Let's all give her a big hurray for protesting this awful war at the moral President Bushes driveway in Texas. I wonder if he will have the guts to come out and talk to her.
Posted by HILANDER on :
Just a question. Why was it OK for Clinton to go into Yugoslavia without the worlds support, but it is not OK for Bush to do it?
Posted by Nanny on :
So you think it is ok for Bush to keep this war going as long as he can, even though he does not go to battle for the troops as far as getting proper equipment for them to carry out the war. Let's all go on a 5 week vacation and forget it all. How many weeks does this make for the year 2005 already that this moral President has vacationed??
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Highlander, we may have to go back to war, momo might be making a move on the micros, gaurd your stars if we have to engage.
Others are aware sumpin might be up, nuff said.
Posted by HILANDER on :
I was there, I had Killer gear. You name it, my platoon had it. And we were guard. Don't get me wrong, I have some serious problems with Bush and his whole cabinet. Bush does definitely prove ya don't have to be smart to get into Yale. LOL And Rumsfeld, well he just needs to pull his lip over his head.....and swallow.
Posted by bdgee on :
Highlander, I think you assume and foster a bit of intentional misinformation in your statement that, "Clinton [went] into Yugoslavia without the worlds support." He went in without the support of Russia, but otherwise, there was little to no opposition and a lot of support. Moreover, the question is not that Bush went into Iraq without world support (which he certainly did...indeed, over the overwhelming objection of the world at large), but that he did so under false pretenses. When Clinton sent our forces into Yugoslavia, ethey actually went to achieve a goal of correcting a real and true violation of world peace and a danget to the world. In iraq all we found was proof that Bush invaded a country under false pretenses. Lets give Nanny's exerciseof the 1st amendment to the constitution the respect her concern deserves rather than trying to politically misdirect it into an attack on Clinton.
Posted by Ramius on :
Let's not give her a big hurray and tell her to go home because she's wasting her time. Do "protestors" think we should just pack up and leave? At the point it doesn't matter exactly how or why we are there. The fact is we are there and can't leave yet, so protesting is a waste of time.
Posted by tuck on :
Well without getting all in dept with this. Remember, her son died so that she could be able to do exactly what she is doing.
Posted by hlniv on :
Man, what some people will believe...
This war is not about freedom. It's not about establishing an Iraq democracy. It's not about WMD's. It's not about 9/11. It's not about terrorists.
It's all about oil and war profiteering. War is big business. Oil is big business. This war is about the elite in this country and their need to preserve their own selfish ways of life. Sending the poor and misinformed to battle for them and lying to their faces when asked about why.
Every public justification for this war has been proven to be lie. WMD's - none. Terrorism - there are more terrorists now then before 9/11, we've made it worse. Democracy - Do you actually think the people of Iraq have a choice in their new "democracy"? Isn't that supposed to be the point?
It's all bull****. Go look up PNAC - Project for a New American Centruy. There's your war. It was decided 10 years ago. This war has been planned ever since we pulled out of the gulf in the early nineties.
As far as Cindy Sheehan goes. She's a hero for standing up to these *******s. For fighting her own battle and for doing it in the name of her soon. May God be with her...
Posted by Nanny on :
Thank you so much for telling the truth about this Iraq War. But the Bush supporters just do not get the picture. They enjoy seeing his smirkey grin when he tells his lies on T.V. Nanny
Posted by bdgee on :
It was to divert attention from a stolen election and that's the sum of it all.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bdgee: [QB] It was to divert attention from a stolen election and that's the sum of it all.
-------------------------------------------------
You're just jealous because the Republicans learned how to steal an election better than the democrats.....
After all, you guys tought us well!
Thankyou
We stole the SENATE, CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENCY
Hell we even managed to throw an incumbent democrat GOV. outa office in of all places CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!
You guys have trouble trying to throw an election for dog catcher anymore!!!!!
Face the the facts JACK
NOBODY CAN STAND THE SIGHT OF YOU NITT WITTS ANYMORE! POLITICALY!
O almost forgot, Good Morning all, have a good day........See I'm a polite Republican operative!
Posted by ohdagagain on :
Have any of you been to Iraq? Have any of you seen what good we are doing over there? Have any of you talked with an Iraqi? I have, they do not feel it is about oil. Nanny, I am assuming you are a female, can you fathem living the way the women use to live?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ohdagagain: [QB] Have any of you been to Iraq? Have any of you seen what good we are doing over there? Have any of you talked with an Iraqi? I have, they do not feel it is about oil. Nanny, I am assuming you are a female, can you fathem living the way the women use to live?
-------------------------------------------------
You can forget common sense with this bunch, They are to rabidly libral!
Hey, I'm getting good at this spin thing!
Been learning from some experts around here.
Posted by bdgee on :
Have you? Without your republican blinders? Lets talk about who gets to define "good" and what that is? What good are we doing? How many have we killed or caused to be killed every day? How many babies go hungry because we destroyed the infrastructure that brings food and shelter...that provides jobs so that families have food and shelter. Did you or any other republican apologist for this disgraceful cowardly invasion designed to cover up political atrocities here ever actually ask the people of Iraq what they thought was good or what they wanted or needed? Hell no you didn't. You simply announced they would be pleased or else...so pleased they would line the streets with rose petals and kiss the feet of the invading troops. Define good that isn't some glorified republican spin.
Posted by glassman on :
Iran was once a middle eastern country that was adopting western values....
they aren't any more, and Iraq will look just like them... it's a joke to say we freed Iraq from oppression...
the real oppression over there is just starting..and we opened the door for it...
i can't believe all the BS people spread around about "liberating" Iraq...
Sadam was not a good guy, but he was NON-religious...pretty soon? the Islamic fundamentalists will be running Iraq..... UNLESS we stay permanently, and we will always be fighting and taking casualties while we do......
the people who decided to adopt this plan were either ignoring history, or believed they were immune from the lessons of history...
Posted by glassman on :
i notice Art stopped telling me that the insurgency is dying..... heh....
Posted by bdgee on :
lol
Maybe he's off on vacation or a storm blew down the power lines.
Posted by BuyTex on :
when you find yourself in a hole...
stop digging?
Posted by glassman on :
no he was plain wrong, just like the current admin has been about amost everything they've done...
we are still vulnerable, and we wasted 200 billion$ plus and who knows how many lives so we could put iraq oil back on the market, at TWICE the price no less....
do people like being screwed?
sheeshh... stealing elections? all the elections proved is how irrational people can be when they are nervous and scared....
Iran is gonna have a new ally......
the "insurgents" are killing non-fundamentalists that try to sign up for police and army jobs so they can fill the jobs with their own "infiltrators"..it's been going on for over a year now, and as soon as we train them all? then we'll have to fight them too...
Posted by BuyTex on :
me?
I would soldier.
but
do NOT wannnabe a cop
in a foreign land
w/o language training
w/o cultural empahthy
with gear running short
...to me?
same ol, same ol--if you want the ducks to line up? get *your* ducks in order...
eg, imagine "they" are over here. How much cooperation might there be if "they" started dragging folks outta houses in the middle of the night?
Love our troops, but *dammm* they get asked to execute bullchit operations
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, and if you go back to Bush's first campaign with Gore? Remember when Republicans demanded that Clinton set an "exit strategy" for American troops to leave the Balkans? Well, the U.S. occupation of Iraq looks open-ended. we CANNOT leave or terroism will be even worse...
Bush pledged to avoid nation building during a debate with Gore at Wake Forest , Oct, 2000. It was the second debate i think... Bush talked about the mission in Somalia.... begun by his father, Bush the First... we know how that ended up don't we????
deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers in Mogadishu "The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price," Bush continued. "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
Bush declared that it was up to those who live in the liberated lands to rebuild them, and the Iraqi's are going to be fundamentialists JUST LIKE the iranians...
imo? they have put US in an impossible position...
Posted by bdgee on :
You say, "imo? they have put US in an impossible position..."
They, Glss...., meaning the Administration, of course, not the Iraqies. The Iraqies were granted NO option (their opinion was never asked or considered). Bush lied about leaving the governance of foreign lands to the people of those lands, but he lies incessantly about any and everything. (Don't you remember him stating he would veto any bill coming from congress to establish a homland security department, then claiming it was his idea?)
Is this the never ending war against the unspecified and secretive Enemy of Big Brother, foretold in "1984", which allows the government to dispense with the Constitution and assume absolute control of the personal and professional lives of the citizens, who then are required to obey absaolutely and to chance no thought of questioning the War or the government?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Good spin guys!!!!!
Hey, we stole all these elections fair and square!!
As far as Iraq War goes, well, it's a mess......
Did anybody really expect anything differant? Not.
Fact is, we're in a War that began, as far as I can tell, that began before Moses..
We have to Win the damn thing, anyway we can..
This thing will wind up this time using Atomic weapons...
People just don't get it..
The Ruskies are coming, the Muslims in the former Soviet Union have nukes!
Soooooooo, ya can pontificate till the cows come home...
But it gonna change chit..
This is a shooting War folks, and a shooting there is going to be..As in mushroom clouds
Have a happy day.!
Posted by BuyTex on :
where the mushroom *really* lurks?
Korea
talk about a problem...
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuyTex: [QB] where the mushroom *really* lurks?
Korea
talk about a problem..
-------------------------------------------------
Yep, there to!
Man, the guys that plan these atomic strikes have a target rich enviornment...
It really is begining to look like Dr. Strangelove shaping up.
Man, reality mimicking fiction!
Tex please don't discount the lunitics in the former Soviet Union, they "really" do want to light off the candle...
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, Korea! And I remember that virtually the whole world told the shrubery that was the case, NOT Iraq. The shrubery only listens to Fat Rush the Doper and his ilk.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
As a long time supporter of W and company, I will say this................
It's begining to look like the whole bunch of um have they're collective head up they're arse!
The democrats are even worse!
Now,,,, that otta drop a jaw er two!
Posted by BuyTex on :
We need a new party--the Marketarians...
Our platform has one plank: a clean market!
Posted by bdgee on :
Sadly, Tex, then you'd have pundits "defining" a clean market, so that the insiders could manipulate the thing through their control of media. Something like what is going on now, where the only media people that ever get to ask a question are the ones that submit to being used and whose questions are really just cheer leading for the Party.
All the media types that participated in publishing the pictures of the flag draped coffins aboard the plane have been fired.
Posted by BuyTex on :
bdgee, disagree: nothing to define--either the regs are enforced or they're not.
eg, gvrp gets shut down, yet gckle and bcit get forced covers.
gillions of others, but you get the point.
what we have now? totally arbitrary, selective oligarchy...
Posted by bdgee on :
I agree that what we have is "totally arbitrary and selective". They do it by "defining" to suit the situation and the fact that truth is a moving target of what is and isn't acceptable or allowable is obscured by pumping the news with multitudes of feignts. In the end, they do whatever they want, which changes according to whom they feel indebted or wish to feel indebted to them.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101: As a long time supporter of W and company, I will say this................
It's begining to look like the whole bunch of um have they're collective head up they're arse!
The democrats are even worse!
Now,,,, that otta drop a jaw er two!
i agree... to part of what you are saying anyway... ..i've never been a true supporter of W but i voted AGAINST Gore, and i voted AGAINST W, this past election...seems i don't vote FOR anybody anymore, not since i voted FOR DOLE any way....
i said at the election that i don't like Kerry, but if we don't start firing these creeps every four years? they'll just keep giving us the sand in the vaseline...
some people need to go to jail.... a whole bunch of 'em....
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
I see a looming massive loss of equity coming with the new bankruptcy laws.
People are already scrambling to file before the deadlines this fall.
Others are leveraging they're home equity to dangerous highs..
The Wall Street Bankers are capitalizing on fear and greed...Like thats sumpin new , eh?
Our collective credit card debt, is a killer, just waiting to pounce..
THE WRONG PEOPLE HAVE TO MUCH EASY CREDIT!! PERIOD!
Posted by bdgee on :
I do agree that there is ".....TOO MUCH EASY CREDIT!!", Dust.......
The chance to be debt free is the closest most will ever be to rich and the only giant step to debt free for most of them is paying off credit card ballances. The next best step is to get over the idea you "must" have have a new car every couple of years. Pay off the old rattle trap and pay a mechanic $500 to "refurbish" the clunker. New tires and such when it needs them and drive payment free for three or four more years. Do those two things and while the neighbors are feeling sorry for you because you are driving that old car, drive it to the beach or mountains with the savings of several hundred a month you aren't paying on credit cards and car payments.
Posted by bdgee on :
Meanwhile, back to the subject of this thread.....
If I had the time (and maybe the funds to pay the price per gallon for gas) I might just hop in the old buggy and drive on back down to Crawford (back because pre-carpet baggers buying land with money collected via sales tax in Arlington, Crawford's one of the old family places, where, for generations, relatives ran the grocery that CNN says was never there) and shake that woman's hand. Having the courage to speak up and not speak the Party line is truely heroic.
Posted by ohdagagain on :
An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan From the Proud Father of a U.S. Marine By Brantley Smith Posted On August 17, 2005
Ms. Sheehan,
By your actions over the past two weeks it is clear that you missed an important aspect of Civics 101: With rights come responsibilities. You certainly have the right to voice your opinion against the war in Iraq and the President's policies. You even have the right to camp outside the President's home in Crawford and demand he meet with you. Your status as a mother who has lost a child in the war also gives your words and actions a credibility and a larger audience than otherwise would be the case. Now that your supporters have given you a broad forum from which to be heard, making you a national figure, its time you considered your responsibilities to all of us. I have a daughter set to deploy to Fallujah in two weeks and I have a serious concern with how your irresponsible and short sighted actions might impact on her. She is, after all, a volunteer, like your son, and she is going in harm's way because she believes it is her responsibility to protect your rights and freedoms.
