What's new

Bush Won, America Got It Right Again!

Not that I want to get in the middle, But 99% of those people who get arrested haven't broken the law. They never get charged, and if they do the case gets thrown out immed. They just hold em till the party is over.Its bullshit and totally unamerican. Both parties do it.

In other news.....

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...ampdown?pg=full

Democracy? WTF?

And how does this protect me from "terror"?
I will never forgive Bush for Iraq, not cause I give a damn about our rep in the world, or the Iraq people, but cause I will never be conviced that anything we do in Iraq was worth ONE US life, much less 1500+ with no end in sight. While you a@#holes #### about moore and the evil dems(who havent won anything in what?8 years?how is everything still our fault?), 60+ Americans died to occupy a #### town in the middle of nowhere.
 
The men and women that are over there are keeping that war from our shores and from our soil. Say what you want about Bush and Iraq but you and I will never know what was really going on over there. Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, even the Dems concede that point. He had the machinery, the scientists as well as the desire. The only thing that he didn't do (that has been found yet) is manufacture it. Given more time he surely would've done that and would've given it to the terrorists to use against us. If Iraq isn't so important to Al-Queda and there allied organizations then why are they fighting so hard over there to beat us? It's because if we beat them there they will suffer even further with a democracy setup in their own backyard. They don't want that...they want the ENTIRE WORLD to be setup in a Taliban type rule. Is that what you want for you and your children and grandchildren? I don't! Not for yours or mine or anyones.
The Hollywood elite have been embraced by the dems. When that happened all dems everywhere were spoken for when the likes of Whoopi, Moore, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and such all went out and berated in the ugliest way they could the President and all republicans. Until that stops and the democrats stop labeling all republicans as right-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country then maybe, just maybe some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.
Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that abortion is wrong and should be banned. I believe a woman has the right to choose and should do so BEFORE she has unprotected sex. I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and if a woman becomes pregnant against her will it's his plan for her and that child. Have the child and give it up for adoption if you want to but killing an unborn child is wrong no matter what pretty face is painted on it. JMO...blast away.
 
MrAeroMan said:
The men and women that are over there are keeping that war from our shores and from our soil. Say what you want about Bush and Iraq but you and I will never know what was really going on over there. Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, even the Dems concede that point. He had the machinery, the scientists as well as the desire. The only thing that he didn't do (that has been found yet) is manufacture it. Given more time he surely would've done that and would've given it to the terrorists to use against us. If Iraq isn't so important to Al-Queda and there allied organizations then why are they fighting so hard over there to beat us? It's because if we beat them there they will suffer even further with a democracy setup in their own backyard. They don't want that...they want the ENTIRE WORLD to be setup in a Taliban type rule. Is that what you want for you and your children and grandchildren? I don't! Not for yours or mine or anyones.
The Hollywood elite have been embraced by the dems. When that happened all dems everywhere were spoken for when the likes of Whoopi, Moore, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and such all went out and berated in the ugliest way they could the President and all republicans. Until that stops and the democrats stop labeling all republicans as right-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country then maybe, just maybe some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.
Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that abortion is wrong and should be banned. I believe a woman has the right to choose and should do so BEFORE she has unprotected sex. I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and if a woman becomes pregnant against her will it's his plan for her and that child. Have the child and give it up for adoption if you want to but killing an unborn child is wrong no matter what pretty face is painted on it. JMO...blast away.
[post="227136"][/post]​

You are on record and well stated. No blasting here. You have a right to your opinion. I disagree with much that you have said, but you have a right to say as you please. But please don't forget that one of your "Hollywood Elite" now resides in Sacramento and another notable one resided at 1600 Penn. Ave. for 8 years. Oh, I know, they're different.

Just remember that the republican party is not foreign to their wonderful labelings as well, so it goes both ways. You know as well as I that most of us fall somewhere in the middle. 🙂
 
The men and women that are over there are keeping that war from our shores and from our soil.

What, from the Iraqi Amphibious Assault Divisions that were poised on our coasts? How many terrorist attacks on the US have been either funded by Iraq or carried out by Iraqis? That's right, none. Therefore, using your logic, we had more reason to invade Saudi Arabia as they were clearly a more imminent threat.

Say what you want about Bush and Iraq but you and I will never know what was really going on over there.

Sounds like a war we should really be involved in, doesn't it? We certainly won't know if we depend on the Bush folks to tell us. However, those of us who have been there and have loved ones there and have tried to educate ourselves on the subject might disagree with the "you and" part of your statement.

Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, even the Dems concede that point. He had the machinery, the scientists as well as the desire.

As does North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others. And unlike Saddam, they keep their equipment in operating condition and ready to go. They know that chemical and biological agents have a shelf-life, so they keep their stocks refreshed, also unlike Saddam.

The only thing that he didn't do (that has been found yet) is manufacture it.

Unlike North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others, who are quite busy doing just that.

Given more time he surely would've done that and would've given it to the terrorists to use against us.

Given time he would have built a time machine and gone back to tell himself not to invade Kuwait, but he didn't do that either. Given more time he would have built giant space battleships and ruled the world, but, just like the WMD threat, there's no evidence he was doing that either. Given more time he might have continued to live in his fantasy land where he mattered on the world stage, and we would have more than a thousand of our best and brightest available for the real fight against the terrorists. Unfortunately we chose to fulfill his fantasy instead.

If Iraq isn't so important to Al-Queda and there allied organizations then why are they fighting so hard over there to beat us?

Even according to the Bush administration, the majority of those fighting us in Iraq have no connection to Al Qaeda. While many Al Qaeda fighters have come to Iraq since the invasion, drawn by the opportunity to kill more Americans, there was virtually no Al Qaeda presence in the country before the invasion and Al Qaeda has not been found to play any part in the leadership of the insurgents.

