Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> Your president: Bush

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-26 at 00:50:52

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Jun 25 2005, 11:10 PM)

Again, I would have expected better from you. We DID have armoured vechiles, tanks, Bradley Fighting vechiles, M113's (APC), Marine amphibious vechiles (APC), Strykers.

You must be talking about the few hummers that didn't have armor, and you know who were driving those hummers? The men in the BACK of the bus, i.e. the guys were weren't going to see any action. The emergency room medics (non combat) and water purifiers (examples). Basically the men who weren't going to see any action. But when we took over cities and the foreign insurgency started, there was no longer a 'front line' so even men who weren't suppose to see combat were being blown up.

No armoured vechiles? Please....................Do your homework before you make a statement like that.
Well, we the people voted him for our president twice. Last election he got the most votes for any President in history, most votes since 1969.
[right][snapback]245033[/snapback][/right]

Yes, but what was his win percentage?All that really proves is just how many ppl decided to start voting recently.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 03:40:24

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Jun 25 2005, 09:10 PM)

Me do my homework?
First off, on the television it even said we didn't have armored vehicles (not your gay ass Fox shit, the LOCAL NEWS)

Second, I KNOW people from that have been in Iraq, and they even said we didn't have armored vehicles at the START OF THE WAR

Third, "The men in the BACK of the bus, i.e. the guys were weren't going to see any action. Basically the men who weren't going to see any action" Oh, but they DID see action. Where in the **ck do you get this shit you call "information"

To me, you seem like an over-zealious military thumper (Yes, like those damn bible thumpers) because every post that proves fallacy in our military, you have to come in and "strut your stuff" and say that we don't know wtf we are talking about.

Did you not listen to the radio stations, the news networks, and even our own **cking government when they told us they had NO ARMORED VEHICLES!!!???

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris)

No armoured vechiles? Please....................Do your homework before you make a statement like that.

Why in the **ck don't you do your homework before you come in here and say that "i'm wrong and your right" bullshit!

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris)

Again, I would have expected better from you. We DID have armoured vechiles, tanks, Bradley Fighting vechiles, M113's (APC), Marine amphibious vechiles (APC), Strykers.

Yeah we have those...... BUT ONLY AFTER WE HAD ALREADY TAKEN THE CAPITAL!

I would have expected more from you, but oh wait.. You aperantly "know everything" about the military.

Do you know what the XM-29 is? Or how about the XM-21?

That's what I thought.......................

ADDITION:
Oh, and I know you're going to have to google the XM-21, and the XM-29, so don't even say that you know what they are.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-06-26 at 12:22:25

QUOTE

To me, you seem like an over-zealious military thumper (Yes, like those damn bible thumpers) because every post that proves fallacy in our military, you have to come in and "strut your stuff" and say that we don't know wtf we are talking about.

Look at his avatar

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-06-26 at 13:29:28

QUOTE

Well, we the people voted him for our president twice. Last election he got the most votes for any President in history, most votes since 1969.

Nice job correcting yourself, but it was the most votes ever. Oh and there was no election in 1969. Nixon won in 1968 with less than 32 million votes.

Bush's final vote count was 62,040,610 and Kerry's was 59,028,111 (based on Wikipedia's tally). Both of those popular vote totals are larger than any vote total in American history. So if you're going to say Bush got the highest popular vote count in the history of the USA, you'd better include the fact that Kerry comes a close second. The only person to come close to either of them is Ronald Reagan in 1984 with 52,609,797 votes.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-06-26 at 14:06:20

The 'most vots in history' is complete bullshit. There are more people in this country, hence more votes. It's the percentage that matters.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-06-26 at 14:14:54

QUOTE(Kellimus @ Jun 25 2005, 11:40 PM)

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris)

No armoured vechiles? Please....................Do your homework before you make a statement like that.

Why in the **ck don't you do your homework before you come in here and say that "i'm wrong and your right" bullshit!

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris)

Again, I would have expected better from you. We DID have armoured vechiles, tanks, Bradley Fighting vechiles, M113's (APC), Marine amphibious vechiles (APC), Strykers.

AHHHHHH SHOW ARE SO IGNORANT!!!!

And you 'know' some one from Iraq? Please could you tell me where is he stationed and his unit and outfit? Is he a Marine? Or regular amry soldier?

Cause I do know some one in the military too. Brad Jenison, Army Ranger, Assistant 60 gunner, home base at home is Fort Lewis in Washington State, currently stationed in Iraq on his last tour of duty before his 4 year commitment to the military is over.

The XM-21 was an early version of the M21 if I am not mistaken.

And you watch filtered news, it was we had no armour on many Hummers, not no armoured vechiles at all.

How do you think our army went across Iraq so quickly? Walked? ..............

And do you even know how we took bagdad? If you don't, then you really shouldn't be talking to me about the military. Here, I will give you a hint, we used Marine Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel Model 7A1 (AAVP7A1).

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 14:29:52

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Jun 26 2005, 11:14 AM)

Why in the **ck don't you do your homework before you come in here and say that "i'm wrong and your right" bullshit!
AHHHHHH SHOW ARE SO IGNORANT!!!!

