I am not playing games, I think a rational person can see that in order to combat terror and achieve success, its not a stretch for the military to have to conduct a full-scale operation like in Iraq.

I will also assert that I have shed more than a few tears for my fellow countrymen who fought and died in Iraq, as it is a very tragic circumstance. I have also shed tears for the Iraqi civilains and their plight. War is very troubling business and I do not make sport of it lightly. My apologies to the military men and women were genuine.


Hegemony and Imperialism are leftist exaggerations. It is not Hegemony simply because
American objectives differ from those of France and Germany. The idea and objective
is for long term security for the nation and our allies. I think after thinking it thru that
men like Gen. Wesley Clark and Gen. Powell are men of guts and they would not lead
their men and women astray. (My former views were thr result of indictrination by
radical sources.) Senator John Kerry also served in Veitnam and voted to give Pres.
Bush the authority and he is a member of the Senate Intelligence Commitee on Oversight.
I think it is a mistake to not trust our armed service professionals when it comes to this
task. I also had a history teacher who was a Korean War veteran, and let me tell you-
soldiers are tough men of intellect and resolve. They mean business and have the best
of intentions for the country.

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by darkwraith]

I'd have to say that the best method to fight terrorist would be to back out of the world we have worked so hard to wiggle into the ass of.

Violence creates violence. Israel - Palestine for example. Nothing will change, and the war will become increasingly bitter and overt (not the it is not already) because of the violent tennis match they play.

Originally posted by darkwraith
I am turning Republican because I have made critical errors in judgement by relying on conspiracy and radical left wing websites which distorted the reality of the war on the ground. I was against war and felt sorry for the Iraq citizens.

However, now that I have had a chance to see the Democratic Presidential platform and have discovered much of the radical left wing bias to be exaggerated, I have found that the Republicans meant well when they were trying to defend the nation against terrorism.

If you notice, much of the Democratic platform on defense tries to agree with the Bush
agenda. Well, you don't get much more experienced on defense than Wesley Clark, and
Colin Powell. And since the Democrats like Joe Biden and John Kerry voted for the
war, they must have for a reason. I now believe those reasons to be correct.

So from now on, I will support the war and the troops, and President Bush. I had believed his "your for us , or against us" was kind of mean and making enemies, but after thinking it over in the context of the seriousness of the risks, I feel he was correct.

It is easy to become embroiled in emotional issues like war and death when the news
messengers distort or exaggerate facts. Its easy not to trust news sources too when they try to conceal or ignore certain facts also. But now I understand it was for national security.

One commentator on Larry King Live said, "The Bill Of Rights is not a suicide pact."
I think I understand now. The United States military has a lot of work to do in protecting
America and we should support them in every way we can because they are making
the country safer.

To all the people in the military and overseas, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding the situation of the Iraq war and speaking out so vehemently against it. We have left-wing radio here, Pacifica KPFK (90.7) which broadcasts many negative comments about the war and its easy to feel angry when the message is distorted and things are exaggerated. I am sorry my comments were unduly harsh, but it was due mainly because of my religion where killing, is of course, wrong.

Much of the left wing press had been exaggerated esp. on the internet and it reinforced this perception. I feel that these people are doing a great disservice to the nation now, and think their attempts at reporting are misguided.

If the issue is safety and the government says its important then I believe them, and
trust they know what they are doing for the freedom of our nation, and to make security safer for democracies of the world.

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by darkwraith]

walk towards the light, walk towards the light!

I think the operation in Iraq is indeed a stretch. To say we were doing so in the case of national security is a stretch. In a sense were I suppose for security, or our American interests. But there is a bigger picture around us, and I see another way of helping the Iraqi people and I see an administration that lied to the public knowingly, they knew what they were saying to us, and they knew what was (or was not) behind their words.

I agree on the imperialism factor, it's nothing new.

Veterans do not agree on what is best for the country either. And this country, the majority, doesn't know what war is like, on their soil, or anywhere I think. I don't either, but I have an idea.

Originally posted by ilovepizza
You do not have to be republican or democrat. You can have views of both parties. It is only limmiting thinking "I am a republican" or "I am a democrat". It is better to think, I am my self with my own views.

awwwwwwwwwww yea

o...and to make things clear, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! i may be a liar, a cheater, a failure, a republican, an idiot, and a thief, but I AM NOT A PORN STAR

Originally posted by silQ
o...and to make things clear, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! i may be a liar, a cheater, a failure, a republican, an idiot, and a thief, but I AM NOT A PORN STAR

aww the words of the immortal Abraham Simpson.

Dammit, DW, SNAP OUT IT, MAN!

No, don't snap out of it! Join the rest of us in the firey depths of hell!

Hail Sa...

I can't do this anymore, man. I'm gunna bust a gut laughing this hard. Colonel, you're lucky people aren't put in jail for being ignorant, you'd have many consecutive life sentences. bah dum...smash!

