pretty much proves they were downloaded since we invaded Iraq....
creating more terrorists than we are killing?????
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
DQR, the terrorists in Iraq are being NEGOTIATED with right now..splain dat one....
Glass, I worked in CENTCOM... past tense.
this is a war for hearts and minds, and we have already let the genie out of the bottle....
Bush has proven that he has no clue.....you think i am happy about this stuff??? it's making me sick.....
did you know Britain tried to colonise Afghanistan awhile back?????
didn't work out too good......and Britain was the best there's ever been at this game...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
i wish you wouldn't imply that i am weak on terorism DQR....
this is a guerrilla war....
the keys to success lie in each and every one of US.....this is a war for hearts and minds, and we have already let the genie out of the bottle....
Bush has proven that he has no clue.....you think i am happy about this stuff??? it's making me sick.....
did you know Britain tried to colonise Afghanistan awhile back?????
didn't work out too good......and Britain was the best there's ever been at this game...
Glass, YOU have proven by your own words that you are weak on terrorism. You have proven you are weak on national security. You have proven you are a fiscal socialist.
I have merely pointed these things out. I have implied nothing... Flat out told... I have.
it's the Sharpe's series by Bernard Cornwell.
gives a fictional account of a single British soldier's view of the Napoleonic wars. fiction with historical accuracy...
makes no judgement about the human condition but displays it pretty well...
there was some TV made from it, but the books are much better...
it's just proof that the war on terrorism is NOT working...
we needed cooperation, and didn't get it...
i guess it's everybody elses fault....
Bush isn't to blame..he's just the only one who did everything right --according to him...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
you might like these books DQR... i have read most of them, and intend to read all of them eventually...it's the Sharpe's series by Bernard Cornwell.
gives a fictional account of a single British soldier's view of the Napoleonic wars. fiction with historical accuracy...
makes no judgement about the human condition but displays it pretty well...there was some TV made from it, but the books are much better...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the news the last week seems to be one major bombing after another....it's just proof that the war on terrorism is NOT working...
we needed cooperation, and didn't get it...
i guess it's everybody elses fault....
Bush isn't to blame..he's just the only one who did everything right --according to him...
Sharpe, the main character is the ******* son of a whore, who, by acts of intelligence and bravery on the battefeilds earns a commission from the ranks of the enlisted. By using common sense he snatches dozens of victories from the mouthes of defeat and never get's the recognition he deserves...
pretty much real life in the military...throughout history....
until Aug 6th 1945...that really changed the way we have to fight war....
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the news the last week seems to be one major bombing after another....it's just proof that the war on terrorism is NOT working...
we needed cooperation, and didn't get it...
i guess it's everybody elses fault....
Bush isn't to blame..he's just the only one who did everything right --according to him...
I don't know how your thinking works, but here it goes. Bush and the world agreed that Sadam needed to be ousted. Were there terrorist ties to Iraq, without a doubt. Do some DD. Bombings, yes, why? well how about for the first time ever this country is going to have democratic elections. And not the kind that 100% of the peole vote for one sadistic murderous leader (laff). They (the terrorirst) are out of power and on the run, I would kill inocent civilians as well if I were them, But I have morals and believe in democracy. The war is working, the war has been working, and it will see this through. People are getting hurt, I dont like it anymore than the next person. But when you go into a country and help free it, people are going to get hurt. The world agreed that this needed to be done, then when the came, some backed down. They did not have the foresight to see somethign so important through. France for example, was laying 35 million dollars of fiber-optic cable through iraq ( I think against UN santions) before the war. So for them going there made no sense. They will not go there under any circumstances or any leadership. Also why make more problems helping to free muslim people from leaders who opress them? Why you might ask? well france wants to opress them, in fact they have taken away some of the religous rights of those people in their own country. This war is just, this war is right, and this war will be finished one way or another. This is not so much about attacking on person or people, its about changing the "mind-set" of groups of people. For the first time, in their lives they will have the freedom to make their own decisions. And I applaud our President in taking the steps to secure our countries long term saftey.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
By using common sense he snatches dozens of victories from the mouthes of defeat and never get's the recognition he deserves...pretty much real life in the military...throughout history....
It is funny that the one thing all commies have in common is their obscene reliance on pessimism.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
sorry, i didn't think of the need to ***** that one. his mom and dad weren't married...
