It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A vote for Bush? Please explain...
page: 2share:
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������� In short, 9/11 was the greatest test of this president, and what has followed should be enough by itself to merit cynical questions if not outright impeachment.
what exactly would lead to impeachment in your opinion.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������. Over time, enough truth has emerged to confirm that � simply based upon what is in the public record � Bush�s assertion that �Had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America� is a lie and also an admittance of failure. Just the following points are well known and well-documented enough to point out that 9/11 was allowed to happen, if not consciously then because of complete ineptitude:
and if as you assert it was possible that ineptitude led to this end, then how can you claim it was a lie without resorting to partisan smearing�.
Despite such incidents as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996, Kerry proposed intelligence cuts throughout the 1990s and even asked his colleagues in 1997, "Now that [the Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?"
Kerry proposed three billion dollar cuts in intelligence after a number of growing threats from al Qaeda, instead likening intelligence funding to the mink subsidy. If you really want to lay blame at the feet of one of the candidates for ineptitude in the intelligence community to look past Kerry would be to ignore his senate record.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
������This fails to even scratch the surface of the president�s actions and policies since 9/11. Whatever your opinions of his actions are, you cannot deny that America no longer has the world as our ally. This administration has squandered the goodwill of world opinion with its reckless and disastrous foreign policy and its war of choice in Iraq. There is no other way to see it.
I�m glad to see your so open minded about it. To argue that America somehow was loved around the world prior to this administration would be pure folly. The fact that we have been involved with Iraq since the end of the first war; bombing them at least every other day has done far more to turn world sentiment against the US than any policy of this administration�.the policies of this administration are viewed by Arabs who already sensitized to colonial ambition. The policies of the last 10 years in the region have hurt an immense amount.
Not that I agree that peer pressure should have anything beyond its proper place in any foreign policy decision; and that is none.
www.globalissues.org...
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
����������. We did not invade Iraq as a response to 9/11. We did not do it to liberate the Iraqi people. John Kerry and most of Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they were presented with evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is the long and the short of it.
what is so hard for you to believe�.it was common knowledge (even if incorrect) among the last two administrations and among almost all foreign intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD�..further the Russian president warned American intelligence officials that Iraq was planning terrorist activities inside the US. So how do you say that given the information that Iraq was planning terrorist activity and had WMD�.combined with them being emboldened by current events, doesn�t lead to taking care of them. Carping about the fact that we should have had better intelligence doesn�t make the decision faulty.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
������.What it does say is that the invasion of Iraq was perfectly justifiable under the U.N. Charter �in anticipation of an armed attack, even if an armed attack has not yet occurred.� While this is a rather loose interpretation, even if you agree with it you have to ask how we anticipated enough of a threat from Saddam that we can justify the loss of more than 1,000 soldiers (so far) and $200 billion (so far) based upon intelligence that even Colin Powell did not believe.
how do you equate; doubts about some to, did not believe. That is misleading at best outright distortion at worst. And even in your own quote CP states that neither he nor the president were made aware of that.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Saddam was contained, the UN inspectors were in the country, he had no air force, no navy, and sanctions imposed against the citizens of his country. He had never attacked us and was not planning an attack and, while he was a brutal dictator and a grave threat to his own citizens, he had no weapons of mass destruction.
and saddam if you remember was starting to break containment as the French among others were starting to push for stopping sanctions, while arming them. And the policy of containment was not only ill advised it was not UN sanctioned and did more to hurt US relations in the region than anythingelse. Additionally, the not planning to would be false www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
������.u say to the parents who watch their teenagers drafted and shipped off to Iraq (and possibly Syria and Iran) once Bush is elected for four more years and no longer has to worry about political backlash? What will you tell your son or daughter about the horrors of war before they enter basic training next summer?
that is just laughable even if bush is elected and doesn�t have to worry about back lash the other politicians that would have to help him do��.nice try at the emotionally misleading argument though.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
�����... The only place this war was ever justified was within Bush�s rhetoric and his troubled mind.
and that would ignore the 75 senators who agreed�all political flipping after the fact is ignored�.if you check that was 23 more than the first gulf war.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
���������� Can you justify a massive wartime tax cut that has literally taken military capability out of the hands of our troops, making them more vulnerable to injury and death? Go beyond the Hummers without armor, or the fact that top military analysts called for many more troops for the invasion, and think about the cuts in housing, medical assistance and psychological treatment that veterans are asked to endure back home.
although most of this is just propagandist crap I will address the massive wartime cut taking cap�.blah blah�.and that would be why we have a deficit currently. And wasn�t it Kerry that was voting against giving the boys the armor or was that just an illusion.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
���������.and even though Homeland Security and first responders in this country are underfunded and a complete farce, the Bush administration insists on huge tax cuts for the wealthy and continues to divert military and economic resources to the $200 billion sinkhole of Iraq, a country that never attacked us. Think of the type of security that $200 billion would provide on our own shores, where we still have security problems with our own WMDs at Los Alamos or at nuclear plants all over the country. Think of how close we were to catching Osama at Tora Bora, and how the small number of American troops in Afghanistan allowed him to slip through our fingers. Think of all the things that would be different had we not gone into Iraq and simply let the inspectors do their job. They would probably still be there today, and our fallen soldiers would be home with their families. Wasn�t this a horrible and tragic mistake?
To start with DHS is not horribly under funded if anything it is horribly over funded. First responders are not federally funded. And as for the 200 million I�d prefer not to think of the boondoggle that would be imposed to piss that much money away. Don�t you remember the doubling of their budget? As for making America a hardened target that is just sheer folly�no matter how hardened you make a target there is going to be a weakness that is exploitable. That kind of thinking is what led to the maginot line and other like ridiculous adventures throughout human history. If you stick you head in the sand you only make your ass a better target. Any policy which ended the daily bombings of an Arab country indefinitely was an improvement.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
���������������. I personally am college-educated with two degrees and was forced to take a job at just above minimum wage for 6 months just to get medical benefits. Two of my co-workers had master�s degrees. Our manager had a PhD.
and I would be wondering just what those degrees are in? second, how much experience do any of those degree holders have�in many professions the holder of a degree is someone who is qualified to be trained it isn�t necessarily inclusive to that profession.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
The economy isn�t simply jobs creation, it�s this nation�s ability to pay for social services, police and fire protection, education and the like. The monstrous deficit we find ourselves in due to war and tax cuts makes it impossible not to cut these services and difficult to improve education and health care in this country.
and this would be emotional pandering�once again these services for the large part are not funded by the federal government so the tax cuts do not effect them.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
������������ In my state, California, I�ve watched funding cut for school music and sports programs where public education is already in dire straits. When I broke my ankle last year I had to wait 6 hours to see an emergency room doctor at a public hospital. Is this an economic turnaround? Haven�t we waited long enough? It continues to get worse�
and that was and still remains the effects from your state putting one liberal governor and state legislature after another into power. A better argument could be made that you Californians have ruined the national economy with your liberal policies�..democrats were in power in the state from the city level all the way to the governership when they drove California into debt that they will have a hard time getting out of�..with California being the worlds sixth largest economy the drag it presents on the national economy is extensive.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
OK, so I�m not voting for him. To those of you who are, I sincerely wish to know why.
if given the choice that only allowed bush or kerry it�s a no-brainer. Kerry boarders on being pathological in his misrepresentations of the truth and would be no improvement in any category I can think of and would be a return to what probably has us in bad shape in the first place.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
����������..If you are a veteran or soldier I need to see evidence that he hasn�t mismanaged and totally screwed our military.
if you do a fair analysis of the causalities in this conflict to others in Americas history then you will see that the casualty rate is rather low. This would not seem to support the claim of mismanagement and totally screwing the military.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I�m a progressive. I believe that the government�s function is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. It should never be the other way around.
I think you�ve got that one backwards if your supporting JFK
[edit on 16-9-2004 by keholmes]
Originally posted by soothsayer
Yeah, keep believing that. NAFTA is good for America.
and that would be a bush policy....how?
Originally posted by RockerDom
Don't forget that the vast amount of information that was available came from the Clinton Administration, and "Bin Laden Lane" in the CIA. The documents Condi rice has commented upon, the PDBs, were the source of much of the information that was used to finger those responsible. Those who did the actual research were people like Richard Clark and George Tenet, not people who were added when Bush came into power. It was their hard work that so quickly came up with this information, and it was them who were making up the PDBs before 9/11 that Bush didn't read.
actually political appointees don�t sift though anything more than policy type decisions they are the front. Any work that was done would have been done by career people more than likely with extensive background and experience in the field; look at the NSA website for the hiring description for analysts you�ll notice that party affiliation is not part of the hiring process. www.nsa.gov...
Originally posted by RockerDom
Do you know why the French and Germans decided not to come into Iraq with us?
the reasons that you quote all happened after they decided not to come to us so what do you think really motivated the decision?
Originally posted by RockerDom
Locally, here in South Carolina, there is a company called ����.
that is a sad story and it is being repeated all over the country but that would be a Clinton policy.
Originally posted by RockerDom
I don't know what he would have done. But I think that a few days after 9/11, when Iran was hit by that devastating earthquake, and the U.S. absolutely ignored, I know that Al Gore would have sent help, troops, aid to that country. If America had extended a helping hand, even after being so terribly wounded, we would have shown what true strength, and what true moral standing is. Strength is never about how you treat those who have hurt you. It is about how you treat those who you have the power to help.
and that is were you would be wrong, we sent aid both through our DoD as well as privately and through the UN. The following is just one line of many supporting the US involvement after the earthquake at the following link.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), seven C-130s have airlifted approximately 68 MT of medical supplies, 2,000 blankets, and a 10K forklift to assist in offloading relief commodities in Bam
www.usaid.gov... (about � way down is unassisted US aid)
Originally posted by spud602
Uh... you certainly make an interesting well reasoned point. However I believe the majority of Bush supporters are incapable of critical analysis.