Well meaning people like you always seem to forget the law of unintended consequences and in your vanity and arrogant self-righteousness never bother to think through what it is you are trying to do versus what you may actually accomplish. I am here to inform you, Ma'am, that you will not change the policy of our government by sitting outside Crawford making a spectacle of yourself in the name of your rights to free speech; what you will do is provide more propaganda for our enemies and cost the lives of even more brave and selfless American warriors. How long do you think it will be before you become a star on Al Jazeera? For all I know, it may have already happened. One thing is certain, though, and that is that your actions and words will further embolden a ruthless and evil enemy and more American blood will be shed and some of it will be on your hands. I pray that my daughter will not be one of them. If she is, then I will hold you and those like you partly responsible. Yes, my daughter's fate will depend mostly on her own courageous decision to serve, but only the most naive among us can deny the impact our own words and actions here in America have in a world grown smaller by the revolution in communications technology.
I am sure you believe that you are serving some great cause by putting our servicemen and women in more danger and that you can, by your irresponsible exercise of free speech, help end a policy you disagree with. Your emotion may be compelling but the reality is that you will not set in motion any process that will change or undo what has been done. The war will go on because to end it now would dishonor the sacrifice of all of our fellow countrymen who have died in the cause of fighting terrorism. Rational Americans will not allow that. Too much is at stake. Unfortunately, shallow and irrational ones, such as yourself, will continue to put the lives of our sons and daughters in danger by aiding and abetting an enemy who sees propagandizing in the mass media as its main weapon in a war it could otherwise not win standing on its own wretched and evil justification of radical Islam, or by force of arms. You, Ma'am, have joined forces with an evil you neither understand nor apparently have tried to comprehend. You direct your anger toward our country while the enemy plots to kill and maim the innocent. You make a mockery of responsible free speech while thousands of young men and women fight desperately to preserve your safety. Instead of honoring your son's sacrifice you are inspired to comfort an evil enemy.
You clearly do not understand the challenge we face as a nation and have not tried to put it in historical perspective. It is a sad fact that it is those of your thinking that have led us to where we are today. Decades of appeasement to these haters of everything we hold dear has cost thousands of American lives from Beirut to New York and in dozens of other forgotten places. Remember Lockerbie? The Achille Lauro? The USS Cole? We as a people were dragged into this war, much like December 7th, 1941, and we must fight and win it wherever the enemy hides and against whomever would support him. Make no mistake about Iraq. It is both a legitimate and crucial campaign in this much larger, global war of radical Islam's making. These people hate us for who we are, not what we have done. We did not bring this on ourselves, as many would have us believe, by our policies and actions abroad. We brought this on ourselves in 1775 when the Founding Fathers embarked on a course of freedom, tolerance, and liberal democratic and social ideals. These haters of all we hold dear strive to destroy forever a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Abraham Lincoln hoped would never "Perish from the earth". They would replace it with an oppressive world theocracy unlike anything modern history has ever seen for its ruthless disregard for personal freedom and liberty. If more appeasement is your answer for an alternative policy, spare us. We have suffered enough from cowardice and inaction.
An historical analogy screams to be let out here. It is one of two men, both named Chamberlain. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a school teacher turned soldier in the American Civil War, found himself in the crosshairs of history on a warm July day in 1863 on a small hill in Pennsylvania. Commanding the 20th Maine Regiment on the extreme Union left at Gettysburg he was in a most perilous position. Should he fail to hold against a strong Confederate attack, the Union could be lost. You see, he was serving in an increasingly unpopular war at home against a resurgent enemy, and for a President fighting for his political life. Colonel Chamberlain, stoic but determined, refused to yield. His small regiment held against an onslaught of Confederate attacks, an action many historians believe turned the tide of the war. He was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The other half of this analogy focuses on Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain in the years preceding World War II. His story is widely known. Through his policy of appeasement and a lack of moral courage, he handed Adolf Hitler much of Europe. Which side of history have you chosen, Ma'am?
Your son died in the service of freedom and my daughter will go in harm's way to protect and preserve it. Honor their sacrifice, Ma'am, by exercising it responsibly.
I will pray with you and I will grieve with you but I will not stand by silent while you needlessly and arrogantly endanger the life of my daughter and her comrades in arms. Please bless us with your silence and go home.
