# Sportsmen Starting to Wake Up



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... jans_x.htm


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I see this as a way for Bush to get back at somebody for not letting him lay claim to the ANWR up north. Those energy (oil,natural gas) reserves are just fine where they are. He has not and will not stop trying to add to his families wealth. My opinion of bush is he is very :evil:


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

The tragedy of this whole situation is that most this timber will go to Japan like the oil from Valdez, from which we perhaps get about 10%, also Japan buys this oil for less money then we pay for it in the US.
Japan gets a 600 year old Sitka spruce for a fraction of its real market value. Like a sawmill owner in Oregon told me one time its not the spotted owl that was breaking him, but the spotted Japanese. :sniper: :evil:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This, the big new increase for the arts, the prescription drug benefit ect. I am not voting republican this year and believe me I'm one of the most conservative people you can meet. I' ve voted republican for thirty plus years. I don't like kerry or any of the Dems either but I can't really tell the difference from the republican and the Dems they all buy votes anyway they can. Their only real interest is staying in office. I have many staunch republican friends that feel the same way. I think we have another one term president, At least I hope so.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Found a interesting article on the following web page.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/)As a veteran it kind of makes a person lose respect for some one like that.Sort of wish John McCain had been the nominee. :beer:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

How can you guys bring stuff up like this on these forums, this president is the bravest one yet. You show me another president in the past 100 yrs who was willing put our soldiers in harms way to have access to the second largest oil reserve in the world. President Bush is a hero. He is willing to have our sons/daughters killed to make sure you have cheap fuel and keep his family/friends in the money for yrs to come. (A heavy helping of sarcasim in this post). Could someone please explain to me why Bill Clinton was a coward, becuase he protested the vietnam war and President Bush is a hero because he used his daddy to keep him safe, without the commitment that the rest of our hard working young servicemen had to put in.....HUUUUHHH FFFFing RRRAHHH :sniper:

I can see this scenerio now:
G W Bush sitting around with his buddies, smoking a big phat reefer...laughing hysterically....saying, "Yeah, I'm sposed to be at gaurd weekend right now...or worse yet, giving my life for my country in Vietnam, but my dad made a phone call, so now I get to have fun instead."


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

"I did smoke pot, but I didn't inhale" BILL CLINTON


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Thanks James...my point exactly, a lie is a lie, doesn't matter what mouth it comes out of...and dishonesty applies to all. :sniper:

Bush has admitted to using illicit drugs as a college student, including cocaine. Is there a difference? :sniper:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Bill Clinton is a bad example to use when making your points, can't think of a president that did more damage to the country besides making a fool out of himself, he was impeached for crying out loud! I see the points you are trying to make about Bush jr. but don't compare to him to Clinton.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I didn't compare him to Clinton, you did. I guess it depends on what you consider unethical. Lying to the country about oral sex, or lying to the country to start a war. Nobody gets hurt when you lie about a BJ and if we are going to use Clinton as an unethical standard in the Oval Office, we need to look at FDR(had a mistress who stayed in the Whitehouse) and Nixon(purposely broke the law and lied about it...oh thats right, when your President, you can say "I don't recall" and it isn't a lie, remember Reagan.) Maybe Clinton should just have said, I don't recall, and everything would have been better. How anyone can compare stupidity(Clinton) to outright greed(Bush) and say that greed is less evil, is beyond me. For goodness sake, one of Bush's cabinet came out with a book detailing how from the first week in office, Bush sent a memo out on plans to go in and get Saddam out of Iraq. You know how it is when your boss tells you what he wants done, you give him what he wants, no matter if you have to make up WMD lies to make the story go his way. Either way it is your job, if you don't do it, he will replace you with someone who will, if you do it and get caught, he will launch an investigation against you and you will lose your job. Now that sucks. :sniper:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

I am a veteran and served in the 1/61 Mech. Infantry and the 7th Armored Cav., both of those units where the first to fight in both wars over there, my son is also draft age, if anyone should have a problem with what went on in Iraq it should be me. I can tell that we are not going to see eye to eye on this so I'm done.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Fireball, Please back up Bush's reason for war with some facts instead of your opinion. If you have any proof why we went to Iraq I would like to see it. To me it sounds like just a bunch of liberal spew coming out of your mouth.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The war in Irac was and is the correct thing to do. Its is the very best reason to support Bush. And its very important that we stay behind him on this issue.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Jacks, I ask you to back up Bush's reasons to go to war with Iraq, now that he has none. If you can give me one good reason why we went to war with Iraq, please do so...lets see, he was a tyrannt, so are about 10 other leaders in the world. He murdered his own people, so do about 10 other leaders in the world. He was a threat to the U.S.A....give me some more of that line, I have some roses I need fertalized this spring. As the Sherlock Holmes would have said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." A couple more Holmes sayings, just to draw some logical light in this time of darkness. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts"(WMDs) and finally
"Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different." I am not going to go into my long family history of service for the United States or my friends and their multiple tours of duty in Vietnam, that makes me no more qualified to make judgement on invading countries than anyone else. I find it amusing, as the truth comes out about what actually was/is going on in the Whitehouse, people still have the balls to keep backing up a liar. I never ever backed Clinton up when he was stupid enough to do what he did, that was just wrong and he got what he deserved. I thought our country was a great place to live then, everyone had a job and money was flying around everywhere. Now just look for the facts, they are very visible, you just have to take the blinders off. Nuff said on this subject, being an independant, I get tired of being called a liberal when I present facts...facts that anyone with a cpu and some knowledge can find. Eliminate the fertilizer and you will find the roses...so to speak. :sniper:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

At least make up your mind fireball on whether or not you think there were WMD. You can't have it both ways. Here is a quote from you about this topic a while back. "Oh, don't get me wrong, we will find some WMD's, but not in the qauntaties we used to promote the war. "


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Jacks don't waste your time I've been down this road with Fireball before and he is not concerned with all the facts just the ones that fit his ultra liberal viewpoint. You can't have an reasoned discussion with people like this. His hatred of George Bush prohibits him from seeing the good of attempting to change the face of the middle east


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Did we find WMD, yes we did, they were over 12 yrs old, rusted out old mortar rounds with mustard gas like agents in them. There were a little over 100 of them, so yes, we did find WMDs. Are they the quantities we were lied to about, did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11(even though Bush played that card for trump, cause most gullible people were buying anything at that time)? I think you are confused Jacks..and well, bobm, he is from the south, nuff said bout the cold weather keeping em out. :sniper:

And bobm, as for Bush changing the face of the middle east; I bet China and N Korea would love to change the face of the USA, but does that make it right for them to invade. I don't think so. Make up your mind. It is OK for us to force our will on countries, but when they try and force their will on us, they are the bad guys. You remember these words, "pre-emptive strike", becuase they will come back to haunt us. Are we at war with the middle east, or are they launching a pre emptive strike against us to prevent us from taking them over? You guys can have Bush, we are in more debt then we have ever been in the history of the USA, less people are employed and now they have taken away a chunk of overtime laws, which equates to more hours less money for the working class. You tell me, do you like a kiss when you are getting raped. :withstupid:

You guys should read information on the topic, instead of listening to the dope fiend, Rush "halftruth" Limbaugh.

Once again, I ask Bobm or Jacks or whomever can, please list the reasons(now that all Bushs reasons have been proven wrong), that we went to war. After you are done listing things, please list the reasons why we don't do the same to other tyrannts around the world and why other countries don't use the pre emptive strike spin to launch war with anyone they want. I can list plenty of stuff here that are facts, it all depends on whether or not you will open you eyes to accept them, or keep saying, "move on to something else, I don't care if it is true or not, keep proving it to me."

Here is a list of topics you can not use, as they have been admitted to by the Bush administration, or proven wrong through thurough investigation.
WMDs(now we have an investigation into why the info was wrong..hmm, I wonder)
Iraq involved in 9/11 Bush finally admitted Saddam had nothing to do with it.
Saddam is a bad guy Yep, he was horrible, but so are at least 10 other world leaders.
Iraq was a threat to the United States Yep, with that awesome Navy and Airforce, combined with those scuds...Katey bar the door.
Saddam killed his own people What are we doing right now, fighting a war that has nothing to do with our national security.

You guys have to prove the point now, it isn't up to the rest of us who knew this was a bunch of mularky from the beginning. Do you spose if Haiti had the second biggest oil reserve in the world, we would be invading their ruthless dictator....probably, instead of the dessert rat, Saddam.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I have to say I agree with fireball all the way, it's not about right or wrong it's about politics. We all know there is little truth in politics, never was never will be.

I am a non-partisan these days, I used to be an Independent but since the presidential selection happened a couple years ago me and about 60% of the rest of the citizens of the USA are setting back waiting to see how far this kind of monkey business can go.

Anyone who thinks things good or bad just happen is very naive, there is always someone or something working hard causing action and reaction.

I've never been a fan of big government because we see so much waste from them. It seems as time goes by more and more people have become reliant on the government in so many ways. I see it as the downfall of our free and progressive nation. I can only dream of the progress that could be made with all the money that has been and is wasted fighting the same old battles, and that waste is multiplied by shyster lawyer politicians. Holy Moly I got carried away...hope ya all can deal with it.

Heres an old thought...cream always rises to the top well some turds float too.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with Fireball also...

Evidently Bush has not heard of the Truman phrase....

THE BUCK STOPS HERE!!!!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Go fireball! I'm with you all the way. If anybody thinks the current preemptive war in Iraq was worth the loss of a single U.S. life, let's see some reasons. I saw a great bumper sticker that read, "Bush lied and our children died."

By the way, I am reading a really interesting book called Buying the President:2004 by the Center for Public Integrity. These folks spent a considerable amount of time tracking donations to all major presidential candidates for this year's election and the one that took place in 2000. After only 100 pages, I have concluded several things: 1) the person elected president is almost always the person that has the most campaign money, 2) Bush raised over two times the cash Gore did in 2000, and he has even more lined up for 2004 from oil and pharmaceutical companies, 3) Bush is working to benefit those that got him into office, and 4) after the funny business that his brother Jeb and the conservative Supreme Court pulled with Florida, Bush doesn't belong in the White House in the first place.

I reiterate some of Fireball's earlier questions. Clinton lied about getting a BJ from and intern, while Bush lied about Iraq. One cost a reputation, the other cost American lives. Who is in the most wrong? Where are the people screaming about character in the White House?


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

The NRA beat Gore, they (including Clinton) admit it. We are lucky that ND has only 3 Electoral votes from what I read here.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Fireball,


> I am not going to go into my long family history of service for the United States or my friends and their multiple tours of duty in Vietnam, that makes me no more qualified to make judgement on invading countries than anyone else.


On the contrary, I think those that have served/are serving their country have the unique perspective of knowing what it is like to be able to be put in harm's way at any time. It means a lot to me what those who serve/have served think of their commander in chief.

Which branch were you in?


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I will take a horney President any time in preference to a dummy. Seems as if all our good ones sneaked a little on the side including Ike. Of course that would make Neil Bush a good one, Oh my god what am I saying. :******: :******: :sniper:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Goerge Bush graduated from Harvard with a MBA thats not possible for a dummy. Unfortunately liberals can't handle facts.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ... 
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs. 
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs. 
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs. 
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs 
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq. 
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs 
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors. 
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs. 
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction. 
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

THAT WAS THEN, BUT THIS IS A CAMPAIGN YEAR

Turn the clock back two years. New York firefighters and policemen are still sifting through the rubble of the World Trade Towers in a desperate hope that they might actually find another survivor. If someone were to ask you if you thought there would be another terrorist attack on American soil in the next two years you would have answered "yes" without hesitation.

There has been no such terrorist attack. Al Qaeda, though still a danger, has been largely decimated. Most of the Al Qaeda leadership is dead or in custody, and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan and harbored Al Qaeda has been reduced to launching cowardly attacks on Afghan civilians and coalition forces from gullies and ravines.

President Bush has taken the war to the terrorists, and those who harbor and support them. That would include Saddam Hussein. Though Bush never claimed that Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11, his administration has provided ample evidence that Saddam was a supporter, both with money and support, of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist band. For those of you who insist that any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda is fiction, perhaps you would like to take a minute to read this article from today's Wall Street Journal. Then again, maybe not. The truth can be painful.

Supporting Al Qaeda and having direct involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks are two different things. On Meet the Press September 14th, Tim Russert was questioning Vice President Richard Cheney about the assumption that many Americans have made that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. When asked if there was such a connection Cheney answered "We don't know."

Later that same week George Bush said: "We had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

OK, I have a question here. Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers in the media are making quite a big deal about these two statements, as if they were somehow contradictory. But are they? Fine, so Bush says that his administration "had no evidence" of such an involvement. He did not say that Saddam wasn't involved, just that he had no evidence that he was. Having no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 does not constitute proof that he wasn't, in fact, involved. This would mean that Cheney's "I don't know" response was perfectly appropriate, and honest. How, then, do "journalists" and left-wingers manage to make such a big deal of it? Remember, please, that Czech intelligence said that September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Saddam's top European intelligence operative just four months before the attacks. Nobody from the left has ever been able to show that this meeting did not, in fact, take place. The operational leader of the 9/11 hijackings meeting with Saddam's intelligence agents? You do the math.

Last week Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay nails it when he says "It's disturbing that Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush than they ever did at Saddam Hussein." Overstated? Perhaps not. But it is interesting to compare the leftist rhetoric of today with the statements made by various Democrats over the past years ... before, that is, Bush became president. This list is circulating the Internet. I've taken the time to verify that most of the quotations are accurately represented:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. 
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. 
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. 
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. 
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. 
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. 
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. 
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. 
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. 
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. 
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. 
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. 
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. 
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. 
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, 
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. 
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002, 
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. 
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. 
No doubt you've notice that many of the people who were making these strong statements about Saddam are the very same politicians who are now saying things about George Bush that make their statements about Hussein sound positively laudatory.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

I found an interesting article in the Post regarding the Bush admin's environmental policies. Take a look...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Feb1.html


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Bobm quite a subject for us old woodsman to be jawin on. I agree with you about WMD, along with a bunch of Kurds and most everyone who has seen the pictures of the Kurds that he killed.

The part that is questionable to me is why go to war when we have so many other ways to take Saddam out, if thats what we wanted. Maybe there is something to be said for a man who is used to being sneaky, they just might use covert actions.

As far as military or not you don't have to be in the military to get shot. There are cities in this country that are not all that safe either. I know what it feels like to be shot at, I only ran as far as the closest cover, not all the way home.:wink:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Holy cow bob, I thought you were gonna get dizzy spinning this statement. It is so twisted around itself, you could start reading it from the end and it would say the same thing...nothing. Let me repost it for those of us who got dizzy from a line that is an acceptence of lies.

"But are they? Fine, so Bush says that his administration "had no evidence" of such an involvement. He did not say that Saddam wasn't involved, just that he had no evidence that he was. Having no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 does not constitute proof that he wasn't, in fact, involved. This would mean that Cheney's "I don't know" response was perfectly appropriate, and honest."

For goodness sake, Saddam and Osama were bitter enemies, Osama hated Saddam. What you are saying would be as ridiculous as China accusing us of colaberating with North Korea to invade them, not that they said that, because they have no proof, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or won't in the future, because to say we don't know is the most honest statement we can make.

Now, that statement I just made makes as much sense as the statement you made. Osama and Saddam hated each other, but I am sure they could be allies now.

Here is a statement by Bush, from the 2001 state of union, if this isn't a direct statement, linking Iraq to Bin Laden, I don't know what is:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida," the president said.

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans - this time armed by Saddam. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known," he added. 
That was the seed he knew he could plant in the weak minded, to get them to fall in line.
So, from now on it is OK to start a war based on unconstitutable proof and honest answers like I don't know. Now there is a precident that just about justifies terrorism for those who chose that cowardice as a lifestyle.
If I am not mistaken, I could take Bobm's logic and apply it like this. Bill Clinton didn't actually have sex, so when asked, "did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?" and he said no, he was telling a Bush truth. Cause after all, as guys all know, when your buddies ask you if you had sex with that hot chic last night, and you didn't, but you got a bj, your reply would be, "no, but I got oral." So, as a society, we don't classify that act as sex(ual) intercourse. So, in the whole acceptable to Bob vernacular, Clinton didn't lie either. That clears alot up for me now, I guess I never looked at it that way when Clinton was lying...oops, can't call it that now, telling the truth to the American people. Now I am starting to get dizzy. :sniper:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball you are too easy! You prove my point that liberals when confronted with the truth see only what they want. All those quotes above by various liberal icons prove that they drew the same conclusions that george Bush did when viewing the intelligence data. As did the UN, the British and thirty some other countries. If Bush had done nothing ( like Clinton) they would be castigating him for that. And we would would of been hit by terrorists on US soil again. And nothing Bush did "justified terroism" the terrorists have been happily plying the terror for at least 30 years, long before Bush came on the seen. Its just that they grew bolder and bolder because previous administrations both democrat and Republican didn't do anything about it. I'm extremely Proud of George Bush for being the one who finally did. I personally know an Iraqi citizen who says the main stream Iraqis are extremely grateful as well. You need to put aside your extreme partisanship and see the great good that we have done in Iraq. And one last thing we didn't start a war, because you never served you don't have a clue what a war is. The United States army is cleaning out a rattle snake den, if we were at war their wouldn't be a single living Iraqi or anyone else in the middle east if we chose and it would of been over in days. Ask your father what we are capable of it the chips were really down. In fact because we are the kindest and most decent people in the world we are willing to sacrifice our own kids to free the oppressed without harming the weak and we have done this throughout our history which is why the mainstream of the world looks to us for help when its needed. I love this country and I served because I was willing to die for its principles, still would. And Fireball if I have to choose a battlefield I don't want it on US soil because unlike you I know what a battlefield is. George Bushs decision to bring the battle to them was the best option. And buckseye the reason we can't asassinate people like Saddam is because Jimmy Carter and the Democrat congress made that option illegal in the seventies, whether that was a good thing I have mixed emotions about. I agree that it would seem simpler but assassination does not follow the principles of what this country of good decent people stands for.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

fireball - Bobm gives you many examples of Democrats declaring that Saddam had wmd,s and you call it a spinn? Those are specific quotes from the people that you support. My favorite is the one from Kerry its worth repeating: I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security Sen. John Kerry Oct. 2002 Bobm didnt spin anything he just gave you the correct information. You hate President Bush so much that it has clouded your vision. If Bush lied about wmds so did all of your party members. They all had the same information.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

They are all politicians, they say what the people want to hear for the moment. They say what they have to say, especially when Rumsfeld comes out and says that if they don't back the scrum for oil, they are not patriotic. I could hear Bobm now if he was Russian, back in the 50's and 60's, having just launched ICBM's against the USA, he would say "I'm extremely Proud of Khrushchevfor being the one who finally did. I personally know an United States citizen who says the main stream Americans are extremely grateful as well." Bob still hasn't addressed the points to going for war, other than Saddam was a bad man. Answer me this would you please Bob, without the fodder, what makes Saddam different from any other tyrannt in the world right now, besides the oil he ruled? Was his army capable of launching a world invasion, much less an attack on our soil. The speculation that terrorist money was transferred through his banks? We still have terrorist money flowing through our financial systems, does that mean we harbor terrorists. Those men who flew planes into the trade centers didn't live in Iraq, they lived right here with us for yrs. We are as guilty of harboring terrorists in this light as anyone. We don't condone it, but we put our money into a useless war to stop it, instead of putting it to good use here. Maybe we just need to get the hell out and leave them alone. We have no business in the middle east, other than oil. If they don't want us on their soil, then good, lets leave. What do we gain by being there. We can deploy our troops within a month if the next "saddam" tries to take the world over. Hitler had a one of the best armies in the world, yet it took us over two yrs to get involved in WW2, but now we act on pre emptive strikes. I am glad that our communist enemies of the past didn't take the Bush stance, or we would have had a global nuclear war already. You be proud of the man who is taking away jobs, money and security from the working people who make this country run, so a few of his big business buddies can put a little more money in their pockets. The only thing Bush has done well is re instate the space program, I am grateful that he has that much insight. :sniper:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Nice quote fireball "We are as guilty of harboring terrorists in this light as anyone. " that is a messed up comment,and if you think Tom Daschle says what he has to say than you are not to bright. He goes out of his way like you to put Bush down. Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with her, a BJ is sexual relations.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Did someone say something????
Jacks, the whole point of that comment was to show the FACT that, just because we can trace money and terrorists to other countries, doesn't mean the leaders of those countries invite them to live there. I will not argue the point that Saddam did nothing to stop them, because I am sure he saw them as a thorn in our side, and for him, that was all well. But we were not attacked by Iraqi's, the men who flew them planes were all from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emmerits and Somolia...hmmm... all oil buddies of the U.S. Not a one of them was from Iraq, non of them trained in Iraq.

Nuff said, you guys can buy into the sky is falling and if you don't agree with us, you aren't patriotic line if you want. If you are going to use the word patriotic, then you are implying freedom. If we can't question our leaders motives without recourse, then we are not free and the word patriotic doesn't exist. If you are forced to do you leaders bidding, then you live in a tyranny. I would rather gather the facts, as they are slowly coming in now, and make decisions based on them, not just hypothesis' based on what one man told me. A man who missed a yr of reserve duty, but that is OK because he was serving for a U.S. Senetor in Alabama, while Kerry was in Vietnam rescuing members of his platoon, putting his life in harms way to save the lives of his fellow country men. Kerry was called unpatriotic by the reps. because he protested the war after he came home. I think someone who went above and beyond the call of duty like Mr. Kerry, can say whatever he wants about a situation he was willing to die for at the time. Bush was thumbing his nose at his brothers in arms, having a good old time. He failed his flight physical....hmmmmm, wonder how a young man fails a flight physical in the late 60's. You pick your hero's, I'll pick mine. Anyone who makes a hero out of someone who dodged the draft with the use of family power is not a hero. He couldn't even finish his commitment for reserve duty, what a hero, who now leads our young people on a quest for oil. We are not going to change one anothers minds on the subject, I will stick to the facts, you stay with your speculation. Good day :sniper: men, and I use that term loosely.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Like I said when confronted with facts all liberals like Fireball can do is call names and babble because the facts don't support their ajenda. When confronted with factual quotations from his liberal icons he calls it spinning. Fireball your hatred of this great country is so transparent it is just a shame. I have plenty of critisism for the Bush admistration, but nothing you have written is true, your arguments verge on lunacy and you are a joke. I guess it really points to the basic difference between happy conservatives who have a consistant moral position and frustrated liberals that have no core beliefs. Anything goes as long as its their man in office! You saw how long Newt Gingrich lasted after his conservative base realized what he was doing. Conservative have standards and we apply them equally, without regard to political advantage. I bet fireball really believes that CLinton " did not have sexual relations with that woman" he is that delusional.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Show me a name I have called you bob????
Of course I believe Clinton had sexual relations, I have no apathy for his stupidity. I am a fair judge as far as idiots and liars. I used that example to show you how silly your spin on Bush not lying about WMDs was at the time. You sir, are the one who calls names and labels people, just read your last post. Have I ever called you a neo conservative, no, but you sure have called me every liberal name in the book, and I don't even vote for that many democrats, pretty much 50/50 for me here in ND. You accept what a man who has no commitment to his country in the pasts words for scripture. Well, you are wrong. You keep qouting politicians, whom at the time, where all firing away with pro war rhetoric, because it was the thing to say at the time, or else people like you wouldn't vote for them again. Come on Bob, you still haven't asnwered any of the questions, you just keep running around in circles, avoiding the answers and calling names, just like you hero, Rush Limbuagh.