It is quite possible this new crop of Republicans are voting for GWB cause "Lil Baby Jesus" told em to (or their Pastors). Why else would they support this war dodging alcoholic?
Spend some time with Noam Chomsky for details of the recent rise to power by GWB.
God help us all. Fear has led a near majority of Americans to trust the path of the "First Retarded President".
So this is the kind of debate we are going to have? In other words, any person of faith that supports Bush is a mindless robot who does what their Pastor says.
That is insulting drivel. It is that type of argument that has repelled me away from the Democratic party for years. The view that somehow the intellectual elite of the Dems. are our only hope.
I am an undecided, for I believe the original post was interested in hearing from us as well. I will not labor to answer you point by point, for I do not have the time today. I will share with you some of my thoughts.
1. Iraq. I feel this was a huge mistake. I feel that we never truly entertained a sufficient national debate before the Congress authorized the war there. With that said, I did not hear the great voice of Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards at the time. I am very dissapointed the Mr. Lieberman didn't do better. I would have voted for him in a moment.
2. I disagree with the premise that Al would have invaded anything. He would have launched a series of cruise missiles, and still be hunting for OBM as well.
3. Jobs, NAFTA. I am dissapointed in the leadership of the President. But who passed NAFTA? Oh, that's right, WJC. So some of what is said rings hallow.
4. It bothered me to hear the democrats respond to the RNC convention as hateful. I watched both on cspan so I could hear everything. If what the Reps. said was hateful, so were the Dems. I can't stand the double standard. It bugs me. They want the Reps to codemn the swift boat ads, but they won't condemn move on. In my world, you can't have it both ways.
5. My dillema is my faith moves me with compassion on social issues, so I wind up finding many things I like in the Democratic platform. But as a man of faith, I have no voice in their party. Pro life, not welcome. Personal responsibility, not welcome. I could go on and on, but I won't.
So in the end, I won't have Lil Baby Jesus tell me how to vote, (via my pastor, right. Will I pray about it. You bet.
Am I educated? You bet! Am I an elite snob who insults people who do not agree with me? No.
Some thoughts from an independent.
Text"
Danny Elfman- Oingo Boingo....Only A Lad REM
The Spider
First off, allow me to thank you for taking the time to at least attempt intelligent thought on these subjects. I'd like to point out that not a
single one of your points is valid. Here's why...
Didn't Clinton get impeached for lying about a BJ? Let's do the math and see if there's anything worse that Bush has lied about. I'll pick one... How about his administration's leak of a high level intelligence operative's name as retribution to her husband for going against the party line on WMD. I'd love to see someone actually do an investigation of that, and Bush's father even called it treason. Is treason an impeachable offense?
How about letting the Bin Laden family leave the country on the 9/13 without any questions asked at all? How about witholding information from the 9/11 comission? Hmm... so many choices. Won't ever happen with this country.
If you read what I actually wrote (It's right there above) you'll see that ineptitude is what prompted the lie. They certainly had more than an "inkling" that it would happen. To say they didn't IS a lie. Can you refute that?
Wait one second with this crap, sir. Why don't you tell me, since you've fingered the intelligence community, how much funding would have allowed Richard Clarke (a Clinton appointee) to meet with the president EVEN ONCE before September to show him all the detailed work that he and his intelligence staff did on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. His memos and conclusion as Bush took office all show that he believed the biggest threat to our national security was terrorism and OBL. Was it Kerry's fault? The Senate's fault? I don't see anything in the 9/11 report that says the intelligence community was underfunded, simply disorganized and totally ignored by those at the top. Not that I put all that much faith in the report. I'm not saying any of this would have prevented 9/11, but a lot more could have been done by all sides. Blaming Kerry is a bit Partisan for a "Libertarian."
I'm sure you read what I actually wrote, so this is a distortion. I said we had the support of almost the entire world right after 9/11. Where did all that goodwill go? Must have been Clinton's fault.
Right. And then the UN sent in inspectors, and then Hans Blix pleaded with the US to let them finish their work. And then Bush kicked them out. Remember that? Common knowledge.
The problem here is that you are completely obtuse about this point. You and all the other supporters of this war. Why haven't we been shown any evidence or details whatsoever other than a Russian press release about this? Better yet, how was Saddam going to plan this terrorist attack in the US? With his WMD? His nuclear program? His airplanes? It's pretty ludicrous at this juncture to say that he was planning to attack us. What was he going to do it with, his mind?
Do you guys selectively forget the things that don't fit with your arguments? Remember when Colin Powell was going to make a speech to the UN with "evidence" of WMD and he called it "bullsh*t"? Here's a nicer documentation:
www.guardian.co.uk...
Or maybe you don't believe this report. Because you don't want to. They knew that the intelligence was suspect. Is that an impeachable offense?
Are you kidding me? "breaking containment?" How do you figure that? Surely sanctions were going to end because they weren't doing anything to him except hurting the people. I guess you were all for that.
U.S. Satellites covered every inch of Iraq every week when he was still in power (remember all the nifty photos?) The oil-for-food program was obviously a disaster for years but if you think the best solution was to destroy the country's infrastructure then I'm really surprised.
Also, the suggestion that the no-fly zones and intermittent bombing of the Clinton years stir up more resentment towards America than the slaughter of more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians is truly audacious. You amaze me with your willingness to believe something such as this.
You're a military guy. Look at the numbers. If we go into Syria or Iran do you actually think the draft won't be reinstated? I hope I never have to say I told you so, but don't be naive.
Yes. A lot of senators agreed after Bush's state of the union address where he lied about the Uranium yellow cake (that the state department quickly backed off from) from Africa and he conjured images of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs. I was scared, too, and I didn't even see all the fake photos, but maybe I would have voted to authorize force, too. Funny how all the flip flops are after they realized they had been misled.
By the way, Kerry and Co didn't vote to go to war. They voted to authorize the use of force, which as you know is the President's discretion. Let's not forget that important fact. Kerry would want that authorization under similar circumstances, does that make him a flip flopper?
First of all, thanks for slyly ignoring the part of my post talking about the Veteran's benefits. Good strategy, just not to reply.
Ok, I'm only going to say this one more frigging time about the vote against body armor bullsh*t you guys keep slinging. First of all, that was part of an appropriations bill with LOTS of other provisions, including a provision that would allow a bunch of grants rather than loans. Kerry, along with MANY republicans, voted against that VERSION of the same bill that Bush threatened to VETO if it wasn't amended in the House. The fact that you are even saying this makes your reply sound like Fox News regurgitation. I was beginning to think you were above that.
Did I say the Department of Homeland Security? Sorry for the confusion, because I just said "homeland security" which is a broader issue. DHP is a great little slush fund that says volumes about Bush's pledge for "smaller government"
Well, they certainly aren't now. FYI, New York City asked Bush for federal funds to hire more police and fire fighters in 2002. Guess what he said? (sorry, Rudy) Also, what do you call first responders? Let's say emergency agencies. Let's see who is funded federally: The firefighters at the Pentagon, and the National guard, and FEMA, and the ATF and the Federal Marshals and all the federal grants that are given to emergency services in New York, DC, San Francisco, ETC. There aren't any guards in Hummers at the Golden Gate Bridge anymore, that's for sure.
You're right. We should totally just stop trying.
What kind of thinking got us into those ridiculous adventures? How about the idea that we have the power to impose our ideas with guns and bombs.
I fail to see how our current policy has ended the bombing of an Arab country. Did you fall asleep? We just bombed a target two days ago and killed 60 people including children. Great policy, guy.
Right, a PhD in engineering working at a coffee shop. Must not be qualified enough for all those jobs out there.
This is perhaps the most moronic statement I've heard in ages. Emotional pandering doesn't make folks like you any smarter, I suppose.
Which of these programs isn't federally funded? Social security? Medicare? (those don't matter much, right?) Welfare? Faith-Based charities? Educational Grants? Disaster Relief? VA hospitals? (sure won't need those in ten years)
Do you really believe that? Look at what you wrote! Will you take that back please? If not, tell me which one of the above programs you're willing to stop funding.
Like Pete Wilson, who installed an infrastructure that favored corporations and tax cuts so much over education (sound familiar) that we have the worst public education system in terms of dollars per student in the country. Guess that's why I'm so stupid.
Actually, this argument is another thing you are spouting off about that you obviously know little to nothing about. California had a series of ultra conservative governors from Reagan to Wilson who made it impossible to pass any true economic legislation or balance the budget because of their refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy. The largest economy in California exists in the LA Metro area, and they haven't had a liberal mayor or city council in years. Orange County is God's Country, and your misconceptions about California belie your ignorance on this subject. What really drove a nail in the coffin of our state economy was the energy crisis resulting from Deregulation (a conservative idea) when Enron (under Bush crony Ken Lay) defrauded the entire state.
Right. Everything about the man is a no-brainer.
I would love to hear your qualification for this statement. How about telling me what Kerry has lied about? His military service? No, that's Bush. What did he lie to you about? Is there something you know that I don't?
The casualty rate is acceptable to you? Oh, you mean just for the soldiers because the Iraqis don't really count. Somehow the loss of human life for no discernable reason (I still haven't heard one from you) seems like a high casualty rate no matter how few have died or been injured.