Brantley Smith Proud father of a United States Marine Tullahoma, TN email: usmcengr@aol.com
-30-
Semper Fidelis, Mark
Posted by bdgee on :
"Your son died in the service of freedom ...."
Hardly! And if you really think that is what the woman is protesting, you need better ears. Her son died in a war perpetrated on a foundatiuon of mistruths. It was purely a political ploy, falsely claimed to be in the cause of freedom, AFTER THE FACT. Every "reason" stated for invading IRAQ that was presented to the people and the Congress, beforehand, has been proved false and in most cases it has been proved the Whitehouse knew their claims were false. That is what the woman wants answers for.
To put it most simply, for thosae with too little honestly to admit it ot too little where-with-all to figure out the truth, why did her son and the sons and daughters of other parents have to die for those false claims?
Posted by glassman on :
it's amazing there are still people who haven't figured out what's going on....and what happened...
we can't withdraw until we finish the mission, which is to.... uh well, it's to create another Islamic State....
and then we can withdraw...not before.... in the meantime? Cindy isn't helping the terroist propaganda machine...they don't need any help....they already have all the sound-bites they needed to get a real strong insurgency going.. remeber this????
Published on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 by Reuters 'Bring Them On,' Bush Says of Iraq Attacks
WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
President George W. Bush defiantly challenged militants planning strikes on US forces in Iraq to "bring them on!" even as mounting casualties eroded US public support for the occupation. (AFP/Luke Frazza) "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is 'bring them on'. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
Bush spoke in the face of increasing American concern about the rising casualty toll among U.S. troops. At least 23 American servicemen have been killed by hostile fire since major combat operations were declared over for the U.S. forces and their British allies on May 1.
Bush, who on Tuesday said the United States faced a massive and long-term undertaking in Iraq, said the United States welcomed contributions from other countries but that "we got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure. Posted by Raptorsrule on :
She's enititled....but she doesn't see he big picture due to obviously personal reasons.
Right wrong, or indifferent, we are over there to take the fight to their back yard....to limit if you will their offensive caability in "our yard"..sure it all sucks....get used to it...wether we pull out or stay..we are gonna be fighting these *******s for the forseeable future wether it's here or there....
JMHO!
Posted by glassman on :
if anything? the current situation just proves that Britain France and Russia all gave up on colonialisation for good reasons..not because they were weak and dying...but because as they come in and train and educate a people? the trainees/students tend to learn to stand up for themselves...but? just like teenagers? they rarely do what you want or expect...that was Bush's failure here, to think he would win an ally for US...i don't doubt that his "people" will gain more than they already have, at our expense.....
somebody once called me a racist for saying that the Iraqi's don't want freedom as we know it....
i wasn't being racist, i was being a realist...
one example: they want to OWN their women..they say the Koran tells them that is correct.. some people say the bible also tells us that is correct, but they are wrong.....
in any case? we are gonna just have to lie and say we are pullign out because we accomplished something there.... i think it was better to let Saddam deal with his own people in whatever way they wanted, because they obviously didn't care enough to "free" themselves of him... and i think Bush owes a lot of people a lot of apologies...and that is what i hear Cindy Sheehan asking for...he won't apologise 'till he has no other options, but that scenario may very well be developing quicker than you think... i admire Cindy for having the GUTS to say he owes US all an apology... but i disagree that we should even think of pulling out till whatever government thewy are making can stand... it won't be what Bush promised US tho...
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
I am thread jumping for a good reason.. Howz about some imput on the middle class thread about Tort re-form..
Thankyou
Posted by bdgee on :
NOooooo. She is looking directly at the big picture. WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE LIE TO GET US IN WAR IN IRAQ? That and the question of wheather or not we should or shouldn't "pull out" or what other things we should do are different questions and dubya and crew want you to be fooled into believing all she is saying is "pull out". It's a head fake to get you to look away from the "why Iraq question" that she is asking. And ignoring that fact is playing into the hands of these Party worshipers. Their Party isn't yet the Government. You attack her to support them and they have you declaring her to be undermining the war. Nonsense! Why shouldn't she get an answer? How would that interfere with the war in Iraq?
Posted by BuyTex on :
you know what strikes me?
most of these posts assume that Georgie is calling the shots... demonize or angelize all you want...
he's still lil junior and dad, inc is running the show...
georgie merely signs on the dotted line when they tell him, hey, sign here, jr...
The terrorist thang?
Does nobody remember the hit on B'nai Brith in the 70s? Geez? nearly 40 years ago...
this chit ain't new...