It's because if we beat them there they will suffer even further with a democracy setup in their own backyard.

Since they know Iraqi history much better than most Americans do, the no doubt know that it is extermely unlikely for democracy to take root in Iraq. As long as the Sunni minority does not want to be ruled by the Shiite majority they so recently ruled, and badly, there will be an insurgency in Iraq, completely without reference to Al Qaeda. They were killing each other long before Saddam and they will be killing each other long after Saddam.

They don't want that...they want the ENTIRE WORLD to be setup in a Taliban type rule.

And where have they stated this goal? How many mosques have sent missionaries to the US to convert the infidels? Look at the number of times they have invaded a foreign country to replace its government versus the number of times we have and tell me again who wants to remake the world in their image?

Is that what you want for you and your children and grandchildren? I don't! Not for yours or mine or anyones.

Wow, an updated version of the old "The Commies want to rape your daughters and corrupt your sons" propaganda. Nice. Definitely a real blast from the past there. Equally as unlikely too.

The Hollywood elite have been embraced by the dems.

I find it fascinating that people who are obviously not Democrats spend so much time telling Democrats what Democrats believe or what Democrats have embraced. Almost as fascinating as the fact that most Democrats will sit there and let them do it. Save your wishful thinking for the boys at the RNC, if the Democratic party can find room for liberals like Susan Sarandon and conservatives like me, it is certainly more representative of America than what the Republicans have become.

When that happened all dems everywhere were spoken for when the likes of Whoopi, Moore, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and such all went out and berated in the ugliest way they could the President and all republicans.

As opposed to when Rush Limbaugh encourages the President to ignore the Democrats the people DID elect or when Ann Coulter refers to them as traitors and barely stops short of suggesting they be put into concentration camps in some sort of Republican Final Solution? How about The Governator out in California, you don't get much more "Hollywood Elite" than Arnold, yet I don't hear you opposing his continuous slams against the Democrats.

Until that stops and the democrats stop labeling all republicans as right-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country then maybe, just maybe some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.

Until that stops and the Republicans stop labeling all Democrats as left-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country or hand it over to the UN, then maybe, just maybe, some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.

Just keep in mind, Mr Aeroman, that it was the Republicans, through Rush and others, that broke the civility barrier first. If the Democrats start responding in kind, it's kind of bad sportsmanship to start crying "Foul".

Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that abortion is wrong and should be banned. I believe a woman has the right to choose and should do so BEFORE she has unprotected sex. I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and if a woman becomes pregnant against her will it's his plan for her and that child. Have the child and give it up for adoption if you want to but killing an unborn child is wrong no matter what pretty face is painted on it.

Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that a woman's right to choose is her right and should be not be banned. I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and is the ultimate judge for all of us and that if abortion is a sin, then those who sin will be called to account for it.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Want to lead by example? Adopt as many as you can afford, give those who might get abortions a real alternative.

Don't like being told what to do? Don't presume to tell others what to do!

But realize that complaining about having the will of others imposed on you while you would impose your will on others has a rather hollow ring to it.
 
The men and women that are over there are keeping that war from our shores and from our soil.

..How? I know your not talking about Iraq. Afganistan made sence, Iraq NEVER DID.

Say what you want about Bush and Iraq but you and I will never know what was really going on over there. Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, even the Dems concede that point. He had the machinery, the scientists as well as the desire. The only thing that he didn't do (that has been found yet) is manufacture it.

..So did every other country, and those other countries actually supported and still suppoert alqueeda. Why did we ignore them to go after Iraq? There is no good reason. The facts are that the Inspectors were in Iraq doing thier jobs, being guided by the CIA, and finding nothing.

Given more time he surely would've done that and would've given it to the terrorists to use against us.

...Why? what was he waiting for? 20 years? 30 years? The capabilities he supposidly had werent potential ones. He was an impotent old dictator waiting to die.

If Iraq isn't so important to Al-Queda and there allied organizations then why are they fighting so hard over there to beat us?

..Remember, MOST of the people fighting over there are not fighting for alqueeda. They are fighting for thier piece of Iraq. Your using an uprising of locals to justify the war.

It's because if we beat them there they will suffer even further with a democracy setup in their own backyard. They don't want that...they want the ENTIRE WORLD to be setup in a Taliban type rule. Is that what you want for you and your children and grandchildren? I don't! Not for yours or mine or anyones.

...HELLO, Afganistan isnt going to be a democracy? Maybe Iraq will be to, but how will that stop Alqueeda? they werent set up in Iraq. they weren financialy backed by Iraq. They had nothing to do with Iraq. If we wanted to go after alqueeda that was then Iran makes a much better target. Then and Now. Why was Iran ignored?


The Hollywood elite have been embraced by the dems. When that happened all dems everywhere were spoken for when the likes of Whoopi, Moore, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and such all went out and berated in the ugliest way they could the President and all republicans. Until that stops and the democrats stop labeling all republicans as right-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country then maybe, just maybe some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.

...people who vote based on who woopie et al endorse have already made up thier minds. The problem with the dems is they dont bring god into thier politics.


Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that abortion is wrong and should be banned.

..your not wrong to feel that way.

I believe a woman has the right to choose and should do so BEFORE she has unprotected sex.

..I believe a woman has the right to be educated about sex, If her parents choose.

I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and if a woman becomes pregnant against her will it's his plan for her and that child. Have the child and give it up for adoption if you want to but killing an unborn child is wrong no matter what pretty face is painted on it. JMO...blast away.

..thats fine and perfectly legitimate. But our laws as far as government is concerned are not ruled by religon, and when life begins is a grey issue. Certinly 2nd and 3rd trimester is a life, 99% of people agree with that. But before that its up for argument. the right has come to adopt your side of these kinds of issues cause they know you will vote for them even if it harms you economicaly or socialy.

...we are not to supppose Gods plan. remeber god gave us the gift of free will. If you must, you should not attach Gods will to a woman becoming pregnant and not the result whatever that may be.
 
What, from the Iraqi Amphibious Assault Divisions that were poised on our coasts? How many terrorist attacks on the US have been either funded by Iraq or carried out by Iraqis? That's right, none. Therefore, using your logic, we had more reason to invade Saudi Arabia as they were clearly a more imminent threat.

That little assault division you're speaking of accesses our country each day through our porous borders assisted by those already setup in this country. You have no proof whatsoever that Iraquis are not funding terrorism and if you think that Saddam didn't fund terrorists efforts your head is still where I think it's been for a long time.

Sounds like a war we should really be involved in, doesn't it? We certainly won't know if we depend on the Bush folks to tell us. However, those of us who have been there and have loved ones there and have tried to educate ourselves on the subject might disagree with the "you and" part of your statement.

Like we could count on slick Willy to tell us the truth. Why didn't he take Somolia up on it's offer to hand over Usama when they offered?? I know several people that are there or have been there and each and everyone of them states the same thing. They all say the reports coming from Iraq are not consistant with the realities of the majority of the country. Most of the Iraqi people are happy to be free of Saddam as well as having the US rebuild their country.

As does North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others. And unlike Saddam, they keep their equipment in operating condition and ready to go. They know that chemical and biological agents have a shelf-life, so they keep their stocks refreshed, also unlike Saddam.

Yeah....so does UK, US, Germany, Russia etc so what's your point? Saddam was buying time and influence and would use his weapons through the terrorists given time.

Unlike North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others, who are quite busy doing just that.

and?????????

Given time he would have built a time machine and gone back to tell himself not to invade Kuwait, but he didn't do that either. Given more time he would have built giant space battleships and ruled the world, but, just like the WMD threat, there's no evidence he was doing that either. Given more time he might have continued to live in his fantasy land where he mattered on the world stage, and we would have more than a thousand of our best and brightest available for the real fight against the terrorists. Unfortunately we chose to fulfill his fantasy instead.

The WMD threat was not only missed by the CIA and US intelligence agencies but it was missed by everyone of the intelligence agencies of our allies. Given your choice we'd still be negotiating with him to get out of Kuwait.

Even according to the Bush administration, the majority of those fighting us in Iraq have no connection to Al Qaeda. While many Al Qaeda fighters have come to Iraq since the invasion, drawn by the opportunity to kill more Americans, there was virtually no Al Qaeda presence in the country before the invasion and Al Qaeda has not been found to play any part in the leadership of the insurgents.

Oh really?? How did Zarqawi get set up so quickly and efficiently then? He was wounded in Afghanistan and treated in Iraq. So much for your theory huh?

Since they know Iraqi history much better than most Americans do, the no doubt know that it is extermely unlikely for democracy to take root in Iraq. As long as the Sunni minority does not want to be ruled by the Shiite majority they so recently ruled, and badly, there will be an insurgency in Iraq, completely without reference to Al Qaeda. They were killing each other long before Saddam and they will be killing each other long after Saddam.

That's their choice. Not Saddams and if they want to kill each other then they will. No one will stop them but they won't be using nukes nor chemical weapons doing so.

And where have they stated this goal? How many mosques have sent missionaries to the US to convert the infidels? Look at the number of times they have invaded a foreign country to replace its government versus the number of times we have and tell me again who wants to remake the world in their image?

You can't be serious! Do you not realize the amount of mosques in the United States is enormous? The 9/11 hijackers were involved in many of them spewing the venom of Usama inside these borders. Invading a foreign country to replace it's government? Hello!! Ever heard of Afghanistan and the Taliban? What do you think that was? It certainly wasn't Neverland.

Wow, an updated version of the old "The Commies want to rape your daughters and corrupt your sons" propaganda. Nice. Definitely a real blast from the past there. Equally as unlikely too.

If you're willing to take that chance with you and yours fine but don't include me and mine in your broad brushing tactics. By the time you get your head out of the sand the rest of you will be buried. I must say it's not surprising. Read your history pal. Those that don't know their history will be condemned to repeat it.

I find it fascinating that people who are obviously not Democrats spend so much time telling Democrats what Democrats believe or what Democrats have embraced. Almost as fascinating as the fact that most Democrats will sit there and let them do it. Save your wishful thinking for the boys at the RNC, if the Democratic party can find room for liberals like Susan Sarandon and conservatives like me, it is certainly more representative of America than what the Republicans have become.

You think the Democratic party is representative of America?? You truly have no clue. Have fun with the likes of your party.

As opposed to when Rush Limbaugh encourages the President to ignore the Democrats the people DID elect or when Ann Coulter refers to them as traitors and barely stops short of suggesting they be put into concentration camps in some sort of Republican Final Solution? How about The Governator out in California, you don't get much more "Hollywood Elite" than Arnold, yet I don't hear you opposing his continuous slams against the Democrats.

What slams has Arnold put against the Dems? This is America pal...Rush and Ann are residents and have free speech just like the democrats that told seniors AGAIN in this election that the republicans were going to take their social security away. Thanks to Ed Asner for that one huh?

Until that stops and the Republicans stop labeling all Democrats as left-winged fanatics that want to ruin the country or hand it over to the UN, then maybe, just maybe, some common ground can be obtained but until then the venom from both sides is poisoning everything it touches.