I think the military is screwed not because we're going to lose all of them, silly. I have two very close friends in the Air Force in Saudi Arabia that have had their pay cut, their housing cut, and their families have had to move and find some way to make ends meet here in Liberal California while moving off base because the government won't pay for it anymore. One of them is about to declare bankruptcy. They tell me this is actually pretty common. But that's not the president's fault, right? Go ahead and tell me this war, even if justified, wasn't mismanaged. I dare you. Then tell all the retired Generals who disagree with you.
Funny how the "smartest" of you seem to show how ignorant you truly are when you attempt to be witty. Compare what I wrote to what JFK said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Did I say "country"? I actually said "Government." That you equate country with government is very telling, indeed. The country is our people, good sir. We the People.
Pretty slick how you call yourself a Libertarian. Aren't you tired of the charade?
Originally posted by keholmes
what exactly would lead to impeachment in your opinion.
Didn't Clinton get impeached for lying about a BJ? Let's do the math and see if there's anything worse that Bush has lied about. I'll pick one... How about his administration's leak of a high level intelligence operative's name as retribution to her husband for going against the party line on WMD. I'd love to see someone actually do an investigation of that, and Bush's father even called it treason. Is treason an impeachable offense?
How about letting the Bin Laden family leave the country on the 9/13 without any questions asked at all? How about witholding information from the 9/11 comission? Hmm... so many choices. Won't ever happen with this country.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������. Over time, enough truth has emerged to confirm that � simply based upon what is in the public record � Bush�s assertion that �Had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America� is a lie and also an admittance of failure. Just the following points are well known and well-documented enough to point out that 9/11 was allowed to happen, if not consciously then because of complete ineptitude:
and if as you assert it was possible that ineptitude led to this end, then how can you claim it was a lie without resorting to partisan smearing�.
If you read what I actually wrote (It's right there above) you'll see that ineptitude is what prompted the lie. They certainly had more than an "inkling" that it would happen. To say they didn't IS a lie. Can you refute that?
Despite such incidents as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996, Kerry proposed intelligence cuts throughout the 1990s and even asked his colleagues in 1997, "Now that [the Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?"
Kerry proposed three billion dollar cuts in intelligence after a number of growing threats from al Qaeda, instead likening intelligence funding to the mink subsidy. If you really want to lay blame at the feet of one of the candidates for ineptitude in the intelligence community to look past Kerry would be to ignore his senate record.
Wait one second with this crap, sir. Why don't you tell me, since you've fingered the intelligence community, how much funding would have allowed Richard Clarke (a Clinton appointee) to meet with the president EVEN ONCE before September to show him all the detailed work that he and his intelligence staff did on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. His memos and conclusion as Bush took office all show that he believed the biggest threat to our national security was terrorism and OBL. Was it Kerry's fault? The Senate's fault? I don't see anything in the 9/11 report that says the intelligence community was underfunded, simply disorganized and totally ignored by those at the top. Not that I put all that much faith in the report. I'm not saying any of this would have prevented 9/11, but a lot more could have been done by all sides. Blaming Kerry is a bit Partisan for a "Libertarian."
To argue that America somehow was loved around the world prior to this administration would be pure folly.
I'm sure you read what I actually wrote, so this is a distortion. I said we had the support of almost the entire world right after 9/11. Where did all that goodwill go? Must have been Clinton's fault.
what is so hard for you to believe�.it was common knowledge (even if incorrect) among the last two administrations and among almost all foreign intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD
Right. And then the UN sent in inspectors, and then Hans Blix pleaded with the US to let them finish their work. And then Bush kicked them out. Remember that? Common knowledge.
�..further the Russian president warned American intelligence officials that Iraq was planning terrorist activities inside the US.
The problem here is that you are completely obtuse about this point. You and all the other supporters of this war. Why haven't we been shown any evidence or details whatsoever other than a Russian press release about this? Better yet, how was Saddam going to plan this terrorist attack in the US? With his WMD? His nuclear program? His airplanes? It's pretty ludicrous at this juncture to say that he was planning to attack us. What was he going to do it with, his mind?
how do you equate; doubts about some to, did not believe. That is misleading at best outright distortion at worst. And even in your own quote CP states that neither he nor the president were made aware of that.
Do you guys selectively forget the things that don't fit with your arguments? Remember when Colin Powell was going to make a speech to the UN with "evidence" of WMD and he called it "bullsh*t"? Here's a nicer documentation:
www.guardian.co.uk...
Or maybe you don't believe this report. Because you don't want to. They knew that the intelligence was suspect. Is that an impeachable offense?
and saddam if you remember was starting to break containment as the French among others were starting to push for stopping sanctions, while arming them.
Are you kidding me? "breaking containment?" How do you figure that? Surely sanctions were going to end because they weren't doing anything to him except hurting the people. I guess you were all for that.
U.S. Satellites covered every inch of Iraq every week when he was still in power (remember all the nifty photos?) The oil-for-food program was obviously a disaster for years but if you think the best solution was to destroy the country's infrastructure then I'm really surprised.
Also, the suggestion that the no-fly zones and intermittent bombing of the Clinton years stir up more resentment towards America than the slaughter of more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians is truly audacious. You amaze me with your willingness to believe something such as this.
that is just laughable even if bush is elected and doesn�t have to worry about back lash the other politicians that would have to help him do��.nice try at the emotionally misleading argument though.
You're a military guy. Look at the numbers. If we go into Syria or Iran do you actually think the draft won't be reinstated? I hope I never have to say I told you so, but don't be naive.
and that would ignore the 75 senators who agreed�all political flipping after the fact is ignored�.if you check that was 23 more than the first gulf war.
Yes. A lot of senators agreed after Bush's state of the union address where he lied about the Uranium yellow cake (that the state department quickly backed off from) from Africa and he conjured images of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs. I was scared, too, and I didn't even see all the fake photos, but maybe I would have voted to authorize force, too. Funny how all the flip flops are after they realized they had been misled.
By the way, Kerry and Co didn't vote to go to war. They voted to authorize the use of force, which as you know is the President's discretion. Let's not forget that important fact. Kerry would want that authorization under similar circumstances, does that make him a flip flopper?
although most of this is just propagandist crap I will address the massive wartime cut taking cap�.blah blah�.and that would be why we have a deficit currently. And wasn�t it Kerry that was voting against giving the boys the armor or was that just an illusion.
First of all, thanks for slyly ignoring the part of my post talking about the Veteran's benefits. Good strategy, just not to reply.
Ok, I'm only going to say this one more frigging time about the vote against body armor bullsh*t you guys keep slinging. First of all, that was part of an appropriations bill with LOTS of other provisions, including a provision that would allow a bunch of grants rather than loans. Kerry, along with MANY republicans, voted against that VERSION of the same bill that Bush threatened to VETO if it wasn't amended in the House. The fact that you are even saying this makes your reply sound like Fox News regurgitation. I was beginning to think you were above that.
To start with DHS is not horribly under funded if anything it is horribly over funded.
Did I say the Department of Homeland Security? Sorry for the confusion, because I just said "homeland security" which is a broader issue. DHP is a great little slush fund that says volumes about Bush's pledge for "smaller government"
First responders are not federally funded.
Well, they certainly aren't now. FYI, New York City asked Bush for federal funds to hire more police and fire fighters in 2002. Guess what he said? (sorry, Rudy) Also, what do you call first responders? Let's say emergency agencies. Let's see who is funded federally: The firefighters at the Pentagon, and the National guard, and FEMA, and the ATF and the Federal Marshals and all the federal grants that are given to emergency services in New York, DC, San Francisco, ETC. There aren't any guards in Hummers at the Golden Gate Bridge anymore, that's for sure.
As for making America a hardened target that is just sheer folly�no matter how hardened you make a target there is going to be a weakness that is exploitable.
You're right. We should totally just stop trying.
That kind of thinking is what led to the maginot line and other like ridiculous adventures throughout human history. If you stick you head in the sand you only make your ass a better target. Any policy which ended the daily bombings of an Arab country indefinitely was an improvement.
What kind of thinking got us into those ridiculous adventures? How about the idea that we have the power to impose our ideas with guns and bombs.
I fail to see how our current policy has ended the bombing of an Arab country. Did you fall asleep? We just bombed a target two days ago and killed 60 people including children. Great policy, guy.
and I would be wondering just what those degrees are in? second, how much experience do any of those degree holders have�in many professions the holder of a degree is someone who is qualified to be trained it isn�t necessarily inclusive to that profession.
Right, a PhD in engineering working at a coffee shop. Must not be qualified enough for all those jobs out there.
and this would be emotional pandering�once again these services for the large part are not funded by the federal government so the tax cuts do not effect them.
This is perhaps the most moronic statement I've heard in ages. Emotional pandering doesn't make folks like you any smarter, I suppose.
Which of these programs isn't federally funded? Social security? Medicare? (those don't matter much, right?) Welfare? Faith-Based charities? Educational Grants? Disaster Relief? VA hospitals? (sure won't need those in ten years)
Do you really believe that? Look at what you wrote! Will you take that back please? If not, tell me which one of the above programs you're willing to stop funding.
and that was and still remains the effects from your state putting one liberal governor and state legislature after another into power.
Like Pete Wilson, who installed an infrastructure that favored corporations and tax cuts so much over education (sound familiar) that we have the worst public education system in terms of dollars per student in the country. Guess that's why I'm so stupid.
A better argument could be made that you Californians have ruined the national economy with your liberal policies�..democrats were in power in the state from the city level all the way to the governership when they drove California into debt that they will have a hard time getting out of�..with California being the worlds sixth largest economy the drag it presents on the national economy is extensive.