Bob, what are the facts, could you please list them for me, I am curious, are you privvy to imformation the rest of us aren't. Maybe David Kay or Paul O'Neil. Let me run a qoute from Mr. O'Neil, on a memo received in the first month after Bush took office, marked as secret:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind.

Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall -- including post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil.

"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries, and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book.

Now Bob, you can put any spin on it you want, but it was planned from day one, you can't deny it, you can call it lies if you want, but I see it the other way, Bush is lying to cover his motive. You are old enough to remeber the Guatamalan war Bob, do you know what that was about. The United Fruit Company(Chiquita Banana'a) was having its land sold out from under them by the new Guatamalan "democratically" elected president, and the owner of the company happened to have a brother who was on Eisenhowers cabinet. So, lo n behold, 3 months later, we are invading Guatamala to stop the communists from taking over, or as later proved, to keep a multi million dollar U.S. company in business. Yep, stuff like that never happens, does it Bob, specially when you turn a blind eye towards it, along with your deaf ear.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If John Kerry thought the Botox rumors made for a rough ride, then he's about to be taken to school. With all those years in the Senate and all those votes, not to mention the political contributions, things could get a bit bumpy for the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Already, it is hitting the fan in a major way.

Howard Dean is out there calling him the special interest Senator. It is a bit hypocritical for the ultimate Washington insider to be out campaigning saying that he wants to take back the White House from the special interests. It sure doesn't look like he had any practice taking back the Senate from the special interests. *Since 1989, John Kerry has received more contributions from registered lobbyists than any current or fomer Senator. Oops. 
*
Then this little nugget came out. There's a report in the current Newsweek that says Kerry's office contacted federal regulators to assist a friend of Johnny Chung, who was a central figure in the 1996 fund-raising scandals. This was all before Chung threw a fund-raiser for Kerry that year*. Kerry says he has no recollection of meeting Chung. Yeah right. *

Maybe Dean should hang around....the dirt on Kerry could be worse than what's in his unreleased Vermont records.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If we all knew the truth of the matter there could be no debate.

Geez Bobm you might be a war monger, I didn't say kill Saddam. If we ain't smart enuff to trick one of these loosers into taking an expense paid trip to the USA maybe we ain't smart enuff to be makin big decisions like going to war either.

It's hard to say Saddam had a military the way they disbanded when confronted. I'd say they were more llike palace guards and poor people that needed any job available.

Our government tells us alquaida cells are here, what the hell are they waiting for arrest them. There's just so many loose ends that don't add up.

There is no need for disrespect or anger after all it is election year and we will all be so smeared with BS we won't be able to recognize each other. :wink:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball once again you are delusional the last time we had a debate you called me names and insinuated all kinds of crazy stuff. Anybody reading this can look back through your posts and see for themselves how full of it you are. Once again the facts don't go your way! I guess maybe I should asssume you really don't get it and try to explain once more why your claim that bush is lying about WMDs is untrue. Try to read the quotes above. Eveyone in the whole world thought that Saddam had them because they all were getting the same intelligence reports, Now everyone may be wrong but they were acting on the best information they had. Thats not lying its doing the best with the info they have. If they had this info and didn't act they would of been grossly negligent. 911 should of taught you that we cannot afford to wait until after a terroist event happens to act we must be preemptive unless of course you would prefer to see a lot of your fellow citizens die again!!!!!! As an aside I think your hatred of Rush Limbaugh is funny as well. You bring him into the conversation every few posts you must be a regular listener. You aren't some really some closet conservative are you??


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres some more for all of you to think about
It seems like the budget that George Bush is going to send to the congress is going to show the first 10-year price tag for this prescription drug benefit program to be not $400 billion, but about one-third more at $540 billion! In the space of a little over one month we've added $140 billion to the price of this prescription program. One month. Do you want to make any guesses what this is going to cost when it finally goes into effect? I'll bet you that the actual first decade cost of providing this coverage to the Gimme Generation is going to approach one trillion dollars. That's trillion, with a "t".

BUT I'M MORE AFRAID OF THE ISLAMIC GOONS THAN I AM OF BUSH'S SPENDING

After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.

The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.

So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.

I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.

And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.
*Fireball you have changed my mind about one thing I am going to vote for Bush*

AND WHAT OF THE LIBERTARIANS
World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism aside, this country is still proceeding on that steady path to socialism and an end to economic liberty. If this slide is to be abated it will be libertarian ideals that pave the way. This election still affords Americans a chance to send a libertarian message to our elected officials. Libertarians will be on the ballots in every one of the 50 states in November. They'll be running for local as well as national offices. *The support for Bush and his war on terror must remain in place,* but a surge in votes for Libertarian candidates at the local level will send the clear message that a movement for freedom, economic liberty and limited government is underway.

HOWARD DEAN'S LATEST

Let's see ... Howard Dean entertains the idea that Bush knew about the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11 before they happened ... and did nothing. He says that Americans are no safer now than they were before 9/11, or since Saddam Hussein was captured. He also says that Iraqis are no better off now than then they were under Saddam. Now Howard Dean is saying that Vice President Cheney pressured intelligence officials to fudge their findings and then used that fudged intelligence to pressure George Bush into deposing Saddam. Cheney, you understand, makes a good target because he ran a highly successful company that does a lot of government work. Now never mind that David Kay testified before congress that he found absolutely no evidence of any manipulation of intelligence information. Dean just plows ahead with his own agenda. But why worry about Dean? He's toast. It's over. So ... never mind.

DEANIE BABIES CRINGE AS DEAN CALLS KERRY FRONT-RUNNER IN DEBATE

This pretty much says it all. On last night's MSNBC debate in South Carolina, Dr. Dean referred to John Kerry as the front-runner. This is an important first step. At least he's out of denial.

The new strategy of the Dean campaign now being run by former Clinton staffer Roy Neel is an interesting one. They are conceding the February 3 primaries in favor of moving on to bigger states like Michigan where they can pick up more delegates and try for a convention showdown this summer. That should at least make it interesting. Maybe by then the opposition research on Kerry will have started to make a dent in his popularity.

But the real Dean problem is money, and he's running out of it. Staffers have been asked to give up their paychecks for the next two weeks. After raising a record amount of cash from the Deaniacs and turning down public financing, the well has run dry. Amazingly, they spent $40 million in Iowa and New Hampshire and that was only good for third and second place. Bummer. I'd be mad too.

But back to the debate. When are more of these guys going to start dropping out? Weasly Clark, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are all wasting their time, as is (unfortunately) Joe Lieberman. It's too bad there is no place in modern Democratic presidential politics for a moderate like Lieberman.

And finally, a little bit of advice for the liberals: Bush-bashing over Iraq doesn't sell anymore. That went out the window when Saddam was captured. Move on. Try something new before we all die of boredom.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Hey Bob, I love cats, all forms of cats and if you vote for me, I will put a cat in every house. Actually I hate cats, can't stand them, but I said it so it must be true. How can you deny these bush cronies who are coming out and letting us know what actually was going on, Bush doesn't even deny it, because he has created that "fear" factor, which makes him bullet proof. If you don't vote or believe him, some mad arab is gonna come into your house and kill you. Are you honestly going to tell me now that Saddam is gone, the world is a better place, I think it is more unstable than ever. You know what, now that I think back, Bush warned us that this would create a more unstable world. Hmmmmm, no cold war to win votes with, no more "there gonna take your guns away" to win votes with...lets create a situation, where the old and weak will give me their votes out of a fear I have poured more fuel on, sounds like a great vote getter to me, but stuff like that don't happen, just ask the Guatamalans, Panamanians, Norieaga's, Bin Laddens and Hussiens of the world. The U.S. only does what is in the best interest of its people and wouldn't think about sticking its fingers in anyone elses pie. :sniper:
For Jacks, I am not giving sympathy to bin laden or hussien, I am pointing out that they are people whom the U.S. built with military power, that where never our friends, but they served a purpose.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, look out behind you, I just heard that if you don't vote for Ross Pero, those immigrants down south are going to take your job a lower wages....oh wait, Bush already as a plan for that, dang, foiled again. You just can't be frightened into a vote, can you Bob.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Now I know what it was like for Christopher Colombus trying to convince the king of spain that the world wasn't flat. You know, it was widely known back then, the world was flat, because few people had the balls to challenge what their rulers told them. I am in deep fear that Bush will come out soon and tell us the world is flat and it ends at the mason dixon line, well that would have some benefits for us NDens.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The very idea that that you think the world is not a safer and better place without Saddam is testament to your lack of true understanding of world politics and inabilty to grasp reality. To say nothing of the poor Iraqis not having to wonder if someone is going to come into therir home in the middle of the night gather up their wives and daughters to rape and torture. Ask the iraquis if their world is better. Your lame attempt to drag the Mason Dixon line into this???? I know the good people of ND are about as likely to agree with your premises as they are to put on their bathing suits and go out and lay in their backyards today for a little sun bathing. You really should consider getting some therapy, your grasp on reality is non-existant.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

In all honesty, it is a good debate. We get to find out that some people need the constant presence of fear and protector to make them feel safe. While others enjoy job securtiy and fair treatment in their country, to make them feel safe. This is a qoute from the gunners guru, Jeff Cooper, whom I read religiously, I like his wit. He is about as pro military and far right as they come, and he has a good head on his shoulders. Enjoy:



> It does seem to me that coming home is no proper sort of objective for a warrior. Clearly coming home is always something to be enjoyed when possible, but only after the job is done. We remember the refrain from the Phillippines:
> "Underneath the starry flag
> Civilize him with a Krag
> And then get underway for home sweet home."
> ...


That about sums it up for me, we are fighting a war we cannot win, with a country that had nothing to do with bin ladden. :sniper:

I think this is Coopers way of saying, enough already, lets get out of here before more soldiers die for a country that will never grasp democracy the way it is intended. His grandson returned from duty just recently, and I think his stories may have had some effect on the old guy, still gotta love his brashness.

Come on Bob, how about them poor Haitians, poor Chinese, poor North Koreans, poor Somolians...lets just invade the whole planet and announce Bush as dictator.
I really wish McCain would become the republican choice, he is a man who sits in the middle, he has lived the life of a warrior and lives the life of a good person. To bad it is about he who has the most money wins.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Again you make claims that the world is not any safer but when confronted with the inescapable reality that it is for Iraquis' you skip to some other weird stuff. You can't deal with facts because the facts simply don't support your positions so off you go on some other tangent. Typical liberal reactions, damn the facts and full steam ahead. You insinuate the threat of terroism is made up. Well I am afraid of terrorists anyone with an ounce of sense should be. Too bad we can't ask the 3000 people that were in the twin towers if they are afraid of terrorists. I'll give you another fact to ignore, there are terrorists and they want to kill us and destroy our way of life. I am willing to do something about it premptively to stop them, period, and I don't care if it sets a new precedent. Kadaffi in Libya got the message and the rest of them did also. I say we let them all know that if the screw with us or our allies we will go after the without hesitation. I truly believe threat of military force is the only thing the worlds despots respect, the Taliban and Saddam didn't believe we were serious so they thumbed their noses at us now they know diffferently and that is a good thing.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

This is my convoluted reason for the war on Iraq and the reason I went from not supporting it to being behind it 100%.

There is only one denomination that is used in the trading of oil... the dollar. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars are tied up in foriegn contries just for the use of oil trades. I shouldn't of said "only one denomination." One country is currently using the Euro for oil trades and that is North Korea. There use to be two countries, the other was Iraq.

OK, with me so far on this? Now, before the war there were three or four oil producing countries that were watching how Iraq would do with the Euro as a trading currency. One of the countries was Russia with the rest being African or Middle Eastern. Ever wonder why France, Germany, Russia and China were against us? France and Germany want the EU to be the new superpower and the only way they will get that is if the US falls because they cannot bring their economy up to our standards (social and government practices along with a real lack for innovative technologies are the main culprits). Russia is still sore about the cold war, I don't give a damn what the diplomats say about how well the two countries get along. And China wants to be a superpower to compete against the US.

Now, what would happen if oil producing countries started dumping dollars in exchange for euros, especially if the US had to start transferring funds over to euros in order to supply our countries industries? Can you say economic collapse? I know some of you liberals and socialist would just LOVE it if the number one capitalist system in the world was ruined but we are not just talking of economic collapse. I believe the collapse would be worse than the Great Depression, and we all know what the only thing was that brought us out of that, and it wasn't any government program.

So, like I said, convoluted thinking. But, I believe that it was the real, unsaid and unsayable, reason for us to go to war. My opinion. And I won't being voting for Bush this year because he is not a conservative. Compassionate Conservatism is just another way of saying liberal. I'll be voting Libertarian.

IaHunter


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL

Last fall while we were pheasant hunting tThe ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq. He wasn't alone. John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote.

Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and every other politician who voted against this funding request was sending messages to our troops in Iraq, their families at home, Saddam Hussein and his supporters, Islamic terrorists and the international community.

The messages these Democrats are sending are clear:

To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't. We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field. What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.

To Saddam ( who was still on the loose at that point)and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out. Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded. We want out. You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad. What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit. There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.

To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves. As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign. Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return. If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry. You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered. They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.

*To Islamic terrorists around the world -- the way is clear. We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil. We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn. We do not have the stomach for a fight. Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.*
To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism. We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement. You would be well-advised to do the same.

And to the American people -- Brace yourselves. Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq. We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal. Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons. At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country. This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil. To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times. You will also be subject to searches of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time. Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.

*This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington.* Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters.

We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't. We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil. We fight or run. If the party of appeasement takes control after this year's elections many of you should be instituting your escape plans. The rest of you will be wishing you had one.

DON'T YOU THINK THIS MAKES THE CASE?

I guess this is just my day to feel contempt for Ted Kennedy. Of course, that's pretty much been every day since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die trapped inside his car resting in a few feet of water while he paced up and down the roadside trying to figure out how to salvage his political future.

Here is what Kennedy had to say from the floor of the U.S. Senate last october:

"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."

Never has a prominent politician made a statement so full of complete and unadulterated provable BS.

This is part of a speech by the president outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I am going to ask you to read this excerpt and then tell me whether or not you think the president made the case. *Come on now. This is a serious matter ... give it a read.* These are remarks made by the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam Hussein:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

So, what do you think? Did the president made the case? *It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends. Well, you would be wrong. I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush. These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on on February 17, 1998.*


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Correct IAhunter. Nail on the head, so to speak. The dollar is weaker than the Euro, so for the trade to transfer base currency would mean our dollar would no longer be the world leader, creating deflation in the value of our money. I agree with you all the way. I have been saying all along this war is about the oil/dollar, not terrorism. Terrorism is the irrational justification used by snake oil salesmen to get backing by people who accept their word for gospel. I don't know if I agree with the catastprophic consiquences you listed, but it would have a huge impact on our economy. So, does is it money that rules our country, yes it is. Does it have anything to do with freeing an oppressed people, no it doesn't. Did we worry about the Iraqi's when we were giving them arms to fight their wars for us last millenium, no. We started a war because it threatened our fat cat lifestyle. We forced our will upon others so we could continue paying 1.50 a gallon for gas and a few huge companies could continue to reap the benefits. I would have brought this up earlier, but I didn't want to confuse some of my debaters with facts. :sniper:

Bob, by your own admittion, bill clinton is a liar.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I really like this debate. Let me throw a little more gas on the fire.

First, I DO NOT feel any safer now that Saddam is captured than before. This is simply because I never felt threatened by him. Folks justifying war say that our troops are over there protecting our freedom. Exactly which freedoms did Iraq threaten? I felt threatened by Al Qaida, but never Iraq.

Secondly, I have been thinking about a quote a read awhile back that said, "Wars are started by frightened men." I think the war in Iraq is a great example of that. We were hurting after the Word Trade Center tragedy, people were looking at the President for leadership, and I am sure that he felt that need to look powerful. Want to inspire confidence and build unity? Let's go kick some A##! Who cares if the person receiving the kicking are guilty? After all, to the average citizen, "Osama", "Saddam", and "Al Qaida" all sound the same. Besides, we've all heard about the big, bad Saddam from the war Daddy George started.

Copy the following URL into your internet browser and let me know what you think:

http://bushflash.com/thanks.html


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

And all the while the civilized world grows smaller, we are not welcome or safe outside our own borders. I guess I used to think this would go the other way to a more civilized and progressive world.

I don't know man, but ever since we been hearing about one world order, new world order it's been getting nastier and nastier out there. Another idea that is opposite what it sounds. Many people will die and many countries will be destroyed by those type of ideals.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Jacks are you the one on the left?
www.jacksofalltrades.net


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Bigdaddy, Were you scared of Bin Laden before 9/11? The world is a better place without Sadam, if any can argue that they have a real problem.

Dosch, what a stupid link to a stupid article.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

fits right in with a stupid debate.
"JACKS" cool name


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Was I scared of Osama before 9/11? Yes, I was.

Is the world a better place without Saddam in power? Yes it is. Was a war necessary to remove him? Probably not. Was removing him worth a single American life? No, it was not.

Saddam killed many Iraqi citizens. However, this might sound cold, but that was Iraq's problem, not ours. If we are in the dictator-ousting business, there are many more that are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. Do you want friends and relatives to die to oust the leadership in Haiti, North Korea, and some African countries? I don't.

Sorry, but since we started the war in Iraq, the world is more scary than ever. We have Muslims ****** off and far fewer friends than we had before.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy do you remember 9-11 you don't feel threatened??? You think you are not safer after all this! 
AND WE'RE NO SAFER NOW, huh??

Following Saddam's capture the ever-irate Howard Dean sneered that the U.S. is no safer now than it was the day before 9/11. I wish some reporter would ask him that question again today on one of his campaign appearances.

Later we wake up to news that intelligence experts believe that a terrorist attack was probably averted by the cancellation of those Air France flights on Christmas Eve. Investigators (unfortunately they're French investigators) are looking for some people who didn't show up for one particular cancelled flight ... including a trained pilot. I guess we'll never know for certain, but the suspicions are that there may have been a plan to use one of the Air France aircraft as a missile to attack Las Vegas.

If this story is accurate, then it is clear that U.S. intelligence services are doing quite a job protecting Americans. There is no way they can make this country our the American people 100% safe from the intentions of Islamic terrorists, but bit by bit they're hacking away at the terrorist infrastructure. Al Qaeda leaders and operatives are being captured or killed, and not it looks like planned terrorist attacks.

Democrats, especially Howard Dean, have a bit of a problem. Dean is trying to portray Bush's efforts at protecting America as being wholly ineffective. That's where this "no safer" nonsense comes from. He'll have to cook up some response to the Air France situation ... so here are some ideas they tried to float. Chose one:

The discovery of these possible attacks was made by French intelligence officials with little or no help from U.S. interests. The French are actually doing a better job of fighting terrorism peacefully than Bush is using force of arms. 
French officials are saying that there was no planned attack and this whole episode was overreaction on the part of the Bush Administration in an attempt to show the American people that they're really making progress. 
Yes, I know ... the two suggestions are contradictory. But have you been listening to Democrats lately? Contradiction doesn't matter. Discrediting Bush's efforts in fighting Islamic terrorism does.

Here's something else many of you may not be aware of (I'm beginning to wonder if its to cold for radio and tv waves to penetrate north dakota Jacks seems to be the only informed person up there). The Homeland Security folks have installed outdoor sensors in over 30 cities in the United States. These sensors are designed to detect biological pathogens that might be released in the air by Islamic terrorists. These devices would provide an early warning in the event of a biological attack. In Howard Dean's/ Ted Kennedy/john Kerrys world this does not make us one bit safer. Heck I guess in big daddys world as well.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Wow bigdaddy, that video was powerful. Now someone needs to make one on Noriega, Bin Laden and all the other failed monsters we have created in this world. Should we be suprised when a someone who has been used/abused all his life strikes out against the enabaler? We build them, they become a threat, we eliminate. Our government is so honest. So honest that Bush started planning the invasion of Iraq from day one in office, and when he can find a link for those who look no further than the noses on their faces, he pushes it through. We should all be outraged, that a man that has less knowledge of foreign policy than the average American thinks we are stupid enough to not see through it all, well most of us anyway. :sniper:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm,

Again, you don't get it. All the measures taken by Homeland Security since 9/11 have likely deterred terrorist attacks. However, again, I have to ask: what does that have to do with ousting Saddam? Even Bush concurs that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Bush has stated that Iraq was invaded to oust a tyrant from power, plain and simple.

Wars are started by frightened men.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball once again your delusions are getting the best of you.
Fireballs thinks that the Iraq War was driven by domestic political considerations, as White House operative Karl Rove and other administration officials dragged the country to war to improve the president's political standing. In this view, the war wasn't -- whatever its ultimate wisdom -- the finale of a 10-year-long battle with Saddam Hussein, supported by 70 percent of the American public and authorized by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress, but a political fraud pure and simple.

How must recent history look to Fireball to sustain his theory? Something like this:

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the first President Bush leaves Saddam in power in what is widely denounced as a mistake by hawks, but is really farsighted paternal politics. Bush realizes his son will need an international punching bag midway through his first term.

In 1998, President Clinton asserts a U.S. right to unilateral military action against Iraq and argues that Saddam's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction presents a grave threat. His statements provide fodder for Bush administration hawks in 2002. Why Clinton would want to help Bush's partisan political plot in such a way will always be a mystery, although perhaps he wanted to help Bush in order to block the 2004 Democratic presidential aspirants, thus creating an opening for his wife in 2008.

In October of 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously passes the Senate, making it the official policy of the U.S. government to seek regime change in Iraq. That every Democrat in the Senate, including Kennedy, votes to advance Bush's conspiracy so early -- *when Bush is still governor of Texas *-- speaks well of Bush's ability to build bipartisan coalitions. Although it's impossible to know without access to congressional phone logs, Rove must have worked the phones very hard.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other officials begin to push for toppling Saddam, seemingly acting on long-held convictions, but really worried that Bush's 80 percent approval ratings won't last. They are supported by a cadre of liberal hawks, such as former Clinton official Kenneth Pollack and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, also seemingly acting on long-held convictions, but secretly working in close cooperation with Rove after reviewing focus-group data with him.

As the war talk mounts, Democrats agitate for a vote in Congress. This seems a basic call for democratic accountability, but actually represents a dastardly betrayal by Democrats of their own party.

The Iraq War resolution passes Congress easily in the fall 2002, with a majority of Senate Democrats voting "yes." Those putting their partisan interests aside to help instead the partisan interests of a conservative Republican include Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. You know what they say about strange bedfellows.

In November of 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to comply with U.N. demands. An attempt to make the United Nations seem relevant? Don't be naive. It's really part of a worldwide effort to enhance Bush's electoral fortunes. And Democrats say the administration isn't multilateral enough.

Before the war begins in April, Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave power, but Saddam refuses in what seems a last act of defiance, but in reality speaks to his -- well-known, among Iraq experts -- desire to help Bush by providing him a pretext to invade his country, chase him from power, kill his sons and check his head for lice. The Iraqi people feign pleasure at his capture only to provide the Bush campaign a few good visuals, useful in swing states in the upcoming presidential election.

You can quibble about details of this narrative, but there are really only two options -- you can believe all of this happened for something like these reasons, or that the Fireball view is paranoid lunacy. Fireball give us a puff on that before you put it out it must be good!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

We've all been down many roads on this subject and it always ends up in the same place for me. oil is energy...energy is power...he who has the most power rules I really do think it is that simple.

I guess in the big picture we should be glad we are using everyone elses oil first that way we are saving ours for later generations of dependent US citizens. The downside is alot of other countries are being progressive and moving on to other energy sources then we loose control of those countries.

