how about make your own gore speech.
i created the internet!!!
i put it to my lips but did not inhail!!
Trop mortel!/sooo funny!
I’m making tremendous efforts controlling some recurrent wicked spams shaking me each time I think of that “BUUuuuuRRRp!”
Must look like a mad man, my mother thinks I’m crazy… wooooo! must stop laughing!
now i can make good old george (the one i dislike so much) say stupid things that are slightly more stupid than what he normaly says.
there arn’t many good words so this is the funniest i could come up with.
(i want to see funnier ones than mine which isn’t that funny)
and thanks for the great site (its against war which is great)
that’s pretty darn funny too.
That has to be the funniest thing i’ve seen in a long time
Look! its bush! and he’s saying what I want! How funny is that!
Actually, it is kinda scary when you put together some words and it sounds very familiar, like he’s already said it
I have to admit that is pretty damn funny.
ROTFLMFAO That is fricken funny.
Bush: Ladies and gentlemen, America stands commited to conflict side by side deceitful dictators and persistant poverty on a massive scale. Our principles defended further destruction so that raging disease destroyed human dignity, without peace in Afghanistan and beyond. Unlike Saddam Hussein my country is great. We’ve accomplished much wickedness including my own law of morality shared by all violent ambitions.
Man this is great. Just needs more space because that speach was a tight squeeze.
THAT WAS better than mine was
Haha, this is so much fun!
How about this one:
How can someone say “…the United States urgent duty to kill innocent lives…” while Al-Quaida is actively doing that, and enjoying it. To attack a target in a military operation is one thing, there is sometimes collateral damage, but to attack civilians with the INTENT to kill innocent men, woman, and children is TOO FAR. What exactly does the rest of the liberal world think should happen? should they get away with it? and a final question, would anybody else actually do anything about it? or just call the UN and file a complaint?
When and how did this leak?..
hehe, if you take this kind of thing seriously you’re just tooo boring! Now go make Bush say something really outrageous (and btw, bush said it, not me ;))
I’d love one of these with our own prime minister, that’d be even more fun.
why do you guys make fun of bush?
killing innocent lives in afganistan? hrm…people who make orders to drive commercial airliners into skyscrapers with the intent to kill thousands of innocent lives, are justifiably innocent themselves?
that is going to a new low.
Just because other people do stupid things or kill people, there’s nothing that doesn’t allow us to give our opinion to the bush administration.
He may not kill people throwing airplanes on buildings, but he harm people in other ways, like saying that the president elected mith more than 60 million votes is a terrorist like here in Brazil, say that loans to poor countries like Brazil, Argentian and Uruguay are send send to Switzerland (he may not have said this himself, but his gov. staff did all this), trying to say what the rest of the world has to do, and many other things.
Sorry if I offended anyone, it’s just my opinion. What people are trying to say is that he thinks he is more tan he really is. I really hope that my “terrorist” president makes a better job and leaves a nicer impression to the rst of the world
my American friend is currently back near his hometown for a couple of months and this is the attitude he comes across all to often: the “hey, why are you guys making fun of us?” idea. Well, i have a lot of respect for the American people, in the end we are all just the same, regardless of nationality. But let me just express why i think the Bush administration is not fit to run a country, let alone a ‘superpower’. I am not doing this to offend or insult, I am not ‘anti-American’, just fed up with Bush, and this post is just an answer to your question. So, now thats out the way, here goes…
After 9/11 much of the world, for possibly the first time, was pretty much united. America found allies in old enemies and we entered a time where it was finally possible to see that the ‘enemy’ was not any particular country or race or nationality. Instead, we were living in a world where conflicts existed between idealogically motivated groups, those with a grudge against society that percieved their enemy to be the West. It isn’t possible to categorise these people as ‘bad’, it is all to easy to jump to the immediate effects and forget the cause. These people, these terrorists, do what they do because they feel it is their only option, their voices are drowned out in a world where money rules and the average guy has no effect on the polotics that directly effect their lives. So they take up arms, bombs and the like to make themselves heard. This is not acceptable and can never be condoned. But to ignore their message is to leave the door open to others. I’ll come back to this.
Bush decided to attack Afganistan, a retiliation that was in most peoples eyes at least semi-justifiable. To remove the Taliban who so openly oppressed basic human rights and supported Al-Qeuda was a good thing, if war can ever be called good.