Actually, this argument is another thing you are spouting off about that you obviously know little to nothing about. California had a series of ultra conservative governors from Reagan to Wilson who made it impossible to pass any true economic legislation or balance the budget because of their refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy. The largest economy in California exists in the LA Metro area, and they haven't had a liberal mayor or city council in years. Orange County is God's Country, and your misconceptions about California belie your ignorance on this subject. What really drove a nail in the coffin of our state economy was the energy crisis resulting from Deregulation (a conservative idea) when Enron (under Bush crony Ken Lay) defrauded the entire state.
if given the choice that only allowed bush or kerry it�s a no-brainer.
Right. Everything about the man is a no-brainer.
Kerry boarders on being pathological in his misrepresentations of the truth and would be no improvement in any category I can think of and would be a return to what probably has us in bad shape in the first place.
I would love to hear your qualification for this statement. How about telling me what Kerry has lied about? His military service? No, that's Bush. What did he lie to you about? Is there something you know that I don't?
if you do a fair analysis of the causalities in this conflict to others in Americas history then you will see that the casualty rate is rather low. This would not seem to support the claim of mismanagement and totally screwing the military.
The casualty rate is acceptable to you? Oh, you mean just for the soldiers because the Iraqis don't really count. Somehow the loss of human life for no discernable reason (I still haven't heard one from you) seems like a high casualty rate no matter how few have died or been injured.
I think the military is screwed not because we're going to lose all of them, silly. I have two very close friends in the Air Force in Saudi Arabia that have had their pay cut, their housing cut, and their families have had to move and find some way to make ends meet here in Liberal California while moving off base because the government won't pay for it anymore. One of them is about to declare bankruptcy. They tell me this is actually pretty common. But that's not the president's fault, right? Go ahead and tell me this war, even if justified, wasn't mismanaged. I dare you. Then tell all the retired Generals who disagree with you.
I�m a progressive. I believe that the government�s function is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. It should never be the other way around.
I think you�ve got that one backwards if your supporting JFK
Funny how the "smartest" of you seem to show how ignorant you truly are when you attempt to be witty. Compare what I wrote to what JFK said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Did I say "country"? I actually said "Government." That you equate country with government is very telling, indeed. The country is our people, good sir. We the People.
Pretty slick how you call yourself a Libertarian. Aren't you tired of the charade?
Why I am voting (already have actually, absentee ballot) for bush.
The war on terror.
After the attack on America on 9/11 the united states finally woke up to the true scope of the problem we face in the form of terrorism in general and islamic terrorism specifically. For years this threat had been woefully ignored by the U.S. government and even more so by the U.S. populace. Partally due to our own arrogance (after all as the most powerful nation on earth what could a few crazy religous fanatics do to really hurt us.) we as a nation did not feel that terrorism was a rea threat to us.
The few attacks which had become news while violent were not effective enough to make us understsand the true nature of the threat. Even the first bombing of the world trade center only served to enforce the idea that we were to powerful to be harmed in a meaningful way. After all if the same organisation whch defeated the vaunted soviet army in afghanistan could not hurt us who could? While the first bombing of the twin towers was a shock the loss of life and damage to the building itself was minimal enough to make us feel more rather than less secure. We felt as if we, much like the towers themselves, could be hurt but not destroyed.
9/11 changed all that. For the first time in hstory we realised that we could be seriously hurt, and that these people were a real threat. The pain as any could have predicted quickly turned to anger and a desre for justice. The bush admnistration having determned that Al Queda was responsible began th move on afghanistan as a way of taking away those who supported Al Queda. However the fact remains that afghanistan is not the source of terrorism, it is just another symptom of the underlying disease.
The true nature of the disease is the nature of middle eastern society itself. The fact is that except for a very few exceptions that regon is, and always has been, ruled by violence. Leaders come to power through violence, maintain that power through mre violence, and are deposed by violence. The rule of law in countries like Afghanistan, syria, Iran, Saudi rabia and the rest s virtually non existant. This is something the average westerner has a hard time understandng as it is something almost none of us have ever experienced. How many of us can say we know what it feels like to know that at any time and for any reason we can be seized by our government, tortured, and murdered for little or even no reason at all? Not many.
The predominance of violence as a legitimate political tool in that region is the real cause of terrorism not islam (which after all is no more than a convienent tool for those who wish to send others off to die) Very early on I (and I suspect the Bush administration) realised that invading afghanistan would not be enough to secure America's safety from the middle eastern terrorists, what is needed is a restructuring of the society in that region. The only way that America and the rest of western society will be safe from the OBL's of this world is to create a culture in the middle east in whch people like him do not have the support of the people, a culture in which they share more in common with us than they do with him.
The only way to accomplish such an ambitious and far reachng goal is to reshape the power structure of that region. Once our foothold in Afghanistan had been secured we then needed to extend the U.S.'s sphere of influence in that region further. It was not important which country was chosen as the next candidate for regime change, just that we took the next step torwards reshaping the area. Due to hs continued defiance of the U.N. and the hstory between himself and the U.S. Saddam was the most convienent target.
In addition to furthering the agenda of fundamentally reshapng the middle east, the Lberatin of Iraq fulfilled several other goals.
1) it ensured a contriversial enough war to draw those of a terrorist mindset into Iraq, thus drawing them away from attacks on the mainland U.S. afterall what terrorist would not rather help fight to free there brothers from agression than fly around the world to attack enemy civillians
2) it placed additional pressure on, and additional fear into, the other regimes in the area including but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya
3)It ensured that the large amounts of the primary tool used by those regimes to gain power (oil) came under U.S. control.
This middle east restructuring is a bold ambtious and dangerous plan. If succesful it will ensure among other things.
1) A number of U.S. alled countries in areas tht were once enemies, therby ensuring that on of our main economic necessities (oil) will be freely and (in the long run) cheaply available to the U.S.
2) By spreading democracy and the rule of law we are helping to end the valdity of violence as a political tool.
3) By exporting western culture into these areas we are ensuring that future generations will be more psychologically and cuturally similar to ourselves thus removng much of the wish to overthrow or defy western culture.
This strategy is a long term one, it will not be concuded for years if not decades. Iraq is not the last country we will find it necessary to "forcibly advance" And we will most likely not feel the full benefits of this strategy for years if not decades. However it should be readily apparent to even the most obtuse of us what our passive foregn policies in ths region have produced. By allowing theocratic and despotic regimes to flourish in this area as a way of fighting the cold war through proxies we have created the atmosphere which bred the terrorists we now find orselves fighting. Though regretable it was a necessary evil that was needed to combat an even greater evil I.E. soviet expansion. However now that tht threat has for the most part passed we have the abillty to devote our considerable resources to defeating the less powerful evils which we in part helped to foster.
There are many who will say that the U.S. is abusing its position as the worlds only remainng superpower, however I believe that we are in fact living up to the responsibility that that power has thrust upon us. As the worlds only remaining superpower it is our duty to use that power to cajole, threaten, bribe, and when necessary force the rest of the world into a more stable paradigm.
President Bush it would seem, according to his actions, understands this and has taken the steps necessary to begin this reshapng of the middle east. It will not be easy, nor will it be painless, but in the end, history will recognise that America, much like Rome, Macedonia, and the ther great empres before her, will shape this world into a more stable and more civilsed one.
The war on terror.
After the attack on America on 9/11 the united states finally woke up to the true scope of the problem we face in the form of terrorism in general and islamic terrorism specifically. For years this threat had been woefully ignored by the U.S. government and even more so by the U.S. populace. Partally due to our own arrogance (after all as the most powerful nation on earth what could a few crazy religous fanatics do to really hurt us.) we as a nation did not feel that terrorism was a rea threat to us.
The few attacks which had become news while violent were not effective enough to make us understsand the true nature of the threat. Even the first bombing of the world trade center only served to enforce the idea that we were to powerful to be harmed in a meaningful way. After all if the same organisation whch defeated the vaunted soviet army in afghanistan could not hurt us who could? While the first bombing of the twin towers was a shock the loss of life and damage to the building itself was minimal enough to make us feel more rather than less secure. We felt as if we, much like the towers themselves, could be hurt but not destroyed.
9/11 changed all that. For the first time in hstory we realised that we could be seriously hurt, and that these people were a real threat. The pain as any could have predicted quickly turned to anger and a desre for justice. The bush admnistration having determned that Al Queda was responsible began th move on afghanistan as a way of taking away those who supported Al Queda. However the fact remains that afghanistan is not the source of terrorism, it is just another symptom of the underlying disease.
The true nature of the disease is the nature of middle eastern society itself. The fact is that except for a very few exceptions that regon is, and always has been, ruled by violence. Leaders come to power through violence, maintain that power through mre violence, and are deposed by violence. The rule of law in countries like Afghanistan, syria, Iran, Saudi rabia and the rest s virtually non existant. This is something the average westerner has a hard time understandng as it is something almost none of us have ever experienced. How many of us can say we know what it feels like to know that at any time and for any reason we can be seized by our government, tortured, and murdered for little or even no reason at all? Not many.
The predominance of violence as a legitimate political tool in that region is the real cause of terrorism not islam (which after all is no more than a convienent tool for those who wish to send others off to die) Very early on I (and I suspect the Bush administration) realised that invading afghanistan would not be enough to secure America's safety from the middle eastern terrorists, what is needed is a restructuring of the society in that region. The only way that America and the rest of western society will be safe from the OBL's of this world is to create a culture in the middle east in whch people like him do not have the support of the people, a culture in which they share more in common with us than they do with him.
The only way to accomplish such an ambitious and far reachng goal is to reshape the power structure of that region. Once our foothold in Afghanistan had been secured we then needed to extend the U.S.'s sphere of influence in that region further. It was not important which country was chosen as the next candidate for regime change, just that we took the next step torwards reshaping the area. Due to hs continued defiance of the U.N. and the hstory between himself and the U.S. Saddam was the most convienent target.
