Gollum1 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,08:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bill Clinton was a bad president for several reasons. First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military. I personally saw a dramatic increase in funding and readiness after Bush got elected. ...... Coming from a fairly wealthy family, and being in the military, naturally my political inclinations tend to be conservative. My parents have made me work for everything that I have, it is possible to succeed in a capitalistic society without leeching off of the government like a lazy coward.<span id='postcolor'> *sniff* God bless America. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwenke75 0 Posted July 31, 2002 I get tired of hereing about the coalition in the gulf war. There were very few countries who put the troops on the ground. Yeh there was one country that donated sunglasses and another that donated sun block, but come on what kind of coalition is that. And as far as clinton, He was not a good president. He was a joke to the rest of the world. lieing under oath,stealing and cheating on your wife, to me, are not good actions of a president. Thats my view anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Apollo @ July 31 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the member's of the upper class and the monarchy are stinking rich ,but that's only a very small part of the population.Most of the Saudi Arabian coman people live in poverty. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The house of Saud is infinatley preferable than Bin Laden's theocracy he wants in the country.<span id='postcolor'> I agree in the sense that the house of Saud are good puppet's of the American's ,and that Nato influence over this region is very important for economicel reason's.But on the personal level i have no symphaty whatsoever for the Saudi Arabian monarchy.<span id='postcolor'> Most of the world lives in poverty. I think the Monarchy beats the viable alternatives, democracy not being one of them. Absolute monarchs puppets? What makes them puppets? Just because they are freinds and allies of America doesn't make them puppets. Britain isn't a puppet, nor is Saudi Arabia. Better co-operation than hostility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolute monarchs puppets? What makes them puppets? Just because they are freinds and allies of America doesn't make them puppets. Britain isn't a puppet, nor is Saudi Arabia. Better co-operation than hostility.<span id='postcolor'> your leader IS a puppet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we are still undermanned.<span id='postcolor'> ROLFMAO! Need I say more? The mods better close this topic quick! I forgot to take my anti-flame pills Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 31 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â Bush didn't have anything to do with the contras......<span id='postcolor'> Not directly. That's not the point of the cartoon. If Clinton had said something like that...there would be a cartoon just like that for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ July 31 2002,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolute monarchs puppets? What makes them puppets? Just because they are freinds and allies of America doesn't make them puppets. Britain isn't a puppet, nor is Saudi Arabia. Better co-operation than hostility.<span id='postcolor'> your leader IS a puppet<span id='postcolor'> I hate Tony Blair, but there is no way that Britain is a 'puppet' to America. We are freinds and allies, not puppets! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Apollo @ July 31 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the member's of the upper class and the monarchy are stinking rich ,but that's only a very small part of the population.Most of the Saudi Arabian coman people live in poverty. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The house of Saud is infinatley preferable than Bin Laden's theocracy he wants in the country.<span id='postcolor'> I agree in the sense that the house of Saud are good puppet's of the American's ,and that Nato influence over this region is very important for economicel reason's.But on the personal level i have no symphaty whatsoever for the Saudi Arabian monarchy.<span id='postcolor'> Most of the world lives in poverty. I think the Monarchy  beats the viable alternatives, democracy not being one of them.<span id='postcolor'> You all have to forgive Partarooper, he swallowed a British flag and a 4x2 meter portrait of the queen as a kid and it is slowly coming out the "natural way" now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 31 2002,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Apollo @ July 31 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the member's of the upper class and the monarchy are stinking rich ,but that's only a very small part of the population.Most of the Saudi Arabian coman people live in poverty. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The house of Saud is infinatley preferable than Bin Laden's theocracy he wants in the country.<span id='postcolor'> I agree in the sense that the house of Saud are good puppet's of the American's ,and that Nato influence over this region is very important for economicel reason's.But on the personal level i have no symphaty whatsoever for the Saudi Arabian monarchy.<span id='postcolor'> Most of the world lives in poverty. I think the Monarchy  beats the viable alternatives, democracy not being one of them.<span id='postcolor'> You all have to forgive Partarooper, he swallowed a British flag and a 4x2 meter portrait of the queen as a kid and it is slowly coming out the "natural way" now <span id='postcolor'> I was talking about how democracy is not likley to provide an alternative to monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Radical elements would de-rail democratic endevour, so in the mean time I was saying the House of Saud is best for Saudi Arabia. You can be rather tiresome sometimes denoir. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted July 31, 2002 If we took over Iraq and made it a state, where would the 51st start go? And can we take over places? Â We haven't really done much of that before except occupation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ July 31 2002,18:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we took over Iraq and made it a state, where would the 51st start go? And can we take over places? Â We haven't really done much of that before except occupation.<span id='postcolor'> Didn't they recently say that even if any more states were added, they'd keep 50 stars? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was talking about how democracy is not likley to provide an alternative to monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Radical elements would de-rail democratic endevour, so in the mean time I was saying the House of Saud is best for Saudi Arabia.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but obviously your reference to why it is good is because of the fact that Britain is a monarchy. That makes a very crappy argument. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can be rather tiresome sometimes denoir.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I suppose so, especially when I don't agree with you, right? When we are having a discussion about America you are more then willing to take cover behind me and occasionally popping up your head saying "denoir is right". Well, sorry sonny, but sooner or later you will have to fight for your own beliefs. To start crying and run away every time you get criticized is not a long term solution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 31 2002,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 31 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was talking about how democracy is not likley to provide an alternative to monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Radical elements would de-rail democratic endevour, so in the mean time I was saying the House of Saud is best for Saudi Arabia.