Saddam was NOT a MUSLIM leader....
this one of the key pivot points that UNHINGES the PROPAGANDA campaign......
you see Saddam HATED the muslim clerics and was MUCH harder on them than we are prepared to be.....
he was actually an ally on that point....SICK, i know, but true....
now we are NEGOTIATING with Al-sadr....a terrorist Muslim cleric, still think we are winning????
furthermore the DEMOCRACIES that are being set up have no relationship to OUR democracies, other than in NAME....
being the optimist that i am, i hope they succeed, but watch to see how they function...it will not be what you are being told is going to happen..
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
futuresobjective....
there is one minor flaw to your argument ...Saddam was NOT a MUSLIM leader....
this one of the key pivot points that UNHINGES the PROPAGANDA campaign......
you see Saddam HATED the muslim clerics and was MUCH harder on them than we are prepared to be.....
he was actually an ally on that point....SICK, i know, but true....
now we are NEGOTIATING with Al-sadr....a terrorist Muslim cleric, still think we are winning????
furthermore the DEMOCRACIES that are being set up have no relationship to OUR democracies, other than in NAME....
being the optimist that i am, i hope they succeed, but watch to see how they function...it will not be what you are being told is going to happen..
And in addition, by bush constantly sayin, better there than here invites terror here.
The genie has been set loose but hope remains.
Every moment is creation so we can create diffrently if we choose to.
We need a plan to win in Iraq. That the first agenda in this war. and how best to win. What is it we want there?
Who are we to say what is best there?
How about we focus on America and self defend?
Saddam didnt do 911. Our main target should of been al qaeda. But instead we went to iraq and made the world a scarier place.
But, there is hope and dont be fooled that what we get here is our creatuion.
It dumfounds me that the bush admin dont get it - by us doing what we are we are creating more terrorists and fueling the fire
And again by saying better there then here invites them even more to come here. Psychology. i got 2 young ones - teel them what they can not do and they are determined to do it.
I disagree with your thinking but you are childish (remove think from your name).
I have a right to my opinion and because you are childish I no longer will respond to you. I can discuss with folks but when you got to personally attack, it tells me your thinking is negative, not mine.
I care about this nation and YES we are at war at the expense of America. I want my children to have a nation, a nation that is at peace not WAR.
Lif
if i refuse to bury my head in the sand, that makes me courageous.....
heck no, i'm not happy....only the devil himself is happy right now....
i am willing to try to sort out the hard questions.....
Kenneth Lay had access to the Clinton White House too.... and i have found some very disturbing facts underlying why ENRON really went bankrupt.....
it's sickening.....
am i whining about it? no....
do you think i am getting some perverse joy posting all this stuff?? no....
if you read thru my posts you will find that my goals have been to TRY to peirce the spin....
i am just doing what i a can....
which isn't much, i agree...
the internet is changing the world...
i suspect that without people logging on and raising these issues, we would have had a very different campaign here.....
last spring, i posted clearly that i thought it would be a mistake for Bush to campaign on terrorism... i stated why too....they didn't listen... they campaigned on terrorism......
now they are paying the price....Bush has this tendancy to go against the prevailing common sense view..not my fault.....
Bush failed to win the popular vote in 2000, he has behaved as though he won by a landslide.... big mistake..just reality, not my opinion...
quote:
Originally posted by thinkmoney:
Dont put words in my mouth. I find We went to war for the wrong reasons and now we as a nation have got to make the right choices.I disagree with your thinking but you are childish (remove think from your name).
I have a right to my opinion and because you are childish I no longer will respond to you. I can discuss with folks but when you got to personally attack, it tells me your thinking is negative, not mine.I care about this nation and YES we are at war at the expense of America. I want my children to have a nation, a nation that is at peace not WAR.
Lif
I am not childish.. I am witty beyond compare.
You are right, you have a right to your opinion... you even have the right to proclaim that opinion as loudly as you wish... but it doesn't mean you are right.
I am betting Kleenex sends you monthly thank you letters for your business.
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
LOL-thanks DQR, i needed a day off from arguing with glass
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
Popular vote means nothing in a republic.
This is a republic in which we live.
Bush has campaigned on terrorism because it is the most important threat to this nation at the moment.
He is the man for the job.
Kerry has a history of voting against what the millitary needs to be victorious. Kerry has a history of aiding any enemy this country has ever faced. Kerry has all the will power of a jellyfish.
DQR, you know as well as i do that the budget surplus, and the booming economy in the second Clinton Admin was direct result of the (what did they call it? i can't think of it, maybe a 'boro would help...LOL not....)
the end of the cold war...Dems and GOP's argued over who's bases would get closed so on and so-forth...neither party is responsible for the cuts in MIL spending..they both were....Cheney cut just as hard as Kerry and if Bush were Senator he would have too..the biggest arguments were over which states would lose the bases....and you know it...