In addition to furthering the agenda of fundamentally reshapng the middle east, the Lberatin of Iraq fulfilled several other goals.
1) it ensured a contriversial enough war to draw those of a terrorist mindset into Iraq, thus drawing them away from attacks on the mainland U.S. afterall what terrorist would not rather help fight to free there brothers from agression than fly around the world to attack enemy civillians
2) it placed additional pressure on, and additional fear into, the other regimes in the area including but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya
3)It ensured that the large amounts of the primary tool used by those regimes to gain power (oil) came under U.S. control.
This middle east restructuring is a bold ambtious and dangerous plan. If succesful it will ensure among other things.
1) A number of U.S. alled countries in areas tht were once enemies, therby ensuring that on of our main economic necessities (oil) will be freely and (in the long run) cheaply available to the U.S.
2) By spreading democracy and the rule of law we are helping to end the valdity of violence as a political tool.
3) By exporting western culture into these areas we are ensuring that future generations will be more psychologically and cuturally similar to ourselves thus removng much of the wish to overthrow or defy western culture.
This strategy is a long term one, it will not be concuded for years if not decades. Iraq is not the last country we will find it necessary to "forcibly advance" And we will most likely not feel the full benefits of this strategy for years if not decades. However it should be readily apparent to even the most obtuse of us what our passive foregn policies in ths region have produced. By allowing theocratic and despotic regimes to flourish in this area as a way of fighting the cold war through proxies we have created the atmosphere which bred the terrorists we now find orselves fighting. Though regretable it was a necessary evil that was needed to combat an even greater evil I.E. soviet expansion. However now that tht threat has for the most part passed we have the abillty to devote our considerable resources to defeating the less powerful evils which we in part helped to foster.
There are many who will say that the U.S. is abusing its position as the worlds only remainng superpower, however I believe that we are in fact living up to the responsibility that that power has thrust upon us. As the worlds only remaining superpower it is our duty to use that power to cajole, threaten, bribe, and when necessary force the rest of the world into a more stable paradigm.
President Bush it would seem, according to his actions, understands this and has taken the steps necessary to begin this reshapng of the middle east. It will not be easy, nor will it be painless, but in the end, history will recognise that America, much like Rome, Macedonia, and the ther great empres before her, will shape this world into a more stable and more civilsed one.
mwm1331, I've read everything you had to say, you should have just lumped it all together to make it short and to the point. What I got out of
all of it was this.
1) USA is the "super" power of the world
2) all countries should live and abid by USA's laws and policies
3) If you don't abid by our (USA) laws/ways/policies......... then we'll attack you and force you to bend to our will
4) The United States wants "all" countries/peoples, to be like us .
5) G W Bush is the "only" one that can make all this happen .
#1) I'm incline to agree with to be true
#2) This Is Bull, different countries have different laws/ways
#3) Now whose calling the "kettle" black, here ? Shear terrorism by the USA
#4) It's wrong to force different countries into being something/someone there not,..... that's what makes us in the USA different and looked up to( at least we use to be looked up to )
#5) You make G W Bush sound like a "God" and thats "blasphemy" in the worst form . There is "only" one "GOD" and it sure isn't G W Bush by a long shot,
and what I got out of your post by putting it all in a "nut-shell" is this,...... the re-incarnation of Hitler is alive and well in the United States posing as "one" George W Bush," High Hitlbush ".
Ya'll "keep it up", your sounding more like "fruit loop George".
Thank GOD, for John Kerry, who by the way doesn't sound like a " nut case" ready for the "funny farm".
GOD, HELP US ALL,.... if we have to put up with Bush after NOV 2.
1) USA is the "super" power of the world
2) all countries should live and abid by USA's laws and policies
3) If you don't abid by our (USA) laws/ways/policies......... then we'll attack you and force you to bend to our will
4) The United States wants "all" countries/peoples, to be like us .
5) G W Bush is the "only" one that can make all this happen .
#1) I'm incline to agree with to be true
#2) This Is Bull, different countries have different laws/ways
#3) Now whose calling the "kettle" black, here ? Shear terrorism by the USA
#4) It's wrong to force different countries into being something/someone there not,..... that's what makes us in the USA different and looked up to( at least we use to be looked up to )
#5) You make G W Bush sound like a "God" and thats "blasphemy" in the worst form . There is "only" one "GOD" and it sure isn't G W Bush by a long shot,
and what I got out of your post by putting it all in a "nut-shell" is this,...... the re-incarnation of Hitler is alive and well in the United States posing as "one" George W Bush," High Hitlbush ".
Ya'll "keep it up", your sounding more like "fruit loop George".
Thank GOD, for John Kerry, who by the way doesn't sound like a " nut case" ready for the "funny farm".
GOD, HELP US ALL,.... if we have to put up with Bush after NOV 2.
nanna you either chose not to or were unable to understand what I was saying.
Fact- in the middle east violence against civilians is seen as a legitimate poltical tool.
Fact- The types of governments present in the middle east are all totalitarian
Fact - the prior two facts are what causes terrorism.
There is a huge difference between the rule of law and the rule of man. I am saddened that you are so spoiled by your upbringing that you can not understand that.
Either you are incapable of understanding my points or you chose not to, either way you are irrelevant. Its people like Bush who change the world people like you just bitch abut it.
Fact- in the middle east violence against civilians is seen as a legitimate poltical tool.
Fact- The types of governments present in the middle east are all totalitarian
Fact - the prior two facts are what causes terrorism.
There is a huge difference between the rule of law and the rule of man. I am saddened that you are so spoiled by your upbringing that you can not understand that.
Either you are incapable of understanding my points or you chose not to, either way you are irrelevant. Its people like Bush who change the world people like you just bitch abut it.
What? Are you smoking the most expensive crack? Mr. Hanoi John Kerry would know what about Setp 11? Yeah! Ok! He would probably cut
himselft and typed up a recognition letter for an other Purple Heart, just like his first Purple Heart during Vietnam War.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by Colateral Duty]
[edit on 17-9-2004 by Colateral Duty]
The thing is Kerry went Bush stayed home. No matter what else you want to believe there is no denying the fact that Kerry at least had the cahunas to
go and Bush did not go. No matter how many swiftboat lies you want to believe even though they have been proven untrue time and time again, no matter
what you want to believe the thing is Kerry went to war and Bush stayed home. It is a matter of public record Bush got arrested for drunk driving in
Maine, is a known alcoholic and once he became governor of Texas had his old driving record there destroyed and so that should tell you he probably
had some DUI's there as well. Many have said he used coc aine while his father was president, thats not been that long ago. He would not take
his physical in the National Guard and many believe it was because of his drug habits. The truth is for some republicans their going to vote for Bush
simply because he is the republican candidate and will believe anything to justify it. I swear if the man was caught in bed with an underage teen
naked and was suddenly broadcast on all our tvs showing him in the act some republicans would just say and believe he was teaching the child about
safe sex and how kind he was to take the time out of his busy schedule to do so. Some say they are going to vote for him based on his response to
terrorism, well his actions during his first 8 months in office helped 911 happen and since 911 we have yet to do anything about homeland security,
except for airports we are just as vulnerable as before. Is anyone going to tell me they feel safe traveling outside the US? We were not that popular
before Bush took office but since he has become President we are all a target, more so than before. Time and time again people from Bush's own camp
have come forward and said the invasion of Iraq was a number one priority from day one of his presidency but yet some people believe we went into Iraq
for terrorist reasons and poor Bush had bad intelligence, BS! What would you say if a democrat president had went into a war getting our soldiers
killed based on bad intelligence, would it be a good enough excuse for you then? I seriously doubt it, I hope not. You republicans should be furious
at what this man has done.
I am not voteing for Bush. He gives off bad vibes. I don't think he's a good person. I feel bad when I see him on televison.
Too much negativity from his actions have resulted. Negativity everywhere and all amongst us. Lots of anger around now. I don't like the psychic atmosphere of this country since he has been in office.
People bickering and argueing about him. He needs to go back to Texas to his farm.
A good president would not cause this much negativity. It's that simple.
There's only been lots of death since he's been in office, whether it's his fault or not I'm not argueing. I'm just stateing this fact and it's true.
Bush is a bad apple.
Too much negativity from his actions have resulted. Negativity everywhere and all amongst us. Lots of anger around now. I don't like the psychic atmosphere of this country since he has been in office.
People bickering and argueing about him. He needs to go back to Texas to his farm.
A good president would not cause this much negativity. It's that simple.
There's only been lots of death since he's been in office, whether it's his fault or not I'm not argueing. I'm just stateing this fact and it's true.
Bush is a bad apple.
Originally posted by mwm1331
Why I am voting (already have actually, absentee ballot) for bush.
The war on terror.
After the attack on America on 9/11 the united states finally woke up to the true scope of the problem we face in the form of terrorism in general and islamic terrorism specifically. For years this threat had been woefully ignored by the U.S. government and even more so by the U.S. populace. Partally due to our own arrogance (after all as the most powerful nation on earth what could a few crazy religous fanatics do to really hurt us.) we as a nation did not feel that terrorism was a rea threat to us.
The few attacks which had become news while violent were not effective enough to make us understsand the true nature of the threat. Even the first bombing of the world trade center only served to enforce the idea that we were to powerful to be harmed in a meaningful way. After all if the same organisation whch defeated the vaunted soviet army in afghanistan could not hurt us who could? While the first bombing of the twin towers was a shock the loss of life and damage to the building itself was minimal enough to make us feel more rather than less secure. We felt as if we, much like the towers themselves, could be hurt but not destroyed.
