Bush, last outing
- Thread starter Trulsone
- Start date
Thought you were Gazinya for a second.
A simple topic, but a valid concern. We'd be perfectly fine with the number we have there, currently. But since we have a vested interest in Iraq's future.. and as a defense mechanism we should at least neutralize most of the insurgents before pulling out.
But arguing that we're "Killing Civilians Because We're Against Killing Civilians" is more along the lines of a ********** post. I dont care much for war chat.
Best of luck with this topic!
A simple topic, but a valid concern. We'd be perfectly fine with the number we have there, currently. But since we have a vested interest in Iraq's future.. and as a defense mechanism we should at least neutralize most of the insurgents before pulling out.
But arguing that we're "Killing Civilians Because We're Against Killing Civilians" is more along the lines of a ********** post. I dont care much for war chat.
Best of luck with this topic!
president bush said "we need more soldiers in iraq"
why doesn't he himself go down there then????
I hate that man!
He has been there, on more than one occasion. And not to defend him, but he's the president, not a soldier. We've never had a US president go to combat while being the president.
That would be, errr... not very presidential.
:glugglug:
H
Phaeton
Banned
He's not just the President, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military. He should spend a majority of his time there to asses the situation and move personal and supplies to were they can do the most good.
The Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military can not afford to be scared of the battle ground He created. That's not presidential.
The Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military can not afford to be scared of the battle ground He created. That's not presidential.
Find me a time, a battle, a war, or a conflict when ANY US president has been spending the majority of his time there. I don't think Bill Clinton ever *touched* Kosovo. I know neither Nixon or Lyndon Johnson spent much time in Vietnam. I wasn't alive then, but I'm pretty sure FDR wasn't in Europe or the pacific for the majority of that war. Korea, Grenada, Panama... I bet you'll find presidents weren't there very much either.
And it isn't just the US. None of the Russian leaders went to Afghanistan during the many years of that conflict, if I remember that one correctly.
Or is just because it's an unpopular president (and rightly so) that he should spend most of the time there? And remember, there are LOTS of people who are actually trained to know what/where supplies and personnel are needed most.
H
And it isn't just the US. None of the Russian leaders went to Afghanistan during the many years of that conflict, if I remember that one correctly.
Or is just because it's an unpopular president (and rightly so) that he should spend most of the time there? And remember, there are LOTS of people who are actually trained to know what/where supplies and personnel are needed most.
H
Phaeton
Banned
I'm not Bush bashing. I think all our Presidents have shrunk away from this responsibility. Teddy Roosevelt did I think, but that was a different time. But I think it would show tremendous character and dedication if Bush did set foot in Baghdad. If Bush has his faith then it won't matter.
Well, I mean- go ahead and Bush-bash. We've got a nice little first amendment that allows you to do that :glugglug: Teddy Roosevelt did that before he was president, if you're referring to the rough riders and San Juan Hill.
I'm not sure if he's been in Bagdhad, but Bush and several others from the administration have been in Iraq since 2003.
Peace Phaeton! Now... back to the ladies... :thumbsup:
H
I'm not sure if he's been in Bagdhad, but Bush and several others from the administration have been in Iraq since 2003.
Peace Phaeton! Now... back to the ladies... :thumbsup:
H
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
Bush was a draft dodger...yet here he is commander-in-chief of the military? What a fucking joke! Fuck Bush and his entire staff!!! :thefinger
I am Bush bashing. I can't stand that cock sucker! In fact when he finally dies or gets assassinated (we can only dream) I'm gonna throw a fuckin party and your all invited!!!!!!!!
artysml:
I am Bush bashing. I can't stand that cock sucker! In fact when he finally dies or gets assassinated (we can only dream) I'm gonna throw a fuckin party and your all invited!!!!!!!!
artysml:I hate Bush so bad the Lioness waxes for me.....to bad we can't just wax that draft-dodging, cousin fuckin', bible thumping, jack ass. Some hot wax and duct tape, that's what I call bush bashing. It's not so much that I want him dead, I just want him to crawl back up in barbara's vagina and stay there until the dumbshit has some sense.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
SO you do want him dead! There can't be any oxygen up there, and he's so fuckin dense it would take an eternity for him to develope enough sense to rejoin society!
