j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 01:52 PM
Umm this is gonna take some fixin'........... )-|
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Things are a bit ifi Up Iraq High Street.......
mireland
04-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by j.m@talk
Umm this is gonna take some fixin'........... )-|
we can fix it by getting our **** troops outta there and let them B***ards kill each other..:mad:
Umm this is gonna take some fixin'........... )-|
we can fix it by getting our **** troops outta there and let them B***ards kill each other..:mad:
werz
04-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Saddam would have stamped out any opposition in very quick time. Maybe it would be better to treat the iraqi people the way they are used to being treated.
Bigjakkstaffa
04-09-2004, 03:21 PM
The S.A.S. perfected it many many decades ago, "Hearts and minds", you have to endear yourself to the people, even if it means compromise, walking in with the attitude of "we are your liberators, arent we great, you may now proceed to hero-worship us" will do nothing but build resentment, paticularly so in a region which already has plenty to dislike about its liberators (or as they are increasingly seeing it, 'Captors').
--Jakk:t
--Jakk:t
j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 03:41 PM
I'm not kiddin when I say this....... The cities that are givin us grief should be nuked..... Not a nambi pambi dirty bomb.... F'ing big Boom.... A few hundred miles of baron wasteland .......
If that don't work.... We'll have the Clerics in instead of congress ;)
If that don't work.... We'll have the Clerics in instead of congress ;)
werz
04-09-2004, 04:16 PM
the CIA approach is grab them by the b--ls and there hearts and minds will follow
ukulele
04-09-2004, 04:27 PM
We should give every man a camel. That should keep them happy for a while. :p
j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by ukulele
We should give every man a camel. That should keep them happy for a while. :p
I want one wiv Prudy ears ;)
We should give every man a camel. That should keep them happy for a while. :p
I want one wiv Prudy ears ;)
DozerLYP
04-09-2004, 05:20 PM
we should blow the owl place down to extend the persien golf...:r
ukulele
04-09-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by j.m@talk
I want one wiv Prudy ears ;)
I didn't know ciggys had ears. :D
I want one wiv Prudy ears ;)
I didn't know ciggys had ears. :D
j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by ukulele
I didn't know ciggys had ears. :D
Ummmmm:p
I didn't know ciggys had ears. :D
Ummmmm:p
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by mireland
we can fix it by getting our **** troops outta there and let them B***ards kill each other..:mad:
That would only cause more problems for us in the long term.
we can fix it by getting our **** troops outta there and let them B***ards kill each other..:mad:
That would only cause more problems for us in the long term.
mireland
04-09-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Vampiel
That would only cause more problems for us in the long term.
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
That would only cause more problems for us in the long term.
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
zybch
04-09-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
The S.A.S. perfected it many many decades ago, "Hearts and minds", you have to endear yourself to the people, even if it means compromise, walking in with the attitude of "we are your liberators, arent we great, you may now proceed to hero-worship us" will do nothing but build resentment, paticularly so in a region which already has plenty to dislike about its liberators (or as they are increasingly seeing it, 'Captors').
--Jakk:t
I was going to leave some caustic comment, but jakka has summed it up perfectly!
Oh bugger it, I'm gonna leave a comment anyway, everyone here expects it of me!
Getting rid of Hussein is the ONLY positive thing that the illegal US invasion of Iraq has achieved. And that has been virtually nulified by the ongoing US agression in the country.
Just get the troops out of there and let whatever little petty warlords that are left fight it out to see who gets the top job. They couldn't be as bad as Sadam, so the rest of the so called 'free world' would still be in a safer position (if you believe that **** dubya keeps spouting about how much of a danger sadam was) than it was before 911 gave Dubya a fictitious excuse to invade.
The S.A.S. perfected it many many decades ago, "Hearts and minds", you have to endear yourself to the people, even if it means compromise, walking in with the attitude of "we are your liberators, arent we great, you may now proceed to hero-worship us" will do nothing but build resentment, paticularly so in a region which already has plenty to dislike about its liberators (or as they are increasingly seeing it, 'Captors').
--Jakk:t
I was going to leave some caustic comment, but jakka has summed it up perfectly!
Oh bugger it, I'm gonna leave a comment anyway, everyone here expects it of me!
Getting rid of Hussein is the ONLY positive thing that the illegal US invasion of Iraq has achieved. And that has been virtually nulified by the ongoing US agression in the country.