9/11 changed all that. For the first time in hstory we realised that we could be seriously hurt, and that these people were a real threat.
First time?? Forgotten Pearl Harbour??
The pain as any could have predicted quickly turned to anger and a desre for justice. The bush admnistration having determned that Al Queda was responsible began th move on afghanistan as a way of taking away those who supported Al Queda.
The war in Afghanistan was planned long before 9-11, funny that 9-11 became the reason for a war planned in 2000, isn't it? The Bush administration knew well in advance about what was going to happen specifically and chose to permit those events to take place, knowing that such a huge event would ensure that the US public would approve almost any military spending budget along with a narrowing of civil rights.
However the fact remains that afghanistan is not the source of terrorism, it is just another symptom of the underlying disease.
The true nature of the disease is the nature of middle eastern society itself.
No, excessively aggresive pursuit of "Free Trade" under IMF & WTO rules is the largest cause of international terrorism. As more and more countries get stepped on by big american business, the more terrorists you will have to face.
The fact is that except for a very few exceptions that regon is, and always has been, ruled by violence. Leaders come to power through violence, maintain that power through mre violence, and are deposed by violence. The rule of law in countries like Afghanistan, syria, Iran, Saudi rabia and the rest s virtually non existant. This is something the average westerner has a hard time understandng as it is something almost none of us have ever experienced. How many of us can say we know what it feels like to know that at any time and for any reason we can be seized by our government, tortured, and murdered for little or even no reason at all? Not many.
Actually, under The Patriot Act, all US citizens can all feel like that legitimately!
The predominance of violence as a legitimate political tool in that region is the real cause of terrorism not islam (which after all is no more than a convienent tool for those who wish to send others off to die) Very early on I (and I suspect the Bush administration) realised that invading afghanistan would not be enough to secure America's safety from the middle eastern terrorists, what is needed is a restructuring of the society in that region.
Social engineering? You really think the Bush administration are stupid enough to try to tell some of the worlds oldest cultures they've been doing it wrong all this time and expect to succeed? Guess what? Either you'd better pray you're wrong or expect to fail miserably. The real reason that there has been so much aggression in the region for so long is because this is exactly what the indigenous peoples of the region have been doing for so long. Mr. Bush's late appearance seems somewhat insignificant when you compare him to Mohammed or Jesus Christ. When Mr. Bush can find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem then he will be considered qualified by locals to help restructure the region.
The only way that America and the rest of western society will be safe from the OBL's of this world is to create a culture in the middle east in whch people like him do not have the support of the people, a culture in which they share more in common with us than they do with him.
What right have you to interfere with a society which has existed for millennia? Surely bombing "them" into submission is the same kind of outrageous behaviour you are saying is violent and should be stopped, surely by your definition of violence and terrorism, shouldn't the UN be sending weapons inspectors and a "peace-keeping" force into the USA to depose that dictatorial terrorist in charge? Shouldn't we Europeans perhaps decide that our form of democracy is right and yours is wrong, shouldn't we - the founders of democracy - perhaps be dropping cluster bombs on New York, Washington, Camp David, all of texas and writing off the collateral damage as accpetable as long as we get close to G.W.? No, democracy is the right for everyone to be different, have a different opinion, think differently and yet still be equally respected.
The only way to accomplish such an ambitious and far reachng goal is to reshape the power structure of that region. Once our foothold in Afghanistan had been secured we then needed to extend the U.S.'s sphere of influence in that region further.
The US has NO secure foothold in Afghanistan!
It was not important which country was chosen as the next candidate for regime change, just that we took the next step torwards reshaping the area. Due to hs continued defiance of the U.N. and the hstory between himself and the U.S. Saddam was the most convienent target.
In addition to furthering the agenda of fundamentally reshapng the middle east, the Lberatin of Iraq fulfilled several other goals.
1) it ensured a contriversial enough war to draw those of a terrorist mindset into Iraq, thus drawing them away from attacks on the mainland U.S. afterall what terrorist would not rather help fight to free there brothers from agression than fly around the world to attack enemy civillians
You really don't think at all do you? By "liberating" a people from a tyrannical leader, you encourage worse terrorists into the area then claim it is a good thing to get all the really bad guys together where you clearly cannot manage them! If you want to stop terrorists, sending them all to "day camp" together in Iraq doesn't seem to be all that clever. Any terror cells operating within the US are probably deep cover agents, long since amalgamated into western society, these people will not be leaving your shores quickly!
2) it placed additional pressure on, and additional fear into, the other regimes in the area including but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya
Why would the Bush family want to scare or put pressure on their friends? You obviously are unaware of, or are choosing to ignore the close relationship the Saudis and the Bush family, in fact 7% of your entire nation is owned by The House Of Saud so think again mis-informed idiot. The Saudis are in a better position to put pressure on you than you are they.
3)It ensured that the large amounts of the primary tool used by those regimes to gain power (oil) came under U.S. control.
At least you know what it was really all about, even before 9-11
This middle east restructuring is a bold ambtious and dangerous plan. If succesful it will ensure among other things.
1) A number of U.S. alled countries in areas tht were once enemies, therby ensuring that on of our main economic necessities (oil) will be freely and (in the long run) cheaply available to the U.S.
You don't win many friends by threatening people!
2) By spreading democracy and the rule of law we are helping to end the valdity of violence as a political tool.
Given the last US election - your "democracy" is laughed at by most of the world. It seems that violence is the only political tool available to George Bush when it comes to his foreign policy so how do you reconcile that fact with what you state are the goals.
3) By exporting western culture into these areas we are ensuring that future generations will be more psychologically and cuturally similar to ourselves thus removng much of the wish to overthrow or defy western culture.
So you freely admit that the current US policy is to try to brainwash the whole world into it's way of thinking - theres a word for trying to force people to think a certain way, it's called fascism. Remember who the last major fascist was and what happened to that "Great Nation"? I'll give you a little clue - Jawohl Mein Fuhrer!
This strategy is a long term one, it will not be concuded for years if not decades. Iraq is not the last country we will find it necessary to "forcibly advance" And we will most likely not feel the full benefits of this strategy for years if not decades. However it should be readily apparent to even the most obtuse of us what our passive foregn policies in ths region have produced.
Actually, it was the USA that put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place, so don't try to tell us all that US involvfement in the region is a recent thing.
By allowing theocratic and despotic regimes to flourish in this area as a way of fighting the cold war through proxies we have created the atmosphere which bred the terrorists we now find orselves fighting.
Not passive "allowing" but active training and funding by the CIA! Well, for operational training they turned to the SAS as the US were not capable of providing specialist training as good as we Brits, a fact of which I am equally proud and ashamed.
Though regretable it was a necessary evil that was needed to combat an even greater evil I.E. soviet expansion. However now that tht threat has for the most part passed we have the abillty to devote our considerable resources to defeating the less powerful evils which we in part helped to foster.
There are many who will say that the U.S. is abusing its position as the worlds only remainng superpower, however I believe that we are in fact living up to the responsibility that that power has thrust upon us. As the worlds only remaining superpower it is our duty to use that power to cajole, threaten, bribe, and when necessary force the rest of the world into a more stable paradigm.
A bit overstated that isn't it? "world's only remaining superpower" Careful as pride cometh before a fall, I should have thought you'd have learned that on the 11th September 2001!
President Bush it would seem, according to his actions, understands this and has taken the steps necessary to begin this reshapng of the middle east.
He started the process before 9-11, in fact, his fathers' associates have been planning it for some time before G.W. took power. Some even believe the WTC attacks were a pre-emptive strike.
It will not be easy, nor will it be painless, but in the end, history will recognise that America, much like Rome, Macedonia, and the ther great empres before her, will shape this world into a more stable and more civilsed one.
Have you forgotten what happened to those empires? They all fell, badly!
@mwm1331
I don�t know if you�re aware of this but what you stated is the doctrine of colonial expansion that was indulged by the Europeans a few centuries back and in the end proved to be completely unsustainable. It�s very easy to talk about reshaping the power structure in the middle east but unless they are in agreement with you then every attempt made to change their societies will be reciprocated by their attempt to change our society i.e. through terrorism, in a spiraling cycle of violence that will only end when either side is completely decimated or gives up. Add to that the fact that we are dealing with religious fundamentalists who welcome the prospect of dying and you can draw the picture.
So in my opinion the way to solve this problem is as follows:
1- worldwide manhunts of the people known to be terrorists so as to delay the inevitable reality that this insurrection WILL come to our doorstep because the enemy is well aware that he cant win in a frontal assault against the us military so he�ll target the rear i.e. the us homeland.
2 - massive investments to achieve self-sufficiency in hydrocarbons in the near future so as to untangle ourselves from the fortunes and complications of the middle east. They would be free to do whatever they want WITHIN their own societies and if they insist on causing problems I wouldn�t hesitate to retaliate using nuclear weapons.
On a final note, you mentioned rome and macedona as examples to be followed but didn�t point out that their empires were brought down by the military overstretch caused by the persistent incursions of �barbarians� who wouldn�t fall under their yoke.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by transient]
I don�t know if you�re aware of this but what you stated is the doctrine of colonial expansion that was indulged by the Europeans a few centuries back and in the end proved to be completely unsustainable. It�s very easy to talk about reshaping the power structure in the middle east but unless they are in agreement with you then every attempt made to change their societies will be reciprocated by their attempt to change our society i.e. through terrorism, in a spiraling cycle of violence that will only end when either side is completely decimated or gives up. Add to that the fact that we are dealing with religious fundamentalists who welcome the prospect of dying and you can draw the picture.
