War On Iraq: Yay or Nay??
- 04-09-2004, 02:11 AM
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
- 04-09-2004, 02:11 AM
[IMG]http://[/IMG] Here is that story for anyone that is interested http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/11-....cgi.4689.html
I could add many more news stories including democratic activist going into ballett boxes with people who could'nt speak english and telling them how to vote. There are reports of either people braggining about voting for Gore more than once or reports from voters getting more than one ballett but it doesn't have much to do about Iraq. Anyway, this subject seems to be comming up allot lately so maybe we should start another thread.
Did you guys see the new democratic party logo
Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 04-09-2004 at 01:47 PM.
- 04-09-2004, 02:17 AM
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
04-09-2004, 03:01 AM
My original question was if Bush was a Democrat instead of a republican and everything else was the same would the democrats be attacking him like they are, IE calling him a lair, that the war was concocted in Texas, it's about oil, that he deliberately mislead the country to go to war ect.Ok, I must be confused then. What EXACTLY do you want me to answer? Do I feel that the Democrats would be saying WHAT exact same things, regarding WHICH issue? I'm not trying to skirt the issue, I'm just not sure of what you're looking for here?
What I am saying is that you accused anyone who supports the war a sheep but you indicated you believe that liberals are just basically the good guys looking out for the country. If you honestly believe that partisan politics have nothing to do with this at best shows one dimensional thinking at worst shows that you believe what ever the dems say which is ironic seeing you just called war supporters sheep.If you are asking if I am what I defined to be a "sheep" to the liberal party
If that's what you believe than you shouldn't be using the word lie. A lie means to deliberate deceive somebody. You just said that you don't believe that they did that. Having receive shoddy evidence or cloudy reasoning doesn't fit the definition of a lie and when you say that what you are telling people is that you believe that the evil republics deliberately didn't tell the truth to go get us into a war. We were also getting intelligence from England say Iraq had WMD's so it's not just us. Now let my ask you a question that I had as a hypothetical one in one of my earlier posts. You are the president of the US after 9-11. You advisers tell you that there is a 50/50 chance that Sadam will have the capability to have suite case nukes in 2 months. What would you do?I believe that their certainly was some bad intelligence (this seems to be less and less arguable as time goes by, by both R & D). What I have a problem with is the way it was handled. The "lie" to me was telling Americans that Iraq is a definite threat to the United States,I feel we were lied to, based upon bad intelligence. I suppose I use the word "lie" generously here, in that I should say "deceptive or cloudy reasoning" for the invasion of Iraq.
The UN is a bunch of bureaucratic socialists. If we waited for their approval we would still be waiting. What would happen if they did have suite case nukes and we waited for the UN? Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolution for years and they did nothing about it. Sadam could have cooperated but he chose not to. The United States should not have to ask permission from the UN to do any thing. What many people don't understand is the lets ask the UN mentality shows the radical Islamic terrorist that we are weak as does fighting a war with a politically correct mentality. If we are getting fired upon by terrorist in a mosk we should bomb the hell out of the mosk not worry about who's feeling will be hurt. This mentality opens us up for even more attacks.the follow up was shoddy at best to verify by our own efforts (and gain approval) for further UN verification.
The problem is that the structure of Al Qaeda is very difficult to fight. We have to use unconventional warfare. They could be any where. The US or England. One thing we do know is that they come from the middle east. After 9-11 we needed to send them a message that you don't F with us.That's fine and well, but circumstantial evidence isn't good enough for me (and many others)
They hate us and want us all to die. They will send their own children strapped with explosives to kill us. The only thing they understand is strength. I don't know of any more tactics that would have worked.compounded with the fast growing (and possibly very strong future) hostility towards Americans that quite possibly could have IMO been lessened by employing other tactics leading up to this invasion.
Did you support Bill Clinton going into Bosnia?
