The War

[sq764]

What do you think of the state of the war in Iraq?

[bill]

kick up to top

[Lefty]

War is not a board game. Real people have given up their lives to keep America safe and the ideal that we can establish a democracy in the mifddle east. How can you say it's a disaster when we're breaking new ground here? We're fighting the terrorists on their turf, not ours, and that is to be desired.

[bill]

top

[Buckeye]

Well stated Lefty,
There is nothing simple about the struggle to protect Freedom.

[hcap]

Just voted for disaster, as everyone knew I would. I hope everyone on this board votes. Maybe ljb, Sec, and I and some others, are NOT the only ones.

Tom, Lefty and other lemmings-you may only vote ONCE. Jr, Pa--- no fancy computer
shennanigans.

:p :p

sq764 thank you.

[Lefty]

hcap, Yes, I knew you would because you don't know any better. I always vote only once because i'm not a Democrat.

[sq764]

I thought we would have more votes for 'shoulda gone, but better plan' rather than a disaster..

Also surpirsed that anyone thought we were right where we should be....

[Lefty]

All things considered, we're probably ahead of where we should be. In the midst of all the fighting we're building schools, hospitals, Iraquis keep opening businesses, we have vaccinnated children etc. War is not as simple as a board game and doesn't always go according to plan. Our brave troops and civilians too are to be congratulated.
Of course, not all media tells of our successes and dwell on the setbacks. Can you say biased?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
hcap, Yes, I knew you would because you don't know any better. I always vote only once because i'm not a Democrat.

Are you asking for a recount Lefty? btw..I only ever vote once. matter of fact I think its set up that way but we'd have to defer to PA on how these polls work.

[Lefty]

sec, no. Read hcaps post. He said I could only vote once. A snide remark that insinuated i might vote more than once. He also mentioned others along with me. Then he called us lemmings but it's you guys finding every link you can imagine to bolster your way of thinking. So who's the lemming? Hmmmmm?
I reminded him that I am not a Democrat.
Recounts are for you crybaby dems.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I have read your posts here and you are really confused. Or perhaps you are one of them fellows that Bush has drinking paint.
Also I see in today's news the gubement is telling us there is a good chance of another terroist attack on the good ol USA this summer. They also say they have no spefics,, does this mean Bush goes fishing or does he just get in a round of golf?

[Lefty]

lbj, I'm confused? I don't think so. THey may try, they may succeed, and that's why we need to stamp them out, isn't it? Do you think if Kerry was Pres the same facts about the terrorists wouldn't be in play? Except to take a shot at me, what's your point?

[kenwoodallpromos]

My answer depends on what day you ask.
LJB the LIB- I dislike libs because just like you, they think they know everybody's mind, and try to tell everybody how to act and what to think.
You are just paraniod and dictatorial in liberal clothing like Moore and the rest. The only thing liberal about you is your political egotism.

[hcap]

Lefty, I really was kidding about voting once. See the smilies? I am sure you can only vote once as Sec mentioned.

But so far the voting is rather suprising, wouldn't you say?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Well stated Lefty,
There is nothing simple about the struggle to protect Freedom.


Yep. Wars don't always go the way you want them to, that's why we actually fight them.
And when you are way too concerned about not hurint anyone's feelings or blasting the crap out of ammo dumps disguised as mosques, you tend to get bogged down.
C'mon, W, Git R Done!

[bill]

200+ views 27 votes typ apathy

[chickenhead]

My choice isn't listed:

I don't know if it's a good idea we went in.

I don't know how well we're doing.

I don't know how it will turn out.

There is ample evidence to support whatever you do think, left or right, right or wrong. I can't make heads or tails of any of it.

I don't think we'll know for about 10 years whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, whether it went well or poorly, and whether it achieved it's aim or not.

[Lefty]

Bill, not necessarily. I've visited this thread several times as more response came in, but only voted once.

[Boris]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
My answer depends on what day you ask.
LJB the LIB- I dislike libs because just like you, they think they know everybody's mind, and try to tell everybody how to act and what to think.
You are just paraniod and dictatorial in liberal clothing like Moore and the rest. The only thing liberal about you is your political egotism.


Ken

I've come to the realization that liberals are like laxatives. The only thing they do well is irritate the shit out of you.

[Lefty]

surprise? Not really. With the mainstream media focusing on bad news and getting their man Kerry elected, i'm not surprised at all. Too many expect the big job of disposing of Saddam and bringing Democracy to Iraq to be a breeze. War is tough, the unexpected always happens and brave men and women sacrifice their lives. What's been done is really nothing short of remarkable, in such a short time, but too many just don't realize it and the others act like they really don't want Bush to succeed in Iraq.

[bill]

lefty, you will not find a person that didnt
back bush 100% to go for osama in afganastan but he dropped the ball

and your rite he has suceeded in irag making a fool of himself 100 %

[Lefty]

Bill, no balls have been dropped. Bush is doing what nobody in history has done. He has not made a fool of himself but some foolish people think so and the Bush haters hope so. We got Saddam and before it's over we'll get Osama but others will rise to take his place. We are battling for our very existance and some want to play political games.

[tcat]

When the going gets tough I would prefer a good Christian man leading our country.

John Kerry and H Stern are not the answer for our country,

[bill]

billy graham too old

[chickenhead]

I'd vote for Michael Corleone, but he's not running. He was a good Christian leader.

[sq764]

I'd still take Schwartzkoff.. Brilliant man

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by tcat
When the going gets tough I would prefer a good Christian man leading our country.

John Kerry and H Stern are not the answer for our country,

you know...... I am not religious at all..........but I can't deny nodding my head when I read the above............

[kenwoodallpromos]

You had your chance. Pat Robertson is not running this time. I voted for him once in the primaries. And Pat Buchannon. And Pat Paulson.

[hcap]

Pat response Ken.

:p :p

[sq764]

A good Christian man to take us to war?

Oh yeah... I would feel safe with Jim Baker controlling my fate..

[bill]

just keeping the poll alive

[Secretariat]

What exactly is a good christian man?

Jerry Falwell or my local minister, because they are night and day different.

[ljb]

Lets see now,
If one invades another country and attempts to set up a puppet government based on their standards and values versus the standards and values the invaded country has and then one places young men and women in harms way and says "bring it on" and then one makes attempts to restrict the rights of those who have a different lifestyle then them and this same person's action result in millions of people not being able to afford health care while a few can get another yacht. Would these actions be from a good christian?
Just curious as to how you define a christian.

[Lefty]

sq, blve that Baker proved himsel NOT to be a good Christian.
lbj, where do I start with your nonsense? We are not forcing our lifestyle on anyone. It is not a puppet govt. you got those words from some stupid, hateful or both liberal you listen to.
We went to war primarily because Saddam broke 17 resolutions, shot at our planes and we went to stop him from creating yet another 9-11 situation? And he won't.
Bush is responsible for people not affording healthcare? That's so idiotic i'm shaking my head as I write this. About 85% of the people have healthcare. The ones that don't can always go to a county hospital. Your Socialist dream of having Universal Healthcare is not gonna happen. If it does, it will be a nightmare for this country. People will be waiting months and years for tests they get in a day or two now.
I just heard the economy growth rate doing better than expected, so your arguments are specious.

[Tom]

Go to Washington today and ask one of those 7 Iraqi's who just new hands to rep[lace those hacked off by a madman.
Then come see with your sick, smug little attitude. If you have any questions then, I will personally pay for your stay in the clinic.

The SH governement was not a legal one in that Sadamm mudered all his oppositon and literally stole the country. The UN, in its infinit cowardice and worthlessness, did nothing about it at the time. At the time, our main focus was on Iran, who was holding our people hostage. Again, the UN failed to act.

If you are going to be outraged over illegalites and cruelty in the world, at least start with ones that are real.

[ljb]

Most of what Lefty posted is right wing spin and I am short of time so I will just reply to one sentence We are not forcing our lifestyle on anyone. It is not a puppet govt.
If you believe that I have some WMDs in Iraq I would like to sell you.

[ljb]

Tom,
Hacking off a criminals hand has been an acceptable method of punishment in the mid-east. I am sure we can find some people that had their hands hacked off by the saudis if we search. Don't start with your whinning right wing rhetoric about how we are saving those poor souls from evil doers. We are just replacing one evil doer with an evil doer that may be nicer to the Bush gang and their oil interests.

[ljb]

Lefty said We went to war primarily because Saddam broke 17 resolutions,
I believe those were U.N. resolutions, did the U.N. decide to go to war ? Noper it was good ol dubya that decided to go it alone. Now that he has got us up to our ass in alligators he is begging the U.N. to bale us out. Just like when he was a young man and had his powerful daddy to bale him out of his misdeeds. For shame, for shame !

[Lefty]

No, the ineffective and corrup U.N. did not vote to go to war because France, Germany and Russia had their own agenda. The U.N. had their chance and the failed us and the world. Bush is still giving them a chance to help. You and your leftwing agenda act like Bush never went to the U.N. at all. He's asked them to help every step of the way. There is no whining from Bush to the U.N. or anyone else. Watch him speak, watch the opposition speak and it's very clear who the whiners are.
The ineffective can't do anything without a consensus.
Leaders lead.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
Hacking off a criminals hand has been an acceptable method of punishment in the mid-east. I am sure we can find some people that had their hands hacked off by the saudis if we search. Don't start with your whinning right wing rhetoric about how we are saving those poor souls from evil doers. We are just replacing one evil doer with an evil doer that may be nicer to the Bush gang and their oil interests.


What a POS you are.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
What a POS you are.

Tom........ perfect reply.............

this subject is a perfect example of "absolute right and wrong" the Libs fail to recognize this. They want to tolerate the "arab culture" and their customs and religion. This includes their "right" to want to kill us just because we are not aligned with their religion. The Libs can't believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs. They scream about the rights of women and their bodies. But they don't give a damn about the way women are treated in the middle east................ duplicity in its highest form.............

[Tom]

Ralph,
I think the problem these bozzos have is not that they care and are mis-guided, I think it is that they are flat out stupid.
They are drawn to Kerry's dumb look like flies to sh$t.

[cj]

So far, 21 - 19 in favor of going to war. Not necessarily happy with the results, but even after seeing them, a majority think going was the right decision.

[tcat]

I'm sure the Vets out htere, like myself, hate the thought of going to war. But if we have to, I'm glad that war is not in this country.
I vote to keep the fighting over there.

[lsbets]

ljb said,

"If you believe that I have some WMDs in Iraq I would like to sell you"

How convenient of you to ignore the facts. In the past month, there have been two seperate attacks on US forces using chemical wepaons. One with mustard gas, one with sarin gas. Sounds like WMDs are very present to me. I'm sure you will come back with something to the extent of "It was only 2 artillery rounds" or "They were old weapons". But that does not change the facts - they are here and they are being used. As you would say - get real.

[ljb]

From Tom's post
quote:Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
Hacking off a criminals hand has been an acceptable method of punishment in the mid-east. I am sure we can find some people that had their hands hacked off by the saudis if we search. Don't start with your whinning right wing rhetoric about how we are saving those poor souls from evil doers. We are just replacing one evil doer with an evil doer that may be nicer to the Bush gang and their oil interests.

Tom's reply

What a POS you are.

__________________
Name calling ---This is the type reply I would expect from Tom when the truth bites him in the arse again.

[ljb]

from lsbets
How convenient of you to ignore the facts. In the past month, there have been two seperate attacks on US forces using chemical wepaons. One with mustard gas, one with sarin gas. Sounds like WMDs are very present to me. I'm sure you will come back with something to the extent of "It was only 2 artillery rounds" or "They were old weapons". But that does not change the facts - they are here and they are being used. As you would say - get real.

Sorry lsbets, in this case i will defer to you a man in the action. If you believe the loss of hundreds of young americans and the expenditure of millions of dollars to find and old mustard gas container (this one was just residue) and an old sarin gas projectile was worthwhile then carry on my friend carry on.

[ljb]

From Jr
They want to tolerate the "arab culture" and their customs and religion.
Jr thank you for making my point.
The rightys on the other hand want to enforce our culture, customs and religion on them.

[Suff]

Missed my chance to vote. I see a bunch of rah rah cheerleading for a guy few know much about. GWB doesn't even attend weekely services. John Kerry is a practicing christian and has been visibly practicing his faith for 60 years. Yet people say GWB is the christian man? People just make stuff up.... they hear a few speechs. make a few false assumptions and start typing about Herry and stern. I see a whole bunch of personal and broad insults in this thread. Too bad.

MaYbe thats the way its done in other parts of America. In Boston, Here in the cradle of liberty. We believe in the American principle of honest discourse and debate. We respect opposite views. We encourage hard examination of our governing officials. We respect the right of free speech.

I think the Bush adminstration is incompetent, Corrupt and dangerous.

Before I am a democrat, I am an american. Nothing would please me more than a successful government under any party. Imho if you think we're anywher near successful under this group.. Your in denial.

And the vote should tell you alot what the lurkers out here believe.

[sq764]

Tcat, excellent point..

As horrible as it is to lose US troops over there, at least we are not suffering innocent casualties here on our own turf.