So in my opinion the way to solve this problem is as follows:
1- worldwide manhunts of the people known to be terrorists so as to delay the inevitable reality that this insurrection WILL come to our doorstep because the enemy is well aware that he cant win in a frontal assault against the us military so he�ll target the rear i.e. the us homeland.
2 - massive investments to achieve self-sufficiency in hydrocarbons in the near future so as to untangle ourselves from the fortunes and complications of the middle east. They would be free to do whatever they want WITHIN their own societies and if they insist on causing problems I wouldn�t hesitate to retaliate using nuclear weapons.
On a final note, you mentioned rome and macedona as examples to be followed but didn�t point out that their empires were brought down by the military overstretch caused by the persistent incursions of �barbarians� who wouldn�t fall under their yoke.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by transient]
Originally posted by keholmes
Any policy which ended the daily bombings of an Arab country indefinitely was an improvement.
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040917/ts_afp/iraq_us_fallujah
Originally posted by mwm1331
There is a huge difference between the rule of law and the rule of man. I am saddened that you are so spoiled by your upbringing that you can not understand that.
You sir, haven't a clue as to my upbringing, you don't know me and I sure as h*ll don't know you,...... thank God for small gifts of life, I say. My father fought in WW2, I've had uncles that fought in that war too, I have 2nd cousins that are in the service "as we speak", the twins have been over in that mess in Iraq, one ended up coming home,...... his twin is still there having to put his life on the line,...... for what,...... that dam oil, we don't even know if he's alright. The twin's mother had a heart attack due to the stress of worrying about her boys. My brother-in-law and my husband are honorable dis-charged veterans from the Vietnam war , I was raised in a family of eight, my parents, my siblings and myself, my father busted his but to make ends meet in our family during the Vietnam war era (60's to earily 70's ).
So with all that said, Do not assume, Sir, that I was brought-up spoiled, that is the farthest "statement anyone has made" from the truth, Do Not Assume something which you know nothing about. The sad thing about my cousins is, they joined the service to be able to go to college ( it was promised to them by the recruiter if they joined), they sure are getting an education, but not the one they were promised,...... so much for honesty from our Gov't. This Administration and his thugs that are in charge of our armed services,...... Will promise these young men and women the world as long as they join-up and all they've been giving these young people are BODY BAGS to come home in. So don't try to sell me on your "Bush God", it's not going to FLY, just as Bush was grounded from flying because he was to yellow-bellied to go in for his physical . A mamma's boy is what he is.
Either you are incapable of understanding my points or you chose not to, either way you are irrelevant. Its people like Bush who change the world people like you just bitch abut it.
Oh, I understand your points and thats just it, let me guess, your a Republican,.........., and you try to push the same BS that Bush is. You stated your points and I responded to them,...... you just didn't like what I had to say,......... boowho, isn't that too bad that a neocon's BS didn't fly. As far as who is and isn't irrelevent, try telling that to all those families that had lost a child,son,daughter,mother,father,sister, and brother in this "blood for oil" war of HitlBush and Tricky Dickie, try telling all those people that has lost loved ones that their deaths are irrelevent because by telling me that I am irrelevent, that is just what your telling those familes.
I deleted the remark that was HERE of my own accord. It was unfair of me to judge the Republican party because of you.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]
Originally posted by mwm1331
Fact- in the middle east violence against civilians is seen as a legitimate poltical tool.
Fact- The types of governments present in the middle east are all totalitarian
Fact - the prior two facts are what causes terrorism.
Are these really facts? Well, I guess you put the word "Fact" before them, so who can argue with that?
I can.
None of these are facts. Stop bad mouthing people who are simply expressing their opinion. It's also bad form, and disrespectful. How would you know about her upbringing?
I don't expect to convince you of this, but you've contradicted yourself several times already. Terrorism against any country is never viewed as a legitimate response in ANY part of the world except by the terrorists themselves. It is amazing that we invaded a soveriegn nation, have killed, tortured and humiliated it's citizens, and when they attack us it is called "terrorism." What would you be doing right now if your country was being ruled by another nation that doesn't understand or respect your culture and you knew how to make car bombs? Think about it. This is not justification for attacks on anyone, but to think that you can stop the attacks with your arrogant assumptions.
Like the crazy Major in Full Metal Jacket:
"Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out"
or something like that. Your idea is exactly the same, except replace "gook" with "raghead."
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Originally posted by keholmes
Any policy which ended the daily bombings of an Arab country indefinitely was an improvement.
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040917/ts_afp/iraq_us_fallujah
Your point is, I�m unsure what you didn�t understand�would you rather that we just continued to things like this forever?
Originally posted by keholmes
Any policy which ended the daily bombings of an Arab country indefinitely was an improvement.
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040917/ts_afp/iraq_us_fallujah
Your point is, I�m unsure what you didn�t understand�would you rather that we just continued to things like this forever?
It is hard for me to understand how this is supposed to make sense. Your reply to my post was largely dependent on the fallacy that our current policy in Iraq will have a better effect on our standing in the Arab world than the previous policy of containment. Because we wouldn't be bombing them on a regular basis.
Well, In addition to the killing of more than 10,000 Iraqis, we are still bombing them on a regular basis. Is that what you meant by a better policy? That's my point.
I'm sure you think the bombing will end at some point in time. According to the CIA it's only going to get worse...
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
First off, allow me to thank you for taking the time to at least attempt intelligent thought on these subjects. I'd like to point out that not a single one of your points is valid. Here's why...
And did the pink clouds in your purple sky part, and a booming voice tell you that?
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Didn't Clinton get impeached for lying about a BJ? Let's do the math and see if there's anything worse that Bush has lied about. I'll pick one... How about his administration's leak of a high level intelligence operative's name as retribution to her husband for going against the party line on WMD. I'd love to see someone actually do an investigation of that, and Bush's father even called it treason. Is treason an impeachable offense?
I�ll just bold what makes that statement ludicrous. And if you find the person responsible I�ll help ya hoist him.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
How about letting the Bin Laden family leave the country on the 9/13 without any questions asked at all? �������
I know that being a lefty you would have preferred that they be sent to an internment camp but that isn�t what America is about despite historical mistakes.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
If you read what I actually wrote (It's right there above) you'll see that ineptitude is what prompted the lie. They certainly had more than an "inkling" that it would happen. To say they didn't IS a lie. Can you refute that?
yes, did you even bother to read those links
The CIA prepared the document ``in response to questions asked by the president about the possibility of attacks by al-Qaida inside the U.S,'' one said.
Seems like the president was a little more on top of the situation then the cia and fbi�as they then started to look at foreign placed target. Seems like that stupid guy is a little smarter than the folks in the intelligence services; although, in their defense prior to 9/11 it would have not been very defensible to run around hardening targets in new york�..as for your lie quote, as any 6 year old should begin to learn and you might today if you listen�..a lie is determined by INTENT not content. To insinuate that anyone knew were the attacks were coming is just disinformation. And to assume that the intelligence agencies and or president had it figured out knew when and were and decided to just not act, is to put it bluntly��.stupid.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������������, how much funding would have allowed Richard Clarke (a Clinton appointee) to meet with the president EVEN ONCE before September to show him all the detailed work that he and his intelligence staff did on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
He was appointed before Clinton by Reagan and bush 1, so what is your point that he was appointed by clinton. Obviously you don�t understand his role in the current administration he was a trending analyst trying to predict�� obviously he failed at that job.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
His memos and conclusion as Bush took office all show that he believed the biggest threat to our national security was terrorism and OBL.
Wow�.that was insightful. I think that he was tied with most newspaper readers with that freakin gem. Terrorism and OBL�.I bet that Howard Cosellian leap was hard.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Was it Kerry's fault? The Senate's fault? I don't see anything in the 9/11 report that says the intelligence community was underfunded, simply disorganized and totally ignored by those at the top. Not that I put all that much faith in the report. I'm not saying any of this would have prevented 9/11, but a lot more could have been done by all sides. Blaming Kerry is a bit Partisan for a "Libertarian."
So you really think that the people who vote on funding would come out and say �oh by the way we screwed the pooch�. And if the intellegence community were so ignored and you have such keen insight to the inner workings of the Whitehouse why was the president asking pointed questions about OBL from the CIA, and if they were being ignored what was the CIA doing there to ask them questions? As for Kerry, he has been trying for many years to disarm America this is not his first foray into that realm�that was just his most blatantly silly�.know how many of his fellow democrats agreed with him on the middle one�..I�ll give you a hint it�s a number and rhymes with hero.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I'm sure you read what I actually wrote, so this is a distortion. I said we had the support of almost the entire world right after 9/11. Where did all that goodwill go? Must have been Clinton's fault.
Actually the distortion would be to point to the actions of diplomats and say that they somehow are representative of levels of support. So am I safe to assume by your logic when the Japanese diplomat was still in Washington while Pearl Harbor was being bombed that was symbolic of Japanese support for America?
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
The problem here is that you are completely obtuse about this point. You and all the other supporters of this war. Why haven't we been shown any evidence or details whatsoever other than a Russian press release about this? Better yet, how was Saddam going to plan this terrorist attack in the US? With his WMD? His nuclear program? His airplanes? It's pretty ludicrous at this juncture to say that he was planning to attack us. What was he going to do it with, his mind?
Someone is obtuse, for if you had looked at the link in my signature you could have viewed it from the mouth of Putin himself�.
as for how he was planning on attacking us; oh, I don�t know maybe fully loaded planes. You think, maybe. Nah that would be to hard, no one could ever pull that one off. and it would be impossible for anyone to think of a soft and dangerous target like nuclear plants .....yah think, maybe.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Do you guys selectively forget the things that don't fit with your arguments? Remember when Colin Powell was going to make a speech to the UN with "evidence" of WMD and he called it "bullsh*t"? Here's a nicer documentation:
www.guardian.co.uk...