04-09-2004, 03:19 AM
You mean like the quick jab you made on the other thread about Bush not being elected? JW my point was that I can post credible links the show just the opposite than what you posted. You seem to believe that democrats are the good guys and republicans are the bad ones. That's great but your belief system is going to skew any facts showing the opposite of what you believe. There have been several major news papers that have done a recount and Bush won in it. Aside from the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times the papers want Bush to loose in a recount. Off the top of my head I think it was the Washington Post that did one of them and they sure as hell are not Bush fans. I posted an article that came from ABC news of a democratic activist caught with a votomatic machine in his car. Now what do you suppose he was doing with it or going to do with it? I asked you this before but I'll ask it again.......Why did Gore want military votes not to be counted and why didn't he simply ask for a recount of the whole state instead of democratic counties if democrats are the good guys looking out for us average citizens? I can post more links if you want but start another thread about it.I think we are at an impasse here. Either way you look at it, the election was not fair to anyone....candidates or especially the US citizens. I still firmly believe (evidenced primarily by the links I gave) that Bush absolutely stole the election, apparently you do not. I'm not sure of your points (especially with no sources provided), but anyone reading the links would have one hell of a time saying those arguments are unfounded. What I will not tolerate is people making quick jabs that are meant to be taken as inarguable, when in fact they are quite arguable.
04-09-2004, 03:40 AM
Sorry about the new DNC logo I couldn't resist.
04-09-2004, 06:08 AM
Spin, spin and more spin.Originally Posted by jweave23
In Gore's own words,
" During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Nonsense. He had nothing to do with it is the bottom line.
I've also heard the sound byte rebroadcasted. The bottom line is he's full of **** and had nothing whatsoever to do with it's inception or creation, period.
The very link you quote should be a source of embarrassment to your cause.
Last edited by PC1; 04-09-2004 at 06:38 AM.
04-09-2004, 06:16 AM
Opinions are like noses bro, everyone has oneOriginally Posted by jweave23
The first and second links are old and rendered worthless in light of the manual recounts that since have been performed by the Times, Tribune, etc. Or didn't you feel that small detail was worth mentioning?
The third was taking too long to load for me with a 56K dialup so I bailed out on it.
The fourth suggests that we shouldn't be holding elections via electoral college. Easy to complain about the rules AFTER one loses the game, isn't it?
Why then, didn't the democrats complain about it PRIOR to the election if they felt the electoral college was unfair? THe obvious answer, they didn't have any problems with the electoral college until after the election.
Hillary Clinton was complaining about the electoral college around the time of inauguration and made the statement publicly that something needed to be done about it........ has she proposed ANY legislation to follow up on that since she's been in office? No,she has not.
Have any democrats proposed legislation to abolish the electoral college since the presidential election? If they have, then please, enlighten me because I haven't heard about it and I follow current events just about daily bro.
Just a bunch of blah, blah, blah sour grapes.
Bottom line: (Which you didn't address of course)...... Independently, several newspapers subsequent to the SJC decision took up the cause to do a manual recount of the Florida counties Gore wanted to challenge, and in each instance, Bush wins, Gore loses......PERIOD. Get over it already. The guy who won the election is living in the White House.
Last edited by PC1; 04-09-2004 at 06:53 AM.
04-09-2004, 01:46 PM
04-09-2004, 01:49 PM
I messed up the link I posted on the abc news story. Any way I went back and edited it so it works now.
04-13-2004, 12:10 AM
Allot of the talk on here has been mainly about if we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. We are in Iraq and seeing that we go back in time there isn't much that can be done about that. The question I have is what should we do now? If someone has the perspective of being against the war, would you pull our troops out immediately?
The problem with this is the minute we leave, the whole area will go to hell more than it all ready is. Someone equal to or worse than Sadam would probably take control eventually and there is the possibility that the whole situation could spread out of Iraq into other countries gradually involving most of the middle east. My personal opinion on the matter is I supported going into Iraq but I don't support how we are fighting the war.
To me( I am sure there are people on this board that knows a hell of allot more than I do on this subject), it looks like we are being to politically correct in fighting the war. If someone is shooting at us from a mosk than we should blow it up or at least shoot back. If there is an area where terrorist frequently take pot shots at our troops we bomb the place to hell before we send in troops again. I think the president and the military has the duty to make sure that they did every thing they can to protect our troops. This has to take president over nation building, civilian casualties, and or being afraid of what the press will write about you( if it's a republican in office it doesn't matter what you do they will still be against you).