(Yes, I know US civilians have dies in Iraq, but they did choose to go over there, big difference)

[Lefty]

Suff, if John Kerry is a practicing Christian, then he needs more practice. His faith does not blve in abortion but he ignores that part of his religion. How convenient.
lbj, in no way are we forcing anything on the Iraquis, especially our religion. You really think we're going to make Iraq a Christan nation? You haven't got a clue have you and just write your tripe out of hate.
You better pay attention to what's going on here because the secularists are busily trying to eradicate all symbols of the Christian religion. If anyone needs FOX News, it is certainly you, LBJ. Then you might get some facts or as Connie Chung once said, "true facts"

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
Suff, if John Kerry is a practicing Christian, then he needs more practice. His faith does not blve in abortion but he ignores that part of his religion. How convenient.
"

Lefty...

Seperation of church and state buddy? Don't you know how important that was to our founders? The man lives his life and votes the constitution. Not his bible. I fear any leader that makes law from the bible or the pope or his Pastor. Thomas jefferson wrote 100 papers on why its important we have elected officialls who vote secular in interpreting the constitution. Why have a constitution? You want to throw it out and use the King James bible

Does'nt that even cause you to pause and think? How many of and how it important it was to our founders that we have a seperate Govt and Seperate church?

Kerry lives his christian life and votes his constitional obligation as an elected leader.

[Lefty]

Suff, helluva spin but how can you say you're a practicing anything and then adhere to only the rules you like. Your argument is off the point and bogus. He is a hypocrite pure and simple. So is Kennedy. Kerry has no constitutional mandate to blve abortion is ok. Lots of people in Congress do not.
He is either a good Catholic or not. It's Not.
I'm really sick of the specious argument liberals constantly make about separation of Church and State. That phrase simply does not exist in the Constitution. The founding fathers did not want the govt to force any one religion on the nation. Instead,the libs, trying to force freedom from religion upon us.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
from lsbets
How convenient of you to ignore the facts. In the past month, there have been two seperate attacks on US forces using chemical wepaons. One with mustard gas, one with sarin gas. Sounds like WMDs are very present to me. I'm sure you will come back with something to the extent of "It was only 2 artillery rounds" or "They were old weapons". But that does not change the facts - they are here and they are being used. As you would say - get real.

Sorry lsbets, in this case i will defer to you a man in the action. If you believe the loss of hundreds of young americans and the expenditure of millions of dollars to find and old mustard gas container (this one was just residue) and an old sarin gas projectile was worthwhile then carry on my friend carry on.

LJB,

I don't often correct you, but get your facts straight. Not millions of dollars, ....BILLIONS!!!!!

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
Suff, helluva spin but how can you say you're a practicing

I think my point is well written, simply understood, Common sense and supported by the constitution.

[Lefty]

You went around the point. A man is either a good Catholic or not and doesn't have a damn thing to do with the constitution. He is not a good Catholic. Can't be if he supports abortion. Kerry is a hypocrite.

[Tom]

If you can seperate the parts of your religioin that suit your needs, you have now of them left. Kerry is a total hippocite.
And freedom of religion is a far cry from speratin of church and state.

[Secretariat]

Apparently, we've been at this place in time over a century ago...

“I pray you to pause and consider. Against our traditions we are now entering upon an unjust and trivial war, a war against a helpless people, and for a base object -- robbery. At first our citizens spoke out against this thing, by an impulse natural to their training. To-day they have turned, and their voice is the other way. What caused the change? Merely a politician's trick -- a high-sounding phrase, a blood-stirring phrase which turned their uncritical heads: Our Country, right or wrong! An empty phrase, a silly phrase. It was shouted by every newspaper, it was thundered from the pulpit, the Superintendent of Public Instruction placarded it in every school-house in the land, the War Department inscribed it upon the flag. And every man who failed to shout it or who was silent, was proclaimed a traitor -- none but those others were patriots. To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, "Our Country, right or wrong," and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?

I would throw out the old maxim, "My country, right or wrong," etc., and instead I would say, "My country when she is right."

Mark Twain

[Lefty]

sec, Mark Twain was a great fiction writer, period.
And you spiderlibs can spin and spin, but this a rightious war of great importance to the world!

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
You went around the point. A man is either a good Catholic or not and doesn't have a damn thing to do with the constitution. He is not a good Catholic. Can't be if he supports abortion. Kerry is a hypocrite.

no one he's impregnated has had an abortion.

btw,,, how come I can't vote in this poll? Did it have a time deadline? and my vote. Right war. Wrong plan, wrong man,

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
You went around the point. A man is either a good Catholic or not and doesn't have a damn thing to do with the constitution. He is not a good Catholic. Can't be if he supports abortion. Kerry is a hypocrite.

so your comfortable with the following scenario.

Senator lieberman is elected president. He then commences to draft legislation that jesus christ is not the son of god. And any reference to such must be abolished.

thats what I see you saying. A man must vote his religion.

[Lefty]

The fact that no one he's impregnated has had an abortion is not the point. He supports abortion while a member of a religion that is opposed to it.
Liberman(under your analagy) would be forcing a religion(his)upon the nation. and that is clearly a no-no in the constitution and is totaly non-analgous to the argument at hand.
An analgous argument would be that Lieberman, as a Jew, believed That Christ was the Son of God, which he does not.
Nice spin but no cigar.
The fact is, you can't be a "bigwheel" in the DEM party without supporting abortion. So he chooses to ignore that tenet of his Church. That makes him a bigtime hypocrite.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, Mark Twain was a great fiction writer, period.
And you spiderlibs can spin and spin, but this a rightious war of great importance to the world!

Yeah, and tell me a leader who didn't think his war was a righteous war.

btw.. Twain may have been a fiction writer, but he wasn't a President who spun fictions to get us into a war.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
The fact that no one he's impregnated has had an abortion is not the point. He supports abortion while a member of a religion that is opposed to it.
.

He supports a womens right to detremine between her and her doctor what her reproductive health care needs are. As do I.

[Buckeye]

War is necessary sometimes, look it up.

[Buckeye]

didn't even vote in this stupid poll.
The correct answer was too obvious.

[cj]

Originally posted by Suff
He supports a womens right to detremine between her and her doctor what her reproductive health care needs are. As do I.

Then he should not proclaim to be Catholic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if he truly believes in that opinion, why still the Catholicism?

[Lefty]

Suff, the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex.
Of course rape is the exception to that. Roe Vs. Wade completely obliterates a man's rights to have his child born. Wasn't he also involved in the sex act?
If you are a Catholic then you are also a hypocrite like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Then he should not proclaim to be Catholic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if he truly believes in that opinion, why still the Catholicism?

Does the concept of seperation of church and state elude you guys? Or do you think its meaningless? Man o man. Can't you see what religion has done to the islamist regimes in the middle east. can't you see how vital it is to our basic values as americans that we check our religion at the door when we govern each other? Its baffling to me that you cannot comprehend that John kerry is personally against abortion. But defends the constitution of a womens right to dertermine her own reproductive health care.

What part about that do you struggle with? You think he is Bound by the POPE when he votes. jimeny christmas, You guys say that we must send kids to die to prtect our freedom... But your so unwilling to understand an opposite point of view about freedom. Your willingness to send kids to die for our constitution comes easier than your willingness to adhere to it. Everyone is not christian... many are aganostic or athiets or whatever..

Your christain? Your anti abortion... great. Live it, Teach it to your children, share your views with the ones you love and there you go. Its a free country. Coud you stop throwing Jesus Christ at everyone that disgrees with you on Constitutional and legal grounds. Why are you so anti-choice? Because you love america and you want the bets for it? Thats easy..to tell others what best for your world. Go read the constituion. Watch c-span instead of ESPN... take a few minutes to even understand what these kids are dying for....

Life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all!!!. No matter how differnt. Religously, morally, Spiritually...et al...

Mind your business about what other people do if it doesn't affect you. Just a thought.

[Lefty]

sec, once again you revert to that same tired argument that the Pres. lied about WMD's. If so, the just about every DEm did too, including Clinton, Albright, Kennedy and Kerry. A very tired and by now, nauseating argument with no merit.

[Buckeye]

Originally posted by Suff
He supports a womens right to detremine between her and her doctor what her reproductive health care needs are. As do I.
Wimp.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Wimp.

don't I wish.

[cj]

I was speaking as a Catholic. I don't want this guy to become a symbol for my religion (and he will be, like it or not) then vote for abortion. If he won't stand up for what he believes in, I don't want him to be my President. He can't have it both ways.

All that said, there are a lot more important things to worry about. Abortion will never go away, like it or not, even if it did somehow become illegal. Its a big waste of time and money to have it be an issue every stinking election. Its a battle that can never be won by Republicans. They need to let it go!

[sq764]

I should have made one choice:

E. Initially, I was for the war, but after seeing how it has turned out, I wish we would have never gone over

I wonder how many of the 19 voters for 'we should have never gone over', would have voted the same way on September 12th, 2001.

[Lefty]

separation of Church and State hasn't a thing to do with it. There are plenty in Congress that are against abortion but are abiding by the law of the land and the laws of their religion.
Kerry turns his back on his Religion's beliefs to be in the Dem party. If he wants to support abortion he should leave the Catholic Church. But like a true liberal, he wants it both ways.
What part of hypocrite do you fail to understand?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
I should have made one choice:

E. Initially, I was for the war, but after seeing how it has turned out, I wish we would have never gone over

I wonder how many of the 19 voters for 'we should have never gone over', would have voted the same way on September 12th, 2001.

Well, Sq, the thread is listed as about the Iraq war, and so on Sept. 12th, 2001, most of us were focused on who was behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks, and not bringing a democracy to Iraq (I guess that's the reason our country is fighting there now), so I think most of us would have been asking on Sept. 12th, why Iraq now, what did they have to do with 911? Shouldn't we be going after who was responsible for this rather than engaging in nation building?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
separation of Church and State hasn't a thing to do with it. There are plenty in Congress that are against abortion but are abiding by the law of the land and the laws of their religion.
Kerry turns his back on his Religion's beliefs to be in the Dem party. If he wants to support abortion he should leave the Catholic Church. But like a true liberal, he wants it both ways.
What part of hypocrite do you fail to understand?

Lefty, start a new thread on seperation of church and state, or Kerry, or abortion or whatever, but you keep drifting away from this thread on Iraq ... kind of like Bush in his hunt for those responsible for 911 in Iraq.

[Latin Qtr]

WMD = Weapons of Mass Distraction

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I was speaking as a Catholic. I don't want this guy to become a symbol for my religion (and he will be, like it or not) then vote for abortion. If he won't stand up for what he believes in, I don't want him to be my President. He can't have it both ways.

All that said, there are a lot more important things to worry about. Abortion will never go away, like it or not, even if it did somehow become illegal. Its a big waste of time and money to have it be an issue every stinking election. Its a battle that can never be won by Republicans. They need to let it go!

Probbaly right. Morning after pill and all,,, and many states mine included would perform abortions no matter what they do to Roe V wade. Its a very strong position here. I argue the point only as a gateway to argue constitutional rights. And more importantly as a bridge to make my arguement that the Constitution is a living document that must be applied to the matters of the day. I believ it is what seperates us from every other country on earth. and makes us the most advanced society in the history of mankind when it comes to individual and human rights.

I know that many if not most abortions are nothing more than Birth Control for irresponsible people. I know that. And the thought of abortion is jolting to my senses. But I fault both sides for that. If planned parenthood gave an inch.,, The radical right would swamp them.

But it still riles me up when people insist on using relgous grounds to make laws. Watch the news. Especially Fridays before Holidays. Thats when they drop the stuff. Like two fridays ago when they released the other abu graib photo's when congress started its memorial day break.. and this past friday when the disclosed that the abuse was sited in 4 additional prisons in iraq.

But the biggest thing that relly got me was the announcement on Friday from the FDA. The food and drug authority. Bush signed a new law. It went into affect Friday. No Gay person can donate Blood ,sperm or tissue any longer. True.. New Law. I'll look it up in a few minutes and post it...

I'm a person that stands for more rights for more people. And equal treatment for all... aND IT REALLY PISS'S ME OFF...

Did you see the big deal about the gay weddings here in my home state recently? We kept seeing the video of these two guys. Both in thier mid 50's. One black as coal... the other white and pudgy and bald. After the marriage was final they went into this big long french kiss and it was jolting to watch. Freaky. I don't understand it.. Its' disgusting to me. But so what? Its not me. Its them. I live in a big city. We have many gay neighborhoods. They are good honest people, who contribuyte alot in everyway. They are different from me. again so what?
They deserve equal treatment. And they have earned it. They buy homes, They pay tax's, they are lawyers and doctors and congessman and senators and Marines and Sailors. I say equal rights for them.

How can this president let his relgous views make phariahs out of them with this law?

If you say two lesbians are that way because they choose to be that way... and thats a choice... Then so is religion.. Could I make a law that no baptist or pentacostal can donate life saving tissue?

I realize that I take alot of polar positions than the frequent posters... unpopular positions out here. But I try and listen and I try and respect everyone. And I am very dispointed that this admistration would go back to

White only
No catholics
Irish need not apply
No women allowed.
No gays allowed.

Its wrong, its decisive.

All my rights, all the time, all the rights for all the people.

[Buckeye]

Everything for Everybody! Does this about cover it?

[Suff]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Everything for Everybody! Does this about cover it?

Are you a kucklehead? You see where it says "Rights" Rights for all.