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but obviously your reference to why it is good is because of the fact that Britain is a monarchy. That makes a very crappy argument. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can be rather tiresome sometimes denoir.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I suppose so, especially when I don't agree with you, right? When we are having a discussion about America you are more then willing to take cover behind me and occasionally popping up your head saying "denoir is right". Well, sorry sonny, but sooner or later you will have to fight for your own beliefs. To start crying and run away every time you get criticized is not a long term solution.<span id='postcolor'> I wasn't making any reference to Britain whatsoever. Constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy are totally different. As a Swede you must know that. I was talking solely and exclusively about Saudi Arabia. As for hiding behind you in arguments? Thats just not the case. I may agree with you on aspects of American cultural imperialism and foreign policy, but I don't need you to argue for me. I never 'run away' from a good debate. Where did you get that? I think you need to stop thinking of yourself as better than other people in here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted July 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolute monarchs puppets? What makes them puppets? Just because they are freinds and allies of America doesn't make them puppets. Britain isn't a puppet, nor is Saudi Arabia. Better co-operation than hostility.<span id='postcolor'> Having 25% of world's oil and not an adequate army to defend it would make any country dependant on a superpower anyhow.The strategecal importance of that oil,on a global scale ,is to important to not be defended. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the world lives in poverty. I think the Monarchy beats the viable alternatives, democracy not being one of them.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was talking about how democracy is not likley to provide an alternative to monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Radical elements would de-rail democratic endevour, so in the mean time I was saying the House of Saud is best for Saudi Arabia.<span id='postcolor'> A govermental system is defacto not a determinal factor for economical strenth ,a govermental system of any kind ,like democracy for ex. may differ in it's effective form due to the situation of the Country it govern's.Indeed most country's live in poverty ,but not all country's have the economical wealth and potential that Saudi Arabia has.I am not against monarchy at all ,i am from the oppinion that changing any govermental system in any country can be quite dangerous ,as it can lead to civil war or destabilize the country greatly. I only make the point on the level of leadership ,the saudi arabian monarchy has done a very bad job.Instead of using the massive oil supply revenue's to build an economy for it's citizin and further strentghening the stabilety in their country ,they have used that wealth to hold party's and buy luxury ship's and more useless squandering of that kind.The social gap in saudi Arabia is just so big ,and with the potential of t's soil Saudi arabia could have been a modernized economy providing the majority of it's citizin with job's ,social benifit's ,education and the likes. But even today ,most high qualified industrial position's in Saudi Arabia are filled in by Foureigner's. I wouldn't critizise any leader for the govermental system he function's in ,but i tend to respect more those leader's that show compasion for it's citizin's ,give's them hope and direction's ,help's them to his full potential ,simple leader's that show leadership. See ,i'm from Belgium ,a constituate monarchy.And from all the monarch's Belgium has had i can show the better one's and the worser one's.Good old WWI hero King AlbertI being the best one ,Money squandering Zaire Colony exploiting king LeopoldII the most worse one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted August 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Apollo @ Aug. 01 2002,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolute monarchs puppets? What makes them puppets? Just because they are freinds and allies of America doesn't make them puppets. Britain isn't a puppet, nor is Saudi Arabia. Better co-operation than hostility.<span id='postcolor'> Having 25% of world's oil and not an adequate army to defend it would make any country dependant on a superpower anyhow.The strategecal importance of that oil,on a global scale ,is to important to not be defended. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the world lives in poverty. I think the Monarchy  beats the viable alternatives, democracy not being one of them.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was talking about how democracy is not likley to provide an alternative to monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Radical elements would de-rail democratic endevour, so in the mean time I was saying the House of Saud is best for Saudi Arabia.<span id='postcolor'> A govermental system is defacto not a determinal factor for economical strenth ,a govermental system of any kind ,like democracy for ex. may differ in it's effective form due to the situation of the Country it govern's.Indeed most country's live in poverty ,but not all country's have the economical wealth and potential that Saudi Arabia has.I am not against monarchy at all ,i am from the oppinion that changing any govermental system in any country can be quite dangerous ,as it can lead to civil war or destabilize the country greatly. I only make the point on the level of leadership ,the saudi arabian monarchy has done a very bad job.Instead of using the massive oil supply revenue's to build an economy for it's citizin and further strentghening the stabilety in their country ,they have used that wealth to hold party's and buy luxury ship's and more useless squandering of that kind.The social gap in saudi Arabia is just so big ,and with the potential of t's soil Saudi arabia could have been a modernized economy providing the majority of it's citizin with job's ,social benifit's ,education and the likes. But even today ,most high qualified industrial position's in Saudi Arabia are filled in by Foureigner's. I wouldn't critizise any leader for the govermental system he function's in ,but i tend to respect more those leader's that show compasion for it's citizin's ,give's them hope and direction's ,help's them to his full potential ,simple leader's that show leadership. See ,i'm from Belgium ,a constituate monarchy.And from all the monarch's Belgium has had i can show the better one's and the worser one's.Good old WWI hero King AlbertI being the best one ,Money squandering Zaire Colony exploiting king LeopoldII the most worse one.<span id='postcolor'> You have dome good points, Saudi Arabi isn't perfect, but I was saying that It may be the best of all alternatives at the moment. Bin Laden is a Saudi, and his main aim is the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Monarcy isn't perfect, but what stability it does bring I believe is vital to the relative calm in the Middle-East at the moment. You must forgive me however, I need the toilet, and paintings of the Queen don't digest well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