AND we're remarkably unblemished...
the best thing Daddy did for junior? create a hot-spot to draw em in...
It's not simple...and anybody who believes it's simple...is simple.
every transaction is about energy exchange...and dat chit gets complex....
to paraphrase the 'dog...
woooooooof!
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Oil is King, O simple me.
Posted by bdgee on :
I agree, Tex. Georgie porgie ain't bright enought to call the shots. But it ain't daddy that does. It's the team of big money Republican hate factories that control the Party.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
In a round about way, Tex has done it again! The complexities of oil are mind numbing....
Bdgee, I'll say it again, I am becoming more and more confused about the direction this administration is heading...
I was a strong Bush Chenney pundit. They're attitude towards imigration is just one of the problems I'm having....
Posted by Nanny on :
Bush is too stupid to talk to Cindy Sheehan. He thinks he is above people like her. Such a demoral person he is.
Posted by bdgee on :
"demoral", YES!!
Nanny, I like that word better then the one I've been using for years trying to explain how the carpet bagging Bush clan operates. I've said "amoral", that is, without moral consideration or concern. Yours is way closer to reality. It carries a connotation that most assuredly is part of Bushiness....and "intent" or "desire" to be unmoral...an evil of intentional neglect, Thank you, Nanny, I am in debt.
Posted by shlik on :
the Iraqi people must feel great love from the bush admin as they attract terrorists to their country
Posted by 4Art on :
Cindy Sheehan is a patriot, in the true sense of the word.
Posted by 4Art on :
I dont think we shouldve gone to war. But her son died because he volunteered to join the military. When a recruter asked me to join the marines I said no. I dont want to possibly go to a war and kill people I dont have a problem with or be killed by them. Everone knows that US always plays the part of international police. He had the same desision to make and chose to take that risk and unfortunatly he died. I understand his mom is upset. The thing is, she seems angry like she just wants to tell bush off. Many people are angry and blame the president for many things. some even think 9-11 was his falt and im sure he should of stopped the hurricane coming to new orleans. Why didnt he create a giant fan that would push the wind back. Now a half a million people may lose there houses because the bush administration has done nothing. If he gave time to every mother that lost there son he couldnt do anything else. Lots of people are mad and he cant listen to all of them. His desision to take us to war has caused the lose of many lives but each of us is accountable for our own desisions. It would be different if the draft were used. Then I would blame bush for forcing people to go to a war that many dont believe in.
Posted by 4Art on :
There's a vast difference between protecting our country from an impending WMD strike and [insert the administration's most recent "reason" for the war here].
Far fewer would have volunteered if they were given the facts that are just beginning to trickle out of the lapdog press now.
quote:Originally posted by treemoney: I dont think we shouldve gone to war. But her son died because he volunteered to join the military. When a recruter asked me to join the marines I said no. I dont want to possibly go to a war and kill people I dont have a problem with or be killed by them. Everone knows that US always plays the part of international police. He had the same desision to make and chose to take that risk and unfortunatly he died. I understand his mom is upset. The thing is, she seems angry like she just wants to tell bush off. Many people are angry and blame the president for many things. some even think 9-11 was his falt and im sure he should of stopped the hurricane coming to new orleans. Why didnt he create a giant fan that would push the wind back. Now a half a million people may lose there houses because the bush administration has done nothing. If he gave time to every mother that lost there son he couldnt do anything else. Lots of people are mad and he cant listen to all of them. His desision to take us to war has caused the lose of many lives but each of us is accountable for our own desisions. It would be different if the draft were used. Then I would blame bush for forcing people to go to a war that many dont believe in.
Posted by treemoney on :
even if there were no wmds, if you look into it,Sadam was acting like there were. I guess he wanted people to think he was more dangerous than he was. Sadam was a very strange man and did some strange things. He fooled many top officials. It wasnt just bush that was convinced that he had them. Remember when we were first going in to Iraq it was all about wmds. They were wrong, but we cant blame bush for getting bad data. They should just admit they were wrong and quit making other reasons for doing it though. But there is a difference between someone who sometimes lies as all politicians do and someone who intentionaly starts a war for no reason or for oil(which im not sure if that is what you are suggesting) Bush started this because he and his top officails and intelligence thought there were wmds. They interpreted the evidence as best they could and they were wrong. It wasnt some conspiracy just a mistake. I dont know if this speaks bad of bush or the cia. Regardless of why we went, we cant leave now. We have to finish what we started and cant just leave the Iraqis in a situation like it is now. And good can come of this. Despite what someone said about thousands wanting Sadam back, many are glad he is gone and look forward to a new Iraq. They arnt some stupid bunch that has to have a dictator rule over them as someone suggested. If democracy cant work there then why did so many more of them vote than we do. Also, when Iraq is on its own. I dont think whoever there president is in the future is nessesarly going to give us a big oil discount. Also this war has cost more money than any supposed oil discount. That idea just doesnt make sense in my opinion. Why would we spend billions so we could get a discount for millions. This war has taken more of a toll on our economy and will in the future than high oil. It would be like trying to pay a dollar to get 15 cents. I think if there were alterior motives it would be a hatred towards sadam because of the history with bushs father. But spreading our military thin and tons of money for a little better price for oil doesnt make sense.