We have a constitution. I support it.

I have a well thought out position on abortion. I typed it up. You called me a name. A wimp. Thats funny to me. And now your getting silly when you twist my support of our constitution too an immoral or irresponsible "everything for everybody".

Believe me. I've been many places with many guys on this board....and I'll be with many again at saratoga in a couple of months.... Almost to a man, each and everyone show me a great deal of respect on the board. So there you go. Call me names, twist my words.... do whatever the hell makes you feel good.

[cj]

Suff,

Some probably don't know, so I'll start by saying we are friends. So, call this brown nosing if you want, but I love your posts.

We don't always agree on things, but at least you post what you think and why you think it. I get more from your posts than those of ljb, hcap, and sec combined. I get so tired of the mindless quotes and links to other people's thoughts. It's like we have our own liberal search engine, want it or not!

Good to see you active again!

[Suff]

and one more little diddy about the destruction of our civil Liberties by this administration.


Any man who gives up an ounce of Freedom for an ounce of protection.... Deserves Niether!

Benjamin Franklin.





I need not give one inch to GWB and his patriot act or his war on terror excuse to rip my constitution apart. Give me freedom or give me death!

[Buckeye]

If we don't win this war on terror.

[so.cal.fan]

It's interesting, our poll here on PA is probably very close to the national poll?

[Suff]

Originally posted by Buckeye
If we don't win this war on terror.

agreed.... But if the guy next door breaks down your door. Do you go down the street and kick in someone elses?

The seeds are in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Chechnia, Sudan, even egypt,,,

I think, and I could be wrong because I'm just an idiot sitting at my computer. Rumsfeld et al... Figured the place to get a hold of the Middle East was Iraq. Easiest Victory, a staging point for western thought into the middle east, Liberating people etc etc....and I feel they were wrong , and they severley mismanged calculated.

You want to talk free'ing people? North Korea has to be at the top of the list.. You want to talk Threat to us by terrorism? The lets talk Pakistan and Syrai and Saudi Arabia?
You want to talk "FIGHTING for our RIGHT To EXIST?" Then its time to bring up the N word. Nuclear strikes.

If a guy broke into your house and you were convinced he was there to kill you and all you love... and lets say you had a bat and a gun. What would you use? I'd shoot the bastard without thought. OK... Then if your convinced that Terrorism is a huge threat to us,,, a life or death issue to our country. Its time to talk Nuclear strikes on Triploli, Riyhad, Youngphan. Lets end this? No?

They figured , Saddams a tyrant, 17 resolutions, blah blah blah. It had NOTHING or VERY LITTLE to do with 9-11-01, or the USS Cole, Or our two embassy in Africa. NOTHING... Yet 95% of terrorism efforts are there.. AND THEY BLEW IT

They made enemies of long standing allies
They miscalculated just about everything from our recpetion to troop levels
The supported bad policy.

(i for one strongly disagrred with them showing Saddmas two sons on TV when they were Dead) Uday had his head blown off , he was dead... we are not supposed to use dead bodies on TV or photgrapgs,, Its wrong,, they did that a year ago. Its a violation of our principles,, and thet blew smoke up our ass that the IRAQI people have to see they are dead. So bullcrap.. Just bad decsions front to back...

Wrong war, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man.

My view

[Suff]

and the biggets threat to us is pakistan in my mind. Nuclear capabilties while at the same time Mubharak doesn't control the entire country. We saw that in Northern Afghanistan/Pakistan border with that "High value Target" a few months back...

when the pakistan army refused to fight the tribes in the south that are NOt under govt control. So theres a country with NUKE capbilities and they don't have entire control over thier land or military... HUGE THREAT!!

Plus,.. You see the news yesterday? They tested Nuke capable missles JUST YESTERDAY... and announced it was a symbol to thier enemys. Google it... Its there...

Saddam Hussien? A gangsta with a few oil wells. Meanwhile they are bullshitting us everywhere else. You want a war? Take the war to the enemy...

[Buckeye]

Suff,
Thank you.
The enemy will reveal himself and be dealt with.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Suff
and the biggets threat to us is pakistan in my mind. Nuclear capabilties while at the same time Mubharak doesn't control the entire country. We saw that in Northern Afghanistan/Pakistan border with that "High value Target" a few months back...

when the pakistan army refused to fight the tribes in the south that are NOt under govt control. So theres a country with NUKE capbilities and they don't have entire control over thier land or military... HUGE THREAT!!

Plus,.. You see the news yesterday? They tested Nuke capable missles JUST YESTERDAY... and announced it was a symbol to thier enemys. Google it... Its there...

Saddam Hussien? A gangsta with a few oil wells. Meanwhile they are bullshitting us everywhere else. You want a war? Take the war to the enemy...

So, are you saying that if Bush says tomorrow that we are going to invade Pakistan , you are all for it?

[Suff]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Suff,
Thank you.
The enemy will reveal himself and be delt with.

Buckeye

Quite honestly... I read everything I can get my hands on... I read the NY Times, I watch C-span endlessly, I check in on many many WW sites with all sorts of varying opinions and information.

I'm overwhelmed. I just can't get a grapple on the truth. In my gut I sense wrong direction. But again. I don't have the secret intelligence... I don't have all the facts...

I think I work harder than most to understand my country and my role in it. But honestly.... at this point. I'm scared for the world. I went to church yesterday and I prayed. I prayed hard. Today I went to a memorial day parade service. My Nephew is a drummer in the band, I had three nieces in the parade. I went up with them to a cemetery that was built in 1670. I listened to the tributes, I read gravestones of our warriors....Revolutionary war , Civil war, Korean and world war veterans. I choked up hard when the ban played Stars and stripes forever. I stood humbly when a trumpter played taps far off on the top of the hill. I love my country.. I love my freedoms...

I love all of mankind....and I just don't know right now... But I'm trying.

[Buckeye]

Thanks again.

[Suff]

Originally posted by schweitz
So, are you saying that if Bush says tomorrow that we are going to invade Pakistan , you are all for it?

I read this post after my last. and as you can see, I'm grappling with my thoughts...

but to give you an answer that I could live with...

I think its time NATO invaded the entire middle east and Norther africa. Yes. but we must have 100% Nato Countrys.

[schweitz]

[i]Originally posted by Suff [/i

I think its time NATO invaded the entire middle east and Norther africa. Yes. but we must have 100% Nato Countrys. [/B]

Never happen.

[Suff]

Originally posted by schweitz
Never happen.

I knew that when I typed it... it was sort of a non-answer....

I'm not suer what to do actually. I know this much. Pakistan scares me. The fact they have acknowleged selling nuclear technology (mubarak pardoned the scientist)... leaves me with one commmon sense assumption...

If they'd sell the secrets to N Korea and who knows else.. You GOTTA FIGURE they'd work with they're fundementalist brothers in thier own backyard... You have to ASSUME THIS!

Therefore.... Radical Fundementalists in Southern Pakistan (where Bin laden is reported to be) Have a Nuke of some sort...

and another.... Notice a word that has shown up in Bush's last two speechs.... "BLACKMAIL"....

Something tells me that we are being or attempted to be blackmailed right now...

Get out of Iraq or NYC is dust..
Get out of Saudia Arabia or LA is radiated

I'm reading between the lines... but check out the recent speechs from the High levels... Thye are using the term Black mail more and more....

[ljb]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, in no way are we forcing anything on the Iraquis,
I would refer you to this just in..
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040531/ts_nm/iraq_dc
Sorry Lefty but faux news only shows one side of every story. Widen your horizons a bit and see the TRUTH so it doesn't always bite you in the arse. :D

[cj]

Like I said earlier, see above post.

Another example of the liberal search engine in action! Have anything independent and original?

[ljb]

Got this from Secretariats post
btw.. Twain may have been a fiction writer, but he wasn't a President who spun fictions to get us into a war.
and it reminded me of a bumper sticker i saw recently. Sticker said
"When Clinton lied no one died."
sort of makes the point in a nutshell don't you all think?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Suff
I knew that when I typed it... it was sort of a non-answer....

I'm not suer what to do actually. I know this much. Pakistan scares me. The fact they have acknowleged selling nuclear technology (mubarak pardoned the scientist)... leaves me with one commmon sense assumption...

If they'd sell the secrets to N Korea and who knows else.. You GOTTA FIGURE they'd work with they're fundementalist brothers in thier own backyard... You have to ASSUME THIS!

Therefore.... Radical Fundementalists in Southern Pakistan (where Bin laden is reported to be) Have a Nuke of some sort...

and another.... Notice a word that has shown up in Bush's last two speechs.... "BLACKMAIL"....

Something tells me that we are being or attempted to be blackmailed right now...

Get out of Iraq or NYC is dust..
Get out of Saudia Arabia or LA is radiated

I'm reading between the lines... but check out the recent speechs from the High levels... Thye are using the term Black mail more and more....

Pakistan and a lot of other places scare me but in my opinion backing down to terrorists is the wrong thing to do.

By the way, anybody notice that Al Queda has attacked Saudi Arabia---I think it was sec or maybe ljb that said because most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi that they were backing Al Queda.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
Pakistan and a lot of other places scare me but in my opinion backing down to terrorists is the wrong thing to do.

By the way, anybody notice that Al Queda has attacked Saudi Arabia---I think it was sec or maybe ljb that said because most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi that they were backing Al Queda.

Schweitz,

Fact. Almost everyone of the 911 terrorists were Saudis...look it up. Call John Ashcroft if you don't believe me.

Has it ever occurred to you Schweitz, that the biggest oil producer in the world is Saudi Arabia, and that those oil fields make real nice targets and destroyng those fields would help pump up the price of gas to americans and to the west?

Saudi Arabia is a torn country between the haves and have nots. The royalty (not democratically elected mind you) control the wealth of Saudi Arabia, not the people. The Saudi people probably watch and beleive more of what they see on al Jazhera than the words of the Saudi leaders. And besides the 911 Saudi terrorists were in fact Saudis AND Wahhabi "fundamentalists".

"In the 1920s, the Wahhabi movement split and the somewhat less extremist elements of this movement defeated the yet more extreme of them. The Taliban regime is a rough approximation of what the more extreme group would have created in Saudi Arabia. Its funding and support comes in good part from Saudi Arabia. In other words, there is a direct line between the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden." (Daniel Pipes)

In other words Al Quada has no loyalty to the Saudi monarchy despite being Saudi citizens, but adhere to the tenets of Wahhabi and it's fundamentalist view of Islam so why should it surprise you that Al quada would attack the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

[Suff]

Originally posted by schweitz


By the way, anybody notice that Al Queda has attacked Saudi Arabia---I think it was sec or maybe ljb that said because most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi that they were backing Al Queda.

Confusing fact came out of this event.

#1. .. You see any terrorists?

#2 .. 22 people died. Foriegners and christians

#3 ..4 terrorists... One killed... 3 got away! Huh ? what?

Were'nt they holed up in a building? How do 3 of 4 get loose and on the lamb? How does the only one they got end up dead and quiet? Did you see any video of gunfire? Or anything to substaniant the attack? All I saw was a couple of burned up and shot up cars....

The fact that 3 of 4 got away is comical. Makes my cynical bell go off. Please explain how you storm a building.. Have it surrounded... its in a private compound to begin with... so how do 3/4's of the group walk? Someone splain that to me...

[Suff]

Originally posted by Suff
Confusing fact came out of this event.



#3 ..4 terrorists... One killed... 3 got away! Huh ? what?

.

Fox news

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia — Saudi authorities hunted Monday for three suspected Al Qaeda (search) militants who used hostages as human shields to escape after a weekend assault on a residential complex that killed 22 people, mostly foreign oil industry workers.



The attackers fled Khobar (search) to nearby Dammam, where they abandoned their truck for a car commandeered at gunpoint from an unidentified driver and drove off with police in pursuit, a police official said Monday.

This is the Military they escaped from. Not barney fife and andy griffith. makes absolutely no sense.

[Suff]

Things heated up there today as well....

16 dead, 40 wounded....

This is an epicenter of terror

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121353,00.html

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Schweitz,

Fact. Almost everyone of the 911 terrorists were Saudis...look it up. Call John Ashcroft if you don't believe me.

Has it ever occurred to you Schweitz, that the biggest oil producer in the world is Saudi Arabia, and that those oil fields make real nice targets and destroyng those fields would help pump up the price of gas to americans and to the west?

Saudi Arabia is a torn country between the haves and have nots. The royalty (not democratically elected mind you) control the wealth of Saudi Arabia, not the people. The Saudi people probably watch and beleive more of what they see on al Jazhera than the words of the Saudi leaders. And besides the 911 Saudi terrorists were in fact Saudis AND Wahhabi "fundamentalists".

"In the 1920s, the Wahhabi movement split and the somewhat less extremist elements of this movement defeated the yet more extreme of them. The Taliban regime is a rough approximation of what the more extreme group would have created in Saudi Arabia. Its funding and support comes in good part from Saudi Arabia. In other words, there is a direct line between the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden." (Daniel Pipes)

In other words Al Quada has no loyalty to the Saudi monarchy despite being Saudi citizens, but adhere to the tenets of Wahhabi and it's fundamentalist view of Islam so why should it surprise you that Al quada would attack the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

Wasn't disputing that they were mostly Saudi's---just pointing out that either you or ljb said we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq because of it--found it comical then and now.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Suff
Things heated up there today as well....