Bush's campaign on terrorism was a BIG mistake...he went to NYC so we would remeber he was in CHARGE when we got hit....
funny how he managed to dodge the bullet on his CULPABILITY there too. cuz the intel community DID give him warnings...
911 commission covered that too....
Bush spent his energy looking to revive the cold war stuff anti-missile sytems more nukes, etc....... Dr. C. Rice is a Russia expert, not a mid-east expert...
POPULAR VOTE.....hmmmmm i don't really want to get too deep into this...because the more you know about that, the more you DON'T want to know.....i am a republican and i won't be changing because of Bush...
i was pretty ticked at Gore... he undermined public confidence pretty badly, and IMO started the bursting of the market bubble...
that said, he could have triggered a constitutional crisis that we would still be reeling from, had he so chosen...
it might happen this time, and i suspect Bush would be willing to do what Gore was not....
he has shown willingness to "do the right thing, no matter what"
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
DQR, you know as well as i do that the budget surplus, and the booming economy in the second Clinton Admin was direct result of the (what did they call it? i can't think of it, maybe a 'boro would help...LOL not....)
the end of the cold war...Dems and GOP's argued over who's bases would get closed so on and so-forth...neither party is responsible for the cuts in MIL spending..they both were....Cheney cut just as hard as Kerry and if Bush were Senator he would have too..the biggest arguments were over which states would lose the bases....and you know it...Bush's campaign on terrorism was a BIG mistake...he went to NYC so we would remeber he was in CHARGE when we got hit....
funny how he managed to dodge the bullet on his CULPABILITY there too. cuz the intel community DID give him warnings...
911 commission covered that too....Bush spent his energy looking to revive the cold war stuff anti-missile sytems more nukes, etc....... Dr. C. Rice is a Russia expert, not a mid-east expert...
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
is this enough? or do you want more?
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
[b]
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal
Discipline
In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated $3.2 trillion in 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, $2.0 trillion in Federal debt held by the public will be retired over the next 10 years—all of the debt that can responsibly be retired
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.htmlis this enough? or do you want more?[/B]
we were living in So Cal in 2000, 2001....
we were involved in a genomics project...
we were invited by the State to apply for a 100 million$ grant... cuz CA had several hundred million$ of surplus budget...
it disappeared OVERNIGHT...to ENRON et. al. cuz of the electricity crisis....
oh yeah the FAKE crisis that happened AFTER the White HOuse Energy Policy initiative....
HMMMMMM.... and CA had JUST passed a law requiring 5% of the cars available for sale to be ELECTRIC, and those cars are NICE....
i think the law was repealed bummer.....
i don't mind a good fight...
as a matter of fact i kind of like them...
but i pick and choose my battles...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
this is probly a good time to bring up a personal sperience.....we were living in So Cal in 2000, 2001....
we were involved in a genomics project...
we were invited by the State to apply for a 100 million$ grant... cuz CA had several hundred million$ of surplus budget...it disappeared OVERNIGHT...to ENRON et. al. cuz of the electricity crisis....
oh yeah the FAKE crisis that happened AFTER the White HOuse Energy Policy initiative....HMMMMMM.... and CA had JUST passed a law requiring 5% of the cars available for sale to be ELECTRIC, and those cars are NICE....
i think the law was repealed bummer.....
OooooooohhhhhhhhhK so now you are blaming Enron for Kalifornia's financial ills?
I would blame the commie legislative branch. I would blame a governor with all the mental agility of a pebble. I would blame the laws in place in that state which made ownership or operation of a business unprofitable and undesirable.
quote:
Originally posted by thinkmoney:
Dont put words in my mouth. I find We went to war for the wrong reasons and now we as a nation have got to make the right choices.I disagree with your thinking but you are childish (remove think from your name).
I have a right to my opinion and because you are childish I no longer will respond to you. I can discuss with folks but when you got to personally attack, it tells me your thinking is negative, not mine.I care about this nation and YES we are at war at the expense of America. I want my children to have a nation, a nation that is at peace not WAR.