But seriously, darkwraith, think what you want to think. Always question your beliefs, make sure you keep your mind open, never devote yourself to one line of thinking.

Originally posted by Requiem
I think the operation in Iraq is indeed a stretch. To say we were doing so in the case of national security is a stretch. In a sense were I suppose for security, or our American interests. But there is a bigger picture around us, and I see another way of helping the Iraqi people and I see an administration that lied to the public knowingly, they knew what they were saying to us, and they knew what was (or was not) behind their words.

I agree on the imperialism factor, it's nothing new.

Veterans do not agree on what is best for the country either. And this country, the majority, doesn't know what war is like, on their soil, or anywhere I think. I don't either, but I have an idea.

1. The paragraph explains the war from the actions of soldiers and former soldiers.
General Powell has showed unwavering support for the Iraq Policy. Before becoming
a Democrat Presidential Candidate, Wes Clark supported Bush and the Republicans in
well publicised speeches. Senator John Kerry supported the war and voted for it.
He is a member of the Senate Intel Committee and has access to all intelligence related
to the subject and made his decision.

2. The argument for hegemony and imperialism do not hold up because there is no war
profiteering and 'war for oil' as all the leftists have consistently charged.
The Bush cabinetonly hired companies that would do the best work to stabilize
the region and rebuild Iraq. I bet you would be hard pressed to find any
hard evidence of the supposed imperialism or 'profiteering' that would amount
to any significant sum of money when contrasted with the actual costs spent
by the Pentagon. (some 180 biilion so far).

3. There have a lot of speculative stories about General Powell and his supposed
relationship with the President. His actions have all displayed evidence to the contrary.
He has constantly shown loyalty to President Bush and the Pentagon. The stories are
nothing more than the 'peanut gallery' part of the press. As for Gen. Wes Clark, he had
been a supporter of the Bush Administration by his own endorsement and gave much
encouragement in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I have stated previously,
issues of war and death are very emotional and Clark may have changed his mind,
but I agree with his initial assesments.

4. Government employees have the right to state their views privately, but doing so in
public is discouraged because of issues concerning national security. Not only could
the statements encourage the enemy, but could harm the morale of our U.S. fighting
forces.The fact that WMD may have existed and may have been a threat was an
issue of intelligence. Many Democrats like John Kerry and John Edwards had access
to the same intelligence and made judgement calls also.
They voted to give Bush the authority based on that information. Intelligence reports
are subject to interpretation. If you notice, there are often conflicting intelligence
alerts regarding possible Al-Queda alerts or terrorist threats today, including last
holiday season. Conflicting intelligence is the nature of the business.

Listen, DW, I haven't been able to help you out since I've been battling the heathens and heretics in the religious thread who are probably destined for Hell. I will be back and we can discuss how to bring you back on the side of light.

ill be afiraid of a liberal in office then we'll have some liberal education plan and we'll all end up like comrade colonel here

Originally posted by darkwraith

1. The paragraph explains the war from the actions of soldiers and former soldiers.
General Powell has showed unwavering support for the Iraq Policy. Before becoming
a Democrat Presidential Candidate, Wes Clark supported Bush and the Republicans in
well publicised speeches. Senator John Kerry supported the war and voted for it.
He is a member of the Senate Intel Committee and has access to all intelligence related
to the subject and made his decision.

2. The argument for hegemony and imperialism do not hold up because there is no war
profiteering and 'war for oil' as all the leftists have consistently charged.
The Bush cabinetonly hired companies that would do the best work to stabilize
the region and rebuild Iraq. I bet you would be hard pressed to find any
hard evidence of the supposed imperialism or 'profiteering' that would amount
to any significant sum of money when contrasted with the actual costs spent
by the Pentagon. (some 180 biilion so far).

3. There have a lot of speculative stories about General Powell and his supposed
relationship with the President. His actions have all displayed evidence to the contrary.
He has constantly shown loyalty to President Bush and the Pentagon. The stories are
nothing more than the 'peanut gallery' part of the press. As for Gen. Wes Clark, he had
been a supporter of the Bush Administration by his own endorsement and gave much
encouragement in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I have stated previously,
issues of war and death are very emotional and Clark may have changed his mind,
but I agree with his initial assesments.

4. Government employees have the right to state their views privately, but doing so in
public is discouraged because of issues concerning national security. Not only could
the statements encourage the enemy, but could harm the morale of our U.S. fighting
forces.The fact that WMD may have existed and may have been a threat was an
issue of intelligence. Many Democrats like John Kerry and John Edwards had access
to the same intelligence and made judgement calls also.
They voted to give Bush the authority based on that information. Intelligence reports
are subject to interpretation. If you notice, there are often conflicting intelligence
alerts regarding possible Al-Queda alerts or terrorist threats today, including last
holiday season. Conflicting intelligence is the nature of the business.

