• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Rejects Partial Syrian Withdrawal

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,941
Reaction score
8,399
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: ABC news


When Bush speaks - Syria listens.
 
When Bush speaks - Syria listens.
LOL! The only people who listen when Bush speaks are a bunch of whacktoides who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face!
 
I love it! Pay attention Jay, this is history in the making and it is awesome !
 
Squawker said:
I love it! Pay attention Jay, this is history in the making and it is awesome !
You want me to pay attention? This is not history in the making! This is history repeating itself! The Fuhrer just has a different name, but the same family is involved!
 
We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria."
The same can be said for Iraq if wen just changed the name of the Country.
 
We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria."
The same could be said of Iraq if we changed the name of the Country involved in the occupation!
 
Jaymo said:
We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria."
The same could be said of Iraq if we changed the name of the Country involved in the occupation!
Only if you hate the US. We are there to liberate not occupy.
 
Squawker said:
Only if you hate the US. We are there to liberate not occupy.
'Liberate' obviously has quite a broad definition. We've killed 17,000 civilians, but it's OK because we liberated the country? Can you really call a country liberated when the army of another country patrols its streets?
 
anomaly said:
'Liberate' obviously has quite a broad definition. We've killed 17,000 civilians, but it's OK because we liberated the country? Can you really call a country liberated when the army of another country patrols its streets?
We have killed 17,000 innocents? How many innocent people did Saddam kill? Do you have that number also, or are you just going to single out the US? Liberate means to "free" and in this case from a brutal dictator. We did that, and our presence is meant to protect the people from terrorist groups that would occupy the country. You can't see the difference?
 
Source: Yahoo News

Jaymo Said: The only people who listen when Bush speaks are a bunch of whacktoides who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face!

Perhaps your right. Take a gander at this news snippet.... notice bolded font. Somehow, it is "global pressure" now.

 
The same ole lame ole rhetoric that took us to Iraq! Here we go again! The Syrians are not adhering to U.N. resolutions in a public forum, in private we say screw the U.N. who needs them? I guess we really do need them so we can justify our global plans. :hm
 

Ironically everyday life was better under Saddam, more people had running water and more electricity than now, just people couldn't speak out. Plus when Saddam was in power there was no crazy suicide bombers blowing people up. I somehow think the Iraqi people think of the "liberation" as a mixed blessing at best. Your presence is to protect the people, must say good job, I can say at least Britain is doing better ! Innocents are dying from the bullets and bombs of both sides.

I never seen the Iraqi people cheer when the US and British came- they just stared (maybe beating a Saddam statue with their slippers, but that has to be expected), not the same as when we liberated France in WW2 - French woman were having sex with our soldiers (all right!). The Iraqis, like all middle-eastern people are very weary of us, they will turn on us eventually - it has to be expected. Don't forget we are the guys raining bombs on them for more than a decade.

The longer the stay, the more the Iraqi people will hate us. Look at Vietnam for an example. Iraq is not free yet, not by a long shot. A nation that has martial law is not free.
 
GarzaUK said:
Ironically everyday life was better under Saddam
Says the 300,000 men, women, and children found in mass graves.

GarzaUK said:
Plus when Saddam was in power there was
Rape rooms.
 
I'm saying Batman that the world's only superpower has failed the Iraqi people in some aspects. Freedom is great, but people need clean water to survive lol lol. You have to admit that the Bush Administration has made quite a few mistakes in Iraq. If you can't admit that, your denial and your biaism astounds me.
 

Yes there has been mistakes. I would like to see some things handeled very differently. I find it odd that you think people needing clean water is funny.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…