16 dead, 40 wounded....

This is an epicenter of terror

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121353,00.html

I guess this will offend some---but you have to really wonder about the
Muslim religion--a religion that can support a set of beliefs that allow the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Allah.

[ljb]

cj said
Another example of the liberal search engine in action! Have anything independent and original?

cj, no search involved here. Yahoo is my home page and this link was on the front page. I suppose you are going to call yahoo one of them liberal rags. You may want to try getting information from other locations also. You will be suprised at how much it will broaden your outlook on the world.
I just used the link to emphasize my contention that the Bush gang is trying to force Iraq into a government/culture/religion that they do not want. This used to be called colonialism, i believe. This type of activity went out of style years ago.
Get with the times cj

[Lefty]

sec, please don't presume to tell me what to do. I don't think I was the first that drited, but so what?
Now suff wants to talk about gays and lesbians.
Suff, John Kerry doesn't support gay weddings either.
Suff you have just gone bonkers: White only, no Catholics, No Irish, No women no gays? What the hell leads you to believe this adm supports that? Nothing that's what. Take a look, this adm has more minorites in high positions than the prev.
Nobody in the dem party that supports abortion or is against affirmative action gets anywhere. Not so in this one.
I think you have just gone over the edge.

[Lefty]

You libs keep saying there's no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda but who the hell are fighting now in Iraq? Al Qaeda, hmmm. Saddam gave money to suicide bombers' families. The guy who cut off Nick Bergs head was supposed to be second in command to old Bin Ladin. He's been in Baghdad a long long time. You guys have nothing but hate and deny the facts when they keep smiting your face.
We've cght a lot of Al Qaeda in this country as a direct result of The Patriot act and the Patriot act is not permanent and must be renewed by Congress to stay in effect.
Reading what you write I find it hard to believe you even want us to succeed in Iraq.
Kerry is a hypocrite and that's a fact.

[Tom]

Colonialism?
I thought "mushroom" went out in the 60's????
With a stretch like that, you must be 9 feet tall!

[JustRalph]

First of all there are lots of good points in this thread. It is a perfect example of the complexity of these issues.

someone (Suff?) said "we don't have all the info" and I agree with that.....but I can tell you that some things get out.

Many are talking about how most of the insurgents are coming in from Iran. There is talk of a network being setup by Iranians inside Iraq. I am told that Usama Bin Ladin is in Iran. There is supposedly a picture of him being circulated in Intelligence circles that shows him in Iran two weeks ago. With that being said.....do we go to Iran next? Anybody think this throws a real monkey wrench into the mix?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
I guess this will offend some---but you have to really wonder about the
Muslim religion--a religion that can support a set of beliefs that allow the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Allah.

This statement shows you are totally ignorant on the Muslim religion. Just as in Christianity there are various beliefs and sects. Lumping the Muslim religion as one is absurd. You should know by now that the Sunnis and Shiites have different beleifs than Bin Ladens group. This type of black and white viewpoint is what got us in this mess. Wake up, the Muslim world is not full of all terrorists.

I read these posts, and one minute we're supposedly working for a democracy for the Iraqi people to allow them self determination, with a constitution by the way which makes Islam the national religion, and then you post somehing as simplistic as this about the Muslim religion in general. I think both LJB and myself know who the comic is.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, please don't presume to tell me what to do.

Lefty, I would never "presume" to tell you what to do. I suggested that the person who started the thread wanted to talk about The War in Iraq and you are now talking about Kerry and abortion.

I sympathize actually. I certainly can understand why you wouldn't want to stay on thread and talk about the war on Iraq.

[cj]

Originally posted by ljb
cj said
Another example of the liberal search engine in action! Have anything independent and original?

cj, no search involved here. Yahoo is my home page and this link was on the front page. I suppose you are going to call yahoo one of them liberal rags. You may want to try getting information from other locations also. You will be suprised at how much it will broaden your outlook on the world.
I just used the link to emphasize my contention that the Bush gang is trying to force Iraq into a government/culture/religion that they do not want. This used to be called colonialism, i believe. This type of activity went out of style years ago.
Get with the times cj

I read plenty, from plenty different sources. That is precisely why I get tired of coming here to find nothing but links to other stories. I read Fox, CNN, MSNBC, among others several times daily. Its just a waste of time to keep posting the never ending articles and links. All I was saying was give your own opinions and thoughts sometimes, I've already read the stuff you post most times.

I wasn't saying you used a search engine, just that you were providing that service to us whether we wanted it or not.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
This statement shows you are totally ignorant on the Muslim religion. Just as in Christianity there are various beliefs and sects. Lumping the Muslim religion as one is absurd. You should know by now that the Sunnis and Shiites have different beleifs than Bin Ladens group. This type of black and white viewpoint is what got us in this mess. Wake up, the Muslim world is not full of all terrorists.

I read these posts, and one minute we're supposedly working for a democracy for the Iraqi people to allow them self determination, with a constitution by the way which makes Islam the national religion, and then you post somehing as simplistic as this about the Muslim religion in general. I think both LJB and myself know who the comic is.


They may have differing beliefs, but from they are demonstarting that they have similar goals. Which puts them in the same cross hairs, IMHO.
Let allah sort it out.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I read plenty, from plenty different sources. That is precisely why I get tired of coming here to find nothing but links to other stories. I read Fox, CNN, MSNBC, among others several times daily. Its just a waste of time to keep posting the never ending articles and links. All I was saying was give your own opinions and thoughts sometimes, I've already read the stuff you post most times.

I wasn't saying you used a search engine, just that you were providing that service to us whether we wanted it or not.

CJ,

When one gives one's thought here it is always the same. Prove it. Where's your proof? I used to just post my opinions and the response was hogwash, back it up. So I do now. If it bothers you reading my post, ignore the link. I try to put links down so they don't take up as much space, but sometimes the information is from a magazine I have or a hard copy of the newspaper. Actually, I like the links of others, and have learned a lot from them.

If you don't want to read the stuff, just click ignore on me and you'll never see one of my links..

[Lefty]

sec, don't think I was the first to drift. And you certainly should know I have had no prob. talking about the war in Iraq. You accuse schweitz of being simplistic but you libs use the most simplistic arguments to decry Bush and this war in Iraq. O, oh, it's tough over there, let's quit. It's a disaster, let's quit. But talk to the soldiers that are there and have been there and they tell of the wonderful things we are accomplishing there and fighting terrorism at the same time. Yeah, simplistic. It's a complex war and we've been there, what, year and a half? Yeah, Bush shoulda won the war, restored Iraq, and brght back the sliding economy that 9-11 wrought and damn, he shoulda done it in 6 months. What the hell's taking so long. Yes, i've seen simplistic on this board and it's not coming from shweitz.
You want to decry schweitz for saying something about the Muslim religion but top notch dems, Kennedy and other idiots, are ready to compare this adm with Saddam's and a few bad apple soldiers with the whole bunchof brave guys and gals of 165,000 or more.
Yeah, i've seen simplistic.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Bush's idiotic invasion of Iraq is probably the worst of the many bad decisions made by this administration. Giving up on Osama was another bad decision. Telling the world to go to hell was another bad decision. Seeking a constitutional amendment to deprive certain segments of society of their rights was another bad decision. Should I go on?
cj, Yes that is also why I post links. Prior to that the rightys just claimed i was making these things up. (probably thought it wasn't true cause Rush hadn't said so.)

[PaceAdvantage]

Believe it or not, I never listen to Rush's show. Talk radio bores me most times....

[Lefty]

lbj, that's your opinion and the opinion of the left who are politicizing this war for their own gain. Any President that goes to war risks his Presidency and when the time is right it takes a man of courage and conviction to go to war. We have such a man. He has never veered from his course since 9-11.
If history shows that this was a great move and maybe one of the most courageous decisions ever made I expect to find you libs still grumbling, but you are of no consequence, saving this nation and maybe even the world is the goal.
Bush has not given up on Osama and we'll prob. get him one day.
When we were attacked by Japan where did we go first? It wasn't Japan.
The Patriot act has
resulted in many Al Qaeda cells being arrested.
But it will go to Congress for renewel and it will get bi-partisan support. If it doesn't it will be defeated. Such is democracy.
Sad truth Bush could win the war tomorrow, arrest bin ladin and serve cake and icecream to every person in the country and you'd complain you got vanilla instead of chocolate.

[delayjf]

WAKE UP, IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Even if they did support the war in Iraq, it would still be only the US and Britain doing the fighting.

This is an excellent point worth ruminating on for a while.

[sq764]

ljb, you think Bush gave up on Osama, or did Clinton give up on him (or more accurately, did Clinton ignore the chance to take him seriously?)

[Lefty]

btw, lbj, it was Clinton that gave up Osama, 3times. A bad decision, but guess he had more important people to do.
Wow, while I was writing this, Sq slid under me with the same thght, almost.

[cj]

I can't stand listening to Rush. His show comes on AFN. I usually can't stand more than five minutes of it. He is as far to one side as you guys are to the other, completely unreasonable in my opinion. I'm in the middle, maybe slightly towards the conservative side, but it doesn't mean I listen to him. I do listen to NPR, about as liberal as it gets. Doesn't make me a lib either though.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
[B]This statement shows you are totally ignorant on the Muslim religion. Just as in Christianity there are various beliefs and sects. Lumping the Muslim religion as one is absurd. You should know by now that the Sunnis and Shiites have different beleifs than Bin Ladens group. This type of black and white viewpoint is what got us in this mess. Wake up, the Muslim world is not full of all terrorists.


First of all, I never said all Muslims were the same.
Let me ask you this:

Where were the outraged Muslims when 19 Muslims blew up Pan Am Flight 103?
---when Muslims bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing 241 Americans in 1983?
---when Muslims blew up the World Trade Center?
---when Muslims continue to slaughter Sudanese Christians?
---when Muslims bombed the USS Cole?
---when Muslims bombed the American embassies in Africa killing 231 people?
---when Muslims engineered the "Black September" terror attack during the Munich Olympics, which killed 11 Israeli athletes and a US citizen?
---when Abu Abbas threw the wheel-chair bound Leon Klinghoffer overboard on the Achille Lauro?
---when the Taliban blew up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?
---when simultaneous blasts rocked two of downtown Istanbul's synagogues killing 15 and wounding 140?
---when Palestinians handed out candies celebrating the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9-11-01?
---when Jemaah Islamiyah suicide bombers killed 12 people and injured 150 in Jakarta, Indonesia?
---when bomb attacks in Morocco killed 28 people and injured more than 100?
---when nearly 200 people, including 7 Americans, were killed in bombings in a nightclub in Bali?

I would like to see a little more outrage from the "other" Muslims---how about you?

[ljb]

From sq
ljb, you think Bush gave up on Osama, or did Clinton give up on him (or more accurately, did Clinton ignore the chance to take him seriously?)

Well what do you think? We had Osama on the run in Afghanistan and then all of a sudden Iraq becomes the focus point. No one can say why but we lost focus on the terroists and went after some imaginary threats in Iraq. Clinton is not running for President, the mistakes he made are in the past and under current conditions he can do no more harm to us. Bush on the other hand, is still a threat to us.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
Sad truth Bush could win the war tomorrow, arrest bin ladin and serve cake and icecream to every person in the country and you'd complain you got vanilla instead of chocolate.

You are right for once Lefty, you see Bush has screwed up in more ways then just the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. But I am just a comman man and expect to get no cake or ice cream from Bush, he has already given most of the cake and ice cream to Kenny boy and the rest of his pioneers. (which, by the way, your children will be paying for)

[Lefty]

lbj, liberals with skewed and short and distorted memories. What Clinton did as Pres doesn't count? Might not have been a 9-11 if Clinton had acted like a man instead of a sex crazed teen. N. Korea wouldn't be the nuclear power that it is and wouldn't have any nuke technology to peddle.
My children will pay? Hardly. Not if we keep electing Republicans. Remember the derficits that the libs pinned on Reagan? Well when we got the 94 Repub congress we slimmed them dn. Can do again. Memories, so short...
Kerry a Pioneer? Ha, ha. A man who sings a diff tune every day and to every group. Also an admitted war criminal, an a Catholic who decides himselfwhat part of his religion is to be followed.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Well what do you think? We had Osama on the run in Afghanistan and then all of a sudden Iraq becomes the focus point. No one can say why but we lost focus on the terroists and went after some imaginary threats in Iraq. Clinton is not running for President, the mistakes he made are in the past and under current conditions he can do no more harm to us. Bush on the other hand, is still a threat to us. [/B]

If you knew what you werre talking about you would know that we have dedicated forces hunting down that slime-dog right now. Full time. You can only do so much in that terrain. Remember that little pig hole Sadamm was hiding in? You think you're gonna find those very easily?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Bush's idiotic invasion of Iraq is probably the worst of the many bad decisions made by this administration. Giving up on Osama was another bad decision. Telling the world to go to hell was another bad decision. Seeking a constitutional amendment to deprive certain segments of society of their rights was another bad decision.

I was going to list why I like Bush........thanks for taking care of that for me..............

[PaceAdvantage]

Uh oh. Looks like I screwed up when I replied to delayjf post. Instead of hitting the QUOTE button, I mistakenly hit the EDIT button and didn't catch that I was EDITING his post, instead of replying to the post. Thus, I cut off a lot of what he said.....

