Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Two Bills Drive Message Boards > Politics, Polls, and Pundits > Against the War? On the Fence? Watch this.


Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 01:21 PM
http://bushflash.com/ma.html

Posted by: KD in CT Dec 13 2003, 01:51 PM
Well, so much for not "using" the war/casualties for political purposes.

Aside from that, let's review....

Claim A: Average of 1.99 deaths per day

Claim B: "at the current rate", over 2400 more will be dead in the next year.

Hmmmm.....last time I checked, 1.99 times 365 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 726, not 2400. Perhaps left-wingers should spend more time in math class and less time in b.s. propaganda class.

Posted by: Dr. K Dec 13 2003, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (KD in CT @ Dec 13 2003, 01:51 PM)
Well, so much for not "using" the war/casualties for political purposes.

Aside from that, let's review....

Claim A: Average of 1.99 deaths per day

Claim B: "at the current rate", over 2400 more will be dead in the next year.

Hmmmm.....last time I checked, 1.99 times 365 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 726, not 2400. Perhaps left-wingers should spend more time in math class and less time in b.s. propaganda class.

The accurate quote is "if current trends continue..." I don't know what their stats are, but what they say is quite possible: Learn the difference between a "trend" and a "rate." The TREND is for an INCREASING RATE of deaths over the last few months.

As we used to say in physics, it's the difference between speed and acceleration.

Posted by: jimshiz Dec 13 2003, 02:43 PM
It is so surprising to me that so many people who post messages here really hate George Bush. They hate Republicans. They hate Conservatives. They hate at the cost of siding with the enemy.

You know it. I know it.

JimKrazy
(the racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 01:57 PM)
QUOTE (KD in CT @ Dec 13 2003, 01:51 PM)
Well, so much for not "using" the war/casualties for political purposes.

Aside from that, let's review....

Claim A:  Average of 1.99 deaths per day

Claim B: "at the current rate", over 2400 more will be dead in the next year.

Hmmmm.....last time I checked, 1.99 times 365 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 726, not 2400.  Perhaps left-wingers should spend more time in math class and less time in b.s. propaganda class.

The accurate quote is "if current trends continue..." I don't know what their stats are, but what they say is quite possible: Learn the difference between a "trend" and a "rate." The TREND is for an INCREASING RATE of deaths over the last few months.

As we used to say in physics, it's the difference between speed and acceleration.

The stats are on their site and yes they do compute as you describe.

People can talk all you want about freedom, liberty and all that jazz but the Iraqis don't have it, we have less, soldiers are dying and the ONLY I repeat ONLY entities are are reaping a benefit are the corporations.

I told the neocons not to look.

Posted by: Scraps Dec 13 2003, 03:21 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Dec 13 2003, 02:43 PM)
It is so surprising to me that so many people who post messages here really hate George Bush. They hate Republicans. They hate Conservatives. They hate at the cost of siding with the enemy.

You know it. I know it.

JimKrazy
(the racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

Neocon arguments seem to be falling to a new low. Before, those of us who questioned this war were accused of hatred and our patriotism was called into question. Now you call us traitors.

What a pathetic stance you have.

BTW
I am a Republican and a Conservative. Why is un-American to think the war in Iraq was a collosal mistake?

Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 03:55 PM
QUOTE (Scraps @ Dec 13 2003, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Dec 13 2003, 02:43 PM)
It is so surprising to me that so many people who post messages here really hate George Bush.  They hate Republicans.  They hate Conservatives.  They hate at the cost of siding with the enemy.

You know it.  I know it.

JimKrazy
(the racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

Neocon arguments seem to be falling to a new low. Before, those of us who questioned this war were accused of hatred and our patriotism was called into question. Now you call us traitors.

What a pathetic stance you have.

BTW
I am a Republican and a Conservative. Why is un-American to think the war in Iraq was a collosal mistake?

Of course it is not un-American and unpatriotic. You are open-minded and reasonable.

I was all for blasting the beejesus out of Afganistan and was pleased when Bush did. I even voted for the man once in TX because he seemed to be fairly sensible and moderate (fool me once...). It is so easy to label people and assume we all fall neatly into one mold or another...so easy, and so foolish.

My daughter said goodbye to her only living brother on December 11 as he got ready to return to Baghdad. In answer to her questions he said "It sucks over there. We are not accomplishing anything and we need to get out. I am not voting for Bush, he's a liar and I don't trust him. And a lot of the guys feel the same way." Nevertheless this kid went back to do his duty.