Mike Barnicle recently wrote an article in the Boston Herald called "There's nothing worse' than that knock on the door". I was going to post it but I waited too long and you have to pay to read it now. The premise of the article was that what you have a loved one at war and they knock on your door to tell you that they were killed it cuts through all of the political BS . All you know or think about is that they aren't with us anymore. I think the question that we should be asking is are we doing everything we can to make sure that our troops come home safely?
04-13-2004, 12:23 AM
April 8, 2004
`There's nothing worse' than that knock on the door
Author: Mike Barnicle
When the knock came, all politics along with any element of debate surrounding Iraq disappeared and David McPhillips was standing there, his wife and daughter asleep upstairs, staring at five Marines on his front step, knowing without being told that his boy was dead.
It was exactly one year ago when 1st Lt. Brian McPhillips, 25 years old, out of BC High, Providence College and Pembroke, assigned to the 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marines, was killed as America made its way toward Baghdad.
"It's the most haunting memory of my life," David McPhillips said yesterday. "I can't get it out of my mind.
"It was early, about 5 a.m., and they were pounding on the door. They weren't knocking. They were pounding, trying to wake us up. And when I looked out and saw them, well . . . I knew enough to know they don't come to your house to tell you your son's been wounded."
The father sat in his office at a rental car agency near Logan International Airport. He wore a wounded face with a broken heart and was surrounded by his son: pictures of him in uniform on the desk, on a computer screen-saver, more pictures of Brian as a boy at places like Gettysburg and Yankee Stadium.
Now, all across the country, at least a dozen more families are receiving visits from casualty officers assigned the awful duty of telling a parent or a spouse that someone so young, so brave, so admired and loved will not be coming home.
This war is leaking death across the land, all the way from places like Pembroke and North Providence to the Pacific, leaving increasing numbers of people like David McPhillips as casualties; the next of kin like a collection of walking wounded drifting through a minefield of grief and memory. Every day.
"The grieving process is eternal," David McPhillips said. "The year has gone by slowly, really slow. Christmas. His birthday. Where were we a year ago? When did I last talk to my son? It's tough.
"But in a way, I know Brian is forever. There's a scholarship in his name at BC High. Normally it takes five years to raise $50,000. We've raised $100,000 already. Some boy will go to BC High for four years, free, because of Brian.
"There are memorials at Providence College, at BC High. There's going to be one in Concord where Brian was born. And just this morning, here at work, we had about 40 people up at the memorial to Brian. Did you see it?"
On the road outside David McPhillips office, an American flag flew at half-staff. The flag pole is in a small grotto surrounded by a foot-high stone wall shaped like a half moon. In front of the flag pole there is a black marble headstone. It reads: "In Loving Memory of 1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips, USMC, Jan 25, 1978 - April 4, 2003."
And when the father shuts his eyes, he sure does see his handsome son in uniform, but he also sees him sitting in the front seat of the old man's car as David McPhillips drove the boy to BC High each morning at 7 and picked him up every afternoon about 6. He sees him at a ballpark and in the kitchen and - in the father's mind's eye - sees him always smiling and happy, forever young.
"The governor came to Brian's funeral. The state police shut down 128 for the procession. There were 135 cars going to the cemetery. My son was a war hero. I think about all the poor parents who lose a child, a car hitting a tree, and they don't have anything to console them like that.
"Then I think about all the parents who will get that knock on the door this week," David McPhillips said. "There's nothing worse. Nothing. It's something you never forget and never get over."
Mbarnicle@bostonherald.com. Barnicle's radio show airs weekdays at 10 a.m. on 96.9 WTTK-FM.