If he could repost, that would be great.....SORRY about that! That's the first time that's ever happened, to my knowledge!!

:o :o :o :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Suff]

Please... get a hold of Bob Novak's Editorial in the Ny post today.

I looked on thier WWW site and could'nt find it. www.nypost.com

I bought the paper edition and its in there. Might be on thier site somewhere. If anyone can find it on the WWW please post the link for the guys in this thread to read.

PA.. read Todays Novak please! If your at all able.

And comment.


Remember.. Novak is Karl Rove's Boy

[shots]

Originally posted by Suff
Please... get a hold of Bob Novak's Editorial in the Ny post today.

I looked on thier WWW site and could'nt find it. www.nypost.com

I bought the paper edition and its in there. Might be on thier site somewhere. If anyone can find it on the WWW please post the link for the guys in this thread to read.

PA.. read Todays Novak please! If your at all able.

And comment.


Remember.. Novak is Karl Rove's Boy

www.suntimes.com/index/novak.html

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, I read it. From the sound of the article, things over there are pretty stagnant. I'm not really clear on the lesson I should be taking away from this article. I will say that nothing written in the article surprises me too much.

[Lefty]

I can't blve he mispelled spectre. He spelled it specter. Tch, tch. What's journalism coming to?

[JustRalph]

There are 30k troops in S.Korea that feel the same way. And they have been there 50 years. Much of what our troops do is boring and stagnant...........been there done that..........

[cj]

Did they mention they are being paid a fortune to be bored?

I'm not saying its any fun to be in a strange place away from your family, been there, done that. But in any unit, you can find a few who will tell you what you want to here. If some other reporter goes there and wants to write an article about how much the troops like the job and are proud of what they are doing, he would find no shortage of quotes.

[JustRalph]

CJ........ you know the type........their last base was great and their next assignment is going to be awesome.........but this one sucks!

[cj]

There are people bitching here at SHAPE. Crazy really. The funny thing is, most don't even really mean it, it just gives them something to talk about. Hell, I've done it myself!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Believe it or not, I never listen to Rush's show. Talk radio bores me most times....

PA, finally...something we both agree on. I can't stand Talk Radio either. Whether it is Rush or Air America. Both are horrible.

[so.cal.fan]

PA and SEC......

I concur! Everyone complains about cable news, but it is far more FAIR AND BALANCED than radio.

From PBS to FOX NEWS........far more fair and balanced.

[Lefty]

Blve it or not, I always listen to Rush. Been doing it ever since the Clarence Thomas confirmation. He was a pioneer and provided a needed balance to all the liberal media I was being saturated with. Rush and his ilk have never claimed to be fair and balanced as he is a rightwing news analyst. But he has always been truthful and that's more than I can say about a lot of the leftwing.
The sad thing is, the newsmedia is SUPPOSED to be fair and balanced and except for Fox News the tilt to the left is unbearable.

[so.cal.fan]

I don't think the cable news shows are that biased, Lefty.
MSNBC has several right/left/middle views.
They have a variety of guests with different views.
So does Fox, CNN and even PBS.
Fox is more conservative than the others, overall
PBS is more liberal
MSNBC and CNN are pretty balanced, in my opinion.

I don't like hearing just one view. I'll listen to Bill O'Reilly or Joe Scarborough and hear their take on events. I also like to listen to Bill Moyers.
I also like Chris Matthews.....he asks brutal questions of all sides.
He told off Phil Donahue for being too much of a left wing extremist. I heard the show.
Men on this forum have extreme views and some middle of the road views........I find all interesting and sometimes one or the other is the truth or a good guess.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You completely missed my point. Any damage Clinton has done is history. Bush however is still a threat to our safety and well being!!

[bettheoverlay]

I believe the press should always be skeptical of whatever administration is in power. I think thats their main job. All administrations mislead and spin to try to get what they want done. If the press just cheerleads and apologizes for the powerful, I can't see what useful purpose they serve.

[Lefty]

Bush a threat? Gimme a brk. You say unbelievable things. Bush is a threat to the enemy. We have to be pre-emptive or we're gonna end up like Israel. You can't negotiate with terrorists or wait for the corrupt, innefective U.N. to act. Our safety is at stake. But you don't get it and you never will. Yes, Clinton is history and the things he did shows we don't need another like him; i.e. John Kerry.

[ljb]

Lefty,
you have to open up your eyes a bit. Try to grasp the whole picture. First, it has been well documented that we have been lax in our fight against terrorism since the Reagon era. And yes that is history. Now we have a gang in the administration that set out to destroy Sadam irregardless of what else is going on in the world. This explains their head in the sand approach to 9/11. They, like you, failed to see the big picture and consequently messed things up. If they are left unchecked they will surely continue messing things up. As an American it is your responsibility to stop them now! Else we will have even more unwanted deaths, wasted tax dollars and misery. If you can't take the responsible step and vote for Kerry, then either stay home or vote for Nader. Your children will thank you for your upstanding behaviour.

[justin]

I apologize for the lengthy reply but this is an important topic and I want it to be clear where I'm coming from. If long posts bore you, just skip this.

I don't know that any of the poll options really reflect my opinion. I'll just say we had to go over. What has happened since then is more difficult for me to assess.

Unless you do a lot of reading, it can be very hard to get a balanced view of what's really going on over there. What sells magazines and gets ratings doesn't necessarily equate to the truth. If I just read the headlines in my local paper, it would be hard to believe much is happening in Iraq aside from an ongoing power struggle fueled by lunatics blowing themselves up.

One could easily think that we are accomplishing nothing in Iraq of any tangible value. By building infrastructure we are doing Iraq an enormous favor, whether the citizenry is appreciative or not. Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather we fight this war in Iraq or Afghanistan as opposed to on our own soil. That's beside the point anyway. If we want to reduce the threat of terrorism on US soil, the way to do that is not to sit at home and hope that we can get everything right and play good defense. It requires us to go on the offensive and try to get at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is not in the US.

The US is not depriving the common Middle Eastern citizen of their rights, safety, and hope for a better future. That we are blamed is nothing more than misdirection from those that would prefer to maintain the status quo. It's easier for these foreign leaders or religious figures to blame the US than to take responsibility for having failed to serve their citizens' interests. Or to be more truthful, to admit that they could care less about doing so. They have no intersest in doing any of this, only of keeping their subjects living in the stone age while they live like kings.

You can blame our leaders for not being able to predict who would make a power play and how they would go about it after the old Iraqui government was removed or you can blame the small percentage of the overall population (how many of these terrorists are actually from Iraq anyway?) that have allowed themselves to be manipulated and brainwashed into thinking that turning themselves into a human bomb is the only solution.
Or you can blame the people that give them the support and leadership necessary for it to happen in the first place.

If our government was as cruel and evil as these great Muslim clerics would lead their followers to believe, this insurgency would have been wiped out already. We would have crushed it with an iron boot. It is precisely because we are largely committed to freedom and the rights of ALL people that there will continue to be good days and bad days. You won't see the US military just abritrarily wiping out 5000 Iraqi militia because they're a problem. We'll negotiate, we'll try to compromise, we'll do whatever we can within reason to find a peaceful solution. Ideals like this are what makes this country great and are also making our job harder to do.

I don't know what some of you want. We are at war whether you realize it or not. The definition of war has changed and what we must do to protect this country has changed as a result. This country and our freedoms are worth fighting for and shame on anyone that doesn't realize that this will be the ongoing struggle of our time and that to not fight is to risk something much worse than 9-11. If our leaders were not strong enough to realize this and just packed up our things and went home as soon as something unexpected happened in the war on terror, I'd be a lot more concerned than I am now. That would mean we were doing nothing, just sitting around waiting for the next attack. It's pretty clear that our enemies don't intend on just calling a truce and going on their merry way. To do nothing is to jeopardize our way of life.

-Justin

[Lefty]

lbj, aka Mr. Ostrich, it's you who can't grasp the big picture, that coupled with take the responsible step and vote for Kerry, just gave me my biggest laugh of the week. I'll just leave you to your delusions. LOL

[so.cal.fan]

Justin,
Thank you for posting your thoughts. I found them very interesting.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Justin,
Thank you for posting your thoughts. I found them very interesting.

Justin,

I too found them interesting. My problem is the continued attmept to link Iraq to Afghansitan and to 911. This administration including Prez Bush has even said there is no link to 911 and Iraq. Therein lies the rub.

I am an ardent supporter of our invasion of Afghanistan and the seeking out of the Taliban and Bin Laden. However, the poll listed on the War thread states specifically - Iraq.

The policy of Iraq has diverted our purpose toward the war on terror. The Taliban supported Al Quaida whereas the Iraqi regime did not. Therefore, the Iraqi war has become a nation building exercise. This is where the inconsistency comes in. I agree eliminating Saddam Husein is a good thing, but Iraq was not a part of the war on terror, and not an imminent threat to America as George Tenet of the CIA has said under oath. Therefore, the Iraqi War and the Afghansitan war are being fought for two different reasons. I support the reasons for the Afghanistan invasion and am diametrically opposed to the nation building exercise in Iraq.

[delayjf]

No problem PA, shite happens.

My point was in regard to LJB assertion that perversion is a Consitutional right. I'm sure that sentiment is shared by the bigamist and NAMBLA, and will be used in their defense in the upcoming moral conflict in this nation after the left feels this countries moral fiber has been soften enough by Gay America.

Also, don't see anything in the Constition about a "right to health care". Did Jefferson address this issue is some obscure letter? Did he address Gay rights.

We can disagree about what exactly the founding fathers meant by "establishing a religion", but that concept surely does not give the secularist and the anti religious a mandate to reconstruct this country based on ideas that are in direct contrast to ALL religious beliefs. Hell, lets legalize murder. After all, thou shall not kill is a religious moral.

With regard to this almighty coalition that Bush should have assimulated prior to any invasion of Iraq. Did we or did we not have such a coalition in the first Gulf war AND for our military response in Afganistan. Yet, who did the fighting??? Where was Russia, France, Germany, China in the first Gulf war. The one supported by the UN.

WAKE UP, IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Even if they did support the war in Iraq, it would still be only the US and Britain doing the fighting. Most of these countries were profiting from arms sales to Iraq, and HOW ABOUT THAT "OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM"

[Lefty]

Sec, wake up. The connection has been proven, you just don't want to aknowledge it.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Justin,

I too found them interesting. My problem is the continued attmept to link Iraq to Afghansitan and to 911. This administration including Prez Bush has even said there is no link to 911 and Iraq. Therein lies the rub.

I like what Christopher Hitchens said the other day.........

I will paraphrase:

" If you are talking about the War in Iraq with someone, and they cannot understand the link between Iraq and the War on Terror, then you are speaking to an idiot"

He also said:

"The test of whether you are speaking to ignorant person is whether they understand the connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorists"

And C. Hitchens is not a damn conservative or Republican. In fact he has written many pieces railing against Bush and Repubs. If you don't understand it by now, you will never get it.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, wake up. The connection has been proven, you just don't want to aknowledge it.

Really Lefty...please enlighten us...where has the 911-Iraq connection ever been proven...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I like what Christopher Hitchens said the other day.........

I will paraphrase:

" If you are talking about the War in Iraq with someone, and they cannot understand the link between Iraq and the War on Terror, then you are speaking to an idiot"

He also said:

"The test of whether you are speaking to ignorant person is whether they understand the connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorists"

And C. Hitchens is not a damn conservative or Republican. In fact he has written many pieces railing against Bush and Repubs. If you don't understand it by now, you will never get it.

Is this the same Christopher Hitchens who wrote the book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice strongly critical of Mother Teresa.

Enough said. Now there's a man who can talk about ignorant.

[Lefty]

sec, get tired of repeating all this info i've stated before. Just read my other posts till you get it.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

I've read your posts, and nowhere do I see proof of a conection between Iraq and 911.

We should have our troops stabilizing Afghanistan, and finding Bin Laden and Omar.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040602/pl_nm/afghanistan_usa_dc

[Lefty]

sec, we have troops in Afghanistan. Glad you're not the Commander-In Chief.
Nick Berg's head was cut off by a man that was supposed to be 2nd in command to Bin Ladin. This guy's been in Iraq since before the war.
Saddam gave money to suicide bombers' families. And then there was that courier with a letter that was intercepted.
We have many many reasons to be in Iraq.
All this has been reported and i'm sure if you're interested, you, the "master link finder", can find it. But you and lbj wouldn't belve it because it doesn't agree with your agenda.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

What does any of that have to do with Iraq and 911? In case you are unaware there were Al Quadai in Germany, England, the US and around the globe on 911....Does that mean those nations are responsible for 911?

Bin Laden and Hussein despised one another. You're assuming based on speculation that this Al Quada member was in Iraq before 911 and somehow you are linking the Iraqi government to 911 based on an Al Quida member possibly being located somewhere in Iraq? You got to do better than that Lefty. A lot better.

[Secretariat]

btw...Lefty,...the courier? Is this the one that Cheyney mentioned and was later debunked by the CIA...sort of like those mysterious Niger uranium tubes....

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Really Lefty...please enlighten us...where has the 911-Iraq connection ever been proven...

