Bush must be stopped

[jiugiusti]

Now almost everyone (including FPMer) is attacking Bush just because his new policy don't fit yours and because GMA is attacking him.

What was GMA doing in the US? wasn't he seeking Bush (and co.) decision to get syria out..? Can't we at least thank him for that.

Anno thanking syria because it helped HA, while persecuting many lebanese, becomes acceptable while thanking Bush for taking syria out becomes rejected...Interesting!!!

Thanking him for getting syria out does not mean agreeing in all his policies.

[vegojimbo]

Originally Posted by jiugiusti

Now almost everyone (including FPMer) is attacking Bush just because his new policy don't fit yours and because GMA is attacking him.

What was GMA doing in the US? wasn't he seeking Bush (and co.) decision to get syria out..? Can't we at least thank him for that.

Anno thanking syria because it helped HA, while persecuting many lebanese, becomes acceptable while thanking Bush for taking syria out becomes rejected...Interesting!!!

Thanking him for getting syria out does not mean agreeing in all his policies.

for ur info jiu, GMA never asked Bush anything. he didn't even meet the guy.
GMA went to congress where the decisions are taken. he didn't go to the white house.
so GMA didn't seek Bush for anything.

thank bush? for what?for supporting one lebanese faction against another? no i won't.

w shou khass HA bi GMA and Bush? so for u to make a point u must link everything to HA.

GMA is attacking Bush bc it's against GMA's plans? so what! although it's not why GMA is doing it.

maybe it has to do with the US supporting 14 feb against the opposition. mmmmmmmmmm.

and we FPMers are atacking Bush for his failed policies in lebanon, palestine, iraq, Afghanistan, US, guantanamo, Abou Greib, north korea. wlak even the americans hate his guts and make fun of him daily on all comedy shows. why shouldn't we?

[Arze]

House passes resolution rebuking the president on Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed.

Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case -- and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the commander in chief was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis were reporting progress: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

The developments in the House marked the first vote of the new Congress on the war. Roughly 400 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate -- an unusual amount of time devoted to a single measure.

[Fantomas]

Peut-etre il faut qu'il y ait une guerre aux Etats-Unis meme pour que ces idiots goutent un peu au gout de la guerre au lieu de la faire partout sauf chez eux. J'espere qu'il y aura des attaques terroristes encore plus aux USA pour qu'ils sachent ce que c'est de tuer des innocents que ce soir en Irak, palestine ou le Liban.

[Fantomas]

Jiugiusti
Now almost everyone (including FPMer) is attacking Bush just because his new policy don't fit yours and because GMA is attacking him.

What was GMA doing in the US? wasn't he seeking Bush (and co.) decision to get syria out..? Can't we at least thank him for that.

Anno thanking syria because it helped HA, while persecuting many lebanese, becomes acceptable while thanking Bush for taking syria out becomes rejected...Interesting!!!

Thanking him for getting syria out does not mean agreeing in all his policies.

Nous pouvons remercier Bush pour nous avoir envoye (l'administration Americaine) les Syriens pendant 30 ans. Nous pouons aussi le remercier pour etre la personne la plus idiote au monde. Vous voyez, Bush, avec son IQ -0 est le gouverneur du monde, alors pourquoi quelques-uns se demandent comment une personne comme Saad hariri puisse etre a la tete du gouvernement?

[Moderate American]

Originally Posted by Suney

Their mission was to find WMD. They didnt. They lied. Cant you understand?

The war was not necessary.

Dont you dare bring up the way Saddam treated Iraqis in an effort to praise the US.

The US supported Saddam, they turned a blind eye to the way he treated the Iraqis.

The economic sanctions imposed on Iraq, which was pushed by the US caused so many children to die. So many died of malnutrition

The US dont care one bit about the Iraqis. The never did

So when I hear some one say that the US should be praised for their role in Iraq, it makes me sick. I find that disgusting. I cant imagine how grossly misinformed you are




Post your propaganda somewhere else

If Saddam actually used the Oil for Food Program like he was suppose to, instead of raking in the billions from the corruption and using the money to buy weapons and not food to help his civilians then those children would not have starved

[3asheq Beirut]

Originally Posted by Moderate American

If Saddam actually used the Oil for Food Program like he was suppose to, instead of raking in the billions from the corruption and using the money to buy weapons and not food to help his civilians then those children would not have starved

That's not true, and you obviously know nothing about the Oil for Food program. It's not like Iraq was free to use the money from that program to buy food and medicine as it needed. It had to enter into contracts with certain companies imposed on it. Then those contracts would be delayed by the US and Britain for over 6 months, causing a humanitarian disaster in the country. This is in addition to the fact that the Oil for Food program was nothing more than a drop in the bucket of the humanitarian needs of Iraq. How do you think Americans would fare if the world put a complete embargo on the US and shut down the entire economy, while "allowing" Americans to buy food and medicine under certain conditions.

As for buying weapons, what weapons are you talking about? The ones that didn't exist? The problem with you is that you couldn't care less about the Iraqis, but you don't like to admit that your country actually committed a crime. It's funny that you blame the Germans for their complicity in the crimes committed by their government during world war II, but you have gone to far greater lengths making excuses for yours.

[Batrak_Hakim_666]

Thx mr. georges bush 4 liberatin lebanon frm syrian terorist bachar ... men doon amerka kelna mna3ref enno lebnen ma ken b3omro tharrar.

[Rye]

Originally Posted by Batrak_Hakim_666

Thx mr. georges bush 4 liberatin lebanon frm syrian terorist bachar ... men doon amerka kelna mna3ref enno lebnen ma ken b3omro tharrar.

dude! zabet ma3loumetak... men doun amerka lebanon would not have been a hostage to syria in the first place. it was George Bush Sr.

[WiseCookie]

Originally Posted by Rye

dude! zabet ma3loumetak... men doun amerka lebanon would not have been a hostage to syria in the first place. it was George Bush Sr.

I think you should fix ur information... if it wasn't for certain Lebanese cooperating with the syrians for personal interests neither bush or the syrians would have entered or occupied Lebanon.