George Patton Speaks! Listen up America!

[Shooter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

[Sponsored Links]

[HS345]

WOW!!! That was awsome.
Shooter is right (and correct also), America better wake up and smell the I.E.D.s, which stands for, Iranian Explosive Devices.

:usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:

[kate42]

Shooter :wave:
:goodpost: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:

[chuck stevenson]

Shooter,

Thanx for sharing.

[Oldrem]

Thanks Shooter - I just passed it on to my shooting pards over at sassnet.com

[cx]

Kinda silly in my view.

This is someone's opinion of what a dead general might think about our "war on terror?"

If anything, I'd say the little clip is a good example of why decisions to go to war shouldn't be left to military men. They are hired to fight wars. That's what we pay them for. But when the only tool any man has is a hammer, he's gonna see every problem as a nail, eh?

I'm all in favor of having good, effective generals in charge of our military, but I really don't care what they think about global politics beyond the simple respect I'd give anyone else's reasoned opinion.

But I'm even less interested in someones opinion of what someone else, anyone else, especially a dead General, might have thought about that or any other weighty matter.

I think Patton might have had sense enough to recognize that there can be no such thing as a war on terror and might have shared that opinion with the Current Resident. But who cares what I think he might have thought, eh? :shake:

[bbcamp]

Amen, Kelly! :tup2:

[Westie]

Is it any wonder Iran want to develope its own weapons?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20003692/

[sdaniels7114]

Imagine for a moment that the USSR hadn't crumbled 20 years ago; but instead had grown and prospered to the point that they were able to invade and take Canada or Mexico 4 years ago. What would we be doing militarily? If we had the Commies breathing right down our necks wouldn't we be developing every single weapon that might possibly stop them from crossing the border and taking us?

Well Iran's Canada/Mexico was invaded 4 years ago. I know those people are weird; but they're not that weird. Their effort to develop nukes or anything else that might be useful in defense right now is as natural as a drowning person reaching for a lifeline. They're terrified of us invading and they have every reason to be.

[cx]

To the best of my knowledge, there's only one nation on this planet that has ever used a nuclear weapon against the civilian population of another nation. Twice. That nation currently has a leader who has demonstrated his willingness to militarily invade and occupy another sovereign nation without provocation and for stated reasons not clearly defined and rather fluid. That leader is known to be a bit of a religious fanatic, as well.

We all want the rest of the world to forcibly disarm that nation, too? :shades:

[Shooter]

Hmmmmm.....YGBFKM! Thinking Iran is working on its quest to obtain nuclear weapons to protect themselves is a joke. The leader of this nation flat out said the holocaust was a myth and that all Jews need to be removed from the middle east and the nations of Islam shall pretty much inherit the earth.

Irans nutbag president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a senior officer in Irans Special Brigade of Revolutionary Guards. This was the security and intelligence unit of "Extra-territorial operations". This was mainly during the days of the Iran / Iraq war. He was the head of an assasinations and special operations group who conducted many covert operations / assasinations / torture you name it outside of their borders. And now this nutbag is the leader of a nation.

He believes that the earth will be inherited and ruled by the muslim nation and to hell with anyone and everyone else. And to hell is where he wants to see us Americans and yes you Canucks also or anyone who is not a muslim.

Try reversing it and reason that the buildup in the middle east of our allies is because this nutbag who thumbs his nose at any non muslim nation and could care less what NATO or anyone else has to say. Any country who has a quest for nuclear weapons and thinks that there is only enough room on this planet for muslims ought to be a concern to many and not just Americans.

I don't care what you political views are because that was a pretty damn funny parody of a very great man! But you know what isn't so funny. Much of what was said in that video is oh so true.

Damn liberals will be the death of us all.

[MHI]

"To the best of my knowledge, there's only one nation on this planet that has ever used a nuclear weapon against the civilian population of another nation. Twice."

And if that said nation didn't use those two bombs, we would all be speaking japanese.:)

[kate42]

:wave:

That leader is known to be a bit of a religious fanatic

Why is that? I just see him as a man who believes in God and has stong religious beliefs.

[cx]

And if that said nation didn't use those two bombs, we would all be speaking japanese.Maybe, maybe not, Matt.

My point was that when you think it a good idea to tell other sovereign nations that they can't have WMD, you aughta come to the table with clean hands. We can't do that. And we have no more business telling Iran what kinda weapons they can have than Iran would have telling us.

I know we like to think we're on higher moral ground than the rest of the world, but we don't have the history to go with that perception. Better we should learn to mind our own bidness a bit more than we do. Perhaps we could get this country back on track that way.

[HS345]

Imagine for a moment that the USSR hadn't crumbled 20 years ago; but instead had grown and prospered to the point that they were able to invade and take Canada or Mexico 4 years ago. What would we be doing militarily? If we had the Commies breathing right down our necks wouldn't we be developing every single weapon that might possibly stop them from crossing the border and taking us?

Well Iran's Canada/Mexico was invaded 4 years ago. I know those people are weird; but they're not that weird. Their effort to develop nukes or anything else that might be useful in defense right now is as natural as a drowning person reaching for a lifeline. They're terrified of us invading and they have every reason to be.

To the best of my knowledge, there's only one nation on this planet that has ever used a nuclear weapon against the civilian population of another nation. Twice. That nation currently has a leader who has demonstrated his willingness to militarily invade and occupy another sovereign nation without provocation and for stated reasons not clearly defined and rather fluid. That leader is known to be a bit of a religious fanatic, as well.

My point was that when you think it a good idea to tell other sovereign nations that they can't have WMD, you aughta come to the table with clean hands. We can't do that. And we have no more business telling Iran what kinda weapons they can have than Iran would have telling us.

I know we like to think we're on higher moral ground than the rest of the world, but we don't have the history to go with that perception. Better we should learn to mind our own bidness a bit more than we do. Perhaps we could get this country back on track that way.


What can one say about comments like this? My incredulity is streached to about 1/10th of a micron.
I just pray to GOD that the libs don't take the white house next year. :shake:

[StevieG]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/07/gingrich_us_is_in_phony_war.html

[ddmoit]

And if that said nation didn't use those two bombs, we would all be speaking japanese.

Matt, You tacked a smiley on the end of that, so I'm assuming it wasn't said in all seriousness.

But just in case, I'll mention that the Japanese were militarily defeated by the Spring of 1945. They had no ability to wage an offensive against the United States, and were actively suing for peace. The only real bone of contention was unconditional surrender - mostly, they wanted to keep their emperor. Ironically, they ended up keeping him anyway.

Those bombs were not dropped to save the thousands of US servicemen lives. They were dropped to preserve the political objective of unconditional surrender. (In my opinion, if we did not have the bombs, it is likely that our politicians would have wasted the lives of those servicemen to achieve a political objective. :shake: )

Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html)

The Untold Story of the Bombing of Nagasaki (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls3.html)

Targeting Civilians (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory61.html)

Pre-bomb Nagasaki: The Largest Christian Population in Japan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/pappas1.html)

And a ditto to everything CX said so far in this thread.

[flatfloor]

Dan, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death and take that literally. I have read this account from more than one source. If we had invaded the casualties would have been horrendous on both sides.

http://www.pearlharborsurvivorsonline.org/html/Invasion%20Plans.htm

[MHI]

When I tack on a smiley, its to mean that I am being friendly even though I may disagree with someone. If I wasn't being serious, I would tack on a :yeah:

We are not fighting enemies who's soldiers are simply willing to die for thier country, they are planning to die. Such as the comakazi pilots in pearl harbor, and the suicide bombers from the middle east. These aren't soldiers that love their country, they are individuals with little self worth and are easily brain washed into thinking that they will be doing something good with their otherwise useless life. A true soldier would be willing to die for his country, but would prefer to live for it instead.:)

[Scooter]

I think all of you need to relax, take a deep breath, and wait until September to hear General Patreaus. The issues are, I think:

1. Have we made any discernable progress in the last two years? And by my definition, I would want that qualified as a net progress, not two steps forward, three steps back.

2. What progress has our ally and chief puppet government, the Iraq, made in the last two years? Again, net progress.

3. Define a "win" on the war on terror in Iraq. My definition is a peacefull, free Iraq with democratic institutions without a civil war.

4. Can we "win" the war in Iraq?

5. On what timetable?

6. At what cost?

7. Using what resources?

8. Making what assumptions?


Once I hear the answers to those questions, I think the answer of whether the United States turns gets out or stays the course will be self evident to every rational person. Ultimately, it is said that war is too serious of an affair to be left to politicians, but the way our Consitution is set up, our President is commander in chief, and the wars are funded the Congress, so ultimately the jury will be Congress and the Presidential Candidates.

Me personally, I have predicted chaos and civil war in the region, since I switched sides on the Iraq war in 2003. I don't think waging a war for 10 more weeks, 10 more months, or 10 more years will yield any more benefit nor advance the ball any further. You have a disfunctional Iraqi government that wants us there to do its fighting and dying, so it can complain we're there to foster their own political agendas. And Iran is buddies with the Iraqi government. Its like we fought a war with Iraq and Iran won.

We'll see what happens, but this type of jingoism expressed in the video does very little when we as a Nation (75%) are fed up with the war, the troops are tired, the equipment is run down, and we have no draft to replace those poor soldiers.

[flatfloor]

You have a dysfunctions Iraqi government

Not so Scooter, they did agree to take only one month off instead of two. :)

[Oldrem]

Latest polls show interesting stats re Americans wanting to WAIT - not withdraw from Iraq http://www.gop.com/images/July_Iraq_Poll.pdf

[flatfloor]

That's because most Americans are not politicians.

[Scooter]

I don't take much stock in any Fox News Poll--Thats like having Michael Moore make a study and saying its unbiased. And having it interpreted by the GOP, really doesn't make it much more credible, either.

That being said, I think the poll reflects a mosiac of opinions.

Most want victory.

Most are afraid that the Iraqis will fail.

Most are afraid that the place will turn into chaos and civil war.