I DARE anyone sitting in their comfortable living room to call him un-American or unpatriotic. If you think you can do better, go on over and pitch in, they need all the help they can get.

Posted by: jimshiz Dec 13 2003, 04:01 PM
QUOTE (Scraps @ Dec 13 2003, 03:21 PM)
Why is un-American to think the war in Iraq was a collosal mistake?

It is not un-American to think the war was a mistake.

But, it is disingenuous for the so many who claim they are against the war when they really aren't. They just hate George Bush. They will side on any argument that makes him look bad. They will do it at the cost of success for their own country because success for the country now would make George Bush look good.

It is a lie to say that this war has nothing to do with democracy and terrorism. It is a lie to say that this war is only because of oil, big business, or a son's desire to finish a job his father started. It is a lie to not acknowledge that many people (besides the current Administration) who analyzed reports over the past decade came to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMD and would definitely use them on us or our allies.

It is a shame that some will use the number of casualties to make the argument that this war is not worth fighting. War is hell.

I believe that this war is necessary over there to prevent worse things from happening over here. And I guess when I say "prevent", I really mean postpone.

This war did nothing to increase the chance that worse things will happen over here some day. But, if it did, then what was the event that caused 9/11?

JimKrazy
(the neo-con, racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

"so many" /= "all"

Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Dec 13 2003, 04:01 PM)
It is not un-American to think the war was a mistake.

But, it is disingenuous for the so many who claim they are against the war when they really aren't. They just hate George Bush. They will side on any argument that makes him look bad. They will do it at the cost of success for their own country because success for the country now would make George Bush look good.

It is a lie to say that this war has nothing to do with democracy and terrorism. It is a lie to say that this war is only because of oil, big business, or a son's desire to finish a job his father started. It is a lie to not acknowledge that many people (besides the current Administration) who analyzed reports over the past decade came to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMD and would definitely use them on us or our allies.

It is a shame that some will use the number of casualties to make the argument that this war is not worth fighting. War is hell.

I believe that this war is necessary over there to prevent worse things from happening over here. And I guess when I say "prevent", I really mean postpone.

This war did nothing to increase the chance that worse things will happen over here some day. But, if it did, then what was the event that caused 9/11?

JimKrazy
(the neo-con, racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

"so many" /= "all"

So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.

There are many people who didn't feel one way or another about Bush but the war pushed them over the edge.

Those who disliked him may have become more vocal as their outrage increased, but to say that people are protesting this war not because they dislike war but merely because they dislike Bush is a vast oversimplification.

Posted by: jimshiz Dec 13 2003, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

"so many" /= "all"

JimKrazy
(the neo-con, racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

Posted by: VABills Dec 13 2003, 05:53 PM
Yup and if you think its about about making money and business, then I suggest you take all your money out of stocks, mutual funds, index funds, etc... Little do you realize you are the one making money as well. Do you honestly believe that if we had an unstable middle east, even worse then it is now, that your gas prices would not go up. Anyway you look at it, even if it was for business purposes only, you benefit.

Finally even if it didn't benefit your pocketbook, who cares if we did it for busines purposes only. The more money these guys have the more they can invest, grow their companies, and hire more people. You want more jobs, you want more jobs to stay here in the US, you want better customer support for your Dell with someone who speaks english, you want cheap gas to visit relatives over the holidays, you want cheap flights to visit Europe or relatives, that what this gives you.

If you are telling me that you would rather have 30% unemployment, $5.00 a gallon of gas, and all other manufacturing and customer support jobs moved to Asia over the next 20 years, also the Middle East being even more of a shambles with France,Germany, Russia, China and even bif US companies selling bigger and even more destructive weapons to the region then so be it. Even if we "don't" find WMD destruction, we all directly benefit from ensuring the US maintains its power, and trade agreements throughout the world to ensure our companies benefit over everyone elses.

Posted by: fisheralum Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.



That's not what he is saying Blzrul (bull!@#$ing liberal zealot relying on unsubstantiated lies). Don't put words in his mouth. That piece you linked was pure propaganda against this president. Josseph Goebbels would have been proud. I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

Posted by: Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Dec 13 2003, 06:14 PM
QUOTE (fisheralum @ Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM)
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.