But then it all started to fall appart. Suddenly we are now told that Iraq is next on the list. Not by the UN, not by a collective aggreement between nations, but by Bush. And the question is why? Iraq has been defying weapons inspectors pratically since they arrived in the country (as if he was just going to let them walk in), the Kurds have been oppressed since the eighties and Saddam has openly defied the West for a long time. Now we see an administration that consists of many people who were involved in the Gulf War, not to mention Bush himself. They want to carry on where they left off, like some great game. And the attitude that seems to come out of Washington is ‘to hell with the rest of the world, we want to bust Saddams ass’. They have displayed a cold-war mentality, an agressiveness that has shocked most people. And, more importantly in my view, Bush has shown a complete disregard for the UN. In his speech before the UN he said Saddam has shown a complete disregard for the autority on the United Nations. That came from a man who himself announced that he would remove Saddam with or without the support of the UN! That basically means if the UN agrees then ok, if not then screw them. Well sorry, but i believe strongly that the only organisation on this planet that has the authority to make or break nations is the United Nations. If America is commited, as Bush states, of bringing democracy to the world perhaps he should start with himself. Perhaps he should respect the views of the rest of the UN and seek a diplomatic solution, or at least talk to the UN before announcing he wants to take out Iraq.
I am not actually against removing Saddam, in fact i think the majority of people would rather see the back of him and see him held accountable for his actions, but bullying the UN and the rest of the world into supporting military action, without even attempting to find a peaceful sollution, is just not acceptable. He is dragging us into war with no consultation, and his motives are questionable. He bangs on about bringing peace and democracy etc, etc but why start with Iraq? What about the many other countries where basic human rights are ignored? Iraq may have chemical and biological, and be trying to aquire, nuclear weapons but then there is NO proof he is actually going to use them. America has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but has the UN sent in weapons inspectors to disarm them? No, because everyone knows (i hope) that America wouldn’t be stupid enough to use them.
Mr. Blair recently presented a dossier of ‘evidence’ against Iraq, showing why we should take action. There was nothing in it that wasn’t already known and as the father of the house, Tam Dalyell, pointed out 'Saddam must know that if he ever uses a nuclear device he would be instantly “flattened.” and ‘After all, wasn’t it the MAD (mutually assured destruction) threat that was credited with keeping the peace for the best part of half a century during the cold war?’
Ok, Iraq is ‘bad’, but there are worse places that deserve more immediate attention.
But then, they don’t have massive oil fields, or unfinished business with his father. Sorry to be cynical but if no-one questions these people then they can get away with anything.
Now for Isreal and Palestine.
During the Clinton administration the situation looked like it was getting better. Now, Isreal has the excuse to ‘clamp down on terrorism’, allowing them military action against Palestine. No one seems to have realised that these terrorist attacks occur because of previous military action by Isreal when they invaded parts of Palestine. It is a viscious circle that will just go on and on while people like Bush are in power and believe that the only way to solve a problem is to reach for the guns. Time and again we hear Americans on the news saying things like ‘what have we done’ and ‘i don’t understand, what did we do?’. Well, you have done nothing, but your government has managed to actually give the ‘terrorists’ even more reason to hate the West. Many of the problems in the world are due to the mistakes of western governments, when the British empire collapsed a lot of holes were made, and rather than repair them, i’m sorry to say, we have simply left them open. Now Bush is expanding them.
You can shoot as many people as you like, but for every father you kill you create a son full of hate for the west.
And that is not a future i want to live in.
‘Even the sightless man feels the path beneath his feet, only the foolish are truly blind’
What do you do when diplomacy doesn’t work? Move on to more productive methods like Appeasement? The UN has failed to enforce the sanctions it imposed 11 years ago, and I think Bush was right to publicly challenge a body whose stated purpose was being rendered null and void by Saddam’s intransigence. If the UN is going to be effective it can’t just be a deliberative organ, it has to have the spine to enforce the mandates it issues. Otherwise, what’s the point? A bunch of diplomats eating expensive dinners, giving each other awards, and parking illegally in NYC isn’t going to prevent conflicts unless they move out of the invertebrate column.
You seem to be saying that defending ourselves against terrorists and dictators is a BAD thing because it might make them upset. Peace at any cost?
Ok, Iraq is ‘bad’, but there are worse places that deserve more immediate attention.
Examples? Be honest now, if the US turned its “immediate attention” to these other areas, wouldn’t you be complaining just as much. What about all the “terrorists” that would invariably be created by such an action?
A freezer is cold, but force must be used in order for it to be so.
Think about it.
There is no such thing as peace in this world. If it is peaceful, then somethings up. When the shooting stops, the fight isn’t over. They’re just reloading.
I just want to know why USA wants thr world to sign a document that their soldiers cannot answer for crimes they might do outside US. And why the few countries that didn’t sign this STUPID thing yet are seen by some people like evil.
Or why they want the Free Trade Zone for America ( don’t know the name in English) but they put verryyy high taxes on South American products, and they want to continue with this taxes, but the south american coutries can’t have high taxes against their products. And why the US gov thinks they are so important to say that or we accept the free trade zone or we’ll have to sell our products to Antarctica.
Why they think that if Iraq gets free of Saddan the US will rule Iraq.
These are just some of the problems