Lif
It is funny, that you don't realize it is war that makes peace. I would like to think otherwise, but until nations such as iraq and the taliban's afganistan agree to a more peacfull way of life, it will have to be war (as a last option only as it was with iraq) that makes peace. I suppose you think there should not have been a civil war in our country? we should not have gone up against north Korea?, We should not have literally saved the world in the world war. It is that kind of thinking that will move us from world leaders to followers. This country gets its strength from doing what is right. And that is exactly what we are doing. The world agreed, but when it came down to it some were only prepared to let things continue on as they had been over the past 12 years. Looking over that, we did the right thing at the right time in the right place. Hundreds if not thousands swarmed into iraq to help keep twisted killers in power. To me it just means less to fight around the world and in our own country. The question is who do you have faith in to stop this here and now. I can not understand how some say Kerry? He goes with the wind, that is fact, it is provable, and it shows no leadership. If we are to remain the world power, we are headed in the right direction.
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
It is funny, that you don't realize it is war that makes peace. I would like to think otherwise, but until nations such as iraq and the taliban's afganistan agree to a more peacfull way of life, it will have to be war (as a last option only as it was with iraq) that makes peace. I suppose you think there should not have been a civil war in our country? we should not have gone up against north Korea?, We should not have literally saved the world in the world war. It is that kind of thinking that will move us from world leaders to followers. This country gets its strength from doing what is right. And that is exactly what we are doing. The world agreed, but when it came down to it some were only prepared to let things continue on as they had been over the past 12 years. Looking over that, we did the right thing at the right time in the right place. Hundreds if not thousands swarmed into iraq to help keep twisted killers in power. To me it just means less to fight around the world and in our own country. The question is who do you have faith in to stop this here and now. I can not understand how some say Kerry? He goes with the wind, that is fact, it is provable, and it shows no leadership. If we are to remain the world power, we are headed in the right direction.
The biggest problem with the civil war is the fact that the invaders won. They moved this nation from what could have been a co-operative of fifty to a coruptable one, in one fell swoop.
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
OooooooohhhhhhhhhK so now you are blaming Enron for Kalifornia's financial ills?
I would blame the commie legislative branch. I would blame a governor with all the mental agility of a pebble. I would blame the laws in place in that state which made ownership or operation of a business unprofitable and undesirable.
the sheep sheerers that de-regulated energy made that possible....
it was an ill-conceived plan....
the loophole were either part of a plan or just stupidity....
nonetheless we end up using MORE OIL today STILL......
and i still see Bush sending more jobs overseas..... if we don't UNITE on the cocnepts of how to get our jobs back here, the politicians will still continue to sell us out...
the Unions(which i don't like, but recognise their uses) should be leading the way here...are they all bought off too??????
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
The biggest problem with the civil war is the fact that the invaders won. They moved this nation from what could have been a co-operative of fifty to a coruptable one, in one fell swoop.
You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the sheep sheerers that de-regulated energy made that possible....
it was an ill-conceived plan....
the loophole were either part of a plan or just stupidity....
nonetheless we end up using MORE OIL today STILL......and i still see Bush sending more jobs overseas..... if we don't UNITE on the cocnepts of how to get our jobs back here, the politicians will still continue to sell us out...
the Unions(which i don't like, but recognise their uses) should be leading the way here...are they all bought off too??????
Yes de-regultion made it possible for the compqanies supplying Kalifornia with power to receive acceptable compensation for those electrons. It was up to those governmental officials to make the public aware of the instant and delayed reprucuscions of that decision... they did not. Look I am not defending Enron, I am hoping you grasp that it was the state government that made the bulk of the mistakes that lead to the supposed energy shortage.
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
you couldn't be FURTHER wrong....
there are, and always have been PLENTY of people ready to fight wars...
DQR and i both have served....
the question is really about cost-benfit analysis...
Iraq is going to cost US big if we don't fixit ind do so QUICK.....
a commander-in-cheif or ANY leader that refuses to recognise his/her mistakes is a guarantee of FAILURE....
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
You would not be sitting here today if men had not been willing to step up to the plate. Nobody wants to fight a war. However unfortunate it may be, it is something that must be done in situations.
You are right, I would not be sitting here today if the North had not invaded the South. Nor would you. Many things would be different. The federalists were and are still the plague that might very well destroy what could have been the longest lived of all societies on this pebble we call a planet.
quote:
Originally posted by thinkmoney:
we are at war but has war been declared on IRAQ???????????
quote:
Originally posted by thinkmoney:
there are various doctrines and some say war makes the peace. I will not dispute theoritally that premise. My contention is that the IRAQ war in not justifiable. I did support the afghanistan war because it is al qaeda that attacked us. You have to choose your battles. As with kids, there are some things I will let them have their way, some I will compromise and some no negotiation.
But how can you not support a war that freed a country from oppression? These people are free, because of the steps our country took. WMD's, none found... plans to make them again? yes... even Kerry has said that. Terrorirsts, yes, he has ties to them. I want to say al sidar (spelling?), but I am not sure of the name. Don't forget that this is a man that raped, and killed hundreds and thousands of his own people. His sons, for example were murderers as well. One of them went as far as raping any woman he wanted. One story is, he was on an elevator with his body gaurds, he had them beat the heck out of the ladies husband and then took her back to his house and raped her. How can people like that be allowed to stay in power? They can't be. As far as the WMD's go, he did want to start manufacturing them again, the world agrees on this. And yes Kerry does as well. But now that it will help his polls he will say otherwise. This war is unfortunate I agree, but it is something that had to be done after 12 years of un sanctions that he did not take seriously. After 12 years of that do you really think for one second that another 1 year or another 30 would have helped? Nobody does. But when it came down to it there were only a few that stepped up to the plate. This is why I support Bush. This is why Kerry as a joke. This is why I support this war. This is something that had to be done, and now that it is done, we are allowing this countries own people to try and create a government. We are there becuse they ask us to be there (Bush has said if they asked us to leave we would get out as fast as possible). Their current leadership went to the un asking for help, and kerry made a joke out of it. This is a country that needs the help of the world, and along others we stepped up to the plate. This war was the right thing to do. This war needed to be done, and Bush is treating is as it should be treated.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
DQR, the market for electricity in Kali was anyhting but fair..
it was such a slimy deal that i can't even believe you would suggest that....LOL
still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
THIS MESSAGE EDITED BY GLASSMAN...
TO INCLUDE THE WARNING THAT IT CONTAINS SARASTIC STATEMENTS....
WAY OVER THE EDGE TO MAKE A POINT...
WE (AMERICANS IN GENERAL)DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CULTURES OF THE MID-EAST...IT IS NOT INTNEDED TO BE RACIST OR DEROGATORY TO THOSE PEOPLES
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by glassman:
[b]DQR, the market for electricity in Kali was anyhting but fair..
it was such a slimy deal that i can't even believe you would suggest that....LOL
[/B][/QUOTE]
Add an "a" to squbling
water, basic food, electricity......
no, i don't want gov. health care, but guess what, it's inevitable....does that make me happy? NO, i would rather we had a doctor on EVERY block....hey neighbor, i'm sick can ya help me out??LOL
it's a pain trying to solve the worlds problems in two hours ain't it????LOL
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
twisting words, for what they are meant to mean. You understood that and it hurts me that somebody can sit there and say something that you have just said. That country was deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars that it had earned. Where did that money go? right into sadams pocket. The funny thing is one month after that war ended we had their oil production to 100% or just near it of where it was when sadam was in control, and that is with people trying to disrupt it. where it is at now I have no clue.
The fact that you say these people needed to be treated like that, implies your lack of morals. Granted somebody can feel like that, but it is not right in any way to say that people need to be opressed and uneducated. The best thing one can do for anyone else is allow them to be in control of their own life.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
twisting words, for what they are meant to mean. You understood that and it hurts me that somebody can sit there and say something that you have just said. That country was deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars that it had earned. Where did that money go? right into sadams pocket. The funny thing is one month after that war ended we had their oil production to 100% or just near it of where it was when sadam was in control, and that is with people trying to disrupt it. where it is at now I have no clue.
The fact that you say these people needed to be treated like that, implies your lack of morals. Granted somebody can feel like that, but it is not right in any way to say that people need to be opressed and uneducated. The best thing one can do for anyone else is allow them to be in control of their own life.
recognising reality for what it IS, does not imply a lack of morals....
morals have nothing to do with this...
if you still think we went to war for MORAL reasons, i can't help you see the TRUTH....
bombing people into democracy doesn't work....
if Bush had presented the Iraq war to US as a humanitarian war when he SOLD it to US we would have been drawing up IMPEACHMENT papers..be real...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
wow Saddam is one heckof a MAN, raped hundreds of thousands....still buying that Propaganda??
he ran Iraq like Iraq NEEDED to be run, don't kid yourself, what we are seeing now is the result of anarchy and i personally don't beleive most americans have the stomach to run iraq like it requires....
You have just stated the fact that you have racism at your core. How can anyone believe in your ability to support the morality that we all hold dear?
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
You have just stated the fact that you have racism at your core. How can anyone believe in your ability to support the morality that we all hold dear?
If Bush had come to US and the UN and said, i think the world will be better off without Saddam Hussein, so i am initiating operation SHOCK and AWE.....
we would not be there....if you say this is a good reason now, you are the ones that are being IMMORAL, not ME
seems to me that the point is MADE.....
how are the women in Afghanistan going to vote???
i don't know YET, but what i hear is that they are asking their family leaders who they must vote for.....
maybe a miracle will happen in the ballot booth...or do they have booths? do they get privacy when they vote??? anybody know??? i don't.....
the views that i have represented above....
about governing iraq being a nightmare? those SAME views were expressed by George H W Bush in his book years before his son took office...they aren't exclusively my PERSONAL views......
i don't hear any response the question of whether or not Bush could have gained authority to invade Iraq to depose Saddam based on what we know today...except from Bush HIMSELF.....and i do not agree that it would still have been right.....
One other note. Thank you Jimmy Carter for not defending an ally during your presidency (the Shaw of Iran). Now we have to deal with Iran as a haven for terrorists, and a nuclear threat to our allies.
His inaction then has lead to a threat that could have prevented. May I have that Nobel Peace Prize back, please.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
lick my wounds huh?seems to me that the point is MADE.....
how are the women in Afghanistan going to vote???
i don't know YET, but what i hear is that they are asking their family leaders who they must vote for.....
maybe a miracle will happen in the ballot booth...or do they have booths? do they get privacy when they vote??? anybody know??? i don't.....
the views that i have represented above....
about governing iraq being a nightmare? those SAME views were expressed by George H W Bush in his book years before his son took office...they aren't exclusively my PERSONAL views......i don't hear any response the question of whether or not Bush could have gained authority to invade Iraq to depose Saddam based on what we know today...except from Bush HIMSELF.....and i do not agree that it would still have been right.....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
How many years was it before women could vote in American? How many years before black men could vote in America? This is their first election, and I think 40% of the voters are women. Our countries first elections were not at any better than these might be. However the fact is that they are voting. People who try to make the point you just made vex me. You seem to want things without doing the work invloved to get them. Things are hard and are tough, that is the point. That being said thinkgs in afganistain and Iraq are going very well (looking at the larger picture and realizing that there is work to be done and it will not be easy)
As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President Bush went to the un, pushed for them to go into the country... and they did. They did this because Bush pushed for it. Then the time came to make a decision. The president pushed for the UN to get involved, so the world as a whole would do what they said they would. Guess what? Some of them did not want to do what they agreed they would do shortly before. You sound like if the kid who gets his lunch money taken everyday, and wont do anything about it. Instead he just gives up the money before even being pressed for it. There was a threat, the un agreed to do something about it, and then backed off. Why? Certain countries did not want to risk the loss of troops and more importantly they did not want to invest money in a country other than their own. Shortsightedness in my opinion. The bottom line is By our President doing what he did, with the help of the english, and about 30-40 other countries, he validified the un as an actual force rather than just a meeting of countries that will not take any action unless it is immediately self serving. If the un wont back up what it says it will do... what is the point? President Bush took control (as a good leader should) and backed up those words. This is why America is a nation that leads others instead of being a follower. We are a world power (the world power in my opinion) and should act accordingly. People fail to see the facts. The un said it would do something and failed to do so, because of the veto power of france and germany. (Two contries by the way who were making money of of that sadistic leader) We once again took charge, (as America can only be counted on to do so) and did what was universaly agreed had to be done!
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
I offer somethign esle, however far fetched it may be... These killers (terrorists) claim to blindly follow their religion... and that is what (to them, however twisted it may be) allows them to commit these acts... well maybe they want freedom, and maybe they want peace, that might have been their motive all along. ...
Quran (9:11) --For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
:::::::::::::::::
just a thought to throw out there...
boy, this is gonna be a heartbreaker for you...those words are NOT in the KORAN period....
more propaganda.....
I AM SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK HERE....
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: I AM NOT A KERRY SUPPORTER, I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU FIND THE TRUTH......
look it up....it ain't there.
we have been lied to BIG TIME
As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President
Sadam DID allow US in(just before we bombed them) and we still found nothing....the sanctions worked..
i have provided much of this data here already .....
furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe"....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
boy, this is gonna be a heartbreaker for you...those words are NOT in the KORAN period....<-- Agreed... I understand that they ar not in the Koran (and pardon my spelling on prior versions)
I AM SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK HERE....
