Recommended Posts
ColdDuck 0
I think to many people in hear assume that the right to be heard is the same as the right to be taken seriously. 
You can claim all day long that we were lied to by this President. If you dont think that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the U.S. and our allies, you are sadly confused. The assumptions that Iraq had/or was working to build a WMD arensal was shared by numerous intelligence agencies around the world. I personally dont believe that Hussein would have attacked us directly with a WMD. I am certain however, that he would have had no qualms about using such a weapon against Israel, or providing a WMD to a terrorist group that would gladly have used it against Israel.
Some of you would still argue that perhaps this is still not our problem. I could not disagree with you more. If a WMD were to be used agaisnt Israel, it would most assuredly retaliate against Iraq with nuclear weapons. I think you can all see how that scenario would play itself out.
President Bush made a difficult and controversial decision. Any decision to go to war is sure to garner a certain amount of resentment. But, that is what our President is supposed to do. That is where President Clinton failed in my opinion. His administration did nothing to prevent this situation.
"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"
You can claim all day long that we were lied to by this President. If you dont think that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the U.S. and our allies, you are sadly confused. The assumptions that Iraq had/or was working to build a WMD arensal was shared by numerous intelligence agencies around the world. I personally dont believe that Hussein would have attacked us directly with a WMD. I am certain however, that he would have had no qualms about using such a weapon against Israel, or providing a WMD to a terrorist group that would gladly have used it against Israel.
Some of you would still argue that perhaps this is still not our problem. I could not disagree with you more. If a WMD were to be used agaisnt Israel, it would most assuredly retaliate against Iraq with nuclear weapons. I think you can all see how that scenario would play itself out.
President Bush made a difficult and controversial decision. Any decision to go to war is sure to garner a certain amount of resentment. But, that is what our President is supposed to do. That is where President Clinton failed in my opinion. His administration did nothing to prevent this situation.
"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"
purnell 0
QuoteQuoteIn his speech, Bush said, “We’ve lost some of our nation’s finest men and women in the war on terror. A time of war is a time for sacrifice.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9772398/
Can someone please explain what the fuck Bush has sacrificed?
What a dickhead.
What has Bush sacrificed? Probably his humanity. Can you imagine being personaly responsible for sending 2,000 US service personel to their deaths? How about the untold wounded he visits each week?
A dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!?
The administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it.
2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president.
I sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
And so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose.
2,000 kids gave their lives over the past 3 years deciding for you. Honor them.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Gee, maybe all those liberal Congressmen should've voted against
>the use of force, then...
They would have, had they not been lied to. I suspect even if you were against a war you would vote for it if the vote was (supposedly) needed to protect america against an imminent threat.
Quite nice, being able to post with perfect 20/20 hindsight, isn't it?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
What has Bush sacrificed? Probably his humanity. Can you imagine being personaly responsible for sending 2,000 US service personel to their deaths? How about the untold wounded he visits each week?
A dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!?
The administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it.
2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president.
I sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
And so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose.
2,000 kids gave their lives over the past 3 years deciding for you. Honor them.
A dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!?
The administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it.
2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president.
I sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
And so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose.
2,000 kids gave their lives over the past 3 years deciding for you. Honor them.
How interesting. I feel enlighted. You ask many questions which you immediately answer by yourself but, all of those answers start with: perhaps? why? I don't know... I don't know..... So, what do you really know?
But you know EXACTLY who the dickheads are. Who is it?
PS:
"2000 kids gave their lives..." They did NOT! Their lives were taken away. Big difference.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Blame it to the one who sent them into that horrible war.dudeist skydiver # 3105
But we all know that for propaganda purposes it sounds better to say those kids gave their lives. Like if they were heroes, giving their life to save someone else´s life, instead of giving their life for killing who happens to be at the moment an ex-US ally.
QuoteWhat has Bush sacrificed? Probably his humanity. Can you imagine being personaly responsible for sending 2,000 US service personel to their deaths? How about the untold wounded he visits each week?
You are assuming he cares. Not everybody is as caring as you seem to be.
Except maybe a handful of people in DZ who also cares about the 10.000+ inocent civilians killed when trying to stablish a military presence on the region.
QuoteA dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!?
I don´t thinl the problem is that he is a dickhead. He is a dickhead, mind you. But i think that the problem is a major conflict of interests. There is too many people high in the chain of command that has a lot to gain with this war.
QuoteThe administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it.
So I ask you, do you think it is okay to invade a sovereign country just to stablish a military presence on the region?
Would it be okay if Europe decided to invade the U.S to stablish a military presence on America?
Quote2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president.
It is because the fearful U.S citizenship are so easily pushed around by the government with threats.
QuoteI sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
I was in atocha train station everyday at the time the bombs went off, i was lucky that day i fell asleep. Another terrorist group exploded a bomb car in the very same street a live (50 meters away from my house) and i didn´t support war against any country. So knock it off with 9/11, you lost all simpathy from the world. We don´t apreciate knee jerk reaction that affect the whole world.
QuoteAnd so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose.
My philophy is to treat people like you would like to be treated, and it seems to be working so far.