Or maybe you don't believe this report. Because you don't want to. They knew that the intelligence was suspect. Is that an impeachable offense?
Do you guys selectively read what fits your arguments�.whoops note to self: yes they do. Duh he took that stuff out Duh. and if you noted it was people in the intellegence agency quoting that evidence.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Also, the suggestion that the no-fly zones and intermittent bombing of the Clinton years stir up more resentment towards America than the slaughter of more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians is truly audacious. You amaze me with your willingness to believe something such as this.
And you amaze me with your ignorance of this it. It wasn�t intermittent bombing it was daily. more combat sorties were flown over Iraq during Clintons admin and more tonnage of bombs dropped than during either war.
"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger
so lets see�hmmm�.half a million kids�..hmm�10,000
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
You're a military guy. Look at the numbers. If we go into Syria or Iran do you actually think the draft won't be reinstated? I hope I never have to say I told you so, but don't be naive.
actually that was my point to you�there is no way you are going to get 50 senators to vote for a draft�unless something much worse then 9-11 takes place. So again it is emotional pandering.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Yes. A lot of senators agreed after Bush's state of the union address where he lied about the Uranium yellow cake (that the state department quickly backed off from) from Africa and he conjured images of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs. I was scared, too, and I didn't even see all the fake photos, but maybe I would have voted to authorize force, too. Funny how all the flip flops are after they realized they had been misled.
By the way, Kerry and Co didn't vote to go to war. They voted to authorize the use of force, which as you know is the President's discretion. Let's not forget that important fact. Kerry would want that authorization under similar circumstances, does that make him a flip flopper?
Are you na�ve enough to think that the uranium yellow cake was the only thing that they saw? Are you na�ve enough to think that you have seen even one tenth of the justifying evidence given? and particularly telling is the fact that although the evidence about russia was present OUR government never used it to silence the left, do you think maybe they are more concerned with national security then polls, ya think, maybe. And, I would just like to know what the hell is the difference between a marine going to a foriegn country using force and going to war�.let me state it bluntly; as a marine you are taught to kill, not push people around�.they weren�t voting about some school ground they authorized the �usage of force� in a foriegn nation by people taught to kill efficiently.�.try that steaming pile on somebody a little easier to bamboozle. And Kerry has made it clear that he wouldn�t want that discretion for himself; he would want it for the UN.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Ok, I'm only going to say this one more frigging time about the vote against body armor bullsh*t you guys keep slinging. First of all, that was part of an appropriations bill with LOTS of other provisions, including a provision that would allow a bunch of grants rather than loans. Kerry, along with MANY republicans, voted against that VERSION of the same bill that Bush threatened to VETO if it wasn't amended in the House. The fact that you are even saying this makes your reply sound like Fox News regurgitation. I was beginning to think you were above that.
And who loaded it with LOTS of other provisions. Have you ever heard the term �poison pill.�
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Did I say the Department of Homeland Security? Sorry for the confusion, because I just said "homeland security" which is a broader issue. DHP is a great little slush fund that says volumes about Bush's pledge for "smaller government"
One of the reason I don�t like him. I found it inexcusable to pander to the democrats with doubling the funding. Regardless of their desire to triple the funding.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Well, they certainly aren't now. FYI, New York City asked Bush for federal funds to hire more police and fire fighters in 2002. Guess what he said? (sorry, Rudy)
Good the federal government has no business paying for local firefighters. Although I�m sure you think the federal firefighters local 122 sounds like music to you ears.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Also, what do you call first responders? Let's say emergency agencies. Let's see who is funded federally: The firefighters at the Pentagon, and the National guard, and FEMA, and the ATF and the Federal Marshals and all the federal grants that are given to emergency services in New York, DC, San Francisco, ETC. There aren't any guards in Hummers at the Golden Gate Bridge anymore, that's for sure.
you call first responders..... oh I don�t know maybe the first responders, to the scene, you think, maybe. More than likely you wouldn�t group in the guys that show up couple days later. the atf, national guard, federal marshals and fema are not first responders. don't believe me ask them yourself, although with all the federal funding floating around they might start calling themselves that. And the point that you conveniently skipped over is that the tax cut didn�t have dukey to do with the final budget as deficit spending was utilized. I didn�t necessarily agree with the usage but it�s a fact.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
.................. Great policy, guy.
Well I�m glad that you realize how misguided you were, glad to help. I thought that you might not grasp the fact that there is now at least an ending point somewhere in the future, as opposed to just bombing them for the foreseeable future. Was it the best move, time will tell. But at least you caught it.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Right, a PhD in engineering working at a coffee shop. Must not be qualified enough for all those jobs out there.
well I guess that point just whipped right by�so I�ll break it down�experience ESPECIALLY for engineers is every bit as important if not more then education. Simply having a degree ESPECIALLY in engineering does not necessarily equate to employment. And if s/he has a PhD in engineering then s/he should be looking for a job teaching as it will probably be difficult to land entry level jobs�and as for engineer unemployment you should probably research the doubling of H1-b visas during the Clinton years, you remember right when the tech economy was headed into the crapper.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
This is perhaps the most moronic statement I've heard in ages. Emotional pandering doesn't make folks like you any smarter, I suppose.
�.and does that even make sense to you?
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Which of these programs isn't federally funded? Social security? Medicare? (those don't matter much, right?) Welfare? Faith-Based charities? Educational Grants? Disaster Relief? VA hospitals? (sure won't need those in ten years)
Do you really believe that? Look at what you wrote! Will you take that back please? If not, tell me which one of the above programs you're willing to stop funding.
To bad you didn�t mention them to begin with your point might have made sense�.. As for what I�m willing to cut�..social security, medicare, welfare, faith-based charities, and educational grants just about anything that the federal government does.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������.California had a series of ultra conservative governors from Reagan to Wilson who made it impossible to pass any true economic legislation or balance the budget because of their refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy. The largest economy in California exists in the LA Metro area, and they haven't had a liberal mayor or city council in years. Orange County is God's Country, and your misconceptions about California belie your ignorance on this subject. What really drove a nail in the coffin of our state economy was the energy crisis resulting from Deregulation (a conservative idea) when Enron defrauded the entire state.
Well it�s nice to find out that California is secretly conservative.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
���������.. How about telling me what Kerry has lied about? ���..
So you believe that the memory most �seared� into his brain is true�.he spent Christmas in Cambodia listening to Nixon.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
The casualty rate is acceptable to you? Oh, you mean just for the soldiers because the Iraqis don't really count. Somehow the loss of human life for no discernable reason (I still haven't heard one from you) seems like a high casualty rate no matter how few have died or been injured.
More emotional pandering�.
Originally posted by oppodeldoc
������ Go ahead and tell me this war, even if justified, wasn't mismanaged. I dare you. Then tell all the retired Generals who disagree with you.
All right I�ll type slower�I already said that there is no proof of that, there is a lot of hot air, back seat drivers voicing their personal opinions. The statistics don�t show that
Funny how the "smartest" of you seem to show how ignorant you truly are when you attempt to be witty. Compare what I wrote to what JFK said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Did I say "country"? I actually said "Government." That you equate country with government is very telling, indeed. The country is our people, good sir. We the People.
Funny how the �ignorant� seem to show how smart they truly are when they try to be insulting. �we the people� are the government or at least are supposed to be.
new topics
-
Aliens and Las Vegas
Aliens and UFOs: 1 hours ago -
This is what it is all about
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago -
Malls, Music, Monoculture, Decline
Music: 4 hours ago -
Which chapter of the apocalypse is raining fish?
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks: 8 hours ago -
Sweet Home Alabama (metal cover by Leo Moracchioli)
Music: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Medvedev: “No one can hide, a global catastrophe is coming”
World War Three: 17 hours ago, 24 flags -
Trump legal cases are falling apart at break neck speeds
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 18 flags -
We are screwed
Global Meltdown: 16 hours ago, 16 flags -
Breaking--Hamas Accepts New Cease Fire
Middle East Issues: 13 hours ago, 13 flags -
Soros, Rockefeller and Pritzker, according to a POLITICO analysis Back Palestinian protests
US Political Madness: 13 hours ago, 12 flags -
FBI confirms new leads connected to DNA evidence and cellphone data in disturbing killings of elderl
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 6 flags -
Tornado Obliterates Nebraska Building with Furious Anger
Fragile Earth: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
Time Traveler Caught on Camera?
Paranormal Studies: 16 hours ago, 6 flags -
This is what it is all about
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago, 5 flags -
Liberal Democrats to Table a Motion of No Confidence in the government Tomorrow
Regional Politics: 15 hours ago, 5 flags
active topics
-
Israel rejected early Hamas offer to free all civilians if IDF didn’t enter Gaza
Middle East Issues • 189 • : Asher47 -
Breaking--Hamas Accepts New Cease Fire
Middle East Issues • 169 • : 777Vader -
Trump legal cases are falling apart at break neck speeds
US Political Madness • 73 • : Vermilion -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 842 • : 777Vader -
Time Traveler Caught on Camera?
Paranormal Studies • 32 • : Hasken -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3158 • : Hellmutt -
New whistleblower Jason Sands speaks on Twitter Spaces last night.
Aliens and UFOs • 114 • : baablacksheep1 -
Aliens and Las Vegas
Aliens and UFOs • 3 • : Degradation33 -
EPA sues San Francisco for dumping billions of gallons of sewage into Pacific Ocean
US Political Madness • 27 • : Scratchpost -
What is a dream
The Gray Area • 31 • : Daniidoom