Just get the troops out of there and let whatever little petty warlords that are left fight it out to see who gets the top job. They couldn't be as bad as Sadam, so the rest of the so called 'free world' would still be in a safer position (if you believe that **** dubya keeps spouting about how much of a danger sadam was) than it was before 911 gave Dubya a fictitious excuse to invade.
zybch
04-09-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by mireland
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
Considering it takes $20,000 per Kg to send something into just earth orbit, sending iraq to mars would most likely cost less than the stuff thats going down there at the moment, and Dubya wouldn't just be remembered for turning the biggest surplus in ages into the biggest debt the US has ever had.
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
Considering it takes $20,000 per Kg to send something into just earth orbit, sending iraq to mars would most likely cost less than the stuff thats going down there at the moment, and Dubya wouldn't just be remembered for turning the biggest surplus in ages into the biggest debt the US has ever had.
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by zybch
IGetting rid of Hussein is the ONLY positive thing that the illegal US invasion of Iraq has achieved.
Just get the troops out of there and let whatever little petty warlords that are left fight it out to see who gets the top job. They couldn't be as bad as Sadam
I highly doubt that.
I love how you always say the "illegal war" like it was outlawed in Iraq for anyone to invade LOL! Your invading us thats illegal here.
If your talking about the U.N. which I assume you are b/c they like to do what you do, talk alot about doing something but never actually DO anything unless everyone else on the planet exept a small 1% says to do it. They didnt "authorize" it. I dont see anywhere in UN law that says it's illegal.
IGetting rid of Hussein is the ONLY positive thing that the illegal US invasion of Iraq has achieved.
Just get the troops out of there and let whatever little petty warlords that are left fight it out to see who gets the top job. They couldn't be as bad as Sadam
I highly doubt that.
I love how you always say the "illegal war" like it was outlawed in Iraq for anyone to invade LOL! Your invading us thats illegal here.
If your talking about the U.N. which I assume you are b/c they like to do what you do, talk alot about doing something but never actually DO anything unless everyone else on the planet exept a small 1% says to do it. They didnt "authorize" it. I dont see anywhere in UN law that says it's illegal.
zybch
04-09-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Vampiel
I highly doubt that.
I love how you always say the "illegal war" like it was outlawed in Iraq for anyone to invade LOL! Your invading us thats illegal here.
If your talking about the U.N. which I assume you are b/c they like to do what you do, talk alot about doing something but never actually DO anything unless everyone else on the planet exept a small 1% says to do it. They didnt "authorize" it. I dont see anywhere in UN law that says it's illegal.
If countries don't obey the majority vote in places like the UN, we will see more of what is happening in Iraq. Complete anarchy!
A country with lots of weaponry decicdes its okay to invade its neighbour because its leader believes that they have to protect themselves, just like the US did with the phoney WMD excuse!
The US didn't even give inspectors time to determine if there were any WMDs, Dubya just went ahead and invaded anyway.
It might come as a shock, but the US is part of and is therefore goverened by the UN regarding certain issues (military for one).
It comes down to this. No country has the right to invade another! Its as simple as that.
Now circumstances may dictate otherwise and thats where the UN should come into things. The UN is there as a safeguard to protect the rights of countries that can't protect themselves, and Iraq was certanly one of those.
Face it, how could any country with less than 1/40th the military budget of the US possibly hope to defend itself against the mad ravings of the jerk in charge of the US military machine with a grudge to settle and oil supplies to secure?
I highly doubt that.
I love how you always say the "illegal war" like it was outlawed in Iraq for anyone to invade LOL! Your invading us thats illegal here.
If your talking about the U.N. which I assume you are b/c they like to do what you do, talk alot about doing something but never actually DO anything unless everyone else on the planet exept a small 1% says to do it. They didnt "authorize" it. I dont see anywhere in UN law that says it's illegal.
If countries don't obey the majority vote in places like the UN, we will see more of what is happening in Iraq. Complete anarchy!
A country with lots of weaponry decicdes its okay to invade its neighbour because its leader believes that they have to protect themselves, just like the US did with the phoney WMD excuse!
The US didn't even give inspectors time to determine if there were any WMDs, Dubya just went ahead and invaded anyway.
It might come as a shock, but the US is part of and is therefore goverened by the UN regarding certain issues (military for one).