That's not what he is saying Blzrul (bull!@#$ing liberal zealot relying on unsubstantiated lies). Don't put words in his mouth. That piece you linked was pure propaganda against this president. Josseph Goebbels would have been proud. I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

What is he saying then? The fact is, millions and millions of people hate the war around the world. Perhaps a billion or even billions. By far, most of the world polled was against the war before it started. It wasnt even close. Bzrul made a counterpoint to the logic professed in the previous post by jimshiz that stated that people don't hate the war, they hate George Bush. Bzrul asked a question based on why that didn't appear true to her. Or me for that matter. That isn't putting words in someone's mouth, that's asking if that is what jmshiz means and thinks. I'm waiting for that answer, too.

Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 06:34 PM
QUOTE (fisheralum @ Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM)
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.



That's not what he is saying Blzrul (bull!@#$ing liberal zealot relying on unsubstantiated lies). Don't put words in his mouth. That piece you linked was pure propaganda against this president. Josseph Goebbels would have been proud. I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

FYI, this thing "?" is called a QUESTION MARK. It is used to indicate a QUESTION. Which is what I was asking.

"So many" is hard to quantify. Discrediting millions of people who are genuinely against the war by citing "so many", who for all we know could be six guys at work, is a little exaggeration.

But before I would accuse anyone of that, I would ASK A QUESTION to clarify. Which, by the way, Jimshiz did answer, and cleared up what he meant.

The question was directed at him, not you, and he answered it just fine on his own.

By the way I am a Fisher alumn too. devil.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Dr. K Dec 13 2003, 06:51 PM
QUOTE (fisheralum @ Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM)
I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

So if we disagree with the war, and question its necessity, we are "wretched puke" and WE are killing our soldiers.

"Nothing has changed except the political party in power'? Do you really believe that? Are you saying there are no policy differences, even with regard to Iraq, between the parties? That teh U.S. would have started this war, without allies, against Iraq no matter who was in office?

I think it's undeniable we would have taken action against Bin Laden and his followers no matter who was in power after 9/11. But this Iraq war is the brainchild of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the Project for a New American Century.

Despite the congresional Democrats' acquiescence to much of the Bush agenda, I can name a dozen significant things that would be different if the dems held the White House. Those of us who would like to see a dem in the WH do so because we disagree with Bush's POLICIES and think they are wrecking the country and its future. Any distaste I have for him as a person comes from that fact. I have never met him in person. Have you?

Posted by: VABills Dec 13 2003, 06:57 PM
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 06:51 PM)
So if we disagree with the war, and question its necessity, we are "wretched puke" and WE are killing our soldiers.

"Nothing has changed except the political party in power'?  Do you really believe that?  Are you saying there are no policy differences, even with regard to Iraq, between the parties?  That teh U.S. would have started this war, without allies, against Iraq no matter who was in office? 

I think it's undeniable we would have taken action against  Bin Laden and his followers no matter who was in power after 9/11.  But this Iraq war is the brainchild of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the Project for a New American Century.

Despite the congresional Democrats' acquiescence to much of the Bush agenda, I can name a dozen significant things that would be different if the dems held the White House.  Those of us who would like to see a dem in the WH do so because we disagree with Bush's POLICIES and think they are wrecking the country and its future.  Any distaste I have for him as a person comes from that fact.  I have never met him in person.  Have you?

Come on, even Bill Clinton has publicly stated that this was a legal and valid war and we should be there.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/2259

Posted by: blzrul Dec 13 2003, 06:59 PM
QUOTE (fisheralum @ Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM)
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.



That's not what he is saying Blzrul (bull!@#$ing liberal zealot relying on unsubstantiated lies). Don't put words in his mouth. That piece you linked was pure propaganda against this president. Josseph Goebbels would have been proud. I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

By the way, I am so impressed with this argument, particularly the "wretched puke" that I am going to print it and send it along in my next box to Baghdad.

My husband's son, serving in Baghdad, will be thrilled to get it. You see he voted for Al Gore, he is against the war, and he thinks George Bush is a hypocrite. He will not vote for Bush in 2004 either and appreciates Howard Dean's stance against the war..

Yet he's out there serving, trying to train Iraqi policemen. You know, those guys that are always getting attacked so that there will BE no Iraqi policemen to keep the order because the bad guys don't want there to be any order.

Anyway Pfc. G will appreciate your calling him "wretched puke".

Posted by: Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Dec 13 2003, 07:30 PM
QUOTE (VABills @ Dec 13 2003, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 06:51 PM)
So if we disagree with the war, and question its necessity, we are "wretched puke" and WE are killing our soldiers.

