You probalby dont know it but there was a poll from CNN and some other magazine about the level of trust in Mr Bush and the American way of dealing with the other country's in the world (i think it is called foreign policy of something like that) in Europe. Now the results where "revealing" so now i want to see if the Armory players have different oppinions... (they never asked me anything ) *need to learn some better english*

Yeah I think it's called foreign Policy.well I am not American, but IMHO Bush made too much crap since the last 6 months to be anymore trustworthy in foreign policy.

thanks, and i agree with your statement. He isn't exactly the best president the US has ever had, and his election is doubtfull. But than you have to say that nobody is perfect and even Bush is just human(well that is what he pretends to be ) and we all make mistakes, but i think he made a lot in such a short time. Sad that Arnold cant run fore president...

Sad that Arnold cant run fore president...

That's really sad. I think he'd do a better job than Bush.

I guess I am going to have to break out my Bush2004 sig.

-StateCop]I guess I am going to have to break out my Bush2004 sig.

I'm with ya Cop ,, Bush is just finishing something his dad should have finished back in 91 , we in USA are pissed that these terrorist would have the balls to attack us on US soil (such as 9-11) we shall not stop until they are all brought to justice << I lost 2 very close friends that day!! They shall be brought to justice or they will be KILLED in the prossess so help me GOD!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Amen to that ENORM.For those who don't have trust in the US foreign policy, You are stupid.And for those who hate the USA, burn in hell. Personally, I think we should really hurry things along in Iraq. Yeah people say there are no weapons of mass destruction over there but sorry guys, there are. And if they aren't there anymore, they are most likely either in Iran or Syria which I personally think should be our next targets. Followed by the suicide bombing, jihading, rock at tank throwing Palestinians in over in Israel.Long Live George W. Bush!

I have 3 brothers who have served in Iraqi Freedom, (1 whose back now due to injury from a landmine) And I support Bush 100%, However Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to be found; He was one himself.Incase I get asked, My brother who came back from Iraq, Was with the the 101st Airborne Alpha Company, His vehicle which was in the lead of the 'pack' struck a land mine, and recieved minor fractures in the right arm and other minor injuries.

Bob Barker (The Price is Right) should run for president

I don't pay close enough attention to the news so my opinion does not counte here.Personally I dont like President Bush

Personally, I'd like to stay out of american politics, and stick with the recent premier election here in ontario, and it's maturity... If you read about it, you know what I mean by the maturity part..

Our foreign policy right now isn't so great. We attack Iraq because they might have weapons of mass destruction but at the same time North Korea comes out and openly admits to developing nuclear weapons. Wheres the logic in that? (it might be burried beneath the ground of Iraq ie. oil). Watching CNN and hearing daily from the administration demanding that Saddam's soldiers not harm the people of Iraq's oil made me start thinking more and more about that...The main problem, in my opinion, is that you get to choose between 2 people for president. Both backed by a party who gets all of their money from corporations. These corporations have most of the say in how things happen in our government. The president is a figure head. I would like to see other people run and have an actual chance at winning, who weren't affiliated with either the Democrats or the Republicans (both eaqually as sneaky and corrupt if you ask me).We really don't need to become militarily involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They are both at fault for what is going on over there.Phew, last thing. Why the hell do we still have an embargo on Cuba!?-end of rantAkuma

Yes, i agree Akuma, but think, through all that corruption.We live fairly great lives here (boring in some senses, compared to living in Iraq or Korea) but our lives have far fewer hardships. I.E. Having to fight off rebels or unfriendly neighbors with guns or force. Having lower-class education, and not always having access to Water, improper justice (not that what the US has is at all proper, but most likely most people who deserve to not recieve the death penalty do not recieve it.) Ok i am done rambleing, i am off topic and could keep going, but for respect to others oppinions, I like Bush as our president and hope he gets re-elected.

