• This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:

    1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.

    2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.

    3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.

    Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.

    Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.

    Thank you!

Most War Protesters...

J

juventusita

Senior Squad
... have no idea what they are doing, especially in the United States. I am not implying that the anti-war members of SG are this way, because for the most part they aren't, but just read this:

Today on the radio, a woman at an anti-war protest was asked a question, "At this protest a lot of people have signs claiming that this war is only about oil, so why after the Gulf War did the US not seize all of the oil?"

The woman says, ".... I don't know... maybe it's because we didn't have such a bastard as a president."
 
S

sslazio121087

Reserve Team
Originally posted by rpvankasteren
Lmao.

Un-be-lie-vable, isn't it?

The US electing either a "bastard" or a "wuss" president at least 5 times in a row...
Click to expand...
What did Reagan or Clinton do to be name a "bastard" or "wuss"
 
R

rpvankasteren

Fan Favourite
ok, stupid might be a better description than wuss. I draw back "wuss" and state "stupid" in stead. It does go for more presidents even.
 
S

sslazio121087

Reserve Team
At least we were all having a great time here in America during there terms. Everyone had jobs the economy was going great what more could we want. I know not the greatest, but stupid is the Bush's in my opinion.
 
I

INFESTA

Official
Originally posted by rpvankasteren
Lmao.

Un-be-lie-vable, isn't it?

The US electing either a "bastard" or a "wuss" president at least 5 times in a row...
Click to expand...

juventusita, I can't believe that just bcs one person gave a lousy answer to a reporter's question you go out and take the part for the whole.
I wonder if she's the only person the reporter interviewed that day... Of course not! Though, from what I can judge from what you've written, she was the only one put in the air...

However, that woman was wrong in the tone she chose to nswer back, but she was right on the content. Clinton was class, a wise man, probably the smartest US president ever! I (still) love hearing the man talk. I don't see any of this bollocks happening if he was the president of the USA.

Oh, and who said the US didn't take the oil? How do you think Kuwait payed the bill, eh?
:kader:
 
G

Guest

Guest
Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
Yes, cheating on your wife and getting head in the oval office. what class
Click to expand...

To all men: If u had a lewinsky in front of u, would u be able to keep your pants on? :confused:

Clinton is still class :)
We are all human :)
 
Z

zul-aid

Starting XI
A few things one:

That women might not have been protesting about Oil but War
wasnt the fact this protest was about the war? when i took the march in Brisbane (Aust), alot of people had many different opinions, views and topics about what was going on...

one person in particular a vietnam vet was only protesting because it was a war - since what had happen to him and the families he destroyed by killing in his opinion innocent people he didnt want anyone else to make the same mistake. - he never dicussed oil, nor did he care - it was WAR he was protesting not OIL.

Secondly when does a persons private life have anything to with anything. If we talked private lives lets talk about Miss Bush's drinking problem and how she still drived before becoming the first lady WITHOUT A LICENCE becuase she nearly killed someone.

70% or more males cheat, nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce because someone cheated.

Who cares.
 
Z

zul-aid

Starting XI
Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
I guess you have a thing for fat girls.
Click to expand...

Actually for me i had sex with both thin and slightly bigger women and found bigger women to be better in bed.;)
 
G

Gareth

Starting XI
Back on topic. I think that 99% of the population don't want war, including the world leaders.

People were protesting about what we all don't want anyway, so they never really changed anyone's opinion.

Think about it this way, I myself do not want war for the simple reason that inocents will be hurt, but what is the alternative to take Saddam out of power? Diplomatic solutions do not work, they have failed in the past. The only way to draw him out is to bomb him out (for lack of a better description). Agressive negiotions you could call it.

Essentially nobody, and I mean nobody wants it to come to war, but what is the alternative? Let Saddam build a nuclear stockpile, everybody knows he has weapons of mass destruction, we knew that in 98 when the first wave of inspectors went in, the hard part is proving it enough to please the UN to sanction an attack.

Former UN Weapons inspector Richard Butler said that he knows they have weapons of mass destruction, they had them in 98 and thye were not seen to be disarming since then, so how do they disappear? The didn't.

I think if at all possible any non-violence resolutions should be taken, but with a regime like Saddam's that is simply not possible.
 
Z

zul-aid

Starting XI
Originally posted by Gareth
Think about it this way, I myself do not want war for the simple reason that inocents will be hurt, but what is the alternative to take Saddam out of power? Diplomatic solutions do not work, they have failed in the past. The only way to draw him out is to bomb him out (for lack of a better description). Agressive negiotions you could call it.

Former UN Weapons inspector Richard Butler said that he knows they have weapons of mass destruction, they had them in 98 and thye were not seen to be disarming since then, so how do they disappear? The didn't.
Click to expand...

2 things: You say is bombing is the answer to get Saddam - well tell that to Osama and Slobadan two guys bombed the hell out of One no one knows where the hell he is - the other still alive and in the war crimes tribunal a place everyone who protested believes Saddam belongs

IF Saddam is bombed out what happens once he is dead? everyone goes back to normality? HELL NO! the relatives of the dead vow revenge and a puppet government (which Saddams government was previously to rid Iran of the Ayatollah) would make up the same people that exist with Saddam now.

Another UN inspector one before Richard Buttler - Scott Ritter said clearly in his book "WAR ON IRAQ" he personally saw the disarmament with Iraq - infact in his opinion Iraq has the least amount of weapsons compared to USA, Isreal, France Russia and Britian infact if you where to cut USA's weapons by 99% it would still have more weapons then Iraq.
Ritter is a republican and voted for Bush to be elected president.
 
P

Paul

Fan Favourite
Re: Most War Protesters...

Originally posted by juventusita
... have no idea what they are doing, especially in the United States. I am not implying that the anti-war members of SG are this way, because for the most part they aren't, but just read this:

Today on the radio, a woman at an anti-war protest was asked a question, "At this protest a lot of people have signs claiming that this war is only about oil, so why after the Gulf War did the US not seize all of the oil?"

The woman says, ".... I don't know... maybe it's because we didn't have such a bastard as a president."
Click to expand...

LMAO!

I bet she's educated (H)
 
R

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
They didn't take the oil then because that particular conflict was 1. sanctioned by the UN as a multi-lateral taskforce and 2. the mandate was to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait, nothing more. Only days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, members of the first Bush admin had appeared on television asking that Saddam be portrayed more positively in the media :|, something that they of course had to backtrack on soon enough.

This particular conflict is different, in that it is for the most part a uni-lateral invasion of another country, and unlikely to be sanctioned by the UN. The first gulf war was about removing an invading country, this one is about being the actual invader. Big difference.

And I am not surprised that some protestors don't know the intricacies of the current situation given the levels of misinformation that exist. Heck, it would appear that Bush and Howard don't yet they get to lead entire nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top