Most want to wait and let our General Patrieus tell us what to do.

Most are upset with the fact that early withdrawal will breed chaos.

But most people think the war was a mistake and that it was waged incompetently.

I don't think anyone is in favor of "immediate withdrawal" as the poll suggests. Nor does any serious Democrat propose such a strategy. Assuming the decision is made to withdraw, Congress and the President will have to take a lot more thought in how we withdraw than they took in deciding to go to war.

Unless this war is righted and righted soon, you are likely to see another Republican Bloodbath in 2008. And I don't blame the electorate one iota. So I ask you, if Hillary is elected in '08 as a result of this stupid war, was it worth it?

[HS345]

We'll see what happens, but this type of jingoism expressed in the video does very little when we as a Nation (75%) are fed up with the war, the troops are tired, the equipment is run down, and we have no draft to replace those poor soldiers.
I am so tired of hearing that a majority of Americans are fed up with the war. Says who? Some poll taken by the liberal, borderline treasonous, media? Yeah, I believe THOSE polls. What I do believe is that Americans are tired of losing wars due to politically correct bullship.
The troops are tired? Says who? I have seen amputees interviewed wishing they could get back in the fight. I think it would be fair to say SOME of the troops are tired.
The equipment is run down? Where did you hear that? Perhaps a reference.
We have no draft. Why, oh why, in the name of all that is sacred and good would we want a draft? We have the finest, ALL VOLUNTEER, fighting force in the world, quite possibly the history of mankind. I guarantee those "poor soldiers" don't want conscripts fighting along side them.
As Shooter stated earlier, YGBFKM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ddmoit]

Dan, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death and take that literally. I have read this account from more than one source. If we had invaded the casualties would have been horrendous on both sides.I don't deny that a great many Japanese soldiers were prepared to fight to the death for their emperor. Further, I don't deny that a US invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost many lives on both sides (although not nearly the numbers that are usually tossed around.)

What I am saying is that by the Spring of 1945, Japan had no ability to prosecute an offensive war against the United States, and was in fact suing for peace - a negotiated surrender that included the retention of their emperor.

Time was on our side for an end to the hostilities. But time was ticking away for political objectives. Those political objectives were the only reason the bombs were dropped.

[cx]

What I am saying is that by the Spring of 1945, Japan had no ability to prosecute an offensive war against the United States, and was in fact suing for peace - a negotiated surrender that included the retention of their emperor.Well, I, for one, didn't mean to turn this into a WWII/Japan thread, but....

Keep in mind that I was very, very young in 1945. :D

But the reading I've done on that conflict indicates that we'd already killed far more Japanese civilians with napalm dropped from B-29s on their cities than were killed in total by both atomic bombs. They were indeed beaten before the bombs, best I can tell. That they had customs and beliefs that would not easily allow any sort of surrender is pretty well established, too. But with the right offer, including keeping their emperor (as Dan alluded to) there could have been a surrender without the bombs. Ironically, I believe they did keep the emperor in the end, anyway, did they not?

Yeah, the big bombs pretty clearly had a lot to do with something other than just winning the war.

But my point in the original argument is that the government of the US of A ain't got no bidness telling nobody else what kinda weapons they can have or make. Of course that's the very same federal government that has forgotten our Constitution says they can't deny us citizens our right to keep and bear arms, either, eh?

[Scooter]

I am so tired of hearing that a majority of Americans are fed up with the war. Says who? Well, uh, maybe you missed the memo about the November 2006 elections. You may want to hit the library and check out a Time magazine or something if you were living in a cave.

My good friend cx is sorta right on this one. I've read the Oppenheimer bio this year, and when Truman was told about the "gadget" as they called it, Japan was already making surrender overatures to the Swiss and to the Russians, whom Japan hoped would broker a "fair" settlement.

The bomb was dropped more as a show to demonstrate to the Russians that we had it, and were the new 800 lb gorilla on the block.

Sadly, the Russians already knew about it, due to a British double agent and two guys at Los Alamos who had a misguided and dislusional idea that communism was good.

The bottom line--we didn't need to drop the bomb, as Japan was already in the midst of surrendering. It wasn't a case of if, but when.

It was all for show, guys.

And actually that was a major bone of contention with Oppenheimer, a Jew, who built the Gadget because of attrocities to Jews and to prevent a Nazi takeover of the world. Since Japan was already surrendering, he strongly lobbied that the Gadget not be used. He was viewed as a communist too (he had some left wing friends) and was ostrocized from that moment on.

[cx]

So I ask you, if Hillary is elected in '08 as a result of this stupid war, was it worth it?
Its like we fought a war with Iraq and Iran won. If them are originals, Scooter, I'm gonna vote for you in the best zinger catagory. :)

[HS345]

Well, uh, maybe you missed the memo about the November 2006 elections. You may want to hit the library and check out a Time magazine or something if you were living in a cave.

The 2006 elections weren't about Americans being fed up with the war, they were about conservatives being fed up with the "republican" party. In case you didn't notice, many of the dems that won their races ran on conservative platforms.

As I said before, Americans are fed up with L-O-S-I-N-G wars.

Good one about Time magazine though. :lol1: Me reading and actually believing anything written on that rag's pages would be akin to you believing a Fox News opinion dynamics poll.

[HS345]

Why thank you Alex, I'll take that as a compliment. :tup1:

Hey, where'd Alex's last post go?

[Shaughnn]

Here's an interesting article, that some might enjoy reading, from the "Contra Costa Times". The "CCT is a pretty "conservative" newspaper and historically tows a conservative line in it's editorials, endorsements and readership. That they published this piece tells me a little bit about which way the wind is really blowing.
"Why do they hate us?" (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_6493724?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com&IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com&nclick_check=1)

In case that link doesn't work, here's a link to the author's homepage where the article is also available.
http://www.mohsinhamid.com/whydotheyhateus.html

Enjoy the read,
Shaughnn

[ddmoit]

Hey Shaughnn,

That link requires a membership. Perhaps you could just summarize it for us.

[jjwq8]

Your constitutional rights to freedom of expression allow for those of us who are not US citizens to be thoroughly frightened by some of opinions expressed on this forum.
your freedom to congregate seems to have evolved into an imperative to coagulate because i swear that the responses of the zealots at both ends of the spectrum are irredeemably thick, though the "lefties" appear to possess the ability to cobble together a cogent argument.

At the time of his death Patton was a political pariah who may very well have been offed if Hollywood is to be believed.

The parody is clever, no doubt but is of no merit whatsoever.

Can we please move on?

[HS345]

Hello Jeremy, What is it about our comments that frightens you? Could you be more specific?

Also, although I see people that are passionate in their beliefs, I don't think there any zealots on this forum.

Freedom is what makes this country great, freedom shouldn't frighten anyone.
It is lack of freedom that should scare you.

:shades:

[jjwq8]

Well the unshakable belief that any problem can be resolved by the unrestricted application of military might is a good place to start.

[Shaughnn]

Wow, Greg,
"Forest through the trees", much?
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Hello Shaughnn, Huh?

[MHI]

"Well the unshakable belief that any problem can be resolved by the unrestricted application of military might is a good place to start."

What do you suggest, that we yell trick or treat at them instead?http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/taunt002.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)


Since this thread started with General Patton..."The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

[Scooter]

Greg, if you honestly think that the elections of 2006 were not a sounding board on the Iraq war, then I doubt there is anything I can say or quote you that will convince you. Suffice to say, every commentator on your beloved Fox News Network that night, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN that night opined as such. Now maybe you and Sean Hennity might disagree, but thats the consensus.

I like your opinion, and I hope you and the rest of the Republican base think alike. It will mean that you and the war mongering Repubs will undoubtedly put forth a platform of more war, ignoring the past 5 years like they never happened.

In such a case, Hillary Clinton will be elected.

Now I ask you, if that happens, was the war worth having Hillary being your President?

If I was a Repub, I would say no. If I was a neo-Con, I would say yes. What do you say?

[Scooter]

What do you suggest, that we yell trick or treat at them instead? I think Jim suggested that if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything in the world is a nail. We defeated Russia by not firing a shot in anger; We crushed the Russian Afghanistan adventure without a single soldier being lost; We got our hostages in Iran back without any military action (save and except the failed rescue attempt); We got Noriega out with any loss of life. The list goes on and on. The unfettered resort to military action ought to be the absolute last choice of failed diplomacy, not the first choice as your post suggests.

We can argue whether we as Americans should have the political will to see this through for another 5-15 years, but most politicians in Washington realize that between September and December, 2007 this will be do or die for Bush's Iraq war and that unless this thing is righted by then, a draw down is inevitable.

I know there will be much hand wringing, as their was in 1970 in VietNam, with a loud segment saying we should stick it through and see the conflict to its end (as this post suggests), but I think the political reality will be a draw down and some sort of retreat.

Moral of the story: Don't start a war unless you have the political will and political capital to finish it.

[Oldrem]

The way the new polls are headed, the Dems may not be able to get a dog catcher elected in '07

http://www.gop.com/images/JuneJuly_POTUS_Congress.pdf

Unless you don't want to believe polls from ABC, CBS and NBC as well.

[nforcer2]

I think there are some Panamanians that would disagree with the contention that noone died during that invasion. The next time youre in Panama take a look at some of the buidlings that were destroyed and you too might disagree.

[Scooter]

Oh, I didin't think we lost a single soldier--and he ultimately gave in. Perhaps I was mistaken. I have nothing to document that--only my memory.

[Scooter]

Eric, I think those GOP Polls and polls on "Congress" in general are fairly meaningless. "Congress" doesn't run for office and isn't up for election. It also includes a fairly evenly split Senate, so if your point is as the poll on "Congress" that all incumbent Senators and Congressmen will lose, I think that is fairly simplistic.

I think a better poll would be to look at the 1/3rd of the Senate which is up for re-election, which are listed as "vulnerable" and analyze the poll data on those specific offices; and do the same for the House. That analysis has been done, and in the Senate, there are about 10 vulnerable Repub offices and about 3 vulnerable Democrat offices. "Vulnerable" is fairly subjective, but hopefully you get my point--right now the Repubs are generally considered to be more vulnerable than the Democrats in the Senate.

