Iraq is winning.

Iraq isnt winning, as now 'Iraq' or the people in power are just Us puppets... the Iraqi people are winning however as they are having their voices heard the only way they know how... through violence... Its a pity Bush didnt listen to the millions and millions of protesters around the world... maybe then less US soldiers would have been killed... I'm not fussed, our soldiers (Aussie) are yet to recieve any casualties... because we use tactics, not just overwhelming force (and also we have less troops there)

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Jalengrma
A war is a war and the basics should be the same. When you start fighting a war by political correctness then...you have lost the war. There is nothing as bad as trying to make your military fight a war with one arm tied behind their back and that is what we are doing with all this business about the mosques. The insurgents know very well that this country is so bound up with PC that they know how far they can push us and they are too!

When you invade a foreign country in which the population resists you have two options, commit mass murder to the point of no resistance or try to win the hearts and minds. Obviously, the United States is going to take the latter. If we simply kill everything that moves we risk a lot more internationally than we do by trying to be 'PC' as you put it. This is the information age and if the world is presented with pictures of US soldiers killing everything that moves we would lose strategic allies and trading partners. It's not like US Generals are all products of some liberal university driving around with rainbow stickers on their humvees and throwing Care Bears at enemies.

THat statement is an over exageration. It does have soem truth in it but not nearly to the degree you speak. Ill share one example i heard from a local soilderi met. He drive hmmers through Iraq. He use to stop when people crossed teh road. Then one day a man pulled a gun out and fired. he survived. Then he only alowed down and that was at the tiem with some of the suicide bombing they had tehre and people with rpgs. Now he doesnt even slow down for notin they will eb under the tire by the time he even thinks abou it. Now ask this question whos fault is it he doesnt stop anymore and maybe soem innocent people are dyin. Him (the army) or the few insugents tehre who attack the soldiers posing as civilians?

"Bush is pro-American. Kerry is anti-American."

I certainly hope you have SOMETHING solid to back up that claim.

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
Lets just look at the facts, shall we?

George Bush:
- Deserter from National Guard
- Against Constitutional Freedoms (patriot act is 1 example)
- Appointed John Ashcroft to the Justice Department (who thinks its a good thing when 1 in 75 US citizens are in jail - from his own words)
- Has his campaign workers run negative ads against John Kerry (the false ads by the Swift Boat for Truth)
- Uses political pressure or threats to force Bob Dole and John McCain to back down from their beliefs and lie about John Kerry

John Kerry:
- Fought honorable in Vietnam, earning several Purple Hearts
- Peacfully protested a war viewed as unjust by millions of Americans
- For Consitutional Freedoms (against the patriot act)

I'm starting to see some striking things... Are you?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by JabbaOnTheDais]

Your getting full of yourself. One, Bush did not desert the NG. That is utterly and blatantly false.

The Patriot Act is a measure to assist in the war on terror. It does not gut the Constitution.

John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Nothing can atone for that. Consider Benedict Arnold.

John Kerry is an enemy of the Second Amendment, even though he claims to support it. See a pattern here?

Originally posted by specialasianX
Its a pity Bush didnt listen to the millions and millions of protesters around the world...

These would be the same protesters who would ralley if saddam ever got a WMD and used it and they would say why didnt anyone do anyhting bout it. ITs a lose lose situation with these people. To those protesters America cannot do a thing right.


now i must go to do a nightly habit......sleep.
Dont discuss to much dont wanna be left out.

Originally posted by Quicksilver

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Jalengrma
A war is a war and the basics should be the same. When you start fighting a war by political correctness then...you have lost the war. There is nothing as bad as trying to make your military fight a war with one arm tied behind their back and that is what we are doing with all this business about the mosques. The insurgents know very well that this country is so bound up with PC that they know how far they can push us and they are too!

When you invade a foreign country in which the population resists you have two options, commit mass murder to the point of no resistance or try to win the hearts and minds. Obviously, the United States is going to take the latter. If we simply kill everything that moves we risk a lot more internationally than we do by trying to be 'PC' as you put it. This is the information age and if the world is presented with pictures of US soldiers killing everything that moves we would lose strategic allies and trading partners. It's not like US Generals are all products of some liberal university driving around with rainbow stickers on their humvees and throwing Care Bears at enemies.