Posted by bdgee on :
Bush didn't "get" bad data, he "ordered" it. He got good data and hid itfrom the public and congress under a passel of Presidential orders of secrecy and blatent lies. And the notion that they started a war to control the oil is only skimming at the surface of the wrong cess pool. Remember the political climate of the time! They started to war as a head fake to get you to stop looking ata rigged election. And it worked!!!!
This war has put the US into a perpetual war with both Moslems and Arabs....like the English and the Irish, the Indians and Pakistanies. It will still be going on 20 generations down the line.
Posted by 4Art on :
True bdgee.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
I haven't read through this thread and don't have time to. I just wanted to add my two cents.
This lady is a wacko in my own personal opinion.
Posted by 4Art on :
Well as long as it's an informed opinion. LOL
When are you going to Iraq to fight for the noble cause, Peaser01?
quote:Originally posted by Peaser01: I haven't read through this thread and don't have time to. I just wanted to add my two cents.
This lady is a wacko in my own personal opinion.
Posted by Peaser01 on :
Sign me up!! When are you going?
Posted by glassman on :
i can't believe all the excuses people are willing to make for bush...
he had PLENTY of good intel to look at...it's everywhere if you look...
we DID have UN weapons inspectors there that Bush told to LEAVE so he could start the bombing... and they said plainly that Bush had bad intel, and bush WAS FORCED to RUSH the war forward before poeple realised that he was pushing a propaganda campaign down our throats on the images of 911....
The UN wouldn't back his play for reason...
there have been so many lies put out that people can't accept the truth anymore....
Posted by Peaser01 on :
The question is, who knows the real truth anymore? Does anyone, or is everyone at each others throats for assumptions and second guesses being made?
Posted by 4Art on :
The most recent popularity polls for Bush suggest that people are finally waking up. I hope this trend continues!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i can't believe all the excuses people are willing to make for bush...
he had PLENTY of good intel to look at...it's everywhere if you look...
we DID have UN weapons inspectors there that Bush told to LEAVE so he could start the bombing... and they said plainly that Bush had bad intel, and bush WAS FORCED to RUSH the war forward before poeple realised that he was pushing a propaganda campaign down our throats on the images of 911....
The UN wouldn't back his play for reason...
there have been so many lies put out that people can't accept the truth anymore....
Posted by Peaser01 on :
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: The most recent popularity polls for Bush suggest that people are finally waking up. I hope this trend continues!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i can't believe all the excuses people are willing to make for bush...
he had PLENTY of good intel to look at...it's everywhere if you look...
we DID have UN weapons inspectors there that Bush told to LEAVE so he could start the bombing... and they said plainly that Bush had bad intel, and bush WAS FORCED to RUSH the war forward before poeple realised that he was pushing a propaganda campaign down our throats on the images of 911....
The UN wouldn't back his play for reason...
there have been so many lies put out that people can't accept the truth anymore....
The question is, who knows the real truth anymore? Does anyone, or is everyone at each others throats for assumptions and second guesses being made?
Posted by 4Art on :
Nixon's approval dropped to 31 percent in August 1973 as the war dragged on in Vietnam and revelations of administration misdeeds kept spilling out of the Senate Watergate hearings.
Gee, that sounds strangely familiar! Posted by treemoney on :
9-11 itself was enough to make people stop thinking about the election. Starting a war always creates more controversy than any election. Why would he cause a greater problem and more people to hate him so they would stop thinking about the election. I see the same news as you guys. I heard he got bad info. He and his intelegence were fooled. How can you be sure it wasnt bad. We can only presume bush pushed the cia into coming up with bad info. This is highly speculative and isnt fair to assume. When clinton was president I knew republicans that came up with all these far out ideas of what they have "proof of what he is really doing. Now democrats are doing the same with bush. So bush is the head of a drug cartel and killed thousands of people so we stop thinking of an election that most had already forgotten. Ill need a little proof of this and if its solid ill believe you. As for the UN. They are currupt. Look at Kofi and the scandal he was in. We should have the right to make our own desicions without international support. We get one vote with them but we are expected to pay the bulk of the expenses. We need to get out of the UN and let them support themselves.