[Shooter]

Originally posted by jjwq8
Can we please move on?Zealots ehh, well feel free to move on. This site, not unlike the good ole USA offers freedoms. Freedoms not to click on a thread in this case. Some of us zealots may wish to continue this conversation. :stick:

Originally posted by Scooter
We crushed the Russian Afghanistan adventure without a single soldier being lost. We got our hostages in Iran back without any military action (save and except the failed rescue attempt); We got Noriega out with any loss of life. The list goes on and on.
Untrue an all accounts. We lost American lives in the little Russian / Afghan squabble. Just because you don't read or hear about Americans lives being lost does not mean that we did not have Americans on the ground fighting the battle and there being loss of American life.

No military action for the hostages? Well you answered that one yourself. Failed rescue attempt or not, it was a military action commenced by the US and subsequent military action was inevitable. We did not just convince them to give up the hostages. After that "failed rescue attempt", the Iranians knew we meant business militarily and even though the rescue attempt failed it clearly showed the US intent on using military action. The Iranians also knew that Reagan was about to come into office and knew he wouldn't stand for their shit. They did the only prudent thing to save their butts while saving face. In their minds the entire incident was a win for them so they didn't lose face amongst their own people and were infact considered hero's. Hero's mind you, for being terrorists and taking hostages who were civilians, non-combatants. This is the mindset of these people. Kill em all, women, children, ALL, it does not matter to them!

As far as Noreiga goes, another YGBKM? We lost 18 soldiers, 4 Navy SEALs and 2 Marines along with 325 wounded Americans. All in a matter of a few days.

I am not some war mongering bloodthirsty ape. Unfortunatley when there are peoples out there who hate everything about your society and way of life and think it is a religious imperative to destroy us and our culture, war becomes a necessary evil. I do not like war, but I am also not stupid enough to wish to fight this battle on American soil. Anyone who thinks that we will be left alone, if we just pull out of the middle east, stick our heads in the sand and try to keep to ourselves, is a damn fool. We either fight this battle on their turf or we pull out, wait for another huge attack where we lose hundreds, thousands or more Americans on our soil, and have to fight the battle in our backyard.

Once again I preface the following by saying "I do not like war"! However, I guess I am the American type that sides with Patton on this one. If there is going to be bloodshed and war, take it to them sum bitches and make them bastards die for their country! And do it on their soil!

[MHI]

I'll add this, if you don't like fighting a war, then move to France.:)

[jjwq8]

Not the worst place on earth to be a peacenik:D
Provided you can live with the francophone fascisti who ignore anyone who is not totally fluent. But then I do recommend ignoring everyone :whip:

[HS345]

Wow, Greg,
"Forest through the trees", much?
Shaughnn
Again I ask Shaughnn, huh?

Greg, if you honestly think that the elections of 2006 were not a sounding board on the Iraq war, then I doubt there is anything I can say or quote you that will convince you. Suffice to say, every commentator on your beloved Fox News Network that night, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN that night opined as such. Now maybe you and Sean Hennity might disagree, but thats the consensus.
Scooter, I will concede that the 2006 elections were a "sounding board on the Iraq war" from your side. From my side it was more a case of conservatives being fed up with republicans abandoning their core principles. Had repubs not abandoned those principles, I don't think your side would have enjoyed such a sweeping victory. So in a sense, I guess we are both correct.

Btw, Fox news is not beloved by me, while I do enjoy some of their programming, their news dept. spews much of the same liberal garbage as the rest of the afore mentioned networks.

Additionally, you are wrong about Sean Hannity, he feels the same way I do, and reitterated his position as such on his radio program yesterday.

As for Hillary becoming president, of course I don't want that to happen, no sane person that is aware of her positions does. But I would not let that prevent me from doing the right thing in the war on terror.

One last point, I do feel that the Bush admin. has dropped the ball in Iraq, we should have learned long ago that it is imposible to wage a politically correct war.

[kate42]

:wave:

God Bless the USA
:usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
You said:
Also, although I see people that are passionate in their beliefs, I don't think there any zealots on this forum.
And to that I replied:
Wow, Greg, "Forest through the trees", much?
I think that I was implying that you are a steadfast tree smack-dab in the middle of the "Forrest of Zealotry". If you need a hand, here's the Webster version of "Zealous" for you to ponder.
"filled with or characterized by zeal : marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal"
As far as this conversation goes, I don't think you could demonstrate a position any less rational or any more partisan. I think you might just be the epicenter of the zealot-quake here. :D
Shaughnn

[cx]

But I would not let that prevent me from doing the right thing in the war on terror.Speaking of irrational, just how does a rational person make war on an abstract concept, Greg? :scratch:

[ddmoit]

Heck, CX, we've been kickin' the crap out of poverty since the LBJ administration - you know - takin' the fight right to where poverty lives. And, we won't stop until poverty surrenders, unconditionally.:D

[cx]

Drugs, too, Dan. Don't forget drugs!

Hell, we've nearly brought them to their knees a number of times, best I can tell. :rolleyes:

[Shaughnn]

Greg's arguements remind me very much of a conversation I had with my Uncle and Aunt back in 2002. My Uncle was very seriously pointing out the neccessity of the "War on Terror"(tm) and I asked "What is a 'terrorist' and who gets to decide who is and isn't one?" To that he sputtered and railed and sincerely yelled at me, but never was able to answer that question. I think it was because he didn't want to deal with how complex this topic really is. It's much more comfortable to think and say, "We're the good guys and *they* are the bad guys". It's easier to think in terms of bullets and bombs than it is to imagine how to change someone else's mind about their own actions. I suppose that if we all lived on a checkerboard, then both my Uncle and Greg would be much more comfortable. But the truth is that national borders are just lines arbitrarily drawn on maps. The truth is that ideas are impervious to bullets. The truth is that you can't *tell* someone that they should "trust" and that they should not "resent". Those are understandings which have to be nurtured and protected.
I think that in Greg's world, their might be only little windows and all of the doors are both locked from the inside and out? Maybe I'm wrong though?
Shaughnn

[Scooter]

From my side it was more a case of conservatives being fed up with republicans abandoning their core principles. Had repubs not abandoned those principles, I don't think your side would have enjoyed such a sweeping victory. I've heard this before in the Nazi News Network (Fox News) and it makes no sense to me. If you think about that statement, that implies that Republicans actually switched sides and voted for Democrats??? Or perhaps stayed home in disgust, while the Democrats and Independents voted solidly Democratic? In response I would point out that those losing Republicans were anti-abortion, pro-war on terror, tax cutting conservatives. One example was the Virgina race between James H. Webb and incumbent George Allen. That race was decided strictly on the war issue and some stupid racially insensitive remarks by Allen. I don't see how Allen " abandoned conservative core principles." Maybe you can explain that for me. Fox news is not beloved by me, while I do enjoy some of their programming, their news dept. spews much of the same liberal garbage as the rest of the afore mentioned networks. Well that statement does paint you into a corner of demagog. I guess you are the Al Sharpton of the Right Wing. I admire your candor.As for Hillary becoming president, of course I don't want that to happen, no sane person that is aware of her positions does. But I would not let that prevent me from doing the right thing in the war on terror. So, if the misguided "War on Terror™" and Bush's botched Iraq War makes Hillary and Obamba our Executive Branch, you are OK with that. Again, thats what most die hards believe too, that the war was necessary, and if Hillary becomes President as a result of the botched job, then so be it. Again, I admire you honesty.

[Shooter]

Originally posted by Shaughnn
I asked "What is a 'terrorist' and who gets to decide who is and isn't one?" And for some of you who are taking the phrase "War on Terror" out of context and trying to pin some type of face to the concept, well here is my reply.......This is what terror looks like. If anyone has any trouble deciding if those responsible are terrorists, then perhaps you had better become muslim and move to the desert.

http://911review.org/_webimages/sept11planephotos/wtc65.jpg

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif

http://911research.com/wtc/groundzero/docs/dcp_0898.jpg

http://www.newyorkescape.net/New-York-Firefighters-Raising-Flag-at-Ground-Zero--C10107012.jpg

We had better not forget these images or the next time it may be far worse!

[ddmoit]

Shooter,

Almost any American who views those pictures is going to have an emotional response. But an appeal to emotion has no place in rational decision making.

There could just as easily be someone in Iraq right now, showing pictures of civilians who died at the hands of our military. I'm sure those pictures conjure the same emotions. I'm sure there are many dead Iraqis and Afghanis who are every bit as innocent as the Americans who died in those towers and planes.

The people who are responsible for bringing down the towers are evil criminals whose actions cannot be justified by any civilized or moral manner. But - and here's the big disconnect - it still remains possible that they have a legitimate beef with our government. The legitimacy of their complaint does not justify their actions. Neither do their actions affect the legitimacy of their complaint.

Our military actions may seem to satisfy the emotional pain caused by the 9-11 attacks, but history will show that they just served to breed more terrorist action against us. We are not safer now. Our children will live with enemies that we created.

[MHI]

For everyone who is blaming Bush for not just simply asking the terrorists nicely if they could please not do that again, keep in mind that its not one man's decision. Never was, and never will be.

[Shaughnn]

Matt,
That's a silly statement. Obviously there isn't anyone who suggested that we nicely ask them to stop. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified and I don't think that anyone's questioned that. It's the contrived threat of Saddam's Iraq and the resulting folly of that war which people are literally "up in arms" over. And now the present administration has just agreed to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons and weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, the one nation which has been legitimately linked to the acts of terrorism on September 11th, 2001.
Shaughnn

[Scooter]

Admiral Mullen today was quoted as saying the war in Iraq can not be won without the Iraqi government stepping up and stepping up soon. If they don't act to quell the political issues, no amount of troops for any period of time will fix that country.