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: I AM NOT A KERRY SUPPORTER, I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU FIND THE TRUTH......
look it up....it ain't there.
we have been lied to BIG TIME
[b]
As far as Bush having authority to go into Iraq. He did have the authority. The last sanction placed by the un stated that there would be grave consequences (wording might not be exact) if here did not cooperate. Guess what... He did not cooperate. Still President
Sadam DID allow US in(just before we bombed them) and we still found nothing....the sanctions worked..
i have provided much of this data here already .....furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe"....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).][/B]
Not only did we have reasons to go in because we thought there were in fact WMD's, but more to the point he wanted to start producing them again. Both are valid reasons for going in , and both are not needed. The first was the more imediate reason for going in, not the only. All that said and done, now after the fact hind sight is 20/20 (or closer to is, I dont think we will ever know the exact things we would like to), I am glad to hear you don't support Kerry, thanks for bringing a smile to my face. I agree, the truth is harder to find (in this situation) than we would like it to be. I don't think that has much to do with President Bush, I think it has more to do with all the current things going on and how they are all so intertwined. It is hard to see anything clearly nowdays, and I suspect it will be unless we all have a 100% accurate view of each nation their ideas and beliefs...
again sorry about that Koran post, I could not believe what I was reading and posted it before doing some more dd on it. I would have eventually found out, but thanks for stopping that here and now...
furthermore "grave consequences" is not the same thing as Operation Shock and Awe"....
that is a matter of opinion, what else is there one can do to a country aside from sanction it from here to eternity... the shock and... was not the grave consequences, it was part of them. What would you take grave consequences as? putting sadam in the corner with a dunce hat on? thats been done for the past several years... something needed to happen, it was stated that it would, and it did. But I guess it all comes down to opinion... whatever happens in the future I only hope for stability and courage to back up statements that were said or written.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 08, 2004).]
there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports....
the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....
the UN did it's job...they disarmed Saddam...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
that Koran thing is just the tip of the iceburg tho...
this is why i am spending so much time on the subject.....
read the New American Century web-site....there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports....
the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....the UN did it's job...they disarmed Saddam...
the un disarmed sadam, but they did not stop him from having the ability to produce them at the drop of a dime... that is the new reality of the problem. thats what the un was to prevent, and they did not want to back it up....
the CIA had quite a bit of intel on Al-queda,
they even had intel that Osama was attempting to build radio-controlled airplanes (not models.. full-size) to attack the Prez in Italy in July of '01......
yeah , there is a lot of work to be done, and Iraq was simply not the place to start, cuz now we are fighting on one more front that we didn't need to fight on at the same time as the rest...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
President Bush Holds Press Conference
Press Conference by the President
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
President's Remarks
view
listen
4:00 P.M. EST
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
so, Bush is trustworthy and singleminded???
by the way, Al-queda as of today is now listed as Israel's TOP priority...hmmmmmm
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 16, 2002
President Discusses Iraq, the Economy and Homeland Security
Remarks by the President to the Press Pool
Crawford Community Center
Crawford, Texas
11:55 A.M. CDT
Q Mr. President, not all Republicans seem sold on your intention to deal with dictators who gas their own people. What are you going to do to make that case more persuasively? Are you consulting with them? And, what is your obligation of getting approval, not just consultation, with Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.
We'll continue to consult. Listen, it's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.
even Republicans balked until he presented his NEW intel.....
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 7, 2002
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping the Peace
Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity
Camp David, Maryland
3:51 P.M. EDT
Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear -- new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?
THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.
this intel was presented as a report prepared that morning....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
that Koran thing is just the tip of the iceburg tho...
this is why i am spending so much time on the subject.....
read the New American Century web-site....there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports....
the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....the UN did it's job...they disarmed Saddam...
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
8:01 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
---------------------------------------
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people
-------------------------------------------------
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
--------------------------------------------
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
Bush was plainly gambling his reputation here......he lost.....
the intel community was NOT 100% sure like he was...there were plenty of people who disagreed with the President.....
that isn't flip-flopping......
the war is there, we can't change that.
we have a job to do....
but the facts are the facts. this admin has mis-judged over and over again...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
consider this...
Saddam complied with UN sanctions...
the UN people had a good thing going....
when they all realised how much money they were making they decided to allow the stiuation to remain "stable".....
who wasn't getting the "grease"??????
that's not a very good reason to start a shooting war, it's a good reason to hold summit meeting.......
none of this makes any sense really....
unless a war became nessecary for other reasons......
Bush actually says NO DOUBT is left by the intel.......
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
it falls upon me once again to make excuses for Sadam...i don't like doing this, but he is a human...a nasty one no doubt, but still human....consider this...