Posted by bdgee on :
If you got the same news as everybody, then you got the news of the Brittish memos explaining dubya was planning to invade Iraq long before 9-11 and that he was making false claims for excuse to do so. The info he got was what he ordered. Every intellegence officer or military officer that didn't spoon feed his requirements was "removed"!
Indeed, "Starting a war always creates more controversy than any election." And that is exactly the reason he did it, to do something that would create so much controversy that people wouldn't keep looking into the rigging of the 2000 election.
Why do you insist on the Party line, even after years of proof it is a bunch of lies?
Posted by treemoney on :
I dont go along party lines. I think there all a bunch of liars. I dont even vote because I dont trust any of them. I know he didnt go to Iraq because of 911 and had plans before 911. I think he made a bad desision. I think his judgment was clouded because of the bad blood between bush senior and sadam. Once in power bush probly wanted to take sadam out to finish what his father didnt and tried to justify it. The election controversy was already fading by this time and 911 made everyone almost totaly forget about it. If he had alterior motives, I think it was revenge. Im not sure he did have alterior motives, but if he did that what I think they were.
Posted by 4Art on :
I never believed that Iraq was a threat to the USA. Not even for one minute. Anyone with Internet access and even the slightest curiosity about this could have done some research, (and come to a similar conclusion), prior to the war.
Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell were even on record saying that Hussein was contained.
Thinking, critical or otherwise is not encouraged by the Party, now-a-days. Blind locked step adherence to the party line is all that is tolerated.
Posted by 4Art on :
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Posted by Ramius on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Bush didn't "get" bad data, he "ordered" it. He got good data and hid itfrom the public and congress under a passel of Presidential orders of secrecy and blatent lies. And the notion that they started a war to control the oil is only skimming at the surface of the wrong cess pool. Remember the political climate of the time! They started to war as a head fake to get you to stop looking ata rigged election. And it worked!!!!
This war has put the US into a perpetual war with both Moslems and Arabs....like the English and the Irish, the Indians and Pakistanies. It will still be going on 20 generations down the line.
LOL
Posted by 4Art on :
Why are you laughing? It sounds about right to me.
Posted by glassman on :
he's laughing cuz he still believes that the war needed doing....
soon? we will have a much better picture of what really happened politically to "bring this on"..
too many people have been pushed aside for dissenting views that were CORRECT... August 30, 2005 latimes.com : National Politics
THE NATION Democrats Demand Probe of Demotion # A Corps of Engineers official had called Halliburton's no-bid contract 'blatant and improper' during congressional testimony.
By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats demanded an investigation Monday into the demotion of a senior U.S. military contracting official who publicly criticized a controversial no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton Corp. for work in Iraq.
With more than 20 years' experience in government procurement, Bunnatine Greenhouse had been the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer until she was demoted Saturday to a lower-level position. A military report indicated that she was demoted for poor job performance.
.....Greenhouse called the Halliburton case "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Three weeks later, the secretary of the Army approved the Corps of Engineers' decision to demote her. It took effect over the weekend.
the subsidiary of HAL ended up with well over 10 Billion$ in NO-bid contracts...
sooner or later? the coverups will all come out...
everybody was been afraid to speak up for so long that it will take a while to sort out just how bad the power mismanagement has really been....
But a Corps of Engineers report provided by Kohn showed that top officials criticized Greenhouse for not being a team player. Posted by Dustoff101 on :
glassman......The RAF fire bombed Dresden into oblvion, killing 80 thousand plus civilians.
We Nuked the Japanese.
The Alies won WW2.
When you go to war, go to war to win!
This administration has turned this into another Nam. And you know, I know, what im talking about.
Posted by glassman on :
yep, and Bush actually asked for it...."bring it on"??? sheesh
i thought maybe there was a plan: a wolverine trap?
right now it looks like we are there for a very long time. and i'm GUESSING that all of those bombs that went off at iraqi recruiting stations were designed to keep the "good guys" from enlisting in the iraq police/army... so how many of their troops can we really trust???
all of the nation building building problems were obvious before we ever went there... Sun Tzu wrote about it over a thousand years ago, and it was known when he collected the works of countless other generals and assembled them into the "Art of War".
the inadequacies are glaring...and it's POLICY that fouled the anchor, not the troops....
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
I agree, glassman.........Intel needs to check all the enlisties at enlistment points where and when there where no bombs going off.
Posted by 4Art on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
More cartoons here!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