And that is my point about the jingoistic opinions set forth in this post. The "War on Terror™" justifies the war in Iraq. "Kill all Terrorists" "Bomb the Bastards" "War is the Only Answer". The fact remains from the Head of our Joint Chief of Staff which is along the lines of the opinions of myself, cx and others, that this war can not, and should not, be sustained unless we have 100% cooperation of the Iraqis, something we don't have, and I have no confidence that it can be secured.

So perhaps the jingoists on this BB ought to call Admiral Mullen a traitor, a coward, a defeatist and a surrender specialist. Because I guaranty you, he will exit Iraq in a hurry if the Iraqi's don't step up, and the deadline is quickly approaching.

[HS345]

I think that I was implying that you are a steadfast tree smack-dab in the middle of the "Forrest of Zealotry". If you need a hand, here's the Webster version of "Zealous" for you to ponder.
"filled with or characterized by zeal : marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal"
As far as this conversation goes, I don't think you could demonstrate a position any less rational or any more partisan. I think you might just be the epicenter of the zealot-quake here.
Shaughnn
Um...Shaughnn, that's the definition for zealous, NOT, zealot. Besides, I'm pretty sure Jeremy was talking about you. :D
As for your poor uncle that you flustered so much he was unable to articulate an answer, I don't have that problem. The terrorists are the islamo fascist bums in filthy night shirts, and nobody has to decide who they are. They have made that decision, they are not shy about it. They place zero value on human life, and their stated goal is to kill the Jews, kill anyone that doesn't subscribe to their sick twisted ideology, impose sharia law on the world, and give rise to a world dominating kalifate. Hmmm...it almost sounds like they have an extreme partisan fanaticism. Also, I don't think that sounds like an "abstract concept" there, cx.
Why is it you liberals think only your ideas are rational and non partisan? That in and of itself is the epitomy of irrationality and partisanship.

Scooter wrote:I've heard this before in the Nazi News Network (Fox News) and it makes no sense to me. If you think about that statement, that implies that Republicans actually switched sides and voted for Democrats??? Or perhaps stayed home in disgust, while the Democrats and Independents voted solidly Democratic? In response I would point out that those losing Republicans were anti-abortion, pro-war on terror, tax cutting conservatives. One example was the Virgina race between James H. Webb and incumbent George Allen. That race was decided strictly on the war issue and some stupid racially insensitive remarks by Allen. I don't see how Allen " abandoned conservative core principles." Maybe you can explain that for me.
What it implies is that republicans stayed home. Many of the so called "Blue Dog Demo-crats" that won their races were pro-life, anti-islamo fascism, tax cutting "moderates". The Webb-Allen race is one example, which could not possibly account for an entire election. Furthermore blanket statements like, "I would point out that those losing Republicans were anti-abortion, pro-war on terror, tax cutting conservatives", are meaningless. As if those three items represent the whole of conservative principles.

I said:Fox news is not beloved by me, while I do enjoy some of their programming, their news dept. spews much of the same liberal garbage as the rest of the afore mentioned networks.

Your response was:Well that statement does paint you into a corner of demagog. I guess you are the Al Sharpton of the Right Wing. I admire your candor.
To which I say, HUH?

So, if the misguided "War on Terror™" and Bush's botched Iraq War makes Hillary and Obamba our Executive Branch, you are OK with that. Again, thats what most die hards believe too, that the war was necessary, and if Hillary becomes President as a result of the botched job, then so be it. Again, I admire you honesty.
Today 10:33 AM
The war on terrorism, and a Hillary-Obamatm presidency are two mutually exclusive things. Of course I'm not okay with the Clintons back in the whitehouse. What does that have to do with combatting terrorism?

[Shaughnn]

Okay Greg,
Let me slow this down for you a little.
"What is a terrorist" - Is a farmer is Bolivia who takes to the streets of his capitol and disrupts civic life for weeks on end a terrorist? In Ireland, over the past 40 years, who were the terrorists? The occupying British or the soverign Irish? In Tibet, are the Buddist monks terrorist. Is graffiti an act of terrorism? How about the Israeli army that lobbed missiles into civilian neighborhoods just last year? If I yell fire in a crowded movie house, am I then a terrorist? What if I'm wearing a uniform and waving a flag when I do it?
What made the criminals of September 11th terrorists? Was it the act they committed or was it their philosophical bent? From every account I've heard, they were well-dressed in western-style clothing and some had recently shaved, in addition to being well groomed. Doesn't that then DIS-qualify them from your description just now? I seem to remember that Timothy McVeigh was also wearing western-style clothing when he was arrested. Does that mean that he was wrongly put to death since he couldn't possibly be a terrorist by your definition?
It's a complicated question that might force you to put aside your pom-poms and ponder, Greg. But I don't think that any of your friends here are going to hold their breath while you work that out. :)
Shaughnn

[HS345]

C'mon Shaughnn, You know exactly what I mean, you're a smart guy. And it really isn't that complicated, at least not for me. No need to slow down on my account, I can keep up just fine.
Terrorism is defined by one's actions. The willingness to kill innocent non-combatants in a deliberate and purposeful way to further an unreasonable and usually fanatical goal.
You make some very good points, but for us Americans, in this place in time, the terrorists are the islamic extremists that declared war on us a long time ago. My description was obviously for illustrative purposes.
Oh, you can blame it on bad foreign policy, blah, blah, blah. But how do you explain the fact that islamic extremists account for much of the unrest on this planet? Places where the good ole U.S.A. has no involvement whatsoever? Seems to me they just can't get along with anyone.
I do appreciate you refering to me as friend, I mean that sincerely, I am not being a smart a**, at least not at this moment. :)

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
While we can disagree with each other vehemently, there isn't any reason why we can't still enjoy each other's company. And I think it's that level of civility which I honestly find lacking in your posts about blind vengeance and blanket retributions. If I make it to live 150 years by being a nasty evil prick and doing rotten things to people to ensure my longevity then have I really lived a life worth living? And if I am killed at an early age by the very person I was seeking to help, isn't that a noble life, no matter how short it might have been?
My point is, to what extent are you and I willing to sacrifice everything that is noble and decent and extraordinary about being American just for the sake of waving the flag over a bleak and spiritless landscape for a few more days? This nation was founded on the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but not only for American citizens. The Statue of Liberty (thank you France) exemplifies that noble founding by shining the "Light of Freedom" to guide others, not to our shores, but to our thinking. When we start treating the "Declaration of Independence" as a philosophical mission statement and not a proclamation of war, we will THEN be one our way to winning this "War of Terror"(tm). Until then, we're arguing about the price of apples with a tomatoes vendor and that's never ever going to yield any sort of profit. :)
Shaughnn

[Jeremy]

I dont like a lot of what Rush Limbaugh has to say. But one thing is a fact, for me, anyway. His view of most liberal-minded people as being rude, vile, obnoxious, and without direction (not exact, but paraphrased), seems to be spot-on. Dont believe it? Read the posts on this thread. :wtf:

[dl]

I dont like a lot of what Rush Limbaugh has to say. But one thing is a fact, for me, anyway. His view of most liberal-minded people as being rude, vile, obnoxious, and without direction (not exact, but paraphrased), seems to be spot-on. Dont believe it? Read the posts on this thread.

Ain't it funny how the view looks the same from the other side :scratch:

Who could be ruder, viler, and more obnoxious than Rush Limbaugh (aside from Ann Coulter)? And talk about lack of direction, he's a convicted drug addict!

- DL

[HS345]

Don,
What exactly about Rush Limbaugh is rude, vile, or obnoxcious? Could you cite a few examples?

I thought your side had compassion for drug addicts, oh that's right, only like minded drug addicts.

For a man with no direction Mr. Limbaugh certainly has had a lot of success.

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
The man formulates and broadcasts his ideas from a fishbowl, never subjecting them to public debate. As for "rude", I think Michael J. Fox might have an opinion about that.
"Compassion for drug users"? Sure, a junkie is a drain on society and if it's possible to switch him to methadone and get him straightened out then he'll start contributing, paying taxes, earning wages, buying our stuff, and less likely to bust into our stuff to support his habit. Yup, "compassion" sure is tedious.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

The man formulates and broadcasts his ideas from a fishbowl, never subjecting them to public debate.
Have you ever listened to a single broadcast of Limbaugh's show? It doesn't appear so.

Rush appologized for his M.J. Fox comments.

That's one example, got any more?

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
I have listened to his show and I don't choose to any more. I worked for a couple years alongside a radio that only had that one station (according to it's owner). Driving across country, there are many pockets where his broadcasts are the ONLY signal. I've had all I can stomach of his nonsense, t obe frank.
Rush apologized because of the outcry, not because he'd realized he'd made a mistake or stepped over a line. He's an entertainer who has gained some manner of cult-like authority over his "loyal fans" but his bombast is neither interesting or productive except by it's incendiary qualities.
I'll see if I can pick him up on the radio today and if so, I'm certain I'll have an example or five for you later on. :D
Shaughnn

[sdaniels7114]

What exactly about Rush Limbaugh is rude, vile, or obnoxcious? Could you cite a few examples?


What finished me with Rush is when he called Chelsea Clinton 'the White House dog' on the air in front of millions, when she was 13 years old. I know that was a while ago; but at least for me, some things are un-forgivable. Taking vicious shots at children because you don't like their parents is up near the top of my list.

[Jeremy]

"Sure, a junkie is a drain on society and if it's possible to switch him to methadone and get him straightened out then he'll start contributing, paying taxes, earning wages, buying our stuff, and less likely to bust into our stuff to support his habit. Yup, "compassion" sure is tedious."

That liberal view has KILLED untold THOUSANDS of people in this country, some of which were people I KNEW!!! Methadone is another way for the government to make money off of and keep the "lower level" of society right where they are, THE BOTTOM. It helps keep "programs" such as welfare going and attempts to satisfy people who feel they are the answer to the problems of the world.

Lets just switch the world over to the drug of the day, praise the virtues of homosexuality, ignore any threat and humor the thought of peaceful debate, appease the world and ask for nothing in return, and live as though everyone is exactly the same, knowing all to well that its NOT the truth.

The truth is, BOTH sides have valid arguments. Some just seem to go against common sense. Those just happen to be from the lefty side of the field. But thats just my opinion.

[dl]

... Some just seem to go against common sense. Those just happen to be from the lefty side of the field. But thats just my opinion.

Isn't it funny how the view is the same from the other side? :scratch:

You know these differences in viewpoint are what fuel the violence in Iraq and throughout the world. The difference is that here we (mostly) limit ourselves to hurling words and not rocks, bullets, and bombs. I guess that makes us "civilized"? (if not always "civil")

- DL

[Jeremy]

Does anyone here question whether or not the United States should continue its support of Israel? I hope to not offend with my position on this. I think our continued aid and assistance on behalf of the State of Israel is a HUGE factor in regards to our current state of affairs. I have not read a single post where the thought of this was mentioned, and I think its not only relevant, but a lot more realistic than some of the other "theories" which have been posted.

Do I stand alone in this idea as well?

[cx]

Do I stand alone in this idea as well?Not on that one, Jeremy. Pretty difficult for anyone of any stripe to argue that it's not a factor. I think a rather huge factor, actually.

But in the overall scheme of our problems in that part of the world, it's just one of the pieces of our mind everyone else's business policy. That one's just a bit more blatant.

[Shaughnn]

Jeremy,
I've said here on this forum a few times that we should stop subsidizing Israel (financially and militarily)and let them reap what they have sown. Perhaps, if they didn't have the 800-pound gorilla of the United States propping them up, they *might* be better neighbors? I think if you use the "search" tool with my login and the word "Israel" something might come up.
While I don't think we should dry up all of the foreign aid that we spend around the world (like Mr. Ron Paul does), I do think that we should pay a little more attention to whom we are lending aid to and what our returns (economically, politically, diplomatically and environmentally) are before we just hand out blank checkbooks to everyone with a crisis and a friend on "K Street".
Shaughnn

[jjwq8]

There may be none in this thread but there are dozens scattered around the forum in other discussions. I assume that you do not fully subscribe to the notions peddled by the Zionist lobbyists?

[ddmoit]

I don't think we should be propping up any country financially - including Israel. Now if individual US citizens would like to voluntarily contribute to Israel's cause, that's their business.

[MHI]

I'm sure the Israel topic hasn't been brought up do to people worried about being politically correct.

How about these three names to start: Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernake. The last three heads of the Federal reserve.

The Jews have a very big influence on how our country is run, which is why the US is supporting Israel.

The Arabs originally occupied Israel, until the Jews took over their land moving them to out to the desert. Very similar to what happened to the native american indians. Only difference is that the Arabs are very passionate about getting their land back, and therefore will not settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel. The Arabs are at war with the US for supporting Israel. We are helping to prevent them from getting their land back, and they will not rest until they get it. The land in question is not just some property to them, its holy land.:)

http://www.think-israel.org/yee.palland.html

[HS345]

Oy Vey!!!

[ddmoit]

The problem isn't just Israel. There wasn't a country called Iraq until the British drew it on a map. It's true that we are currently reaping what was sown by British and US exploits abroad.

[HS345]

Let me reitterate, Oy Vey!!!

[Shaughnn]

From what I understand as an outsider, there was a very passionate Rabbinical debate at the founding of "modern Israel", and a strong segment of Jewish scholars were against it at the time. I just wanted to inject this little bit because a discussion like this can appear to some to be anti-Semitic, and it shouldn't be. The topic (currently) is whether or not the United States should support the nation of Israel and not whether or not the United States should support the "Jewish state of Israel". I know that in my reasoning, the "jewishness" of Israel has nothing to do with my reluctance to continue sending them aid.
Shaughnn

[Jeremy]

I know that if one really wants to do a little reading, and NOT have any concern over being "politically correct", they will find that our continued support of Israel will be catastrophic to our own country. Sorry, but sometimes politically correct is way out of line. There must be SOME reasoning behind the fact that so many countries have went to great lengths to avoid being entangled in the web???

[Shaughnn]

Jeremy,
I don't think that the term "politically correct" applies in this case. Perhaps "politically timid" is more accurate. "Correctness" would dictate that we repress our true feelings and use language which is more acceptable, so as not to offend. I think that being "politically timid" might suggest an unwillingness to speak about certain controversial topics at all.
As long as this doesn't become a "Jews are the problem" kind of thread then I think we're on safe, if not controversial ground. If we cross that line though, you (anybody) can expect to be censured here.
Cheers,
Shaughnn

[jjwq8]

This thread is already anti semitic. Like most Americans, you equate Semite with Jew. WRONG.
Jew is a faith based title.
Both Israelis and Arabs are Semite, thus the rants demanding the "destruction of the camel jockeys" and other temperate terms that litter this thread and others on this forum prove conclusively that those espousing such warm thoughts and who profess themselves to be "pro-semitic" are every bit as ignorant as those they wish to obliterate.
And for the record my wife and extended family are Semite, Christian and Moslem and non deserves to die simply by dint of birth. Oh, a good many are also flag waving card carrying citizens of Uncle Sam and on behalf of each of them, SHAME ON YOU ALL!

[cx]

The Arabs originally occupied Israel, until the Jews took over their land moving them to out to the desert.To be more accurate, I think, the US and Great Britton took land from the arabs, called it Israel, and gave it to the Jews. This happened in our (mine, at least) lifetime, not so long ago that it's not easy to remember, especially for the folks whose land was seized. Seems like the Jews then seized a bit more land from the neighbor and there's been nothing happy about the situation over there since.

Still not our place to try to mandate who owns what nor to militarily nor fiscally support one side over the other. Those people are gonna be at war until they manage somehow to settle their differences. We can't decide who's right and who's wrong from over here. Hell, we can't even settle the racial and ethnic differences in our own country. And we currently have an elected leader and his regime trying to force his particular religious dogma further into the conduct of our own national business.

We've got no qualification at all to be pretending we can settle other folks long-standing disputes in cultures of which we have no real understanding . Better we should spend our energy and money straightening up our own affairs before we make any demands of, or force any agreements upon, anyone else.

[Scooter]

Greg defined a terrorist as:The willingness to kill innocent non-combatants in a deliberate and purposeful way to further an unreasonable and usually fanatical goal. I agree. Did you know that in the early 80's after the Hezbo's blew up our Marine base, William Casey and Reagun used United States Tax Dollars to fund, train, and provide logistical support for a group of Saudi and American Mercs to plant a car bomb in Beruit to blow up a shiek. Missed the shiek and killed dozens of innocent civilians. I always thought that was terrorism, too.

What say you?

[HS345]

Excuse me. Is this the way to the revisionist history course?

[Scooter]

Historical Facts are facts, they are never "revised."

If you agree that the event happened, and you compare it to your definition of "terrorism". You tell me what it is, and why it is different than any other form of "terrorism" other than its our guys and we are right.

If you have trouble remembering the event (I bet I'm older than you) just google something like

cia car bomb beruit

Read up on it, and you tell us if that was terrorism, will ya Greg? I'll be waiting.

[kate42]

trying to force his particular religious dogma further into the conduct of our own national business.

Huh?? :shake: :scratch:

[Scooter]

Kathleen, if you were truly clueless about what cx said (which I doubt, by the way), he is referring to injecting religion into politics, and trying to further the goals of evangelicals within our political system.

Bottom Line: I don't want any politician telling me what I should believe in, nor do I want any of my tax dollars going to any religious group.

[kate42]

Scooter http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0009.gif (http://www.arlingtonhotelgroup.co.uk/george_norwich/index.aspx)

if you were truly clueless about what cx said (which I doubt, by the way),

You'll never know. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/engel/angel-smiley-015.gif

[Jeremy]

Its always fair discussion until someone is faced with an unspoken truth. And truth it is. I gain far too much valuable information from this site to risk being banned. Because that is exactly what would happen if the TRUTH were accidentally spilled from my keyboard. That kind of censure doesnt remind you of Rush Limbaugh, does it Shaughnn? Or the "fishbowl" theory which you say he operates from within?

I would like to ask that anyone reading this thread do a little research on the RACE of folks mentioned (its a race, not religion), and draw your own conclusion. Could well over 100 other countries and NUMEROUS well respected men throughout history, including some of our own founding fathers, have all been wrong? Decide for yourself. Because this platform, like the one in politics, hasnt anyone around to moderate the moderators.

I love this forum, and all of the trade related advice is top notch. And while I respect the opinions of others, I feel it is pure BS to have these type of discussions and not allow historical FACTS be injected, purely because it doesnt jive with the popular MISCONCEPTIONS.

At least there is more backbone to what I have to say, than there is with someone calling Rush Limbaugh a "Nazi", or obnoxiously questioning others intelligence. Facts spek for themselves, so everyone read up, and decide where the new "Nazi" party resides.

[cx]

I gain far too much valuable information from this site to risk being banned. Because that is exactly what would happen if the TRUTH were accidentally spilled from my keyboard.Ain't nobody ever been banned for telling the truth hereabouts, Jeremy. Ain't even anybody ever been banned for saying a whole lot of what he/she felt very strongly about but wouldn't quite qualify as truth or fact if closely scrutinized.

In fact, very, very few people ever been banned from here at all, and in every case it was for personal attacks on other folks. We are a bit short with that kinda conduct, and a few other un-civil activities, but we don't spend much time tellin' folks what they can and cannot say.

If people were banned from here for disagreeable political opinions, our membership list would be a great deal shorter. For sure my name woulda been removed years ago, eh? :)

[kate42]

Ain't nobody ever been banned for telling the truth hereabouts, Jeremy. Ain't even anybody ever been banned for saying a whole lot of what he/she felt very strongly about but wouldn't quite qualify as truth or fact if closely scrutinized.
Scrutinized by whom? Who really knows the truth? We all see things differently.