The U.S. foreign policy is right where it should be right now. Bush senior wanted to attack Iraq in 91 and the UN told him to give it more time. The event that convinced me that we needed to invade was earlier this year when Iraq turned over weapons that they didn't list in their weapons report (thereby violating the UN resolution) and the UN hailed it as progress. I'm tired of people using the logic that, since people die in war, war is therefore always a bad thing and should never be resorted to. We tried that during WWII, but appeasement only gave us a larger army to fight. We lost thousands and thousands of soldiers in WWII, and have to date lost a few hundred in this war (yet this war is much more widely criticized). In 1941 we had Pearl Harbor, and in 2001 we had 9/11. Some say Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, but they played about the same role as Germany did in Pearl Harbor. The leaders of both 1941 Germany and 2001 Iraq are both, for lack of a better term, pure evil. So what's different in this war? Is it not on a grand enough scale for our star-spangled eyes? History has shown that ignored problems do not solve themselves. The US was right not to wait any longer lest Iraq become more powerful/dangerous to our allies in the region. Frankly, I'm shocked that we were the only people willing to help free the majority of people in a nation who were in danger every day of being killed by their government if they so much as spoke out against it. The UN gave Iraq months to hide their weapons and we're puzzled why we can't find any weapons? As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to find a thing. We deposed a corrupt and ruthless dictator, who in my opinion posed a much greater threat than Somalia ever did, and Democrats didn't object to the operations there. The people who determine our foreign policy study it all day every day, and they know mountains more than what we hear through the media. We usually don't even truly understand the motives behind our foreign policy, so its pretty shortsighted of people to think they know foreign policy better than our experts.However, Republicans are incompetent when it comes to the economy. The Iraqi war is plenty to bring our economy out of a recession. Its foolish to think that we should give millions of dollars to the rich to help the economy. These people have already lost a great deal of money, they are not gonna turn around and invest the money they get back from the government in the same stock market where they lost a great deal of money in the first place. They'll save it and wait for the economy to improve. The poor need relief now, not in 8 years when trickle down finally takes effect (and when our national debt becomes nearly insurmountable from all these tax cuts). We need a president who will be Republican in foreign policy and democratic in economic policy.In the next few years, people are gonna get fed up with the partisanship and biased legislation in this country, and with the presidential election turning into a vote for the lesser of two evils (like Akuma said), the libertarian party is going to become very popular. They are a nice mix between democrats and republicans, though also a bit radical, but I agree with them that the government should not protect people from their own stupidity. That's called natural selection. Take a serious look at them.

*sigh*...here we go again...You may be right about how the America saw the problem in Iraq and no one else did, but America seems to be gun totting by themselves.For the past 3 YEARS Canada has requested other countries to help out with our aid for a country called Congo (I believe that's the country, either this or Croatia). This country has been in a massive civil war, with large gangs ruling the country, leaving the goverment there powerless. But America (and most other countries going along with them) have seemed to just focus on so called 'threats' instead of focusing on the people's problems. The fact that Saddam and his sons tortured innocents was a mere secondary reason to move in. It was their non-existant 'weapons' that were the supposed threat.And the funny thing is, Mr. Blair in British nearly got knocked off his seat of power, but George W. Bush hasn't even had a finger pointed in his direction. Soldiers that did not have to die, died because of what he thought was there. Bush should somehow be punished for his overreacting.The invasion of Afghanistand was ok, because there was a pure and good reason to move in. It was the home of the ones who killed thousands, but Bush must of thought, while he was at it, he might as well finished what his pa started some years ago.Saddam had weapons 12 or 13 some years ago, and you know, he could've gotten rid of them within this time. Just because he had weapons that long ago doesn't mean he has them now

About Arnold's part, Who knows he was president in the movie "The demolition man"

 

Second, I agree it's a sad thing to lose people to a tragedy as 9-11... But does it ever happens to some peoples to see the other side of the mirror, that the also killed a bunch of irakians for no reasons either, what does make one side better then the other? Ok, americans don't torture, I have to agree with that, but is it the job of the american to take over the country for the "better" of the peoples, will the peoples of that country be more proud of the lost of the last dictator?

 

Also at the moment there is only one country in the Maghreb/Machrek(real name of the Middle-east) to have a nuclear weapon is Israel... Ironic isn't it?

 

About oussama ben Laden in Afghanistan.Oussame Ben Laden is not Afghan, he comes from Saudi Arabia... Another more or less allie of the United states.

 

Also Americans enforce removal of nuclear weapons from most countries in the world, but still he is the first or second country to own the most nuclear weapon... Go figure.

 

as I said before 9-11 was a tragedy, but was the attack on irak any better?

 

Total Deaths in Iraq War: 10,800

 

Innocent civilians killed in Iraq war: ~6,000

 

Children: ~2442

(based on population demographics)

 

Innocent civilians killed on 9/11: ~2,998

 

Children: ~10

I could add other stuff, but right now I have to go take my shower.

 

Just showing a more or less non side taking point of view (showing facts)

 

P.S: The death count is without counting the number of deaths that happen during the embargo which was a result of the attack in 91 (which ranks in thousands.... hundred of thousands)

 

After all, a Human is a Human, No?

I wish the U.S. could take a bit (yeah, a bit for the U.S Army? Lets start at 50 mil) and put it into "foreign aid" like Unwanted said. Or, better yet, help the what is it 4.6 billion that are in poverty... instead of killing them.