And you 'know' some one from Iraq? Please could you tell me where is he stationed and his unit and outfit?

Cause I do know some one in the military too. Brad Jenison, Army Ranger, Assistant 60 gunner, home base at home is Fort Lewis in Washington State, currently stationed in Iraq on his last tour of duty before his 4 year commitment to the military is over.

The XM-21 was an early version of the M21 if I am not mistaken.

And you watch filtered news, it was we had no armour on many Hummers, not no armoured vechiles at all.

And do you even know how we took bagdad? If you don't, then you really shouldn't be talking to me about the military. Here, I will give you a hint, we used Marine Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel Model 7A1 (AAVP7A1).
[right][snapback]245435[/snapback][/right]

Me being ignorant? You're the one being ignorant trying to prove your "uber skills of knowing military shit". Whipty do if you know how the military is put together? Good for you. Is that an acomplishment?

I have known him for 4 years now, and I don't ask stupid ass questions like that. I clearly asked him if they had armored vehicles and he said no.

And the point is, even if they were only "a couple of Hummers" that is still putting the life of Americans in danger, and for a president that rushes into things, that's completely dumb.

Filtered news? Hmmmm..... So even the Secretary of Defence is wrong eh? Get your head out of your ass.

And who cares if we used, "Marine Assult Amphibian Vehicle Personnel Model 7A1". Good for you that you know such big words. I give you a thumbs up for knowing how to google shit.

I don't give a shit about the military, or it's over-zealious thumpers like yourself, cause that only shows how ignorant you are towards the saftey of the American people when we go into a war with "only a few un-armored vehicles"

You are stupid for even trying to make that a point. That still endangers our Marines you **cking jackass

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 14:34:35

hey stars, you DO know what we all watch the same news right? just a thought in passing. there were no armored humvies in the start of the war, and there are very little now. they had to make there own. and i have been watching fox and they even said that. they made armor out of ply wood and sand bags. listen,just cus your all gung ho about the army, dosn;t mean you know it all. : NOT A FLAME:

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-06-26 at 14:43:21

QUOTE(Kellimus @ Jun 26 2005, 10:29 AM)

I am not trying to prove anything, it seems to me that you are the one trying to prove something....

Its funny, you can't answer both my questions, yet you are so ready to flame me...

You are wrong about having no armoured vehicles for the first half of the war. You are right about some hummers not having armour. I am just trying to correct you. You are right that EVERY vehicle should be armoured in any war. We weren't prepared for the forgien insurgency, so the men who weren't suppose to see any action were seeing action.

And Im making a point of correcting you.

Only a person who googles himself would think other people do.

QUOTE(kooshtwo @ Jun 26 2005, 10:34 AM)

Ya, I know and its a problem that those Hummers weren't amroured. Kellimus stated that we had absolutly no armoured vehicles for the first half of the war, I was just correcting him.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 14:47:39

thats because we didn't. we had tanks, but hes not talking about tanks. he's talking about hummers and the like. most of the non tank vehiculars were not armoured. its a fact, get over it.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 14:48:10

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Jun 26 2005, 11:43 AM)

You still haven't answered me what the XM-29 is.

Second, I don't need google to find information out. I only google shit to research it, not to try to prove an ignorant military thumper, such as yourself, wrong.

And I don't need to answer both your questions cause your rebuttle will be, "I'm right, you're wrong!"

And this can end this pityfull argument right here and there:

I SAID VEHICLES, NOT HYBRID-VEHICLES!

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-06-26 at 14:56:32

QUOTE(Kellimus @ Jun 24 2005, 10:38 PM)

Did you know that for the first half of the war, we had no armored vehicles? But read the above quote, it explains everything.......
[right][snapback]244015[/snapback][/right]

Sounds like more then just hummers to me....

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 15:05:14

If you're an over-zealious military thumper, then of coarse it would

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 15:06:57

first off, if your going to quote him, plz.........quote the hole thing. if you look right above he said all vehicles not hybrid. the point is, there were very little armored vehiculars. thats all

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-06-26 at 17:21:42

Here, I'll use Google to help one of the sides in this arguement:
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=g...ues&htmlId=1537 - Shortage of armor for Humvees. "Estimates indicate that anywhere between one-fifth to one-half of the 1,320 troops killed and 9,000 troops wounded in Iraq were victims of hidden roadside bombs that penetrated poorly armored Humvees or trucks ambushed on military convoys." http://www.optruth.org/ is just overall a very nice site for this arguement. Oh and it includes soldier testimonies! Nice!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/ - Still not enough armor for Hummers.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...ble_in_humvees/ - "Just 1 in 8 Humvees in Iraq are of this more heavily armored variety."

http://www.gazette.com/war/1211warax.html - Interesting article about how the Army hadn't planned well enough for the war and figured the tanks would win while the hummers and supply trucks were in the rear. Now, years later, they're sending fully-armored units to Iraq.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-26 at 18:23:02

wow....hard evidence....what do you think watson? yeh, we go you pegged on this topic. thank you devlin.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-27 at 00:39:26

Wow, good one Devlin

See Star, I tried telling you, but you wouldn't listen....