Well reign in the Democrats that are calling for us to go to the UN everytime something arises and maybe they won't feel that way.

Just keep in mind, Mr Aeroman, that it was the Republicans, through Rush and others, that broke the civility barrier first. If the Democrats start responding in kind, it's kind of bad sportsmanship to start crying "Foul".

My side won NWA. I could care less what you think about me and my party. Keep thinking you and your side represents the majority of America. It's fine with me as it makes my job easier.

Personally I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong to believe that a woman's right to choose is her right and should be not be banned. I also believe God is all knowing and all powerful and is the ultimate judge for all of us and that if abortion is a sin, then those who sin will be called to account for it.

You must've been a Nazi in another life. Let them answer for the six million Jews they killed huh NWA? How sick is that? I'm glad you're going to answer for your not doing anything to stop the killing of an entire generation just because it's a womans right to choose.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Want to lead by example? Adopt as many as you can afford, give those who might get abortions a real alternative.

I am leading by example. I have adopted and given an alternative. What have you done sport?

Don't like being told what to do? Don't presume to tell others what to do!

Your turn to lead by example.

But realize that complaining about having the will of others imposed on you while you would impose your will on others has a rather hollow ring to it.

I never said I wanted my will imposed on others. I believe in personal responsibility and taking ownership of the repurcussions of ones decisions. Something you and your heroes will never do.
 
sentrido said:
..thats fine and perfectly legitimate. But our laws as far as government is concerned are not ruled by religon, and when life begins is a grey issue. Certinly 2nd and 3rd trimester is a life, 99% of people agree with that. But before that its up for argument. the right has come to adopt your side of these kinds of issues cause they know you will vote for them even if it harms you economicaly or socialy.

...we are not to supppose Gods plan. remeber god gave us the gift of free will. If you must, you should not attach Gods will to a woman becoming pregnant and not the result whatever that may be.
[post="227302"][/post]​

99% ?????? I don't know what periodicals you're reading or who you're getting your information from but there is no way 99% of people agree life doesn't begin until the 2nd or 3rd trimester. Life begins at conception in my opinion but I realize that not everyone agrees with me but I'm sure I'm not in the 1% that believes that. That may be indicative of those on these boards but not the population in general.
 
Certinly 2nd and 3rd trimester is a life, 99% of people agree with that

Read it again, I think you misunderstood.
 
MrAeroMan said:
That little assault division you're speaking of accesses our country each day through our porous borders assisted by those already setup in this country.
[post="227827"][/post]​

Which has exactly nothing to do with Iraq, which was the subject we were discussing.

You have no proof whatsoever that Iraquis are not funding terrorism...

Any you have absolutely no proof that they did. On the other hand we do have proof about how Saddam historically dealt with religious extremists such as Al Qaeda in his country - he executed them.

...and if you think that Saddam didn't fund terrorists efforts your head is still where I think it's been for a long time.

I'll type it slowly so you can understand: Show me real evidence of what you claim and I will be happy to believe it. Not opinion, or op-ed passing itself off as news from the Neo-Con fringe, but actual evidence. The 9/11 commission traced the funding for Al Qaeda and 9/11 pretty closely and found no Iraqi involvement, but if I choose to disregard the wishful thinking of the Neo-COns who need to justify their war in Iraq and ask for evidence, I'm the one with my head 'up and locked'? I think not. Also, if I remember my elementary school protocol, I'm now supposed to call you a 'doodyhead' in response to the juvenile personal attack contained in your reply.

Like we could count on slick Willy to tell us the truth.

Ahhh......the Neo-Con boogeyman is invoked! Exactly what does Clinton have to do with the Bush administration decision to invade Iraq and their less-than-candid record on the subject since?

Why didn't he take Somolia up on it's offer to hand over Usama when they offered??

Why did Bush choose to give the Taliban over $60 Million in May 2001? Did he really think they were going to stop growing opium? Considering that opium production in Afghanistan has actually gone UP since we took over, maybe not.

I know several people that are there or have been there and each and everyone of them states the same thing. They all say the reports coming from Iraq are not consistant with the realities of the majority of the country.

I know several people who felt the same way about South Vietnam.

Most of the Iraqi people are happy to be free of Saddam as well as having the US rebuild their country.

And have risen up against the insurgents and turned them in to the authorities. Wait, that hasn't happened, has it? What if the Iraqis us their new found freedoms to put Saddam, or someone like him, back in power? Think we'll be OK with that and say "Well, that's how democracy works"?

Yeah....so does UK, US, Germany, Russia etc so what's your point?

'They have 'em, Saddam didn't.', seems simple enough. You might want to double check your information on Germany having WMDs though.

Saddam was buying time and influence and would use his weapons through the terrorists given time.

Yet in the years between 1991 and 2003 he didn't even try. With the UN sanctions crippling his economy and US and UK aircraft denying him the use of his skies, he just wasn't mad enough to resort to WMDs? What do you think he was waiting for?

and?????????

but????????

Again, I'll go slowly in deference to you: If posession of WMDs is a justification for invasion in Iraq, why is it not a justification in, for instance, North Korea?

The WMD threat was not only missed by the CIA and US intelligence agencies but it was missed by everyone of the intelligence agencies of our allies.

Yet when the Iraqis presented their WMD accounting to the UN, a document over 10,000 pages, the US took that document - allegedly to copy it - we returned it with almost 8,000 pages missing. (Then complained it was incomplete.) If anyone had reason to know, and the ability to know, it was us; but when presented with the mounting evidence that Saddam was not producing WMDs, the Bush administration chose to ignore what did not reinforce their predisposition to invade.

