One of the main reasons I thought the war was a bad idea...

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:30 pm

SSJVegita0609 wrote:
sixstop wrote: well, yes and no. The Majority wins popular elections. that -is- how it works, hate to break it to ya. :/
Except in that last election... ZING!

Other than that I have nothing else to argue in this matter.

hehe, except the presidency election isnt a 'popular election.'

Gee do people even read my posts? ;p;p;p

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:33 pm

MAS PRODUCTIONS wrote:This isn't related to the war, but propaganda sux major ass. ok Im done.

not unless it's in enemy territory supporting us. propaganda when used correctly by anybody can be one of the single most effective tools. Proganda can and has often changed the outcome of war, peace, and everything else in between.

so yes, propaganda sucks, but only if used against us. too bad the US doesn't use it to a large extent.
/end

MistyCaldwell · Post by **MistyCaldwell** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:35 pm

sixstop wrote:

Check the English. thats not what I said.

Oh boy...

Ok I am just going to do one of these...past that and it'll start to feel like a really bad relationship

People who claim to be 'outside' a party boundary, or whatever, are usually ill educated on where the views they have actually fall, or (the more oft true) dont have enough fortitude to stick to an ideals set and settle into a non-commital state that makes no development.

people whove stated to me that they are not republican, democrat, or anything else have either never had to think really hard on an issue, preferring to remain apathetic and bland enough to jump to whatever side the bandwagon is on, or haven't bothered to compare notes with what they DO care about to realise that there are like-minded groups.

You say that people who claim to be outside a party just have not bothered to check (compare notes) well enough into the opinions to realize that there are like minded party platforms...and that they just don't know (ill educated) where their own views are enough to know there are groups that are like minded.

Then you go onto say something about me telling you something about only having 2 parties...

Then you go onto to insult me a few times

All this itemized quoting DOES feel like a bad relationsip...

Actually I have only three things to say....You are the one who needs to work on comprehension

, stop taking things so personally, and I want a divorce.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:39 pm

okay then. . you just keep doing your thing there. . .

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:39 pm

*spam ahead*

MistyCaldwell wrote: Actually I have only three things to say....You are the one who needs to work on comprehension , stop taking things so personally, and I want a divorce.

i was never invited to the marraige ceremony?

What the heck?! YOu've just destroyed my ego.

/end

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:41 pm

aw, now look, you've gone and hurt his feelings.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:11 am

sixstop wrote:The left and the anti-war protestors all argued that THEY were the majority the whole time. . . .(despite public polls)

But you know what? I don't think the rest of america cares anymore. Whats the message we take home? that we had to lie or intentionally decieve (which i still dont believe) just to boot out a facist brutal dictator who disrespected the rest of the world on a weekly basis? you can take that away if you want.

What i'll take away is that the last stock of politicians were either too stupid, too scared for their jobs, or truly mis-guided to want to take care of this problem. for 9 years. That alleged possesion of WMD from the UN for those 9 years and non-compliance was not enough to make them face the problem. That a child mortality rate of 200,000 anually wasn't enough. the fact that we had the military might to overturn him for breaking said international law was not enough.

Agreed.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:21 pm

you see i'm glad you pulled that back up, because i'll give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and say that he did want to have direct action on Iraq and its actions during his office. .. .where it broke down was he was too concerned with politics, image, and party matters to deal with it directly, so he went to europe and great britain, he went to the UN (well sent people anyways). .

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:34 pm

I think he just bombed Iraq to distract people from the Monica incident and delay his impeachment. I doubt that he ever had plans to permanently deal with Iraq.