Sadamm had a mural of the WTC on the wall of one of his bunkers. What do you make of that? Huh?:eek:

[Lefty]

sec, the guy that cut of Nick Berg's head was wounded in Afghanistan and had his leg amputated in Baghdad.
Stephen Hayes, author of The Connection, said this guy in Baghdad as early as Oct. 2000.
Bet you don't see this guy (Hayes) interviewed on 60 minutes.
Just happened to catch him tonight on O'Reilly by coincidence.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Are you sure your not getting your data from Chabali ? You remember him don't you ? He's the dude that scammed Wolfowitz, Rummy and company.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Are you sure your not getting your data from Chabali ? You remember him don't you ? He's the dude that scammed Wolfowitz, Rummy and company.

He is getting his data right. The guy who cut off Berg's head has had meetings with Saddam all the way back to 97 according to some docs. The docs also reveal that he was in a power struggle with some of Bin Ladin's underlings and was working hard to impress Bin Ladin..........by gaining support from Saddam. Interesting if it all pans out.....................and BTW this is not the real connection I speak of when I say that Iraq and Terrorism is related.......I have spoken of that many times..........do a search if your interested.........

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

This Hayes fellow seems interesting, but it appears his evdience is a little speculative.

For another viewpoint read on:

http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/audie_hayes.htm

[JustRalph]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/06/01/cartoon-inside.jpg

[ljb]

And another view
denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/editoon/06024stein.gif (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/editoon/060204stein.gif)

[Tom]

Lefy,
Just bought "The Connection" tonight-so far, facinating read.

[Lefty]

Tom, don't hold your breath waiting for 60 Minutes to interview the author.

[Tom]

CBS only interviews thier own staff authors, don't they?

[ljb]

Maybe he can get on faux news.

[hcap]

So far there is a congressional commitee investigating WMD's-and the failure to find them.

A congressional commitee investigating
the failures of 911 during the bush watch

A grand jury investigating the adminiistrations role in outing Valerie Plame.

Soon another investigating Chalabi.

And the Supreme court is about to check cheneys energy task force

Before the election more to come. So why not one on the Iraq-Osama connection? And how come the adminiistration denied it, after initially implying the connection? I guess there wont be one unless bush flip flops on the connection again, and claims once again it's true, assuming he can remember the latest instructions from his handlers.

From http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/

Refuting the validity of one of Hayes' source

Case Decidedly Not Closed
The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort....

"With a few, inconclusive exceptions, the memo doesn’t actually contain much “new” intelligence at all. Instead, it mostly recycles shards of old, raw data that were first assembled last year by a tiny team of floating Pentagon analysts (led by a Pennsylvania State University professor and U.S. Navy analyst Christopher Carney) whom Feith asked to find evidence of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda “connection” in order to better justify a U.S. invasion."

Read it

[ljb]

Hcap,
ever notice how the rightys avoid these notes that have them in a bind, if they do reply it is either a joke or a critic of the messenger.

[hcap]

ljb,

Very dissapointed, just watched the belmont.

However, the rightys are running as usual. They are so much more predictable than a horserace even with a 1/5 favorite. I think that when they monopolised the off topic board with their lemmingease nonsense, they thought they were the kings of cyberspace. Now that we have shown them the error of their ways, they can't face reality.

They seek refuge in faux news or the weekly standard. I think that is mispelled btw, should be the WEAKLY standard.

:rolleyes:

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Hcap,
ever notice how the rightys avoid these notes that have them in a bind, if they do reply it is either a joke or a critic of the messenger.

What is to respond to? Congress never does anything but form committees, investigate things, go on fact find junketts, take hand outs from lobbyists, and accomplish nothing.
What is so special about a new one?
Congress is irrelevant. The only time Congress ever did anything
was the day they ran like school girls when they thought there was anthrax in their building.
If we replied to every little buth you comes repeat day in day out, we would never get anything done.
So, as a coutresy to you, I replied. Told no jokes. No personal attacks.
Ball's in your court-anything new to offer?, or SOSDD?

[JustRalph]

Hey, don't forget. They sang America the Beautiful on the Steps of the Capital Building...............

[Secretariat]

It is amazing, and this with a Republican majority Congress.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
I think that when they monopolised the off topic board with their lemmingease nonsense, they thought they were the kings of cyberspace.

You are a liar. And there is nothing worse than a liar who desperately tries to pass off lies as the truth.

There has only been one group monopolizing this board, and you are part of that posse. A shame really. I hope most here don't buy all that you post at face value. That would be quite sad.

[ljb]

From PA
There has only been one group monopolizing this board, and you are part of that posse.
I beg to differ Pa, if you would take the time to catergorize the posts, I am sure you would find most posts come from the rightys. The few that disagree with their posts are generally chastised soundly by the right wing brigade.

[PaceAdvantage]

You've obviously forgotten how to count.

[ljb]

Well it is your board. You have to be right. So, I will accept your statement.

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
You've obviously forgotten how to count.

Conservative members have dominated the off topic area for 2 years I've been here. Its usually 4 or 5 of them beating up on one liberal or libertarin. I voted to keep Amazin. I'm for free speech. But since this is a private board I respect the vote and your decision. I fear no words. And I respect anyones right to say anything they want. Many.. and by many I mean over 100 people (members) stop posting here because they just can't stand being disagreed with or sharing space with people they deem absurd. buh bye to them.

[ljb]

Suff,
I kinda had the same opinion as yours. Perhaps the rightys just think we are dominant because we have the truth on our side. ;)

[schweitz]

My view of the political discourse here is that what generally happens is that a member of the Doom and Gloom Club will post negative comments on the current administration and those of us who disagree say so. I don't see one side as dominate but I do see one side always negative and the other side mostly positive about our government.

I think it was Reagan who said, "The Republicans celebrate the 4th of July and the Democrats celebrate April 15th.:D

[Suff]

Originally posted by schweitz
My view of the political discourse here is that what generally D

U missed the Clinton administration bashing here... it was vial.

Man over saw the greatest economic expansion in the history of our country...and they couldn't say one postive thing about his administration out here. And further....I don't see a heck of a lot of things to be positive about with this crew. I really don't.

His trip to Europe I like.. But Like I said. I think ther're criminals so there isn't much they can do right at this point. I wrote them off about 12-14 months ago.

[Lefty]

Suff, Clinton did a lot of bad things. Enabled N. Korea to have nukes. Let his greatest contributor sell satellite equip to China. Raised taxes, even made it retoactive. Lied to a Judge, and the people.
On leaving gave the greatest tax evader of all time a pardon while the rest of us non-criminals paid ours. He may have been President during a great economic recovery but nothing he did caused it. We've chewed that "cud" many times on this board.
And with all trhat, nobody spewed the hate that was spewed during the Reagan adm and now this one.
Many have attacked Clinton's ideology but not personally as happened with this adm even before it took office.

[Tom]

To my reading, most of the so called righty's here have had varied opinioins on Bush, the war, terroism. etc. We have not all agreed on everything-ulike the Four Horsemen who always are in completed agreement.
Prove me wrong.

[Secretariat]

Tom,

I don't know about Hcap, LBJ (not sure who the other horseman is- Suff?), but I do agree on one thing, I am haveing a hard time coming up with one positive thing Bush has done. Maybe I am missing something....wait, I do agree with his retaliation in Afghanistan...what else? Nope, that's about it.

[Tom]

Not Suff, Amazin. Although he is AWOL, he was not banned and can come back, I am asasuming. I cannot just take away his honored place as a horeman, he might sue me someday! LOL
Now I have bashed Bush more than once, attacked Rumsfeld, been against that stupid entitlement bill they pushed, come out against the patriot act, and flat out stated I only voted for Bush becasue he was running against Gore. And would vote against him in a second if real leader ever showed up again.
So, I am the lemming????Huh?
:confused:

[Buckeye]

How about the negative things the War on Terror is preventing?
I know, can't prove a negative.

[JustRalph]

I paid less taxes last year..........now that is an accomplishment!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Well it is your board. You have to be right. So, I will accept your statement.

yes, I have to be right. Of course. No doubt. I am king. If you cross me, I cut off your head. Right?

Puleeze spare me.

At least I can say I don't post out and out lies and try and pass them off as the truth.

You know, I am a lot more middle of the road politically than you will ever know. But just the fact that you and your ilk come on here posting with your smug attitudes, makes me shift to the right more and more just to piss you guys off a little. But this is just the little cyberworld that takes up some of my spare time.

It's a diversion, nothing more and nothing less. It worries me a bit that for you it may be a bit more. Perhaps I am wrong....oh wait...that's right, I "HAVE TO BE RIGHT"....

So scratch that, I'm not wrong....I'm right.....wow I feel better again!

[JustRalph]

Here are some things for you to consider........ I know many of these go directly against your left wing agenda.....but they mean something to me...........read em and weep......

Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ

Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command

Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs

Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry

Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006

Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.

Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed

Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.

Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health

Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right

Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty Yeah!

Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger

Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California

Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species

[Lefty]

Also the Bush adm has captured Saddam and freed two countries and have arrested and killed many many terrists many of them the higher-ups and Bin Ladin is running.
But in your eyes, sec, i guess all these are not positives.

[ljb]

PA,
You remind me of Bush, just can't admit you were wrong. Carry on, carry on!

[ljb]

Here is a couple of postives about Bush.
1. He is the best fund raiser the republican party has ever had.
2. Prior to 9/11 he set the record for most days vacation by any sitting president in history. Now you rightys can stop saying I just post bad things about dubya. :D

[cj]

Slick Willy didn't need to take vacation, he was getting his kicks right in the White House!

[Secretariat]

JR,

I think they wanted you to post Bush positives, not negatives.

I thought of another Bush positive. His choice of running mate. Now there is a man who we can rely on if God forbid sometihng happens to America.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
JR,

I think they wanted you to post Bush positives, not negatives.


One man's positives may be anothers negatives...........

I am sure you know which side I fall on.

[Suff]

Bush went to Europe and I like that. he should benefit politically from that , as he rightly should. Multi-lateralism is the way of strength, not weakness. I think also he is doing it kicking and screaming and even comprising on things he wished he didn't have too.. but he should benefit from the increased UN involvement with Iraq... At the G8 summit yesterday he called on NATO to get more involved and that shoud benefit him in the polls some.


and as an american first, I'm glad he went to europe and I'm encouraged by additional multilateral strategies to defeat Al Queda and the like.

I think he made a few decent moves this week.

[Lefty]

Bush had working vacations at his ranch.
Clinton took vacations with his rich friends at places like Martha's Vineyard. There ya go.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Bush had working vacations at his ranch.
Clinton took vacations with his rich friends at places like Martha's Vineyard. There ya go.

No Lefty, Bush had working vacations at the White House. He lives at his ranch.

This article below is pretty disturbing. Why would a 49 year old Sergeant lie about this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_calif_1

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
No Lefty, Bush had working vacations at the White House. He lives at his ranch.

This article below is pretty disturbing. Why would a 49 year old Sergeant lie about this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_calif_1

Who says he is lying? so what.......you obviously don't know what goes on inside some big city interrogation rooms.......there are idiots in every profession..........this article is about a few more. There is no news here. When are you going to understand that the american people get it........? they know some of our soldiers are idiots and they don't hold it against the prez. You can stop now.........

[bill]

BUSH CHANGING HIS STORY ON PRISON ABUSE SCANDAL

President Bush has claimed that the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib was
"disgraceful conduct by a few American troops,"[1] and had nothing to do
with broader administration policy. But according to a March 2003 Pentagon
memo, Bush administration lawyers issued legal justifications for torture,
specifically claiming, "President Bush was not bound by either an
international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture
law."[2] The revelations have now forced the President to backtrack from his
previous denials of culpability, with the White House yesterday admitting
for the first time that Bush did, in fact, "set broad guidelines"[3] for
interrogation in Iraq - a tacit admission that Bush himself "opened the
door"[4] to the torture tactics in the first place.

Now, the U.S. Senate is demanding the full Pentagon memo from the Bush
administration. But the President has refused, instead dispatching Attorney
General John Ashcroft to tell "lawmakers he won't release or discuss"[5] the
memo, even if he is cited for contempt of Congress. This is the same
Ashcroft who "conveniently declassified"[6] internal Justice Department
memos in an effort to slander 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick. It is also
the same Bush administration that leaked the classified name of a CIA
officer[7] in an effort to intimidate a former ambassador who had debunked
their false WMD claims.[8]

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
No Lefty, Bush had working vacations at the White House. He lives at his ranch.

This article below is pretty disturbing. Why would a 49 year old Sergeant lie about this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_calif_1

Same reason you would?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Suff

I think he made a few decent moves this week.

And he made a few good ones last year. The rest of the world now understands that the USA bows to no one and when we speak, we mean it. That said, we are a by far the most generous and benevolent nation in the history of the world. And we wil continue to be.
And we are also most powerful and determined nation in the history of the world, so in the words of Steve Irwin. "Don't muck with us.

Now, like Suff says. El Qeada beware.........

[hcap]

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2759

The Dog Days of the War Party

[hcap]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518
Also
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-terror9_jun09,1,7491026.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Terrorism INCREASES under Bush
by kos
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 13:14:22 EDT

Terrorism is up, but they didn't want to admit it.
The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration.

When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.

"Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report.