Given your choice we'd still be negotiating with him to get out of Kuwait

You couldn't be more wrong. I believed in our need to liberate Kuwait so strongly that I returned to active duty from the reserves and served there, and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, until complications from wounds I suffered in Vietnam twenty-five years before forced me into medical retirement from the Corps after 22 years of active and four years of reserve service.

What did you do in the war, daddy?

Oh really?? How did Zarqawi get set up so quickly and efficiently then? He was wounded in Afghanistan and treated in Iraq. So much for your theory huh?

What part of "While many Al Qaeda fighters have come to Iraq since the invasion, drawn by the opportunity to kill more Americans, there was virtually no Al Qaeda presence in the country before the invasion..." did you not understand?

That's their choice. Not Saddams and if they want to kill each other then they will. No one will stop them but they won't be using nukes nor chemical weapons doing so.

Not yet anyway. Considering that Iran is backing the Shiites, yet another country that has chemical and biological weapons and is working on nukes, that could change pretty quickly.

You can't be serious! Do you not realize the amount of mosques in the United States is enormous? The 9/11 hijackers were involved in many of them spewing the venom of Usama inside these borders.

As opposed to the white supremacist churches that have been doing the same thing in the US for years, a message led directly to the bombing in Oklahoma City? If you have evidence of your allegations, I'm sure the FBI would be glad to have it.

Invading a foreign country to replace it's government? Hello!! Ever heard of Afghanistan and the Taliban? What do you think that was? It certainly wasn't Neverland.

The Taliban were Afghanis. Hello!! How do you invade your own country? They were only able to come to power after the rest of the world turned their backs on Afghanistan and Bush seemed perfectly happy to work with them right up until 9/11.

If you're willing to take that chance with you and yours fine but don't include me and mine in your broad brushing tactics.

I'm not the one painting with a broad brush here, implying that all moslems in the country are trying to destroy America. You are.

One of the men I work with is an Iranian Shiite muslim who, while serving our country in Vietnam, earned the Navy Cross and a Silver Star - both awards for his valor in combat on behalf of our nation. Should we paint him with your broad brush as well? Or does he get a special concentration camp in your America?

By the time you get your head out of the sand the rest of you will be buried. I must say it's not surprising. Read your history pal. Those that don't know their history will be condemned to repeat it.

Read it so much I got a degree in it, pal. Ever heard of the US 'liberation' of the Phillippines after the Spanish-American War? Enjoying watching it repeated in Iraq? It only took almost 80 years until we let the Phillippines start electing their own government, how long do you think it will be in Iraq?

You think the Democratic party is representative of America?? You truly have no clue. Have fun with the likes of your party.

Better that than remaining a Republican in a party that has abandoned its founding principles of minimum government interference in our daily lives and fiscal responsibility.

What slams has Arnold put against the Dems?

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/4/212850.shtml

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/california.cf...ats_07200400017

This is the man the Republicans want us to change our Constitution for?

This is America pal...Rush and Ann are residents and have free speech just like the democrats that told seniors AGAIN in this election that the republicans were going to take their social security away. Thanks to Ed Asner for that one huh?

So Rush and Ann have a right to free speech and Ed Asner doesn't? An interesting America you would have us live in.

Well reign in the Democrats that are calling for us to go to the UN everytime something arises and maybe they won't feel that way.

Well, reign in the Republicans who think that we have a right to do things in other countries without consulting the rest of the world and maybe they won't feel that way.

My side won NWA. I could care less what you think about me and my party. Keep thinking you and your side represents the majority of America. It's fine with me as it makes my job easier.

A ringing 3% mandate at that. Just remember that the same electorate elected Clinton twice as well. The fact is that most Americans are moderates who resist the Neo-Con attempts to polarize our nation, and many former Republicans, including myself, are happy to now be lumped in with those "Liberals" that you think make up the Democratic party.

You must've been a Nazi in another life.

Hmmm......more personal attacks........how original. You must have been an idiot in another life and you've managed to expand on that experience impressively.

Let them answer for the six million Jews they killed huh NWA?

Nope, nor should we let the Saudis advocate just such a solution for Israel, which they have done.

How sick is that?

Quite. Seek help.

I'm glad you're going to answer for your not doing anything to stop the killing of an entire generation just because it's a womans right to choose.

So am I, and I'll do it with my head held high. Since your side has failed to condemn the killing of those it feels are involved in abortion, such as doctors, it seems that it is a question of timing for you - aborting a fetus in the first trimester is wrong but aborting a doctor in the thirty-third is OK. I'm far more comfortable with my sins than I would be with yours. Maybe you can explain to God which 'entire generation' was killed.

I am leading by example. I have adopted and given an alternative. What have you done sport?

I adopted FOUR, sport. Two of whom are currently defending your right to whine.

Your turn to lead by example.

You first, for a change.

I never said I wanted my will imposed on others.

Yet you feel that you should be able to tell women not to have abortions........interesting.

I believe in personal responsibility and taking ownership of the repurcussions of ones decisions.

As do I, but unlike you I back up my words with deeds.

Something you and your heroes will never do.

An interesting presumption, but, as usual, wrong.
 
NWA/AMT said:
What did you do in the war, daddy?

As do I, but unlike you I back up my words with deeds.
An interesting presumption, but, as usual, wrong.
[post="227975"][/post]​

I love conservative democrats; I really do! And I trully love our veterans! I really mean that. My deepest respect goes out to all of you. But here's my question. I've had discussions with you before NWA/AMT. I just want to know what your point of view is. What exactly are you trying to get across to all of us? All the B.S. aside. I know you've read your Bible; and all words with deeds won't get you in to Heaven. So you can talk about backing up your words with deeds all you want to. So, what exactly are you trying to convince me of? BELIEVE ME, I deeply respect you for what you did in uniform;and I would gladly have done it in your place, no matter how horrifying it was. I want to know what you're trying to convince me of now. You spout your knowledge of what's going on in the Middle East like an Expository Preacher with such ferver and lust that I am sometimes confused between the identity of a postwar veteran and the Secretary of War or the Secretary of Defense or a high ranking member of the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. or some other inner counsel member or the President himself. You always provoke others to provide proof of what they say when most times I find that what you say is just your opinion as well. You appear intelligent. You appear sincere. You appear believable. But I don't know. I'm just a laymen. I just want the truth. And how do I know that your truth is any more truthful than any of the other truth that's out there? How do I know that your post is more truthful than the post that follows? You seem just as prone to lashing out as the rest of us. You almost seem to defend Saddam. I think you even defend Irag at times. That's why I'd like you to be clear; crystal clear. What exactly is your position? Let's leave George W. Bush out of the equation for the moment. Where does NWA/AMT stand? Where do you think America stands? What do you think our position is, and what do you think it should be? And by the way, how do I get one of them medals like John Kerry got? I'd really like to get me one of them Combat V's! All I gots to do is fill the paperwork out myself, right?
I'm just poking fun; Lol!
 
TheLazarusman said:
I just want to know what your point of view is.
[post="228048"][/post]​

I think I've made that very clear. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask it.

What exactly are you trying to get across to all of us?

That what you are being told is not necessarily the whole story. For instance: it is convenient and easy to think Al Qaeda attacks us because they 'hate freedom', but to think that this is the only reason is to misunderstand and underestimate your enemy.

All the B.S. aside. I know you've read your Bible; and all words with deeds won't get you in to Heaven.So you can talk about backing up your words with deeds all you want to.

It is by our actions that we will be judged, not our words. Saying something is soooo much easier than doing something.

So, what exactly are you trying to convince me of?

Not a thing. What are you trying to NOT be convinced of?

BELIEVE ME, I deeply respect you for what you did in uniform;and I would gladly have done it in your place, no matter how horrifying it was.

BELIEVE ME, I would be happy to have let you.

You spout your knowledge of what's going on in the Middle East like an Expository Preacher with such ferver and lust that I am sometimes confused between the identity of a postwar veteran and the Secretary of War or the Secretary of Defense or a high ranking member of the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. or some other inner counsel member or the President himself.

So, what you're saying is that it is a bad thing to be informed, to have done research before you speak?

You always provoke others to provide proof of what they say when most times I find that what you say is just your opinion as well.

I think I have done a very good job of providing references for my statements.

You appear intelligent. You appear sincere. You appear believable.

Thank you.

But I don't know. I'm just a laymen. I just want the truth. And how do I know that your truth is any more truthful than any of the other truth that's out there? How do I know that your post is more truthful than the post that follows?

Verify it for yourself.

You seem just as prone to lashing out as the rest of us.

I am, and I've admitted that fact repeatedly. Nowdays I try to limit that tendency to responding to the insults of others, in kind.

You almost seem to defend Saddam. I think you even defend Irag at times.

Nope, it's a little more complex than that. Nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time, Saddam and George W. Bush included.

That's why I'd like you to be clear; crystal clear. What exactly is your position? Let's leave George W. Bush out of the equation for the moment. Where does NWA/AMT stand? Where do you think America stands? What do you think our position is, and what do you think it should be?

On what subject? Iraq? That's easy. George H.W. Bush was right to invade and right not to occupy, George W. Bush was wrong to invade and wrong to occupy. Our involvement in Iraq has been a tremendous drain on our resources and has drawn vital assets away from our real war with Al Qaeda. Like the five or six nations who have invaded and occupied Iraq before us and tried to recreate Iraq in their image, we will fail. Clear enough?

And by the way, how do I get one of them medals like John Kerry got? I'd really like to get me one of them Combat V's

I have a couple. Send me your address and I'll send you one.

Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you will return the favor. What does The Lazarusman believe?
 
NWA/AMT said:
I think I've made that very clear. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask it.
That what you are being told is not necessarily the whole story. For instance: it is convenient and easy to think Al Qaeda attacks us because they 'hate freedom', but to think that this is the only reason is to misunderstand and underestimate your enemy.
It is by our actions that we will be judged, not our words. Saying something is soooo much easier than doing something.
Not a thing. What are you trying to NOT be convinced of?
BELIEVE ME, I would be happy to have let you.
So, what you're saying is that it is a bad thing to be informed, to have done research before you speak?
I think I have done a very good job of providing references for my statements.
Thank you.
Verify it for yourself.
I am, and I've admitted that fact repeatedly. Nowdays I try to limit that tendency to responding to the insults of others, in kind.
Nope, it's a little more complex than that. Nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time, Saddam and George W. Bush included.
On what subject? Iraq? That's easy. George H.W. Bush was right to invade and right not to occupy, George W. Bush was wrong to invade and wrong to occupy. Our involvement in Iraq has been a tremendous drain on our resources and has drawn vital assets away from our real war with Al Qaeda. Like the five or six nations who have invaded and occupied Iraq before us and tried to recreate Iraq in their image, we will fail. Clear enough?
I have a couple. Send me your address and I'll send you one.

Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you will return the favor. What does The Lazarusman believe?
[post="228067"][/post]​

Tnank you for your answers to my questions. They were "crystal clear."
As for what The Lazarusman believes, here's a little clue:
We are not judged by works and deeds, "Lest any man should boast...," but by that which is left behind after the chaff is burned away; whatever that might be.

This past election was a lesser of two evils affair. It was my personal choice to stick with George W. Our real chance to make a difference will probably be four years from now.