A few posts above American heros were mentioned, we are all heros...we are here and we owe....hence heros. I don't think this is the kind of hero's we want to be.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ia hunter I sympathize with your frustration with the current republican domestic adjenda but voting for a liberatarian for prisident is a mistake at this crutial time in history vote the libertarians in at the local and state level not the president this time. This is why.
Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Wesley Clark and the rest of the party of appeasement have been doing everything they can to encourage Baathist dreams of a return to power in Iraq. Islamic terrorist organizations around the world could be excused for believing that they would have a much easier time pursuing their terrorist goals if one of these appeasers were to win the presidency. Think about it. Every one of these candidates either voted against or said they would vote against continued funding for President Bush's efforts to restructure Iraq with a democratically elected government that would recognize the rights of individual Iraqi citizens. Every one of these of these candidates opposed continued funding of our military efforts to remove Saddam and his Baath Party goons from power. How could Islamic terrorists not be encouraged by this? The terrorist know that if they just hold on for a year things might well be a lot easier for them!

Do these Democrats recognize that they are in fact giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their campaign tactics? Of course they do. They know full well that Islamic terrorist leaders are licking their beards at the prospect of another Democrat in the White House. Democrats see this as a price America should pay to have Democrats regain their rightful place in the seat of power. The Islamic terrorist leaders understand the Democratic culture, even if many American voters don't. They experienced it for eight years with Bill Clinton as president. During those eight years it was a lot of words and a few cruise missiles, but little else from America. Bill Clinton wouldn't even take bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter! Why would the terrorists think it would be any different under Dean, Kerry, Edwards or Clark? We have to keep the democrat out of office this time,they cannot be trusted to manage the terrorist issues. They are wimps and appeasers!


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> ....I am not voting republican this year and believe me I'm one of the most conservative people you can meet......I think we have another one term president, At least I hope so.


I am confused, but trying so hard to stay out of this. :beer:

RC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Robert, I was and am not happy with the domestic spending policies of the current occupant of the White house. However after having this discussion with Mr. Fireball I have decided to reassess my priorities and vote for George as the lessor of two evils. I'd rather be broke than have somebodies family dead at the hands of some Islamic fundamentalist nutcase. I suspected you were lurking in the shadows at this debate :lol:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Not all wars are started by frightened men, but this one most likely was.
After seeing 3500+ innocent Americans slaughtered and millions more scarred, you damn right.
I am not a mouth piece for Bush, but atleast he has the stones to take the fight to the radical Islamists and hopefully stop another attack on our soil. It makes me shutter to think if we had a boot licking liberal in office at this point.
It doesn't matter whether it is Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, this region was ready to blow. In one Americans opinion this had to be done!!
Keep up the good fight Bobm, you'll never sway em', but someday you might save their hind ends.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that sees this thing for what it is. I am not a mouth piece for Bush either but right is right and I believe him to be a good moral decent man who though pure coincidence was thrust into a position of great historical purpose and has accepted and handled the challenge with great skill and decency. I may not agree with his domestic spending but I do hold him in high regard. I am proud of our countries involvement in the freeing of the Iraqis and will continue to support him in this important mission. I believe the middle east will see great positive results over the next 10 to 20 years as a result of our efforts and hope that freedom and democratic principles will spread to the entire region. I am tired of this so I'm going to bed see you guys tomorrow. I find these discussions taxing I feel so strongly about them it surprises even me.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

This is the closest thing to a cacaus I have been to, you guys are good. Thanks :beer:


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Fireball-you missed the nail completely. Please read my second to last paragraph. The ENTIRE world is ran by oil, not just the US. Since we are, and have been for 100 years, the economic engine that powers the worlds economy we would also be the major consumer of oil (we wouldn't be if the enviromentalist would of allowed the building of more nuclear power plants instead of shutting us down at 104 with less than 17% of our energy supplied by them). Your belief is that the war was for oil so that GWB and his cronies could get richer. In order for you to believe that you would have to believe subconciously, or conciously, that GWB has so little compassion for life that a dollar means far more to him than a American Son. That would be the equavalent of me saying that since you think that the US should go through an economic crisis to bring us down a few notches, you would be willing to let children starve. I personally don't think you are anywhere near that inhumane and I don't think you believe GWB is that inhumane. So your arguement against the war is mute unless you can spin it some other way. You will now probably say that I'm willing to trade American lives for a dollar. Ummm, no. I was for the war to preserve the economical, cultural, and political well being of this country. Take a look at the economic upheaval this country was going through due to the tech bubble burst and 9/11. Now add what COULD of happened if we didn't go to war. I get images of third-world countries, what about you? AND, the future wars will almost all be on an economic basis, not a geo-political basis as has been the norm and not all started, or even involving, the US. Always remember the famous statement, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Bobm- How's it going. I"ve been off site for a while and I'm glad to see your still kicking up a can of worms. As of right now I still plan on voting Libertarian because I believe voting that way, even if GWB loses, sends a message to the Republicans that they are off stride and I also believe that they will still retain control of Congress. There is a real good reason why we should vote for the Dems nominee. If they won it would keep Billary Clinton from running for the office for at least another 8 years!!!! Keep the powder dry

IaHunter


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ia hunter I felt very stronly the same way but after really noodling it out I decided that I'm not willing to risk our security to send a message to the republicans. I hate to think my anger about their spending habits helped kill some american. good to hear from you !


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

We have started wars in the past to keep American business alive and kicking. Read up on the United Fruit Company and the Guatamalan "revolution" in the 50's. There was never a revolution, the new president elect of Guatmala wanted to oust UFC and let the land be farmed by his own country men for a cash crop to help his failing economy. The UFC was making 100's of millions of dollars and paying 150,000 dollars a yr in taxes to the country. The president said, enough, you are not welcome here anymore, we want our cash crop back.(does this sound anything like us and cheap canadian grain and beef getting stopped at the boarders) So, the CEO of UFC just happens to have a brother on Eisenhowers cabinet. We go down to Guatamala, give about 30 peasents some russian made rifles, take a few pictures, and video film, call it a revolution and invade Guatamala. The UFC gets to keep its buisness and Guatamala gets it in the shaft. It wasn't until about 8 yrs ago that they finally got countrol of their country again. So, for those of you who say we don't do things like that, BS. You tell those familys of the GI's who are being hit by suicide bombers every day over in Iraq that it is safer since Saddam has been nabbed. You tell those Iraqi peope who are being killed every day from suicide bombers that it is safer since saddam has been nabbed. Everytime an Iraqi son/daughter/mother/father dies, they have more contempt for the U.S.

You know how niave we are about different cultures and their expressions. Let me show you a little something, this is off a site that tells that different hand gestures around the world have different meanings. Remember seeing U.S. soldiers roll through Iraq, to the signs of thumbs up from the people on the side of the road, that was great video, showing how we are supported by the oppressed people of Iraq....or so we thought. Here is the true meaning of those gestures:



> The thumbs-up sign means good or good going in the U.S. However, in the eastern countries like Bangladesh and other Islamic countries, this gesture is a rude sign.


 :beer: So, as are soldiers are driving by, we see thumbs up, good job, but what they are really saying is...FU.

Saddam was a bigger threat to his immediate neighbors and Europe than anyone. They weren't worried about him, why are we. Terrorists could care less if Saddam is alive, but captured or dead, he is an instant martar. Terrorists could care if bin ladden is alive or dead in the same term, they would probably rather have him dead so they can use him as the uncle sam of the terrorist world. Bob, when clinton decided to send in the troops to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic, who was responsible for the deaths of over a million serbs, did you support him. He was behind the genocide of over more than 100 times as many people as Saddam. Yet you use that reason to justify the war with Iraq...you know, your famous line about knowing an iraqi and having compassion for his oppressed people. Yet, I am willing to bet you cried foul when Clinton sent our boys into harms way to help some people who didn't mean anything, because they didn't have oil. Lets review one more time, the first three weeks bush takes office, way before 9/11, he already has a memo out stating his mission to get rid of saddam and how his buddies are going to split the oil up. Then, you go ahead and tell me that it has nothing to do with the oil. OPEN YOUR EYES UP BOB, the naked lady is dancing right in front of you, and just becuase you chose to go to that happy place doesn't mean she isn't still dancing there. I didn't agree with clinton sending our troops in for the serbs, and I don't agree with iraq. Neither presented an iminate threat to the U.S. Do you think the terrorists are not going to have access to wmds now that saddam is out of the picture. I will tell you now, any lethal force used by terrorists against us on our soil will originate from this country. They have everything they need here to make anthrax, ricin, dirty bombs..etc. Saddam has/had nothing to do with it. I am not a supporter of saddam, he was a bad person, but we aren't in the business of getting rid of your ordinary bad guys, or else we would have to drop a bomb on washington and all the crooks that are mascarading as people who care about us, while they eliminate our overtime and overspend our budgets for their persoanl gain. Do you think the immigrant act is so these people can come here and work because bush is so compassionate, no, they are cheap labor for big business to make more money and not have to pay us real americans a living wage. Do you think he cut the overtime law so more americans can make more money to see the american dream, nope, he did it so big business can make even more money. He cares about you about as much as he cares for those thumbs up iraqi's. He has no domestic policy, no foreign policy or no direction, other than, war is good business, it makes and spends money. We live in the land of the free, yet I can't buy my meds from Canada at less than half the price, what freedom is that? I live in the land of corporate gouging and if I do what they say, I can live my life, but if I don't agree with them, I am anti patriotic, un American. American freedom is about keeping the government under check, asking questions and not taking their lies for answers. I say, if you are gonna spank one child for getting in the cookie jar, you better spank all your children for the same act. Yet, you condone the attack on iraq because saddam killed 10,000 thousand Kurds, but I bet you whined all the way home when Clinton went after Mislovec. I don't like either situation, but bob would label me as a one sided liberal. Bob is so anti democrat it is funny. I vote for the best person, when is the last time you did that bob, or have you ever? :sniper:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

anyway, I call a withdrawal of troops on my parts. We are what make this country great, it takes the war mongers and us average joes to make the country go, but when one group becomes dominate and starts to apply their standards to the majority, then it becomes a problem, so stay ever vigilant. Remember, when you neighbor comes over to ask where you property line is, he isn't doing so to voluntarily give you some more land, he has something up his sleeve that will benefit him, that is the nature of the beast.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Fireball, will you please site where you came up with this info I would like to read about it. "he already has a memo out stating his mission to get rid of saddam and how his buddies are going to split the oil up."


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball thats really the difference between us when I see the weak oppressed I think as the worlds superpower we should do something about it. You want to hide your head in the sand and come up with all these obtuse arguments about corporate greed and Rush Limbaugh and other things that make no sense. The bullies in the world will do what they can get away with, if the UN was really worth a dam they would rally the family of nations together to stop all these little tin horn dictators from commiting these atrocities. I absolutely supported CLinton in Bosnia, and I supported him on other things that he did that I felt were the right things for this country because no matter how I feel about his politics or habits when someone is right about an issue they are right. I can't imagine after reading my posts you could possibly assume I wouldn't feel that way. If you could shake you hatred for George Bush and cliches like corporate greed you could see there are good things done by people whos politics don't agree with yours. And I don't care about the history of when we didn't do the right thing, *its immaterial to what is here and now*. Neither you or I can have any impact on the past but we all can work to make the world a better place in the future. I am an old man now but I was a soldier and if they would of taken me back I would of loved to go after the Taliban an I'm not about to stand around and let any mean bastard hurt anyone here or there. This is a core principle of my life and no one will change my mind about this, not ever. Best wishes


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

From the mouths of liberals. I think the term "politically expedient" applies, enjoy...

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/ ... .analysis/

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20 ... 6_tpo.html

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ ... -9-98.html

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/99nov22/vp2.html

There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01120705.htm

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -9640r.htm

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gore2004us.com/gorespeech2.html

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stat ... 27718.html

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
This link has been taken off the Kerry 2004 campaign website--hmmm...
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/ ... _1009.html

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002 ... 02002.html

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/ ... _10_02.htm

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
This link has been taken off the Kerry 2004 campaign website--hmmm...
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/ ... _1009.html

And finally, there's this rather long statement by no less a personage than the Secretary of Defense:

April 2, 1998
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

In any event, having said that, has he complied? The answer is right now that he is imposing no barriers to the inspectors who are going from room to room and from palace to palace. But we should not be deceived by the fact that they're not finding anything. I want you to think about this in concrete terms. It is virtually impossible to take a table the size of this head table here, 20 people or 30 people, turn them loose in a country the size of the State of Wyoming -- 170,000 square miles -- looking for chemically or biologically tipped needles in haystacks that are spread over that country.

To say we walked into a room, we haven't found anything, they must be complying. If that is the test, we lose. That should not be the test and it cannot be the test. That is only part of the effort that is underway.

The other part is, Saddam Hussein is under an affirmative obligation to prove that he has destroyed what he claims he had in his inventory, so keep this also in mind. The Iraqi government, the officials, had lied consistently about their having chemical and biological weapons.

Initially after the Persian Gulf War, they said we don't have any biological weapons. Then, of course, we found out that they had some 2100 gallons of anthrax. They said we don't have any chemical weapons and we found they had four tons of VX. A single drop of VX on your finger and you will die within a matter of minutes. A single spore of anthrax and you will die within a matter of four or five days. So when you're talking about 2,000 or 3,000 gallons of anthrax and four tons of VX...

They're also developing something called ricin which you take out of castor beans. Castor beans can be used to produce something we all loved as a child, in our childhood days, and that's castor oil. It can also produce ricin which is a deadly poison for which there is no antidote. Guess what? They were growing hundreds of acres of castor beans. But all of this they claim they destroyed.

There's only one problem -- they can't produce any evidence that showed when, how, where, under what circumstances it has been destroyed. That has been the problem as far as the UNSCOM inspectors are concerned. They have asked the Iraqi authorities, show us. Where did you destroy it? Where are the records? You keep records on everything in terms of how many ball point pens you manufactured during the 1980s. Where are the records in terms of the VX and the anthrax and the castor beans and ricin? They have been unable to produce such records.

In fact about a month ago, prior to the resolution of this memorandum of agreement, Tariq Aziz had requested a new team, an evaluation team, to come in and make an assessment. It was headed by a Russian at the request of Tariq Aziz. That team went into Iraq, and they came back and said, filed a report saying, the Iraqis have failed to comply with the UN resolutions. They are still stalling. They are still hiding. They are not producing evidence of what they have destroyed.

So what we have to do, and to do it now, is to make it very clear to Saddam Hussein, it's not enough to open up your palace doors. Whether you have 8 or whether you have 80 -- they have about 80 of those palatial estates, some of which occupy hundreds of acres, thousands of acres of land. It's not enough to open up your doors. It's not enough to enter the empty rooms. It's not enough to look at your computers and find the delete button has been pushed. What you have to do is to supply information to the UNSCOM inspectors that says now we're satisfied. You claim you destroyed 50 SCUD missiles that are armed with anthrax. We can only find evidence of 30 having been destroyed. Where are the other 20? You claim you've destroyed 130,000 pounds of precursor chemicals. Where is the evidence that you destroyed it and where did you destroy it?

So they've got all of these questions to answer, and we have to lay that marker down now. If we don't, what's going to happen, I can assure you, is that we'll have more of these inspections; they will turn up little, if anything. Then there will be pressure on the United States to relieve the Iraqi people of any sanctions, and that is his goal -- get rid of the inspectors, get rid of the sanctions, and he can go back to doing business again.

If we, at the last moment, come in and say, by the way you haven't given us evidence of the destruction of those weapons, it will look as if we're moving the goal posts once again at the last moment. No one will be there to support us.

So this is something that we have to focus on now, and not allow that to slip. Until that's done, we cannot claim there has been any successful resolution of this crisis.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

How many countries have some sort of wmd, nowdays, everyone. How many countries in the world have scientists who can cook up ricin, anthrax, botulism...all of them. We can do it right here in our own homes if we like, it isn't a big cold war secret anymore. My point is, Bush had intentions to do what we are doing now, no matter if 9/11 happened or not. I loved when we went into Afgahnastan and started hunting down bin laden, I can't wait for the day we find out his is dead or captured, that will be a great day for us. As far as eliminating everyone we see as bad, well that is shaky ground, the last to try that was Hitler, cause he thought the Jews were nothing more than animals who killed JC. Lets worry about the mess we have over here with our economy and homeland security and quit putting our kids in harms way just for a vendetta/agenda, that was decided before 9/11 even existed, but took full advantage of the fear it created. I hear all this talk of the poor people living under tyrants that we need to save. How many of you here have seen a child that has been beaten( I am not talking about a good spanking either, I am all for controlled discipline), a wife you know that a husband beats, someone in the bar every weekend starting fights that have no basis. Do you step in and stop it, report it to the authorities so these innocent people can live normal lives. I bet not, but you condone force to get rid of hussien. He presented no threat to us what so ever, no matter who said what in any form of government. He had no means of deliverying any wmds here with missle and his army/navy/airforce could bearly get outside its own boarders. If we are to go after every country that doesn't like us and is updating their wmd technology to match ours, we will have to eliminate 2/3's of the leaders in the world. Lets focus on keeping Canada and Mexico in check, I have as much fear of them as I did iraq or terrorists using iraqs wmds. I never feared iraq after 9/11, I feared a few thousand radicals who will do anything they can to murder U.S. citizens, but if you think they can't get their wmds or plans from anywhere in the world and will continue to, you are silly. We can't even stop our domestic terrorist groups over hear from blowing up federal buildings in Oklahoma, let alone stop them on a world wide basis. It is a enemy without a uniform, face or hideout. We have been fighting the war on drugs on our own turf for 30 yrs and it is getting worse everyday, what makes us think we can win fight a group abroad that has the whole world to hide around. I say shut the boarders and get on with our lives. If we are going to let people in, then they need to know they are going to get profiled to death, it is our perogative and our safety. Concentrate homeland security on visitors and recently new citizens and leave us law abiding people alone with all the new laws they have created and use to entrap us for no reason other than they can now. Being this has become a war of qoutes, who said this, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

For Jacks, the internet is a wonderful place, it is about 90 percent BS and 10 percent good info. Here is a link that tells a brief story and has multiple links, including stuff from the freedom of information act that opens up what actually was going on in our past. http://www.nancymatson.com/CLDWR3.HTM
Here is another link which covers the story real well, if you don't want to chase around a bunch of links that say the same thing in the end, the readers digest version, if you will. 8)http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm
Our government and its intilligent ops are not pleasent people, they have power and they use it as a means to an end for their own personal agenda's. It is no different than a business man who has a brother on a zoning committee who can have a competitor shut down or moved through some law or loophole, it happens all the time. People are inherently greedy, just look at our battle for hunting heritage now.
Look at texas moms who plot to kill their daughters cheerleading rivals, so their daughters can have a spot on the team, look at the men/women who have their spouses murdered so they can collect insurance money or continue and affair. Look at the powerful people who can have their kids skip gaurd duty to get out of active service....oops, we already looked at that. One more question for bob, Is it worse for clinton to say he protested the vietnam war and not turn in his draft card, or have bush sr. get his son into the airgaurd in texas, not serve his commitment, fail his flight phsyical(poor guy must have had corns), just to get him out of the war. At least clinton was honest about his view on vietnam.
Ohh and bob, I think your statement about not caring about history proving we don't do the right thing, well we are living it right now and you are defending it, so you will be part of the wrong thing history. Not to mention, it shows you lack of knowledge, disregarding a repetative history with our government and its agendas, bob keep your head in the sand, the light might blind you. :sniper:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Book smart........world stupid


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I have really tried to bite my tongue here. You cannot seriuosly compare what we are doing in Iraq to Hitler, can you!!??? If you are serious about that then you are seriously in need of a reality check. That is just appalling that you would even mention the two situations in the same breath!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Jimmy, books contain history, history is knowledge, lack of knowledge is stupidity. PICK UP A BOOK


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

dj, I am not comparing hitler to what we are doing now, all I said was the last person to start a war to elimate people he didn't like was hitler. I won't put words in your mouth if you don't put them in mine.

The only reality check that is needed is this, bush planned a war with iraq and splitting the oil up long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse to pursue his agenda. How can you deny documents that list 30-40 oil companies who get a share of the victory, that is premeditated by all means, it is hand in the cookie jar. What more do you want. If i get caught with a list of people I would like to harm, and harm one of them, I will go to jail for a long time, that is a premeditated crime.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Allright, now that I have hopefully gotten james to learn a little bit about his government, after all these yrs and hopefully gotten a few more people to research the truth and not a bunch of hogwash spewed from the mouths of politicians, my work here is done. Lets talk about important stuff, and not our kids being killed for something that was planned a long time ago in a place far far away, something that we have no control of, because most of us choose to get in line like a good little boy. Have a good day gentlemen. :sniper: :beer:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Nice try Fireball, I ask you to show me where you found the info about Bush splitting oil with his buddies and you put a link about something else. Good comeback. You argue with opinions rather than facts. Do you think all those democrats said what they said about wmd because they were pressured to? Crooked Ted Kennedy says what he wants. By the way Dosch if you are to uneducated to talk about politics stick to bashing people its easier.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Fire-no-balls, your teachers would be proud of you, quoting exactly what they preach. Try getting out of the house and open your eyes and brain.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Bigdaddy,

Why were you scared of Bin Laden before 9/11? How did you know of him?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

According to The Daily Mail newspaper, Salem, the eldest of Bin Laden's 55 brothers and sisters, invested heavily in Bush's first business venture, Arbusto Energy.

The paper said that Salem, who died in a plane crash in 1983, became Bush's business partner through James Bath, a close friend of the future American president. Salem, says the paper, appointed Bath as his representative in Houston, Texas. It was Bath who invested 50,000 dollars in Bush's company and also bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of Osama's elder brother

http://www.rense.com/general14/BLolderbrother.htm

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/pa ... osts2.html

Heres some interesting stuff, the first address is the complete story I copied the above from and the second adress is the website it came from.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

fire-no-balls really sums it up well! When confronted with the facts which prove your claims are incorrect you go right back to your liberal playbook of repeat a lie enought times in the hope it will be accepted. Unfortunately for you the people on this forum are able to read and actually see the impossibility of your claims. But of course this will mean nothing to you because you goal is not freedom or truth your goal is to trash this great country. Its too bad whineing little malcontents like you currently control the democrat party. Interesting that the only truly honest Dem ( Joe liberman) running for the presidential primary comes in dead last. The current democrat party is being destroyed be people like you with you blind hatred of this country. You lack the courage to see the truth and its a good thing for you there are people that are willing to make the sacrifices to keep us all as safe as possible. The idea that Saddam needs missles to use the gasses he used to kill the Kurds shows how stupid your arguments are he didn't need missles to kill thousands of them did he? All the SOB had to do was give one islamaic lunatic a container of that stuff to open in a subway in one of our major cities and that would be that hundreds maybe thousands dead. As easy as it is to get drugs into this country it should be obvious to anyone that this would be feasible. That in itself was a good enough reason to go after him and make him and example of what we will do to any tinhorn dictator that lets this happen


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

stevepike,

You asked how I knew about Osama before 9/11. I'll tell you. Several years ago in the mid-90's, I was watching one of those evening news shows like 20/20 or Dateline. This was shortly after the book The Hot Zone came out. I had read the book, and it scared the heck out of me.

The story was discussing diseases like Ebola and how our mobile society (with international travel) was condusive to disease transmission. They also discussed the potential for a disease like Ebola to be used by to kill lots of folks in the U.S. and other developed countries. In addition to discussing how the U.S. and Russia had dabbled in biological weapons, they stresse how organized some terrorist groups were. One of these groups they discussed was Al-Qaeda. From there, I started paying attention and reading. I learned about Osama bin Laden.

You see, the U.S. has known about Al-Qaeda for many, many years. Some of my comments are viewed as Bush-bashing (which they are), but I fault the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations for allowing these terrorist groups to exist prior to 9/11.

Again, my opposition to the war in Iraq is that it was sold to me under a false bill of sale. It was pitched as a response to either: 1) attack a country that was linked to Osama (i.e. part of Bush's "War on Terror"), or 2) attack a country that had WMD and the potential to attack us. It turns out that neither of these is true. When will people learn that Osma was a Saudii, not an Iraqi. If you want to go after a country that funds terrorists, go after Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

If the intent of the war was to simply oust a nasty dictator, then just say so. However, like I said before, there are many other nasty dictators out there. Therefore, if the U.S. is in the dictator-ousting business, be ready to sacrifice lots more soldiers and go deeper in debt. I personally don't think that any of this is worth one American life. Being a world policeman is not our obligation, nor is it our right.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Thanks for the info BigDaddy.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I DON'T GET IT

At this point we all realize that there were some serious problems with the intelligence information being supplied to President Bush prior to the liberation of Iraq. Based on that intelligence information Bush thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that could be pressed into service in short order. Not only did George Bush believe this intelligence information, but so did quite a few other people.

Do you need some reminders? OK .. here goes.

On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."

That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators, one a probable Democratic nominee for president, who are now slamming George Bush for acting on the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton.

Carl Levin is particularly obnoxious. I saw him on some talking head show earlier this week pressing the idea that Bush should have known that the intelligence information he was relying on was faulty. In September of 2002 Levin said "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Levin, it seems, believed the exact same intelligence information that Bush relied on ... and now he's faulting Bush.

How about some other names of people who believed that Saddam had a weapons program and a stockpile of WMDs? Let's put Nancy Pelosi on that list, and there's Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Al Gore said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Ted Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." How about some more from John Kerry? On October 9th of last year Kerry said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security." In January of this year Kerry said "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Now we are hearing doubts about the quality of that intelligence. Maybe Saddam didn't have the weapons. Maybe he shipped them out to Syria and Iran. Maybe his own scientists were telling him what they thought he wanted to hear.

OK .. let me try to create a little scenario for you. Let's say that NASA scientists together with experts from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California suddenly discover that there is a 15-mile-wide asteroid heading for the earth. If that asteroid strikes the earth millions of people will die. The president of the United States orders a very expensive crash program to develop a response. Billions of dollars are poured into an all-out project to develop and launch a dozen nuclear-tipped rockets toward the asteroid to destroy it before it crashes into the earth. To fund the project billions are taken from various social projects. People suffer. The deficit blossoms. A debt is created that our grandchildren will have to pay.

The project is successful. The missiles score a direct hit on the asteroid and it is blasted into thousands of smaller fragments. Unfortunately some of those fragments are still large enough to cause severe damage and kill hundreds of people when they crash into the earth.

Later, after the danger is past, we discover that the NASA scientists who originally warned of the threat from this asteroid made a little mathematical miscalculation. The asteroid was actually going to pass harmlessly between the moon and the earth. We now know that all of that money was wasted. Not only that, but those people who died when smaller fragments hit the earth would still be alive today if the asteroid had just been left alone.

Who do we blame here? Do we blame the president? He was acting on the information available to him at the time. He had no real choice but to trust that information. To ignore the warnings of the impending strike could be to pass a death sentence on millions. You can't condemn the president for acting on information that he, and the rest of the world, thought to be correct.

Another quicker example. A surgeon finds a lump in your breast. He wants to do a biopsy. A test of the lump shows it to be benign. Do you condemn the doctor because he didn't know that the growth was benign before he went in there with a scalpel?

Now, after Saddam has been deposed and after Iraq has been liberated, we find that some of the intelligence information was faulty. What do we do? Blame Bush for acting on information that was believed to be true at the time action was taken? All of this 20-20 hindsight is wonderful, but when it comes to the defense of our country you can act on what you think might be true in 12 months, you act on what you believe to be true right now.

A bloodthirsty dictator has been removed from power. Rape rooms are no longer in operation in Iraq. The torture chambers have been shut down. Mass graves containing hundreds of thousands have been uncovered. *Saddam will never again use chemicals to kill tens of thousands of his enemies. * (And big daddy he did use WMDs on the Kurds so he had to have them, its historical fact and not a point of conjecture so quit lying and saying he didn't have them.)

We removed Saddam and this is somehow bad?


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, you sure do like to call alot of names, I thought you were an old man, seems to me like you are a child. And your last post is correct, YOU DON"T GET IT. Jacks, I thought you were referring to the United Fruit Company post during the Eisenhower administration. If you want the link about the oil company's, just type in Paul O'Neil in google search, you will get more info than you can handle. It is recent news, has been all over the media the past two months, but I can see you aren't interested in history or recent news. Paul O'Neil was bushs first sect. of treasury, who was fired by bush for disagreeing with his mutli trillion dollar defecit spending in his first budget. I think we all know by now, don't disagree with bush, you will get the ax, because he runs a dictator ship, not a democracy. :sniper:

Bob, you may wanna check your history, the thousand of Iranian soldiers saddam used gas on during that war, was provided by....U.S.A. Man, good thing iran didn't realize what a threat we are to their country back then, they may have launched a pre emptive strike. We were the enablers in that act of mass murder.

Bob, I am still waiting for someone to prove that my facts are incorrect. You can't, because they are not incorrect. You keep putting qoutes up from people you (and I) would call liars. They are politicians, they say what you want to hear to get your votes. I put no value in their words at all. You qoute them for the truth, then in the next breath you bash them for destroying our country. I am all about america, the second amendment(originally put in to keep our government in check from becoming a run away monster..ohh to late for that now) and freedom. You are about name calling, opression and misinformation. You have no facts to back up your arguement, so you resort to schoolyard name calling, you shouldn't even be representing you side anymore, you have no credibility what so ever. You need to educate yourself on our government and its history, so then you will not continue to look like a fool. You are my muse, the more stupidity you spout, the more facts I get to post, I can't thank you enough. :withstupid:

BOB, BOB, BOB....saddam used gas on the kurds, yes he sure did, it was gas left over from the Iranian war....hmmm....who armed him for that war, oh thats right, us. You don't even understand the drivel you post on this page, you are your own worst enemy. bob, that was 12 yrs ago, before the sanctions on him to get rid of them...now we find out, he just may have been following the rules, but who cares.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

KENNETH NEILL | 2/5/2004, The Memphis Flyer

P.T. BARNUM'S AMERICA

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, the famous circus man once said. Alas, some things never change.

I confess, I've found myself getting slightly optimistic these past few weeks about the possibility of a premature end to the presidency of George W. Bush. After all, he gave what was by all accounts a mediocre State of the Union Address. His own chief WMD hunter has now admitted that there are probably none to be found in Iraq. And with the leading Democrats like Kerry, Edwards and Clark all seeming to have grown in stature as the primary season has begun, the prognosis for November looks suddenly less bleak. Even the once-cowed mass media has begun to whisper about how the President is facing a stiffer challenge than anyone ever expected.

Then today I happened to pick up the current Newsweek, and my pseudo-euphoria turned rather quickly into gloom. The reason? The magazine's latest opinion poll, conducted January 29-30, a poll that still includes the now-famous question about Saddam and 9/11:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?"

The President himself, of course, has admitted that no links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 have been established. Not a single credible intelligence report, domestic or foreign, has ever confirmed the existence of any connection; the rest of the world guffaws whenever the subject comes up. But do you think the American people would let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their opinions?

Not on your life. Believe it or not, fully 49% of respondents STILL are answering that question in the affirmative.

Despite the enormous media attention already given this absurdity, half of the people in this country still believe Saddam is/was the Great Boogie Man behind the Twin Towers tragedy. The mind boggles at what else they must think. Do half of us still think the Moon is made of green cheese? Or that the Tooth Fairy would make an ideal presidential candidate in 2008?

I do not mean to sound smug or condescending, but this is serious stuff, friends. When the people of a country prefer believing in fantasy to accepting reality, that country is in deep, deep trouble. Particularly when that country uses democratic elections to choose its leaders. Forget about the pen being mightier than the sword; when the power of innuendo is mightier than the power of fact, democracy becomes little more than farce.

The danger in which we as nation find ourselves was driven home to me 
by a personal experience Wednesday morning; allow me to relate it. I was in a little diner here in downtown Memphis at breakfast time, where Wesley Clark spoke on his swing through Tennessee in advance of next Tuesday's state Democratic primary.

At 8 am, General Clark could be seen standing atop the lunch counter of the Arcade restaurant, delivering his standard stump speech to a crowd of several hundred locals crammed into a room that holds seventy-five. I'd been told he's way better in person than on television, and while I'm not an ardent supporter, I can testify that this is indeed the case with Clark. As someone nearby said to me, "The man can burn barns."

I was standing just beside the General while he spoke, so close that when my cell phone began ringing unexpectedly, the folks nearby immediately shoosshed me, with the usual looks of disapproval. I whispered quickly into the mouthpiece, telling the caller that I was at a political breakfast, and quickly turned the damned thing off.

After the event, I returned the call of this business acquaintance (let's call him Bill), apologizing for having to cut him off. "I knew you were at one of those Democratic rallies," he replied, referring to the fact that John Edwards was also campaigning in Memphis on the same morning. "Which of those two communists was it?"

I realize that this guy, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, no doubt, was probably just being smart. But we're not close friends, so his remark took me aback. I was struck by his choice of descriptors. "Gee, Bill, I didn't know we had any communists speaking here in town today. I was at General Clark's breakfast, though." Bill sort of laughed.

No big deal, but the conversation stuck with me all day. So did the image of an angry American -- a guy who actually grew up in the same country I did, and was roughly the same age -- willing to throw around an incendiary term like that to describe General Wesley Clark, who, of course, served 33 years in the U.S. Army, after finishing first in his class in West Point, who served with distinction and courage, as his Vietnam War battle scars and no end of stories would attest.

In a way, Bill's comment bothered me way more than the silly Newsweek poll. The Newsweek poll demonstrated that a significant portion of the American population is bone-headed stupid. That's nothing new. P.T. Barnum could have told us that, a century ago.

No, good old Bill's communist throwaway line demonstrates just how cleverly and maliciously the Bush Administration has capitalized upon that ignorance, manipulating truth to protect its interests and implement policies, at home and abroad, which as recently as a decade ago would have been dismissed as madness.

I honestly don't believe that Bill would have called Wesley Clark a Communist four years ago. Bill Clinton, maybe, but Wesley Clark? No.

But that was then, and this is now, now being the post-9/11America that the Bush Administration will do anything to continue to divide so that it can reconquer next November.

It is a sad time for America. Dick Cheney and his minions have successfully made fear a more powerful weapon than anything Saddam Hussein ever possessed, and like that tyrant, they've had no qualms about using that weapon upon their own people. "You're either with us, or with the terrorists," George W. Bush told us after 9/11, and his administration has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams in using that mantra to stifle legitimate criticism, to protect their self interests, and to poison the well of political discourse in America.

The well is so poisoned that Wesley Clark can be called a communist. Go figure. And go cry.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

You guys are really deep and I love it :beer: I am still riding the line on this. At first I was for going to Iraq, but am now not sure. :sniper: Remember the wars and cast system in the Middle East were going on thousands of years before the birth of Christ. I dought if we (USA) can liberate and make a democracy for them now. :huh: If so GW should be the next Pope :toofunny: MT pheas, Remeber Clark had 2 strikes against him when he started. He was set up as a scacrifisal lamb by Hilly Mae and Billy Bob. I predict if GW wins in 2004 Hilly Mae will run in 2008 with Wes Clark as her VP. uke: Remember you heard it here first on Nodak Outdoors. Bobm, I think you have more facts than fireball :******: ( too much emotion and spin), however this only round one we got nine more to go. We are all learning alot so stay tuned k:


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

Can't we all just get along???!!! :crybaby:

Dish up another for the PJ'er aka player! :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks Zogman its gratifying that someone recognizes I'm using factual argument to to counter the non-stop attemp by country hating George Bush hating people Like fireball. Fireball first claimed the following two things.
1*) That Bush had full knowledge that Saddam had no WMDs *even fireball had to admit this is a ridiculous statement when I pointed out that all the dead kurds he killed with them would strongly argue that point. So next Fireball goes off on one of his tangents about the fact that the USA allowed Saddam to develop WMDs to fight the Iranians which were backed by the Soviet union during the cold war. This is correct( and happened 20 years before bush was even in office) but not germain to this discussion. *I've consistantly tried to let all the people that are following this discussion recognize that the past is immaterial the real question is where do we go from here?* Who cares where Saddam got them???? What I care about is making sure he doesn't use them on us and the argumant that he had no way of delivering them is also nonsense. Another fact that even Fireball and his ilk cannot deny is that you can put enough of these nerve agents in a briefcase sized container to kill many thousands of americans. Our country is extremely vulnerable to this type of terrorist attack and anyone that believes that something this small cannot be smuggled into this country only has to look at the much larger shipments of Illegal drugs that come into the country daily most of which don't get intercepted. My point is that Bush Bashers like fireball don't really care about this, all they want to do is wail about how we got to where we are. ( always living in the past)
Bush had to make decisions on how and where to handle this situation so ask yourself would you rather bring the fight to the terrorists on their own soil or wait untill they kill a bunch more of us. And believe me the muslim mentality is one that sees the lack of retailation as weakness and an invitation to attack us again. He had to make the worlds despots realize that we will destroy anyone that uses terroism against america. *We have to make the penalty so great and so certian that these countries like Iran, Syria, ect. know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if they attack our civilian population or provide the means to terroist groups to do so we will kill them and take them out of power period!!* Bush has done this and done this well, Kadaffi got the message and so did the Iranians and all of us are safer as a result. 
2)Fireball likes to make light of the fear of terrorists insinuating that is all some political plot to scare us into supporting the Republicans. Terrorists don't attack America because of our support for Israel, just as they don't love us because we have committed U.S. troops to battle three times in the past 12 years; in Kuwait, Somalia and Kosovo, to protect Muslims. They attacked America because America is the prime and glaring example of the very human values that spell certain doom to their dream of Islamic world domination. America was targeted because we're free and because we repeatedly show that we can change our own leadership without violence, without bloodshed and turmoil. Leadership changes make the mullahs nervous. America was targeted because we are a nation that demonstrates, day after day, how many different religions; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism; can live and prosper together. We were targeted because we have shown the world that a rule of law, not the mindless and cruel dictates of a religious cult, can protect the peace and ensure the harmony of people of all faiths living together in liberty. We were targeted, and we remain a target, because we've been on a roll for over 400 years and still haven't reached our peak --- while Islam reached its cultural dominance 500 years ago and it's been pretty much been rocketing down a mud slide to hell since then. 
One of the tactical goal of the terrorists in Iraq right now is to isolate the United States. They attacked the United Nations, and the UN ran. They attacked the International Red Cross, and the Red Cross ran. As of yet the attack on Italian troops hasn't caused Italy to bail, though that was the obvious goal of the terrorists. 
Can you imagine what the situation would be like today if the entire western world had united behind Geroge Bush and the United States in ridding the world of Saddam Hussein? What if the UN Security Council had unanimously approved military action against Hussein? What if the Germans, Russians and French had sent tens of thousands of combat troops to Iraq to bring a swift end to this conflict? What if the United States and Great Britain didn't appear to stand alone? 
If these Islamic terrorists knew that they faced a western world united in its determination to crush them; if they knew that they would not be successful in isolating the United States, I imagine things would be a great deal different today. The governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia and other supporters of terrorism would know that the odds against them are formidable, and that they can find no cover or refuge in world opinion. These countries would know it to be in their best interests to discourage if they can, or destroy if they must the terrorist elements inside their borders. Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian goons would know that their survival depends on settling their differences with Israel and an end to their violence. 
I guess what I'm trying to say here is because the goal was truly peace the surest way to accomplish that would have been for the western world to act together against Saddam after he ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions. *The true threat to world peace is people like the French (and Fireball) who refuse to fight when the cause is just; who refuse to stand behind the United States in sending a message to the Islamic world that their support of terrorism will bring swift and certain retribution. *


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Great post Bob, I enjoy reading what you write and reading the quotes you have posted. Unfortunately you will never sway fireball to our thinking, some of us try to support our country and our leaders while other try to pick them apart. I truly don't know how bashing Bush makes the US a stronger nation. I think how we have hobbies like hunting and fishing, some people have hobbies like protesting and whining. That is what they do for enjoyment. I enjoy reading about politics when I can't be doing what I truly love to do.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*And anybody considering voting for the Appeasers the Democrats should consider the following *
we learn from an NBC - Wall Street Journal poll that Bush's approval numbers are now down below 50%. This can be blamed on three reasons:

That America is still in the middle of World War IV, the war against terrorism, and that war has by no means been won. There are still thousands of Islamic Terrorist out there who want to make their mark by killing as many Americans as they can, and there are still terrorist/rogue regimes who are hell-bent on developing the weapons necessary to bring America to its knees. *For instance, can some of you rocket scientists like Fireball out there tell me why the country with the second-largest oil reserves in the world (Iran) needs nuclear reactors*? How can I say that Americans like Fireball are stupid? Well ... how about: 
Americans like Frieball have bought into the Democratic Party onslaught against Bush ... believing the lies that he lied, and conveniently forgetting the fact that Bush said the same things that Clinton and various hot-shot Democrats had been saying long before he moved to the White House. 
Americans have forgotten that (a) the economic recession began in March of 2000, under Bill Clinton, and (b) that the economy is now growing strongly with a third quarter growth rate last years of over four percent, and (b) jobs are always the last thing to come around when recovering from a recession. 
Go ahead ... tell me that you want the Democrats to be in charge of fighting the war on terrorism. Don't you remember what happened the last time the Demcorats were in control of American foreign policy? *We had the decade of appeasement. * Islamic terrorists attack the World Trade Center in 1993. Clinton spits in their general direction, and nothing more. Hell, Clinton never even visits the site of the attack! A tornado roars through Osceola County Florida and Clinton is there ... touring a trailer park ( probably looking for Monica). Islamic terrorists attack New York City and Clinton is nowhere to be found. The difference? Clinton knows he could count of the votes of New York, so no need to go there to pander. Florida? A different story ... better get down there and do some grippin' and grinnin' with the tornado victims.

Then Osama attacks the Khobar Towers. American servicemen die. Clinton spits. Then it's the USS Cole. American servicemen die. Clinton spits. We even have that pathetic situation where American warplanes were on the tarmac, armed and fueled, and ready to carry out an attack on one of Osama's training camps. They have to shut down and head back to their hangars because Clinton is too busy at some golf tournament to take a moment to give his military commanders the "go" order. Now that's some attention to detail, isn't it?

Oh ... and then there was the time that Sudan wanted to simply hand Osama over to the United States. Clinton said no, you folks just keep him. *Three thousand American lives lost that very minute*. Yeah ... these Democrats are the ones you want in charge of our national security, right?

Oh ... but you're worried about our economy. That's why you are not satisfied with Bush. Do you want to see our economy take a real hit? Let those Islamic terrorists bring down just one commercial airliner with a ground-to-air missile. Watch the airline industry literally shut down ... then you'll get an economic show you won't soon forget. Or, much worse, let those Islamic terrorists get some of their chemical or biological weapons into a water supply or subway system. Now that would generate quite an economic spectacle for you to wring your hands over. Then, of course, we have the possibility of a nuclear event in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. Yeah, your job would be real safe then, wouldn't it.

You've heard of Job No. One, haven't you? Well, right now America's Job Number One is to fight Islamic Terrorism. The Islamic radicals have declared war on every man, woman and child in the United States. They want to kill you. We can either appease them, and then live in fear of a change of heart, or we can destroy them. You know damn well which party is the party of appeasement, and which is the party dedicated to destroying the terrorist enemy and protecting American lives and property. *You have a choice to make, and it's not made on who "cares" more, it needs to be based on who will DO more.*


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Look at todays report on US economy and global recovery. Wearch this site to see where we by most of our oil. Read about Wes Clarck's comments about the Balkans. THen go back and read some of the posts here. It gives creditablity to some and discredits others. Having this an other news sources to compare things to I have and still believe that the war in Iraq is justified.

What I have found is that one can find a printed or spoken point of view on any issue to support what you want to beleive. I have seen published articles that say with very impressive references and such that indicate we never landed men on the moon. So what we have to do is look and listen and listen to what is said not what other people say they said.

Case in point about what Bush said in his state of the Union in 03. I watched a repaly of Powell addressing the UN on WMD. Think about it for a minute would anyone go and put forth that strong a statement with out believing the intel that they had? The ramifications of that action and course is not one taken lightly by anyone.

It appears as of today that the intel was not accurate on quanity or level of activity, but was accurate that Iraq was a threat to the US. The documents that show the " How to " for a number of WMD's have been found. Numerous scientist that worked in these fields are missing and are presumed to be working for other rouge nations and organizations. documents also show that these same scientist had been reporting and getting money from Sadam saying they where building and making WMD"S and it appears that until the invasion Sadam was unaware that he did not hae them ready to go and that what was there most likely where dumped into the Tigress River as the Marines found high levels of Saran and Mustard gas reminents in the water as they crossed it going into Bagdad. These are all reports tha have appeared in other nation papers and here at home and on the TV and radio, but like MT said people chose to here or ignore what they want.

Become informed and make your vote one of judgement not one based on anger or lack of preperation. WOuld you go a long distance hunting or fishing without planning and fact checking on your destination? Do the same with your vote or stay home.

We can argue ideaology and semantics but not since our parents or grandparents has our country ever had a direct attack from an outside group or country inside our borders. We need to remember that and understand that we cannot ask for Do Over's. You live with the knowledge you have today and prepare for tommorow based upon it. You can relfect back on the past for guidance to the future, but you cannot undo what has happened.

I feel for the families of soldiers that have been lost and wounded and those that will be. I thank them and those that served before for providing me and others the continuation of this great country.

Thank YOU!


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

What did Hans Blikz tell the U.S. after they searched Iraq for over a yr, looking for WMD's? We can't find any, they seem to have been following the rules. What does Bush tell the UN when this is reported? I don't, your either with us or you are not, we will do what we want.

Bob, there has been anthrax and now ricin in the senate/house mail, where did it come from? More than likely right in this country. hussien didn't need to supply the terrorists, they are more than capable of doing it themselves obviously. If your reason for attacking Iraq is because of the potential for them to supply terrorists with biological/chemical agents, that point is mute, they can make all they need themselves, right here in their apartments they rent. Answer this for me Bob, would you call a memo detailing the plan to remove saddam from office and a list of the company's who get to share in the oil, a premeditated plan. It happened way before 9-11, so regardless if that dark day in our history would ever have occured or not, what is going on now would have occured regardless. That is as premeditated as it gets. That is my point. I find it truly offensive that you consider yourself more American and would have the gall to say that I am against this country. I never have *****ed once about paying my taxes, I don't care how high they are, that is my duty as an American, but I would bet my house that you are *****ing about the cost of living in this country daily...my how un American. My duty as an American is to keep my government in check as well, with my votes and my voice. It is the people who live in fear of everything they are told to fear, who are the ememies of this country. I used to have respect for you, but after your name calling and labeling of those who disagree with you, I realize you are a little man who is motivated by fear and violance, and nothing else.

So, please answer my question, was the war with Iraq premeditated?
Does having the most powerful military in the world allow us to force our will upon the rest of the world?
I am happy that Saddam Hussien is done with, we all realize he was a horrible person, plain and simple. So where do we go from here, who is the next bad guy we disarm? I am all for leaving **** alone and letting Europe handle their neighbors. Lets worry about our neighbors and put that 100 billion dollars a yr of war money into our domestic economy. We are never going to change the middle east, they are fanatics, always have been, always will be. If they want to come over here and cause problems, then we need to address our homeland security, but we need to get the hell out of their world and let them alone. I could care less what happens to them, if they have no desire to make themselves better global citizens, then to damn bad, we are not going to be able to force them to change. So, please, answer my questions, direclty, not with something that senetor so and so said in a time when everyone in the country was in shock and looking for vengance, I could care less. Please address the first two questions at the beginning of the this post. I am curious, what would the spin be if 9-11 never happened, how would Bush have whipped his supporters into a war frenzy then, becuase it was his priority obviously, when you put a memo out like that the first month of your new term. My point is, regardless of 9-11, this was going to happen anyway, we were going to war with Iraq and plans to split the oil up were already in progress. Do we blame a lunatic like that freak from north korea for launching a nuclear attack against us from his death bed(he has cancer), becuase we set the precedant of pre emptive strikes, based on speculation. Now some idiots like north korea can say, we know you are going to come after us next, we are forced to launch our icbm's at you to defend ourselves in advance. Talk about pandora's box. I fear that much more than I fear a terrorist succesfully unleashing a wmd in this country, and I can guarentee you that it will happen. Our government knows it, they say it is inevitable. Bring our sons/daughters back home and take care of our boarders. Pre emptive strike is a fancy political word for starting a war, plain and simple. :sniper: :eyeroll:

Alas, zogman, who are you learning alot from, the links and informational facts I post, or the what if this and what if that speculation that bob posts?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I wonder if alot of misinformation we get isn't to confuse us and make us quit participating. The less people that vote the easier it would be to control the outcome of voting.

One thing for sure is the Democrats we have in office are the best reason not to vote Democrat, and the Republicans we have in office are the best reason not to vote Republican. Let's put somebody else in their to hate for awhile and force the two major parties to clean up their act.

This is very interesting reading and without the ying and yang we have here it would be one-sided and would be no more than a story book.

I like zogman's post too, he has addressed reality. How can you expect a democracy in a country where their religion tells them that all people are not equal. I agree if GW can make a Democracy in Iraq he should be Pope. Our government is called a Democracy and is based on the New Testement's ideals. If we are doing anything worth while at all over there it is to spread Christianity and Christian ways, which by the way exudes equality.

If you guys got it in ya keep debating this, I know a few of us are paying attention and we all need to learn more. I respect your opinions equally.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Nice try Fireball but I'm not goin to let you get away with your normal tactic of trying to reframe the argument when you realize I nailed you with the facts. Fireball your position all along has been that George Bush was the originator of the plan to invade iraq here is a quote from one of your posts


> My point is, Bush had intentions to do what we are doing now, no matter if 9/11 happened or not.


My position all along has been that this was a policy of our government long before Mr. bush came into office. Heck it goes back well into the Clinton administration and I wouldn't be surprised if the thought was even being discussed as far back as Reagan. *But your point all throughout this discussion has blamed bush and that is just not factually correct and you know it, anyone with the desire to research it can determine it for them selves without any real effort*
*So to answer your phony question about was the war premeditatied? *yes of course, but did that policy start with george bush and his oil buddies ( as you like to describe them) absolutely not and thats a fact. And I posted the proof above repeatly.
*Now on to your next question Does having the strongest military in the world allow us to force our will one the world*? Absolutely yes! you see this is where you and I differ greatly liberals like you and the Neville Chamberlains of the world think that somehow use of military force is only to be used when we are under direct attack ( more one this point later) so liberals like you argue that we should sit idly by while Hilter systamatically kills millions of jews and Saddam gasses thousands of Kurdish women and children, have you ever looked at the babies lying dead next to the mothers in the streets of iraq? Conservative like me realize that the madmen of the world, like the bully in the school yard, are going to have to be dealt with sooner or later so then the question really becomes how much havoc are you going to put up with while doing nothing? How many dead Kurdish babies do you have to see. Fireball you argue that we should only deal with problems here in the US, we should only concern ourselves with the many problems North america, well it just not that simple, we don't live in a vacumn. Everything that happens which destabalizes the middle east has enormous consquences to the entire westen world, to our economy to our very way of life. If Saddam would of gotten control of nuclear weapons( and there is strong evidence he was trying although you never admit that, although I commend you for finally admitting he had and used gas on his people and enemies) he would of been able to dictate to all the surrounding middle eastern countries who to sell oil to and the price and while fireball you may not want to admit it oil is the key ingredient to western economies and thus our standard of living, and wouldn't living in ND be fun this time of the year if fuel was 20 times ( or whatever Saddams whim dictated). Think about that for a moment. IF it costs you 300.00 a month to heat your house now it would be $6000.00 a month! And it wouldn't really matter how much it cost because none of us would have jobs at that point and our society would degenerate to that of a third world subsistance society where you would be fighting over a piece of firewood. *So the reoocurring theme of your argument that oil is not worth this confrontation shows how little you really understand world economics. *
*And the other oil related theme that Bushs oil buddies are dividing up the oil is also an example of your inherent dishonesty*. When President Bush 1 freed Kuwait from Saddam in the early 90's we freed them and we left we didn't "take their oil" . But we did insure that they could sell it to us at a price that reflect world prices not some madmans whim!!!!!!!!
And the idea that this current invasion was all to Benefit Haliburton (which for all who don't know is the company that Vice pres Cheney was the CEO of) is also indicative of your lack of understanding of the oil business and basic economics. There are only two companies in the world which have the capability of rebuilding the Iraqi oil fields Haliburton ( an American company headquarted in Oklahoma) and the other is Slumberge ( ??my spelling which is a french company) so I ask you which would you rather have handle the business and get the jobs American workers or the french? *Screw the French, they never help us and actively worked against us in every war or confrontation throughout modern history * The fought us in ww2 they wouldn't let us fly our jets over them to bomb Kaddafi when Libya was killing americans in terrorist acts. ( and by the way Kaddafi and Iran was emboldened by that fact that President carter was too spineless to act, the typical liberal "can't we just get along or negotiate" mentality that Muslims take as weakness). Kadaffi changed his tune when Reagan, like our current president, showed them he would act and bombed the hell out of Kadaffi, funny fireball how these dictators you want to ignore just don't go away until someone kicks their ***. 
*So once again I want to be very clear, being the strongest nation not only makes it OK it makes it our responsibility to use force to right the wrongs that are in this world.*When bad stuff is going down the rest of the world expects the USA to step to the plate and deal with it, they expect this because they realize the inherent goodness of the American people and our system of government, which is also the reason that everyone in the rest of the world is attempting to immigrate to the good ol USA. The rest of the world expects us to do this because they know we won't steal their oil ect. we won't rape and pillage their people. They know our soldiers will stand between their children and some dictators thugs bullets. 
I get mad at you and your ilk because you have painted our president as a devious person with a bunch lies because you don't like his politics and shame on you and all your rhetoric about the supposedy evil intentions of our good country. There are many policies I don't agree with the Bush admistration about but I know in my heart that the government of this country (Which is really all of us collectively ) aren't in this thing for the chance to steal Iraqs oil as you have inferred.
Lastly Hans Blikz said he didn't find any MWDs but he could not say with finality that they didn't have them hidden and Saddam wouldn't let him look in his many palaces ect. why not??? Because he wante us to invade and take him out of power?? No because he did have them! and probably sent them to Syria or hid them during all the time that wasted trying to get the spineless UN on board to enforce their own dictates. Could you hide a 55 gallon drum in North Dakota?? A 55 gallon drum of those weapons would be enough to kill every citizen of this country. And your comment about Taxes and me complaining about my standard of living is ridiculous and does have anything to do with the situation in Iraq, Fireball you are always trying to take the argumant somewhere else because tha facts just don't support your position. 
But just because I know it will gall a liberal whiner like you, yes I do think taxes are too high ( anyone with half a brain looking at the porkbarrel spending that goes on would ) an no I don't complain about my standard of living because I'm one of those successful evil rich guys liberal whiners like you love to demonize. My standard of living is very good and its the result of good decisions and a lifelong hard work ethic, thanks for your concern.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think these last few wars have been to protect American interest in these warring countries. The oil company's all have American or communist ties, we never have wanted the commies to get control of these oil countries and have fought wars and funded wars to make sure we get all we can, just as the commies have.

US France England and other colonial governments were falling over each other to get possesion of the various reserves around the world.

I have a hunch we waited as long as we possibly could to invade Europe in WWII to let Hitler diminish the power of the other European nations we were competeing with for possesion of the most reserves. That way we would come out on top. I don't know just the thought's of a free thinking man.

When the Iron Curtain came down it fell our way letting them out not us in. It was the start of a dividing of the resources, we ended up with the WTO that decided which developed nation's would assist the various undeveloped nations. We were given Africa to bring into the modern age. This will be the biggest challenge we have ever faced.

I wish we would quickly become independent of any foreign energy and develope our own nuclear and other natural energy sources like France and Japan has. France is 90% nuclear powered and Japan is not far behind them. The upside to this is they pay for R&D and we slide in and use their technology they spend billions developing. We are not totaly stupid. lol


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't want to take the discussion about Bush in another direction but I couldn't resist responding to Buckseye comment.
Buckseye ( you might want to get another cup of coffee before you read this. And you're such a nice guy I don't want you to take this as a criticism but...you apparently think we live in a democracy and we most certainly don't, don' feel bad that politicians having been working very hard to convince us all we live in a democracy. *Our government is a representative republic based on the rule of law ( our Constitution ). *A Democracy is mob rule/ majority rule and where would minorities be in a Democracy? Answer Screwed by the majority! 
A great question is&#8230;.
IS THE CONSTITUTION STILL OUR ONE GUIDING LIGHT?

A group called the National Council for the Social Studies says that the U.S. Constitution is still the foundation for our country. Sounds good, but I have my doubts.

Now ... here's another expression of faith in our Constitution that might raise some eyebrows among your more liberal friends. Melissa Schwartzberg is an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University. Schwartzberg cites our Constitution, the oldest legal document in the Western world, as crucial to our lives as Americans because it prevents what she calls the "tyrannical tendencies" of democracy from occurring in our nation.

Sorry, Ms. Schwartzberg, I think it's already too late. The "tyrannical tendencies" of democracy have already exercised far too much influence over our society and over out law.

Almost all limits on federal power have been set aside in the interest of the common good. Politicians pay far more attention to the wishes and demands of the mob than they do to the constraints of the Constitution. Politicians, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, have been working with great success to convince the vast majority of Americans that this is a country of majority rule, a Democracy, not a country of law.

The National Council for the Social Studies may think that the Constitution is still the guiding foundation for our country. They're wrong. We're living in a "gimme" age, the age of rights. Americans claim rights to things never envisioned by our founding fathers. The right to a job with a living wage, the right to health care, the right to a place to live, and the right to use the rule of the mob to override the rule of law.

I JUST LOVE THIS QUESTION

Every once in a while I just love to throw this question out, especially when the political season starts to get hot.

It's very simple. Who owns you? Do you belong to yourself? If so, how much of you do you own? Fifty percent? Eighty percent? Are you bold enough to claim ownership of 100% of yourself?

If you are one of those who claims 100% ownership of yourself, does that make you selfish? Is there some unwritten rule of society that dictates that you must give a certain percentage of yourself to someone else? If so, how much?

Does the government own any portion of your life? If so, how much? How is the limit set? Do you decide how much of yourself you want to give to others through government, or does the government decide that for you?

Back to the original question, who owns you? If you are unwilling to claim a natural right to 100% ownership of yourself, then you are ceding some percentage of ownership to another, most probably government. The only question left at that point is how that percentage is set. The reality is that government makes this decision. The question of charity is no longer one for the individual in our society. Government enforces a claim to a portion of your life, and then seizes that portion of your life for the benefit of other private individuals. The idea of government mandated charity is now so ingrained in our culture that many doubt private charity could ever carry the load. Politicians, of course, just love this. Many of you who have had small amounts of money to disburse in a charitable effort, hundreds or thousands of dollars, have experienced the power that comes with controlling where that money goes. Just imagine how powerful you would feel if you had millions, or billions to disburse.

*Back to the question: If you feel that you do, in fact, own yourself, just when are you going to start protecting your interests? *This is where the libertarian party really shines, I suggest you all read about it and think about the principles it pushes. Just a little food for thought , I told you to get another cup of coffee..


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I guess I think our Ideals as a country were founded on Christianity and the freedom of speech and worship, where anybody see's a democracy in this country I don't know, maybe long time ago.

When it comes to politics there are two ways to handle it, baffle them with bull**** or keep them in the dark. We have both these working against us all the time.

Keep your thinking cap on Bobm, I enjoy reading your thoughts. Thank you for the compliment and I think you are quite civilized too.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Buckseye, thanks I enjoy your comments as well. But my point is that the country never was a democracy and thats a good thing for the minorities in this country, and I don't just mean racial minorities. You're correct that this country is founded on Judeao christian values which are in most cases the basis for many of our laws. Thats another point our liberal friends hate to admit. 
Got to go feed our horses, we're getting a dose of ND weather today, thank God its a mild dose but cold for us. Talk to you later.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, there you go again, speculating, not presenting facts. You say saddam had weapons, he just got rid of them. You ignore what professional research comes up with for the benefit of your made up judgements. I base my decisions on the facts, and not a bunch of what ifs. I will have you know, I am strong anti abortion, anti welfare(in all forms), and spent 18 yrs living with my father, who has been army NG since 1968, he was manditorily retired at the age of 60. I have several friends and two fishing buddies in Iraq right now, I have replaced a coworkers postion at my job now, he was called up just before christmas. My life has been impacted in several ways over 3 decades by the military and its calling. I support my brothers in arms, they have a job they agreed to do, no matter if they like it or not, that is a fact of life when you sign your soul away on uncle sams paper. I have never voted down the line in any election, like I know you do, regardless of what you say. You put a big check by the Rep., no matter if it is david duke you vote for or not, you just hate democrats so much you don't even listen to their side. You slam Wesley Clark, but he has served his country alot longer and more faithfully than you ever have, but because he is running as a democrat, all the sudden he is an idiot. You support a man who skipped out on his commitment to an easy ticket out of vietnam, then you tell me I am anti american. Where was bush if he is so patriotic, he was skipping out on a yr of his reserve duty, thats where. Your rhetoric is so hypocritcal it is absurd. You belittle anyone who didn't serve in the armed forces, yet you back someone who got a get out of vietnam card from daddy. I am not a liberal, I am man. I don't ignore facts in any case and base my judgements on those facts, not speculation and what ifs...like you love to do. You admit that the war and oil stuff was premeditated, but then you make up some what ifs to irrationally justify your reasons. If they do find large stockpiles of wmds, like you say there are, then you can come on here and in big fat letters, write I told you so, but till then, I will stick with the facts. What is that fancy expression the military uses, acceptable loss. Is any loss of a young persons life acceptable so you don't have to pay 2 bucks a gallon at the gas pump, or more for your heating oil. I guess in your world it is, but I would never ask someone to sacrafice thier life to make mine easier. I expect my sons will if our country/world is threatened by another hitler, stalin or whomever the next large country with an actual military threat steps up to try and force their lifestyle on the rest of the world. I have always been registered for the draft, I would serve my country with my life if our freedom was threatened. But putting our young soldiers in harms way so we don't have to adjust our economy to the rest of the world, that is cowardice and greed. I supported the first iraqi war, 100%, Kuwait was invaded and asked for our help, we obliged and it was a great thing for the world. But what we are doing now isn't about saving the world, it is about gaurenteeing our lifestyle at the expense of a few thousand lives, acceptable casualties. Oh well, you can go ahead and call names, as I have yet to label or call you a name, I know it makes you feel important to do so....oh, by the way, I do real well also, through hard work and education, but I don't expect anyone to sacrafice their life for my comfort, I am more of a man than that.

My interest(in regard to your who owns you post) is in a government that is worried about its own citizens and not the money it may gain or lose outside this country. I like to live by a simple rule, you don't come to my house and tell me how to live my life inside my walls, and I won't shoot you. Pretty much sums up self defense in my eyes. Now if I come to your house and point a gun at you and tell you that you have some money that will make paying my debts a little easier, I expect you will shoot at me, but I I just leave you alone, we will all be fine. I understand that the fanatics will keep trying to kill us, no matter what, no matter who is in charge of thier countries. That is my point, we are not going to win a war on terrorism, we need to address that on a national level, with homeland security, not eradicating dictators. That will solve no problems at all and obviously makes the world no safer, or else we wouldn't be getting all these alerts. Saddam is gone, yet our soldiers and iraqi citizens die daily. If you really cared, like you say you do, about the poor oppressed people of iraq, you would be demanding our exit, so their lives aren't put at risk everyday of our occupation. We are done their, but our government won't leave until we get "our" democracy in place, with our approved leaders. Democracy isn't going to work over there, you said so yourself, so why are we still there and why did we invade only to install a government that will fail? Finally, I am more conservative than liberal by a long shot, but I don't agree with greed and blatant abuse of power, that does not make me a liberal, that makes me a Christian. I am very much a believer in "do onto others", that is what makes the world a better place. I am not niave and realize that the fanatics will not stop trying to harm us if we leave the middle east, but it will at least stop stirring the hornets nest. I am 100% behind national security within our boarders, although some of the ways they are using the laws to intrude upon lifetime citizens is disturbing. I am anti big government, but there is no bigger government than the one who forces its will upon the world.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey fireball I still think you have a very good understanding of the way it is as opposed to the way it is supposed to be. I am not out to build anyone up or tear anyone down. When people like you and Bobm lay it on the line for us it can only be good that come's from it. Whether anyone likes it or not it was/is discussions like this that made/makes us a great country. 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*Fireball you have admitted he had weapons and used them on the Kurds, and they haven't been found so logic would say he got rid of them , Duh??? Oh I forget logic is not your strong suit. *
I'm happy you bring up Gen. Clark and I'm not surprised you admire him to bad his peer s didn't read on and weep!
Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12. 
His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners. 
"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!" 
"That question makes me wish it were vodka," *said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. *I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

And Fireball I'll remind you of this until either Clark goes away or the election is over. Clark is a man who doesn't know the difference between Marx' "Communist Manifesto" and the U.S. Constitution. He says that "America was founded on the principal of progressive taxation." He's wrong. *Communism, not America, was founded on the principle of progressive taxation. It's right there in the Communist Manifesto*. A progressive income tax was not permitted under the U.S. Constitution. It didn't happen until politicians managed to talk American myrmidons into approving an amendment allowing it. 
Wesley Clark needs a crash course in the history and formation of the country he wants to lead. We all need to realize the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party is to remove the majority of Americans from any obligation to pay for their share of the federal government. In other words, to wipe the majority of Americans off the tax rolls ... no federal income tax, no way, no how. Not only would these Americans completely avoid paying any federal income taxes, but they would also get checks from the federal government as well ... checks funded by the minority of Americans who do pay taxes.
The goal? Come on, now. It's so simple. Once you have a majority of Americans not paying any taxes, then you have a majority of Americans who don't really care that much about how high taxes get! After all, it's not like they're having to pay them.
Now Wesly Clark has come out with his grand tax plan. If (huge if, thank God) Wesly actually becomes president he will, if the congress goes along, bring about a law that would make all families of four who make under $50,000 completely exempt from all federal income taxes. There will be additional tax breaks for families of four making less than $100,000. And what of the high income earners? What about the businessmen and women who provide employment for the vast majority of Americans? What about the high-achievers who truly power our economy? Well ... Clark wants their taxes to go up.
This is pure, unadulterated class warfare ... and brilliant political strategy. Think about it. You're in an election. Over one-half of the voters don't pay any federal income taxes. Less than one-half do. All you have to do is tell those folks out there who don't pay taxes that if the other guy wins he is going to start making them pay. Easy enough. People love a free ride ... and they'll go to the polls to protect that privilege. Democratic politicians have been working toward this state of political nirvana for decades. Strangely enough, Republicans, on occasion, have been eager to help them. 
We were warned over 100 years ago that democracy will fail once the electorate realizes that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. We're there.
One more thing. Wesly Clark says he is going to cover the tab for removing all these people from the tax rolls by closing corporate tax loopholes. *This is Clark telling you that he thinks you're stupid*. Clark knows that corporations don't pay taxes. He knows that corporations collect taxes from customers, employees and shareholders and pass them off to the federal government. *When Clark says that he is going to close corporate tax loopholes he is really saying that he is going to raise taxes on corporate employees, consumers and shareholders. A tax is a tax whether it is paid directly to the IRS or handed to a corporation or business to be passed on to the IRS. *If the celebrity and sports obsessed American people could simply learn this one simple economics lesson politicians like Clark would lose a powerful rhetorical weapon and would be forced to deal more honestly with voters.
Over on NBC, Wesley Clark got into it with Tom Brokaw( hardly a republican). When called out for his changing position on the war in Iraq (first supporting it, then changing his mind,) Wesley became very defensive and cut Brokaw off. "No I didn't...check the record." Of course like everyone else, Brokaw had checked the record. From testimony in front of congress to statements on TV, Wesley sure did seem like a Republican that supported the war not that long ago. 
If the liberals really think Clark is their guy because of his military credentials, they need to think again. *Sooner or later his antics in Kosovo that got him fired will come out. All it will take is a little opposition research, and this guy will be exposed for the space cadet that he is. *Or maybe all they need to do is roll the tape in TV ads of Clark praising Bush, Cheney and Powell as an "excellent team." 
Remember when Wesley said he thought time travel was possible? He needs to go back in time and start his campaign over now that hes pretty much out of it . *But Fireball just in case I have more&#8230;.*
Wesley Clark, the four-star general who commanded US forces in Europe during the Kosovo war, is running for president as an opponent of the war in Iraq. So what will he say, a questioner asks, when the Bush camp levels the obvious criticism: If General Clark had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

*"If General Clark had his way," the candidate instantly replies, "we'd have had Osama bin Laden dead or alive two years ago, and the world would have been a lot safer. And then we'd have used the United Nations to go after Saddam Hussein the right way."*
Coming from one of the other Democratic candidates, that might be dismissed as empty rhetoric. But Clark has had extensive experience in the Balkans and ought to know something about capturing international war criminals. *After all, the two most-wanted men in the world before Sept. 11, 2001, were Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Bosnian Serbs, and Ratko Mladic, the head of the Bosnian Serb army. They are widely considered responsible for the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II, including the bloody "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia and Croatia, the murderous siege of Sarajevo, the slaughter of 7,000 unarmed boys and men in what was supposed to be the safe haven of Srebrenica, and the systematic rape of thousands of Bosnian women and girls.*
Karadzic and Mladic were indicted in 1995 by the UN war-crimes tribunal, but their barbarity was common knowledge well before that. As far back as 1992 they were publicly identified by then-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger as key war-crimes suspects. *So how did Clark, who claims he would have "had Osama bin Laden dead or alive two years ago," collar the two Serb butchers?

Well, actually -- he didn't. Karadzic and Mladic are still at large.*
And yet it probably is fair to say that Clark knows more about dealing with war criminals than the rest of the Democratic field. After all, *none of the other candidates has ever horsed around with a mass murderer. Clark has.*
On Aug. 27, 1994, when he was a three-star general working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Clark paid a visit to Mladic in Bosnia. In so doing, the Washington Post reported, he "ignored State Department warnings not to meet with Serb officials suspected of ordering deaths of civilians." Clark says he wanted to get Mladic's views for a policy paper he was writing and thought he had permission to do so.

*Either way, Clark did more than take notes. *The two men drank wine and posed for jovial pictures that showed them merrily wearing each other's caps. Mladic plied Clark with other gifts, too -- a bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed, in Cyrillic lettering, "From General Mladic." *It was, one disgusted commentator wrote at the time, like "Ike going to Berlin while the Germans were besieging Leningrad, and having schnapps with Hermann Goering."*
*Today Clark acknowledges that cavorting with the infamous killer "wasn't the right thing to have done." *He says that after Mladic and Karadzic were indicted, "I did try" to apprehend them. But having to work with allies -- the stabilization of Bosnia was a NATO operation -- made it impossibly difficult. "Karadzic was in the French sector," Clark explains, and seizing him would have "required a degree of cooperation with other powers that proved difficult for some in the US government to accept. There remained rumors of some kind of French connection," he adds darkly, "rumors that have been denied vigorously by Paris."

And Fireball whatever the French may or may not have done, the failure to catch Mladic and Karadzic underscores some of the drawbacks to internationalizing US foreign policy. Clark experienced similar frustration during the Kosovo war, when bombing targets had to be approved in advance by the 19 NATO governments. Yet today, bowing to the Democratic fetish for multilateralism, Clark mechanically insists that the conduct of the war in Iraq be taken out of US hands and turned over to an international organization. I would love him to be the Democratic nominee because he has character issues just like General Shelton says he does. *Fireball it does not surprise me you like Clark " birds of a feather" *
*As far as your keeping homeland security within our borders that fine if you want the battlefield within our borders, as I've stated before I don't want it here but then I unfortunately know why and you can't. * Bet your father does so ask him if he would rather fight the terroists here or in the middle east because we are going to have to fight them somewhere wether you want to admit it or not. As far as the Iraqi goverment is concerned the Iraqis are currently setting up their own representative government and constitution and as soon as they are stable enough to control the terrrorist forces from outside their country and the Bathist renmant Saddam loyalists that are attempting to destabilize the situation we will leave and they will still have their oil and a population which is free to do what they want. Because this is what the decent people of the USA always do. And you will be proven wrong!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Good Morning Fireball, 
I'm going to throw you a bone this morning, I have been reading what I can find out about George Bushs Miltary carreer and it appears to me you are correct, there is no question he got preferential treatment. Looks like his father got some strings pulled and got a slot in the air guard that should of went to someone else. There also is a question of him being AWOL for a year from the air guard in Alabama I can't find much out about that aspect of it yet, but I definitely don't approve of it if it happened. I hate to think that he got an honorable discharge if he was awol for a year. I guess it will come out sooner of later all this type of stuff does. I do want to comment on what I think probably happened though. 
The 60's were very difficult time for the grunt soldier in this country. Most of the people in my generation were raised by the WW II Generation parents to believe in duty to their country and felt a strong sense of responsibility and held a deep seated belief in the goodness of America. I, in fact, even with all the scandals that have occured still feel this way today. I was dumb enough to join the army during Vietnam ( kind of gives you a little insight as to how hard headed I am) because of the deep seated feeling I have about these issues. However even the hardheaded ones like me soon came to realize that the country was no longer supporting us, the war had become a political consideration not a war, hell it got so bad we had to ask permission to engage ( shoot back) when we were fired upon. So I'm sure George Bush senior saw this and decided he wasn't going to waste his son in a war that it was apparent we didn't have the stomach to follow through on. I'm not excusing it but I do understand it. If public opinion goes against the Iraq war I will do everything I can to keep my son out of it as well because at that point we will have lost. The terrorist will know they just have to outwait us.
*The Vietman war by the way was winnable*. The Vietnamese were ready to surrender during the daily bombing runs on Hanoi and other vietnames cities. Documentary interviews of Vietnamese Generals after the war have them admitting they had had all they could take of the bombing and were getting ready to surrender. This would of ended the war but there was an event that made them change their minds, an event that caused the needless death of thousands of american soldiers. This event was Jane Fonda going over to North Vietnam and encouraging the enemy to hang in there. Telling the enemy that the tide of public opinion was changing in America because of the political fallout of the anti war movement. Telling the enemy that if they just outlasted the will of our politicians the antiwar crowd would win the war from within for them. *The long and short of it was they believed her and a lot of my close friends died as a result. *The vietnamese war is often touted as a total waste of time and this is not true there was one major good thing that it did accomplish it stoppped the global expansion of communism in its tracks and historians recognize this but seldom you will seldom hear any positive comment on it from our wonderful media. 
By now your probably wondering why I'm giving you a history lesson (its really aimed at many of the young guys that read this web site because your dad probably already discussed this stuff with you). 
My point is this I don't want the same thing to happen in Iraq and you were right about the Iraq war not being winnable *but your only right about it if we don't stay the course, if we don't support the politicians in charge.* You have stated that the whole thing is about oil many times and this is true to a degree but not in the sense you claim. Its not a mission to make big money for the cronies of George Bush , and its not a mission to make the government of Iraq a mirror image of our system of government in America. 
The mission is the following,
*1) first to insure access to oil and a quasi free market affordable price.* I know from your previous comments that you don't agree with the exchange of life for affordable oil and I don't like it either but its not as simple as that. Oil is the ecomonic engine of the free world and if some madman like Saddam was able to control the flow of it he would have all the free world at his beck and call. *The world economy would go in the tank and when viewed as a whole the resulting poverty and disruption would cause more lives to be lost worldwide than will be lost in Irag.*
*2) To insure that there is a stable representative government in Iraq that we can get along with. *And this is not only because of the oil issue its really much larger. Terrorist forces and Islamic madmen in this world are only able to enlist their soldiers from the ranks of the terribly disillusioned common man in these oil rich countries. These countries have a large population of men with no possible chance of ever having any possibility of having a "pot to piss in or a window to throw it through ". *People with no hope and no stake in their country are easily gathered into the terrorists ranks*. 
Who else I ask you, would be willing to fly an airliner into our skyscrapers, who else would be willing to strap explosives to themselves and walk into a crowded mall in America on a Saturday afternoon and blow up several hundered house wives and children shopping( its just a matter of time) if we don't get this terrorist thing turned around. 
*We must change the face of the middle east so that the common man over there has some form of representation in their government. We must create a capitalistic economy that gives the common man the opportunity to own property make a good living and thus not want to throw it away on some Islamic madmans command. *People that have hope for a bright future, people that have a lot to lose are not going to strap bombs on themselves. 
*If we are not successful this terrorist thing will continue to escalate until they eventually kill enough of us to destroy our economy and our very way of life*. We are already losing freedoms as a result of " homeland security" and that trend is going to continue as long as the terrorist threat exists. *This is a war that we must win and win from within by effecting change in the economic structure of the Muslim world*. Either that or we will be forced into an effort to kill all of them which could easily start a nuclear world war. *There are already Muslim controlled countries that have nukes and recent evidence is that Pakistan is exporting the Nuclear technology to the rest of them. *
This is the long term risk we a facing and why I get so frustrated with you and others that don't stick behind our politicians on this Iraq issue. *This is not the time for partisan politics in an election year to disrupt this effort*. We all need support the war in Iraq, we all need to win the war in Iraq *and when it comes down to it the war will be won by citizen support of our politicians just like the Vietnam war was lost by a lack of it.* Our soldiers are just the unlucky pawns in this critical effort. *God bless them*.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Bobm...good morning sir. I think you haven't spent enuff time on Nam history to make a statement like that about winning the war (police action to those not there). The Viet's had a war plan, it was a 100 year war plan, just like all wars they have fought. They fight, rebuild, fight, rebuild, fight etc... it's their way. They have survived as a country for a hell of a long time with that way of thinking.

Well Bobm I don't agree with we must change those ordinary Muslim people. I had an Aunt that traveled to Bagdad in the 60's and took many wonderful pictures of sites/sights we could never see here. I believe in cultural diversity, if for nothing else just to help keep life interesting and not cloned.

I hope your not serious when you say we must change the Muslim beliefs to fit our agenda. Just like Christians, well over 90% don't believe in killing, we can not condem them all for the actions of the few.

Isn't it terrible the last two presidents have been nothing but fancy draft dodgers. In my opinion they should not be elgible for the position of Commander and Chief of the US Military.

WOW believe it or not it was 20 above here this morning about 7AM. Haven't seen that temp in a long time, months.

http://www.centcom.mil/ check out this website...good updates


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Buckseye the Japanese in WWII had long term plans also but they couln't handle the Bombing either but you dont have to take my opinion read the following excerpt from a book written by a vietnamese colonel

Book Title: Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese 
Colonel (Crawford House, New South Wales, 202 pages, A$24.95)

Written by Bui Tin
AS AN OFFICER AND a journalist for the North Vietnamese army newspaper, Bui Tin knew many of the political leaders of the post-French era in Indochina. Twice he made the dangerous journey down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which was the main military supply route from the North through the Laotian panhandle to the South during the American phase of Vietnam's wars of independence. He was one of the first high-ranking communists to enter Saigon when the government of South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. That probably was the high point of his career. Bui Tin rapidly became disillusioned with the post-war regime as it sank into corruption and arrogance. Bui Tin was particularly appalled at the political humiliation of his long-time mentor, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the hero of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. But what turned him totally and irrevocably against the communist regime was the colonial attitude of his country's leaders toward Laos and Cambodia, which Vietnam's army invaded in 1979. Bui Tin fled Vietnam in 1990 and became a powerful critic of the communist regime from the safety of the U.S.

Quote from his book
In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. 
The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. *If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. 
*We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." And on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of 
soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units .... our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom .... if all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would 
have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. *Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. *
*Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey 
Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. *We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and were turning that power in our favor." Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Buckseye I didn't mean change their religion just create an environment that will allow them to improve their own economic situation so the average Joe Camel :lol: :lol: has the opportunity to have enough of a stake in the economy over there so that they are not interested in blowing themselve up for some crackpot mullah. Terrorism didn't exist over there in the 60's its a relatively new thing. I don't care what religion they are I don't really care for any organized religion though. An old quote comes to mind " religion, the biggest obstacle between God and man" might not be exactly correct but you get my drift. Some awful things are done in the name of religion.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)




----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Good posts Bobm. Full of good information. A very good friend of mine, whom I commute to work with daily, spent two voluneer tours of duty in vietnam. He was a Scout, responsible for air control for bombing runs and recon. He was the advance troop in vietnam, the only who where deeper where snipers and special ops. I have heard many unbelievable stories about combat situations and the situations which create the bravest of soldiers.(which when the time comes, from what I have heard, is 90% adrenolin and 10 percent relfex. You don't think, you just react) This person, in my view, has my ear when he says what is going on now isn't war, it is agenda. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq, we are creating more terrorism in iraq. I am with you 100% when you said saddam is a very bad person and needed to go. I never have argued against that, I agree. The way we went about promoting the even was just short of decietful. Hans Blikz, picked by the U.N. and his team, found no evidence, their report was accepted by everyone but Bush and Blair. When the U.N. said, lets give it a little more time, we thumbed our noses at them and said if you aren't with us, we aren't with you, or basically, we don't care. If Saddam Hussien was the horrible leader of Somolia, would we have went in and started a war to get him out? Probably not, Somolia has no monetary interests for us. I am not for world policing, I think it is a waste of time and interest, not to mention life and money. The bottom line is, war makes money, mostly for a select group, but it puts billions of dollars into the economy, at the cost of taxpayers.

I am not much for speculation and rumors in starting wars. We have made a huge precedent, labeling this as a pre emptive strike. Now every act of aggression by any country, can be labeled as pre emptive, becuase frightened people start wars. If being afraid of someone constitutes lethal force, then we have opened a big can of worms. This war with some fanatics is here, it has been on this soil for over 15 yrs, starting with attempts on the world trade center yrs ago. We have been aware of it, it just never recieved alot of media, until they were successful. For every Iraqi citizen that is killed by terrorist attacks right now, the group of Iraqi citizens blame their deaths on the U.S. being over there. The longer we stay, the more discontent we will create towards us by not only the iraqi people, but the rest of the world. This war is won, we have control of Iraq, we are going to establish a democracy and we are going to profit from their resources. In 5 yrs, if they have another election and some radical religous figure grabs power, cuts off our payback oil, do we go in again? What would the reason be for going back? They broke their contract? That would be a story right out of the Soprano's, a little mafia knee cap breaking. I don't believe our installed government stands a chance over their, they are too 3rd world and the fanatic clergy over there has way more power than someone who promises everyone a tv set. So, in my long winded opinion, this war is not winnable, we acheived our actual objectives(saddam, interim government and oil), but we haven't put a dent in terrorism, we have increased it.

I find your views on vietnam and its history great, I like to learn the history of wars in this modern era. I read books about vietnam snipers, vietnam/ww2 POWs, and the lives of the people effected by Hitler and the holicost. Man is inherintly aggressive and greedy. We will never change that, we are the poster boy for the behavior. Creating the world in our own image so to speak. This war is the most obvious statement for that fact. The WMDs we need to worry about will be manufactored right inside our boarders or stolen for that matter, whether it be a flammable liquid truck run into busy mall at Christmas time or whatever they can get their hands on. We need to address that first and foremost, then we need to worry about our nieghbors. Until we can keep our house, we shouldn't be minding others. Thanks for the civilized replies, I appreciate them, they help me tone my emotions down as well. I did find the comment about me repeatedly lying, to create the illusion of truth, entertaining. The whole while you would write something like, "anti american(like fireball)"...etc. The whole time you accused me of pounding statements repeatedly as lies, you were including my name in continously in your negative labels, somehow even linking me to the french??? Anyway, thanks for the straight comments. I am not so unlike yourself Bob, I am pretty conservative when it comes to the values of life and liberty, but that doesn't mean I have to fall into line on all "conservative" view points, and starting wars is one of them. Before someone says, we didn't start this war, they did, remember, iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Thanks :sniper:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Fireball this is a quote from an earlier post of yours that I really liked
"How many of you here have seen a child that has been beaten( I am not talking about a good spanking either, I am all for controlled discipline), a wife you know that a husband beats, someone in the bar every weekend starting fights that have no basis. Do you step in and stop it, report it to the authorities so these innocent people can live normal lives. I bet not, but you condone force to get rid of hussien. He presented no threat to us what so ever, no matter who said what in any form of government"

If you go in and stop what is being done to the child that is the right thing to do right? Or stop or turn in the husband beater that would also be the right thing to do? Now remember neither of those men presents a threat to you, so does that mean you should look the other way? How would you like to be frowned upon because you stopped a wife beater from beating his wife.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'd jump in this thread....... but all I have to say about Bush is Here

http://www.bushisamoron.org/articles.php#environment


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

The point of the statement was simple, we look the other way when it comes to alot of stuff like that in our own communities, but we use it as a justifaction to start a war. I am looking for some form of consistancy in our lives as world citizens. I hate to see the justification about us getting rid of saddam becuase he is a bad guy. We helped him get into power for just that reason, but when he becomes our frankenstien, then we use the same reason to get rid of him. We enabled him to use chemical weapons in the iraq/iran war, but when he uses them against someone he considers an enemy to his government, in his own country, we condem him. No consistancy, or better yet, consistent with our own agenda's. If you are going to justify the war with iraq because saddam is a bad guy, then make sure you report all forms of human repression and brutality. That is my point in that statement. When I was a college student in Fargo, back in the mid 80's, I reported my upstairs neighbor, I had to listen to him throw his girlfriend around the room three times before it occured to me that this wasn't a one time thing and someone had to help that lady. I don't know if it solved any problems, because most the time women in those situations come back anyways, why is beyond me, but it is the way some people work. I am very much against violence in any form, but don't break into my house, because I will use my guns and my wife knows how as well. I am all for self defense, but I can't justify shooting my neighbor becuase he may be a threat to me, that would be wrong.

I found this question/answer in a press briefing to be interesting:



> Press Briefing Abroad Aircraft En Route to Cairo, Egypt
> 
> Secretary Colin L. Powell
> En Route Cairo, Egypt
> February 23, 2001


Q: What can you say to our Arab allies in the Gulf who want to see the sanctions lifted, but who want to contain Iraq?



> SECRETARY POWELL: Every conversation I've had on this subject in recent weeks, and I've had quite a few, with those leaders in the Gulf, the representative leaders in the Gulf and with my friends in the United Nations, recognize the danger that Saddam Hussein and his weapons development activities present to the region.
> 
> I haven't heard anybody say to me, no, he's a nice guy, he's not doing this, forget about it, remove the whole thing, because we want to welcome him back. Everybody I've spoken to understands that this guy and his regime and his activities present a danger to the region -- not a danger to the United States, a danger to the region, to the people of the region, to the children of the region.


[/quote]
How policy can flip flop to justify agression, amazing, isn't it.
The link for this press conference is here.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/931.htm


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball I 've been enjoying the whining about name calling because its consistant with your half truths about issues
Maybe you a technically correct and really believe that because like most liberals you are are so blinded with bias that you cannot even admit to yourself that you would rather impugn someone through insinuation so&#8230;. In answer to Your Post of Feb 4
"Show me a name I have called you bob????

Ok Fireball here goes

Your post of Nov 12th 
"so join the Posse Commitautis with the new reicht and make your own rules"
*insinuating I would join a bunch of crack pots*

again on Nov 12
"I hear walmart has clues on sale, you might want to stop and pick one up"
*insinuating I'm clueless*

Nov 13th
"some ignorant person "
*I guess this one is self explanatory*

Nov 12
"as far as I am concerned, you can stay in the south with you rebel flag and inbreeding."

*Insinuating I am an incestuous ********

One more thing you claim to be a conservative. Yet you insinuate once again that the great "Maha Rushi" arguably the most beloved conservative of them all is a liar.

Again on Nov 12th
"You need to get the facts, and *not the Limbaugh spin on things*, you look small when you go on half truths and lies."

So quit being so tender and thin skinned, you're not exactly as pure as the wind driven snow on this matter either. I'll admit I do get a little carried away but some of your comments bring out the jerk in me. I'll try to be a little nicer but being raised by a military man I would expect you to be a little tougher. Get down and give me fifty and toughen up soldier!

:beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball on a more serious note if you have to hear someone beating up a girl three times before you feel the urge to do something about it you and I are miles apart. The first time I heard it I would of went up there and took that guy apart. In fact the only reason I wouldn't kill him for it is that there would probably be witnesses. And yes, a man beating up a woman needs killing in my opinion, some of that Georgia ******* thing I guess, we just don't tolerate that down here. If a woman ****** a man off he should go have a beer with his buddies and cuss her under your breath, but he better not dare hit her in my presence.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball I got this off of Yahoo today, I hope it makes you reconsider your position that there is no link between Al-Qaida and Irac. Unless you think the New York Times has suddenly decided to switch horses and help the republicans! :lol:

Middle East - AP 
Operative Sought al-Qaida's Help in Iraq 
2 hours, 46 minutes ago

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An anti-American operative in Iraq (news - web sites) appealed for help from al-Qaida leaders to help spark a sectarian war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in an effort to "tear the country apart," U.S. officials said Monday. 
*The officials confirmed a report Monday in The New York Times about the alleged plan, which was outlined in a 17-page letter that U.S. forces confiscated from an al-Qaida suspect in Iraq. *
"We believe the report and document are credible. We take the report seriously," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations, told a news conference. He said the letter would be made public later. 
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the letter was on a computer disk found on Hassan Ghul, *a senior al-Qaida courier arrested last month by Kurdish forces as he tried to enter the country from Iran. *
*The Times said its reporter viewed the Arabic document and a military translation on Sunday. It said the document is the strongest evidence to date of contacts between extremists in Iraq and al-Qaida. *
Kimmitt said the letter was believed written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who is suspected of having ties to al-Qaida. 
"We are persuaded that al-Zarqawi was the author of the letter. It is our understanding that this letter was being taken out of the country for delivery abroad," he said.

Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said the letter talks about "a strategy of provoking violence, targeted at Shiites leaders that would result in reprisals against other ethnic groups within the country."

The strategy is "focused on provoking ethnic sectarian warfare in this country in the hope of tearing this country apart," Senor said.

*The Times report quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying that American forces arrested a man who had the document on a computer disc and was taking it to Afghanistan (news - web sites) to get it to al-Qaida's senior leaders. *

The author of the document claimed he had directed about 25 suicide bombings inside Iraq, but said the resistance against the U.S. occupation was struggling to recruit Iraqis and to combat American troops.

Senor said "it is clear that the type of techniques we have seen all these have fingerprints of al-Qaida and foreign fighters."

The letter expresses frustration over efforts to force the United States out of Iraq and suggests that attacks on Shiites would prompt retaliation against Sunnis and a cycle of widening violence, the newspaper said.

"It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us," the letter says, according to the New York Times. "If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands" of Shiites, it said.

Kimmitt said the wording of the document reflects the author's desperation.

"In many ways this guy is disappointed at his lack of success ... What it does show is that concerted efforts (on part of the Iraqi people and the coalition) is the greatest power he is afraid of. It is almost a sign of desperation," he said. 
Senor said the author of the letter talks about "taking action and setting up operations before the June 30 hand over" of power by the Americans to a sovereign Iraqi government. 
He said the letter also warns that "the biggest bulwark against the success of this strategy would be the continued standing up of Iraqi security forces, the continued American resolve and the hand over of sovereignty to an Iraqi government."

"All three we are in the process of doing right now, he said.

So Fireball, maybe we are makeing a positive change in Iraq, at least I hope so.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I realize that al qaida is doing all it can in iraq right now, we have given them a reason to get in and start what they can. They operate on fear for recruitment as well. I don't know if you are trying to point out a connection between saddam and al qaida, but one did not exist before this war started. I as well hope that our soldeirs who are dying over there aren't doing so in vein, not just to make sure we don't have to pay more money for our resources. Trying to tie in al qaida and iraq now is like trying to tie us and russia as great allies before ww2. War makes strange bedfellows as the saying goes. I think we all knew before the war with Iraq, and as a matter of fact, our government admitted, that during and after this confrontation, al qaida would become involved, not as allies of the iraqi government, but as recruitment for their hatred driven war against the U.S.A. Saddam invited all his enemies within the Muslim world to join him in driving us out of his country. Fanatics like al qaida, are mortar and death driven. They will use any piece of misinformation to advance their cause against us, kinda like we did with Iraq. Everyone in the world was telling us that the weapons ban and U.N. resolutions were working on Iraq, but we chose to make up our own reasons, the only exception was Britian. I agree, everyone said that Saddam was in pursiut of wmd's, but having them and pursiuing them are two different things. I think every country on the face of the planet, is in puruit of some wmd's, but putting together the plans and supplies in third world countries is another thing all together, especially when you are under the microscope. I see Iran is pursuing a nuclear program again now, so is N Korea. I can't imagine the horrors that freak from N Korea has already amassed. These countries are immediate threats to their neighbors only. Our worrying of them selling them to terrorists and smuggling them into this country has to be addressed on our own soil. We can't go around the world systematically eliminating governments that MIGHT let the hands of terrorists come in contact with wmds, we would have to start with ourselves. We enable most of the fuel for war with our agenda's accross the middle east. We made saddam and enabled him to go to war with iran, becuase iran was building a nuclear program 20 yrs ago. We encouraged him to be all he can be, and when he became all he was, we suddenly didn't need him to have wmds anymore. Our government is hypocritical to say the least. They lie, cheat and steal their way into our lives and now the lives of the whole planet.

Here is a direct qoute from Bush in his last tv interview, just a few days ago. I ask the question before I post this, who elected him emperor of the world. He has no more right to say this than the leader of China has to say he wants to spread communism, because that is what they believe is the answer to government.



> "I don't intend to lose," he said. "I want to lead this world to more peace and freedom."


Link for this interview is here. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html
If China started invading India(not very good friends with each other), becuase they wanted to bring thier ideals to the world, I think we may have a problem with that, at least I would. Yet, when our leader says the same thing, we condone it(at least some of us) as a good thing. Modern day communism is a flawed governement. It doesn't do anything for anyone, but it is theirs and they like their lives, just as much as we do. In the middle ages, it was the Holy Wars...believe what we do, or die under our soldiers boots. At the turn of the last century it was WW1 and the germans, needing to spread their ideals throughout the world. Again in ww2, Hitler had a grand idea that would make the world a better place. Now we have the religous fanatics trying the same thing, and our president replying with the same rhetoric. I say, just leave them alone, get out of their house, lets clean up ours. Anyways, thanks again for the civilized and interesting views on your world, these are the views in my world. Later, got a job to do. :sniper:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fire ball, I can't believe you would equate the integrity of our country with the terrorists! Quoteing you,"They will use any piece of misinformation to advance their cause against us, kinda like we did with Iraq." You really seem to think the worst of your country, that we are the bad guys! Geez I just don't know what to say about that.......

THE PHONY WMD CONTROVERSY CONTINUES

The media and the *Democrats* continue to be obsessed with the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found in Iraq. Don't be misled here, this has nothing to do with finding the truth. *Their true mission: to prove that the President lied, that George Bush knowingly misled the American people and invaded Iraq knowing there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. But there were, and the Democrats and their buddies in the media know it.[/b]

In an Oval Office interview with the President taped Saturday but aired yesterday morning on Meet the Press, Tim Russert grilled Bush for most of the hour on this very issue. What always seems to get left out is the fact that Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations for 12 years, violated resolution after resolution, had WMD, used WMD and kicked out inspectors. The man threatened the world and his neighbors...that is, until a Republican moved into the White House.
No, what is really happening here is that the Democrats are not being called out on their selective amnesia about Iraq. For 8 years during the Clinton administration, many Democrats warned of the threat of Saddam Hussein and even sent letters to the President concerned that enough wasn't being done. It wasn't until George Bush came along and did something about Saddam Hussein that they are all upset.

President Bush only did what the Democrats and the UN were too afraid to do themselves; he rid the world of Saddam Hussein, and made the world a safer place.

Do you buy the idea that those weapons didn't exist, or that Saddam destroyed them? Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would be 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all. Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about.

AND A NOTE ABOUT SADDAM'S VICTIMS

Since the 1980s Saddam Hussein has killed about two million people. That's about 10 times more than the number of people killed by Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton used the U.S. Military against Milosevic in the 1990s citing human rights concerns. The lesson we're learning here is that it's OK for a Democratic president to attack a bloody dictator who has killed 200,000 people, but who presents no threat whatsoever to the rest of the world on purely human rights concerns; but it is definitely not OK for a Republican president to use troops to unseat a dictator who has killed two million people, and who may have the weapons needed to kill millions more.  Yeah .. I think I get it now. Makes perfect sense to me.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball heres something else to think about
AL QAEDA WITH NUKES?

A London-based Arabic-language newspaper reported Sunday that Al Qaeda has had tactical nuclear weapons for about six years. The weapons were reportedly bought from Ukrainian scientists who visited Afghanistan in 1998. The report raised the possibility that Al Qaeda could attempt to detonate the weapons on American soil, and that the weapons could be used against American troops in the Middle East if Al Qaeda "is dealt a serious blow that won't leave it any room to maneuver."OK .. can you stop for a moment to think about what would happen if (a) Al Qaeda really did have such weapons, and (b) decided to use them either against our troops overseas or against an American city? Thousands would die .. at a minimum.

Now .. here are the questions facing us.

First of all, are the reports true? They either are, or they are not. We all know how intelligence reports go these days. But can we afford to assume that the reports are bogus? If we treat them as true, and step up our efforts to destroy all that is left of Al Qaeda, what will be the downside? Certainly we would lose more American troops. What if we treat them as not true? The downside there is worse. *That would leave Al Qaeda free to position and detonate one of these devices in order to fulfill their desire for another spectacular strike against Americans. *Of course, there is always the possibility that the reports are not true and the nuclear threat does not exist.

Question: On which side do we err?

Now ... let's all remember here that John Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, not as a problem worthy of a military response. Germany sides with Kerry. Germany has been saying that terrorists should be tried in courts of law rather than military tribunals. Last week. The former roommate of Mohamed Atta was acquitted of charges he was involved in the terrorist attacks. So much for working through criminal courts.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball you really think the pre-emptive strke against Iraq is the worst thing so I ask you this if President Bush had known........
Imagine we had known in summer 2001 that al Qaeda was planning a strike on American soil that would claim the lives of thousands of innocents. Imagine that our pleas for cooperation to the Taliban, the government harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, were rebuffed.

Without certain knowledge, but knowing nonetheless that a massive attack was likely-and that the likely date was in September-*would the president have been justified in launching a strike at the Taliban to prevent a possible al Qaeda attack?*

What would the reaction among peaceniks have been had we taken out Mullah Omar and his merry band of thugs before al Qaeda had the chance to hijack four planes and murder 3,000 Americans? Probably not that much different than they're reacting to the war in Iraq.

Think about it: had the Taliban and al Qaeda been eliminated in, say, August 2001, 9/11 would not have happened. Not only would we have crippled the terrorist network operationally, but at least one of those leaders captured alive surely would have spilled the beans on the pending strike.

Before September 11, 2001, any attack on the Taliban would have been, by definition, pre-emptive-something that the left maintains, even after 9/11, is impermissible. So even if we had known before 9/11 the depths of al Qaeda's evil and the extent of its operational capability, the critics sniping at Bush's decision to take out Saddam would not have favored any strike in Afghanistan until after 3,000 Americans had perished.

With perfect hindsight, peaceniks would nitpick the analogy above. Saddam was contained, they argue. He had no weapons of mass destruction, they add. *Though they made these arguments before the war, there is no way they could have known that. *Peaceniks' pre-war contentions, in fact, were nothing more than guesses wrapped in wishful thinking.

*All available intelligence before the Iraq war pointed to Saddam having a WMD arsenal, and history showed that he had a disturbing willingness to use WMDs.* And as his increasingly delusional novels made clear-including one he wrote literally as the world was readying for war-Saddam was drifting further and further from any connection to reality.

Despite all this evidence, the president never labeled Saddam an "imminent" threat. His argument, in fact, was that the world needed to act before the danger posed by Saddam became "imminent."

Yet every war critic-and, of course, the New York Times-has pretended as if "imminent" was the only word Bush actually used.

On this count, one particularly grievous example of journalistic malpractice at the Times deserves special attention. In an article titled, "Leaders Sought a Threat. Spies Get the Blame," the normally responsible Patrick Tyler summarized Bush's case for war using the word "imminent" six times-exactly six times more than the president ever did. 

Tyler even went so far as to claim that the Bush administration "redrafted intelligence":

"Political hands in both capitals redrafted the intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs - intelligence that had not appreciably changed in years - to make it appear that the threat was no longer merely evolving, but was imminent."

But just as the Times piece tries to do, the left is attempting to rewrite history. The intelligence regarding Saddam may not have "appreciably changed in years," but then again, neither had the words chosen to describe the threat.

*Saddam "will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." That quote comes not from Bush or Rumsfeld, but from Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, back in 1998. *
How about this one: Saddam presents a "particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." Again, not from a Bushie, but from a man wanting to unseat Bush, Sen. John Kerry, in 2003 no less.

If anything, former inspector David Kay's recent comments that no WMDs will be found in Iraq vindicate Bush. *Kay directly refutes any assertion that Bush manipulated intelligence or ever asked anyone to lie or doctor reports. What Kay also found, though the media didn't bother to cover it, was clear evidence that Saddam had duped UN weapons inspectors on the eve of war.*

If the peacenik left finds restraint so commendable and Bush's pre-emption doctrine so offensive, here's a good question: Where are the cheerleaders praising Clinton for showing "restraint" after Khobar Towers, the East African Embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole when he refused to respond to the gathering threat posed by radical Islam?
*So Fireball, If you Knew beyond a shadow of a doubt the terrorist supporting nation of Syria was funding a raid to kill everyone in Grand Forks, North Dakota usa in March would you approve of a pre-emptive strike or just move away and let the chips fall where they may..... *


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm,

I've read and reread your recent posts and a I have a few of thoughts.

First, I do not believe in preemptive attacks. You presented several examples where the US would learn of a planned attack, and you asked whether it would be justified to attack another country to prevent their attack. Call me crazy or liberal, but such an attack would still not be justified. We can present all kinds of "would've" or "might've" examples, but a preemptive attack against another nation is simply not justified unless they attack us first. This is where diplomacy and peaceful resolutions come into play. However, peaceful resolutions are a bit difficult when the president stands up in front of the media and says things like, "There is no negotiation" or "You're either with us or against us." Such cowboy tactics are couterproductive and make it difficult to reach any resolution that does not sacrifice US lives.

Second, I lost count of the number of times you used the word "Islam" in your posts on this thread. I certainly hope that you don't view this war as a Christian vs Muslim war. This war was pitched as a war against terror, and it just so happened that the terrorists that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks were Muslim. However, Islam is a beautiful religion based on peace and love. If the terrorists were Christian or Hindu, would they have been labeled as such? I doubt it.

Third, there have been posts discussing the role of the world's superpower in resolving injustice. Some folks have stated that it is our right, if not our obligation, as a superpower to step in and impart our will on tyranny. Again, I say absolutely not. Are people so ignorant of history to think that we went to war against Hitler because he was killing his own citizens? If so, you are wrong. We went to war against Hitler because he preemptively attacked neighboring countries. Again, there are lots of nasty dictators in the world. Bully tactics and serving as a world policeman only alienates us to the rest of the world.

I think our political differences can be summed up rather simply. You seem to think that being a superpower somehow gives us the right to do what we want, when we want. In other words, "Do want we want or we'll kick your a$$." I, on the other hand, think that our current position comes with the responsibility to set a moral standard to the rest of the world. Imparting our will on others sets a poor moral standard. Also, being an economic superpower should allow us to exercise non-violent power to resolve conflict.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy, your quote *"You presented several examples where the US would learn of a planned attack, and you asked whether it would be justified to attack another country to prevent their attack. Call me crazy or liberal, but such an attack would still not be justified." *Blows my mind!
Big Daddy,let me bring it to a personal level because you apparently don't care when its some nameless fellow citizen.
If you had information that you believed was accurate the I was going to come to your house next week and kill your kids, and I had demonstrated that I would be willing to kill kids because I had already killed my own kids ( like Saddam killed his own people). And the police wouldn't help even though you asked them (like the UN didn't do a damn thing in this situation) would you kill me first or would you wait until I killed your kids first????? Now lets see if you are really a daddy or a wimp!
*Concerning WWII *we went to war after the "bullies in the school yard" finally got around to us ie the japanese decimated our navyin Pearl harbor. We sat on our hands while millions of jews were systematically slaughtered. We should be ashamed for letting that happen and should have learned that you will always have to deal with bastards sooner or later so I say stop the murders sooner, in you politically correct mind this is wrong??? And why wait until they get to us, sitting around like little mice in fear! Madmen are just that, mad. And they get increasing dangerous until someone deals with them. 
As far as the politically correct Islam BS, all the terrorists we are fighting are fighting an ISLAMIC JIHAD a holy war to kill all infidels (you and I are infidels). They may be a small fraction of the Islamic faith but thats who they are and there is a disappointingly small % of the rest of the Islamic world appling any pressure on the Jihadist to quit so yes to a degree I hold them all responsible. If Christians were waging a holy war I would be criticizing them just as harshly. I don't like organized religion but I do respect religious people that practice their faith without forcing it on the rest of us.
Your argument that being a superpower does not give us the right to intervene and right the worlds wrongs is "incorrect" as well ( Fireball see the restraint I'm using). Our power gives us the responsibility to stop these atrocities and we are always the country everyone in the UN expects to supply the lions share of money and soldiers for these "humanitarian"( another politically correct word i can't stand) type missions when they finally get the gumption to do something about the actions of some madman. How the hell you liberals think we should look the other way while someone slaughters innocent women and children always amazes me, but I guess if fireball can look the other way while a woman gets beat up, twice no less, it shouldn't surprise me. *I can't wait to hear you answer my question above on whether you would pre-emptively keep me from killing your kids* 
And lastly yes I do think that defending the worlds weak and oppressed is setting the best possible moral standard. 
What say you BIG DADDY?


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Couldn't have said it better myself bigdaddy. 
Now to address some of Bobs unresearched misinformation, here we go:
This is right from the O'Rieley Factor, of which I am sure bob is a viewer.



> Murder of 200,000 Kurds. What happened, Mr. Forrest?
> 
> CHARLES FORREST, CEO, INDICT: Right. That's what was called the Infal (ph) operation. Genocidal campaign carried out in 1987 to 1989 in northern part of Iraq and it resulted in the destruction of thousands of villages, the murder of up to 200,000 people, the use of chemical gas at Halabja, which is well known, but also at as many as 40 other towns and villages.





> But it appears that almost as many people, perhaps even more, died in the suppression of the intifada, the uprising, as many as 250,000 people.
> 
> And they weren't just killed in collateral damage in the conflict. At the end of the uprising after it had been suppressed, thousands were lined up and shot and buried in mass graves all over southern Iraq


Now this one is interesting, because the majority were killed in an uprising against saddam, which he crushed with brutal force, and assinating some after the skirmish as well. But, this statement is very qualified to include anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 people, are very general guess to say the least. And last, but not least...600 Kuwait people where assisinated in the Kuwait war. If you take the first statment, that is 200k, the second guess, we'll give 200k as well and the last together = about 450k people. A far cry from your post of 2 million, but as you say, if you post lies enough, some people will believe them. Here is the link for these FACTS. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82879,00.html

Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for around 250k non war related deaths and drove over 1 million people out of his country, or they would have been killed.(just a little of bob type speculation on my part).

As far as the pre emptive strike about the kids bob, he still can't come into your home and stop you in advance, but if you make the threat and come into his house, he can use any force necassary to stop you. Thank you for making our point for us, you stay out of my house, I'll stay out of yours. As far as religion practicing without forcing on others, Christianity is the biggest forced upon others religion of all. They are using it now to justify a war, how many times has Bush said, "God is on our side and we will win this fight." How many people died during the inquisitions, Crusades and witch trials. This isn't about whos god is right, this is about a few fanatics using religion as an excuse to murder people.

The U.N. did the correct thing, as we are finding out. They said his wmd program was under control and now we are finding out they were telling the truth, but hey, who cares, the truth didn't fit our agenda.

Finally, germany was a superpower in the 30's and 40's, did that give Hitler the right to bring his bold new plan to the whole world, because in his depraved mind he THOUGHT he was right. Nope, don't think so.

Your whole agruement is still based on speculation and what ifs, even when presented with the facts, you come up with some alternate universe theory to try and justify them. When all is said and done, it comes back to a great characters qoute:


> As the Sherlock Holmes would have said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."


I think I have shown that with or without 9-11, Bush was going to invade Iraq and split up the oil, the facts are right out there for all to see. 9*11 was a group or radical murders, not even thinking about saddam, doing something they had been planning for over 6 yrs. If we had taken the taliban our, they still would have performed their operation, it was thier demented duty in thier eyes. So, for anyone to even try and tie saddam to the events of 9-11 to justify a war is just wrong, it is untruthful and based on no FACTS at all. To continue starting wars becuase we are AFRAID, is based on poor intelligence and speculation. Bob, you condone the use of force, even when the course that was being used, was working, as we now know, but refused to believe. Even though Hans Blikz and a hand picked group of the best weapons scientists in the world told us so. There are at least 5 other countries who, for your sake of arguement, can supply terrorists with wmds, who at present don't like us either. Why did Hitler murder the Jewish people, becuase he was afraid of them and what they represented. If you didn't fit into hitlers blonde hair and blue eye scheme of superhumans, you didn't fit at all. Now, if you don't fit into our idea of freedom and democracy(a sham, as bob would have us believe), we will list you as a threat to our safety and take it upon ourselves to take over your country and install our own government.

Solution...can't we just leave everyone alone. We create more hatred of this country out of our own greed than we do if we would just live our lives and let others live theres. One final question for Bob. Do you think that terrorists next strike will come from weapons smuggled in from outside the boarders, or from a source right inside these boarders. I think the ricin and anthrax already prove that point, it will come from inside our country, so no form of hunting down ghosts will put an end to a few radicals who are bent on dying for thier cause. They have no leader, their leader is fear and hatred.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

Bobm,

I've been following this thread and your posts. Good work and can't agree more...


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Ahh, yes...*Fishingbuddy...'s*, so to speak. We couldn't be having this factual, well, on my side anyway, discussion on another website.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Boy fireball if you would wait for someone to attack you that you knew was gonna you really are a coward. You did admit to listening to a guy beat his wife 3 times before you did anything, that is sad.

"I had to listen to him throw his girlfriend around the room three times before it occured to me that this wasn't a one time thing and someone had to help that lady. "


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

OK Bob, here we go: If I learned that somebody was going to kill my kids, what would I do? Would I kill him? Yes, I would. I'd let the 12 ga bark, AFTER he entered my home. That's self-defense. Going to his home and killing him preemptively is murder, plain and simple. You can't react to intentions, only to actions.

Like fireball said, you stay out of my home, and I'll stay out of yours.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Jacks, let me set something straight with you right now. The even happened in a span of 5 days. The first time I figured it was a cpl of college kids wrestling around, like the two guys living in the apartment to the west of me did every weekend when they would get drunk. The second time I heard some yelling and a womens voice, as she slammed the door and left the apartment complex. I looked out my deck window and saw a women getting in her car. The third time I called the cops, and let them handle it the correct way. By the time I realized it was a women and not horseplay, she was already gone and a call to the police would have done no good. You didn't know the facts becuase I never posted them, now you do. Tell me jacks, are you the man who beats his wife, or starts bar fights. I am just speculating, as you did.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

LOL, read your post fireball, way to try to lie your way out of this one. You said it took 3 times and then you figured out it was not a 1 time thing. To me that means 1 time would be ok and maybe 2 but 3 times is not. Kinda like when you change your words and other people's words about your liberal views.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball, I've got to love you man you are relentless! Absolutley wrong but at least you stick to your misguided convictions and I do respect that.
I'm not goin to rehash all the bs about Saddam right now its wearing me out but I will ask you this just so we're clear on it. 
According to my little anology, you know I'm a kid killer,beyond a shadow of a doubt, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm going to come over and kill your kids, you know the cops won't do anything about it and your telling me that you are going to wait until I come do it and then act after the fact??????????????????? Hoping you might get lucky and intercept me? Are you ffing nuts????!!!! Tell you what, if the situation ever comes up in real life call me and I will come up and keep you from having to go to your kids funeral.
You remind me of a guy I once saw on a TV magazine type show that was crying, literally, because some guy had repeatedly stalked his wife and daughter and I quote " he didn't know what to do about it"crying no less! *I guess I don't have to spell out what I would do*. Later, I'm still waiting to see BIg daddies response I gotta know if your both nuts :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

" I think I have shown that with or without 9-11, Bush was going to invade Iraq and split up the oil, the facts are right out there for all to see. 9*11 was a group or radical murders, not even thinking about saddam, doing something they had been planning for over 6 yrs.

Fireball if you are referring to O'Neils book about splitting the oil and his document, that has been debunked by ABC, NBC, and CBS, as being a copy of a list of parties that had interests in the Iraqi oil at that time.

So if they had been planning this for six years, then why did Clintion not take Bin Laden when he was given the chance? Should he not be held liable for the deaths of the people in the WTC, or was the fact that he was more concerned with Sadam as a threat that he overlooked them as nonimportant?

Opinions we all have facts however need references to colaberate the statements. What references do you have that shows they planned to split the oil fields? I do know they had a plan for removal or Sadam, as it was our national policy to seek regime change since 98. Plans would have been done under Clinton and passed on to Bush. He then would have had his team evaluate and tweek them based on current intel.

I would bet that we have a plan in place for Syria and Lebenon and North Korea. All which would have been in place before Bush took office. In the case of Syria and Lebenonn I would bet that many plans have been drafted and approved since Reagan. That is what is done to encure our safety. We had a plan of going to war before DEC 7th 1941. These things are not done spur of the momment.

They say one needs to study history as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. With 9-11 fresh on our minds in stands to reason that other threats needed to be dealt with before they could cause another attack. Saudia Arabia, had looked the other way for years on terrorism, it has changed since 9-11. They have felt the wrath as well. Russia also is feeling it. We have in our own hemisphere the same actions taking place.

Peace will come only when and if people are allowed to learn and prosper. This happens when people can elect the path they want to follow by majority. This forum and others like it show why it is a just action to take. We have a place to air our frustrations and feelings without the fear of harm to family or friends. We may not agree and our anger can sometimes get the better of our judgement at times, but we do not fear our Gov leaders having our doors knocked down our daughters and wife raped while we watch, just because we do not agree with policy.

Unless those fears are taken away there will always be the ablity for others to exploit them.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Pretty simple jacks, the first time I had no idea who or what was going on. The second time I found out what was going on, the third time, I reported it and it was stopped in the act. I could have called on my other neighbors the very first time, but I knew it was two college guys who wrestled around when they got drunk on saturday nights. You can think whatever you want, but you were not there and do not know what was going on. I tell you what happened and you still make up your own stories, just like bob and bush.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well big daddy you are nuts too. Because there is no assurance you would be able to get me in time which is the analogy to terrorism I'm trying to make. And if I already killed my own kids then I am a madman and I need killing anyway. I would rather rot in a jail cell or hang from a noose than live with the realization that I didn't act and my child was dead because of it. What a bunch of wimps, sorry fireball, I just can't help it sometimes man, I just can't believe this.....


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Fireball wrote "I reported my upstairs neighbor, I had to listen to him throw his girlfriend around the room three times before it occured to me that this wasn't a one time thing and someone had to help that lady." Still see the same thing. Once you figured it was not gonna happen just once. Nothing about the college drunk neighbors wrestling.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm, you call me a wimp because I won't kill a person that threatened my family? Restraint demands more courage, not less. Remember that. Also, remember the statement, "Wars are started by frightened men"? I think Bush sent the troops because people were looking at him to do something, anything. Wanna feel good? Let's go kick somebody's a$$! If he had courage, he would have shown some restraint.

Just because a person could kill somebody because they MIGHT do something, does not make it right. Like I stated before, the second an intruder stepped across my threshold, they would be toast.

There is something in this world called morals and ethics. My ethics (Christian ethics, by the way) demand that I do not kill without a damn good reason. I would hope that George W's ethics would demand the same. I would also hope that he would not get our soldiers killed without a damn good reason.

You know, I have been reading quite a bit lately about the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If you recall, he was a big proponent of non-violent resistance. He knew that reacting to violence with violence was a cylic, self-destructive route to take. His view was that non-violence took more courage than violence. Maybe I should mail you and George W a few books.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Jacks, I am not going to have this discussion with you, because you were not there and don't know what happened.

Bob, one last question for this topic, as it is going nowhere and nobodies minds are going to be changed, your either a war monger or you are for peace. Anyway, the question is:

If Kim Jong II, north Korea's president, was to launch his few nuclear weapons at us, would that be pre emptive or aggressive? He knows he is on our list of terrorist empathizers, so he can pretty much figure we are going to come after him. He has more basis than we did, trying to tie bin laden and 9-11 and wmds to iraq. So, in your world, he has just as much right to protect himself in advance as we do, or is that only a right that the U.S.A. posses? Can we blame him and call him a madman if he acts in this fashion, or do we have to condone his actions, as we set the precedent with our actions and now must accept them as common.

Ron, please give me the links debunking the oil memo's, I would appreciate them, thanks.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

WOW Bobm you must be wearin your Texas cowboy boots and twirling a rope today.lol The way I understand US law is there must be a crime committed before we can prosecute. I would really appreciate it if you went out and killed all the child killers, but that ain't the way it works. We have police to do this these days. I'm with you we probaly would have been better off if we lived back when we could hammer worthless bastards like that, but and a big but we are these days trying to become more civilized than the animals we all depend on for food and amusement.

Here's a little story about me in California, I came out of a bar at closing time along with a bunch of people I have never seen before. Across the street we heard a woman screaming rape, my instincts set me in motion, I am now running across the street followed by a large bunch of people. About half way there I thought what if he has a gun or knife, well that slowed me down a bit as I was hoping some of the other men who were following me would hopefully pass me by. Well they all slowed down leaving me still out front. I am a fool so I ran in and kicked the rapist in the head knocking him down and out. All my brave followers crawled over him like worms, I got the hell outa there before they killed him, I have no idea what happened after, I just know that chick was not raped.

The point I'm trying to make is when gaining superiority don't lower yourself to the levels of the ilk you are fighting with.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

"Jacks, I am not going to have this discussion with you, because you were not there and don't know what happened. "

We know what you wrote, to bad you can't change that like you change the subject. LOL


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Buckseye good for you,(too bad you didn't cave in the bastards skull). 
Big Daddy and Fireball would of done nothing becasue they would claim that the rapist was no threat to them so they have no moral authority to intervene. Fireballs even admitted it with the women beating issue!
Buckseye in my ficticious analogy the police ( the UN ) wouldn't help, I (saddam) had already killed kids(his own people) and the wimpy appeasers bIg Daddy and Fireball( some democrats not all I have some friends the voted for Clinton ) would not do anything to save their their kids until after I (terrorists) killed the kids. Because of their fixation with the no pre-emption doctrine. If that doesn't beat everything I've ever heard I don't know what does. Tells you what they are made of. Fireball and Big daddy Don't bother with "I'm a Christian "defense, its just and excuse for cowardice. 
This is the level of liberal thought in this country. In their minds the greatest evil in this world is George Bush and they accuse him of everything bad while making excuses for the likes of Saddam Hussein. 
The give lip service to how "evil he is, " but we can't do anything about it, only cowards can watch the weak get harmed and sit idly by. Buckseye thank God for the girl in your story that you are not a wimp, she would of been ruined for life if big daddy and fireball were their, Buckseye, I'm proud to know you (you could of gave him a couple extra kicks for BOB) :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball If my numbers were wrong in the above post I might of read it wrong but it really does matter to me if its 2 million or 200 thousand I would act the same. Now on to Kim jung madman

*JUST WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH PRE-EMPTIVE WARFARE ?*
One of the principal problems that the appeasement class has with George Bush and his war in Iraq is that it was pre-emptive. Evidently there is something inherently evil in taking pre-emptive action.

Before we go any further with this let's sneak a peak at the dictionary. Pre-emptive, is defined as:

1)Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent.

2)Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence.

Now that you have some definitions to work with, does the idea of a pre-emptive strike sound so horribly outrageous? If you actually believe that an enemy strike is imminent, is it such a bad idea to strike first? Or of you think someone will almost certainly do something particularly unpleasant to you at some point in the future, is it so hideously wrong for you to try to neutralize that person's ability to harm you before he acts?

Let's build a little scenario here using that diminutive gargoyle who currently holds sway in North Korea. Kim Jung Il has a pretty loud mouth; but he also has a powerful military to back up what he says. The world believes him to be certifiable, and that's not good for the cause of peace and stability.

Here's my scenario: Kim Jung Il launches a three-stage rocket over Japan all the way to the equator in the middle of the pacific. At that point the world, and the United States knows that Kim Jung Il has a missile that could reach virtually any portion of the United States. The little hedgehog then announces that in exactly 60 hours he is going to launch another such missile aimed at Los Angeles, and this missile is going to be carrying a nuclear warhead.

*So, what would you "no pre-emptive war" idiots have us do at that point? *Common sense would suggest that we should send out the long-range U.S. bombers to destroy as much of Kim Jung Il's military capability as possible ... especially his nuclear and missile facilities.

But wait! That would be a pre-emptive strike, wouldn't it? We just couldn't do that, could we? After all ... he hasn't attacked us! How can we strike at him until he actually attacks us?

Now .. if that isn't enough to make you "no pre-emptive war" whackos hide under your blankets, they you have lost all capabilities for logical thought. But, then ... you're liberals, aren't you. It goes with the territory.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*This report should make you just want to run right on down and vote for John Kerry*. tAccording to U.S. and foreign officials, Islamic radicals are being trained at terrorist camps in Pakistan and KashmirThese terrorists are being trained to join sleeper cells currently operating in the United States.

A high-ranking intelligence chief told the Washington Times in an interview last week that this network of training camps "represents a serious threat to the United States and cannot be ignored." That same official said camps in Pakistan and Kashmir are the source of 400 terrorists. U.S. intelligence officials said the camps are financed in part by various groups, including Al-Qaeda and sources in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Pakistan denies all of this completely, saying there are no terrorist training camps in their country. This is the same government whose intelligence service had been know to be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In addition, the Indian government said its army had photographs and other evidence of ongoing terrorist training in Pakistan and Kashmir.

John Kerry? Remember, he would treat all of this as a law enforcement problem. Let's send someone to Pakistan with some search warrants. That ought to do it. Or maybe Kerry can ask the UN to clean this mess up for us.

But what about Bush? How much proof will he need before American troops head into Pakistan to clean out these reported training camps? Is it possible that the constant hammering from the left has made it more difficult for Bush to act on information like this? *If so, who presents the greater danger to Americans; the terrorists training in Pakistan, or the Democrats in this country who are sabotaging our will to fight them?*

Al-Qaeda sleeper cells are believed to be awaiting orders in 40 states in this country, and all we can talk about in the presidential campaign is Iraq. What is it going to take for people like Fireball to wake up?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

More on the wonderful loving religion of Islam
Islamic extremists invade U.S., join sleeper cells

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Islamic radicals are being trained at terrorist camps in Pakistan and Kashmir as part of a conspiracy to send hundreds of operatives to "sleeper cells" in the United States, according to U.S. and foreign officials. 
The intelligence and law-enforcement officials say dozens of Islamic extremists have already been routed through Europe to Muslim communities in the United States, based on secret intelligence data and information from terrorists and others detained by U.S. authorities. 
A high-ranking foreign intelligence chief told The Washington Times in an interview last week that this clandestine but aggressive network of training camps "represents a serious threat to the United States, one that cannot be ignored." The official said as many as 400 terrorists have been and are being trained at camps in Pakistan and Kashmir. 
U.S. intelligence officials said the camps, located in the remote regions of western Pakistan and in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, are financed in part by various terrorist networks, including al Qaeda, and by sources in Saudi Arabia. 
Pakistani Ambassador Ashraf Jehangir Qazi denied in an interview that terrorist camps are operating in his country, including the remote regions of western Pakistan or in Kashmir. 
"We have never accepted the allegation that there were training camps here, not now, not ever," Mr. Qazi told The Times. "These allegations have persisted despite our repeated denials. I assure you there is absolutely no reason to believe that any terrorist camps exist in Pakistan or Kashmir." 
Al Qaeda sleeper cells are believed to be operating in 40 states, according to the FBI and other federal authorities, awaiting orders and funding for new attacks in the United States. Financed in part by millions of dollars solicited by an extensive network of bogus charities and foundations, the cells use Muslim communities as cover and places to raise cash and recruit sympathizers.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Big daddy here an example of the loving religion of Islam in action

*Man Beheads Daughter Thinking She Was Raped*
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian man cut off his seven-year-old daughter's head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle, the Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper said on Sunday.

A post-mortem, however, showed the girl was still a virgin.

*"The motive behind the killing was to defend my honor, fame, and dignity,"
the paper quoted the father as saying. *Rape often goes unreported in Iran, where the conservative society sees it as bringing shame on the victim and family.

Local people have called for the man, who has been arrested, to be hanged, but under Iran's Islamic law only the father of the victim has the right to demand the death sentence. (And conviently he decided not to hang himself)

The paper said the father, named as Khazir, has three wives.
Yeah Big daddy the loving relgion of Islam!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm,

Your analogy of a person threating my children is flawed for a very simple reason. I don't view the Iraqi people as my children anymore than I view your children as my children. Simply put, the fact that Saddam killed his own people is Iraq's problem not our problem. Before we start assuming the role of world policeman to save oppressed people, maybe we should focus on getting justice for our own citizens.

This is one major problem that I see with conservatives, specifically those on the Christian right. They seem to think that everybody else's business is their business. They don't like gay marriages because it is somehow their business what two consenting adults do. They don't like abortion because they somehow think it's their business what a woman does with her own body. They don't like people pointing out Ten Commandments in public buildings because it's somehow their business to convert others to Christianity (or at least shove their noses in it). They don't like others protesting preemptive wars to free oppressed people because its somehow their business to intercede in the operations of another sovereign nation.

You call me a coward for not wanting to save the Iraqis. I'm not a coward. It's just not any of my business. However, if you attack me, then it is my business.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Well Bob I don't think Big Daddy would have ever turn someone in for doing wrongs because it is none of his business. I don't see how some people don't care about people being slaughtered in other countries. Your abortion statement is weak, if you got a girl pregnant and did not believe in abortion but the girl did you have no choice but she does. That is when it becomes your business. Again you probably will never have that happen to you so you don't care. Unless something relates to you, you don't care. Wow can't believe you admit that.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Hey Bob, your right,if Yong attacked us or launched a warning shot than announced he was going to attack us in an hour, hell yeah, we would be obliged to DEFEND ourselves. I guess I missed the one where saddam announced he was launching an attack against us or said he put those guys on the planes during 9/11. You logic proves our point for us, thanks, couldn't have done better myself proving my point. You still didn't answer my question, is Jong WRONG for launching missles at us? He has just as much cause as we did going into iraq. Just answer the question bob, don't sit and spin what ifs. It is a simple question. I am assuming you are the happiest person in Dixie, ignorance is bliss.

I invite you to my home, unnanounced bob, the door will be open, just let me know when you are coming, so I can prepare my pre emptive strike agianst you. Your logic is based on fear and aggression, not facts. You have no logic, only cowardice towards your fellow humans. You have stated that you are not a christian bob, but you condemn islam as a religion. Religion in third world countries is the law, just as bush and his cronies are trying to make it so in this country. Church and state can not exist together in a multi culture democracry, yet with this administration, we have it forced down our throats every day. I am catholic, but that doesn't mean I need to see the ten commandment in front of court houses anymore than I need to see the guidelines of buddism or islam in front of a court house. Conservatives think they need to tell us how to run our lives and now they need to tell the world how to run their lives.

So, again, you and jacks are both invited to my house, anytime you want. Just don't knock and make sure you bring a knife or gun with you, you never know, you may need it. :sniper:

Ohhh, wait I forgot. A pre emptive strike means I get to come to your house. Could you please give me an address.

Bob, your story on the iranian father is weak, just open up a USA today and read the crap that goes on in this country with our own children. We need to clean our own house up, before we start worrying about our neighbors, hell they ain't even our neighbors, our neighbors seem to being doing just fine without going around the world forcing their will upon everyone else. You know the difference between a liberal and conservative. The liberal wants to spend you money to help the children and less fortunate in this country, conservatives want to help themselves at the cost of the children and less fortunate. Conservatives cut spending and add military, telling you that it is your safety. Yep, I can see Canada and Mexico launching a war anyday now, threatening my safety. I am more concerned about uneducated kids grabbing guns and taking out their frustrations on each other than I am of anyone in the world launching a ground force on our shores, it just isn't a feasible situtation to make a first strike assault on us with satallite technology today. We know that they are doing before they do it, right bob, or we couldn't launch these pre emptive strikes. So, I come from the side that says, can I help you. You come from the side that says, you owe me and if you don't like it, I am gonna become violent and ignorant. I suppose become is the wrong word in that last statement, you can't become something you already are.(sorry, bob, couldn't help it. I guess that makes it alright though, after all, it was a pre emptive slam to one that I know is coming.)

Jacks, have you even contributed anything useful to this conversation, or are you just a jackyl, hanging around eating the scraps. Lets here a story from you, or don't you have the kahuna's to make a difference. You seemed to be amazed that big daddy has a different opinion than you, but I sense your convictions are just smoke. What have you done to make a difference? I will even take something as small as coaching a youth sports group or boyscout troop. My guess is you are more concerned about yourself and just complain about taxes and welfare recipients.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big daddy you are really something. *You must be one callous person to believe that someones elses children are not worthy of our protection*. I just don't know what else to say about that, other than thank God most people don't think that way. 
And if you're trying to link me to the Christian right you are really off base. I think they are as bad if not worse than the "loving Islamists" you like so much. All fundamentalist religious groups would have us all by the balls if they had the power, I don't like any of them. Practice your religion, live you life accordingly, and don't infringe on the lives of others and I will respect it, push your religion on me and I will have a problem with you. (the word you in this sense is not meant to be big daddy)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball I bets Jacks has the Kahunas to keep some girl from being beat up unlike you! I bet that stung. Fireball you would defend your house but by your own admission if an evil doer was killing your neighbors wife and kids you would hide in the closet and tell your kids its none of your business. And because bad things happen here we should accept bad things happening in the name of " Islam" ????typical liberal logic.....
Guess what I'm Cathoic also, we do have one thing in common. Only one thing! 
There you go with the typical conservatives don't want ot help anyone BS! liberals are very generous with someone elses money, unfortunately they have figured out that they can vote money out of the productive peoples pockets and into the non-productive in return for their votes. A policy that keeps the poor, in a endless cycle of poverty, and needing the "kind hearted liberals" and thus keeping the liberals in power with no true incentive to break the chain of dependence. Typical of your phony BS Fireball


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Well fireball I have to admit I don't have a story like yours about listening to a gal get beat up by her boyfriend 3 times before I did something, and then change my original story because I sounded like a coward. I don't constantly cut and paste articles off the internet to sway you to agree with my views. I don't invite people to my house on the internet and tell them to bring a knife or gun. I don't contribute very well by whining about the country it's leaders other websites, non-resident hunters, guides and outfitters. So if your idea of contributing is whining, nope not much I have contributed compared to you.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, just answer the question please. Jacks, I have never said anything bad about non resident hunters, I hunt with my relatives most waterfowl seasons. I like all hunters. The G\O's, yep, I have a problem with them and the other website, I don't visit it anymore and I could careless about it, I just posted that reply to nj's post because that was his first post on this site and he is one of the boys on FBO. I have no problem with FBO, it is like anything else in this free country, you don't like it, don't go there. I choose not to go there anymore. I like this site. As far as pasting links here, I do that for the informationally challenged, so they can become informed. You seem to be afraid of education and knowledge, but that is obvious from your posts. As far as being a coward, I will take that with in the light of the two people who throw that name around, men who are afraid of the world. You have done nothing to make anyones life better, what does that make you? You and bob can try and slander my name anyway you want, it doesn't bother me, little men need to call names to make themselves appear strong. Whatever makes you happy jack...that is the song on that hummer commercial. Why don't you go out and volunteer at an abuse crisis center jack, maybe then you can see what people who consider themselves to be REAL MEN do to put these people in these places.

Bob, one more question for you to avoid with what ifs...
I boy comes from an abusive family. His father beats him for any small discresion. His father thinks he is just teaching the boy about life, gotta be tough enough to start and finish fights...ahhh...ahhh...ahhh. The boy grows up, gets married and repeats this process with his own son. This goes on a cpl generations. Now, here is the question. Does aggression breed agression? Of course it does.

Ron had a great point in his earlier statement. Third world countries need education to give them choices other than oppression. But, we don't realize the hold religion has in these countries though. During the start of the iraq war, over 2/3's of the University students in Cairo, Egypt believed that saddam hussein had a magic blue rock/crystal implanted in his arm, that made him immortal. They said he couldn't be killed. Hmmmmmmmm....the most educated people these third world countries have to offer still believe in myths based on their religion. I am in agreement with bob, organized religion is the root of all evil on this planet. The use of Gods name to justify killing is ludicris. Could you imagine if the whole world was liberals, we wouldn't have wars, but bob would be trying to start one, cause you ain't a man if you aren't forcing your will onto others.

Jacks, you don't contribute because you are uninformed. Contributing facts and opinions isn't whining. Just becuase someone doesn't agree with your narrow point of view, doesn't mean they are whining, it means you are uninformed.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Damn fireball good point on the magic the people in Iraq believe in. I saw a show on this before the action in Iraq, it said 90% of the people in Iraq have stronger beliefs in magic than religion. It stands to reason when I think about it, I grew up with 'open sesame' and 'flying carpets' and 'I dream of Jeanie' and alot of other interesting magical media treats.

I wonder why that part of the world was portrayed as being magical?


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, this war on terror will spend more tax payer money on getting nowhere than helping any unfortunate child or improving our educational system will for the next 10 yrs, but that is OK, because someone is dying for some cause. Obviously Clinton balanced the budget, got us out of hole, but now we have the republicans back in charge to dig us deep again. They dig the hole, as they tell you they are not about taxing you, they are all about spending money irresponsilby and then letting someone else fill that whole again when the office changes hands. Bob, do you work for free? Because every trillion dollars deeper bush takes us, you will be, someone has to have the balls to stand up and say, "Hey, we can't just keep spending money and not bringing any in." When that happens we will hear, "those liberals, all they want to do is spend money." Well, contrar, the liberals take the RESPONSIBILITY of putting the money back where it belongs, in this countries reserve, not in the pockets of a few company's who benefit from the war machine.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball, if we don't get the terroist issue under control those poor unfortunate kids( not that you really care about kids) you are alluding to won't be worried about their education they will be worried about being killed! As for the position the CLinton balanced the budget that is pure bunk the republican congress balanced the budget. Both the republican congress and Clinton were lucky to be operating in the 90's with the technology boom fueled rise in the ecomomy, *Clinton just was extremely lucky to have a republican congress, that had some restraint ,unfortunately it seems based on what they've been doing since Bush got in, more out of partisanship than true ideology*. Congress spends money not the president. The democrats ran huge deficits since the 60's and they controlled the purse strings for the last 35 years since the 60's except for a couple of years. *Funny thing how the president always takes the blame or the credit for what those snakes in Congress are up to. * When it comes to spending about the only thing the president can do is use the "bully Pulpit" to influence public opinion unfortunately the public is not usaually paying attention so we get screwed and we deserve it. Nice try though! Can't blame you for wanting to change the direction of this discussion.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball you said "Well, contrar, the liberals take the RESPONSIBILITY of putting the money back where it belongs, in this countries reserve, not in the pockets of a few company's who benefit from the war machine" What do you think those companies do with the profits they make, stick it in the CEO's mattress???? I'll help your poor indoctrinated liberal mind noodle this out.
1) They take the profits and use them pay their employees who then buy goods and services like groceries ect just like you and I creating jobs.
2) They invest the money in new capital equipment creating jobs for the rest of us. 
3) they save the money in banks or ather investments which other people can then borrow i to develop their own businesses, buy houses ect., thus spuring on all segments of the economy.
I used to think you were some kind of evil anti-american. I'm starting to realize you a probably a nice guy who is just kind of simple minded and buys into every stupid cliche the liberal left feeds you. I'm really sorry I've been so hard on you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So yesterday the White House releases payroll records from Bush's service in the National Guard. The documents show that Bush did show up for his military service in the National Guard. The documents show that he completed his military obligation. So ...what does John Kerry say? Well, he wouldn't comment. He said "It's not an issue that I've chosen to create." Is that so, Mr. Kerry? Let's see ... just what was it you were saying in front of the cameras on Sunday? I think it went something like "The issue here .. is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? And just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

*Let's review. On Sunday Kerry says "The issue here is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be*?: On Tuesday, *after the records are released, Kerry says "It's not an issue that I've chosen to create."* I don't know who actually created this issue, maybe that slug Michael Moore ... but it we know who pushed it for all it was worth for the last week. *Now he's saying "Hey, don't look at me! I didn't start this thing." *
Logic only a liberal could love.

Kind of reminds you of the line " it depends what the definition of is, is"


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Here Fireball I'll give you a little more help to make your liberal little heart feel better( this is as close to a back rub as your will get :lol: ) 
This is a story about spineless Republicans in Washington. This a story about Orin Hatch being rolled by the filibustering fanatics on the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a clear illustration of just why Democrats always seem to get the best of Republicans when the gloves come off on Capitol Hill.

Let me try to make this real simple. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee together with their Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate were determined to see to it that the hated George Bush didn't get any of his conservative nominees placed on any important U.S. Appeals Courts. To do this they were going to do something that has never been done before since our Constitution was adopted. They were going to use a Senate rule to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and work to prevent a Senate confirmation vote for a judicial nominee who had been referred to the Senate for confirmation. What's more, they were going to prevent a vote on a nominee for whom the majority of the Senate was ready to approve.

As the Democrats hatched their plans for a filibuster memos flew between Democratic staffers on the Senate Judiciary committee. A Republican staffer saw the memos, read them, and eventually they were leaked to the press.

So ... just what did these memos say? Well, one memo to Democratic Senator Richard Durbin said " .. most of Bush's nominees are Nazis." Another memo to Durbin said that Bush nominee Miguel Estrada was objectionable to liberal groups because " .. he is a Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court nomination."

*Stop for a minute and contemplate the nuclear outrage that would follow a revelation that a Republican Senate Staffer had sent a memo to a Republican Senator about a black judicial nominee explaining why conservative groups object to the nomination by saying " ... he is black, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court nomination." *Such a memo would be at the top of the front page of every liberal newspaper in the country for six months.

So ... was there any eruption of outrage in the nation's media over the content of these memos? Are you kidding? The Democrats immediately went on the offensive demanding a full investigation as to just how the memos were leaked. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orin Hatch ... the man who refused to hold the Democrats feet to the fire on their filibuster ... immediately rolled over and played dead. He has now asked for the resignation of a Republican committee staffer. Meanwhile, few people are aware, and nobody seems to care that Democrats on the committee referred to most of Bush's nominees as "Nazis" and objected to one nominee because he was Hispanic. 

*Question: When in the hell are Senate Republicans going to grow a spine? *While the Democrats are demanding investigations on memo leaks, why isn't that wimp Orin Hatch demanding an investigation on whether or not Democrats opposed a Bush nominee because of his ethnic heritage, and as to just which Democratic staffer it was who considers most of Bush's nominees to be Nazis?

*Answer: Never. *If these Senate Republicans can't fight their own president on spending, they sure as hell can't fight Democrats on ethnic name calling and filibusters that violate the very spirit of our Constitution.

Gutless wonders.

You still need to vote for Bush because the current Democratic choices are worse spenders and cowards when it come to terrorists, which is the biggest thing the country is facing by far, vote libertarians into Congress to send the message


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Fireball, where are ya buddy, all those facts run you off? I was looking forward to your next installment.


----------