But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

"It will change the numbers," said one State Department official who declined to comment further or be identified by name. "The incidents will go up, but I don't know by how many."
So will Armitage call a new press conference to announce that "you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are losing the fight" against global terrorism?

[delayjf]

Not in the US they didn't. Again, your solution to 9/11. Do NOTHING.

Show me in the anuls of history were dipomacy stopped a brutal dictator from murdering.

[Tom]

Originally posted by hcap
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518
Also
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-terror9_jun09,1,7491026.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Terrorism INCREASES under Bush
by kos
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 13:14:22 EDT

Terrorism is up, but they didn't want to admit it.



Cite one example here in the USA.
Mayber it is up in those natios who chose your sage advice, be nice to muslems and the terror attacks will stop.
What a bone head thing to post and believe.

[schweitz]

The only place where terrorism is up is in Iraq.

[Tom]

Originally posted by schweitz
The only place where terrorism is up is in Iraq.
And many Iraqi factions are now agreeing to support the new governement. Terrorists will allways lose when people decide their freedom is worth a fight. The UN is getting behind US policies, they are finding evidence of WMD.
Despite the gloom and doom from the far side.

[hcap]

schweitzThe only place where terrorism is up is in Iraq.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040611/D834H3VG0.html

State Dept. Understated Terrorism Attacks
Jun 10, 9:59 PM (ET)
By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims - success in countering terror.

[hcap]

From
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/06/11/terror_report/index.html
(gotta view a comercial first)

"The moment of truth came on May 17. A sharp Washington Post opinion piece by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Stanford political scientist David Laitin sliced "Patterns 2003" to shreds. Their review showed that the "number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003," or 36 percent, and that "the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years." The professors accused the government of concocting a misleading picture by combining the statistics for all "terrorist" acts, whether or not they were "significant." The number of "nonsignificant" terrorist incidents dropped -- but as the professors noted drily, that fact is itself "nonsignificant" and was used to create a phony statistic. By the State Department's own standards, its conclusions were false."

"The same day, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell complaining about the terror report. As Waxman pointed out, the analysts who compiled the data on "significant terrorist events" had closed their books for 2003 on a curious date. Instead of including every incident up till Dec. 31, they had included none that occurred after Nov. 11. That decision, which supposedly reflected printing deadlines, rather conveniently excluded several deadly incidents -- notably the multiple deadly bombings in Istanbul that killed dozens and wounded hundreds on Nov. 15 and 20. "

[ljb]

Hcap,
Your posts are like a breath of fresh air on this board. We will most likely find out the administration is cooking the books on jobs also. There is no limit to the lies and deceptions these so called christians will go to to promote their agenda for a new world order.

[hcap]

ljb,

Keep hitting the stepford lemmings over the head.

I am following the theme that we are, have been, and continue to be fooled until the november elections.

As I posted on the Fool me once thread....
Real Player download from The Daily Show-actual footage of our leader at one of his finer moments
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/images/bushfool.rm

This should be viewed over and over again. No longer hilarious. No LOL.
More like time to cry out loud. And I mean weep.
We are being led my an incompetent fool puppet, manipulated by bigger fools around him.

Impeachment. Then prison

[schweitz]

Originally posted by hcap
schweitz
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040611/D834H3VG0.html

State Dept. Understated Terrorism Attacks
Jun 10, 9:59 PM (ET)
By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims - success in countering terror.

Last time I checked Iraq was part of this world and would be counted in a worldwide total of terrorism acts,

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
There is no limit to the lies and deceptions these so called christians will go to to promote their agenda for a new world order.

what the hell does that mean? You still refuse to tell us where you are and what your nationality is.............and then you post things like this...........you reveal yourself a little more every post...

[hcap]

WASHINGTON (AP) -The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was WRONG in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims - success in countering terror.

Wrong-the state dep said it was WRONG,in reporting terrorism declined worldwide.
Since Iraq is part of the world,as you pointed out, terrorism INCREASED in IRAQ!

Fooled again.
AMERICAN
Monroe NY.

[Secretariat]

Yeah Hcap, I saw they had to trudge Powell out again to admit the figures were bogus. Kind of like those 200,00 plus jobs they had to take off the last months job claims report.

Their strategy is simple - create a rosy scenario, and then later when they retract its like a page four story on the news and on the TV. I guess I can't blame them, it is politics. This admin has lied about so much, why would you expect them to change their modus operandi now?

[hcap]

"Oops, we goofed again. Honest mistake guys. Or at least honest until it becomes evident we were not!"

Duh! One more time

Another crock immediately outed by non-lemmings. There do seem to be more of us, as the days go by

An INCREASE in terrorism thruout the world-not just Iraq.

Henry Waxman "...and based on the inaccurate information they tried to take self-serving political credit for the results that were wrong."


....Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time. The facts that we had were wrong," department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Meanwhile our war preznit continues to claim that he is making the world a safer place. How long can he pretend to be president?

[Lefty]

I guess we shoulda just left them alone ala the Dems and maybe they wouldn't hurt us or anybody anymore. If you blve that then...nevermind you prob do.
How do you self-styled geniuses know that if we weren't fighting terrorism that there wouldn't even be MORE of it?
WE are fighting a difficult war against terrorists in Iraq. While fighting the war, our brave soldiers are hampered by trying mightily to not hurt civilians and have taken casualties among themselves to avoid hurting civilians.
To read and hear the crap you libs put out in the midst of this, while you are sitting safe and warm is, revolting to say the least.
You libs were wrong during the cold war and true to form, you are wrong now.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by hcap

Since Iraq is part of the world,as you pointed out, terrorism INCREASED in IRAQ!


That is my point---everybody knows about the recent terrorism in Iraq--I think this is the worldwide increase!

[hcap]

Oh I see an average. So there ain't nothing goin' on in,
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Turkey----
"notably the multiple deadly bombings in Istanbul that killed dozens and wounded hundreds on Nov. 15 and 20. "

And what about cooking the books so that they closed their books for 2003 on a "curious date"?
Instead of including every incident up till Dec. 31, they had included none that occurred after Nov. 11.

Why?
Why did Powell, Boucher fess up?

Fooled again

[Lefty]

The terrorists know that Bush is deadly serious and they have stepped up their activities out of sheer desparation.
Do you really believe we can negotiate with them? What's your answer?

[hcap]

The majority of terrorists acts in Iraq are NOT Al Qui-da. What you see in Iraq is mostly ordinary citizens trying to remove an occupier.
Is the situation being taken advantage of by other factions, yes.
Can you negotiate with terrorists?
Not when we blow up wedding parties of innocent Iraqis and claim they were terrorists.They are then already dead. Too late.

I know not many will agree with me on this, but contrary to the mantra that "we don't negotiate with terrorists", its been done.

Question. Did britain negotiate with the IRA? Did we negotiate with the USSR during the cold war? Was the evil empire saner than your run of the mill islamic fanatic?
Should we nuke north korea, or should we talk to their loony leader-a worst dictator than Saddam?
Do we talk to the warlords in Afghanistan?
Did britain eventually relinguish many of its colonial possesions due to popular uprisings fought by "terrorists"?
What about Spanish colonies. French Algiers? The release of colonial possesions in recent history and eventual NEGOTIATIONS between the superior power and the terorists who fought them has occured..

When the cost in blood and money becomes too great as compared to the injury suffered by the superior power, the superior power tucks its tail between its legs and negotiates.

Realpolitics rules. I don't think at this point we can win an "endless" war unless we remove the suport structure. Money, and mostly arab and islamic public backing.

We have made things much worse. We can either remove their backing and then control them with little negotiations, or deal with a strenghtened bunch, and have to negotiate fully, just like the other "super" powers before us
Remember "the sun never sets on british soil"? Or "white mans burden?
Quaint don't you think. Well it may be our turn unless we wise up.

My feeling is EVENTUALLY we may have to negotiate, because of the mess made by the neocons. And it won't be pleasant. But better to undermine the terrorists "reason to exist" and then have to back up some, then to have to deal with one islamic fanatical state after another and be really held hostage.

[lsbets]

Hcap:

"What you see in Iraq is mostly ordinary citizens trying to remove an occupier."

You have no clue what you are talking about - most of the fighting involves one of 3 groups - al Queda and Al Queda wannabes, Baath party holdovers, and the "army" that follows al-Sadr, who has been proven to be no more than a thug. Is it a coincidence that you started posting a lot once Amazin was banished? You seem to have a lot in common with him/her/whatever it was.

[doophus]

lsbets...

We non-liberals must learn to "forgive them for they know not what they do."

Seriously, the libs are slow on the uptake due to their participation in their own "circle-jerks." They're just so-o-o-o-o-o busy making each other "feel good."

[hcap]

Isbets,

And the wedding party that was attacked by us? All terrorists as well.? You may have an up close view of events around you, but are you sure of your facts?

It is very hard to believe much of what officially comes out of Iraq. Initially we were told Saddam loyalists, after the initial invasion. Okay Saddam was still at large, but then he was captured.
Then rummy coined "dead enders." Then it was baath party leftovers. Then Al Queda and Syrians and Iranians. Now of course al-Sadr, who is actually increasing his support among Iraquis.


For instance this event---

"Monday, April 19, 2004

30 Iraqis, 12 US Troops Killed over Deadly Weekend

5 US troops were killed Sunday in fighting near the Syrian border at Husayba, but various other incidents on Saturday brought the weeked total to 12 killed. About 30 Iraqis were killed in clashes. The Husaybah fight appears to be an extension of Fallujah, with some fighters from that city having moved over to Husaybah and having ambushed the Marines. This narrative contradicts the impression given by Gen. Myers that the problem is infiltration of foreign fighters from Syria. Rather, looks like infiltration of Iraqi fighters from Fallujah.

Also

"Meanwhile, the British military is extremely concerned about the possibility of a general Shiite uprising in Basra, according to the Telegraph:

' the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all. Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade. "A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that . . ." During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric. "The moment that Sayid Ali says, 'We don't want the Coalition here', we might as well go home," Brig Carter said. '

Also

In East Baghdad, Reuters reports that ' tens of thousands of Shi'ites chanted support for Sadr in his main power base, the Baghdad slum district of Sadr City. "Rivers of your blood will flow," Sheikh Nasser al-Saedi told the crowd in a warning to U.S. forces not to attack Najaf. '


All comments come from
http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html

Juan Cole is an esteemed expert on the mid east and has testified before congress. He has lived in the region, speaks the language(s), and remains in contact with independent and mainstream reporters in the field-as well as ordinary citizens.

Polls taken show Iraquis are not overwhelmingly in favor of us being there.

Nearly 3 Million Iraqis, Sunni and Shiite, Approve of attacks on Americans

An opinion poll taken in late February showed that 10 % of Iraq's Shiites say attacks on US troops are "acceptable." But 30% of Sunni Arabs say such attacks are acceptable, and fully 70% of Anbar province approves of attacking Americans. (Anbar is where Ramadi, Fallujah, Hadithah and Habbaniyah are, with a population of 1.25 million or 5% of Iraq--those who approve of attacks are 875,000).

But simple statistics don't tell the story. If there are 25 million Iraqis and Shiites comprise 65%, that is about 16 million persons. Ten percent of them is 1.6 million, which is a lot of people who hate Americans enough to approve of attacks on them. If Sunni Arabs comprise about 16% of the population, there are 4 million of them. If 30% approve of attacks, that is 1.2 million. That is, the poll actually shows that in absolute numbers, there are more Shiites who approve of attacks on Americans than there are Sunni Arabs. The numbers bring into question the official line that there are no problems in the South, only in the Sunni Arab heartland.

Thursday, April 29, 2004

USA Today Poll: 57% of Iraqis say 'US Out Now'

From March 22 to April 2, 60 trained Iraqi pollsters interviewed 3,444 randomly selected Iraqis for USA Today. This is one of the first polls in Iraq that seems to me well weighted statistically, though to be sure we'd have to know more than USA Today told us.

The numbers are negative for the US, and are much more negative than previous such polls. Moreover, the polling ended by April 2, just before the Shiite uprising and the worst of the Fallujah fighting, so that it is highly likely that the present attitudes of the Iraqi public toward the US are much more negative.

Amazingly, 57% of Iraqis say that US troops should leave Iraq immediately. If one subtracted the Kurds, a much higher percentage of Arabic speaking Iraqis say this. And, they say it with their eyes open. About 57% also admit that life would get harder (i.e. there would be a lot of instability) if the US suddenly withdrew. They want the US gone anyway, and will take their chances.

To the question of whether coalition military forces are mainly liberators or mainly occupiers, 71% said occupiers.

Over half say there are circumstances under which it is all right to attack US troops! A February poll I discussed here had said that only 10% of Iraqi Shiites held that attacks on US troops were ever justified, and 30% of Sunni Arabs felt that way. The number in al-Anbar province (think Fallujah) was 70%, but it was high for Iraq at that time. Again, if the earlier polling was correct, there was a massive shift in opinion on this matter. We went from having about 3 million Iraqis think it was all right to attack US troops to more than 13 million.

Isbets I don't doubt you accept what appears to be our good intentions, but I doubt that the attacks we have experienced could occur without broad Iraqi support.

Amazin is much maligned unjustly by many on this board, and I for one am sad to see him not posting. If you think I am an Amazin clone, then so be it. He spoke out for peace.

doophus you are aptly named. Or in other words, an ass**** by any other name would still smell

[Tom]

Originally posted by doophus
lsbets...

