Czechoslovakia
2004 Presidential Elections!
#17
Posted 24 March 2004 - 02:16 AM
| QUOTE |
| So who would you choose A-W-2? You have only expressed why one person shouldn't be in, but nothing to say who should be in. |
I would vote Bush because I believe he responded well according to the situations. With 9/11 occuring just around his entry to his presidency, he went to war against Afghanistan, a known hideout for the Al Qaeda. Though Bush used the excuse of weapons of mass destruction as a front, I think he wanted to attack Saddam because of his crimes against humanity and his known hatred for the US. He's shown that we aren't going to be pushed around like we have allowed. A good example of this was the debate over the child who was returned to Cuba. The US gave him back to the Cubans and they feel victorious over the US. You give evil an inch, they'll walk a mile, and I think Bush has made a clear point that you won't even get that inch. BAM!!!

MS FOREVER!!!!!
#18
Posted 24 March 2004 - 03:12 AM
| QUOTE (Alpha-Weltall-2 @ Mar 23 2004, 09:16 PM) |
| With 9/11 occuring just around his entry to his presidency |
Almost a full year (25% of his term) counts as the entry in your eyes?
| QUOTE |
| Though Bush used the excuse of weapons of mass destruction as a front, I think he wanted to attack Saddam because of his crimes against humanity and his known hatred for the US. |
Bush used the excuse of defending the Middle East. There was no way Saddam would be able to target the United States. We were protecting Israel.
| QUOTE |
| He's shown that we aren't going to be pushed around like we have allowed. |
How has he?
| QUOTE |
| A good example of this was the debate over the child who was returned to Cuba. The US gave him back to the Cubans and they feel victorious over the US. You give evil an inch, they'll walk a mile, and I think Bush has made a clear point that you won't even get that inch. BAM!!! |
What is so evil about Cuba? The U.S. has done a great job of instilling in your mind that any government other than democracy is bad, especially those damned Commies.
#19
Posted 24 March 2004 - 05:59 AM
I would personally choose Kerry. I haven't seen him in action before, and it would be a welcome change from Bush, who has an IQ of 70.....
The major issues would be the Iraq war, and how they handle it. There would also be the fact if they support Spain and other countries in their time of need, or plan on ditching them
#21
Posted 24 March 2004 - 07:40 PM
I bow to the supreme wrath of Lord Crescens.
#22
Posted 24 March 2004 - 09:07 PM
| QUOTE (Bigbro69 @ Mar 24 2004, 12:59 AM) |
| I would personally choose Kerry. I haven't seen him in action before, and it would be a welcome change from Bush, who has an IQ of 70..... |
*Sigh*
I hate to see people say "Oh well Bush is a moron."
No, he's not. Sure he's from Texas (hehe) but he graduated from Yale (one of the best colleges in the nation)
He's smart enough to get elected and run a nation...So if you think he's a poor leader or has made stupid decisions, show me evidence then I"ll listen.
...Retired...Not returned
#23
Posted 24 March 2004 - 11:39 PM
| QUOTE (Crescens @ Mar 24 2004, 02:39 PM) |
| The UN replaced the League of Nations, which let Hitler rise to power and build up, eventually conquering most of Europe. Saddam's attempts to build up were stopped by the United States, otherwise they would very well have continued. |
Well, Hitler wrote a book (Mein Kampf, for those of you interested) during his prison term. In this book was his "solution to the Jewish problem". And he still became the leader of Germany.
Also, the League of Nations could not have possibly done much. The US refused to join, and the ideas put forth were foolish. These countries had no real plan that would be effective, so theycould prevent nothing.
#24
Posted 24 March 2004 - 11:47 PM
I bow to the supreme wrath of Lord Crescens.
#26
Posted 25 March 2004 - 05:27 AM
| QUOTE (Crescens @ Mar 24 2004, 11:47 PM) |
| Instead, the Russians had to suffer through a lot until the US and UK got their rears in gear and came in for D-Day. |
US and UK, I dont think so!
The US had a lie in for 3 (or 2) years and were about to make peace with Japan until they got attacked, by the Japanese. And then they claim to be the key to winning the war, which is not true, they had a part in winning the war, every country had a part in winning the war, even France.
#27
Posted 25 March 2004 - 03:40 PM
As for France's accomplishments in World War II, let me remind everyone that they had an even stronger standing army at the beginning of World War II, but much less of a navy. However, the French pretty much sat there when Hitler waltzed in, and were easily conquered due to "lowered morale." They could have made a much stronger stand, but really didn't.
#28
Posted 25 March 2004 - 07:53 PM
And the Soviet achievments in the war are highly underrated. If it wasnt for the Soviets, we would all be speaking German (and maybe Italian and Japanese).
#29
Posted 25 March 2004 - 08:15 PM
| QUOTE (Leftyy @ Mar 25 2004, 12:26 AM) |
| The US had a lie in for 3 (or 2) years and were about to make peace with Japan until they got attacked, by the Japanese |
Actually, you are quite wrong. The US was not going to make peace with Japan. Japan was weakening the US economy by taking over many southeast Asian countries, who supply raw materials to the US. Japan knew this, and this was a reason they did the attacking there.
| QUOTE |
| every country had a part in winning the war, even France. |
France's part was as large as Poland's part. They made for a nice long, wide highway to England.
| QUOTE |
| Czecol...whatever, I can't spell it, and a few other areas were actually invaded before Poland. |
I was referring to the start of the war, not pre-war.
Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote

