldiers chose to hold a weapon and risk their lifes - and they are payed for it.

Kaiser Sigma · Jul 8, 2004

And so another political discussion begins anew... can't we just stick to the harmless picking at Bush and co (where co is the rest of corrupt suckers around the world) ?

ChaosCode · Jul 8, 2004

Man you guys really are pissed off people arnt you? So the guy has differnt views then you. Atlest he stands by what he beleaves in. As Im sure you would do in his place. And really people out side of the usa dont really have a say in who sits in the most power chair in the world so thats why they get all pissy

rofl powned

*waits for the flamage*

Bill_gates · Jul 8, 2004

lol a happy birthday wish turned political debate thread. who didnt see this coming

Mr.Smith · Jul 8, 2004

Aaaah!!! So much quoting and reading! My eyes!! :lol:

I'm just wondering how this thread hasn't been closed yet...

_E_ · Jul 8, 2004

It is now.

Yours,
-Elly

SPECIAL Birthday thread

Bill_gates

Strider

N1ghtw0lf

(F)ragnarok(F)

Mr.Smith

MrTeamWork

Strider

Boltzmann

I-Chan

KillerShots

I-Chan

Kaiser Sigma

ChaosCode

Bill_gates

Mr.Smith

_E_

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities