|
Post by RealistState on Apr 20, 2004 19:50:56 GMT -5
No, it's sick.... After the terrorist attacked, the country was looking to the President for assurance. Unfortunately he was not to be found (perhaps on vacation again?). Since Clinton always seemd to be around during a crisis, after 8 years in office, people wanted to be asuured the way he was able to do. LOL!! You're kidding, right? The only thing Clinton assured us of was, he could be counted on to know where Monica was! Everrtime there was a terrorist attack on Clinton's watch, we were arrused that those responsible would pay a price, which was never paid until Bush became president. [/color][/quote] That was an immature response. But in any event, you seem to forget the "Wag the Dog" response anytime President Clinton launched an attack on al Quada. [/color][/quote] The "war" is not over. You even stated that! They even report it on Fox News! [/color][/quote] Was that a mistake or poor planning? [/color][/quote] Because Mr Bush did not want to fund it by rescinding the tax cuts for his rich friends. [/color][/quote] Oh, so Mr Bush did make a mistake! And I guess George H Bush made a mistake by not sending it to Somalia to begin with. [/color][/quote] Rubbish? Just a reality check. I still think is sick if any politician is callous about American lives. You may believe that of Democrats, but it is sick. [/color][/quote] Actually, unlike some folks around here, I make a point of reading about all sides of an issue. I also spend the time to thoroughly research issues before I respond. [/color][/quote] Yes, it is a different world. But you need to pay attention. Mr Kerry said he wanted to share the rebuilding of Iraq with the UN (the days of "to the victor goes the spoils" are over). He also said he would have liked to build a stronger consensus with the UN before we reorted to war. But what is done is done. We broke it, we own it! Besides, didn't Mr Bush say we weren't in the business of nation building? [/color][/quote] As I've told you before, I do not watch much TV.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 20, 2004 19:55:16 GMT -5
Again, read Scott's post. It is very informative and may give you some insight as to how the military works. That's like the Rcc saying eating meat on Friday wasn't a sin, but since the "church" says, don't eat meat on Friday, then disobeying the "church" is the sin, and many Rc people believed they would spend eternity in flames because they disobeyed the "church". I would never find someone guilty of breaking a false law.[/color][/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by this post, but Scott explained how the military handled the case you referenced. It was quite clear and concise. If you have trouble understanding what he wrote, perhaps he can re-word it for you.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 20, 2004 20:22:28 GMT -5
The "Unibomber" left a note and trails...and he was found by pure luck! The FACT is after he used them on the Kurds, no one had seen any since the early '90's. Are you saying Saddam had a change of heart and just destroyed them out of kindness? Your typical liberal response is just nonsense. [/color][/quote] Or perhaps he used up his "stock" on the Kurds? [/color][/quote] Don't tell me you forgot about Jeb's political hack, Katherine Harris? [/color][/quote] I'm glad you find it amusing. But I've seen you refence two films in this forum: Blackhawk Down and We Were Soldiers. As with any "based on a true story" movie, especially one involving complex military operations, there are many ways in which the plot of the movie differs from the actual events. The exigencies of dramatic storytelling also require that certain practices and procedures are not accurately portrayed. It's a movie, not a documentary. I would settle just for an educated public, another promise that Mr Bush has failed to deliver on! And what is this? You think Democrats are the inventor of the "party line"? I've been a Republican my entire voting life, and I receive numerous campaign flyers during an election year "advising" me to vote the Republican slate. You really need to take your head out of the sand! [/b][/color][/quote] Isn't that the "message" in the Bush campaign ads? That by not voting for the military bill, he is somehow against the soldiers on the front line? Yet there it isn't even mentioned that those who voted against it (Kerry was not the "swing" vote) was because Mr Bush refused to back off his funding of his tax cut for his wealthy friends. As far as tactics, I just stated what you said. You just can't admit that you made a mistake with your generalization,
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 20, 2004 21:34:15 GMT -5
Individuals who want in their own minds to see the US Military as "evil" will see the case of former USAF 1st Lt Kelly Flynn as an "adultery" case. These people will keep saying she was given a "less than honorable" discharge" because she committed adultery. They will point to a "double standard." This is not about having a religious view wrapped up in measuring all things as being evil or not, but rather observing the leadership capabilities of those making decisions which effect peoples careers, their personal lives, and ultimately their physical responsibility to the effective use of my tax payer dollars. Bottom line.... the USAF blew over a million dollars it cost to train this excellent pilot, and for what? Because she failed to admit the details of her INTIMATE life, AND a consensual relationship? She wasn't having sex while dropping nuclear bombs or decoding. She wasn't sleeping with the enemy and divulging secrets. There's something terribly wrong with a government, a public, a military, or any other individuals who think they have a right to invade or dictate this kind of privacy and stick their nose into a persons bedroom. We are not talking about someone committing any criminal acts or neglecting their duty assignment. The commander could have handled this in any number of ways that would have shown more wisdom, including transfer, fines, etc., but then that would be showing leadership in knowing how to address personal situations that do arise with human beings, and in that regard there clearly wasn't any. Well, let's just throw the book at her and wreck that million dollars we spent since she had the audacity to have some emotional needs, make a mistake or two, and by God be human, shall we? My gosh that makes so much sense!! After all -- the military's aim is to create mindless robots who don't think for themselves isn't it? Brilliant strategy I tell you. Commands so much respect from the ranks to kiss off all the sacrifice and commitment on a soldier's part to be one of the best at their job -- don't cha' think? You know the definitiion of a real pri*k to me is any commander who sets someone up to fail by making unrealistic demands given the circumstances, and worse then throws some punishment that should be reserved for a serious and endangering offense. That's just flat out egotistical, disrepectul of one's prior record, and not to mention inhumane! Proud of those grudges they carry, are you? How dare she stand up FIRST for her right's as a human being AS well as her tenure, eh? You know the military fails to put that in black and white when you sign the dotted line.... that ultimately you are kissing your right to be a breathing, feeling human being good-bye.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 21, 2004 4:55:22 GMT -5
No, it's sick.... After the terrorist attacked, the country was looking to the President for assurance. Unfortunately he was not to be found (perhaps on vacation again?). Since Clinton always seemd to be around during a crisis, after 8 years in office, people wanted to be asuured the way he was able to do. ..... LOL!! You're kidding, right? The only thing Clinton assured us of was, he could be counted on to know where Monica was! Everrtime there was a terrorist attack on Clinton's watch, we were arrused that those responsible would pay a price, which was never paid until Bush became president. ....... That was an immature response. But in any event, you seem to forget the "Wag the Dog" response anytime President Clinton launched an attack on al Quada. Well, it's true that it seems like when Clinton's problems were in the headlines are when the feeble responses came. A cruise missle here or there and the response was finished. [/color] Quote:Let's not talk about liberal Democrats. How about the neo-conservative administration that underestimated the number of troops not only to win the war, Underestimated? Did we lose the war? I believe it was won in record time with a minimun of lose of life. No, it's not over and the US will not lose, unless Kerry is elected. Then it will be another Vietnam, where we will pull out. [/color] Quote:but than to cut the number for the occupation? Or how aboout not providing body-armor for the troops at the outset, and didn't start sending it (wrong color for desert fighting) until after family members starting sending them for their own loved ones? There was a good program about body armor the other day. Certain types that could stop rifle rounds wasn't available in pkmtyolm right away. Was that a mistake or poor planning? Body armor or not, we didn't start this. [/color] Quote:Your guy voted against the money that included body armor too. Let's not forget that. Because Mr Bush did not want to fund it by rescinding the tax cuts for his rich friends. I'm not rich and I received a tax cut, so you're wrong again. So, you believe the rich don't pay enough in taxes? Face it, Kerry is a war protestor at heart now as he was in the hippie '60's. [/color] Quote:Or how about holding back the armored humvees in Kuwait for the regular Army while the reservist serving in Iraq have to armor thie humvees with plate metal and bailing wire? There's always the unexpected as in every war. Mistakes are always made. That's not the same as a denial of armor like Clinton did in Somalia. Oh, so Mr Bush did make a mistake! And I guess George H Bush made a mistake by not sending it to Somalia to begin with. No, it wasn't needed until Clinton changed the mission and the REFUSED to send the armor in. [/color] Quote:It would appear to me that those currently in power are not very concerned about "body counts". One wonders if Mr Bush would have been so cavalier with the "...bring it on!" if his own daughters were on the front line. Typical liberal rubbish! The Democrats weren't concerned about "body counts" in Vietnam either because Kennedy wanted the US out of Vietnam, but after he was