It comes down to this. No country has the right to invade another! Its as simple as that.
Now circumstances may dictate otherwise and thats where the UN should come into things. The UN is there as a safeguard to protect the rights of countries that can't protect themselves, and Iraq was certanly one of those.
Face it, how could any country with less than 1/40th the military budget of the US possibly hope to defend itself against the mad ravings of the jerk in charge of the US military machine with a grudge to settle and oil supplies to secure?
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 06:58 PM
You put way to much emphasis on the UN. First off alot of enemies of your country and mine have members with influence in the UN. Do you want your enemies making decisions that are supposed to protect your country? right....
Secondly Saddam could have protected himself and his former country by preventing the war in the first place.
US is part of and is therefore goverened by the UN regarding certain issues (military for one)
Half true, the UN does not govern the US military.
No country has the right to invade another!
Wrong, human rights abuses such as attempted GENOCIDE warrant a government overthrow no matter what the UN says.
Secondly Saddam could have protected himself and his former country by preventing the war in the first place.
US is part of and is therefore goverened by the UN regarding certain issues (military for one)
Half true, the UN does not govern the US military.
No country has the right to invade another!
Wrong, human rights abuses such as attempted GENOCIDE warrant a government overthrow no matter what the UN says.
zybch
04-09-2004, 07:08 PM
You have (perhaps inadvertantly) twisted what I said. No country has the right to invade another, especially if they themselves are a member of the UN. Membership of the UN also means that you will obey its governances and submit to any weapons inspections or genocide 'detecting' operations.
Its in this way that the UN has its power.
If you want to economic benefits that the UN can provide then you have to play by its own rules, Iraq WAS letting inspectors inspect, perhaps not as easily as it should have been letting them, but a good start had been made.
Then dubya, the commander in theif, stomps in with his size 12 boots and says "we know they have WMD, so we're gonna invade them and we want UN approval to do so".
He doesn't get approval so he stomps in there anyway.
You are right, the US military isn't goverened by the UN, but therefore nor is Russia's military. Would you sit by and let Russia (if it was still in one piece and if it could spend 40 times as much as the US military) walk on into the US or whatever country you might be a citizen of, bomb washington (civic beutification?) or any other captial back to the stoneages and then leave and occupying force there to subdugate the whole population on the flimsy excuse that they thought you might have a weapon, even after it had been clear for many months that no such weapon or weapon program had ever existed?
Probably not.
Its in this way that the UN has its power.
If you want to economic benefits that the UN can provide then you have to play by its own rules, Iraq WAS letting inspectors inspect, perhaps not as easily as it should have been letting them, but a good start had been made.
Then dubya, the commander in theif, stomps in with his size 12 boots and says "we know they have WMD, so we're gonna invade them and we want UN approval to do so".
He doesn't get approval so he stomps in there anyway.
You are right, the US military isn't goverened by the UN, but therefore nor is Russia's military. Would you sit by and let Russia (if it was still in one piece and if it could spend 40 times as much as the US military) walk on into the US or whatever country you might be a citizen of, bomb washington (civic beutification?) or any other captial back to the stoneages and then leave and occupying force there to subdugate the whole population on the flimsy excuse that they thought you might have a weapon, even after it had been clear for many months that no such weapon or weapon program had ever existed?
Probably not.
j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 07:29 PM
Yawn )-|
zybch
04-09-2004, 07:34 PM
Only boring people get bored, you must need to recharge your batteries.
U should go to bed. A good 6 month hibernation like a bear should do everyone, I mean you, a lot of good.
U should go to bed. A good 6 month hibernation like a bear should do everyone, I mean you, a lot of good.
cwin
04-09-2004, 07:38 PM
I'm bored ;)
cwin
04-09-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by zybch
Only boring people get bored, Actually, if someone is sooooo not boring that they like doing soo much like skydiving and swimming in freezing see and surfing and bunjee jumps.. by most ppl they wouldnt be considered boring.. but what happens when they cant do any of that.. then they get bored,
but someone who never knows anything other than boring stuff will seem boring, but unlikely to be bored ;)
Only boring people get bored, Actually, if someone is sooooo not boring that they like doing soo much like skydiving and swimming in freezing see and surfing and bunjee jumps.. by most ppl they wouldnt be considered boring.. but what happens when they cant do any of that.. then they get bored,
but someone who never knows anything other than boring stuff will seem boring, but unlikely to be bored ;)
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 07:57 PM
No matter what you may say or think that it was "dubya" who attacked Iraq these are the facts.