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-28 at 08:38:43

QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Jun 22 2005, 10:52 PM)

It is more likely for the average American citizen to die in a traffic-related accident then be killed by terrorists. Much more likely. So why is so much attention being given to the terrorists? They killed 25,000 people in America, tops. DUI-related incidents claim tens of thousands of lives annually. Terrorists are just not that big a problem.
[right][snapback]241733[/snapback][/right]

you are joking right? you are saying we should do nothing, maybe your not very likely to be killed by a terrorist, does that make it ok? the point is, terrorism isn't something we should have to live with, the number of people that the terrorists kill isn't their biggest motivation, it is the fact that we are talking about it, that people live in fear. 25,000 people sure does sound like alot to me.....maybe you don't care about the lives of anyone but your own, but some of us do, and personally, i don't want any more american civilians to die while sitting at work from a terrorist attack, and if it takes me allowing the government to search my house if i am suspected of terrorist activities, so be it.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-28 at 13:40:34

QUOTE(Beta4Life @ Jun 28 2005, 05:38 AM)

Dude, if we shouldn't have to live with terrorism, we shouldn't have to live with our governments actions.

25,000 ISN'T alot of people compared to the whole population of the United States, or even the world.

I care for the lives of other people, but DT has a point. Why should we worry about terrorism, when the chances of us dieing by a terroist attack are slim to none? If our government would get their head out of their ass, and quit being so stupid, we wouldn't have the problem of terrorists trying to "attack" us.

And you would give up your Bill Of Rights just because someone (the government, the local police, anyone with 'authority') suspects your a "Terrorist"?

You are stupid. Yes, let's have the government take away all of our rights just because they are idiots, and won't pull their head out of their asses.

I believe that it is stupid for the president to come up with The Patriot Act. Seems to me that most the Senators think it was a dumb thing to sign it in the first place too.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by crashtib on 2005-06-28 at 13:50:12

wow wow
just please all keep being nice AND SOFT!!

i've seen too much "nasty words" already.

please all stop sayin' "you're stupid, you say bullshit" or like.

you're here to give your opinion, not to say "f**k you m**********r im right you're wrong"

sorry to remember every time to have a good behavior but it cant stand people making show others as ridiculous, especially kellimus and starchris

thanks

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-06-28 at 13:51:04

QUOTE(Beta4Life @ Jun 28 2005, 05:38 AM)

First off I think he was more referring tot he fact that so many people in the U.S. fear a terrorist attack in their town/city when really terrorists have no reason to attack some small town in Georgia or Washington. They chose New York for a reason, so really only those people living in huge cities should be worried at all. And then again, it will be many many years before another attack occurs - and I seriously doubt they will do anything with planes again.

And if you want to talk about death, I don't want to sit here at my computer typing in this forum while American lives are being lost in a needless war. 25,000 deaths total compared to the millions of people in the Unit States is nothing especially when you looka t DT's point about DUIs. It is said that one person dies every 33 seconds due to a DUI-related accident - which is the equivalent of 2 jumbo jets ramming into eachother weekly. But our governemt doesnt spend billions to help stop this one, does it?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-28 at 17:46:57

QUOTE(crashtib @ Jun 28 2005, 10:50 AM)

I don't even understand wtf you are trying to say. So before you even try to diss on me, learn how to spell and use correct grammer.......

And DevliN has a point too. People in small towns should not worry about "terrorist attacks" I guess I should be worried when I go to Pheonix.........

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-06-28 at 19:22:07

Okay, I think we're focusing on the technicalities far too much on this one.

President Bush is a dumb piece of shit.

Okay, for kicks and giggles I'll post some reasons:

My church regularly prays (and this is semi-conservative too) that President Bush will "have better foresight and wisdom in the struggles ahead." Look at our economy now. It's gone down the crapper my friends. The only good part about it is the realty sector, which is fairly strong. Our economy is far more expansive than houses mind you. Education trails a dozen countries. Science is falling behind. We spend more and more, yet we're starting to make less and less. Foreign investors no longer buy US bonds, instead opting for better currencies. Our debt rises ever higher (compared to the current era, Clinton's administration was the Golden Age of the economy). We're losing rights monthly, and for all the goddamn "patriotism" in our nation, fewer recruits sign up for the military with each passing month. It's a patriotism that will reinstate the draft because the military whines about not being able to control five nations at once.

If we're not strong internally there is no way in Hell that we'll be strong anywhere else.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-06-28 at 20:54:52

QUOTE

If you constantly live in fear of terrorists, you're stupid. We are spending an unrealisticly large amount of time/money on something that just is not such a huge threat. I see a Secretary of Homeland Security, but where's the government effort against drunk drivers? Wasn't Bush one once?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)RuFF on 2005-06-28 at 20:58:11

i dont really think presidents are important. they havent done shit for the country

Next Page (7)