The decision to invade Iraq was a response to 9/11. It probably wasn't the right one, but the public demanded something. The decision to stay there,and to remain there now, is definitely the wrong one. Bring our men and women home! We should stick with the war with Al Quaeda; if we can even do that. Our battle should now be with Osama.

And while I'm on that note, I don't like our Foreign Policy anyway. I'm tired of the United States being the defenders of the Free World. Half the countries we "assist" don't want our help anyway; or say they didn't need it after we free them from their oppressors time and time again (France). Let the U.N. be the defenders of the Free World without so much assistance from the USA. Let's take care of what's going on within our own borders for a while. I think a lot less of our men and women in uniform would be placed in harms way that way. After all, I don't think we've fought ourselves in about 150 years. Hell, I'm from Texas. I'm a successionist. Bring on the Republic! We've got enough problems within the borders of our own state.

As for providing references to statements, it's almost like playing tennis. You provide a reference, I provide a reference, you provide another, I provide another; back and forth, back and forth. And you're right, nobody is right all the time; I certainly am not.

As for what I'm trying to be convinced of, nothing. I just want to see how you come to some of your conclusions sometimes. Believe it or not I tend to agree with the majority of what you say; we just differed on the issue of Election 2004. I, like you, am not swayed very easily by one sides rhetoric or the others. I would prefer to sit back and watch both sides present all their information and then make as educated a decision as I can based on what is presented before me.

As for my Combat V, can I get Ketchup with that? 😀
 
TheLazarusman said:
Tnank you for your answers to my questions. They were "crystal clear."
As for what The Lazarusman believes, here's a little clue:
We are not judged by works and deeds, "Lest any man should boast...," but by that which is left behind after the chaff is burned away; whatever that might be.

This past election was a lesser of two evils affair. It was my personal choice to stick with George W. Our real chance to make a difference will probably be four years from now.

The decision to invade Iraq was a response to 9/11. It probably wasn't the right one, but the public demanded something. The decision to stay there,and to remain there now, is definitely the wrong one. Bring our men and women home! We should stick with the war with Al Quaeda; if we can even do that. Our battle should now be with Osama.

And while I'm on that note, I don't like our Foreign Policy anyway. I'm tired of the United States being the defenders of the Free World. Half the countries we "assist" don't want our help anyway; or say they didn't need it after we free them from their oppressors time and time again (France). Let the U.N. be the defenders of the Free World without so much assistance from the USA. Let's take care of what's going on within our own borders for a while. I think a lot less of our men and women in uniform would be placed in harms way that way. After all, I don't think we've fought ourselves in about 150 years. Hell, I'm from Texas. I'm a successionist. Bring on the Republic! We've got enough problems within the borders of our own state.

As for providing references to statements, it's almost like playing tennis. You provide a reference, I provide a reference, you provide another, I provide another; back and forth, back and forth. And you're right, nobody is right all the time; I certainly am not.

As for what I'm trying to be convinced of, nothing. I just want to see how you come to some of your conclusions sometimes. Believe it or not I tend to agree with the majority of what you say; we just differed on the issue of Election 2004. I, like you, am not swayed very easily by one sides rhetoric or the others. I would prefer to sit back and watch both sides present all their information and then make as educated a decision as I can based on what is presented before me.

As for my Combat V, can I get Ketchup with that? 😀
[post="228161"][/post]​

Thank you for your answers also, they were also very clear.

I am afraid that once we went into Iraq, we were committed to seeing it through. It was this reality that led me to oppose that action. However, if we abandon Iraq now, we risk creating another Afghanistan and another refuge for Al Qaeda. Seeing it through will, in my opinion, be the work of a generation as this is not the sort of thing we can just declare 'done' and be on our merry way. The elections in January are not the end of our involvement there but only the end of the beginning. Even then we face the historical reality that a people cannot be given democracy, they have to take it for themselves and so far the Iraqis do not appear willing or able to do that. The fact that our victory was inevitable makes the obvious failure to plan for the aftermath of that victory even more inexplicable.

I also think that the best way to support our troops is not to spend their lives lightly or without being certain of the necessity of their sacrifice. When they sign on, they agree to give even their lives if necessary for the defense of our nation and it is implicit in that agreement that they depend on us to make sure that such a sacrifice IS necessary. That's our job and we didn't do it in the case of Iraq.

I agree that it is more appropriate for the UN to be the world's policeman than it is for the US to do so. Implicit in that opinion, however, is the realization that we will not always agree with their decisions or feel that they are moving fast enough for us. I don't think that by doing so that we will be eliminating our ability to engage in unilateral action to defend our nation, we will still be the greatest military power on the planet, but we may be reducing the need to do so.

Providing references in a debate has become easier, but providing ones that the other side of a debate will accept has become more problematic, with the advent of the internet. The fact that there are more sources is a function of the fact that it is easier to create those sources and that also means that the truth and accuracy of those sources is less dependable. The internet is not held to the same standards, either legal or social, as print or broadcast media and neither of those is held to the same standards as book publishers. That is why I prefer to use books as my primary sources, a fact that makes them hard to use as a reference here. For instance, there are many books that will provide the information on the social and political realities in Iraq that I have posted here. Two good sources, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, are The Iraq War by John Keegan and The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.

The past election is just that - past. George W. Bush was, clearly this time, elected, both houses of Congress are still Republican and the Supreme Court is still dominated by the conservatives and is likely to remain so for a long time. While Bush speaking of the need to work together at the inauguration was nice, the fact that one of his first actions was to chastise the Democrats in the Senate who have held up exactly 10 of his judicial nominations while approving 270 others shows that nothing has really changed. The fact that the Republicans in Congress, who changed the rules regarding committee chairmanships when Democrats held those chairs, have now changed them back when it suited their purposes and now threaten to change the rules of the Senate regarding fillibusters for the same reason shows that nothing has really changed there either. With leadership like this our nation will only become more divided, not less.