[HS345]

I said:Excuse me. Is this the way to the revisionist history course?
Hi Scooter, This comment was not directed at you. I was trying to post from my cell phone (yeah, I know) and you beat me to the punch. Confounded phone wouldn't let me post again. :bang:

Did you know that in the early 80's after the Hezbo's blew up our Marine base, William Casey and Reagun used United States Tax Dollars to fund, train, and provide logistical support for a group of Saudi and American Mercs to plant a car bomb in Beruit to blow up a shiek. Missed the shiek and killed dozens of innocent civilians. I always thought that was terrorism, too.
Even without looking this up, if this incident happened as you say it did, it still would not qualify as terrorism in the "Greg's criterion for terrorist actions" rule book. Chapter 3, section 4, paragraph 5, clearly states:"The willingness to kill innocent non-combatants in a deliberate and purposeful way to further an unreasonable and usually fanatical goal".

Btw, Scooter, you never did respond to my queries from a few posts back. How 'bout it?

Hey there cx, what exactly DID mean by:trying to force his particular religious dogma further into the conduct of our own national business.
I ain't tryin' to start no fights or anything, I just wondered if you would elaborate. :)

Jeremy (the q8 one), I don't recall hearing anyone actually using the term "camel jockeys", or "kill 'em all". Shame on us for what exactly?

[dl]

"Greg's criterion for terrorist actions" rule book. Chapter 3, section 4, paragraph 5, clearly states:"The willingness to kill innocent non-combatants in a deliberate and purposeful way ...".

Hmmm... sounds like Hiroshima to me :shrug:

I know, I clipped "to further an unreasonable and usually fanatical goal", but this is subjective and I'm sure that the Islamic extremists don't consider their goal unreasonable.

The US has a long history of supporting (training and arms) despicable and murdering tyrants (Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Pinochet, etc.) for much less than what most folks would consider reasonable goals. I guess it doesn't count if we're hiring proxies. I'm not anti-US, just pointing out the realities and hypocrisies that abound.

- DL

[HS345]

Hello Don,
Hiroshima? Avoiding the loss of perhaps tens of thousands of American lives in a ground invasion is unreasonable and fanatical?

You wrote:I know, I clipped "to further an unreasonable and usually fanatical goal", but this is subjective and I'm sure that the Islamic extremists don't consider their goal unreasonable.

Does it really matter what an insane people consider to be reasonable?

[dl]

Hi Greg,

> Hiroshima? Avoiding the loss of perhaps tens of thousands of American lives in a ground invasion is unreasonable and fanatical?

This is widely disputed. As previously pointed out Japan had offered surrender months earlier with conditions nearly identical with the final settlement.

> Does it really matter what an insane people consider to be reasonable?

I was raised in an environment that considered it unreasonable to take another human life for any reason - for me that makes 90% of the world's population insane because they don't agree. :gerg:

My wife won't even swat a fly - she'll capture it in a cup and "set it free". She doesn't hesitate to eat a cow though. :scratch:

- DL

[jjwq8]

Greg
the references were generic. If you do not recognize them for what they are then I suggest you re-read my post as it contains all the response you require.

[HS345]

Hi Don,
Simply because certain historical events are disputed doesn't mean that they didn't occur exactly as history has recorded them. Having said that, I respect your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. :nod:

Additionally, of course I don't think you're insane for your belief that all killing is wrong, in fact, I have great respect for it. I was speaking of the radical Islamists, in this case.

I myself have been known to set certain six, and eight legged creatures free, but flies aren't one of them. :D

the references were generic. If you do not recognize them for what they are then I suggest you re-read my post as it contains all the response you require.
I re-read your post, and still don't understand the "Shame on all of you" comment, but that's cool, no further clarification is necessary. Thanks Jeremy.

[MHI]

I don't get it either, Jeremy. Unless you are a member of Al-Qaeda, I don't see any reason for you to think anyone here is offending you.:)

[jjwq8]

When a bigot looks in the mirror what does he/she see?

The Al Qaeda crack is beneath contempt and simpky proves my point.

[MHI]

Jeremy,

You portray youself as an international man of mystery, and most of your posts are a play on words. When someone asks you to explain one, you say "I suggest you re-read my post as it contains all the response you require".

Thanks for the education on semites, though the anti-semetic concerns that we americans have are for political reasons. Perhaps if the US government were mostly Arabs, instead of Jews, we would have to be more sensitive to the Arab semites instead.

The US support of Israel is no conicidence, it is due to the influencial members of the government. The Gulf (oil) war in the early '90s, the first attack on the world trade center in '93, and the second attack in '01 are results of the US support. The Radical Islamic Extremists (Saddam included)are trying to destroy the US economy, to prevent further funding of Israel. They are succeding in many ways, as gobs of US dollars are being spent beefing up security, and funding the war on terror.

I don't feel the answer is obliterating the middle east, but rather putting an end to the US funds being used for personal reasons.

Here is a list of the bush admistration.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm

[jjwq8]

Words are my stock in trade.
I sincerely hope I have a better grasp of language than Austin Powers.
I do not intentionally employ ruses to get my points across.
When I typed the "shame" post I suspected that it would be misinterpreted and I was right. The condemnation was of the each and every zealot and bigot who espouses military might to resolve political and more poignantly personal grievances.
Politicians, all politicians, are venal. Period.
Terrorists are politicians who cannot be bothered to wait for a ballot.
American foreign policy is short sighted to the point of looking backwards and is predicated upon the 2 year reelection cycle that you enjoy. It is little wonder that you lurch from one misadventure to another licking your wounds and wondering why an ever increasing majority of the world beyond your borders looks with disdain upon you and the disasters left in the wake of your parade.
I bow down to the bravery of your men and women in uniform who serve and have served in your military efforts. A good many of them contribute here, several vets from the current debacle. Their opinions are valid but fundamentally limited. The bad guys are the bad guys in theater. With a miniscule number of exceptions, they remain in theater. I have good friends in theater right now risking their necks to provide your guys at the sharp end with the services necessary to keep on keeping on. We build and service their camps. TCN's of more than 60 nationalities. Huge numbers of them Semitic Moslems. Many more non-semite moslems. All volunteered to go and help, so yes I get hugely miffed when I read inane diatribe from tub thumping jingoists who may have the right to free speech but who would do the world a favor by electing to not exercise it.

[HS345]

American foreign policy is short sighted to the point of looking backwards and is predicated upon the 2 year reelection cycle that you enjoy. It is little wonder that you lurch from one misadventure to another licking your wounds and wondering why an ever increasing majority of the world beyond your borders looks with disdain upon you and the disasters left in the wake of your parade.

Jeremy, It is hard to believe that someone of your obvious intelligence level could be so wrong about a subject. And please, no offense is intended by that statement.

A two year reelection cycle does not go far toward bolstering your theories about U.S. foreign policy. Especially when we have career polititians in this country such as Robert (KKK) Byrd, and Teddy (hic) Kennedy. Not to mention presidential dynasties such as Bush, and potentially, Clinton.

Additionally, and unfortunately, "polical differences", as you call them, such as Al Qaeda vs. The United States, are NEVER solved by anything other than military action. Or, more accurately, complete and total military victory.

You probably couldn't be more wrong about the majority of the world having an ever increasing disdain for the United States either. By and large, the people of the world love this nation. You don't see large numbers of people beating down the doors of Mexico or North Korea do you? Well, it's awful funny that you do see that in this country. Strange behavior by folks, for a country so hated by the world.

Matt, That link to the list of Jews in Bush's administration is utterly useless without a magic looking glass to view the heart of each person on that list. To assume some sort of hidden agenda based on a persons ethnicity is silly, and potentially dangerous. The word holocaust comes to mind.

[Shooter]

I like to think I am an educated, well rounded and intelligent person. However, when I read some of these posts from people who believe themselves to be so witty, it makes me want to puke. It doesn't sound cute, or witty or even edumahcayted. :blah:

I don't care if your a liberal or a hard line conservative, or if your for or against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the bottom line is, if we do not finish what has been started without turning over these respective countries to successfully govern themselves than all those who have given their lives will be FOR NOTHING! If we don't finish this thing on THEIR soil and we pull out too soon, you can damn well bet that this will show every anti-American Muslim in the world how weak we are and you can bet they will be bringing it right back to America.

Why hasn't their been any successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 911? Because we are taking the fight to them. Keeping them moving and on the defensive. Stop too soon, pull out, give them time to regroup and you can bet there will be more 911's. Do we need another attack on our soil that may make 911 look like a fender bender to shut up the tree huggers of society?

War is horrible, death is horrible, but wake the **** up people. I said it before and I'll say it again, the damn liberals have sent this country into the crapper and they will be the death of a once great nation.

[MHI]

"To assume some sort of hidden agenda based on a persons ethnicity is silly, and potentially dangerous. The word holocaust comes to mind."

I'm not assuming anything based on ethnicity. I'm just pointing out that the US support of Israel is not a coincidence, or at the very least something fishy about it. Why are we supporting Isreal? Who makes those decisions?

I am certainly NOT suggesting that we send the Bush administration to the gas chamber.

There is a hate war going on in the middle east, and the US has chosen to help one side. The result of that is their enemy is now our enemy. Do you really believe that the Islamics hate us Americans because of our freedom? They hate us because we are taking sides with someone else that they already hate.

[ddmoit]

Why hasn't their been any successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 911? Because we are taking the fight to them. Keeping them moving and on the defensive. The folks who have employed this logic will have painted themselves in a corner when the next terrorist attack occurs - and it will.:(

Iraq will be a mess if we pull out. It will also be just as much of a mess if we stay. I'm afraid that our servicemen will have died in vain, unless we finally learn a lesson about our meddling military exploits. Odds aren't too good since our government didn't seem to learn anything from the 58,000+ deaths in Viet Nam.

As I see it, our problem is not just liberals or neocons - it's anyone who thinks that the government is going to solve our problems home or abroad.