Just writing about barbaras vagina made it hard for me to breathe. But you have to watch what you say in public they are watching us now...you ever think they read this stuff and say "wow people really hate us" or do they just look at pics of our hot girls thinking "I'm filthy ritch and I have to fuck Laura, these poor dumb sum'bitches get to fuck the lioness, fuck it I'll just bomb sumbody and go jackoff"
It's politics as usual ...
BTW, a major study about 4 years ago, after 9/11, stated that the US should consider increasing its active military to 1.5-2.0 million to combat a number of projected, future conflicts in-line with a "War on Terror." It was summarily rejected by the Bush administration as possibly requiring a return to a regular draft -- something that has not been so since before (and during) Vietnam.
I'm for continuing with an all-volunteer US armed forces. We have over 1M troops, which is quite an excellent number considering it's all-volunteer.
Actually, he's getting that from various sources, including the recent Iraqi group headed by Baker that called for a short-term increase. He was also previously criticized for not listening to military commanders and invading Iraq with only 100,000 troops, instead of 250,000 to even (some requests for) a whopping 600,000 like other commanders wanted. Other than not invading in the first place, he can't make everyone happy.president bush said "we need more soldiers in iraq"
why doesn't he himself go down there then????
I hate that man!
BTW, a major study about 4 years ago, after 9/11, stated that the US should consider increasing its active military to 1.5-2.0 million to combat a number of projected, future conflicts in-line with a "War on Terror." It was summarily rejected by the Bush administration as possibly requiring a return to a regular draft -- something that has not been so since before (and during) Vietnam.
I'm for continuing with an all-volunteer US armed forces. We have over 1M troops, which is quite an excellent number considering it's all-volunteer.
Only civilians can command the army in the US ...
The US' entire history has been filled with dumbass politicians. But they were always elected (or, in some cases, appointed) civilians.
No, it would be against the US Constitution. That's why US military personnel resign their commands before entering politics.
The US' entire history has been filled with dumbass politicians. But they were always elected (or, in some cases, appointed) civilians.
You guys don't know your history ...
), but it was a lot safer than in Vietnam.
Cheney was far worse.
I mean, other than maybe JFK (although to a different extent), the circumstances and decisions of the Bush administration are very much like Teddy's time more than anything else in the past century! You guys should read your history a bit more!
Teddy was just a famous military commander, but a completely elected civilian as President. In fact, there's some comparison that could be made between him and that Senator from Arizona.
Yes, he jumped into the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam. He flew Delta Darts, which aren't the safest design (and I don't blame him for drinking afterwards
), but it was a lot safer than in Vietnam.Cheney was far worse.
No it wasn't. I wasn't at all!
I mean, other than maybe JFK (although to a different extent), the circumstances and decisions of the Bush administration are very much like Teddy's time more than anything else in the past century! You guys should read your history a bit more!
Teddy was just a famous military commander, but a completely elected civilian as President. In fact, there's some comparison that could be made between him and that Senator from Arizona.
Ummm, hasn't he several times? No, he can't be a soldier, no President can.
America needs more boobs, agreed? Maybe not more women, but more boobs on the existing women. Every girl should have at least 4. All in the same area, of course. It sucks bad enough not being able to sleep on your chest.
And more clits. Possibly 3 more on the South, East and West edges of the hole.. OR make all nipples clits. Then my girl would finally ask me to suck those gorgeous titties all the time and totally cut the 'titties are a guy thing and do little for us girls' lecture out of our yearly chats.
Ha Ha Ha! I am a genius.
~That floaty bot in Halo's Library/Index
And more clits. Possibly 3 more on the South, East and West edges of the hole.. OR make all nipples clits. Then my girl would finally ask me to suck those gorgeous titties all the time and totally cut the 'titties are a guy thing and do little for us girls' lecture out of our yearly chats.
Ha Ha Ha! I am a genius.
~That floaty bot in Halo's Library/Index
good one. im so tired of these threads..:rofl:
Thx. I try. Sometimes you just need to jump in the middle of a 'serious' (Insert: Politics or religion) topic and put something totally off-kilter forth.
I was being totally serious, though. We need more boobs in the continental U.S. and more clits wouldnt hurt.
I despise Bush. He's not my president.
