Author Topic: Who served? (Read 3067 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #165 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:22:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlett

"I know little of UK politics. That's why you don't find me discussing them."

Exactly my point. How come the rest of the world has some knowledge all be it limited of your nation and politics, and yet people in your country have no knowledge ofanything much outside of their own borders or unless your govt is at war with them. either its ignorance or arrogance.

Jees even your President could barely find the country he waged war on, on the map.

I don't suppose you could explain to me what this has to do with the topic, could you?

Never mind, I get it. You're trying to draw attention from the fact that I just made a complete arse of you.

Carry on.

Zulu7 · « **Reply #166 on:** February 27, 2005, 04:52:02 PM »

How about you respond to the post rather than scoring petty points and feeling all clever?

You never know we might both learn something. Oh I forgot I'm supposed to learn you are supposed to tell me what I should know because of course you know it all already! lol

Martlet · « **Reply #167 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:00:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
How about you respond to the post rather than scoring petty points and feeling all clever?

You never know we might both learn something. Oh I forgot I'm supposed to learn you are supposed to tell me what I should know because of course you know it all already! lol

Hey, if you can't win the argument, change it!

Nothing like Eurotard logic.

Zulu7 · « **Reply #168 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:07:20 PM »

Man you never answer the point do you?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #169 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:07:27 PM »

Greentail your list is wrong. Reagon severd in the Army during WWII. Granted he made propaganda films for them but he served none the less.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/handout/Rrmil.htm

Either way military service is not a requirment for public office. Never has been....never will be...wich is the way it should be IMHO.

PS As far as the guard is concerned GWB completed his obligated service. You are probably completly ignorant as far as the way the guard works but that's ok most of the media is as well.

Zulu7 · « **Reply #170 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:08:40 PM »

SO WHAT?

Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.

Martlet · « **Reply #171 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:11:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
Man you never answer the point do you?

Answer what point?

This is a discussion of US politicians who served and their military service. Is there something I'm failing to address that you'd like me too? If you're just spewing to draw attention from the fact that I made you look like an idiot earlier, that's fine. I just don't want to waste time trying to understand what you're getting at, when in fact you aren't "getting at" anything.

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?

Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.

That's the issue now? Cripes, you change them so rapidly it's hard to keep up.

Zulu7 · « **Reply #172 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:14:23 PM »

I give up!!!!!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #173 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:15:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?

Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.

COOL! drop the past and talk about the present.

My answer is yes. Building democracys in the middle east changes the face of global politics. Terrorists are no longer fighting the "infidel" in Iraq but bombing their own. The public (there and here) sees this and they are no longer the "freedom fighters" that the liberal media would love to paint them as.

hopflully:
Freedom or thaughts of it will seep out of Iraqs borders into syria and Iran and the "people" will want free elections there as well.

On the home front:

No major terrorist attacks in a good while and many have been thwarted here and abroad in Europe.

The economy is on the up and up. First it gets fixed....then you get the jobs....then you start paying down the debt. Sounds like all is in order to me.

I have never been a huge fan of GWB but he's what we have. I think he's a strong leader who get's beat up in the press every chance they get. Nov elections proved his legitimacy and hopfully he can continue alot of the work he's done and fufill some of the promises he's made.

Fair enough answer?

Zulu7 · « **Reply #174 on:** February 27, 2005, 05:19:16 PM »

Yes. Fair enough. I don't like him but thats me.

Airhead · « **Reply #175 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:51:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?

Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.

Actually he is because he isn't going to cave to public pressure and leave the Iraqi people high and dry.

FWIW I was adamently opposed to the Iraq war, even IF what had been told us were true- I felt like he was a regional problem, not a global one.

However, a far greater travesty would be if we (as some are now suggesting) just up and left Iraq in total chaos.

What do YOU think, Zulu? Do you think we should just abandon the Iraquis?

Zulu7 · « **Reply #176 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:00:01 PM »

No. Now we are in we are going to have to stay and attempt to sort out the mess. However that doesn't alter the fact that its a bloody shame we created such a mess. And it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism because of Bush's meddling and obsession with what I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work. I realy think that guy is bad for the US and very bad for the rest of us.

Martlet · « **Reply #177 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:06:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
And it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism because of Bush's meddling and obsession with what I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.

People keep saying that. So far, the reverse has proven true.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #178 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:07:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism.

I fail to see how the US/UK is/are at MORE risk BECAUSE of Iraq. The last major terrorist attack in Europe or the US was the Madrid train bombing (and they were pulling out of Iraq right?) I don't see how this makes anywere BUT Iraq more dangerous and most of them are foreign fighters from Syria and Iran (who have resorted to attacking Iraqis Vrs. coalition forces.

I love that quote "Yes the berlin wall has fallen, we can see it"

Quote

I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.

Correct me if I'm wrong (wich does happen from time to time) but wasnt that a UN mission?

Because I'm pretty sure I'm correct I'm gonna move on to question 2: "wasn't the UN mission to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, NOT remove Sadam from power?"

PS in addition it has been US policy for regime change in Iraq since 1998

Zulu7 · « **Reply #179 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:13:16 PM »

What gives the US the right to decide who's regime needs changing. Can't you see that is a very slippery slope. You are basicaly saying that the US has the right to tell other people how they should be governed and if they choose not to comply to force the change using military action. What in the hell gives your Govt the right to do that.

Our Govt was equaly at fault but rthey at least didn't have the arrogance to use Regime Change as policy. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.