killed, Johnson escalated the war on the back of a lie. It's your Democrats that don't care about the lives of soldiers, not the Republicans. Rubbish? Just a reality check. No, rubbish. [/color] I still think is sick if any politician is callous about American lives. You may believe that of Democrats, but it is sick. No, just reality. [/color] Quote:You need to listen to the whole message rather than just sound bites. Maybe you should do the same. The difference today is that the press is trying to destroy Bush and the same idiots were running around bragging about how brilliant Clinton's lies were while they were PROTECTING him. Quote:You seem to forget that the action in Korea in the 1950's was a UN action. Also, UN involvement would not end US involvement. No one (no even the hated Kerry) has suggested that. The world is much different today than it was in 1950. Kerry wanted to "share" authority with the UN all along. He still says this. Yes, it is a different world. But you need to pay attention. Mr Kerry said he wanted to share the rebuilding of Iraq with the UN (the days of "to the victor goes the spoils" are over). He also said he would have liked to build a stronger consensus with the UN before we reorted to war. This is a silly response. France wouldn't have ever joined anyone, as well as Germany or Russia. They all were profitting from the "oil for food" program. Face it, one would think Bush didn't try to get more countries than we have now, if you listen to Kerry. [/color] Quote:I would guess because their constituents are more concerned about losing loved one in Iraq. Again, an odd take. But if that is your perception, the converse would be true. So what would be good for Republicans would be low unemployment, no soldiers dying, a good stock market, low inflation. So we can only get those things in a second term? Why not start now? Why wait? It is happening. Maybe you should not put so much faith in CNN or whatever liberal spin you're eating up.. As I've told you before, I do not watch much TV. You should start because you're missing the good news of the day. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 21, 2004 7:53:29 GMT -5
That was an immature response. But in any event, you seem to forget the "Wag the Dog" response anytime President Clinton launched an attack on al Quada. Well, it's true that it seems like when Clinton's problems were in the headlines are when the feeble responses came. A cruise missle here or there and the response was finished.[/color][/quote] Reality check...prior to 9/11, there was no impetus to go after ALL the bases in Afghanistan. If Clinton did, there would have been such an uproar. As it were, post 9/11 ther was more world support for our action in Afghanistan. We should have finished that job first and get Osama before taking on the Saddam issue. [/color] The "war" is not over. You even stated that! They even report it on Fox News! No, it's not over and the US will not lose, unless Kerry is elected. Then it will be another Vietnam, where we will pull out. [/color][/quote] Are you saying Mr Nixon's plan of "Peace with Honor" failed? Are you saying we pulled out of Vietnam too early? [/color] Was that a mistake or poor planning? Body armor or not, we didn't start this. [/color][/quote] In Iraq, it was a pre-emptive strike, so in esscence we did. In any case, one would think the planners would have gone to logistics to see if we had the neceessary equipment to wage a protracted war. [/color][/quote] The tax cuts were already in place. We're talking about funding of the $87 billion. There is no funding! And Mr Bush did not provide a means to fund it! Mr Kerry and a few of the other fiscal conservatives proposed rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr Bush refused. And that is where we are. [/color][/quote] Matter of opinion. [/color] Oh, so Mr Bush did make a mistake! And I guess George H Bush made a mistake by not sending it to Somalia to begin with. No, it wasn't needed until Clinton changed the mission and the REFUSED to send the armor in. [/color][/quote] How can you say armor was not needed? George H Bush sent our troops into a zone where people were killing each others for years. What would make anyone think that our soldiers shouldn't have the best protection. They weren't being sent to Peoria! [/color] Rubbish? Just a reality check. No, rubbish. [/color][/quote] Then prove your statement. Show me how Republican care more about the lives of American soldiers? [/color][/quote] Fortunately it only appears to be your reality! [/color] Yes, it is a different world. But you need to pay attention. Mr Kerry said he wanted to share the rebuilding of Iraq with the UN (the days of "to the victor goes the spoils" are over). He also said he would have liked to build a stronger consensus with the UN before we reorted to war. This is a silly response. France wouldn't have ever joined anyone, as well as Germany or Russia. They all were profitting from the "oil for food" program. Face it, one would think Bush didn't try to get more countries than we have now, if you listen to Kerry. [/color][/quote] And the US is not in it for the oil? Why else would we have a double standard with Saudi Arabia? Yes, Mr Bush did try to get more countries. Unfortunately he used the diplomatic tact of "my way or the highway". [/color] As I've told you before, I do not watch much TV. You should start because you're missing the good news of the day. [/color] [/quote] I prefer written sources for the news. But when I do watch TV news, I generally have the pip option and switch between Fox and MSNBC. Rarely have I watched CNN in the last 10 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 6:23:42 GMT -5