[ddmoit]

Do you really believe that the Islamics hate us Americans because of our freedom? I wonder if the folks that believe that think that the Islamics hate us less now since we have less freedom? The only thing more shocking than a politician proposing such an idea is the number of people that actually believe it.

[HS345]

I'm not assuming anything based on ethnicity. I'm just pointing out that the US support of Israel is not a coincidence, or at the very least something fishy about it. Why are we supporting Isreal? Who makes those decisions?
What is fishy about supporting a democratic ally that is surrounded by theocracies and dictatorships?
I am certainly NOT suggesting that we send the Bush administration to the gas chamber.
What I meant was, the kind of thinking that produced that list is the kind that precipitated the holocaust. And it seems to me that anti-semitism is again rearing its ugly head around the world in a BIG way.
As I see it, our problem is not just liberals or neocons - it's anyone who thinks that the government is going to solve our problems home or abroad.
Dan, Just out of curiosity, what is the Libertarian solution to these problems?

[Scooter]

Shooter said: if we do not finish what has been started.... In the past year, I have no progress, and indeed reversals. Admiral Mullen, the new Joint Chiefs stated last week that there was victory was NOT possible, no matter how many troops, and no matter how long we would stay in Iraq without the cooperation of the Iraqi political system. Everyone needs to back up about 10 paces, look at our "allies" and then decide whether 10 days, 10 weeks, 10 months or 10 years worth of American deaths and money will change that country when our "allies" buy Iranian weapons and arm militias to kill us. The ultimate friendly fire, eh? I have no, none, zero, confidence in the Iraqi political system to make the tough decisions to solve this problem.

I see no end in sight. Do you war mongers really think the war can be won without the unfettered support of the Iraqi political machine?

And I don't want to speak for Dan, I'm no Libertarian, but Ron Paul's solutions is simple, and I happen to agree with it--isolationism. Its a word that has a bad rap, but his idea is to protect our borders, make it impossible for whackos to get in here, and stop the bastards at the fence.

[ddmoit]

Greg, I certainly can't speak for all people who call themselves libertarians. There are even some self-described libertarians who support our involvement in Iraq. I can offer my own perspective though.

First, I don't think there is a solution to the mess we have created in Iraq and other places. Instead, there are better courses than the one were on.

I believe that most of our enemies are ones that we created. That is certainly true of all that pose actual threats these days. We need to stop antagonizing the enemies that we have, and stop creating new ones. We can do that by minding our own business. Along those lines, our government needs to encourage free trade by ceasing to interfere with free trade. Free trade does not require treaties, regulations and tariffs. Free trade is the absence of those things.

Tax funded foreign aid of any kind must stop. If individual Americans want to donate to a foreign cause of any kind, they would be free to do so. But we must stop stealing (through taxes) money from Americans to fund foreign countries at the whim of those currently in charge of our government.

We became the greatest nation on Earth by minding our own business (more or less) for the first 100 years of our existence.

And please, don't trot out the old "isolationist" criticism. It's not isolationism if any and all Americans are free to trade with anyone in the world.

[jjwq8]

Greg,
Two things.
Our perspectives of this current situation are entirely different. I sit far closer to the arena than perhaps anyone else here and the corollary is that I am farthest from the home front where the debate is occurring. So I am both on the inside looking out and the outside looking in.
Second, which of the career politicians (and I remind you of my opinion of politicians) that you named or could subsequently name has had any influence upon US foreign policy? The two year cycle ensures that no decision is going to be made that could potentially impinge upon the incumbent party's chances at the ballot. Ergo foreign policy has no long term goal because it is governed by political expediency, not strategic planning that looks beyond the next poll.

[Jeremy]

"To assume some sort of hidden agenda based on a persons ethnicity is silly, and potentially dangerous. The word holocaust comes to mind."



It is our responsibility to assume, when it comes to the safety and well-being of our lives and the lives of our children. I refuse to worry as to whether or not I am being "politically correct", or that my concern of threat from anyone, be it a single person, or an entire "race or religion", might offend someone. There are some people I do not want for neighbors, and I dont need to live next to them for a year to make that decision. There are also some folks I feel uncomfortable having in control of power in this country. This is based on History and past examples, much like my fears of a bad neighbor. Sure, there may be a good one out of the family of bad neighbors, but my childs well-being is worth a hell of a lot more to me, than the thought of offending someone else.

[ha902340]

I'll just get this in first - The use of atomic weapons against the Japanese in WWII was clearly an hideous crime against humanity. Anyone who can claim killing hundreds of thousands of people is a justifiable act has got serious problems and are very sick individuals.

But anyway the weapons weren't used to end the war, this is an extremely narrow view - the Japanese by all reasonable accounts would not have been able to sustain much more fight has they had the full might of the American military bearing down on them in conjunction with The British Empire, the Chinese and even the Russians who still to this day occupy some of Japans northern islands.

The use of the weapons needs to be considered in an entirely different, wider context taking into account what happened after the event, placing it into an historical context i.e. the establishment of a new world order and global super power. The weapons were used to display the technological prowess and unchallengable power of America to the rest of the World and perhaps primarily to China, Russia and East Asia. Hence the rapid attempts by the Russians and shortly afterwards the British to aquire such weapons, and the subsequent invasions of what was the idon-china regions.


Oh yeah and the Iran thing thats about oil again just like the Iraq thing - i can't belive everyones already forgotton that Iraq was supposed to have wmd.

[dl]

> The two year cycle ensures that no decision is going to be made that could potentially impinge upon the incumbent party's chances at the ballot. Ergo foreign policy has no long term goal because it is governed by political expediency, not strategic planning that looks beyond the next poll.

Not just foreign policy, ALL policy. That's why we have bridges falling down, retirement system going broke, lobbyists running Washington, etc.

- DL

[ha902340]

dl - i think you are very wrong on that.

Foreign policy clearly has a very long term strategic goals - its governed not by short term political expediency but by grand strategy.

For instance, the cold war was no short term plan governed by 2 year party political cycles, it was a 50 year log plan to maintain dominace over Europe, asia and to break the the Soviet Union into fragmented states with objective of becoming the global hegemon.

The mistake is to assume that two party politics is actually two part politics - the goals of the Reps and the Dems are basically the same, they just have slightly different ideas about how to achive their goals (of maintaining control by an elite group) this manifests as apparent differences in domestic politics but rarely if ever in long term goals.

And the reason the bridges are falling down and retirement system going broke etc is because too much money is spent building sytems to kill people.

[Shooter]

Originally posted by Scooter
I see no end in sight. Do you war mongers really think the war can be won without the unfettered support of the Iraqi political machine?Since you quoted me, I guess that perhaps I am that war monger you speak of. I do not like war, but as I have mentioned, it is a necessary evil at times. If you are going to quote me, read my entire post. I clearly stated that we need to be"turning over these respective countries to successfully govern themselves."

It is pretty clear that we need to turn over stable governments that can lead their respective countries without our massive military interventions. I clearly stated this and it is a fact. Not sure what your point is here?

Even Admiral Mullen stated that we need the support of a strong Iraqi government. Without that no amount of American intervention is gonna do it. This is also true and goes along with what I already said. But we still need to bring some semblance of military stabilization to the region and maintain this while security forces can be effectively turned over to the Iraqi people. This does not happen over night. Do you think the great military minds had an idea of how long it might take? You better believe it. Do you think the politicians or the people of the US in general had a realistic idea of how long it would take? NOT A CHANCE! You don't revamp an entire country overnight. Hell it took us how long to break up the USSR?

Once you turn on the war machine let the warriors fight the battles and win the wars. Leave it up to the politicians and the tree huggin libs, to get in the way and slow things down. And that is what happened in the first Gulf War and what is happening here. We are in Iraq now, because the damn politicians didn't let us finish the job in Iraq in Desert Storm. Now here we are in a deeper pile of shit because of that. If we do not finish the job now, that pile of shit is only going to get worse. (Sorry but I am keeping this one to the battles within the Middle East and leaving it at that)

And I hate to be optimistic but when Americans are dieing I hope for the best outcome for our troops, but our top commanders, actually in theater, are optimistic that our fairly new policies of taking the fight to the insurgents instead of creating defensive positions and waiting is possibly the direct reason for the dramatic decline of US forces KIA for July 07 and so far of August 07. Within the last few months, our military has been using an offensive strategy as opposed to the stagnant defensive and reactive mindset that it has had for going on a long time now. It is actively on the offensive, seeking out strongholds and being pro-active instead of reactive and hopefully this is directly reflected by the numbers of KIA. A good defense is a better offense and that is what has been happening as of late. If we are going to occupy a country than for our own troops safety, we had better "be in it, to win it!" and have that exact mindset.

[dl]

> Leave it up to the politicians and the tree huggin libs, to get in the way and slow things down. And that is what happened in the first Gulf War and what is happening here. We are in Iraq now, because the damn politicians didn't let us finish the job in Iraq in Desert Storm.

Twasn't the tree huggers. Twas because George Sr. was a bit (lot) smarter than Jr. and listened to his advisors who truthfully told him that finishing off Saddam would be a BIG strategic mistake for a whole variety of reasons, which we're seeing now.

I have to admit that even though I'm a border-line tree hugger I was dismayed when GHWB called off the dogs, but later saw the wisdom of this.

- DL

[Shooter]

dl, I disagree.

It was a political assessment that kicked us in our ass. It was George Sr's weak moment that cost us the penalty that we are living with today. Everyone knew that Saddam would have to be dealt with at some point in time. He just didn't pony up when he had the resources and victory at hand. I happen to agree with Schwartzkopf's assessment at that time.

I think that at the time of first Gulf War the overall climate was more ripe for the ousting of Saddam than now. Yes Saddam, being a mad man was a predictable mad man and brought a certain amount of predictable stability to the Middle East at that time. Yes, arguably we needed him and his ruthlessness to assure this stability in the Middle East. However, if your gonna cut off the snakes head then that was the time to have done it. By not finishing him off at that time even though we kicked his proverbial ass, it only strengthened his credibility in the eyes of the Muslim world that he was NOT defeated by the ugly Americans of the west. The first gulf war in essence gave him more power.

