# America Bad??????



## Plainsman

There appears to be a minor segment of our society that thinks America is the root of all evil. Recently we have become aware of an organization called Iraq Body Count. It is their contention that deaths in Iraq are our fault. Following this line of thinking every death during WWII (after we got in it) would also be our fault. Are there really people out there that cerebrally inept, or do they have subversive objectives? I can not believe there are people (our own citizens) that would undercut our objectives for political gain, and that is my guess about what is going on. What do you think?

Here is there thinking :

*"How many deaths were caused by car bombs in Iraq in 2002. The difference between that number and the number occurring in 2004 is "our" fault."*

I would say these deaths have been caused by remaining tyrannical madmen. They kill the innocent who fight for the freedom of Iraq and we have American citizens who unwittingly aid their cause. I say there would be a certain number of deaths in a conflict like this, but organizations that criticize their own nation and leaders give hope and extend the conflict. How many innocent Iraqi, and American soldiers will die because the insurgents are given hope that groups like IBC will convince the rest of America to tuck our tails and leave.

I could understand a terrorist cell supporting a site like this, but Americans?

The deaths in Iraq are caused by:
The failure of Sadam to comply with UN sanctions
The failure of the UN to enforce sanctions
French involvment in the oil for food scandal
German involvment in the oil for food scandal
UN involvment in the oil for food scandal
A general insecurity in the Mid East caused by Sadam attacking Kuwait and threatening neighbors.
Uncertainty of nuclear proliferation (know now in Iran)
And perhaps classified reasons that the average American has no idea of.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Iraqi, and American soldiers will die because the insurgents are given hope that groups like IBC will convince the rest of America to tuck our tails and leave. "

And you say that I am rediculous... :roll:


----------



## mr.trooper

No, your not that bad MT.

Man. these guys are something else inthe stupididty department... :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Mr. Trooper

I would venture to guess that history will look upon these people as veterans do Jane Fonda now. If you talk to people who remember the 1960's and the antiwar effort it is dejavu. We went through the same thing, and why do you suppose John Kerry's picture hangs in Hanoi. If we were to loose, the pictures of these people along with Michael Moore would hang in the Baghdad museums as heroes of the Jihad. Although they will not admit it in public form, in their hearts they may see this as a complement.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I would venture to guess that history will look upon these people as veterans do Jane Fonda now. If you talk to people who remember the 1960's and the antiwar effort it is dejavu. We went through the same thing, and why do you suppose John Kerry's picture hangs in Hanoi. If we were to loose, the pictures of these people along with Michael Moore would hang in the Baghdad museums as heroes of the Jihad. Although they will not admit it in public form, in their hearts they may see this as a complement."

So essientally what you are saying is that we should not challenge the government on its decisions, because it only delays the process of victory. If we all followed what you stated, and agreed or just bit their lip about everything the government did this would be a dictatorship.


----------



## Anas Strepera

Plainsman said:


> There appears to be a minor segment of our society that thinks America is the root of all evil. Recently we have become aware of an organization called Iraq Body Count. It is their contention that deaths in Iraq are our fault. Following this line of thinking every death during WWII (after we got in it) would also be our fault.


What is cerebrally inept is comparing how and why we went into WWII to how and why we went into Iraq. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, I wasn't making any comparison like that. The comparison I was making was the thought process involved. If it is true that because we are in Iraq all deaths are our fault, then it is also true that any other conflict we are in all deaths are our fault, including WWII. We are only responsible for deaths that are a direct result of our military action. A soldier pulls the trigger and a terrorist life ends. We are perhaps more responsible than the soldier. However, when a terrorist (or if you prefer insurgent ) blows himself up and kills a dozen Iraqi policemen he is responsible, and those that encourage him are responsible, not you and I.

Thirty years ago a deranged little dictator like Sadam had little meaning. What were the chances he could create world conflict by endangering any powerful nation. Nuclear proliferation around the world has changed all that. Do you think that a person who is willing to strap explosives to himself and walk into a group of innocent people (like they do in Israel) would hesitate in using a nuclear weapon? The world is becoming more dangerous with every new nuclear weapon that is made. This is the danger within the Mid East. Sadam by his defiance of the UN sanctions simply became one of the vehicles whereby we could influence the stability of the region.

I believe in personal responsibility, but one responsibility that is the governments is the protection of it's citizens. If the weak people within our nation have no stomach for self defense then at least get out of our way. These people are simply the second generation of people that called Viet Nam vets baby killers, called the police that protect us at home "pigs" and have a general disrespect for traditional values.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Thirty years ago a deranged little dictator like Sadam had little meaning. What were the chances he could create world conflict by endangering any powerful nation. Nuclear proliferation around the world has changed all that. Do you think that a person who is willing to strap explosives to himself and walk into a group of innocent people (like they do in Israel) would hesitate in using a nuclear weapon? The world is becoming more dangerous with every new nuclear weapon that is made. This is the danger within the Mid East. Sadam by his defiance of the UN sanctions simply became one of the vehicles whereby we could influence the stability of the region. "

Iraqi = palestinian = terrorist?

I am still not sure how Saddam's defiance of the sanctions in the early ninties warranted an attack ten or more years later.

This is not to mention that there were no traces of nuclear materials or weaponry within Iraq before the invasion. You are still basing your reasons for attack on faulty evidence.

"However, when a terrorist (or if you prefer insurgent ) blows himself up and kills a dozen Iraqi policemen he is responsible, and those that encourage him are responsible, not you and I."

So basically if your home was broken into by gunmen, and you shot them you would be at fault. Your logic holds about as much water as a sieve.

"I believe in personal responsibility, but one responsibility that is the governments is the protection of it's citizens. If the week people within our nation have no stomach for self defense then at least get out of our way. These people are simply the second generation of people that called Viet Nam vets baby killers, called the police that protect us at home "pigs" and have a general disrespect for traditional values."

How can you possibly call the attack on Iraq self defense? The "week" people in our nation are trying to point out that we were not attacked by Iraq in the 21st century. That you could group those trying to point out the facts in this war and those who assaulted the Vietnam troops on their return home is disgustingly unpatriotic. You wish to live in a dictatorship it seems. If your traditional values involve unquestioned decisions and random attacks on nations without founded reasons, you should move to libya. I don't know whats wrong with you lately Plainsman but you have been contradicting yourself more than Yogi Berra.


----------



## the_rookie

Mr. Moore needs to realize it is very disrespectful to make movies of presidents who have so far saved this country... about the 60s thing in california they had that whole nonsense anti war people my dads friend is from road island im 14 hes about 55 he has killed people for his country he was in vietnam when he got back he was spit on because he went to war he got spit on by the anti war people and what i dont understand is neither though your an anti war person u should at least have some respect for the people fighting a war... he put his life on the line just so those anti war people could be protesting... and about the saddam thing it is his fault y there are suicidde bombers because he didnt take care of his country


----------



## Militant_Tiger

the_rookie said:


> Mr. Moore needs to realize it is very disrespectful to make movies of presidents who have so far saved this country... about the 60s thing in california they had that whole nonsense anti war people my dads friend is from road island im 14 hes about 55 he has killed people for his country he was in vietnam when he got back he was spit on because he went to war he got spit on by the anti war people and what i dont understand is neither though your an anti war person u should at least have some respect for the people fighting a war... he put his life on the line just so those anti war people could be protesting... and about the saddam thing it is his fault y there are suicidde bombers because he didnt take care of his country


As opposed to taking your opinions straight off FOX you might want to read a little about Mr Moore. He says the president is bad, and wants the troops back home safe where they should be. He is fighting for the troops. I personally don't think that Vietnam was a conflict that America should have been in either, but thank your father for fighting for us.


----------



## the_rookie

no it wasnt my dad it was his friend and mr moore is only fighting in what he believes in bush is fighting so that everybody is safe even u MT but what people need to realize is that yes people are going to die *BUT* (quote me if u wish) more people would have died if we had not invaded Iraq


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Mr Moore.


 uke:

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger

the_rookie said:


> no it wasnt my dad it was his friend and mr moore is only fighting in what he believes in bush is fighting so that everybody is safe even u MT but what people need to realize is that yes people are going to die *BUT* (quote me if u wish) more people would have died if we had not invaded Iraq


More people would have been killed by the... Terror cells which were not present in Iraq or the non existant nuclear weapons/materials?


----------



## the_rookie

bush never said that there WAS nuclear stuff he said be believed there was and he was just looking out for america


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I'm still confused as to how more people would have died had the invasion not occured.

And by the way, he did say that there was nuclear "stuff" there.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> As opposed to taking your opinions straight off FOX you might want to read a little about Mr Moore. He says the president is bad, and wants the troops back home safe where they should be. He is fighting for the troops. I personally don't think that Vietnam was a conflict that America should have been in either, but thank your father for fighting for us.


What a crock, Mr. (and I use the term loosely) Moore, wants one thing, to line his own pocketbook, and he does not care how he does it, or how much harm it causes. He cares nothing for the troops other than right now that is an emotionally charged issue and he see's a way to make a buck from it. The mans a weasel of the first order.

huntin1


----------



## the_rookie

Huntin1, 
I absolutely agree with you, you are absolutely right and the reason is why not make a few bucks and all you have to do is make a president look bad... o and im sure im going to be quoted later but more people would have died because more terror attacks would have continued also known as cowwardly acts ok and our troops are in Iraq now let me bold this *PREVENTING* future terror attacks


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"What a crock, Mr. (and I use the term loosely) Moore, wants one thing, to line his own pocketbook, and he does not care how he does it, or how much harm it causes. He cares nothing for the troops other than right now that is an emotionally charged issue and he see's a way to make a buck from it. The mans a weasel of the first order. "

Moore doesn't care about the troops and yet Bush does? Yes you can see his love, because he armors them inadequately and sends them to battle without enough forces.



the_rookie said:


> Huntin1,
> I absolutely agree with you, you are absolutely right and the reason is why not make a few bucks and all you have to do is make a president look bad... o and im sure im going to be quoted later but more people would have died because more terror attacks would have continued also known as cowwardly acts ok and our troops are in Iraq now let me bold this *PREVENTING* future terror attacks


You still havent explained how attacking a country not involved in the attacks on 9/11 would prevent future attacks on our country. Please explain how this works.


----------



## the_rookie

ok MT time to say my conclusion... terrorists are the reason why 9/11 happened so if we get rid of the terrorists and terrorist leaders/orginizations we are preventing future attacks we are not attacking the country we are attacking the terrorists in them just the problem is that the terrorists are running the country and we must get rid of them so the people of Iraq can govern them selves thus then THEY can punish terrorists and not us...

o and time to make you look dumb...

"He says the president is bad, and wants the troops back home safe where they should be" MT

"You still havent explained how attacking a country not involved in the attacks on 9/11 would prevent future attacks on our country. Please explain how this works" MT

this sounds like you are against the war in Iraq right? now explain to me how the terror attacks of 9/11 werent terror acts and also explain to me if we had not gone to Iraq what would have happened to us in the next few days post pone to it we werent just going to sit around


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"ok MT time to say my conclusion... terrorists are the reason why 9/11 happened so if we get rid of the terrorists and terrorist leaders/orginizations we are preventing future attacks we are not attacking the country we are attacking the terrorists in them just the problem is that the terrorists are running the country and we must get rid of them so the people of Iraq can govern them selves thus then THEY can punish terrorists and not us... "

So essientally by attacking the non-9/11 and terrorist affiliated Iraq which was under the power of Saddam (not terrorists) we are able to remove the terrorists which were never there in the first place. It's all so clear now.

"this sounds like you are against the war in Iraq right? now explain to me how the terror attacks of 9/11 werent terror acts and also explain to me if we had not gone to Iraq what would have happened to us in the next few days post pone to it we werent just going to sit around"

An unfortunate effect of the republican media, you think that 9/11 involved Iraq, which it did not. It was Afghanistan who was one of the major proponents of terror and 9/11, who we attacked. I agree that measures needed to be taken against the terrorists, and they were. Saudi arabia is another country that had heavy involvement with 9/11 and terrorism, but unfortunately headquarters saw it fit to exclude them from any attacks, as we derive much of our oil from them.

Boy, I sure do feel silly. Thank you for pointing out the light rookie.


----------



## the_rookie

MT Iraq did have terrorists in it and we are "taking care of them" and just because the country is under saddams rule doesnt mean that terrorists are not running it he just happens to be a terrorist for your info he funds money to terrorist groups which hences him as a terrorist and and u seem to not realize most tv media is liberal and i realize that saudi arabia had involvments with 9/11 but since u r so prone with not having a war y do u care and yes there are terrorists in iraqs and right now were mostly looking for the LEADERS u know the ones that control the groups so we can find out where the terrorists and the most important issue is u *FAIL TO REALIZE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY ON THIS FORUM OR ANYWHERE WE ARE IN A WAR RIGHT NOW AND THERES NOTHING TO CAN DO ABOUT IT...HENCE IT WAS NOT IN YOUR FAVOR I REALIZE YOUR GRIPING BUT SINCE WE ARE ALL AMERICANS I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT*


----------



## huntin1

rookie,

I would venture to say that if our President were a Democrat then M_T would be 100% behind the war with Iraq. M_T is a true blue liberal Democrat and as such is against anything the Rebublicans do.

So M_T, when are you going to start bashing President Bush for sending aid to the victims of the tsunami?

huntin1


----------



## the_rookie

huntin1, 
u hit the nail right on the head on that one but he needs to realize that neither though his president is not in office he needs to support the one that is so to gosh darn bad i remember when president kennedy was snipered :sniper: neither though people were obiosly upset by this people still backed the VP on becoming the president and hes lucky cheney isnt in office cause if he was we would probably bring a draft im sure he would like to kick some buttox and get home and about the tsunami thing i personally feel that we should maybe send some supplies that thing was huge


----------



## Militant_Tiger

the_rookie said:


> MT Iraq did have terrorists in it and we are "taking care of them" and just because the country is under saddams rule doesnt mean that terrorists are not running it he just happens to be a terrorist for your info he funds money to terrorist groups which hences him as a terrorist and and u seem to not realize most tv media is liberal and i realize that saudi arabia had involvments with 9/11 but since u r so prone with not having a war y do u care and yes there are terrorists in iraqs and right now were mostly looking for the LEADERS u know the ones that control the groups so we can find out where the terrorists and the most important issue is u *FAIL TO REALIZE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY ON THIS FORUM OR ANYWHERE WE ARE IN A WAR RIGHT NOW AND THERES NOTHING TO CAN DO ABOUT IT...HENCE IT WAS NOT IN YOUR FAVOR I REALIZE YOUR GRIPING BUT SINCE WE ARE ALL AMERICANS I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT*


So essientally I should bend over and take all of the decisions of the president as law, and not argue them at all. This is exactly what Plainsman wanted, and it is a dictatorship. This is America, if you don't like capitalism move to libya.

FYI, there were not any major terrorist cells in Iraq in the months before the invasion, nor did Saddam support terror.

"I would venture to say that if our President were a Democrat then M_T would be 100% behind the war with Iraq. M_T is a true blue liberal Democrat and as such is against anything the Rebublicans do.

So M_T, when are you going to start bashing President Bush for sending aid to the victims of the tsunami? "

Boy huntin you sure do love to assume don't you? I base my decisions on whether I think it is right or otherwise, not my party affiliation.

"u hit the nail right on the head on that one but he needs to realize that neither though his president is not in office he needs to support the one that is so to gosh darn bad i remember when president kennedy was snipered neither though people were obiosly upset by this people still backed the VP on becoming the president and hes lucky cheney isnt in office cause if he was we would probably bring a draft im sure he would like to kick some buttox and get home and about the tsunami thing i personally feel that we should maybe send some supplies that thing was huge"

What in the hell does backing the vice president as he moves into office have to do with the current decisions of the president? At least I think that's what you said, I can't make out half of your posts.


----------



## mr.trooper

i call a man who gassed thoulsands of people a dangerous terrorist. Therefore he is dangerous to people. If he is dangerous to one group of people, he can, or could become, dangerous to another group of poeple (Americans). So we removed this violent terrorist before he could harm anyone else.

Also, if one group of terrorists (Al quida) can do something harmfull to us ( 9/11) then so can another terrorist. if some guy living in a cave in the desert can pull of 9/11, then why cant another terrorist who has the resourses of an oil producing naiton? that means that Saddam could have been MORE dangerous than osama if he felt like it.

Thats why we went to war. thats why this war IS justified. Time to clean up the rabble and move on to the next terrorist/dictator.


----------



## the_rookie

procicely mr trooper you have proved my point to an extent


----------



## huntin1

"Boy huntin you sure do love to assume don't you? I base my decisions on whether I think it is right or otherwise, not my party affiliation."

No M_T, I don't assume anything about you. Since we have never met, I base my opinion of you on the ultra-liberal rantings that permeate most of your posts.

huntin1


----------



## the_rookie

thats the problem with liberals they never budge at all and if hes so mad about bush being president y doesnt he go and protest then thousands of others are right now and the thing HE YET TO REALIZE YET IS *NO MATTER WHAT HE SAIS OR DOES THERES NOTHING HE CAN DO ABOUT US IN WAR...THUS HE AS AN AMERICAN (IF HE IS ONE) SHOULD BACK THE PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE BUSH WOULD LIKE ALL THE SUPPORT HE CAN GET *


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> i call a man who gassed thoulsands of people a dangerous terrorist. Therefore he is dangerous to people. If he is dangerous to one group of people, he can, or could become, dangerous to another group of poeple (Americans). So we removed this violent terrorist before he could harm anyone else.
> 
> Also, if one group of terrorists (Al quida) can do something harmfull to us ( 9/11) then so can another terrorist. if some guy living in a cave in the desert can pull of 9/11, then why cant another terrorist who has the resourses of an oil producing naiton? that means that Saddam could have been MORE dangerous than osama if he felt like it.
> 
> Thats why we went to war. thats why this war IS justified. Time to clean up the rabble and move on to the next terrorist/dictator.


So basically because of his actions in the early ninties he had to be removed ten some years later? There is mass genocide occuring in many countries of Africa as we speak, why are they not as much of a threat if that was Saddam's only reason for being a "terrorist"? There are many more people that have the capacity to be more dangerous than osama, kim jong il for instance who has nuclear capabilities. The leader of Iran for instance, who has nuclear capabilities, the leader of saudi arabi who harbors more terrorists than any country. Do you suggest that we remove everyone with the capacity to be as dangerous as osama? If so we have quite a fight on our hands.

"thats the problem with liberals they never budge at all and if hes so mad about bush being president y doesnt he go and protest then thousands of others are right now and the thing HE YET TO REALIZE YET IS NO MATTER WHAT HE SAIS OR DOES THERES NOTHING HE CAN DO ABOUT US IN WAR...THUS HE AS AN AMERICAN (IF HE IS ONE) SHOULD BACK THE PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE BUSH WOULD LIKE ALL THE SUPPORT HE CAN GET "

I will repeat myself, this is capitalism. If you do not want a system where people can argue against the current leader, move to Syria. This is a free country, if you don't love it you can just leave :wink:

"No M_T, I don't assume anything about you. Since we have never met, I base my opinion of you on the ultra-liberal rantings that permeate most of your posts. "

You do not assume anything about me and yet you make assumptions about my beliefs in nearly every post regarding me. If this is the way things are going, then I will start assuming things about you based on your extreme right wing beliefs.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't want a dictatorship MT, I want unity in time of war. Disagree all you want about the economy, about the environment or many other things. Congress in the past, no matter if a republican or democrat was president, called for unity in time of war. Even the partisan politicians wanted that in the past. I was unsure about Clinton sending troops to Serbia, and talked with friends about it. I didn't get on the internet and say he only went to Serbia to support Moslems and kill Christians, which is equivalent to saying we are killing Iraqis for oil. The anti war sentiment during Vietnam killed more Americans, and caused American prisoners to suffer even more. That is why I compare groups like IBC to Jane Fonda and the like.

If this war is right or wrong will come out, but while our young men and women put their lives on the line is a poor time to weaken American resolve.


----------



## the_rookie

MT if i recall i believe someone named CLINTON was in office and for 2 terms did not do anything about it yeah we went in but we were brought back out as fast as we had gone in so nothing could be done and guess what CLINTON was a democrat o would you look at that... and you calling me anti-american how dare you of course there will be different oppinions but how dare you call someone anti american...AMERICANS stick together


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> I don't want a dictatorship MT, I want unity in time of war. Disagree all you want about the economy, about the environment or many other things. Congress in the past, no matter if a republican or democrat was president, called for unity in time of war. Even the partisan politicians wanted that in the past. I was unsure about Clinton sending troops to Serbia, and talked with friends about it. I didn't get on the internet and say he only went to Serbia to support Moslems and kill Christians, which is equivalent to saying we are killing Iraqis for oil. The anti war sentiment during Vietnam killed more Americans, and caused American prisoners to suffer even more. That is why I compare groups like IBC to Jane Fonda and the like.
> 
> If this war is right or wrong will come out, but while our young men and women put their lives on the line is a poor time to weaken American resolve.


Unity was called for in times of justified war, like the world wars. The war in Iraq was never justified. The republicans attempted to justify it, first as a conflict over nuclear material, now over an evil dictator. The serbian conflict was justified. There was an ethnic cleansing, and we stopped it and saved lives. Saddam's killings were in the early ninties, in a time of war with Iran. The Kurds sided with Iran, and Saddam attacked them. These are somehow weighted as the same as the same in the republicans book. Plainsman do you honestly believe that anti-war protesters in vietnam got more troops killed? Where is your proof? If it wasn't for the anti war protesters the republicans would be pillaging a country continiously. That is why American lives are lost, needless conflict.

rookie, if you refuse to make an attempt to write a post that is legible, I will not make an attempt to refute it from this time forward.


----------



## the_rookie

learn to read it helps...


----------



## huntin1

Plainsman is correct, in times of war we must be united. M_T asked how anti-war protestors caused more death, it is known by anyone who studies the Vietnam war that as the war protestors gained influence and in fact, positions in our Government, the military was hamstrung by this political influence. Instead of allowing the military to do what they were trained to do Johnson caved under the influence of the anti-war movement and micromanaged his military commanders. The decisions that should have been made on the ground in Vietnam by the military commanders who were fighting the war were instead made back here in the US by people who knew nothing about fighting a war and were in fact violently opposed to any war. This resulted in needless deaths to South Vietnamese military and civilian population as well as our own troops. Had the left wing politictians stayed out of the way in all likelyhood South Vietnam would be a relatively prosperous, self governed country right now much the same as South Korea. Here is some interesting reading on the subject: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000354.html

As far as Saddam is concerned, he started his killings and "ethnic cleansing" when he came into power and they continued until he was removed from power by our troops. 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0424/p01s04-woiq.html

Again M_T, I don't make assumptions about you or your beliefs, I don't have to, your beliefs are very evident in every one of your posts, so evident that no assumptions are needed. You however assume that I am a staunch Republican. While I do lean more right than left, I do not vote on party lines, never have. In fact, ND's congressional representatives are all Democrats, and I voted for them, imagine that.

You don't have to like the war, I don't, I have quite a few friends over there right now. However, I, as well as every person that I know in the military, including the ones who are over there getting shot at, support this action and our President.

Read the Lincoln quote below, do you understand what it means. No matter what other motives you come up with, the fact remains that our troops are freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive tyrannical murderer. How they choose to govern their own country remains to be seen, but at least for now they will have a choice. Something that was impossible under Saddam's rule.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Plainsman is correct, in times of war we must be united. M_T asked how anti-war protestors caused more death, it is known by anyone who studies the Vietnam war that as the war protestors gained influence and in fact, positions in our Government, the military was hamstrung by this political influence."

I wasn't alive then, who exactly were these people?

"Had the left wing politictians stayed out of the way in all likelyhood South Vietnam would be a relatively prosperous, self governed country right now much the same as South Korea."

Had the right wing politicians stayed out of the way the conflict would have not been our problem, and no American lives would have been lost.

"As far as Saddam is concerned, he started his killings and "ethnic cleansing" when he came into power and they continued until he was removed from power by our troops. "

One account from an anonymous person, I am impressed.

"Again M_T, I don't make assumptions about you or your beliefs, I don't have to, your beliefs are very evident in every one of your posts, so evident that no assumptions are needed."

So what you are saying is that based on most of my other beliefs you can concur that in all likelyhood I support what you think I do. That is called assuming, stop it.

"You don't have to like the war, I don't, I have quite a few friends over there right now. However, I, as well as every person that I know in the military, including the ones who are over there getting shot at, support this action and our President. "

To use one of Plainsmans examples this is a lot like saying corn farmers support using corn based ethenol as an alternative source of energy, no ****.

"Read the Lincoln quote below, do you understand what it means. No matter what other motives you come up with, the fact remains that our troops are freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive tyrannical murderer. How they choose to govern their own country remains to be seen, but at least for now they will have a choice. Something that was impossible under Saddam's rule. "

Man I love you republicans, you can take any statement at all and turn it towards your cause. Lincoln's statement deals with denying your own people freedom. If everyone followed it there wouldn't be problems. We have not helped the Iraqi people, and their uprising is proof of it. They do not want us there. There have been 16,000 innocent deaths since we arrived. We have liberated no one.


----------



## mr.trooper

"There is mass genocide occuring in many countries of Africa as we speak, why are they not as much of a threat if that was Saddam's only reason for being a "terrorist"?"

--Dont worry, they will get whats comming to them. We dont have the resources to invade 1/2 the world at the same time, so we have to take them in turn. sit back and wait. African warlords will get theirs soon enough.

And as for 16,000 "INOCENTS" killed, well whatever. If someone shoots an RPG at me, or detonates a car bomb, or runs at me with an AK-47 blazing, i dont call him "Inocent". but thats just me.


----------



## the_rookie

mr trooper exacly... and if some guy with an ak47 blazing came at me id take him down


----------



## huntin1

"So what you are saying is that based on most of my other beliefs you can concur that in all likelyhood I support what you think I do. That is called assuming, stop it. "

OK I will, it is pointless to have a duel of wits with someone who is unarmed anyway. Bye!

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"And as for 16,000 "INOCENTS" killed, well whatever. If someone shoots an RPG at me, or detonates a car bomb, or runs at me with an AK-47 blazing, i dont call him "Inocent". but thats just me."

By definition an innocent is someone who is innocent, the deaths counted were of people who did nothing wrong.

"mr trooper exacly... and if some guy with an ak47 blazing came at me id take him down"

You know rookie if you would quit playing yes man and toadie to all of the other republicans, and made some legible points of your own you might be able to garner some respect around here.


----------



## the_rookie

you know what MT your starting to get on my nerves your a gun owning, shooting hating liberal who only likes to take cheap shots at people who dont have the same beliefs as you and im sick of it ive made fine points and im sure other republicans on here would agree with me... stop profiling me or other republicans here and all your worried about is cheap shotting me ur not even looking at the other hits your taking from huntin1, plainsman, and mr.trooper all ur worried about is me


----------



## Militant_Tiger

the_rookie said:


> you know what MT your starting to get on my nerves your a gun owning, shooting hating liberal who only likes to take cheap shots at people who dont have the same beliefs as you and im sick of it ive made fine points and im sure other republicans on here would agree with me... stop profiling me or other republicans here and all your worried about is cheap shotting me ur not even looking at the other hits your taking from huntin1, plainsman, and mr.trooper all ur worried about is me


Gun owning, shooting hating, and I am the profiler? I think most of the older guys on here know that I am an avid shootist and fisherman. Frankly my point is that I simply can't read the garbage you type out. It is like you are typing blindfolded. If I could read your posts maybe then I could argue the point. I have only been able to honestly understand about a third of your posts thus far, and I think most other people would agree republican or not. As for the lap dog comment, look back on your past posts. After most posts by huntin1 or plainsman you give a "yeah he is right!", it just looks silly.


----------



## the_rookie

im done arguing with someone who is tecknikly retarted


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_shootist [/quote said:


> Shootist???? Shootist?????? I have only heard that term used in Hollywood. An easterner in a western called John Wayne a shootist. Do you like to take your trusty double barrel and crawl around the woods on your belly, working the wind, hunting deer? Shootist hmmmmm.


----------



## the_rookie

lmfao :lol: i think that was from field and stream yeah thats where i read that


----------



## mr.trooper

Profiling on all sides. bolth sides are guilty of it, but the liberals just do it more often. You know GreenDay came out with a new album? Some decidedly liberal voices there. the album is called: "American Idiot", and the song of said title states things like "all across the idiot nation", and "im not part of a red-neck agenda". it seems like tha more famous or prominent a liberal is, the farther left they go. Man im getting tired of eveory democrat calling me a "red-neck". sort of their new catch phrase these days...

MT, you can say whatever you want. Thats why my ancestors freely offered there blood to the dirt. but consider this: The principals you call "predjudiced", "outdated", and "hatefull" or "ignorant" are what this nation was founded on, and are the ideas that produce solders to defend this country. if you want to continue to spite that, and the blood of our fathers crying out to you from the dirt, then go ahead. thats your "right".

Like it or not, this nation was made, and is maintained with blood. Thats the only way a republic can survive. DONT FORGET THAT.


----------



## the_rookie

ur being called a ******* because u chose the right man for the right job who happens to be republican


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Militant_shootist [/quote:39jaqujb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shootist???? Shootist?????? I have only heard that term used in Hollywood. An easterner in a western called John Wayne a shootist. Do you like to take your trusty double barrel and crawl around the woods on your belly, working the wind, hunting deer? Shootist hmmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> Caught me, I'm really a fraud. I just attain knowledge about rifles to fool you.
> 
> "Like it or not, this nation was made, and is maintained with blood. Thats the only way a republic can survive. DONT FORGET THAT."
> 
> How exactly does fighting for freedom from Britain, or stopping hitler from conquering the world equal attacking Iraq because of false suspicions? If we attacked sweden would you call that "maintaining" our nation? You republicans are really good at drawing lines between things. Osama slowly becomes Saddam, World War Two slowly becomes Iraqi freedom. You must feel proud, using real conflicts to justify an unnecissary assault.
> 
> "You know GreenDay came out with a new album? Some decidedly liberal voices there"
> 
> I wasn't aware that music was where the liberals got their opinions from. Can I therefore assume that Tim McGraw and Shaniah Twain exemplify your opinions and feelings?
Click to expand...


----------



## mr.trooper

once again, right over your head. :eyeroll:

you sidesteped the actual questions in my last post rather nicely. i hardly noticed. now, onto your responces.

#1) no, i dont like the concept of pre-emptive war. but if there is even a SLIGHT, teeny, tiny chance that a wackO dictator could be dangerous to us REGARDLESS OF HOW, i would suport taking him out. THAT is preservation.

#2) your wrongly assume i listen to country...i actualy prefer deamon hunter, 1,000 foot crutch, and switch-foot. My point was that this kind of stereo typing has permiated our popular culture, NOT that anyone is basing their actions on them. that is ACTUALY what i said. dont make it anything else.

AS I SAID BEFORE, if you want to continue spiting the way of life that GAVE you that freedom of speech, then thats your choice. i wouldnt have it any other way. Who else yould i argue with?


----------



## the_rookie

shania taine sucks


----------



## mr.trooper

Yea, but she is pretty so...WHO CARES? :bartime:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> once again, right over your head. :eyeroll:
> 
> you sidesteped the actual questions in my last post rather nicely. i hardly noticed. now, onto your responces.
> 
> #1) no, i dont like the concept of pre-emptive war. but if there is even a SLIGHT, teeny, tiny chance that a wackO dictator could be dangerous to us REGARDLESS OF HOW, i would suport taking him out. THAT is preservation.
> 
> #2) your wrongly assume i listen to country...i actualy prefer deamon hunter, 1,000 foot crutch, and switch-foot. My point was that this kind of stereo typing has permiated our popular culture, NOT that anyone is basing their actions on them. that is ACTUALY what i said. dont make it anything else.
> 
> AS I SAID BEFORE, if you want to continue spiting the way of life that GAVE you that freedom of speech, then thats your choice. i wouldnt have it any other way. Who else yould i argue with?


When did we get the right to attack any country with a wacko dictator? You do realize that it defines about 1/3 of the countries of the world right? Do you plan on invading the whole world until we know we are safe because everyone else is dead?

I assure you that attacking harmless countries is not the way that my ancestors attained the freedoms that we have today. They went to war only when attacked or when it was completely necissary. There was none of this proactive bull**** that you conservatives love to push today. Its amazing how we could have survived for so long with that mentality, and yet cant now? How does that work exactly trooper?


----------



## mr.trooper

Did you not read where i said i dont like pre-emptive war? but regardless of what should have been done we must finish what we started, and stop bickering over it!

Lets put it this way MT, would you rather have Bush as president , OR ME! you think things are SO bad. they could be worse. although i agree we need to get out of the UN and Get out of eveorywhere else. after we finish what we have started. Then YES, i would pull out of eveorywhere, rase import terrifs to spur domestic job growth, and keep to ourselves, only going to war if we were attacked, or if britain or isreal were attacked. the rest of the world isnt worth having as allies.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Lets put it this way MT, would you rather have Bush as president , OR ME! you think things are SO bad. they could be worse. although i agree we need to get out of the UN and Get out of eveorywhere else. after we finish what we have started. Then YES, i would pull out of eveorywhere, rase import terrifs to spur domestic job growth, and keep to ourselves, only going to war if we were attacked, or if britain or isreal were attacked. the rest of the world isnt worth having as allies"

I would far prefer you, then we could have you impeached as you lack an oil shipping fortune.

I don't understand how you can support such a frivolous war like the one in Iraq, and yet say that we should mind our own buisness. Isin't that a lot like the famous Yogi Berra line? "Yogi we are going in the wrong direction. I know but we are making great time!"

I also don't get why Isreal is one of the only two allies worth having. After all it was because of our action aiding them that we were attacked in the first place. We are greatly hated in the mid east because we support them. I say we drop them.


----------



## Plainsman

quote]Caught me, I'm really a fraud. I just attain knowledge about rifles to fool you.[/quote]

In reality I was wondering about that. I thought perhaps you had simply been assigned this site by some left action group. It wouldn't be to hard to research and find a few answers for this site. It would explain you disrespect for shooters who do not even debate politics with you. What do you think about the second amendment MT, do you think it protects individual rights?

I was confused why you are so pro Iraq and anti Saudi Arabia. Now I wonder why you think we should drop Israel. Tell me MT who do you admire Bush or Sadam H. ?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"It would explain you disrespect for shooters who do not even debate politics with you."

Who are these people that I disrespect other than the republicans, oh wait..

"What do you think about the second amendment MT, do you think it protects individual rights? "

In my opinion no one needs to have a gun. I really dont understand the American fascination with guns...

Not. I'm sure you would love to hear me say that though.

"I thought perhaps you had simply been assigned this site by some left action group."

This would amuse me, only I think you might really mean it. Can I also assume then that you were sent by "The Elephant" as an operative to spread republican propaganda?

"I was confused why you are so pro Iraq and anti Saudi Arabia. Now I wonder why you think we should drop Israel. Tell me MT who do you admire Bush or Sadam H. ?"

Admire is a tough word to define. If you mean which of them do I respect more then neither. I think they are both terrible excuses for human beings. Now if the question was who do I think was doing what they thought was right for their country, my answer would be Hussien .


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Admire is a tough word to define. If you mean which of them do I respect more then neither. I think they are both terrible excuses for human beings. Now if the question was who do I think was doing what they thought was right for their country, my answer would be Hussien .


Man M_T, I used to think you were kind of wacko, but you have just removed all doubt. You really truely are waaayyy out there in left field.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> "It would explain you disrespect for shooters who do not even debate politics with you."
> 
> Who are these people that I disrespect other than the republicans, oh wait..


Well for example one young fellow asked where he could buy a Leupold, you said where they sell scopes, that was real helpful I'm sure . One fellow posted a firearms question in hot topics, you quickly injected next time post in the correct form. A few fellows don't type much better than I, and you quickly pointed out to the world how stupid they were. Numerous, numerous times MT. Personally I think that kind of rudeness is uncalled for. Some posts are hard to read MT, but these people are fellow sportsmen and every person deserves respect.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Well for example one young fellow asked where he could buy a Leupold, you said where they sell scopes, that was real helpful I'm sure . One fellow posted a firearms question in hot topics, you quickly injected next time post in the correct form. A few fellows don't type much better than I, and you quickly pointed out to the world how stupid they were. Numerous, numerous times MT. Personally I think that kind of rudeness is uncalled for. Some posts are hard to read MT, but these people are fellow sportsmen and every person deserves respect."

Leupold can be found at nearly every store which sells scopes. The gentleman had obviously not looked into it at all, and I gave him a real answer.

Rookie is one of the few people that I have chastized for poor typing, because his posts are simply unreadable. I do not mean that they are hard to read, but that I cannot comprehend them because the penmanship is so poor. If people refuse to make an effort to make their posts legible, why should I take time to read them. If they continually post what I believe to be attacking my posts, then I will ask them to put more effort into typing. As rookie pointed out I should get hooked on "phonix". As anyone else this annoyed me, and he still refuses to put effort into his posts, and I thus still chastise him.


----------



## mr.trooper

I agree plainsman. Our dear friend MT continuously says we are all gainst him., and lately he has dont little besides yeall at us poor stupid "uneducated" republicans. but he is still here...so we must not be that bad.

As for his quesiton, the obvious answers are:

#1) how would you impeach me? i have to do something first. you cant impeach a president just because some high schooler in suburban Mitchican doesnt like him :roll:

#2) You claim to be a christian who knows the bible. yo should KNOW why a christian should support Isreal. if you truely believe in GOD then you believe he has power. God has promised to deliver isreal from her enemies, and any nation who allies herself with Isreal gains Gods blessing. THAT is why isreal is worth having as an ally. we would be wors off if we abandoned her. Who cares about the Islamic Hate-mongers? they would hate us anyway, even if we abandoned isreal, becasue we are "infidels".

Im realy a VERRY simple guy. not hard to figure out at all. all my motives and my thought process are out on the table in plain view for all to see. im supprised you havnt figured me out yet.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"#1) how would you impeach me? i have to do something first. you cant impeach a president just because some high schooler in suburban Mitchican doesnt like him"

As you stated things would be much worse under your administration. I can't imagine too many decisions worse than Bush's flops that would not warrant impeachment.

"#2) You claim to be a christian who knows the bible. yo should KNOW why a christian should support Isreal. if you truely believe in GOD then you believe he has power. God has promised to deliver isreal from her enemies, and any nation who allies herself with Isreal gains Gods blessing. THAT is why isreal is worth having as an ally. we would be wors off if we abandoned her."

So essientally we should ally ourselves in a country with many different religons because the Bible says that isreal will be delivered from suffering? You do realize that the area has been held by many different nations over the course of history. If Iran took hold of it would you suggest that we ally ourselves with them?

"Who cares about the Islamic Hate-mongers? they would hate us anyway, even if we abandoned isreal, becasue we are "infidels". "

Do you really think that people would be willing to blow themselves up just because we are the infidel? You know Switzerland is the "infidel" as well and I don't recall too many foiled terror plots in their country.


----------



## mr.trooper

Why do yo still sound supprised? And exactly WHY should I explain things to you again? it goes over your head eveory time i do.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You mean how you can base government decisions on the bible? Yeah that goes way over my head.


----------



## mr.trooper

* Whoosh!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger So essientally we should ally ourselves in a country with many different religons because the Bible says that isreal will be delivered from suffering? You do realize that the area has been held by many different nations over the course of history. If Iran took hold of it would you suggest that we ally ourselves with them? [/quote said:


> You evidently missed the whole idea about what an ally is MT. We don't pick chunks of land to be our ally, we pick people and the governments that represent them. We pick people who treat their people, and their neighbors with dignity, and fairly. We pick nations that support human rights, and prefer that they have a democratic form of government. We don't align ourselves with countries that snuff our freedom.
> 
> I don't think you will get an ambassador assignment anytime soon.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"We pick people who treat their people, and their neighbors with dignity, and fairly. "

This land was ours several hundred years ago, we are here to claim it back. Don't like it? We will bomb you. Thus begins the pakastani-isreali conflict. Yes they really do treat their neighbors with dignity.


----------



## Plainsman

Hmmmm, tell me more about the Pakistani / Israeli conflict. I'm one of those Midwestern ******** that isn't familiar with it.


----------



## mr.trooper

MT, there are three spheres to existance: Mental, Phisical, and Spiritual.

There is a HUGE reason you are missing 95% of what we are talking about. Thats because you havnt developed the remaining aspects of human existance. you focus solely on mental ( and even than only on how to debate people :roll: ). I never see yo posting about you going out hunting, playing sports, fishing, or doing anything at all. If this site wer all i had to go on, id say you spent all day on political forums, and reading liberal action websites. 
I wont even bother talking about the spiritual realm, as you ignore it completely, and look down on people who dont.

Point? Live life. Its all well and good to debate or jest occasionaly about politics, but getting so worked up is fruitless since tha political sceene changes so quickly.

Go for a walk, play basket ball, or whatever. heck, go beat a tree with a stick for all i care!

You need to wind it down and live your life. take the time to have some fun.

But im just an ignorant hick who needs to be saved from myself. What do i know right?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> MT, there are three spheres to existance: Mental, Phisical, and Spiritual.
> 
> There is a HUGE reason you are missing 95% of what we are talking about. Thats because you havnt developed the remaining aspects of human existance. you focus solely on mental ( and even than only on how to debate people :roll: ). I never see yo posting about you going out hunting, playing sports, fishing, or doing anything at all. If this site wer all i had to go on, id say you spent all day on political forums, and reading liberal action websites.
> I wont even bother talking about the spiritual realm, as you ignore it completely, and look down on people who dont.
> 
> Point? Live life. Its all well and good to debate or jest occasionaly about politics, but getting so worked up is fruitless since tha political sceene changes so quickly.
> 
> Go for a walk, play basket ball, or whatever. heck, go beat a tree with a stick for all i care!
> 
> You need to wind it down and live your life. take the time to have some fun.
> 
> But im just an ignorant hick who needs to be saved from myself. What do i know right?


I usually don't post about hunting because I am not very knowledgable about it. I have never hunted anything but chipmunk, though I am going out for deer next season, and hope to get into rabbit hunting. I love to shoot rimfire, .22 LR in specific. I post as much information as possible when someone asks about it on here, but that is unfortunately rare. I also live for flyfishing, browns and brookies mostly, with the occasional rainbow. I have been getting into salmon fishing in recent past, and I am not getting started with ice fishing.

As for the spiritual aspect, you take me all wrong. I have nothing wrong with studying your religon, or practicing it regularly. I probably give a short prayer myself three or four times a day. I am very proud of my religon, half of my people died in the early 20th century because we were Christian, but we never gave up. My only problem with religon is keeping it out of the government, as not all of the people in our country are Christian, and we cannot oppose rules upon them based on something that they do not believe.


----------



## pointer99

Plainsman said:


> Hmmmm, tell me more about the Pakistani / Israeli conflict. I'm one of those Midwestern ******** that isn't familiar with it.


rule number one........never let facts get in the way in an argument.

do midwestern ******** eat possum? i know kung fu.

pointer


----------



## pointer99

the_rookie said:


> shania taine sucks


is you blind.......or optimistic.......your post has dual meaning...think about it.

i know kung fu,

pointer


----------



## huntin1

pointer99 said:


> the_rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> shania taine sucks
> 
> 
> 
> is you blind.......or optimistic.......your post has dual meaning...think about it.
> 
> i know kung fu,
> 
> pointer
Click to expand...

I'm thinking optimistic, at least that's what I would be. 

I know ***** *****.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Pointer
Nope, never ate possum. The main reason is, up here in North Dakota we don't have any. If we did I would perhaps have tried it. My favorite thing to do when traveling is trying the different foods. I always tell friends I will eat anything that can't outrun me. My 300 Mag trumps big teeth every time.

Ya, hunt1 ***** ***** wins every time.


----------



## pointer99

huntin1 said:


> I know ***** *****.


i see you have a chinese family living near you too.

yup i have been knowing kung fu o'brien for almost a year now......he and his family are very nice.......he is teaching me to speak chinese with an irish accent. you should hear what "top o tha mornin to ya" sounds like in chinese.

his wife and 2 daughters don't speak any english........ i think they really like me too. they even gave me a chinese name. every time i see them they point and giggle and saywon hung lo.......won hung lo.

pointer


----------



## huntin1

k: :toofunny: :jammin: :jammin:

huntin1


----------



## pointer99

Plainsman said:


> Pointer
> Nope, never ate possum. The main reason is, up here in North Dakota we don't have any.


my best advice to you is......if you ever get the chance to eat possum.....
don't do it.

i was quail huntin once and saw one crawl out of a dead cow.

a possum and a cockroach could adapt to any environment........i think those two suckas could survive a nuclear hit.

good nite yall

and as always......good nite to you too weedhopper.

pointer


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT wrote: "How exactly does fighting for freedom from Britain, or stopping hitler from conquering the world equal attacking Iraq because of false suspicions? If we attacked sweden would you call that "maintaining" our nation? You republicans are really good at drawing lines between things. Osama slowly becomes Saddam, World War Two slowly becomes Iraqi freedom. You must feel proud, using real conflicts to justify an unnecissary assault."

Ah, I've missed posting in the political forum! MT, let me explain it to you. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed how we deal with the threat of terrorism as a whole. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, the best intelligence we had suggested that Saddam had WMD's in his arsenal. Considering that, and the fact that we didn't know what Saddam might do with these weapons, ie sell them or provide them to terrorist cells around the world, I feel we were more than justified to invade. Not to mention that Saddam had violated the UN articles pertaining to weapons inspections for 10 years. Add all this up, and you have a solid case to go into Iraq to take care of business.

Was the intelligence we had at the beginning faulty? Most likely the threat was overstated, as it appears now. However at that time we didn't know that.... we had to act on the information we had. The invasion also serves another purpose, though, as it did in Afaghanistan. These actions announce to the world that we are damned serious about fighting terrorism on a global scale. It most definately sends the terrorists a message that we won't take these attacks laying down and that we will take the battle to them should they continue their cowardly attacks on innocent victims in this country as well as around the world.


----------



## huntin1

Very good explanation jamartinmg2, and i believe that our troops have been finding some WMD's, just not on the scale that our intelligence reports indicated. The only comment I can make about that is, Saddam had warning that we were coming, he had control of a very large desert, and there are backhoe's in his country too.

Hey M_T, are you ever going to answer my question in the tsunami thread? Oh, never mind, your choice to ignore it and not answer is really an answer in and of itself, and tells me what I wanted to know. You talk the talk kid, but you do not walk the walk. And most likely never will. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## jamartinmg2

Thanks, huntin. I still wouldn't be surprised if we dig up something there. You are absolutely correct.... It is a huge area. Who knows what might turn up? I wouldn't be surprised if some of these weapons didn't show up in Syria or some other terrorist rat-hole around the world at some point either. I pray they don't show up here in our country and we find out after some atrocity occurs that they came from Iraq.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Ah, I've missed posting in the political forum! MT, let me explain it to you. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed how we deal with the threat of terrorism as a whole. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, the best intelligence we had suggested that Saddam had WMD's in his arsenal. Considering that, and the fact that we didn't know what Saddam might do with these weapons, ie sell them or provide them to terrorist cells around the world, I feel we were more than justified to invade. Not to mention that Saddam had violated the UN articles pertaining to weapons inspections for 10 years. Add all this up, and you have a solid case to go into Iraq to take care of business.
> 
> Was the intelligence we had at the beginning faulty? Most likely the threat was overstated, as it appears now. However at that time we didn't know that.... we had to act on the information we had. The invasion also serves another purpose, though, as it did in Afaghanistan. These actions announce to the world that we are damned serious about fighting terrorism on a global scale. It most definately sends the terrorists a message that we won't take these attacks laying down and that we will take the battle to them should they continue their cowardly attacks on innocent victims in this country as well as around the world.


Hardly our best intelligence, it was faulty and unchecked particles of what might be evidence at best, and we made a war upon them. Even though the inspectors had found nothing, and saddam had been complying with the sanctions for several years. I sadly but truely believe that the evidence was purposely overstated to allow for said invasion. Now the thing that gets me is if you want to fight terror, why didn't we go after the saudis? They are one of the biggest supporters of global terrorism, and produced more hijackers on 9/11 than any other country, yet we have still not laid a finger on them almost four years later. To the rest of the world it sends the message that we will attack on the faultiest of reasons, and that we are a loose cannon. This has caused yet more anti-American sentiment in the world, the last thing we needed. What message does our action with the saudis tell the terrorists? "We will forget about your attacks if you have oil"? We will be attacked by the saudis again, if by anyone because they know they can get away with it. You know if Bush would have just stuck to his guns, attack afghanistan, saudia arabia, and put some effort into the economy he would have been a decent president.



> believe that our troops have been finding some WMD's, just not on the scale that our intelligence reports indicated.


Let us define WMD. We will say that it is a weapon or something which can be used as a weapon with the capability to kill tens of thousands of people in a single blow. Agreed?



> The only comment I can make about that is, Saddam had warning that we were coming, he had control of a very large desert, and there are backhoe's in his country too.


You still can't get it through your head that he didn't have them in the first place eh? Your justification couldn't have possibly been wrong?


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT, I do have to concede to you our stance with the Saudis. I think we have to play some hardball with them too if we are serious about this. I won't say that perhaps we as a country couldn't have handled this war on terrorism differently, or perhaps better, in some respects, but I feel the events of that led up to the invasion of Iraq were justified given the circumstances. It is always easy to look at things in hindsight and see potential flaws in the reasoning after the fact. :-?


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Let us define WMD. We will say that it is a weapon or something which can be used as a weapon with the capability to kill tens of thousands of people in a single blow. Agreed?


No, not agreed. WMD's have already been defined by people a hell of alot more knowledgable than you. Just how much training and experience do you have in this area. WMD's include Anthrax, Sarin Gas, and Mustard Gas, to name just a few, and all of which were found in Iraq. As well as the equipment to manufacture it. Why do you think that Saddam refused to allow the UN inspectors into certain areas at certain times? Could it possibly be that he knew what they would find if allowed in the area? Saddam brought this on himself. Had he been complying with the UN inspectors in the first place things may be different now. But he could not comply because then the world community would have known that he was manufacturing and stockpiling WMD's. There are places out here in ND that I know I could bury just about anything I wanted and you would not find it, do you think that the same could be true in a country like Iraq. With all of the resources available to Saddam before we attacked, do you not think that it would be possible for him to either bury what he had or move it to someplace like Syria? Or is all of this just too much for that 16 year old brain to fathom.

Face it M_T, you are against this war because it was started by a republican. Had a democrat been in office and had the balls to do the same, your opinion would be different. That is the difference between us, I am not a true republican as I vote for both republicans and democrats based on their record and the way they conduct themselves. I don't hate democrats. But you on the other hand have stated and infered that you hate everthing that republicans stand for. And saying that you were a republican at the age of ten and then saw the light, gimme a break, I've raised four kids, a 10 year old does not know enough about the world, our country or politics to seriously make a decision like that.

:sniper:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> No, not agreed. WMD's have already been defined by people a hell of alot more knowledgable than you. Just how much training and experience do you have in this area. WMD's include Anthrax, Sarin Gas, and Mustard Gas, to name just a few, and all of which were found in Iraq. As well as the equipment to manufacture it. Why do you think that Saddam refused to allow the UN inspectors into certain areas at certain times? Could it possibly be that he knew what they would find if allowed in the area? Saddam brought this on himself. Had he been complying with the UN inspectors in the first place things may be different now. But he could not comply because then the world community would have known that he was manufacturing and stockpiling WMD's. There are places out here in ND that I know I could bury just about anything I wanted and you would not find it, do you think that the same could be true in a country like Iraq. With all of the resources available to Saddam before we attacked, do you not think that it would be possible for him to either bury what he had or move it to someplace like Syria? Or is all of this just too much for that 16 year old brain to fathom.
> 
> Face it M_T, you are against this war because it was started by a republican. Had a democrat been in office and had the balls to do the same, your opinion would be different. That is the difference between us, I am not a true republican as I vote for both republicans and democrats based on their record and the way they conduct themselves. I don't hate democrats. But you on the other hand have stated and infered that you hate everthing that republicans stand for. And saying that you were a republican at the age of ten and then saw the light, gimme a break, I've raised four kids, a 10 year old does not know enough about the world, our country or politics to seriously make a decision like that.
> huntin1


Well according to princeton it is "a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) "
So no, not too much more knowledgeable than me. As I said a weapon with the capability to kill tens of thousands in a single blow, which a biological and nuclear weapon can under the right circumstances. The republicans want to try to make anything sound like a WMD.

After some searching I have found that a sarin shell and mustard gas was found in iraq, but no anthrax.



> do you not think that it would be possible for him to either bury what he had or move it to someplace like Syria?


Of course it would be possible, if he had them, of which we found no evidence after the fact. If you would like to do a grand metal detector search of Iraq or invade syria because they might have the weapons that saddam might have had and might have shipped there, be my guest. That would be a pretty lame excuse for a war though.



> Or is all of this just too much for that 16 year old brain to fathom.


It appears to be too much for your middle aged brain to handle. You can't accept that you might have and probably were wrong about his weapons, and thus the conspiracy theories erupt.



> Face it M_T, you are against this war because it was started by a republican. Had a democrat been in office and had the balls to do the same, your opinion would be different.


Balls? It took balls to make a stupid decision? I don't agree with this war not because a republican started it, but because ONLY a republican would ever start it. It was unjust, untimely, and wrong.



> But you on the other hand have stated and infered that you hate everthing that republicans stand for.


Now thats just a lie.



> And saying that you were a republican at the age of ten and then saw the light, gimme a break, I've raised four kids, a 10 year old does not know enough about the world, our country or politics to seriously make a decision like that.


You missed the joke there, what I was trying to get at is that it takes a 10 year old's mindset to agree with the current administration.


----------



## Plainsman

pointer99 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointer
> Nope, never ate possum. The main reason is, up here in North Dakota we don't have any.
> 
> 
> 
> my best advice to you is......if you ever get the chance to eat possum.....
> don't do it.
> 
> i was quail huntin once and saw one crawl out of a dead cow.
Click to expand...

So what's so bad about that? I eat dead cow quite often. I just had dead cow Tuesday evening at one of the nicest restaurants in Jamestown. Oh, ya, I keep forgetting I am a Midwest *******. I should say New York Strip Steak. Sorry to offend the finicky.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:



> and saddam had been complying with the sanctions for several years.


really? you sure you don't want to re-think about that statement?

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper

" i was quail huntin once and saw one crawl out of a dead cow. "

:lol: MMMMMMMMMMMMM beef flavored Opossum!


----------