After all, a Human is a Human, No?

wow political commentary, I could speak for hours on the subjects brought up in this thread but fortunately for the rest of you I'm too lazy to type that much(I need a secretary). on a personal level I think Bush Jr. is a booger eating moron but he has surrounded himself with good people and he listens to them. why should we expect great foriegn policy from the man who banrupted two bussineses and lied about being arrested for DUI 25 years ago? I agree with Akuma the media feeds us the two party system and we swallow it whole, they tell us third party candidates are a joke so we laugh at them. they tell us how evil the Palistinians are and we never bother to look at the things Isreal has done to them. I do not think the the suicide bombers are helping the Palistinian people I think they are hurting them.because that's what we see them as ,a bunch of terrorists. what we don't see because the media doesn't tell us and we're too lazy to look for ourselves is that the what the Isrealis' are doing would be considered an invasion of a nieghboring country if the land given to them years ago were considered a country which is something we and the Isrealis, don't want. damn I've gone on and on when I said I would spare you folks. I'm sorry. disagree with me if you will just try to keep it on a non-personal level. Thank you

I think this Iraq / USA war is based on the petroleum territories and not from the terrorist's attack : France have a half of the black gold company in Iraq and USA try to have the other half for to not empty his own reserve of petroleum ! You have for 1000 years in stock ! When other countries will be empty, your petroleum will cost the double or triple than you have buyed from those countries...Koweit ( Q8 ) sell too his petroleum on the world but they price begin to go high for a barrel...That i eared in some french (from France) tv, mass medias and newpapers : it's for that the France do not enter in the Iraq war with the USA & Great Britain. :wink: Egidio.

You also fail to realize something else, Iraq already HAS attacked the US, and proven that they had chemical weapons. Remember the Anthrax incident that happened just after 9/11? That happened to be IRAQ behind it. US soldiers have already found a good amount of Anthrax powder on Iraqi soldiers. And before the war even started, we had special forces in Iraq who had already found the WMDs. And as for you people thinking the war is about oil... If we really wanted their damn oil, we would have taken it a LONG time ago.And like I've said before, anyone who hates America should really stop to think of what the world would be like if we weren't around. Europe would probably be controlled by Adolf Hitler or his sons. EVERY SINGLE Jewish person in Europe would most likely be dead right now. And the world in general would be several times more chaotic than it is now.I for one am a DAMN PROUD American, and I support the war effort and George W. Bush 110% I hope like hell he gets Re-elected. And all those useless, idiotic, liberals out protesting need to simply shut the hell up and get out of the road. Our country's government is doing the right thing, and not for oil, but to finish what his father started a LONG time ago.

Yes, i know that Crime and i was not birth in these years but Europa continue to pay his freedom to the USA & English helpers war since 58 years now for the death of the good young soldiers to their family...Egidio.

Well if i may be as free to tell you, that we all thank the US of helping us get rid of Hitler, whole of Europe(maybe even more, would be Nazi now if it wasn't of the US, GB and the former USSR(they lost over 10.000.000 soldiers/people in that war) but you will have to see that things aren't what they used to be. Visions on the world have changed, where people used to use war to solve problems, most countries now have a more diplomatic solution. I think the best example of diplomatic succes is Europe, there has never been as mush peace in like 1000 years than now. You can get peace by diplomatic ways(like Europe now) or by military force(Europe after the Napolionic wars, well they didn't get total peace, look at the crim war[it think it is spelled]). So i dont think war is the best thing to solve terrorism, violence only creates more About the pre-emtive strikes(again not shure about the spelling) that is just stupid, the only one who i can remember who did those things was, sorry to say this, Hitler who invaded i think it was Roemania to prevent them to join the allied forces(here it was the USSR i think) ofcourse there were some economical issues to, like the oil and acces to the black sea.Now about the antrax, i can make it in my kitchen if i want. If i wanted to make bio weapons i could buy the equipment from the Pentagon at VERY low prices(they stoped doing that like a few weeks ago thanks to an internal investigation or something like that), they even supplied weapons without looking at who bought them, like countries with a lot of terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction: weapons that kill a lot of people, like the huge bomb they used in the Afganistan war to bomb the caves, i dont say you may not kill terrorists, but like somebody once said, only who are innocent may trow the first rock, so look at yourself first before you start to accuse others of doing things you actualy do yourself(k the us has some more "civilised" manners of fighting than suicide bombings, but the effect is the same, even bigger)... In a war there is never a good and bad, only bad. You think you are doing the right thing, but so dous the enemy :? =>conclusion: IMHO i think that the US takes a to agressive stand in the world... If every country that ever got bombed by terrorists started a war the whole world would be in war

About the anthrax thing, I am sure as hell, there is at least as much anthrax in the US that there is in Irak, because it's easy as hell to make, doesn't cost much and is an efficient killer.

 

,,,,its human agaist the Inhuman

Who is the Inhuman, The one that kills near 3000 children for "freedom" and that killed thousands of children during the embargo?

About the anthrax thing, I am sure as hell, there is at least as much anthrax in the US that there is in Irak, because it's easy as hell to make, doesn't cost much and is an efficient killer.

Who is the Inhuman, The one that kills near 3000 children for "freedom" and that killed thousands of children during the embargo?

and again i say "we didn't start this war but we will damm well finish it"