THat statement is an over exageration. It does have soem truth in it but not nearly to the degree you speak. Ill share one example i heard from a local soilderi met. He drive hmmers through Iraq. He use to stop when people crossed teh road. Then one day a man pulled a gun out and fired. he survived. Then he only alowed down and that was at the tiem with some of the suicide bombing they had tehre and people with rpgs. Now he doesnt even slow down for notin they will eb under the tire by the time he even thinks abou it. Now ask this question whos fault is it he doesnt stop anymore and maybe soem innocent people are dyin. Him (the army) or the few insugents tehre who attack the soldiers posing as civilians?

My brother-in-law was in a Humvee in Baghdad when an Iraqi policeman walked up to the hummer and tossed a grenade inside.

In Somalia the Somalis would send kids - literally throw or push them - into the path of oncomming convoys. Then the convoy stops and gets ambushed. They learned not to stop.

Insurgents bait the occupiers to reprise against them. Since insurgents are identical to civilians, innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Then more people join the insurgency and the insurgents have a propaganda victory from the battle. They are an unidentified army whereas the occupiers are wearing uniforms. An insurgent is running with a rifle and gets nailed. The rifle goes flying or is picked up and you have a civilian lying on the ground ready to be photographed with occupying soldiers standing around him. If the soldiers are smiling or celebrating after killing an insurgent it's even worse, they look like they wasted an innocent person.

Insurgents usually have the upper hand in the media age, they know this, and exploit it.

Bush joined the National Guard which is where people go during tough times to avoid combat. Kerry served in Vietnam. I'm sorry but that makes Kerry more of a man than Bush. Don't know where you get Kerry is against the 2nd amendment. Bush is certainly against free speech, freedom of the press and against the bill of rights. Bush believes that unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply when it suits the need of government. Bush also believes that people are not entitled to due process and legal representation.

Originally posted by taibunsuu


Insurgents usually have the upper hand in the media age, they know this, and exploit it.

Im glad we sorda see this in the same light. But can you blame the soldiers for these so called civilian deaths if teh insugents are the ones "baiting" them into it.

Originally posted by Aelita
Grady, chill. You are no longer on a battlefield.

Please don't patronize me, Ivan. I've heard your marxist drivel quite enough.

Be nice Grady. You don't want people calling you Jethro do you?

People please cool off it is just politics, dirty, nasty and ego consuming politics, I am getting tired of all, every thread it ends up in politics Kerry this bush that.

By the way Kerry is not more anti American that bush is, so let stop the comparisons, getting into each other nerves is not going to make Iraq any better or our economy any richer.

Leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let's save our country from economy destruction.

We are all americans.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
Lets just look at the facts, shall we?

George Bush:
- Deserter from National Guard
- Against Constitutional Freedoms (patriot act is 1 example)
- Appointed John Ashcroft to the Justice Department (who thinks its a good thing when 1 in 75 US citizens are in jail - from his own words)
- Has his campaign workers run negative ads against John Kerry (the false ads by the Swift Boat for Truth)
- Uses political pressure or threats to force Bob Dole and John McCain to back down from their beliefs and lie about John Kerry

John Kerry:
- Fought honorable in Vietnam, earning several Purple Hearts
- Peacfully protested a war viewed as unjust by millions of Americans
- For Consitutional Freedoms (against the patriot act)

I'm starting to see some striking things... Are you?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by JabbaOnTheDais]

Your getting full of yourself. One, Bush did not desert the NG. That is utterly and blatantly false.

The Patriot Act is a measure to assist in the war on terror. It does not gut the Constitution.

John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Nothing can atone for that. Consider Benedict Arnold.

John Kerry is an enemy of the Second Amendment, even though he claims to support it. See a pattern here?

i'm curious. how can anyone claim the Patriot Act doesn't gut the constitution, when it provides for secret tribunals of american citizens without jury or the right to counsel, among other things, and yet at the same time maintain that Kerry is an enemy of the Second Amendment, which as everyone knows is very dubiously worded. seems like you're picking and choosing which parts of the constitution you'll interpret strictly and which broadly.

-koji K.

the Second Amendment, which as everyone knows is very dubiously worded.

No one who understands plain english and has taken the time to read the intent of the founding fathers in their own words finds the Second Amendment dubiously written.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your getting full of yourself. One, Bush did not desert the NG. That is utterly and blatantly false.

The Patriot Act is a measure to assist in the war on terror. It does not gut the Constitution.

John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Nothing can atone for that. Consider Benedict Arnold.

John Kerry is an enemy of the Second Amendment, even though he claims to support it. See a pattern here?

The only pattern I'm seeing is that of conservative propaganda. It is a FACT that Bush did not serve his time in the National Guard. It is a FACT that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement authority to violate the US Constitution as long as it is in the interest of national security, or the person(s) involved is suspected of terrorism.

John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy? I have never heard this... not even out of the mouths of known liars. Did you make this up? If he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, he would have been tried and executed for treason.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by JabbaOnTheDais]

The intent is very clear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Couple things... "security of a free State". Free from what? Our federal government. History has made this very clear to us. This isn't even debatable. Now that last part is the clincher. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice it made absolutely NO exceptions. Denying a person because of a felony conviction is illegal. Limiting the type and number of arms is illegal. Requiring cooling off periods and licenses is illegal. Its very simple. But leave it to a lawyer to try and complicate something so basic and so simple and so obvious.

Originally posted by Indy
The intent is very clear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Couple things... "security of a free State". Free from what? Our federal government. History has made this very clear to us. This isn't even debatable. Now that last part is the clincher. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice it made absolutely NO exceptions. Denying a person because of a felony conviction is illegal. Limiting the type and number of arms is illegal. Requiring cooling off periods and licenses is illegal. Its very simple. But leave it to a lawyer to try and complicate something so basic and so simple and so obvious.

but it doesn't infringe someone's right to bear arms if they have to wait 3 days before they get to pick up their gun. it doesn't say anything about "right to cash-and-carry arms".

anyway, i don't want to go off on a tangent about gun control here. but the fact is, you can make the same statement about the right to bear arms that you have made (ie, it's an absolute right pertaining to everyone, from the way it's written) to the right of the people to due process of law, and yet the same people who propose the former oppose the latter view.

the impression i get from many conservatives is, "it's ok to lock up a suspected terrorist without letting him ever even see a judge, but he damn well has a right to carry a gun". great logic.

-koji K.

This is where the Bush administration has attacked the constitution.

Amendment 4

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " --- Violated by the Patriot Act

Amendment 5

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " -- bolded area violated by the Patriot Act

Amendment 6

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " -- violated by the Patriot Act

Perhaps we should exercise our rights granted in #2 to take back #4, #5 and #6.

koji_K... if I try and go to the store tomorrow to buy a gun I will be denied because 1) I don't have a permit, 2) I haven't waited the 3 days. So my right was infringed upon. The article makes NO exceptions. No exemptions. It is very specific.

Originally posted by Indy
This is where the Bush administration has attacked the constitution.

Amendment 4

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " --- Violated by the Patriot Act

Amendment 5

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " -- bolded area violated by the Patriot Act

Amendment 6

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " -- violated by the Patriot Act

Perhaps we should exercise our rights granted in #2 to take back #4, #5 and #6.

looks like we're on the same page

-koji K.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

the Second Amendment, which as everyone knows is very dubiously worded.

No one who understands plain english and has taken the time to read the intent of the founding fathers in their own words finds the Second Amendment dubiously written.

I too support the right to bear arms and if you look at history it's pretty much essential for people to be free. On other matters, though, the Bush bunch are severely screwed up. The biggest reason they can't go after the 2nd amendment is because most Republicans who vote for them support it. But what's the intent of wiretaps and searches without license, arrest without charges, no rights to speak to a lawyer, indefinite detention without public trial... these are all signs of eroding freedom just as strong as prohibitions on firearms. With firearms they take an instance of someone using guns in crimes and say 'see, we have to get rid of guns!' 9/11 is the same thing, the governments trying to say 'see, we can't afford so many freedoms and have to clamp down!'

As far as dreams of endless war touted by Cheney, may he be reminded that wars always bring the death of republics. The populace does not want expensive, deadly wars. To continue wars you must, ahem, 'convince' the populace to play along, or they will cease to support the powers-that-be. This is done by restricting liberties until you no longer have a republic but despotism. Then the populace finally gets pissed off and the peasants go crazy and tear the whole thing down, and restart.

This isn't an anti-American attitude, it's simply history. The guys I pay to run our country, through taxes, can never be as great as my country.

A population that owns firearms is not entirely secure. If your opponent (the populace) is heavily armed, you must subvert them by other means. Guns will be the last thing to go, but if all the people who can effectively use them are taken out first it won't mean a damn thing.