I was tempted to go by the "I will do it because i can" philosophy, and the "i can do it because i am good no matter what, you cannot do it because you are evil no matter what" But i realized that there was too many people with those philosophis and decided to be a bit diferent.
purnell 0
QuoteQuoteWhat has Bush sacrificed? Probably his humanity. Can you imagine being personaly responsible for sending 2,000 US service personel to their deaths? How about the untold wounded he visits each week?
You are assuming he cares. Not everybody is as caring as you seem to be.
Except maybe a handful of people in DZ who also cares about the 10.000+ inocent civilians killed when trying to stablish a military presence on the region.
It's hopefully more than a handful. And shame on all of us for turning a blind eye as the prior regime executed the citizenry by the hundreds of thousands.
And yes, I do believe he cares quite deeply. But that's my subjective opinion.QuoteA dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!?
I don´t thinl the problem is that he is a dickhead. He is a dickhead, mind you. But i think that the problem is a major conflict of interests. There is too many people high in the chain of command that has a lot to gain with this war.
I really don't think this war is an effort to pad Dick Cheny's wallet. Dick can do that on his own quite readily. But if we want to have the blood-for-oil discussion, perhaps we should start with the UN oil-for-food program that seems to have benefited so many of Saddam's European supporters.QuoteThe administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it.
So I ask you, do you think it is okay to invade a sovereign country just to stablish a military presence on the region?
Would it be okay if Europe decided to invade the U.S to stablish a military presence on America?
In one sense, Europe already has a military presence here via the NATO partnership.
As for sovereignty, is any government in place against the will of its own population sovereign? Why? Because some Europeans drew its borders on the back of a napkin on their way out of town? Sovereignty doesn't exist at the end of the barrel of a gun...though sometimes it's a necessary starting point.Quote2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president.
It is because the fearful U.S citizenship are so easily pushed around by the government with threats.
Most here are neither fearful nor easily pushed around by our government.QuoteI sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
I was in atocha train station everyday at the time the bombs went off, i was lucky that day i fell asleep. Another terrorist group exploded a bomb car in the very same street a live (50 meters away from my house) and i didn´t support war against any country. So knock it off with 9/11, you lost all simpathy from the world. We don´t apreciate knee jerk reaction that affect the whole world.
You have my sympathy for your direct exposure to the fascist terrorists who use coordinated violence against civilian targets. And you'll have my sympathy regardless of what you or your government does about it. Interesting that yours is given or taken away like a poker chip during the process of political discourse.QuoteAnd so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose.
My philophy is to treat people like you would like to be treated, and it seems to be working so far.
I was tempted to go by the "I will do it because i can" philosophy, and the "i can do it because i am good no matter what, you cannot do it because you are evil no matter what" But i realized that there was too many people with those philosophis and decided to be a bit diferent.
And thankfully you live in a nation who's government has put in place the institutions and rule of law that allow you your philosophy. Many still live under regimes that permit no such luxury. The dickheads who blew up your transit system would like very much to take those rights away from you.
The fascists who intentionally target women and children in order to instill fear and promote their unique brand of hatred are your enemy. Not George Bush.
I posted here in a forum I swore I would never post in because of my dismay with which many flippantly throw around US casualty figures as a means to as a means to attack Bush. Bush provides many opportunities all on his own to invite attack.
If we want to play the numbers game, perhaps we should argue about the 40,000 killed in Kashmir and the lack of an adequate international response. Perhaps we should move on to Darfur and the 100,000 killed in another religious "misunderstanding". Perhaps we should look to Rwanda and the 800,000 genocide that occurred under our collective noses. Maybe the 40,000,000 body count that socialism and communism have racked up over the years.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteIf we want to play the numbers game, perhaps we should argue about the 40,000 killed in Kashmir and the lack of an adequate international response. Perhaps we should move on to Darfur and the 100,000 killed in another religious "misunderstanding". Perhaps we should look to Rwanda and the 800,000 genocide that occurred under our collective noses. Maybe the 40,000,000 body count that socialism and communism have racked up over the years.
Exactly, which also immediately negates the argument that the US is in Iraq mainly for humanitarian reasons.
QuoteYou can claim all day long that we were lied to by this President.
Please show me where I said this.
It would really be nice if people would read posts prior to responding to them. My post had to do with free speech.
QuoteI sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush.
Please provide a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
purnell 0
Militant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.
purnell 0
We are not there for humanitarian reasons...we are there to instill a representative government in a region where such things do not exist today. For selfish reasons.
QuoteMilitant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.
What is Saudi Arabia!
Did I win anything?
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
purnell 0
A government that subsidizes militant Islam! They're next. Sorry, you don't win anything. What the %$%#@ time is it on the west coast? Aren't you up a little early?
QuoteMilitant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.
There's a credible, non rhetorical link.
Before he gets ripped to rhetorical shreds.
If you read that Constitution which you are sworn to defend, you will notice that the right to free speech is enumerated in the First Amendment, because the Founding Fathers felt it was pretty damn important. Don't you?
The right too dissent is what has made this country strong, not a bloated military.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites