Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on July 03, 2004, 10:39:13 AM
-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/2/212352.shtml
If you have the time, read the thoughts of some the people who served with Kerry in Vietnam.
I found them very interesting.
-
If you have the time, read the thoughts of some the people who served with Bush in Vietnam.
I found them very interesting.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
If you have snip.
I found them very interesting.
He strikes me as a coward and a snake.
He will never be CIC.
-
(http://www.cambio.com.co/html/mundo/articulos/1278/john-kerry.jpg)
"Just Remeber......I was a war PROTESTER before I was a war HERO"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
(http://www.cambio.com.co/html/mundo/articulos/1278/john-kerry.jpg)
"Just Remeber......I was a war PROTESTER before I was a war HERO"
Wow, so full of hate you can't even get your facts straight.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wow, so full of hate you can't even get your facts straight.
and what facts would that be?
if you are referring to the FACT that he was in the war before he protested it....well maybe you cant see the irony in that but I think its hilarious.
-
Hmmm...I think we should hear from the guys that really served with Kerry:
Swiftboat 94 Crew (http://mfile.akamai.com/10211/wmv/johnkerry.download.akamai.com/10211/brothersinarms_1126_wmv_dsl.wvx)
-
the point is not how heroic he was during the war....its how much of a disgrace he was after it.
good video though :aok
-
We cannot afford to lose the war on terrorism.
An excerpt:
It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."
– Robert Elder
-
there are too many great quotes from that link to list here, but this one sums up Kerry pretty well....
In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."
– Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
the point is not how heroic he was during the war....its how much of a disgrace he was after it.
good video though :aok
What a load of crap!
The point is not how he actually served his country and did it well, it is that he actually took full advantage of those rights he guarded so well .. when he got home?
How can anyone take this position without having too much to drink?
-
The NVA thought he was so helpful that they put him in their museum. (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The NVA thought he was so helpful that they put him in their museum. (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)
A picture of a visit by a Senator in 1991... disingenuous as hell Funky one.
-
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War
Doesnt matter when the pic was teken.
-
GHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-
"I was for communism before I was against it" :lol
-
"I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that." - Jeffrey Wainscott
Just like they reported those at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.
Took a while and came out from the unofficial sources.
...and vietnam war was bigger and messier, making it easier to commit war crimes in secret.
I don't know about him but some surely aren't alike him even if claims to do the same.
"This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight." - William Shumadine
These quotes are much like the ones we've heard recently...
Even so those things somehow happened in Iraq, Afganistan, Guantanamo...
You can't either blindly believe these guys, since they do have a motive to lie in retaliation to Kerry's book, even if the book would be hoax.
and more one thing... I don't care for Kerry either, but I'm not willing to believe everything, especially now when theres an election 'war' under way.
Kerry/democratics and Bush/republicans have been already proven to use less than honest tactics in their election campaign.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A picture of a visit by a Senator in 1991... disingenuous as hell Funky one.
Nothing disingenuous about it. Read the page again.
-
What a load of crap!
The point is not how he actually served his country and did it well, it is that he actually took full advantage of those rights he guarded so well .. when he got home?
How can anyone take this position without having too much to drink?
Pick up a sign and protest....fine by all means.
Blatently lie before congress and associate yourself w/ pro communist organizations......that's a different monster in itself.
PS Its only 2:07PM....the grill hasnt even been started so I cant possible have more than 4 or 5 beers in me yet ;)
Just like they reported those at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.
Took a while and came out from the unofficial sources.
...and vietnam war was bigger and messier, making it easier to commit war crimes in secret.
Not even close to being a true statement.
First.....Abu Gharib was reported to the media by centcom and even INVESTIGATED long before the pictures were made public and the rest of the world decided to beat a dead horse.
Second:
Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. [Nixon] Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.
http://cybersarges.tripod.com/vnfacts.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A picture of a visit by a Senator in 1991... disingenuous as hell Funky one.
WOW the communist seem to give him credit were credit is due:
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.
-
Im back for a while :D
True, I do not believe the US lost the VN war however the US decided to pull out and create a stalemate situation. A political hack that would seem acceptable to the voting public. As for Kerry and his service, Im not so inclined to believe all the trash talking about his service, again politics talking. As for his declaration before congress, it was during a time when it was clear that the US was already planning its major pullout of forces in VN. At least he served and as far as Im concerned, hes earned his right to speak in his post war actions.
From the communists point of view. So Kerry was the "president" during the late 60s at a crucial time during the VN conflict. It was his actions then that decided a political stalemate was required to pull out US forces in VN. That picture in VN has more to do with post war politics then actual relevancy during the conflict. A combat veteran who actually went did his duty then returns and decides to try to save others is not a traitor.
As for war crimes. In war, alot of stuff happenbs that is never mentioned on the news and or even in the books. War is hell.
Goodbye :D
-
Why is this all relevant if as some would have us beleive that Mr Bush is going to re-elected in a landslide in a couple of months?
-
_Schadenfreude_, I could care less whether he served or not. One more fighter jock dropping bombs over VN would not have made a difference. Im more concerned about the economy and Bush has not shown me that he has a good economic plan.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wow, so full of hate you can't even get your facts straight.
So we're allowed to hate presidents but not presidential candidates?
-
Well to me it does matter whether the commander in chief did serve. I've already posted a list of the things that matter to me concerning Bush. I'll be more than happy to search for it and post it again if you like.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Well to me it does matter whether the commander in chief did serve. I've already posted a list of the things that matter to me concerning Bush. I'll be more than happy to search for it and post it again if you like.
If I remember correctly, there was a strong contingent of Bush haters while he was still campaigning for the 2000 election. Everything from his drinking to his alleged cocaine habit were brought up, not to mention his father, the entire Bush Crime family and the fact that his daughters were troublemakers.
I'd vote for Kerry based on his looks before anything else.
-
Who is more believable...the vets who speak out against Kerry...or a Hollywood "producer" who makes a "documentary" about the president?
Which will get the most press time, do you think?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So we're allowed to hate presidents but not presidential candidates?
No Pork.
You see Rpm is a liberal. He likes Kerry. So its not OK to hate Kerry.
But RPM hates Bush, because Bush is not a liberal. So it's OK to hate Bush - also because Bush is Hitler and because Bush dated Osama Bin Laden's 4th cousin on his father's side sometime in the 1970s (according to Moore).
-
As for war crimes. In war, alot of stuff happenbs that is never mentioned on the news and or even in the books. War is hell.
Yeah Mr Coffe your absolutely right. As a professional Soldier for the past 17 years I can attest to that.
Unfortunately it is not all what are attempting to imply. More times than I can count I have seen with my own eyes brave men, men with families and children to come home too, put their OWN lives at risk in order to ensure innocent people don't get hurt.
Incidentally, I speak Vietnamese and visited Vietnam in 1994 as a member of Joint Task Force full accounting, looking for POW/MIA's. While I was there many of the Vietnamese asked me "Why did America abandon us and when are you coming back?" Men like Kerry, who help create a false perception at home helped contribute to that.
One quote really struck me as I read what the men who served with Kerry had to say:
Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."
That is the truth then just as it is today. Yet the media, because it is an election year, wants to paint a different story. I for one have not seen ONE US Newspaper run the story of the Poles finding the Cyclsarin cache. Why?
Earlier in this conflict:
One battle I was involved in the Media reported we killed 48 women and children. First of all, there were NO reporters even around the entire 2 weeks we spent routing the bad guys out of their caves. In the initial ambush and subsequent battle, which bled over from a 1.5-mile long kill zone along the main road and into a small hamlet, TWO children were wounded. One was a ten year old boy whose FATHER brought him up on the ambush line. Kind of like we take our kids fishing, he took his to do some bonding while killing the "infidels". When we found him, the boy had shrapnel wounds in his shoulder. The battle literally stopped while we Medevac'd him. Heck, I am a father myself with a 2-year-old girl; the last thing any of us want is to see ANY innocent person hurt. He is alive today and made a 100 percent recovery. The other child was a 14-year-old girl. The bad guys put a machine gun bunker in her front year. When we returned fire all the bullets which missed the bunker went into the house. Fortunately no one else was hurt and she was only grazed. We Medevac'd her and she made a complete recovery.
The reporter got his information when he heard that a big battle was going on. As he left his hotel in the capital city a local told him that he knew the whole story. Six major newspapers ran it. I never felt so bad in my life. Imagine having people think you would murder the innocent.
Why does the media create the perception that the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan are a home grown popular armed insurgency? In fact, the majority of the bad guys we kill are not even Iraq OR Afghani. They are Saudi's, Syrians, Jordanians, Chechen's, and other Arabs.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0405_iraq1.htm
Why did the media create the perception that they "uncovered" the abuse in Iraqi prisons? In fact the US Military had already fired a General and was proceeding with CRIMINAL investigations. Instead of holding that up as an example of a Democratic Nation at work, they choose to paint the picture the Military needed supervision creating a "Moral" high ground for the Bad Guys to retaliate by beheading innocent people. The story still would have reached the public. Our Media is best propaganda AQ has going for them. If you don't think so then ask yourself why there is a link to the LA Times on their website?
In the Kerry propaganda film "Swift Boat 94" one of the crews comments struck me. He talks about having been under fire for so long that he couldn't sleep at night blah blah blah…
I know men that spent WAY longer than one year in Vietnam. Guys that served in MACV-SOG their entire time carrying a rifle under a rucksack. The first NCO in charge of my unit was decorated 4 times for valor in Vietnam including a recommendation for the Medal of Honor, which was downgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross. He spent 3 solid years over in Vietnam and the next 9 years going back and forth between Okinawa Japan and Vietnam. He is one of the most devoted family men I have ever met and has, as most of the guys who truly were in the "chit" do, the quiet courage of his convictions. Not at all like the Hollywood image of crazed killer or a neurotic who cannot handle "the real world". That image is simply a way to cover the truth and make it more palatable for lesser men. Larry, like the rest of us, would trade his life for nothing less than the hope of "Liberty and Justice For All". All of us sleep well at night and quite frankly get disgusted when people that had problems BEFORE they went to combat use it as an excuse.
No, Kerry is definitely NOT the man I want as my Commander and Chief.
Crumpp
-
WOW crump Great POST!
I'm not sure how to say this but its good to see somone whos BTDT back up what i've been saying for months with actual experience.
there's not much more I could add to that....Thanks!
-
Crumpp, thanks
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No Pork.
You see Rpm is a liberal. He likes Kerry. So its not OK to hate Kerry.
But RPM hates Bush, because Bush is not a liberal. So it's OK to hate Bush - also because Bush is Hitler and because Bush dated Osama Bin Laden's 4th cousin on his father's side sometime in the 1970s (according to Moore).
Wow, sorry I showed up late for the personal attack.
You are free (because people like John Kerry actually fought) to have your opinion about Kerry. I am free (because people like John Kerry fought) to have my opinion about Bush.
You see RPM is an American and proud of his country. He was raised to know that he has the right to make his opinion public. He knows that blindly wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't make everything you do right, it prostitutes the flag. He stayed awake in history class and learned about people who did that like Joseph Mc Carthy. He also knows what a NeoCon is (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html) and thinks they are a danger to America's future.
Don't hate me because I'm a liberal. Hate me because you know I'm right.
-
Can't we hate you because you are thin and rich?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Can't we hate you because you are thin and rich?
I wish! :D
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wow, sorry I showed up late for the personal attack.
You are free (because people like John Kerry actually fought) to have your opinion about Kerry. I am free (because people like John Kerry fought) to have my opinion about Bush.
You see RPM is an American and proud of his country. He was raised to know that he has the right to make his opinion public. He knows that blindly wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't make everything you do right, it prostitutes the flag. He stayed awake in history class and learned about people who did that like Joseph Mc Carthy. He also knows what a NeoCon is (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html) and thinks they are a danger to America's future.
Don't hate me because I'm a liberal. Hate me because you know I'm right.
WHAT ABOUT MY IRONY?????
CMON Bush is a putz and Kerry is an even bigger Putz. You dont need to be a "neocon" to understand this.....just human w/ a brain. Kerry isnt the only vetran out there....he's just one of the few who wrapped himself in the comunist flag vrs. the American one. That's why I dont like him.
Plus he's a libral and they do more harm then good.
I dont hate you RPM :aok
-
Gunslinger we agree on 1 point. Both are putz's. I'm just willing to give the other guy a chance.
BTW, I would have cast my ballot for Clark. I think he is better suited for the job than either Bush or Kerry.
-
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Hmmm...I think we should hear from the guys that really served with Kerry:
Swiftboat 94 Crew (http://mfile.akamai.com/10211/wmv/johnkerry.download.akamai.com/10211/brothersinarms_1126_wmv_dsl.wvx)
Yawn, not impressed. None of those guys would condemn him as I wouldn't condemn any of my brothers in arms, not publically anyway. Only people who have never served would be impressed with that propaganda piece.
p.s.
Just read your post Crumpp, thanks for posting that and thank you for your service to America.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wow, sorry I showed up late for the personal attack.
You are free (because people like John Kerry actually fought) to have your opinion about Kerry. I am free (because people like John Kerry fought) to have my opinion about Bush.
You see RPM is an American and proud of his country. He was raised to know that he has the right to make his opinion public. He knows that blindly wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't make everything you do right, it prostitutes the flag. He stayed awake in history class and learned about people who did that like Joseph Mc Carthy. He also knows what a NeoCon is (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html) and thinks they are a danger to America's future.
Don't hate me because I'm a liberal. Hate me because you know I'm right.
I don't hate you at all, but the changes you want America to take will only serve to weaken us further. That is why I oppose your ideology. You come from a point of view that people are basically good but history shows you are completely in error.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Don't hate me because I'm a liberal. Hate me because you know I'm right.
:rofl
-
Neo con??? RPM... are you saying that we are all a bunch of former jewish liberals here? I don't think so.
No, "neocon" is the lefty hate speech that they reserve for those most despised by them... the jewish liveral who finaly had enough of the lies and dumped his childish liberalism.
David Horowitz is probably the penultimate "neocon" His book "Radical Son" shook the liberals down to their toes. It is a great book about the radical movement... I was there in the same time and places and it rings so true it hurts.
notice the river only flows one way... liberals get smart and become conservatives not the other way around. Jews in America are some of the smartest people here but they really have a hard time overcoming the stereotype they are raised in.
Read the book RPM.
lazs
-
Oy vey lazski!
-
oh man....
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'd vote for Kerry based on his looks before anything else.
Me too! I always wanted a lurch/ herman munster lookalike for CIC!
-
Thanks all of you for the support, it really means a lot. I did not post to receive personal laurels for my job, only to present another point of view. In a Democracy, Soldiers are public servants; no one twisted my arm to take the oath.
Storch,
I completely agree with you about some views in American Politics weakening our conduct of this war. Make NO MISTAKE. The few truly bad guys out there ARE Evil Men with NO tolerance to live in peace. They are patient men who are willing to wait for us to drop our guard. They are intelligent men who will use the truth, albeit seen from their point of view, to weaken our resolve. They have no mercy nor do they differientiate between soldier or civilian. In their minds there are no innocents only those for and against.
However, It has been my experience that the vast majority of people are good folks who all want the same things out of life, a decent life and chance to see their children grow up happy. It is not the majority of people in the world that cause all the problems. Just like criminals it is a very small percentage that advance political ideologies that in the end destroy that which is human. Extremism, Intolerance, and Ignorance are the true enemies we are fighting.
To defeat them it is going to take money, blood, and time. We have on our side an indefatigable respect for human life both the physical and spiritual, celebration of diversity, and basic philosophy that defeats extremism hands down.
What our culture does appear to lack is the intestinal fortitude to invest the blood and the time necessary to defeat them. We are talking about transforming an entire region of the world. Removing the breeding ground of these dangerous philosophies and propelling the entire region into the 21st Century. Just as 60 years ago in Europe and Asia, we are once again vying for the philosophical direction an entire region of the world will take. Things will get worse before they get better. There is much work to be done yet.
Men like Kerry are a proven factor. They have already demonstrated the lack of resolve needed to win this sort of conflict.
On several occasions I have personally met Bush. He has impressed me with his intelligent questions, empathy, resolve, and Leadership. I say Leadership because many times I have seen Bush make decisions that are not good for BUSH but good for the country. Whatever his shortcomings Bush has risen to the challenge of 9/11 and done a much better job of leading than I believe Kerry is capable of doing. The last thing we need is a social chameleon whose makes decisions according to the popularity poles.
Crumpp
-
Hello, I'm George Bush and I approve of this message.
-
Laz, you don't have to invent the ideology to follow it.
Here is quick little test to learn if you are a NeoCon. (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html)
Surprisingly, I am not a liberal (sorry Republicans). I am a realist and fall into the same category as Dwight Eisenhower. You remember what a wimp he was, don't ya?
-
what Crumpp said
-
I am far from a Neo-Conservative (Liberal according to the "quiz")and they are both trash-can-candidates. In all honesty, these are the best two candidates out of 270million people? THAT is a sad fact.
But, I own a handgun, and a 30-06. Why must "gun-grabbing" be a factor? I enjoy hunting to consume the meat of the animal God created. Nothing "religous" about it, just what was told to me when I first hunted and will pass on to my son.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why must "gun-grabbing" be a factor?
Maybe because you're making out like it actually is one?
Huge domestic and foreign considerations, and I haven't heard much if anything about guns by either of the candidates. I dunno where it's coming from, but as usual the NRA is prolly spending millions in a "LOOK AT ME!" campaign of its own.
ymmv
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Laz, you don't have to invent the ideology to follow it.
Here is quick little test to learn if you are a NeoCon. (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html)
Surprisingly, I am not a liberal (sorry Republicans). I am a realist and fall into the same category as Dwight Eisenhower. You remember what a wimp he was, don't ya?
RPM for President
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Laz, you don't have to invent the ideology to follow it.
Here is quick little test to learn if you are a NeoCon. (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html)
Surprisingly, I am not a liberal (sorry Republicans). I am a realist and fall into the same category as Dwight Eisenhower. You remember what a wimp he was, don't ya?
Whaddayaknow, same here:
Realist
Realists…
-Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
-Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
-Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
-Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
-Weigh the political costs of foreign action
-Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Whaddayaknow, same here:
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell
And Powell says Bush is a lot like Reagan.
Bush is a realist, Kerry is an opportunist.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe because you're making out like it actually is one?
Huge domestic and foreign considerations, and I haven't heard much if anything about guns by either of the candidates. I dunno where it's coming from, but as usual the NRA is prolly spending millions in a "LOOK AT ME!" campaign of its own.
ymmv
Negative, Democrats typically cringe at the word "Gun". The "gun" issue almost always becomes a factor. Actually, Kerry has already made some statements concerning this issue.
Karaya
-
Interesting, I am a realist too according to the test results.
Crumpp
-
Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.
Hmmm... pretty much confirms my self-assessment.
-
Coulda sworn you were an isolationist Toad. ;)
-
You feel one can't both be realistic and isolationist at the same time?
For example, one can't make the realistic assessment that this is one screwed up world and prefer isolationism as a result?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You feel one can't both be realistic and isolationist at the same time?
Nope.
Originally posted by Toad
For example, one can't make the realistic assessment that this is one screwed up world and prefer isolationism as a result?
Prefering isolationism as a result of this being a screwed up world bumps you up to a category I didn't see there. Idealist.
-
Just a bit for the "Democrats want my guns" crowd:
Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 banned the manufacture and import of a certain class of guns defined by Congress as "Assault Weapons." These firearms were categorized as such by certain identifying features that are military-like in appearance, but have no bearing on “efficiency,” or deadliness. The act also banned high capacity magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
A Federal ban on assault weapons was a top priority of the Clinton administration in early 1994, and it passed by a very narrow margin (216-214) in the House of Representatives. President Clinton signed the bill on September 13, 1994 . Although the original legislation is scheduled to terminate in September 2004, Senate Democrats introduced a measure to continue the ban for an additional ten years – a measure that Bush promises to sign if it reaches his desk.
HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -
The amendment offered by Orrin Hatch (R–UT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote.
The Republican bill provided several restrictions on gun ownership. It would require background checks for any private sale at a gun show. Additionally, it would assign a U.S. attorney to every district for the purpose of harassing gun owners.
47 of 55 Republican Senators voted FOR this legislation.
BANNING PRIVATE SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS
This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. The amendment would also impose numerous restrictions on gun show promoters.
On May 20, 1999 , this amendment passed. Six Republicans sided with the Democrats in favoring this anti-gun legislation, resulting in a 50-50 tie vote and allowing Vice President Al Gore to cast the tie breaking vote.
BACKGROUND REGISTRATION CHECKS (May 20, 1999)-
Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and James Jeffords (R-VT) introduced more restrictions on gun sales with this amendment. It subjects pawnshop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers.
The amendment passed 79-21, with 34 of 55 Senate Republicans voting FOR the gun control legislation.
JUVENILE CRIME BILL (May 20, 1999) –
The Senate passed the anti-gun juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote. Senate Bill 254 contained several gun control amendments in addition to the various provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes.
31 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR the anti-gun bill.
OMNIBUS REPUBLICAN GUN CONTROL PACKAGE
On June 18, 1999 , the House defeated the Hyde-McCollum “Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act” by a 280-147 vote. This bill contained many anti-gun provisions, including trigger locks, a young adult gun ban, and lifetime gun ban for certain juveniles.
137 House Republicans voted for the gun control package.
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING GUN LAWS AND PROTECTION OF GUN OWNERS
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) offered a resolution that called for more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, tougher penalties for gun-related crimes and protection for the rights of law-abiding gun owners. On May 17, 2000 , the non-binding vote passed 69-30.
52 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws.
It's not just the Democrats that want your weapons.
-
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) offered a resolution that called for more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, tougher penalties for gun-related crimes and protection for the rights of law-abiding gun owners. On May 17, 2000 , the non-binding vote passed 69-30.
Thank you Trent. Point served. Try again. Repubs voted on ALL ISSUES for CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I agree with that 100%.
Karaya
PS - All the bills the Repubs seem to side with are for CRIMINALS. I assisted in curbing around 200 church attendee's when the "CCW laws" were being petitioned 2 years ago. After the homily, some gun-grabber told us all of the "Mt. Morris school shooting that happened here in Mi". More than 400 people lined up to sign this trash petition. I cut to the front and said " You do realize that what you said, has nothing to with Law abiding citizens carrying a concealed weapon right?" She was stunned. Then came the nail in the coffin. I said, "What does a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon have to with a .22 caliber pistol, laying on a crack-house coffee table?". People flooded the doors to leave, knowing they had been dooped. She picked up her papers, and got out of Dodge.
-
I am a Republican. What is wrong with the simple background checks at gun shows. Seems to me it is an attempt to close a loophole criminals can use to buy guns. The type background check they make takes only a few minutes to insure the buyer has no warrents or priors which restrict him from owning a gun.
It is not gun registration and law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. As a former cop, we have plenty of gun laws. We just need to enforce them and make PEOPLE take responsibility for THEIR actions.
Crumpp
-
It's the damn principle of the thing, Crumpp.
-
I agree with you Crumpp, I grew up next to the current Assistant Chief of the Farmington Hills PD, and his son (one of my good friends) is a SWAT member in Troy.
I have no problems with registration at a gun show, to insist my point, the CCW is your Purchase Permit in the state of Mi. If you have just one outstanding parking ticket, you are not getting a CCW.
It's the Democrats constantly constant beating the "Because of Criminals, law abiding citizens should get screwed" drum that annoys me.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nope.
Disagree.
Prefering isolationism as a result of this being a screwed up world bumps you up to a category I didn't see there. Idealist.
OMG! I'm a CANADIAN!!! arrrghhhhhhhhhhhhh! Say it ain't so!
-
Pack yer bags baybeeeee!!!!
:)
But uh... You disagree? You "feel that one can both be realistic and isolationist at the same time"?
I think isolationism is nuts, considering.
-
Isolationist policies in the Middle East help contribute to the situation you see today over there. Only American presence has really been US Companies helping the locals develop their oil and the Sinai peacekeeping force.
It's been real easy to blame the US for their societal problems and with no one around to refute or tell our side of the story, lots of unjust anger is being heaped our way.
Crumpp
-
The background check done when purchasing a gun from either a dealer or at a gunshow in Texas is quick and painless. I have no problem this. However, I believe I do have a problem with the government maintaining records on my gun purchases. Call me paranoid if you want but should Hillary or some other politician decide they want to round up all the guns in this country I'd just as soon they don't know about mine.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The background check done when purchasing a gun from either a dealer or at a gunshow in Texas is quick and painless. I have no problem this. However, I believe I do have a problem with the government maintaining records on my gun purchases. Call me paranoid if you want but should Hillary or some other politician decide they want to round up all the guns in this country I'd just as soon they don't know about mine.
Mine will turn up "stolen" if that day comes.
Karaya
-
It all depends on the definition of "isolationism".
Just put me down as totally in favor of George Washington's farewell address with respect to foreign affairs.
I don't think George was nuts; far from it.
-
No he wasn't nuts...
But the world has put on a few years since the time he gave that speech. He would have adapted, I have no doubt about it.
-
About ten years ago the certain Legislature's office's actually put out feelers to some of the units in the military to see what the reaction would be to assisting Law Enforcement in rounding up guns. It was right after Reagan's Assasination attempt during the "Brady Bill's" formation.
The answer was a big fat NO. Not only from the troops but also from JAG. See the Military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESIC. Unless they repealed the second amendment the US Military would have a clear duty to uphold the constitution and prevent illegal seizure if Law Enforcement did not do it's job. Kind of a salamanderly situation Capital Hill decided to leave alone. In short it is TOTALLY illegal. We are not talking passing a simple bill in Congress, we are talking having to rewrite the Constitution by repealing an amendment.
Crumpp
-
oops, almost 20 years ago. Showing my AGE.
Crumpp
-
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
What part of that really needs to be changed?
-
Originally posted by Toad
What part of that really needs to be changed?
Madison?? none of it needs changing, indeed it needs better application. ah just read up a little higher George Washington. Thanks for posting that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh the find were in the news here a few days ago. Why it isn't reported by your news sources? Perhaps because the news is shall we say ... less than "newsworthy" for your sources? I take it you prefer Republican slanted news sources over Democrat slanted ones, seeing how I have yet to find one US news source that isn't slanted one way or the other.
WMD FOUND:
Polish troops find
illegal warheads
By WALTER PINCUS
Los Angeles Times
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said Friday, but U.S. and Polish officials agreed that insurgents loyal to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and foreign terrorist fighters are trying to buy such old weapons or purchase the services of Iraqi scientists who know how to make them.
The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad, Iraq, said in a statement Friday that the 122-millimeter rocket rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." The statement came just hours after two senior Polish defense officials told reporters in Warsaw, based on preliminary reports, that the rocket rounds had contained deadly sarin nerve gas and actions by the Polish unit in Iraq had kept them from being purchased by militants fighting coalition forces.
Friday's coalition release also said that two other 122-millimeter rounds, found June 16 by the Poles with help from an Iraqi informer, had tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated ... (as) to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=40187
While many News agencies here are slanted in favor of the left a few are truly unbiased.
I have never read an article from a euro source that was not completely leftist in my view.
It seems to me that europe favors dem Presidents and legisiatures in America because they favor europe at the expense of America.
More WMDs will eventually turn up. It's easy to bury stuff in sand.
-
Love the LA Times. They have a link on one of AQ websites. All hail the Peoples Republic of Berkeley!!
This is like the 3rd or 4th cache that has been found since the war started. Wonder what the chances are their are more? There is also some evidence Saddam hid portions of it in Syria.
Looks like his preservation techniques were not the best. Thank God, because the bad guys are activily looking for WMD to set off in the US.
==============================================
Just as 60 years ago in Europe and Asia, we are once again vying for the philosophical direction an entire region of the world will take
==============================================
Yes, Gscholz. If the Allies had lost WWII what Philosphical direction do you think Norway and the rest of Western Europe would have taken? Do you think Republican Democracy would be the prodominate form of Government in Europe with a capitalism based economy? Perhaps Facism with a State run economy? Now that the wall is down and the west has won the "Cold War" what do we see arising in Eastern Europe?
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour!”
Winston Churchill
Crumpp
-
"Yes, Gscholz. If the Allies had lost WWII what Philosphical direction do you think Norway and the rest of Western Europe would have taken? Do you think Republican Democracy would be the prodominate form of Government in Europe with a capitalism based economy? Perhaps Facism with a State run economy? Now that the wall is down and the west has won the "Cold War" what do we see arising in Eastern Europe? "
Norway was already Nazi Occupied, Europe might have been the largest country in the world, with the largest shoreline as well. But, I do feel the majority of Canadian and European newspapers are leftist.
Karaya
-
Wasn't Norway Liberated? Or did we miss a few?
Crumpp
-
ALL Newspapers are "less than Newsworthy" by their very nature.
Most of the news they gather comes from a minimum of second hand information. Quite a bit of it from THIRD removed sources. It's almost impossible to be accurate under those circumstances. There would have to be an infinite number of reporters in infinite locations to get the complete story on everything that is printed.
As for biased, well some are more biased than others but they are almost all written by one person. Since perception becomes reality, whatever that writers perception will come out in the story. So no matter what, you are getting ONE man's viewpoint of an event printed as fact.
Good technique is to check multiple newspapers that get their info from different sources themselves. I recommend BBC, CNN, and Fox News Network. Be careful of "source sharing" news as it can seem to confirm from multiple sources an events occurrance. In fact the reporters all shared info in the Hotel Lounge.
There is nothing wrong with this and until a better system comes along it is the best the world has to get info the masses. Reporters are free to write whatever they want about an event as long as it is not slander. Slander is tough to prove so they have some wide margins. Just keep a wary eye out and don't believe everything you read just because it is print or a talking head is spouting it on the TV.
Crumpp
-
rpm... thank you for proving my point... the democrats are the guin grabbers... they pass laws to restrict and ban guns... they may get a few Republicans to side with em once in a while... sometimes it is because of the rider bills that are placed on em...
The republicans pass laws to restrict and punish criminals.. the two parties are very clear.. the democrats think guns are the problem and the republicans think criminals are.. the so called "assualt weapons ban" was a total democrat gun grab and can only pass again if 90% or more of the democrats vote on it..
Bush may or may not sign it.. he would be wrong too and can probly be persuaded not to... with kerry... it is a sure thing.
kerry id chumming it up with the brady bunch (formerly handgun control inc.) a very vitriholic and gun grabbing group whos signiture is lying about gun stats (10 kids killed every hour by guns was theirs).
kerry will rubber stamp every gun grabbing anti rights bill that comes to him. And a lot will if he get's in. The gun grabbers are in a funk now cause they know they need a democrat in the white house before they spend all the time an effort to jam another nasty gun grabbing bill down our throats.
and... according to that test... we are all "realists".
neocon would seem to describe someone who was formerly a wussy liberal but then woke up. So why use "neocon"? you think it sounds bad. To conservatives it is nothing. Only a liberal would find it an offensive term.
and rpm... listening to you on this board... you are indeed a total liberal... maybe even a woman.
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wasn't Norway Liberated? Or did we miss a few?
Crumpp
I was answering the "had the Allies lost WWII". Wake up now.
Karaya
-
I was answering the "had the Allies lost WWII". Wake up now.
LOL,
Sorry haven't had my morning coffee yet!
I getting cabin fever too. Been at home for 5 days straight. My wife is down from surgery (routine stuff) and I am watching my 2 year old daughter. Got the TV running "Baby Einstien" trying to make up for her poor genetics. All my side of the Family. Leaves me to sit at the computer and prowl the BB. I feel like Arlo.
:p
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
LOL,
Sorry haven't had my morning coffee yet!
I getting cabin fever too. Been at home for 5 days straight. My wife is down from surgery (routine stuff) and I am watching my 2 year old daughter. Got the TV running "Baby Einstien" trying to make up for her poor genetics. All my side of the Family. Leaves me to sit at the computer and prowl the BB. I feel like Arlo.
:p
Crumpp
Hope everything's good with the wife. The last month has been a roller coaster. In a nut shell: My wife has two Uncles, the two and their wives were camping in St.Louis. One uncle (from Lenexa, Ks.) had a Brain aneuyrism(sp). He has since passed away after being in a drug induced coma for 10 days, was brain dead. In a cruel irony, the other Uncle who brought him to the hospital, had a heart attack 2 days later. He is doing good in Evansville, In. He has a stent (?) in his heart.
Crumpp, I was kidding with you on the last post bro, I'm a smart prettythang to be funny, not to be a d&*k. :)
<>
Karaya
-
No offense taken, bro!
My heart goes out to your family on the loss of your Uncle and the others Heart Attack. We will keep your family in our prayers!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No offense taken, bro!
My heart goes out to your family on the loss of your Uncle and the others Heart Attack. We will keep your family in our prayers!
Crumpp
Thank you sir.
<>
Karaya
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And Powell says Bush is a lot like Reagan.
Did he mean the Reagan of the '80s or the Reagan of the '90s? I'd agree that Bush is a lot like the Reagan of the '90s...a brain damaged incoherently babbling idiot. :rofl
-
One can find a lot of "incoherence" right here on these bbs.
-
What are the chances that more "caches" of useless 1980s era scrap like these rockets turns up? Pretty good I'd say. Their significance? None, I'd say.
When do you think those "80's" Rockets were buried? I think the very early "90's" when Saddam signed the Treaty ending Desert Storm and agreeing to disarmament. Remember the YEARS of stalling the Inspectors? He had Opportunity, Time, and Motive to hide his WMD.
Incidentally I was shooting M72A2 Light Anti-Tank Weapons, brand new, right out the crate last month. They were manufactured and packaged in 1968. While in the Middle East we found and shot two cases of Panzerfaust '43. They worked just fine. Your implication that "80's" is old does not hold up for the type of weapon system we are talking about. Whoever buried these did not do a good job constructing their Cache. Let's hope the other's were just as incompetent.
From that POV it makes more sense, however Europe was not "Naziland" it was Nazi occupied, with a population that used to live in democracies, hated the Germans, and was friendly towards you and the Allies. You did not have to "vie" for the "philosophical direction" of the entire region, you just had to defeat the Nazis militarily and the rest attended to itself. In the Middle East the situation is completely different with people that are not used to democracy and that dislike you if not outright hate you.
You're absolutely right. That is what makes this conflict even more dangerous. The West cannot afford to lose it. It's going to be much tougher and take much longer to win. I hope Western Civilization is up to the Challenge.
Check this out. It's been circulating around work. He's got some things wrong for sure, but he has some key points right. He comes very close what we believe is the long-term objective of Osama Bin Laden.
http://braden.buzzword.com/2004/05/02
Crumpp
-
Gscholz,
I posted the article for your opinion not for argument.
I wasn't comparing conventional to chemical. I simply pointed out that the preservation techniques the builder of this cache were poor. All of them might not be. FYI Chemical weapons can last much longer than conventional. Not neccessarily the chemical inside but the weapon is designed to keep the chemical safe. Each has a shelf life. Some of the shelf lives are in the order of decades. It depends on the weapon and the manner in which it is stored.
I have helped dismantle cache's from the 1940's. Ones that were hidden in case of Soviet Occupation and left over from the Cold War. Weapons, ammunition, and equipment that 50 years later looks and function's as new. Given the time Saddam had to hide/store his WMD it would be imprudent to assume there are none and that they are all safe.
Crumpp
-
You are still evading the essential truth. THESE 17 rockets were EMPTY and only two showed TRACE of sarin. Iraqi sarin had a low shelf life. This "cache" find is completely insignificant. Can you not recognize that?
Evading the Truth? Their is no denying Saddam had WMD and used them. There is no denying he had motive, opportunity, and TIME to hide them in similar caches. Hopefully, as I said in previous post's, YOU ARE RIGHT.
How do you think we "find" things like this? While in Afghanistan my unit bought at least 5 shoulder fired SAM's. We find this stuff when the locals tell us where it is hidden or other intelligence sources lead us to it. Very rarely we stumble upon it in the course of other operations.
Crumpp
-
How do you think we should handle this then regarding "The Third Jihad"?
I would like to hear your strategy.
Crumpp
-
Bad form Crumpp.
You're talking about WMD. You say there's something to it, Gscholz says there isn't.
What to do about the "The Third Jihad" has been debated a bunch, can be debated more, but is not relevant to this.
I can't speak for anyone but me, but saying "Oh yeah? What would you do?" about a completely different issue has become way too tired.
-
No I don't agree that this find is insignificant.
Just taken at face value, it IS a pile of junk with no significance in and of itself.
However the implications of the FACT that several caches have been found during the course of this conflict are enormous. What if we have just found a few buried in haste at the beginning? Saddam had years to prepare and hide his weapons. The Iraqi desert is immense.
What are the chances that the Iraqi's improved their cache techniques and did manage to preserve more durable CW's? 2 of these shells had traces of Cyclosarin and rest were empty. However they were Chemical weapons PURPOSELY hidden by the Saddam. Cylosarin is not the only chemical brew out there NOR the only one Saddam had access too. At one time Saddam had a large stockpile of Chemical Weapons. Where are they now? If you believe he destroyed them IAW the UN mandates I've got some land over here you would interested in...
These are legitimate questions that the coalition must be ever vigilant for the answer's too. This find is far from insignificant.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Just taken at face value, it IS a pile of junk with no significance in and of itself.
Originally posted by Crumpp
This find is far from insignificant.
Everything you've said that elevates this from "insignificant" to "significant" is complete speculation. You have to admit.
-
Can anyone recall why the U.S. government established a "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq for most of the 1990's?
Could it be because Saddam's government had already gassed tens of thousands of Kurds to death with chemical agens dispensed from helicopters?
Could it be because the first Bush administration and later the Clinton administration were convinced that Saddam STILL HAD such agents within his possession and was willing to use them?
Is that why Iraqi helicopters were routinely shot down when they violated that "no-fly" zone?
Or is his previous use of wmd's conveniently forgotten in the heat of the current political debate and epidemic of collective amnesia?
-
By not playing into their hate game. By not weakening the secular regimes in the Middle East (no matter how undemocratic they may be) by aggravating their populations. By treating Al Quada as the criminals they are and not associate them with any form of war, holy or not, and definitively not associate them with Islam in general.
We are definately doing that. However, Saddam was a huge wild-card that possed WMD and was wholeheartily supporting Islamic Extremist. AQ's reminant's were attempting to reconstitute on the Iran-Iraqi border. Saddam whether by choice or he was unable to stop them was allowing this to happen.
The hardest thing is bringing reform to those secular regimes WITHOUT weakening their positions. We are doing this slowly and carefully. This is the number one reason we have not entered the tribal regions on the Pakistani border. Unilateral action would destabilize one of our staunchest allies.
This is definately NOT a war on Islam. 99.9 percent of the Muslim's out there are good folks who want the same things out of life we do. Some of my closest friends are Muslim. Men whom I have been under fire with and would welcome them at my side fighting these evil criminals again.
Crumpp
-
How do you know they were not purposely hidden?
I don't think we can afford to make that assumption.
Crumpp
-
Well Gee...G-Scholz, what part did you not understand?
I wasn't speaking of the junk artillery shells currently popping up but of the perceived threat of Saddam's wmd's during the 1990's, and how the previous two administrations took that threat VERY seriously indeed. The current administration DID NOT invent that perception. There was more than adequate reason to believe, given Saddam's known penchant for gassing the Kurds, that he could not be trusted to either admit he still had them or to turn them over to the U.N inspectors.
Why would any SANE person trust him to do so?
Did that clear it up any for ya?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And in 1991 Hussein DID have chemical weapons. However according to Hans Blix, and the UN inspectors they were most likely destroyed by 1995.
I guess Saddam should have simply fully cooperated with the UN inspection teams....maybe he would still be in power today if he had.
-
Most likely destroyed is NOT definatley destroyed. Saddam played Hans Blix like well worn fiddle. The entire UN weapons inspection program was just as bankrupt as the Bosenian UN "Safe Zones".
Do you know the details of those inspection "trips". I would have loved to been a UN weapons inspector. If they ever do that gig again SIGN ME UP!
Come to Iraq, stay in a luxury hotel, make a few trips to some sites the Iraqi's lead you around too closely supervised, party a little, then go home and write a glowing report. Super effective inspection technique that would discover the state secrets of any country.
It took them almost 11 years to even attempt to go places their Iraqi handlers did not want them to go. Come ON!!
Crumpp
-
Make that assumption? Why hide EMPTY scrap? The burden of proof in on you, until you dig up functional battlefield ready WMD, and TONS of it like you claimed, I still regard this invasion as illegal and the US criminal in its actions.
What are the chances it was not empty scrap when it was buried?
Thank God you don't make US Policy.
Crumpp
-
Saddam always wanted to comply. That's why it took the US military on the ground over there to get the inspectors back in after being kicked out .
The UN wasn't doing a thing and where not capable of doing anything in response to the inspectors being kicked out.
Saddam was given every chance in the world to comply, but he didn't.
-
I've got some questions for ya G-Scholtz...
In light of the crimes Saddam committed against his own people, do you believe that he deserved to remain in power?
In your answer is no, he did not deserve to stay in power, what problem do you have with the United States enforcing a U.N resolution threatening military action against him?
Do you have a problem with unilateral action against this evil, murderous thug when no other type was possible? (Actually, after further thought, there was no unilateral action after all...the actions taken were multilateral.)
Do you have sources backing up your claim that 99.5 of the Muslim population sees U.S. military action in Iraq as being something other than action taken against Al Queda or Hussein? (What am I thinking...of COURSE you do!)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It was not Hussein who told the inspectors to leave in 2003.
I don't remember anyone telling them they couldn't stay if they wanted to.
Of course, we know that Saddam did not let inpsectors back into Iraq until the US military arrived at his backyard again. The UN had nothing to do with it.
-
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
Same thing is starting to play out in micro-form in this thread.
Way to stick to your guns GScholz.
-
Originally posted by Nash
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
Same thing is starting to play out in micro-form in this thread.
Way to stick to your guns GScholz.
I myself have never made a stand on WMD being in Iraq at the time of the invasion.
-
He's sticking to his guns alright Nash...but he's firing blanks.
-
Doesn't look that way... Just looks like the rest of ya have decided to fire at different targets.
-
Nash,
I wasn't saying Oh yeah well what would you do? I am interested in his opinion. I wasn't around when you were debating this.
So you think the chemicals just leaked out of all 17 rounds? Even the Poles and US authorities say they were from the 1980s and useless.
Yes I do OR it has been removed to be stored elsewhere.
Do you guys think that we would just show up and WMD would fall at our feet? Frankly I believe Saddam has them still hidden. IMO the whole WMD thing is a sideshow to the strategic and tactical necessity of Removing Saddam from the equation at hand.
Crumpp
-
What do you mean by sideshow?
That it was never the reason? Or that it was a byproduct of?
-
G-Scholz,
Do you seriously believe that, even though hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ite Muslim opponents of Saddam were massacred that the survivors did not deserve our help because they did not fight hard enough to gain their freedom on their own?
I guess you don't want to be your brother's keeper.
-
Nite buddy, take care.
-
How many times would he have to use it before it mattered to you?
One incident alone justifies his removal from power.
They're digging up a LOT of bodies over there...according to independent news and relief agencies covering the process.
Do you not agree that a mass murderer NEEDS to be removed from power? Should we debate endlessly with self-serving diplomats from other nations while people die?
You once castigated me in another thread on this subject for defending action in Iraq and not caring what was happening to Christian tribesmen in Sudan, even though that was NOT the topic of that thread. I firmly believe that U.N. military intervention in Sudan is fully justified. What actions would you recommend in the event that the United Nations does nothing about that situation? Would you support a nation taking unilateral military action to prevent the slaughter?
-
If Bush wasn't getting hammered by the Dem's so hard, he would have already had troops in the Sudan, and screw the UN again.
-
And ... besides the Halabja (a small town on the border with Iran) battle where the Kurds took up arms and fought alongside the Iranian army ... when did the Iraqis use WMD against the Kurds?
And this is relevant How? Point is he USED WMD.
I repeat my question: Except for the BATTLE of Halabja, when did the Iraqis use WMD against the Kurds?
Guess he needs to do it multiple times to be convincing huh?
Who turned out to be right? Who were "played like a like well worn fiddle"?
It's far from over and this has yet to be proved. I applaud Bush for having the balls to not "HOPE" it wasn't true and acting. I thank GOD we don't have idiots who would "hope" it's not a threat out there. It's just a few old rockets, just like the others evidence we have found...
Sorry been busy and I missed this the first time.
US criminal in its actions.
Well, that is good to hear, but I'm afraid 99.9 percent of the Muslim population in the Middle East see this invasion as something more than just a war against Al Quada or Hussein.
Based on WHAT? YOUR opinion? When is the last time you WENT to Iraq or Afghanistan? When is the last time YOU stood the room with an AQ operative? Or met the man on the street in Baghdad? IMO your comfortable Euro-Trash who can sit with his morning coffee and pass judgement on the world. You should thank the better men who came before you and secured that safety. You can bet the path was not as clear cut as think it to be.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
"I've got some questions for ya G-Scholtz... In light of the crimes Saddam committed against his own people, do you believe that he deserved to remain in power? "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GSchulz
"Yes. If the people themselves does nothing about it they deserve him. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler :rolleyes:. The people loved him.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Based on WHAT? YOUR opinion? When is the last time you WENT to Iraq or Afghanistan? When is the last time YOU stood the room with an AQ operative? Or met the man on the street in Baghdad? IMO your comfortable Euro-Trash who can sit with his morning coffee and pass judgement on the world. You should thank the better men who came before you and secured that safety. You can bet the path was not as clear cut as think it to be.
Crumpp
Gee... and I thought you were a new impassionate voice of some kind of reason. How quickly they succumb....
-
Nash,
Gscholz calls me a Criminal? You expect me not to respond after I have put my life on the line time and time again doing the right thing? I've been there. I know the ground truth.
I have seen a man take three bullets in the head ALL because we will not open up on ARMED locals. We did not want to harm innocents. Since carrying a gun in these countries DOES NOT make them a bad guy, they held fire. Because of that a 19 year old boy lost his life. On EVERY occasion we have even suspected innocent people were even near a building with bad guys in it we have gone in room-to-room rather than drop a bomb. It is not some abstract event on the TV. My 2-year-old daughter is sleeping 1 room away. Myself and my fellow soldiers put all of our tomorrows at risk for people we don't know to do everything in our power to ensure their safety and the help secure a better tomorrow for them, us, and the world. We didn't ask for this or start it, but we are working to end it.
Once more I have met the people. LIVED with them while in country. They are just as appalled by these criminals as we are AND glad to see the US there. They know things will get better and the vast majority are full of hope for the future. The present is a little scary but they know the violence will end.
You may disagree with what we are doing and how we are doing it. You're entitled to that. Resorting to mudslinging and accusations, especially from a position of ignorance is a different ballgame.
I am a reasonable man and do not deserve to be labeled a criminal. Gscholz has shown his true colors with that one AND defending him is just plain wrong.
He can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp it goes without saying that yer a bigger man than I am, by far...
It's just that your on-the-ground experience is a different beast than the politics wot made you get that on the ground experience in the first place.
Two different things...
But the one thing you have over any one of us is just that experience. It lends perspective and context to your political views. It's rich, and I very much dig reading what you write.
Maybe my problem is wrt expectations/dissapointment... Dude it sucks to hear you say a lot of insightful things then quickly fall back on some kind of same 'ol "eurotrash" screaching.
A truly cogent case for the Bush admin's policies has been sorely lacking here for since, the beginning of time. I'm thinking you're up to it... but...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gscholz calls me a Criminal?
It's not about you. It's about Bush and his administration.
For example... (http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=warcrimes&refer=home)
etc... (http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05202004.html)
-
Sandman,
You're exactly right. This isn't about Saddam, or his crimes of genocide or his duplicity or his lies or his funding of terroristic activities in Israel or his murderous sons and uncles or even about Iraqi oil and who controls it.
It is all about Bush and his administration. Isn't it.
-
I had a GI Joe doll where when you push a button he made a Karate chop.
-
Had a redneck doll once. Ya push his buttons and he'd beat hell out of a hippy.
-
geeze was that a rebuttle to the goofy joke I just made? Fire someone.
-
It was better than yours...
I'm wearin ya down Nash. Better go reload...you're runnin' out of ammunition. :D
-
Who needs ammunition? I am mother nature and will gravitize your bullets, your VERY WILL, into the ground.... You will not even have a tombstone, you will be the dust in the cement for someone else's tombstone. It will read "[unrecognizable]".
Whoah... that was sweet. I think I need to go to bed.
-
I agree...go to bed...you definitely need your rest.
:)
As for me, I gotta hit the sack as well...if I stay up too late my wrinkles deepen.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Nash,
Euro-trash is a specific term for one individual NOT a gross generalization. Please do not apply it where it does not belong.
Crumpp
-
Nash,
Everything you've said that elevates this from "insignificant" to "significant" is complete speculation. You have to admit.
Yes it is speculation. BUT, It passes the reasonable man test.
All the counter-arguments are pure speculation as well. It's the same coin viewed from different sides. It does not make your view invalid or even wrong. It just makes it assumptions we cannot afford to take.
In this particular case:
It's kind of like climbing a mountain and not anticipating falling off. Sure you can you can successfully summit any mountain and not use a rope or protection. Probably do it mulitple times. However the one time you do fall the consequences are disasterous.
Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled. They are actively seeking to kill thousands more innocent civilians. The invasion of Iraq has decreased that effort. What its also done is remove a wildcard with WMD and is moving the unknown disposition of those weapons towards a known factor. This is progressing slowly and jury is still out as to whether or not they will be found. Your opinion is on the other side of that issue and your entitled to it.
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
face it... the sadman had nuke and bio weapons programs and even used em on his own countrymen... if he didn't have an active one at the time of our invasion he certainly would have started up new ones the minute he thought he could get away with it. He was a bad man.
lazs
-
"Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled."
We do people keep doing this?
-
What do you mean Nash?
I was there for a couple of those attempts. Are you trying to imply that the attempts never happened? It happened, make no mistake. One of US Army's missions is counter-proliferation of WMD.
Crumpp
-
forget it crupp... the war doesn't really matter to them it is the fact that Bush is not a liberal.. they need to demonize and trivialize him. It is really the only thing they have.. look at their candidate.
lazs
-
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nash,
Euro-trash is a specific term for one individual NOT a gross generalization. Please do not apply it where it does not belong.
Crumpp
lol, yeah... okay crumpp.
-
No don't forget it Crumpp. It's like in the movie "Rocky III" where Rocky, Apollo Creed and Paulie were watching Clubber Lane during his TV presentation, and Paulie said "Don't listen to that guy Rocky, he's a blowhard."
Then Apollo says yes, do listen to it, when this fight is over those idiots are gonna owe you an engraved apology.
He could back that up...
Les
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Sandman,
You're exactly right. This isn't about Saddam, or his crimes of genocide or his duplicity or his lies or his funding of terroristic activities in Israel or his murderous sons and uncles or even about Iraqi oil and who controls it.
It is all about Bush and his administration. Isn't it.
Exactly (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html).
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
-
QUOTE]lol, yeah... okay crumpp.[/QUOTE]
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
You don't have a more articulate respond but to bring it down his level?
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
No, in fact it answers the argument that the US has decreased it's security by going into Iraq and that WMD was some sort of "excuse". In fact, I have not thought about the foiled attempts since the invasion. Been focused on other things in my job. I was pleased to see that trend when I examined it! It's a response to your statement:
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues. You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it. Otherwise you would have seen thru Gscholz's claims of criminal conduct and at least waited til the discussion was complete to pass judgment. Maybe asked some questions to clarify peoples point of view. Instead you attacked every time a question was asked. Not even a bungled attempt at answering the question just an irritated outburst because a question was asked.
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
With that said. There is no point in continuing this.
Crumpp
-
wow.. this crump guy has been all over and seen all sorts of things..
Keep bragging guy, of your life's adventures..
-
Kind of a bummer being a virtual arm-chair strategist ain't it Dude.
-
Wow! Scholz...did you really mean to say that Saddam only killed people in battle and did not engage in genocide? That's how it reads.
As to the matter of your raking me over the coals about Sudan...my memory is better than yours. You DID say it, even though nothing had been previously mentioned about the Sudan massacres in that thread. That statement came out of the clear blue. As I recall, you were handing out insults quite liberally that day, along with opinions.
I can debate opinions quite amiably, and at length, but I try not to use personal slurs and insults unless they have been previously aimed at me.
By the way, I find the argument that the Kurdish civilians in Halabja were "accidentally" gassed by the Iraqis to be suspect at best. The Kurds were longtime enemies of Saddam and some had been aiding the Iranians. It is a bit simple-minded to take the Iraqi explanation at face value.
-
The use of chemical weapons, whether in warfare or not, is a violation of international law. It doesn't matter what Saddam's reasons were...the act itself is illegal.
-
IIRC, the Chemical Weapons Convention did not go into force until 1997.
-
The Kurdish victims of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war numbered in the hundreds of thousands, most of them civilians. That sounds like genocide to me...or at the very least "ethnic cleansing."
By the way...links are a bit of a crutch for debaters. I could just as easily find other links that carry the opinions of government officials that are diametrically opposed to Pelletiere's.
Scholz is right...the combatants of WWI were appalled at the losses brought about by the use of chemical weapons and banned them in the 1920s. Since that time, the U.S. has never deliberately used chemical agents to attempt to kill enemy soldiers or civilians. To the best of my knowledge, Agent Orange is the only chemical used in large quantities on the battlefield by the U.S. in modern times, and it was NOT deliberately used against civilians, but as a means of clearing sections of jungle to deny concealment to the Vietcong.
-
Liar
-
Yep
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I meant the quotes of me or links to the thread where you claim I said that about you, Iraq and Sudan.
The USA had (perhaps still has) illegal chemical weapons in the 1980s. You violated the Geneva Convention too. You have no moral high ground ... especially on the use of WMD in war.
We aren't worried about the United States using chemical weapons against the United States.
If you're concerned that we might use them against Norway, get your army together and come on over to disarm us
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And what did I lie about? (Be specific)
Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million.
not 200,000 and I really dont have the time to point out all of your lies.
live with it
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why did you edit your post?
because LIAR was a better term than BS
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, but the Geneva Convention banned them in 1925.
We don't want to mention that... someone might get the idea that the U.S. violated that convention. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, hello Martlet. Didn't mean to kick over the stone you were hiding under.
Then watch where you're walking.
-
Check your figures again Scholz...surf the net. Some of the documents of Saddam's regime have provided the most damning evidence against him. One document recovered which will be used in his trial was an order to military units which stated that all Kurdish men between the ages of 15 and 70 must be killed after all available information had been wrung from them. Eye-witnesses to these massacres say that Iraqi troops killed men, women, and small children.
Sounds like genocide to me.
As evidence continues to come to light, the estimates of the numbers of his victims over the last 24 years continues to be revised UPWARD. Total numbers may run as high as one million.
Explain to me again WHY he deserved to remain in power.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* Well I'm really not interested in your "estimates". Iran claims they lost only 200,000 lives. No one really knows. Live with it moron.
Telegraph.co.uk, UK
a million people - most of them Iranians - died in the Iran-Iraq war. The remains of identified soldiers are still being found. ...
infoplease encyclopedia
Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million.
the fact that you would even consider 200,000 a good estimate is BS
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"The Iran-Iraq War lasted just short of eight years and resulted in catastrophic destruction in both countries. Because both Iran and Iraq used irregular military units, attacked civilian populations, and played down their own losses while playing up those of their opponents, reliable casualty figures do not exist. For example, Iran claimed to have lost 200,000 or fewer of its own citizens, while Iraq claimed to have killed 800,000 Iranians. Neutral estimates come closer to the Iranian claim but are uncertain. Because of different battlefield techniques, Iraq’s deaths were probably about half those suffered by Iran. The total number of people killed almost certainly exceeds 300,000. Wounded and captured soldiers push the casualty total over one million, and some estimates of total casualties exceed two million."
"Casualties" are not the same as "dead". Casualties includes wounded.
You believe what you want.. you always do.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Explain to me again WHY he deserved to remain in power.
You get the government you deserve?
It's a harsh judgement, no question, but I would have felt a lot better about the whole thing if the U.S. were in there to help the Iraqi people take back their country rather than go in and do it for them.
-
Not that I care either way, but I did find several sources that stated over a million killed.
And several that said over 500,000 Killed.
And several that said over 300,000 killed.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
300,000 to 500,000 are the intelligent estimates. The 1,000,000+ estimates are the morons who also count wounded.
Are you implying that Encyclopedia of the Orient (http://i-cias.com/e.o/iranirqw.htm) might not be a reliable source?
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
300,000 to 500,000 are the intelligent estimates. The 1,000,000+ estimates are the morons who also count wounded.
thats still more than your original post
I can point to a family that lives next to my mother who lost 3 sons themselves.
They found a warehouse in Iraq that had the remains of 300 + that were never returned. A mass grave has been found that may contain hundreds more prisoners of the war who were executed..
again believe whatever you want moron
-
That would be a valid argument Sandman IF the populous had the power and the means to evict him. What could a largely disarmed Shi'ite population do against the well-armed, trained, and fanatical Republican Guard (i.e. the Iraqi SS) and Saddam's secret police (i.e. the Iraqi Gestapo)?
By the way, if you have ever wondered why so many Middle Eastern countries have patterned their governments after that of Nazi Germany you might want to read up on the history and influence of this man on that region's politics:
Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini
He was the godfather of several modern Middle Eastern leaders; Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, and Yassir Arafat, to name a few. It is safe to say that few modern leaders of that region have had as large an influence on the development of its politics. His followers have been directly and indirectly involved in the radicalization of politics and the assassination or intimidation of moderate Muslim leaders, including Prince Faisal, who made the mistake of issuing statements supportive of the Balfour declaration.
His legacy has been the proliferation of Nazi-style regimes throughout the Middle East, of which Saddam's was one.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Liar.
you certainly are...
btw f*** off
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
That would be a valid argument Sandman IF the populous had the power and the means to evict him. What could a largely disarmed Shi'ite population do against the well-armed, trained, and fanatical Republican Guard (i.e. the Iraqi SS) and Saddam's secret police (i.e. the Iraqi Gestapo)?
I dunno... they seem to be doing well enough to kill at least one U.S. soldier per day.
-
The Republican Guard was not a conscript force. The regualar Iraqi army units were, but they were nowhere nearly as well armed or trained as the Republican Guard, whose main job had always been to defend Saddam's regime, which is not the same as serving one's country. The leaders of the Republican Guard were either relatives of Saddam or his staunchest supporters. The officers of the regular army were members of the Ba'ath Party.
-
Sure there are protests...led by former Ba'ath Party members and some Sunni supporters. Some of the very people who supported his murderous regime. Should we turn Iraq back over to their control? If you notice, few of these demonstrations in support of Saddam are taking place in areas populated by Shi'ite Muslims, who just happen to make up the vast majority of Iraqis.
There are still plenty of ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis who believe Hitler was right and that the Holocaust never happened. Should Germany be turned back over to them?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues.
You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it.
>
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
- Crumpp
To be honest, no... I'm not really into debating the whole Iraq/WMD thing again.
On this BBS I was one of only like, two... three (?) people that believed that no WMD would be found in Iraq. So maybe you can guess just how many debates about this I've been involved in and how much mud has been our way regarding this over the last coupla years. Could care less tho... I was right and yer ilk were dead wrong. As dead wrong then as you are today.
But here you come along thinking everything yer saying has never been said 1000 times before, and that every reply is somehow new and represents something that hasn't been said over and over and over again.
No, my wall 'o text days about this are over. And if I pick out a couple of lines here and there and do a brief drive-by and chuckle, forgive me...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nash, I know exactly how you feel.
I love this golden post by Pongo:
:)
Which people would he be referring to?
-
Yeah... that is a good one. :)
"Iraq is a threat to America in no way, it's just plain rediklous!"... Remember that one? That guy got beat on so hard he's no longer around. Amazed the French are still here.
But uh yeah, appearently there's some ricin or whatever in a coupla antique shells we gotta be all concerned about now.
-
That being said, the problem posed by Iraq to the international community is not about its oil capacities. What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs. Chirac, October 16, 2002
President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Russian intelligence agencies had received information that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks against American targets and warned U.S. intelligence. Putin
Those people?
-
Oh great.... Martlet.... laterz.
-
LOL...
These people (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No Martlet, those people do not frequent this BBS much I think, and I would be surprised to learn that Eeagler has managed to insult them ... then again it is Eeagler.
Don't underestimate Eagler
-
Nash,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've said that elevates this from "insignificant" to "significant" is complete speculation. You have to admit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is speculation. BUT, It passes the reasonable man test.
All the counter-arguments are pure speculation as well. It's the same coin viewed from different sides. It does not make your view invalid or even wrong. It just makes it assumptions we cannot afford to take.
In this particular case:
It's kind of like climbing a mountain and not anticipating falling off. Sure you can you can successfully summit any mountain and not use a rope or protection. Probably do it mulitple times. However the one time you do fall the consequences are disasterous.
Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled. They are actively seeking to kill thousands more innocent civilians. The invasion of Iraq has decreased that effort. What its also done is remove a wildcard with WMD and is moving the unknown disposition of those weapons towards a known factor. This is progressing slowly and jury is still out as to whether or not they will be found. Your opinion is on the other side of that issue and your entitled to it.
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
QUOTE]lol, yeah... okay crumpp.[/QUOTE]
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
You don't have a more articulate respond but to bring it down his level?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, in fact it answers the argument that the US has decreased it's security by going into Iraq and that WMD was some sort of "excuse". In fact, I have not thought about the foiled attempts since the invasion. Been focused on other things in my job. I was pleased to see that trend when I examined it! It's a response to your statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues. You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it. Otherwise you would have seen thru Gscholz's claims of criminal conduct and at least waited til the discussion was complete to pass judgment. Maybe asked some questions to clarify peoples point of view. Instead you attacked every time a question was asked. Not even a bungled attempt at answering the question just an irritated outburst because a question was asked.
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
With that said. There is no point in continuing this.
Crumpp
-
This stuff gets so repetitive that it took a few seconds before I noticed that these last two posts were actually reposts of posts you made on this very page.
"Yes it is speculation. BUT, It passes the reasonable man test."
Yes it was speculation and no, it FAILED the reasonable man test.
Speculation as the basis of war. Wtg, nice one. Reasonable men beg to differ.
-
QUOTE]lol, yeah... okay crumpp.[/QUOTE]
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
You don't have a more articulate respond but to bring it down his level?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, in fact it answers the argument that the US has decreased it's security by going into Iraq and that WMD was some sort of "excuse". In fact, I have not thought about the foiled attempts since the invasion. Been focused on other things in my job. I was pleased to see that trend when I examined it! It's a response to your statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues. You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it. Otherwise you would have seen thru Gscholz's claims of criminal conduct and at least waited til the discussion was complete to pass judgment. Maybe asked some questions to clarify peoples point of view. Instead you attacked every time a question was asked. Not even a bungled attempt at answering the question just an irritated outburst because a question was asked.
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
With that said. There is no point in continuing this.
Crumpp
-
INTERMISSION
(http://s.a.cnn.net/si/features/2003_swimsuit/images/gallery/popup/marisa_02.jpg)
-
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
Look at your head in the mirror.
That is you.
Go outside and look at the ground.
That is your country.
Now to get the full effect, kneel down and bash your head against it. The stinging realization might be that you and it are two different things.
-
hmmmm.... people's gettin a might crazy-like 'round here.
-
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
The world has an American fetish and most could really care less about Iraq in my opinion.
It's only about how bad America is with some of you guys.
A lot of you Iraq war protesters are going to be regarded as pretty short sighted and on the wrong side in history when the dust settles in Iraq and the middle east.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It is not mutually exclusive. You are both criminal (no not YOU Crumpp). The US violated international law and committed an unwarranted and unjustified act of aggression against a sovereign nation-state.
yeah, and so what? Why do you care? I mean really, think about why you care so much and honest.
How many wars are going on in the world right now? Why do people focus mostly on just this one?
And by the way, I feel the war was justified.
-
kERRY= HEAD IN SAND OVERSEA AFFAIRS, DONT BOTHER US(YET) DON'T BOTHER THEM.
BUSH= SHAKE THE GRASS OVERSEA AFFAIRS, FIND THEM BEFORE THEY FIND US
HMMMM, SOUNDS LIKE CLINTON ALL OVER AGAIN ONLY THE EXTREMELY WATERED DOWN VERSION.
KERRY MIGHT HAVE TO USE FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY, BUT HE WILL PROTEST IT SOON AFTER.
OH AND IF IT'S UP TO ME, PROTECT MY CHILDREN, SO I BELIEVE IN BEING PROACTIVE INSTEAD OF REACTIVE.
-
In this particular case:
It's kind of like climbing a mountain and not anticipating falling off. Sure you can you can successfully summit any mountain and not use a rope or protection. Probably do it mulitple times. However the one time you do fall the consequences are disasterous.
Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled. They are actively seeking to kill thousands more innocent civilians. The invasion of Iraq has decreased that effort. What its also done is remove a wildcard with WMD and is moving the unknown disposition of those weapons towards a known factor. This is progressing slowly and jury is still out as to whether or not they will be found. Your opinion is on the other side of that issue and your entitled to it.
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
"I AM GOING TO REPOST AND REPOST AGAIN MY POST UNTIL YOU RESPOND TO MY POST IN ACCUTE DETAIL BECAUSE MY POST WAS JUST THAT IMPORTANT!".
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal.
He didn't characterize your country as criminal. He characterized the actions of the guys at the helm as criminal. He obviously doesn't think you personally are a criminal. Nor your countrymates. Nor your country.
Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian.
Yes, but Saudi Arabia, for example, is not criminal. Starting to get it?
You are either with them or against them.
Yawn.....
We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire.
I'm not applying any value judgement whatsoever when I say that this is quite naive.
The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community.
Best interests of your country? Fine. But unilaterally taking action which you feel is in the best interests of the world's countries is damn presumptious. The Iraqi people aren't exactly thrilled with you. You should have let them decide/fight for themselves. But that's bs anyways... it was never about freeing Iraqis until it suddenly was.
We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
I can empathize.
There.... you had your tired post replied to. You won't like it, and you will post some more repetive BS in response. Then when no response to your response meets with your satisfaction you'll repost the response to the response to the response ad nausium.
wheeee.
-
QUOTE]lol, yeah... okay crumpp.[/QUOTE]
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
You don't have a more articulate respond but to bring it down his level?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, in fact it answers the argument that the US has decreased it's security by going into Iraq and that WMD was some sort of "excuse". In fact, I have not thought about the foiled attempts since the invasion. Been focused on other things in my job. I was pleased to see that trend when I examined it! It's a response to your statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues. You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it. Otherwise you would have seen thru Gscholz's claims of criminal conduct and at least waited til the discussion was complete to pass judgment. Maybe asked some questions to clarify peoples point of view. Instead you attacked every time a question was asked. Not even a bungled attempt at answering the question just an irritated outburst because a question was asked.
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
With that said. There is no point in continuing this.
Crumpp
-
Oh! I MISSED ONE!
Sorry mate... I guess when I respond in detail to this other post you'll finally be able to let go and move on...
holy smokes...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No why would I care that the largest military might on Earth violates international law that they used to fight to uphold and invades another country which just happens to be in one of the most economically important regions of the World? Naw, I have no problems with that at all.
Did you have a problem with Saddam controlling the area and it's resources and viloating internatinal law and UN mandates with impunity?
I know that the US removed a dictator who was a known threat. I know that no one else was going to do it and I feel that the result will be a better future for Iraq, the Middle East and the world.
Also, I know that the resourses of the area will not be taken by the US, only secured for the world's consumpion and benifit.
-
In this particular case:
It's kind of like climbing a mountain and not anticipating falling off. Sure you can you can successfully summit any mountain and not use a rope or protection. Probably do it mulitple times. However the one time you do fall the consequences are disasterous.
Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled. They are actively seeking to kill thousands more innocent civilians. The invasion of Iraq has decreased that effort. What its also done is remove a wildcard with WMD and is moving the unknown disposition of those weapons towards a known factor. This is progressing slowly and jury is still out as to whether or not they will be found. Your opinion is on the other side of that issue and your entitled to it.
What is completely wrong is to characterize this country as criminal. Islamic extremist are criminal. They make no differientiation between soldier, civilian, muslim, jew, or christian. You are either with them or against them. We are not in this to control the worlds oil or to gain an Empire. The US takes action which we feel is in the best interest of the United States AND the world community. We simply want them to stop attempting to kill masses of innocents for some obscure political point.
Crumpp
-
you.... are..... losing.... your.... mind.
-
come on Crumpp, please don't keep doing this.
-
Hell... mine is starting to slip just reading this.