Copyright 2004 Boston Herald
Record Number: 101D7E1EB31DEBDF
09-24-2004, 09:34 AM
10-25-2004, 02:27 PM
03-13-2005, 03:23 PM
Bull****. In 1980s Gore was among a hanful of leaders who foresaw the tremendous potential of Arpanet, an emrgency military computer network. He wanted to turn this at-the-time insignificant network into what we now know as the internet to which end he played a lead role in championing the idea and fighting to get the funding for it as both congressman and senator.Originally Posted by PC1
The supposedly liberal media used out-of-context misquotes mercilessly to destory Al Gore. Here's a good piece about what he actually did say and how it was spun: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...004.parry.html
04-29-2005, 09:08 PM
not reading the whole thread but here is my strong views. I am not longer a republican. Original war supporter and still support the troops but is it worth lives for the Iraqis to fight between which group is in power? Dick Cheney's old company was in trouble with asbestis(sp?) lawsuits but now are doing great since they got the contracts in Iraqi. This area will not have peace! Only a strong dictator can keep the groups in check. On election day I voted in a suburban area which republicans are strong. No line, no waiting. Attending grad school in the evenings at Akron U. That night I passed the voting area in the city and it was a mad house with lines out the door and people parking a mile away to vote. This is a area where minorities primarily live. I live in Ohio and am watching this once proud state lose all its educated people to other states as we fall apart under a republican govenor. I am nervous about our countries future. Not saying John Kerry was the solution to all our problems. I don't have the answers either. Just scared of what will happen to our future. In the future I see the decline of the middle class. High energy costs will kill us. Hopefully Bush's idea of using former military bases for refining will help decrease gas prices and this kills the middle and lower classes. Not ripping anyone for their ideas or choices in the election. But I do think the election was unfair.
04-30-2005, 10:23 AM
and you know what people who don't reconize this are severely uneducated in Middle East history and politics. plus the thing that gets me is the reasoning behind the war and its evolution from the time we went in. "A clean break" written by washington think tankers explains the real reasoning behind the invasion. I recommed everyone read it becuase it explains the deal between Iraq and Chalabi with Israel. Forgot to mention in the original post: O yea, it was written in 1996Originally Posted by stinkfinger
05-01-2005, 08:02 AM
The reasonings for the war have not "evolved".
See W's speech in front of the UN in 2002 for a detailed "if Iraq wishes peace X must happen" log.
There were a multitude of reasons given. Yes the priority of them has changed, but it's not like the reasons were not given.
05-02-2005, 08:04 AM
I don't know if any of you have read 'The Prince'. But you can almost map out every one of W's move. He either read Machiavelli or he was just born with Mach's natural inclinations of virute and morality for a prince.
05-03-2005, 11:15 PM
I've read The Prince. Great book but Bush really doesn't do much of anything planned. He does not have residence in the nation, he does not treat the citizens cruelly, etc. Not even close.
05-05-2005, 02:35 AM
Not only is political correctness running this war, we're also using it to prosecute our troops. Go read up on Lieutenant Pantano. And this Abu-Ghraib stuff was blown way out of proportion. Ridiculously so. Our troops are extracting information, and some little reporter goes on and on about the abuses of the US military. Yet the world remains silent about Saddam's torture chamber, which would make standing around naked and having people point at you seem like fun. There is a process where the war effort is being villified, where the intent is to make it seem like there was no intent, to bring the American people to lose focus on what we were dealing with in the first place.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
I'm not convinced that democracy won't take seat in the Middle East. It has in Turkey, which, admittedly, had a long tradition of ties to the West and isn't an Arabic country. Still, I do believe that with time, a democracy can and will emerge successfully. Just not in enough time for a world with an ever-decreasing attention span.
To answer the original question, yes, I support the war. But I don't think we're being vigilant enough in ensuring a victory.
As for the UN, come on people, I can't believe you're still mentioning those clowns. 20% of the Oil-for-Food money was going to bribe influential members from the nations of the UN Security Council to prevent this war from happening and to lift sanctions from Iraq. The UN is consistently corrupt, incompetant, and fails completely to act. You can justify not supporting this war, but I find it incredibly hard to give the UN much, if any, credibility.
No, I'm not a hardcore Bush supporter, though I do support him. I feel he has let a lot of us down as of late, but which politician hasn't?
05-05-2005, 06:51 PM
Presidents at their second terms do their worst. They don't have to plan about getting re-elected.
People shut up about Saddam's torture chambers because it goes against the media's agenda of taking down the GOP at every measure. It seems like most far leftists wear tinfoil hats and live in bunkers because they're afraid Bush will read their thoughts. I mean, people even blamed the Tsunami on Bush for **** sakes.