Having left him alive and in power did more harm to America than having cut off his head over having invaded a sovereign nation and an American ally. Even though they are our ally because of their oil. When we pulled out back then and did not finish the job, we left many of our Iraqi allies hanging and this was never forgotten as many were killed because of this which gave the idea of American support a huge black eye. This only increased Saddam's position in the Middle East. Regardless, Saddam, or his regime that would have succeeded him, would have needed to be dealt with. His sons were probably more mad than the father. The first Gulf War would have been better than now. But here we are now and stuck with this situation. Calling off the dogs, so to speak, was not the right answer and we are paying for it dearly now.

So I ask what would you do now? Turn tail, run and hope they leave us alone? Or finish the job at hand?

Me personally, I would hate to see history repeat itself. We are there now. Monies and troops vested. Finish the damn job. And do it on their soil not ours. The hornets nest has been stirred wether we like it or not. If we leave without finishing the job, they are never going to have a live and let live, tree hugger attitude and leave us alone. They are going to bring it to us and 911 is gonna look like a fender bender compared to the train wreck that may follow.

[Shooter]

Just to clarify, the countries and people of the Middle East would have more easily understood why we crushed Saddam in the Gulf War due to the fact that he invaded another Arab nation as opposed to our current situation where we used the claim of Weapons of Mass destruction and harboring terrorists. The Middle East may be chock full of fanatics but that was a reason that they could have more easily understood than the one we most recently gave them.

[Baron]

If we don't finish this thing on THEIR soil and we pull out too soon, you can damn well bet that this will show every anti-American Muslim in the world how weak we are and you can bet they will be bringing it right back to America.

Why hasn't their been any successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 911? Because we are taking the fight to them. Keeping them moving and on the defensive. Stop too soon, pull out, give them time to regroup and you can bet there will be more 911's. Do we need another attack on our soil that may make 911 look like a fender bender to shut up the tree huggers of society?

Why do people think that fighting them over there means that they can't come over here? I honestly don't understand that line of reasoning. I hear it again and again. I like to call it "the matador fallacy". Why? Because like it or not, we are not fighting dumb brute beasts, and waving the red cape of an Iraqi war will not stop them from coming over here.

Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. You want to strike The Great Satan. You have a passport to america. You have a plane ticket, and you have funding and training with explosives. You have a foolproof plan to sneak a moving van full of explosives next to the Sears tower and detonate it, throwing america into chaos for a few days again. But hey, what's this? Oooh, US troops in Iraq! Well, I guess I'd better abandon this easy plot to destroy hundreds or thousands of soft targets, and instead attack battle-hardened troops of the deadliest military in history, and *maybe* kill a half dozen or so. Does this seem even remotely sensible? If they're both able and willing to attack us...they will.

You may say "Well, where's the attacks been for the last 6 years, huh smarty pants?". If anything, it's due to tighter domestic security, not the war. I mean it's not like there is a Grand Muslim Navy waiting to land on our shores. They can only get in if we let them! 9/11 would never happened if the pilots had been armed, either with guns or tazers.

What is fishy about supporting a democratic ally that is surrounded by theocracies and dictatorships?

That democratic ally offers no benefit to us. It's also a government that keeps vast numbers of people in apartheid-like conditions, and is hated by hundreds of millions. I'm also not sure what part of the constitution authorizes foreign aid to begin with. In addition, we give money to Israel's enemies too for some odd reason--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya now, Pakistan, and other unsavory regimes.

Dan, Just out of curiosity, what is the Libertarian solution to these problems?

Withdraw immediately. Stop bombing and blockading countries that don't threaten the USA, thus creating blowback. Engage in friendly relations with all, entangling alliances with none, as George Washington recommended.

We are in Iraq now, because the damn politicians didn't let us finish the job in Iraq in Desert Storm. Now here we are in a deeper pile of shit because of that. If we do not finish the job now, that pile of shit is only going to get worse.

People said that after we pulled out of Vietnam and Beirut. Nothing happened to us.

[Shooter]

Baron congratulations! You are the voice of reason that has shown me the light. Fortunate for you I am a gear head and I admire your avatar which has allowed me to finally see the light. I just hope you are a LS1.commer type and not a stang guy. We don't need any more libs over there. Well at least I hope your a Domestic type if nothing else. ;)

Religion and Politics. I really should know better. Discussing either makes as much sense as pissing into the wind. I just pray to God every night that the damn libs don't get into the Presidency this upcoming term.

Now I know why I stay out of political based forums. No one is changing anyone's minds here and I find myself wasting time for no good reason. I wish I had this hour or two of my life back. So I am going to repectfully agree to disagree with many of you and attempt to gracefully bow out of this one.

/thread

[dl]

Saddam was almost the perfect American ally - tyrant dictator with a firm control of his potentially fractured country, enemy of our enemy (Iran), sectarian government, didn't tolerate terrorists, etc. He just stepped over the line with Kuwait and after subsequently being whacked by Dubya's dad was basically a whipped puppy. He talked trash for the benefit of his own followers but was scared to death of being whipped again. Unfortunately Dubya (who dodged Vietnam by joining the NG, then couldn't even manage to show up) thought dad chickened out and set out to better dad and finish the job, acted the cowboy (which he now says he regrets - (acting, not the war)), encouraged by the ex head of Haliburton who saw an opportunity to make billions (and did, even moving offshore to avoid US taxes), and the rest is history.

And yes Shooter, people do change their minds - look at Scooter - he finally woke up :yipee: Plus these discussions are educational and fun whether you convince anyone or not - sort of like the old dorm room late night discussions. Nothing is taken personally, at least here - all opinions are respected.

- DL

[Shaughnn]

Don,
You've mentioned Vice-President Cheney's relationship with Haliburton but you've forgotten about another profitable link to our favorite no-bid contract winner. Kellog, Brown & Root was founded, in part, by grand-Daddy Prescott Bush (Brown Brothers & Co.)
Shaughnn

[dl]

Sort of hate to revive this thread, but here's the reason we didn't finish Saddam the first time, from the horse's (GHWB's Secretary of Defense) mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Is that the tree hugging liberal you were referring to Shooter? Or maybe the weak willed politician?

For some reason he changed his mind after becoming CEO of what is probably the largest war profiteering company in history.

- DL

[dl]

You've mentioned Vice-President Cheney's relationship with Haliburton but you've forgotten about another profitable link to our favorite no-bid contract winner. Kellog, Brown & Root was founded, in part, by grand-Daddy Prescott Bush (Brown Brothers & Co.)

Shaughnn, I'm glad you brought that up. It's even more incestuous than that because KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton until a few months ago. Starting in 2002 Halliburton was bleeding close to one billion a year due to asbestos lawsuits - hmm, wonder how we fix that? Over $30 billion to the two companies (really one) so far and they're charging the American taxpayer $28 apiece for disposable plastic picnic plates for our soldiers to eat dinner on? And we wonder why there's no money for armor. 33,000 employees in Iraq and 55% administrative overhead? And what about "trading with the enemy" (Iran)? These guys don't care about "giving people freedom" - they just want to make money - even if it's at the expense of the lives of 4000 brave Americans (and counting) and tanking the economy to the tune of $14 billion a month.

From this perspective, the longer the war drags on the better.

- DL

[jjwq8]

This fascinates me.
Don where did you get your prices that KBR allegedly charge the military?

[Shooter]

Yes, you really shouldn't revive this thread. If for one moment you believe that crap that Cheney spewed than I don't know what to tell you. He is a friggin politician and look at him now. That was a little political tap dance excuse for them fugging it up back in the day. There is a lot more to it than a 2 minute lame ass excuse given on video to try and justify the poor decision that the administration made back in the day and I love Bush Sr. But he ****ed up, big time. 149 soldiers? Well I feel for them and their families. They paid the ultimate price. 149 more if we pushed on during the gulf war? A thousand more? On 911 we lost around 3,000 people and another 4,000 so far in this war for around SEVEN THOUSAND KILLED (7,000). Well I can pretty much say the sacrifice made back then, wouldn't have cost us what we are going through right now, with little end in sight. Once again YGBFKM!

It really doesn't matter to me what you think, as I am sure it matters little to you what I think. No one is changing anyone's mind here and it is about as useless as reviving this thread. If you want a big E-slap on the back, atta-boy from the cronies for digging up some useless video, then whatever floats your boat. I wouldn't think that people are naive enough to believe that video, but then again not much surprises me.

This one definitely has run its course.

[dl]

> Don where did you get your prices that KBR allegedly charge the military?

Jeremy, that figure comes from the documentary filmed by National Guardsmen (Charlie Company) from New Hampshire - The War Tapes (http://thewartapes.com/trailer/), (BBC review (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5038172.stm)).

On 911 we lost around 3,000 people and another 4,000 so far in this war for around SEVEN THOUSAND KILLED (7,000).

Shooter, Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911. This is plain as day - even Cheney admits it when pressed. We (rightfully imo) went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, but unfortunately there were no oil fields there to blow up and then hire KBR to rebuild to save them from bankruptcy after the multi-billion dollar judgments for knowingly exposing their workers to hazardous materials. So a little mis-direction and voila - over the next couple years KBR/Halliburton went from bankruptcy to profitable and their stock went from $5 to $40.

And btw, the idea to "outsource" the war came from an $8 million study commisioned by the US Gov and done by guess who - Halliburton. Talk about asking the fox who should guard the henhouse.

Cheney was not making excuses back in '94, simply telling the truth - the same truth that many army generals have been saying. Iraq is now descending into ethnic cleansing (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article548945.ece). Even the generals are classifying it as this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12800852). Aside from killings (over 50,000 by Iraqi gov's own estimate) over 300,000 have been driven from their homes and continuing at the rate of 40,000 or more a month. According to a UN report 1 out of 8 Iraqis have been driven from their homes - 2 million refugees have fled the country. This was our "gift" to the Iraqis. Perhaps Saddam was bad, but is this really better?

- DL