1. Saddam did attempt genocide and had WMD's and used them (if you want to blame someone for the WMD's its not dubya)
2. The majority of the US POPULATION supported the war and STILL supports it regardless of WMD's or no WMD's. The President/Senate/US population is what controls the US military, not one man, so if you dont like their actions please refer to it as
"the United States President, along with the majority of the population of the United States, stomps in with our size 12 boots and says"
And ill be d#@mned if the US is going to let the UN, who is filled with our enemies, decide our national security.
3. Saddam could have prevented the war.
You can say it was "dubya" all you want but that wont make it true. It was THE UNITED STATES, not just "dubya".
1. Saddam did attempt genocide and had WMD's and used them (if you want to blame someone for the WMD's its not dubya)
2. The majority of the US POPULATION supported the war and STILL supports it regardless of WMD's or no WMD's. The President/Senate/US population is what controls the US military, not one man, so if you dont like their actions please refer to it as
"the United States President, along with the majority of the population of the United States, stomps in with our size 12 boots and says"
And ill be d#@mned if the US is going to let the UN, who is filled with our enemies, decide our national security.
3. Saddam could have prevented the war.
You can say it was "dubya" all you want but that wont make it true. It was THE UNITED STATES, not just "dubya".
j.m@talk
04-09-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Vampiel
And ill be d#@mned if the US is going to let the UN, who is filled with our enemies, decide our national security.
Well that one takes the biscuit :rolleyes:
And ill be d#@mned if the US is going to let the UN, who is filled with our enemies, decide our national security.
Well that one takes the biscuit :rolleyes:
zybch
04-09-2004, 08:27 PM
The UN is filled with everyone's enemies. Thats why it works, each faction doesn't have enough support to have any resolution passed unless its clearley for the greater good.
Invading Iraq wasn't for the greater good (a fact that has now been proven) and so it was voted down.
Dubya could have said at any time, "lets not attack iraq" and this whole mess would not have happened. Being the so called commander in chief, he has executive power to get the US miliraty to do whatever the hell he wants them to do, no matter how stupid an no matter what vendatta he has against someone who 'tried to have his pa killed'. If only they had tried before dubya was conceived.
A lot of the genocide attributed to Sadam's regime has actually been falsely reported. Sure he was a bad guy and its good that he is no longer in power, but he NEVER used WMDs on other countries (except when he was given them by the US).
Where are the WMDs he is supposed to have? So far none have turned up and even the US inspectors have basically said that they aren't there.
The majority of the US population would NOT have suported the war if the truth about WMDs had been told, this is without a doubt and has been shown in many polls and surveys.
But they were lied to and made to feel scared, and scared people can be got to say just about anything no matter how far it flies in the face if the truth and the reality.
Invading Iraq wasn't for the greater good (a fact that has now been proven) and so it was voted down.
Dubya could have said at any time, "lets not attack iraq" and this whole mess would not have happened. Being the so called commander in chief, he has executive power to get the US miliraty to do whatever the hell he wants them to do, no matter how stupid an no matter what vendatta he has against someone who 'tried to have his pa killed'. If only they had tried before dubya was conceived.
A lot of the genocide attributed to Sadam's regime has actually been falsely reported. Sure he was a bad guy and its good that he is no longer in power, but he NEVER used WMDs on other countries (except when he was given them by the US).
Where are the WMDs he is supposed to have? So far none have turned up and even the US inspectors have basically said that they aren't there.
The majority of the US population would NOT have suported the war if the truth about WMDs had been told, this is without a doubt and has been shown in many polls and surveys.
But they were lied to and made to feel scared, and scared people can be got to say just about anything no matter how far it flies in the face if the truth and the reality.
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 10:00 PM
Once again you show how much you formulate in your own head without knowing the facts.
