Butterfly_Wings
Cornflake Girl
I think the book titles seems far less pointed than the title of this thread...considering there is a picture of the white male author on the book cover.
Last edited:
The quote implied that George W Bush himself was directly responsible for 'cheating' on the election. I disagreed. You seem to be agreeing with me. Thanks.Not George W. Bush! May I remind you that his brother Jeb Bush is the Governor of Florida. Katherine Harris was also George W. Bush's presidential campaign cochairwoman and the Florida secretary of state in charge of elections.
Because then one side has an unfair advantage of being able to cheat.Absolutely, politics is full of loopholes and deceit, but why not begin to correct and state when things are not just.
No vote at all is better than an uninformed vote.People in America sadly don't bother to use their right to vote, but that does not make what happened okay.
Sooo, you're telling me that not one single white person was falsely accused of being a felon?If the same thing occured in another state in another county where thousands of average American and probably white people were falsely accused of being a felon and not allowed their right to vote, I don't think it would be taken lightly.
Well, if rubylotus11 of the Bored of Studies forum says that's the way it is, then that is the way it is.That is the truth and the reality of what happened.
The first point is entirely wrong. Do you seriously think that anti-war supporters support Saddam's cruelty?Originally posted by hatty
Meaning, you opposed the overthrow of Saddam, hence you still prefer him to be the ruler of Iraq.
People in Iraq, during his regime, were slaves. Thats all.
They suffered immensely, they barely had enough food to eat.
Why? Because their leader, used all his damn money, to build palaces with toilet flushes, made of pure gold.
Were they allowed to speak out against this? No.
Those who did, were tortured. Then Killed.
Do they get to go to school and learn things that didn't have the words "Saddam is Great" in it?
No.
But Saddam was still the tyrant he was now (or recently) back 20 years ago... did it make it ok to turn a blind eye then, when he was helping the US? Does that make it ok to invade because of how despicable he is now, when we have know for so long about how terribles he was?Originally posted by hatty
the argument that the US used to help Saddam and all the shit doesn't work, due to a simple fact that shit changes.
Originally posted by hatty
It is a fact that before the war started. UN inspectors were able to find empty chemical warheads in very good condition.
This begs the question who would make empty warheads?
You just dont make empty chemical warheads.
I agree that is good. But it does depend on how the Iraqi situation will pan out. Will there be a respectable democracy, a shining beacon of Freedom in the Middle East, or will there be an autocracy? With all the religious factions in Iraq, we can only hope that whichever one takes power doesn't oppress others the way Saddam's autocracy did.However, the truth is millions of people are no longer oppresed anymore.
And thats pretty much all I care about.
i know this is a bit late and beside the point, but bin laden isn't a shiite, i thought the taliban actually killed shiitesOriginally posted by um..
(saddam a sunni muslim leader, hated al qaeda and osama bin laden - a shiite - and his fundamentalist policies, and vice versa.