"Nothing has changed except the political party in power'?  Do you really believe that?  Are you saying there are no policy differences, even with regard to Iraq, between the parties?  That teh U.S. would have started this war, without allies, against Iraq no matter who was in office? 

I think it's undeniable we would have taken action against  Bin Laden and his followers no matter who was in power after 9/11.  But this Iraq war is the brainchild of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the Project for a New American Century.

Despite the congresional Democrats' acquiescence to much of the Bush agenda, I can name a dozen significant things that would be different if the dems held the White House.  Those of us who would like to see a dem in the WH do so because we disagree with Bush's POLICIES and think they are wrecking the country and its future.  Any distaste I have for him as a person comes from that fact.  I have never met him in person.  Have you?

Come on, even Bill Clinton has publicly stated that this was a legal and valid war and we should be there.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/2259

So, if Tony Blair decided not to go to war, Bill Clinton would have been on record as being against it?

It was already decided we were going to war when this was written. He just said trust Tony Blair to the British people, in their own newspaper. Nothing more.

Here is the article.

Trust Tony's judgment

Bill Clinton

Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian

Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so. The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious consequences.

The credit for 1441 belongs in large measure to Blair, who saw it as a chance to disarm Saddam in a way that strengthened the UN and preserved the Atlantic alliance. Unfortunately, the consensus behind 1441 has unravelled. Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved.

In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.

On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.

Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.

Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.

The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.

A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.

In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.


Posted by: GG Dec 13 2003, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 03:58 PM)
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 01:57 PM)
QUOTE (KD in CT @ Dec 13 2003, 01:51 PM)
Well, so much for not "using" the war/casualties for political purposes.

Aside from that, let's review....

Claim A:  Average of 1.99 deaths per day

Claim B: "at the current rate", over 2400 more will be dead in the next year.

Hmmmm.....last time I checked, 1.99 times 365 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 726, not 2400.  Perhaps left-wingers should spend more time in math class and less time in b.s. propaganda class.

The accurate quote is "if current trends continue..." I don't know what their stats are, but what they say is quite possible: Learn the difference between a "trend" and a "rate." The TREND is for an INCREASING RATE of deaths over the last few months.

As we used to say in physics, it's the difference between speed and acceleration.

The stats are on their site and yes they do compute as you describe.

People can talk all you want about freedom, liberty and all that jazz but the Iraqis don't have it, we have less, soldiers are dying and the ONLY I repeat ONLY entities are are reaping a benefit are the corporations.

I told the neocons not to look.

So, if Halliburton reorganizes as a LLC, they're off the hook right?

Did you get your MBA at the Ralph Nader School of Economics?

Posted by: Mickey Dec 13 2003, 07:58 PM
"And for what" they ask?

Well, Saddam's torture chambers and prisons are empty for starters.

I don't care for George Bush at all, beleive me. However, I don't think for a second that he doesn't think he has done and is doing the right thing. I do not believe that contracts to Halliburton or anyone else have anything to do with why we are there.

Posted by: jimshiz Dec 13 2003, 09:08 PM
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 06:51 PM)
So if we disagree with the war, and question its necessity, we are "wretched puke" and WE are killing our soldiers.

"Nothing has changed except the political party in power'?  Do you really believe that?  Are you saying there are no policy differences, even with regard to Iraq, between the parties?  That teh U.S. would have started this war, without allies, against Iraq no matter who was in office? 

I think it's undeniable we would have taken action against  Bin Laden and his followers no matter who was in power after 9/11.  But this Iraq war is the brainchild of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the Project for a New American Century.

Despite the congresional Democrats' acquiescence to much of the Bush agenda, I can name a dozen significant things that would be different if the dems held the White House.  Those of us who would like to see a dem in the WH do so because we disagree with Bush's POLICIES and think they are wrecking the country and its future.  Any distaste I have for him as a person comes from that fact.  I have never met him in person.  Have you?

I just want to make it clear that I don't think anybody is "wretched puke". And, I don't think that all war protests give "aid & comfort" to the enemy.

BUT, some of the anti-war discourse going on right now is doing exactly that - "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. It has happened in the past. It will happen again. Some of these war protests right here on our soil are funded by the enemy or friends of the enemy. Unfortunately, some people in the crowd whose heart is really in the cause of "no war" (for the right reasons) does not realize who is behind some of these things.

