0
NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 07:13 PM, said:
THANK YOU ZoSo, you're a life saver 
I was going to request one of the mods to help me edit it so thanks again soooooooo much!!
I agree, my choices were mostly leaning toward the "bush nice" side because my D grade was actually "fair " LOL
But I'm a pro Bush person. I'm kind of both, I pity the side thats less popular just to make them feel better. But thats not my whole point. I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing. You may disagree with me and thats fine. But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper. Even though it doesnt "directly" favor one side over the other, its still somewhat persuading you. WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.
I was going to request one of the mods to help me edit it so thanks again soooooooo much!!
I agree, my choices were mostly leaning toward the "bush nice" side because my D grade was actually "fair " LOL
But I'm a pro Bush person. I'm kind of both, I pity the side thats less popular just to make them feel better. But thats not my whole point. I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing. You may disagree with me and thats fine. But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper. Even though it doesnt "directly" favor one side over the other, its still somewhat persuading you. WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.
actually, its the multimillion/ billion dollar contracts companies have signed with the governments to go to Iraq, also oil
weapons industry always needs a good war or two (which bush happens to own) and haliburton (d*** cheneys company) owns most if not all the oil in Iraq.
yeah they both know what they are doing
but the country is a sh it hole. half a million civilians dead, the country is in turmoil, no control, different sects of islamic people (kurds, shi'ites and sunni's)
are beating each other over the head, and already 3000 United. S soldiers are killed.
the war is a failure.
No weapons of mass destruction and the country was actually MUCH MUCH better off with Saddam, Iraq can NOT run with democracy at all, itll never work and never has. it REQUIRES dictatorship.
now i am a conservative myself, but Bush is a dumb a** and excuse my views but needs to be put in front of a firing squad and shot for treason.
now Iraq is one big breeding ground for terrorism.
what we really needed to do instead of goto iraq is to goto war with saudi's.
too bad they own about 7 percent of the entire you.S market. Not to mention they have a huge deal with oil with the you.S
primary reason of going to iraq, Saddam didnt want to share the oil, so instead of asking for it, we took it.
ever since 2000 until now our National deficit has gone from 2 trillion dollars to 9 trillion dollars.
Because of rising oil prices, cost of war and less focus on our own country, the dollar is in recession right now (the value of the dollar is worth 4 cents)
meaning what you couldve gotten for a dollar 30 years ago, now costs about 30-45 dollars.