Or perhaps he used up his "stock" on the Kurds? The Kurds were attacked in the '80's. Saddam's sons-in-law said he had them and described what he had and the amounts in the '90's, so he didn't use "them up." They admitted Saddam had tons of the stuff asnd lost their lives because they turned on him. [/color] Don't tell me you forgot about Jeb's political hack, Katherine Harris? "Political hack"? You mean she was a political hack because she wanted to follow Florida law and certify the election on time according to the law? I didn't realize that following the law made one a "political hack". I guess the US supreme court are political hacks too, because the first issue they voted on concerning the Florida election was against Algore 7-2. The second issue was against Algore 5-4. It would never have gone there if Algore wasn't trying to steal the election that he lost. Algore caused all of the confusion in Florida, not the "political hack".
[/color] I'm glad you find it amusing. But I've seen you refence two films in this forum: Blackhawk Down and We Were Soldiers. As with any "based on a true story" movie, especially one involving complex military operations, there are many ways in which the plot of the movie differs from the actual events. The exigencies of dramatic storytelling also require that certain practices and procedures are not accurately portrayed. It's a movie, not a documentary. You're correct, but in the case of "We Were Soldiers", Col. Moore and Joe, the photographer were there on the set for the making of the movie and the events were portrayed accurately. I don't know about "Black Hawk Down", other than it happened, supposedly as it was portrayed. [/color] I would settle just for an educated public, another promise that Mr Bush has failed to deliver on! Give me a break! What would you expect Bush to do? Teach the kids himself? The Democrats have had over 40 years of uncontested time to educate the public and have failed. Everything is not up to the president. Bush has the teachers union to contend with and they are opposed to any kind of accountability of themselves. Maybe it's just tougher than he expected. Then again, national results are rarely seen in the term of those making the changes. [/color] And what is this? You think Democrats are the inventor of the "party line"? I've been a Republican my entire voting life, and I receive numerous campaign flyers during an election year "advising" me to vote the Republican slate. You really need to take your head out of the sand! I have too, but ignore them. I don't believe that's the case with the Democratic voters. [/color] Isn't that the "message" in the Bush campaign ads? That by not voting for the military bill, he is somehow against the soldiers on the front line? Yet there it isn't even mentioned that those who voted against it (Kerry was not the "swing" vote) was because Mr Bush refused to back off his funding of his tax cut for his wealthy friends. Kerry is the one running for president, and he voted against the money. [/color] As far as tactics, I just stated what you said. You just can't admit that you made a mistake with your generalization, My mistake was in assuming that sensible people would know what I meant. It seems like some here still don't get it even after I clarified the issue, and are still saying I said things I never intended, which amounts to lying. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 6:51:39 GMT -5
Reality check...prior to 9/11, there was no impetus to go after ALL the bases in Afghanistan. If Clinton did, there would have been such an uproar. If Clinton had gone before the american people and made the case for invading Afganistan, he would have had support as Bush did, if americans would be assured that the military would run the war and not the White House. [/color] As it were, post 9/11 ther was more world support for our action in Afghanistan. We should have finished that job first and get Osama before taking on the Saddam issue. Bin Laden is one man. Terrorism won't stop with the capture or killing of him. I don't see the point you're making here. Al Qaida has been cut down although there are still plenty of them left. [/color] Are you saying Mr Nixon's plan of "Peace with Honor" failed? Are you saying we pulled out of Vietnam too early? Yes to both. There was no honor in leaving Vietnam. The traitors in this country acheived their goal of letting Vietnam go to the communists. You fail to realize that the U.S. military was not allowed to win in Vietnam because of Democratic politics, not because the military couldn't win. [/color] In Iraq, it was a pre-emptive strike, so in esscence we did. In any case, one would think the planners would have gone to logistics to see if we had the neceessary equipment to wage a protracted war. You should know that once the shooting starts, all pland are out of the window and things have to be dealt with on events as they