AND - we did NOT start this war. This is World War III already. It is U.S. against terrorists in ANY country they may be hiding in or getting comfort from. Great Britain, Poland, and a few others have stood with us. France and Germany have stood AGAINST us.

We did NOTHING to provoke 9/11.

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of [terrorists] is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

JimKrazy
(the neo-con, racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Rupublican, "not" compassionate Conservative, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner)

Posted by: ExiledInIllinois Dec 13 2003, 10:30 PM
QUOTE (VABills @ Dec 13 2003, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE (Dr. K @ Dec 13 2003, 06:51 PM)
So if we disagree with the war, and question its necessity, we are "wretched puke" and WE are killing our soldiers.

"Nothing has changed except the political party in power'?  Do you really believe that?  Are you saying there are no policy differences, even with regard to Iraq, between the parties?  That teh U.S. would have started this war, without allies, against Iraq no matter who was in office? 

I think it's undeniable we would have taken action against  Bin Laden and his followers no matter who was in power after 9/11.  But this Iraq war is the brainchild of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the Project for a New American Century.

Despite the congresional Democrats' acquiescence to much of the Bush agenda, I can name a dozen significant things that would be different if the dems held the White House.  Those of us who would like to see a dem in the WH do so because we disagree with Bush's POLICIES and think they are wrecking the country and its future.  Any distaste I have for him as a person comes from that fact.  I have never met him in person.  Have you?

Come on, even Bill Clinton has publicly stated that this was a legal and valid war and we should be there.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/2259

Bill Clinton is wrong and was also fooled by the "paper-tiger" Iraq.

The thing is that you can be wrong... if you get everybody to believe you and side with you you have no problem, everybody is onboard, that is your burden to get everybody onboard. If you are wrong and everybody knows you are wrong, you got problems. Kinda like bluffing in "poker". Bush is just a bad "poker" player. I take it "Slick Willy" would have sold this farce on the world and nobody would have known, all along saying "thank you sir, may I have another". See, here is where Bush failed, wrong or right, he couldn't convince people to get onboard. The rest of the table (outside of Britian) called him. He played "cowboy", tipped the table, guns ablaze... only to discover that the Iraq was holding "eights and aces".

It is not hate, they just didn't believe him and called him on it.

Is it better to be playing the game or to have a player go "Tony Montana" on the world?



Posted by: boomerjamhead Dec 13 2003, 11:35 PM
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 01:21 PM)
http://bushflash.com/ma.html

I missed the part at the end where it referenced the Kay Report; it must have gone by a little fast or something.

A simple mind is easily influenced.

Posted by: fisheralum Dec 15 2003, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (fisheralum @ Dec 13 2003, 05:54 PM)
QUOTE (blzrul @ Dec 13 2003, 04:52 PM)
So you are saying that the millions of people all over the world who took to the streets against the war before it started all did so because they hated George W. Bush?

I find that a little hard to believe.



That's not what he is saying Blzrul (bull!@#$ing liberal zealot relying on unsubstantiated lies). Don't put words in his mouth. That piece you linked was pure propaganda against this president. Josseph Goebbels would have been proud. I can only imagine your goals. You and your friends, the retched puke that perpetuate this nonscense are killing our guys, giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Bush is not the monster you want him to be. You are lying, and you don't care. You will do anything to support your "Democratics must be in charge at all cost agenda." It's sorry. It's sad. The Clinton Administration loved Haliburton, when it was in charge. Nothing has changed except for which political party is in power. Your agenda is more important to you than legitimate discussion.

By the way, I am so impressed with this argument, particularly the "wretched puke" that I am going to print it and send it along in my next box to Baghdad.

My husband's son, serving in Baghdad, will be thrilled to get it. You see he voted for Al Gore, he is against the war, and he thinks George Bush is a hypocrite. He will not vote for Bush in 2004 either and appreciates Howard Dean's stance against the war..

Yet he's out there serving, trying to train Iraqi policemen. You know, those guys that are always getting attacked so that there will BE no Iraqi policemen to keep the order because the bad guys don't want there to be any order.

Anyway Pfc. G will appreciate your calling him "wretched puke".

I regret the name calling, but it's a real stretch on your part to insinuate it was directed a your step son. Unless, of course, he is one who produced that propagand piece you are promoting. I don't live in your world. All Republican, BAD, all Demcrates GOOD. Everytime. Always. War in Iraq BAD, just to make rich Republicans richer, and make our boys have to die. Bosnia war OK though, Clinton Administration GOOD.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)