05-06-2005, 08:39 AM
I can't see how pictures/video of prisoners with panties on their heads is useful information. The fact of the matter is, with all the torture and excesses of interrogation that was meted out, no WMD was found and the vast majority of the 'prisoners' are just ordinary people rounded up like cattle.Originally Posted by mtruther
I agree that Saddam's torture chambers was worse, but the poor conduct of US soldiers mere confirmed that the US is simply another invader.
So far the US has failed Iraq by reconstruction scams, pushing appointocracy instead of real democracy, wasting/stealing Iraqi money by the hundreds of millions.
05-06-2005, 06:36 PM
"but the poor conduct of US soldiers mere confirmed that the US is simply another invader."
And what happened to those troops responsible?
"So far the US has failed Iraq by reconstruction scams, pushing appointocracy instead of real democracy, wasting/stealing Iraqi money by the hundreds of millions."
Do you have something to support this?
05-06-2005, 07:44 PM
05-08-2005, 07:10 AM
Congrats, you supported one facet of your summation, wasting money or money mismanagement.
05-08-2005, 08:46 AM
[QUOTE=MarcusG]I can't see how pictures/video of prisoners with panties on their heads is useful information. The fact of the matter is, with all the torture and excesses of interrogation that was meted out, no WMD was found and the vast majority of the 'prisoners' are just ordinary people rounded up like cattle.
I agree that Saddam's torture chambers was worse, but the poor conduct of US soldiers mere confirmed that the US is simply another invader.[\QUOTE]
So a few bad apples spoils the entire bunch huh. Makes sense. Those responsible were punished accordingly. And ****, the majority of the terrorists setting off IED's and attacking american troops and ordinary citizens are ordinary citizens themselves being paid to commit acts of terror or are just really pissed of people who don't like change and being invaded. Obviously the troops round up those who appear to be suspicious. When I was over there we set up road blocks and check points all the time. You better believe we took in and questioned ANYONE out of the ordinary. Tell you what, you go over there, have roadside bombs go off in front of you, have RPG's shot at you, have punk ass little kids chuck rocks at your head, have people tell bald face lies right in front of you and countless other things and tell me how you feel then. We did our job and we did it well. Your comments piss me off. Please, if you don't know first hand about what goes on with the troops over there, shut your mouth.
05-08-2005, 10:40 AM
Those were recent links in the news within the last week only. The scams and appointocracy are common knowledge and you should be able to dig it up with little effort.Originally Posted by PastorofMuppets
For example this news which broke out last year shows how spending patterns differ between US vs Iraqi oil money.
Edit: Iraq, Inc. by Pratap Chatterjee is a small book which was an eye opener for me.
Last edited by MarcusG; 05-08-2005 at 11:04 AM.
05-08-2005, 11:02 AM
Originally Posted by natedogg
My comments about Abu Ghraib were aimed at mtruther et al who think there was very little (or nothing) wrong going on. And it took almost a year before authorities could admit to anything.
So were most of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib innocent? Then why were most of them released after the scandal?
The Red Cross's operation principles mandate neutrality and impartiality. RC is very very discreet about releasing news unless it has exhausted diplomatic avenues behind closed doors despite what what some may think. So it had to be extremely bad for the RC to get involved.
05-09-2005, 09:48 AM
Marcus, I still don't see how your points somehow support your contention that the US is "just another invader"
You are not the one to determine that. The Iraqi people are.
And since there were people dancing in the streets and risking their lives to vote I would gather that they do agree with you on the whole.
I'll reserve judgement.
Similar Forum Threads
- By StangBanger in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 07-25-2011, 09:05 AM
- By mark118 in forum E-Pharm NutritionReplies: 3Last Post: 02-14-2011, 02:37 PM
- By Y2Jversion1 in forum General ChatReplies: 103Last Post: 06-21-2006, 02:55 PM
- By Zen_69 in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 03-07-2003, 11:36 AM
- By ex_banana-eater in forum Weight LossReplies: 13Last Post: 02-03-2003, 09:02 PM