The majority of the US population would NOT have suported the war
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101722,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31223-2003Apr4?language=printer
More than two-thirds of those interviewed -- 69 percent -- said that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do even if the United States fails to turn up biological or chemical weapons
As I said before
"the United States President, along with the majority of the population of the United States, stomps in with our size 12 boots and says"
The majority of the US population would NOT have suported the war
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101722,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31223-2003Apr4?language=printer
More than two-thirds of those interviewed -- 69 percent -- said that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do even if the United States fails to turn up biological or chemical weapons
As I said before
"the United States President, along with the majority of the population of the United States, stomps in with our size 12 boots and says"
zybch
04-09-2004, 10:37 PM
It all depends on what surveys you choose to believe.
You think that FOX would ever say anything to damage the Bush government? Of course not, and anything from Washington is equally suspect.
What is needed and what we will never be able to obtain is a poll made back just before 911 before the reports of WMDs were lied about to the public.
At that time Bush wanted to go into Iraq but knew full-well that he'd face massive public anger and political damage if he did, 911 gave him a perfect opportunity to link Sadam Hussein with 911, even though there was and is NO link.
Hell, I was all in favour of marching into Iraw to disarm the country of its WMDs, but not without the proper authority.
Interestingly, in a recent NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago. Thats a big slide for just 60 days.
Lastly, north Korea has WMD, but the US isn't marching to korea is it? Why is this? Nth Korea poses a far more serious threat than Iraq ever did, why doesn't dubya and his cronies find a way into that country?
Simple, he has no ulteriour motive to disarm korea, they didn't try to kill his pop and they don't sit on a large oil supply, so he doesn't care! This is the ultimate proof that the whole Iraq decision was not based on any miliraty threat, but on dubya's own agenda.
You think that FOX would ever say anything to damage the Bush government? Of course not, and anything from Washington is equally suspect.
What is needed and what we will never be able to obtain is a poll made back just before 911 before the reports of WMDs were lied about to the public.
At that time Bush wanted to go into Iraq but knew full-well that he'd face massive public anger and political damage if he did, 911 gave him a perfect opportunity to link Sadam Hussein with 911, even though there was and is NO link.
Hell, I was all in favour of marching into Iraw to disarm the country of its WMDs, but not without the proper authority.
Interestingly, in a recent NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago. Thats a big slide for just 60 days.
Lastly, north Korea has WMD, but the US isn't marching to korea is it? Why is this? Nth Korea poses a far more serious threat than Iraq ever did, why doesn't dubya and his cronies find a way into that country?
Simple, he has no ulteriour motive to disarm korea, they didn't try to kill his pop and they don't sit on a large oil supply, so he doesn't care! This is the ultimate proof that the whole Iraq decision was not based on any miliraty threat, but on dubya's own agenda.
mireland
04-09-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by cwin
I'm bored ;)
Pine or Oak??? :D
I'm bored ;)
Pine or Oak??? :D
zybch
04-09-2004, 10:40 PM
Oh, wait. Pakistan and India have WMDs also.
Hmmm but India has a large army and more than 800 million population.
Hold the phone, France has WMD too. We wouldn't want to frogs point nukes everywhere would we?
Bush's entire reelection bid is predicated on his handling of terrorism and security.
He certainly can't run on the economy or jobs :)
Hmmm but India has a large army and more than 800 million population.
Hold the phone, France has WMD too. We wouldn't want to frogs point nukes everywhere would we?
Bush's entire reelection bid is predicated on his handling of terrorism and security.
He certainly can't run on the economy or jobs :)
Vampiel
04-09-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by zybch
It all depends on what surveys you choose to believe.
Ummm? How about EVERY poll? As I said before you are coming to conclusions in YOUR HEAD! The majority of Americans support the war WMD or no WMD. If you keep telling it to yourself in your that in your head that wont make it true.
Show me one poll that says different. BTW the poll I showed was in the washington post to.
And here is another one.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030610.asp
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=17
http://www.chronwatch.com/polls/results.asp?id=89
Should I post some more?
You just keep on formulating incorrect conclusions in your head.
He certainly can't run on the economy or jobs
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160416
U.S. job growth soars
It all depends on what surveys you choose to believe.
Ummm? How about EVERY poll? As I said before you are coming to conclusions in YOUR HEAD! The majority of Americans support the war WMD or no WMD. If you keep telling it to yourself in your that in your head that wont make it true.
Show me one poll that says different. BTW the poll I showed was in the washington post to.
And here is another one.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030610.asp
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=17
http://www.chronwatch.com/polls/results.asp?id=89
Should I post some more?
You just keep on formulating incorrect conclusions in your head.
