Petrajs_Killer

What is your point here? That you believe anyone and everyone against one's views deserves to die? Before Saddam's removal: thousands of innocent Iraqi-born citizens were murdered, abused, etc. Death toll: hundreds of thousands. After Saddam's removal: none of that, just terrorists (i.e. "militant groups" for the Liberals out there) fighting a campaign against the allied forces and Iraq. Death toll: on the hundreds. So yeah, no real empathy shown there. Oh, how I have erred!

So you don't care about these acts of barbarism? How shocking!

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/...tent_385012.htm Now why haven't we heard an out cry for these beheadings (chances are that she will join the ranks of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Korean hostages, Pakistani hostages, and Eugene Armstrong; a source to find these videos/pictures if you so desire)? The UN only does a mild outcry of this. Neither Bush nor Kerry has not said anything in regard to this. I don't think anyone in here, besides me, has brought it up in here. It just sickens me when all I hear about are squabbles of anti-Bush bs. An interesting note on Margaret H!@#$%^&*an's capture (source):

Wrong. The US currency is backed by how well the economy is doing. Since there wasn't enough gold to back up the US dollar, it was switched over to how much the US economy can produce and such. Somewhat wrong. Gold is instead used to buy back your money from foreign countries, in a way.

Wrong. Iraq tried to invade both Iran and Kuwait. He also g!@#$%^&*ed, m!@#$%^&*-murdered, and abused his own people. But that's not what we're talking about. It's all about Mr. mean-boy with the stupid boyish grin Bush and his policies. We also don't care about the beheadings, and the recently-captured British female captive, now do we? It's all Bush's fault! Him! Him! Him! And only him! Wrong yet again. The US already knew of the thread. The President allowed this to happen to mobolize the country into war. Which is why unimportant countries like Australia don't care much about the war on terrorism. They're far away from the killings, that to them it all seems like fantasy. The media just feeds them fantasies that the world is okay. Which then engenders ignorant people with a false view of the world. !@#$%^&* right more powerful nations deserve more say in world issues. It's so easy to make such an irresponsibale statement when you live in such a small country. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a country the size of Maine having a say in such things as our security. The world is not equal. This is a fact of life. Much the same was as destroying nations/iden-*BAD WORD*-ies that only wish harm among others. So we need to neutralize the treath of these Islamo-fascists, all the while not be persuaded by their simpathizers, liberals like you.

How can you justify the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis that were murdered by Saddam? This point is moot, since it's just another America-hating, Bush-bashing rethoric.

Back on topic: This draft business is just a scare tactic, another lie that the Democratic party and the media complex has put forth to intimidate people from voting Bush. I especially love the fact that a Democrat tried to push forward a draft. Ironic, is it not?

MonteZuma, you missed the point. And then added in a bit of flammage yourself, how cute. Anywho, there does exist a problem of giving away welfare to those that don't need it. Healthy people who can work, yet chose not to since they're being given a handout by the government, should not recieve it (with the exception if their work won't be enough to fully sustain them). There is also another source of fraud with Mexican citizens who cross the border. Yes, this is true, but barely news-worthy I suppose. I heard of this a couple of years ago, and nothing else since. So, these people apply for welfare, have a mailling address within America, and simply cross the border, get the paycheck, and cross back. But hey, if throwing more money into this program helps, why should we complain, right? We're bad people if one raises a discenting voice. It's only fair that a liberal can shout and scream while the rest must sit down and stay quiet, right?

"Republican Smearing 101," rofl. I guess it fails in comparison to it's superior opposite, Democratic Smearing 201. Not only does the Democratic party try to lie and smear their opponent, but they have the media to help. The Dan Rather story is an explicit example. The party again questioned the president's career in the Guard, and the media took part of the smearing. Dan Rather had the unfortunate event of being caught up in the lie. Paying, PAYING, terrorists to not attack is such a run-away, hide behind your mommy, bow your head way down, defeatist tactic. It _may_ work and not be attacked, but the treath is still there. Simple bribing those Islamo-fascists won't make them think, "ooo, money. You're cool, we won't attack you, even though we still want to behead all of you infidels and murder all of your children." I don't know why people still look at the UN as if still it is a credible organization (the Food-for-Oil chaos).

[sarcasm] I agree with Ducky, killing any type of life form is murder! Don't dare murder an innocent fly! Don't even think about killing the lice on a child's hair, that's just cold-blooded murder. Cows, pigs, fishes, plants, etc., don't you dare murder them! They are all living things, and should all deserve the right to live. [/sarcasm]

Your Personal issues Score is 40%. Your Economic issues Score is 40%. I'm a Centrist, ja. I forget which UN resolution it was. But, if Saddam didn't let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq, then it leaves an open venue to take military action against him. I believe that France, Germany, and Russia all voter in favor for that resolution. So when the time came around to enforce it, surprise surprise, all three countries refused! A country broke a resolution, these three nations didn't want to enforce it, and the war is being called illegal, even though the coalition is enforcing the resolution. But then again, the world is going upside-down. So I suppose this makes sense in some sort of way. Lets forget about the humanitarian aspect of Iraq, since no one likes to mention it. Except, of course, if it makes the coalition look bad.

You smiled? Then it's cute how you tried to cover yourself up by saying, "oh, but it's not funny, twedle-dum." It's like saying one saw one of the beheading videos, then smile at it. So, you smiled when this fellow comented the US raiding their homes, disrubted their peace, privacy, etc. Sounds like you were delighted to have found out something else to bash this Coalition. Wishful thinking that this isn't true? It did happen, and was administered by Saddam's son, Odai. I found an article that vaguely mentioned Odai's treatment of the athletes. I heard this fact on a radio show last year, so it's been a while.

If (and a big IF) Kerry was voted, I'd guess he will not be doing any more skiing. :/ And I so wanted to see him yell at another CIA agent.

I think I see what the difference is. I was stating some facts to prove my point, while you just stated your opinion. And to say "If your friend thinks that Iraq is now a bed of roses filled with lightness and goodness" really is a low-point. I'd expect more, instead of this ad hominum.

Iraq better with Saddam than now? Now you're losing it. Only a little summary: Before: You speak out, you're either dead, improsened to be tortured, or have some appendage removed. If you don't swear loyalty to Saddam, well pretty much the same thing mentioned previously. If you were a representative of Iraq in a sports team (lets take soccer for example), negative results would result in your death or torturement. No gas, water and electricity in certain areas of Iraq. Now: Terrorists and guerrillas trying to kill of the Coalition and oil fields. Rebuild schools, hospitals, and paved roads. Freedom of expression and tought. I have a friend from Iraq. I think he'll most probably be flabergasted at your ignorant comment.