I will continue to judge those in power by their deeds, not their words, and will continue to question those deeds when I feel it is appropriate. It is not just our right to do so, it is our responsibility to do so.
 
NWA/AMT said:
Thank you for your answers also, they were also very clear.
[post="228204"][/post]​

Your welcome.

NWA/AMT said:
I am afraid that once we went into Iraq, we were committed to seeing it through. It was this reality that led me to oppose that action. However, if we abandon Iraq now, we risk creating another Afghanistan and another refuge for Al Qaeda. Seeing it through will, in my opinion, be the work of a generation as this is not the sort of thing we can just declare 'done' and be on our merry way. The elections in January are not the end of our involvement there but only the end of the beginning. Even then we face the historical reality that a people cannot be given democracy, they have to take it for themselves and so far the Iraqis do not appear willing or able to do that. The fact that our victory was inevitable makes the obvious failure to plan for the aftermath of that victory even more inexplicable.
[post="228204"][/post]​

It's a shame that we can't just vacate Iraq and leave a vaacuum behind. I agree that we are unfortunately now committed. It appears to me that the Iraqi leaders want us to help them with their elections and then leave them to their vices, while the Iraqi people want us to create the United States of Iraq. They want our goods, our lifestyle, and our money.

NWA/AMT said:
I also think that the best way to support our troops is not to spend their lives lightly or without being certain of the necessity of their sacrifice. When they sign on, they agree to give even their lives if necessary for the defense of our nation and it is implicit in that agreement that they depend on us to make sure that such a sacrifice IS necessary. That's our job and we didn't do it in the case of Iraq.
[post="228204"][/post]​

We certainly did not.

NWA/AMT said:
I agree that it is more appropriate for the UN to be the world's policeman than it is for the US to do so. Implicit in that opinion, however, is the realization that we will not always agree with their decisions or feel that they are moving fast enough for us. I don't think that by doing so that we will be eliminating our ability to engage in unilateral action to defend our nation, we will still be the greatest military power on the planet, but we may be reducing the need to do so.
[post="228204"][/post]​

It is unfortunate that just because we are the worlds greatest military power we are almost implored and expected by most countries to prove that point in every international situation. Where would the U. n. be without the U. s. of a. ?

NWA/AMT said:
Providing references in a debate has become easier, but providing ones that the other side of a debate will accept has become more problematic, with the advent of the internet. The fact that there are more sources is a function of the fact that it is easier to create those sources and that also means that the truth and accuracy of those sources is less dependable. The internet is not held to the same standards, either legal or social, as print or broadcast media and neither of those is held to the same standards as book publishers. That is why I prefer to use books as my primary sources, a fact that makes them hard to use as a reference here. For instance, there are many books that will provide the information on the social and political realities in Iraq that I have posted here. Two good sources, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, are The Iraq War by John Keegan and The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.
[post="228204"][/post]​

I agree. That's why on the whole John Kerry issue I said that noone knows what happened that day except those that were there; and even they couldn't agree. I thank you for using books as your primary sources of reference!!!

NWA/AMT said:
The past election is just that - past. George W. Bush was, clearly this time, elected, both houses of Congress are still Republican and the Supreme Court is still dominated by the conservatives and is likely to remain so for a long time. While Bush speaking of the need to work together at the inauguration was nice, the fact that one of his first actions was to chastise the Democrats in the Senate who have held up exactly 10 of his judicial nominations while approving 270 others shows that nothing has really changed. The fact that the Republicans in Congress, who changed the rules regarding committee chairmanships when Democrats held those chairs, have now changed them back when it suited their purposes and now threaten to change the rules of the Senate regarding fillibusters for the same reason shows that nothing has really changed there either. With leadership like this our nation will only become more divided, not less.
[post="228204"][/post]​

I cannot wonder that, were the democrats in power, they would not have done the same thing; would it have benefitted them to do so. Politics is a dirty, nasty business.

NWA/AMT said:
I will continue to judge those in power by their deeds, not their words, and will continue to question those deeds when I feel it is appropriate. It is not just our right to do so, it is our responsibility to do so.
[post="228204"][/post]​

I am inclined to agree.

[post="228204"][/post]​
[/quote]
 
TheLazarusman said:
It's a shame that we can't just vacate Iraq and leave a vaacuum behind. I agree that we are unfortunately now committed. It appears to me that the Iraqi leaders want us to help them with their elections and then leave them to their vices, while the Iraqi people want us to create the United States of Iraq. They want our goods, our lifestyle, and our money.

I think if you were to ask them, the majority of the Iraqis would say they just want to be left alone by both sides. The Iraqi leaders certainly do want us to help put them in power and then go away, but history has shown us what happens when we do that.

It is unfortunate that just because we are the worlds greatest military power we are almost implored and expected by most countries to prove that point in every international situation.

In the case of Iraq, just the opposite was true. However, even when it is true, sometimes the best thing we can do is refuse to accede to their wishes. If we attempt to solve all the worlds problems they will never do it for themselves, and they will still hate us for it.

I cannot wonder that, were the democrats in power, they would not have done the same thing; would it have benefitted them to do so. Politics is a dirty, nasty business.

Indeed it is, but history shows clearly that when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they did not alter the rules in their favor or to suit their needs, as the Republicans recently did for Tom DeLay. They now threaten to do so again regarding the judicial nomination process, a process they have already altered repeatedly since 1994.

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-1-174.html
 
Back
Top