happen. [/color] The tax cuts were already in place. We're talking about funding of the $87 billion. There is no funding! And Mr Bush did not provide a means to fund it! Mr Kerry and a few of the other fiscal conservatives proposed rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr Bush refused. And that is where we are. There has never been an issue concerning money where the Democrats didn't want to increase taxes. Tax cuts are good for the economy, period. Ask John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. [/color] matter of opinion. No, Kerry is still a war protestor at heart. He wants to be prtesident now, so he dares not be open about his feelings, just as he's trying to hide the fact that he's a liberal and is now going to change to a "centrist". He thinks he can get more votes as a centrist. He might be able to fool more people that way. He just hasn't gotten enough support being who he is( that is everything to everyone) [/color] How can you say armor was not needed? George H Bush sent our troops into a zone where people were killing each others for years. What would make anyone think that our soldiers shouldn't have the best protection. They weren't being sent to Peoria! My recolection says the killing stopped when the troops arrived. Remember, we changed presidents soon after we went to Somalia. [/color] Then prove your statement. Show me how Republican care more about the lives of American soldiers? Republican presidents let the military do what they were trained to do instead of trying to run the war themselves as Johnson did in Vietnam. That's the best way to minimize casualties. Unfortunately, there will be casualties when the shooting starts. Pdersonally, I think we should give the terrorists warnings and then nuke them. Then all the troops would have to do is sweep up the mess. We have small tactical nukes. The innocent could be given time to leave. I know thia is radical, but I believe the shorest distance between two points is a straight line. We didn't start this war and countries that won't help us get rid of the terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists. maybe not nukes, but certainly their strongholds should be flattened, in city or not. It makes no difference to me. I know I'm not speaking as a Christian right now, but innocent babies were killed on 9/11 too. [/color] Fortunately it only appears to be your reality! Why? Because you don't agree, you think the whole world agrees with you? [/color] And the US is not in it for the oil? Why else would we have a double standard with Saudi Arabia? If it was about oil, we could have taken it in '91. You're making yourself look silly by latching on to this kook idea. [/color] Yes, Mr Bush did try to get more countries. Unfortunately he used the diplomatic tact of "my way or the highway". Who should lead? Spain, Italy, Honduras, Japan? That's another silly statement. [/color] I prefer written sources for the news. But when I do watch TV news, I generally have the pip option and switch between Fox and MSNBC. Rarely have I watched CNN in the last 10 years or so. You're showing some promise. Now if you'd only realize there is no difference between CNN and MSNBC, that would be more improvement. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 22, 2004 22:15:11 GMT -5
Or perhaps he used up his "stock" on the Kurds? The Kurds were attacked in the '80's. Saddam's sons-in-law said he had them and described what he had and the amounts in the '90's, so he didn't use "them up." They admitted Saddam had tons of the stuff asnd lost their lives because they turned on him. [/color][/quote] Back to History 101. Saddam first used chemical weapons in the late 70's and early 80's against the Iranians in their protracted war. He used them again in the early 90's against the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shiite in the south because of the support they provided for the coalition troops during the first Gulf War. He only stopped because of the "no-fly" zones created to protect them. Saddam's sons-in-law were killed because they trusted him and returned to Iraq. A "conspiracist" might think that Saddam set them up to fool the west into thinking he had huge stock piles. Why else would they willing return to a certain death if they thought all they were doing was to cut themselves a better deal. The more likely scenario is that they were on a mission for Saddam to perform a "information propaganda" deal. They were assume that they were going to be welcomed back with "open arms" by Saddam with a "wink" of "well done"...he fooled the west again. What better way to keep out intruders then by posting a sign that there is a "big dog" inside (whether there is one or not). But he sealed the deal (and the ruse) by double-crossing them and killing them. Saddam didn't know that there was someone out there with a "big dog" too who was willing to challenge his "dog". But it may turn out that there was more "bark" then "bite" in ol' Saddam and we were "barking up the wrong tree". [/color][/quote] In a close vote, I would hope all parties would react the same. And don't tell me the Republicans would have slunk off if the decision went the other way. You know and I know that once it was that close, either party would have fought the outcome. It just helps to have friend in high