He certainly can't run on the economy or jobs
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160416
U.S. job growth soars
zybch
04-10-2004, 02:21 AM
Once again you miss the point. If people had been asked BEFORE 911 if they thought the US should invade Iraq (no lies about WMDs yet, nor any false links between bin laden and saddam husein) there would be a minority answering in the affermative.
Um, the economy, biggest deficit in US history (or close to it) all because dubya was out to get Hussein, a purely personal vendetta coz 'that guy tried to kill my daddy'.
Jobs; I'm not referring to the current job market, but what has happened since 2000 when dubya stole office.
The largest number of job lossess since the '91 'recession' when another bush was in the top job too?
Looks like a pattern emerging - Elect a Bush and go to war and have lots of job lossess and accrue a large debt.
And I shouldn't have to even mention the concern about movement of jobs overseas.
Service sector jobs are moving to India while manufacturing ones are fleeing to China. These things are well known and understood, big companies will always go to where they can make the products for the least, at the moment its all in asia.
Um, the economy, biggest deficit in US history (or close to it) all because dubya was out to get Hussein, a purely personal vendetta coz 'that guy tried to kill my daddy'.
Jobs; I'm not referring to the current job market, but what has happened since 2000 when dubya stole office.
The largest number of job lossess since the '91 'recession' when another bush was in the top job too?
Looks like a pattern emerging - Elect a Bush and go to war and have lots of job lossess and accrue a large debt.
And I shouldn't have to even mention the concern about movement of jobs overseas.
Service sector jobs are moving to India while manufacturing ones are fleeing to China. These things are well known and understood, big companies will always go to where they can make the products for the least, at the moment its all in asia.
zybch
04-10-2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Vampiel
US Job growth soars!
What? After plummeting to make a hole in the earth big enough to stick africa in? Not really much of a soar then is it?
More like semi-equalization.
US Job growth soars!
What? After plummeting to make a hole in the earth big enough to stick africa in? Not really much of a soar then is it?
More like semi-equalization.
themac
04-10-2004, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by mireland
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
aren't we having the same problem on mars?
ok, how about this..we take a giant saw and cut away iraq and chop it up into little bits and send the dirt fragments to mars?
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/interesting.gif
aren't we having the same problem on mars?
Vampiel
04-10-2004, 12:06 PM
And you missed my point
The majority of Americans support the war WMD or no WMD.
Once again you show your ignorance. It started before Bush took office and 9/11 made it worse. Bush rebounded the economy, but I guess you didnt know that did you.
http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2004/02/09/rtr1252185.html
US recession began before Bush took office-W.House
Why dont you read some facts before spouting off your incorrect conclusions.
http://www.iconocast.com/Economy4_Business08_04/News8.htm
Profits are rising and the economy may expand at the fastest pace in two decades this year
Just ignore the facts why dont you, and keep digging yourself in a bigger hole.
- Terrorist attacks are at an all time lowest (not including the war in Iraq)
- The economy was on the downturn BEFORE Bush even came into office, 9/11 amplified it, and now as a direct result of Bush's policy's it's expanding at the fastest pace in two decades.
- The majority of the US supported the war WMD or no WMD
You cant prove any of the facts wrong so why do you keep trying to?
The majority of Americans support the war WMD or no WMD.
Once again you show your ignorance. It started before Bush took office and 9/11 made it worse. Bush rebounded the economy, but I guess you didnt know that did you.
http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2004/02/09/rtr1252185.html
US recession began before Bush took office-W.House
Why dont you read some facts before spouting off your incorrect conclusions.
http://www.iconocast.com/Economy4_Business08_04/News8.htm
Profits are rising and the economy may expand at the fastest pace in two decades this year
Just ignore the facts why dont you, and keep digging yourself in a bigger hole.
- Terrorist attacks are at an all time lowest (not including the war in Iraq)
- The economy was on the downturn BEFORE Bush even came into office, 9/11 amplified it, and now as a direct result of Bush's policy's it's expanding at the fastest pace in two decades.
- The majority of the US supported the war WMD or no WMD
You cant prove any of the facts wrong so why do you keep trying to?
Vampiel
04-10-2004, 03:48 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/technology/tech_jobcuts/index.htm?cnn=yes
Report: Tech job cuts at record low
Report: Tech job cuts at record low
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.