We non-liberals must learn to "forgive them for they know not what they do."

Seriously, the libs are slow on the uptake due to their participation in their own "circle-jerks." They're just so-o-o-o-o-o busy making each other "feel good."


They are the victims of their own outcome based educatinal system. I find them about as entertaining as the squirrels I feed in my back yard, and almost as intelligent!:rolleyes:

[hcap]

schweitzThe only place where terrorism is up is in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/asia/11afgh.html

...KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, June 10 - The massacre of 11 Chinese road construction workers and an Afghan guard as they slept in their tents early Thursday was the deadliest against foreigners since the fall of the Taliban and dealt a setback to United States efforts to stabilize the country ahead of elections scheduled for September.

....The United Nations suspended all movement of personnel out of Kunduz and suspended its voter registration work there, a spokesman said.

[doophus]

Originally posted by hcap
.........................
doophus you are aptly named. Or in other words, an ass**** by any other name would still smell hcap,

As usual, your original thinking astounds me. Amazin' & ljb used your declaration months ago. I proudly wear such pronouncements, when given by liberals, and consider same to be a Badge of Honor. It would be preferable if you were able to coin your own phrase.

For anyone to sit in the coolness/warmth of their USA home while reading Slate, MotherJones, NYT, LA Times, USA Today, et al and then making pronouncements that question and/or contradict an "on the ground" commissioned officer of the US just absolutely reeks of arrogance and other foul-smelling odors. I just don't understand why anyone would NOT, at a minimum, question the report(s) of the various journalists and/or editors.

Until the next time, I remain

Doophus, The Inciteful

[hcap]

Wrong doophy, I used it originally when I first started posting on off topic-at that time about bushisms, and also believe I was quoting guys like Franklyn, Twain and Budda

I am not being arrogant by "questioning and/or contradicting an "on the ground" commissioned officer of the US. Why can't we question or point to sources such as journalists who may paint a different picture than Isbets?
I suspect you are sitting in the coolness/warmth of your USA home watching faux news, listening to rush and hannity, and checking out Newsmax.com, and reading the weakly standard

Read what the rest of the world outside of FOX newsland is reading. There are reasons for the unpopularity of the US among the Iraqi populace. And this is the root of violence and terrorism. I said the following

"The majority of terrorists acts in Iraq are NOT Al Qui-da. What you see in Iraq is mostly ordinary citizens trying to remove an occupier.
Is the situation being taken advantage of by other factions, yes. "

I did not say ordinary Iraqis are the majority pulling the trigger or setting the bombs, although I would suspect as time goes by this will also increase.
Ordinary Iraqis are supporting various militias including Sadr.

" In East Baghdad, Reuters reports that tens of thousands of Shi'ites chanted support for Sadr in his main power base, the Baghdad slum district of Sadr City. "Rivers of your blood will flow," Sheikh Nasser al-Saedi told the crowd in a warning to U.S. forces not to attack Najaf. "

Read this and put yourself in the place of any of the 43,000 unjustly dtained Iraqis

http://www.cesr.org/beyondtorture.pdf
The student is gone; the master has arrived
-popular saying after the U.S. ousted Saddam Husein

"Of the 43,000 Iraqis detained under the occupation, the International Committee of the Red Cross (IRRC)
estimates that 70-90% have been innocent bystanders swept into detention in this unlawful manner. Once detained
Iraqi prisoners are not only denied minimal due process, but also held incommunicado for weeks and months
without the knowledge of their families. In addition U.S. forces have held family members of wanted suspects
as hostages, a practice that has been condemmed as a war crime."

[Tom]

I find it truly fascinating that the only one making any sense in this thread is named "doophus!"
:rolleyes:

[hcap]

schweitzThe only place where terrorism is up is in Iraq.Another comment about the mistaken terrorism report.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and former deputy director of State's counterterrorism office, is among those who have urged a wide-ranging correction. He said that even using the report's own data, as presented in its statistical tables, the total number of terrorist incidents in 2003 rose, not fell, compared with 2002.

"Johnson said the report also omitted from the list of significant acts of terrorism, for unknown reasons, the 13 terrorist attacks in Russia attributed to Chechens in 2003, which he said caused the deaths of 244 people. Although most significant attacks occurred in just two countries in 2002 -- Israel and India -- they occurred in 10 in 2003, Johnson said: Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Turkey."

"When you read the report, TTIC did not add [the data] properly. Even a third-grader could have found this," Johnson said. "The body counts in 2002 and 2003 were at the highest levels in history."

Tom the only sense being made by doophy is NON sense. Figures you would back him up.
As he said most delicately something about........

"participation in their own "circle-jerks."

I had to wonder if he got that from rush. Another delicate prankster, or he coined that on his own. Way to go doophy

[hcap]

Btw

The WSJ, and other media outlets that were gung ho for the war are now beating up on the preznit. Of course half a dozen scandals are brewing, and eveyone loves a scandal-remember monica? However threre could be another reason the wolves are feeding on their young.

Saboteurs have attacked vital oil pipelines 130 times in the last seven months, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and lost revenues, and were increasingly targeting infrastructure.

Oh oh better get a new war preznit--this one can't get the oil back on line.

Speaking of scandals. Here's a duesy.
This time grimace head, the master puppeteer himself, mister VICE preznit cheney has to answer some mildly embarrasing questions.

SEC begins formal probe of Halliburton bribery charges

By Seth Borenstein

Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8902953.htm

WASHINGTON - The federal government has opened a formal investigation into charges that Halliburton Inc. bribed Nigerian officials during the 1990s, when Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of the conglomerate, the firm disclosed Friday.....

as Drudge says, developing
Lets see is that 6 or 7 concurrent investigations? Hard to keep a talley.

[hcap]

What I said about previous colonial powers eventually folding and becoming a shadow of their former self, happened to the great Roman empire. Although I don't think empire is where we should be, a republic is more respectable, and more sustainable---here is some background on the romans.

Fall of the Roman Empire

In his famous history, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbons outlined the major reasons for the fall of Rome:

* The government became increasingly controlled by the rich and the military

* Imperialistic militarism became the primary state policy, with increasing amounts of funds spent on armaments for foreign wars

* Patriotism declined as people lost their allegiance to the state

* The state imposed ever increasing taxes on the middle class

* Moral decay was evident as depicted in its literature, amusements, and lifestyles that often portrayed gratuitous sex and violence; there was a mad craze for pleasure, with sports becoming progressively more brutal

* As productivity declined, the Roman empire became more dependent on foreign products (globalism)

* A break-down in the labor force occurred as the traditional work ethic declined

* The infrastructure of the cities eroded and began a steady decay

* A balance of trade deficit began to occur in increasing volume

* The cost of government, including the military and welfare, become unbearably burdensome to the taxpayers

* Class economic warfare broke out between the rich and poor

* Parts of the empire were not taxed while others were overtaxed

* Christianity challenged the traditional Roman character traits and caused people to neglect the state as they concentrated on personal salvation; religion degenerated into mere form, losing touch with life and becoming impotent to guide it

Sound familiar?

Of course if we go BACK to a REPUBLIC, we have this history

Enlightenment thinkers--especially American philosophers Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and James Monroe. Their study of the Enlightenment Tradition made it possible for them to create an entirely new nation and establish its foundations on the fundamental civil liberties set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"Enlightenment liberalism set the individual free politically, intellectually, and economically. The political universe was demystified, as the magical power of thrones, scepters, and crowns was replaced by rational acts of consent. The individual (understood, of course, in the Enlightenment as male and property-owning) did not receive government and authority from a God who had given his secular sword to princes and magistrates to rule by his divine right. Nor did the individual keep any longer to his subordinate place in a divinely inspired hierarchy, in which kings and nobelmen had been placed above him as 'your highness' who were society's natural governors. Government was voluntarily established by free individuals through a willful act of contract. Individuals rationally consented to limit their own freedom and to obey civil authority in order to have public protection of their natural rights. Government's purpose was to serve self-interest, to enable individuals to enjoy peacefully their rights to life, liberty, and property, not to serve the glory of God or dynasties, and certainly not to dictate moral or religious truth."

Isaac Kramnick (Editor). (1995).
The Portable Enlightenment Reader

[Tom]

Did they name Goofy Glue after you?:D
Is there a point to all this? Are you auditioning for host of 60 Minutes? Did you lose a bet?
Try de-caf, Hcap.....;)

[hcap]

Just thought I would write some.
Cut and paste some.
Covered a lot of topics. My favorite was Rev Moon on the erratic bush thread. Peruse and amuse

Also be glad I didn't post that stuff in lemmingease- //////////////>>>>>>>
Hard to do the jokes. Don't know if lemmings can laugh as they are falling off cliffs

Still got some more to say, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Oh wait they got some big haired bimbo on FOX news. Gotta go, got some learnin' to do.

:cool: :cool:

[hcap]

Another thought on negotiating with terrorists.

Defense bill to top $1 trillion
Congress backs budget heavy on future weapons
By Dan Morgan

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - As Congress moves ahead with a huge new defense bill, lawmakers are making only modest changes in the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism.



Ok we take only some of the moneythat has nothing to do with fighting terrorism-say $500 Billion, and pay off every terrorist in the world. We set up a "special master" to oversee disbursement and even allow the bad guys to buy things like McDonald franchises and real estate in new jersey. And as an introductory offer a free SUV. $500 Billion spread out among -let's say- 50,000 terrorists is around $10,000,000--10 million bucks.Subtract 30,000 for a brand new SUV and their still in gravy.

Remember we paid off Iraqi officers via the cia before the invasion

The administration might get some flack, but they could sloganize it on fox, like....

"Just say no to endless war"

:eek:

[hcap]

BTW,

During the iran-contra affair, Ronnie negotiated with terrorists.

From
http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwha t%2bdid%2bronald%2breagan%2bsay%2babout%2biran%2bc ontra%26o%3d0%26page%3d2&q=what+did+ronald+reagan+say+about+iran+contra&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da% 26uid%3d0F97ADDA7D7C18104%26sid%3d1118EB818DA28BC0 4%26qid%3dA3761E6F0B8A7C4B899F5D9BF34C9560%26io%3d 6%26sv%3dza5cb0d71%26o%3d0%26ask%3dwhat%2bdid%2bro nald%2breagan%2bsay%2babout%2biran%2bcontra%26uip% 3d400c7450%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dDaphne%2bDispatch%26ac%3d5%26qs%3d0%26p g%3d2%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d154%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhtt p%3a%2f%2fwww.ustrek.org%2fodyssey%2fsemester2%2f0 41801%2f041801daphnecontra.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ustrek.org%2fodyssey%2fsemeste r2%2f041801%2f041801daphnecontra.html&qte=0&o=0

"American hostages were being held in Lebanon by terrorists linked to the Iranian government. Reagan was supposedly taking a firm stance against those involved, at one point even declaring that "America will never make concessions to terrorists." But in November 1986, a Lebanese weekly magazine published a story exposing an arms-for-hostages trade between the American and Iranian governments. Between August 20, 1985 and October 28, 1986, the U.S. shipped more than 2,000 antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Iran in exchange for money and Iran's promise to obtain the release of the hostages."

The ends justifies the means? In other words, realpolitics.

[Tom]

You gonna buy off Bin Laden?
s'plain that one to me?

[Lefty]

just say no to stupid ideas like the above. You can't pay off terrorists. Bribes like you suggested emboldens them. Maybe you had some tongue in cheek here, but on 2nd thght i doubt it. Evidence to the contrary, libs keep thinking you can negotiate with evil.
Peace is only achieved through victory. ! trillion for defense is money better spent than 5 trillion on poverty with no results.

[hcap]

LeftyMaybe you had some tongue in cheek here, but on 2nd thght i doubt itI saidand even allow the bad guys to buy things like McDonald franchises and real estate in new jersey. And as an introductory offer a free SUVTonque in cheek? NAH!

Tom--"You gonna buy off Bin Laden?
s'plain that one to me?

Well just to be the devil's advocate, if you buy off his followers, you don't have to buy off Bin Laden.

But my point was that we are spending a huge amount on non- terrorists weapons.

"...the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism."

Why?

[lsbets]

Hcap said:
"You may have an up close view of events around you, but are you sure of your facts?"

Ummm, a hell of a lot more sure than you are, I can guarantee you that one.

I also like where on one post you said most of the violence here is not Al-Queda, but ordinary Iraqis trying to remove an occupier, but then when I posted something to contradict what you said, based on what I live every day, you said that you did not mean they actually did the fighting. Is that like voting both for and against the war, or is that like not inhaling? At least I got a good laugh out of that one.

[Lefty]

Weapons money is well spent and all about vision. You never know, we might eventually have to take on China and N. Korea, especially after Clinton gave em a leg up.

[Tom]

They are planning ahead-isn't that what you have castigating them for not doing uip to 9-11-01?
Perhaps they just might have a little clearer picture of what our needs will be than you do.

[Secretariat]

This from Powell on the bogus terror report.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/powell_terror_report&cid=542&ncid=716

[Tom]

So what's the big brew-ha-ha?
It's wrong, they admit it, it's beimng fixed.
Slow news day, Sec?

[Secretariat]

Seems even when it is a Coalition Sponsored Poll it seems 90% of Iraqis want us out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_poll_1