I want to know why other countries did not support our decision and why there are intense critics in the intelligence community, and why the UN didn't jump on the turnip truck.
I'm aware members of the house, senate and so on have seen more than I have, but what did they not see? The conflicting reports?
There is a Large dose of imperialism in this situation. We have a tremendous influence on Iraq right now, and will probably maintain ties for as long as possible.
I don't mind facing the opposite direction of Colin Powell and Mr. Bush. They all jumped on the same bandwagon and in my opinion they can drive themselves over a cliff.

Originally posted by Requiem

I want to know why other countries did not support our decision and why there are intense critics in the intelligence community, and why the UN didn't jump on the turnip truck.
I'm aware members of the house, senate and so on have seen more than I have, but what did they not see? The conflicting reports?
There is a Large dose of imperialism in this situation. We have a tremendous influence on Iraq right now, and will probably maintain ties for as long as possible.
I don't mind facing the opposite direction of Colin Powell and Mr. Bush. They all jumped on the same bandwagon and in my opinion they can drive themselves over a cliff.

You have to understand one thing, and this is crucial.

There was a clear U.S. government policy in response to Sept. 11th. That was
a policy of intervention and security for the region. This was in regards for both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was supported by both parties and the Pentagon. It was a united strategy that was bi-partisan and aligned against terrorism.

Now, if you believe the U.S. military machine was put into play by Sept. 11th
and in response to a terrorist threat, you realize there must be certain military
objectives. These were outlined by Bush on several ocassions.

1) To oppose nations that harbored terrorists
2) To oppose nations that directly/ indirectly aided terrorists

Now, the alledged situational struggles of government officials and their putting
together a strategy to combat terrorism could reasonably be justified because of
differing points of view. That does not mean differing philosophies or strategies
were not genuine, relevant, or necessarily more or less functional, but some
could be construed as more effective than others.

Its like at your job, some people in a department might want to run things more efficently
than others or may wish to construct business or marketing strategy in a different way,
but neither may necessarily be "wrong".

Considering the risks involved and the lessons learned from Sept. 11th, it is not
inconceivable that even if Saddam Hussien did not have WMD, (of which there were
conflicting reports) that he may try to acquire them in the future for some revenge
plot on the U.S., true?



[Edited on 24-2-2004 by darkwraith]

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by darkwraith]

No, I don't think your last statement was true. How could Saddam, at some point in the future, obtain WMD if his country was choked, and the UN had their great Eye fixed upon the country. Ok, not all encompassing, but this country of Iraq is not so big, there was satellite, inspectors, can't think of anything else. If another country wants to prevent a threat they should of continued the regimen we were on, and helping the people of that country, as Bush always made sure we knew Saddam was harming his people.

About the policy after 9/11...there was already foreign policy involving pre-emption and the recognization of Iraq, North Korea, and Afganistan as threats, in so many words much earlier.

9/11 in my opinion, did not trigger a sudden policy change in our chiefs. It just made it easier to exercise the previously mentioned policy, manage to tie it to 9/11, and be on with it.

Anyhow, what exactly were your views before your party change, and why exactly are you applogizing to famlies of service persons.

The chances ARE pretty slim, but who is to say what they could be were this left alone, and swept under the rug. Im sure at one time, the chances of being killed by an act of terrorism in Isreal, or Palestine WERE very slim, no?

i never said i thought this should be swept under the rug, i said the actual threat to americans is minimal when compared to the actions being taken.

a nation in constant fear is much easier to control, don't you think?

DW, you know what? If you want to sell out to the FEAR then go ahead. I suggest you read 1984 before you do. You want ot side with the racists, go ahead. Ever hear of a democratic KKK member? No. But, I have heard of several republiklansmen. You want to sell out to a party that denies equal rights under the law. Go ahead. You want to sell out to a party that caters to the rich while leaving the average American holding the bag. Go ahead. You want to sell out to a party of criminals. Go ahead. You want sell out to a people who would SELL OUT this country? Go ahead.

I wash my hands of you.

Sell out? I believe selling out this country would be to convert it from capitalism to social or communism.

Incedentally, what about Sen. Byrd?

Can you say for sure that no Dem would ever be a Klansmen? I can't.

Originally posted by Colonel
DW, you know what? If you want to sell out to the FEAR then go ahead. I suggest you read 1984 before you do. You want ot side with the racists, go ahead. Ever hear of a democratic KKK member? No. But, I have heard of several republiklansmen. You want to sell out to a party that denies equal rights under the law. Go ahead. You want to sell out to a party that caters to the rich while leaving the average American holding the bag. Go ahead. You want to sell out to a party of criminals. Go ahead. You want sell out to a people who would SELL OUT this country? Go ahead.

I wash my hands of you.

so black people cant be racist? is that what your saying? cause i know some pretty racist black people

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by KrazyIvan]

To those that say our chances of being killed by a terrorist are very slim and not worth the resources being expended...

Now just why is it that the chances are so slim?

a) Terrorists have had a change of heart and now want to be our buddies

or

b) Terrorists now know that we won't be waiting around for the UN to waggle their fingers and cluck their tongues as punishment for things like 9/11

john