Saddam complied with UN sanctions...
the UN people had a good thing going....
when they all realised how much money they were making they decided to allow the stiuation to remain "stable".....
who wasn't getting the "grease"??????
that's not a very good reason to start a shooting war, it's a good reason to hold summit meeting.......
none of this makes any sense really....
unless a war became nessecary for other reasons......Bush actually says NO DOUBT is left by the intel.......
[b]Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.[/B]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Well, it looks like you and I disagree on this. Sadam may not have had any weapons on hand. Nobody really knows. There was some time for him to move them out (however unlikely that may be). The point is he kept the ability to make the weapons. How have sanctions worked when as soon as they may be lifted (wich he was trying ot get done) they could be reproduced almost immediately? so in one sense (for the physical weapons) the resolutions did work. On the other hand (when it comes to the fact that he had the ability to make weapons and wanted to, from what I see and hear is very much agreed on) the resolutions did not work, cause as soon as it would have been all said and done, he still had the capacity to make them. Now ask the question, how can a man who gassed his own people, invaded the country next door to his, and has proven he has no respect for any form of life be left at a point where 12-14 years of resolutions changed nothing about that fact that he wanted weapons, was seeking them, and would have produced them again. There comes a point when you have to realize that this man was a continuing threat, and it was time to deal with him. The threat of sadam changed after 9/11. The is no doubt about it, the way every country looks at the world had to change. The threat is not only who has weaponns, but who has the ability, who has the want, and who has the materials. That is just the new reality of how threats must be looked at, and dealt with.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 11, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
People in Iraq can either rely on other people to stabalize their country or start and soing for themselves for teh first time ever. Everyone agrees that things are not perfect over there. How can anyone say it is. But you can either help a country, gain their own sense of freedom, or hand it to them on a silver platter. The reality of it is if we sent thousands more troops over there nothing would be gained. These people have to take their future in their own hands, and increasingly that has been happening. In time, this method will work, IMVHO. People over there (I hope) are starting to realize that their neighbors who are fighting against freedom are killing their own people. In time they will be hated by the very people that support them now.
well futures objective, i sense you are beginnig to get a faint glimmer of understanding here.....
yes, it is VERY curious that any of those idiots in Iraq would bother to fight US right now....
if you read thru my old posts, months ago, you would find me addressing that point...
the fighting only serves the WAR OF TERROR....
and quite frankly the war of terror has some very disturbing facts........
for instance, the longer they fight, the longer we stay in Iraq.....maybe FOREVER??????????
Sun Tzu lives.....
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him
regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
there are lots of possibilities BUT,
you have two basic choices here....
the war in Iraq has gone more or less according to plan, which means we have invited the insurgency/terrorists-----
or it has been very badly mis-managed, in which case Bush chose to listen to the wrong advisors (at best).....
remember Abu Graihb???
isn't that the trigger that set off the violent insurgency???
threw gasoline on the embers, so to speak.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 11, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
remember Abu Graihb???
isn't that the trigger that set off the violent insurgency???
threw gasoline on the embers, so to speak.....[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 11, 2004).]
Didn't exactly earn brownie points with the U.N. on that one.
where else can we be useless....i know lets pay members of hamas to work for us....
thanks tax dollars.
JERUSALEM A senior U.N. official in the Middle East has acknowledged that members of the Hamas terror group are working for his relief agency, touching off outrage in Israel.
"I am sure that there are Hamas members on the [U.N. Relief and Works Agency] payroll," said the agency's chief, Peter Hansen.
"And I don't see that as a crime," Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
The UNRWA is the humanitarian organization created specifically to aid Palestinian refugees.
Israel is demanding that the United Nations investigate Hansen's statements, and Canada has asked that his comments be clarified.
Hansen also charged that Israel was lying about another issue whether Gaza terrorists used a U.N. ambulance to transport homemade rockets.
On Friday, Israeli officials released a videotape showing what it said were militants transferring a Qassam rocket into an ambulance marked "U.N."
The United Nations, "which is supposed to keep the peace, is cynically used by murderers to transport Qassam rockets in U.N. vehicles," Israel's U.N. Ambassador, Dan Gillerman, told Israeli radio.
Yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered an investigation into the charges, his office said.
seriously, Abhu Ghraib is weird.....
more sillinness....
MAYBE
when they realised there were no WMD to parade in front of the UN and put on display on the White House Lawn, they realised we had better give everybody a reason to elevate the emotions...so they decided to humiliate a bunch of Iraqis so that the insurgency would speed up......
after all we ignored the ammo dumps in our rush to protect the oil feilds, and it still took them months to figure out that they had all the small arms they needed to start a small war......
i personally have no doubts that the situation was under the control of some very good propagandists...