places in close elections. [/color][/quote] In both movies there were factual mistakes. As I said, it was not a documentary. [/color][/quote] But that was his campaign promise about "no child left behind". So did he forget? [/color][/quote] Pure speculation and a generalization on your part. Are you sure you want to get into another "blanket" statement debate with me? Just an example, the state I live in did away with the "party-line" lever some time ago. We could poll the rest of the posters to see if their state still have "party-line" levers? [/color][/quote] Because he (and others) never got an answer as to where the $87 billion was to come from. I guess he could ask his buddies in Saudi Arabia to kick in some since they are partly responsible for this mess. [/color][/quote] Or you could simply say you made a mistake to these sensible people.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 22, 2004 23:01:54 GMT -5
Reality check...prior to 9/11, there was no impetus to go after ALL the bases in Afghanistan. If Clinton did, there would have been such an uproar. If Clinton had gone before the american people and made the case for invading Afganistan, he would have had support as Bush did, if americans would be assured that the military would run the war and not the White House. [/color][/quote] Back to the reality check...there was more concern about getting Clinton out of office then him taking any offensive action in Afghanistan. Remeber the "Wag the Dog" stuff. They accused him of that for the actions we took in Kosovo. And I still remember the uproar over the cost of a cruise missle that was "...shot in the butt of a camel in Afghanistan". Hindsight seems to be pretty good now!! [/color][/quote] But he is the "heart and soul" of the extremist. He been raised to almost "mythical status" by his followers. To capture him and put a "human" face on this "terrorist rock star" would hopefully deflate some of there ambitions. [/color][/quote] So Nixon failed? Interesting! So what could the military have done differently that would have "won the hearts and minds" of the North Vietnamese, short of going nuclear...or would you have propose that as your solution? [/color][/quote] A good plan also has contingencies. This one did not, so it was not really a good plan. [/color][/quote] So where is the funding for all these cost over-runs? Perhaps he could use some of the contributions from his re-election "war chest". Afterall, a war is a war! [/color][/quote] Perhaps, but we'll see now, won't we. [/color][/quote] Your recollection is incorrect. We went there to protect the relief workers from the tribal "warloads", who were being hapkmtyolred and killed. That is why GH Bush sent American troops to begin with. That is what Bill Clinton inherited. [/color][/quote] Then why is Don Rumsfield micromanaging the war against the better judgement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? I used to feel that way too after the loss of my firefighter brother-in-law at the Twin Towers (my sisters husband). I was able to find forgiveness after much prayer and guidance from our Lord, Jesus Christ. It certainly is not a popular stance in our family, but I figure if my sister can do so, who am I to harbor hate for them. God will take care of them as He sees fit. [/color][/quote] I've never said that...I only speak for myself. My comment was based on your perceptions, [/color][/quote] You seem to forget that the initial phase was to protect the oil fields so that Saddam did't torch them the way he did in Kuwait. I would hope that you're not naive enough that this was done just because of our philanthropic nature. If the oil fields were lit up, the price of crude would have gone sky high, and we'd be paying $4 or $5 per gallon for gas. [/color][/quote] Real leaders are respected not feared! [/color][/quote] Well, I'm glad I can make you happy about something!!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 5:22:23 GMT -5
Back to History 101. Saddam first used chemical weapons in the late 70's and early 80's against the Iranians in their protracted war. He used them again in the early 90's against the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shiite in the south because of the support they provided for the coalition troops during the first Gulf War. He only stopped because of the "no-fly" zones created to protect them. O.K., but the point was that he had them, and now they haven't been found YET. [/color] Saddam's sons-in-law were killed because they trusted him and returned to Iraq. They weren't killed because they left Iraq. They were killed because they spilled Saddam's secret OF STILL HAVING THEM and PURSUING NUCLEAR capabilities. [/color] A "conspiracist" might think that Saddam set them up to fool the west into thinking he had huge stock piles. True, but we know he had them. [/color] Why else would they willing return to a certain death if they thought all they were doing was to cut themselves a better deal. They were married to Saddam's daughters and thought Saddam was serious when he told them "all is forgiven". [/color] The more likely scenario is that they were on a mission for Saddam to perform a "information propaganda" deal. The conspiracy theory. [/color] They were assume that they were going to be welcomed back with "open arms" by Saddam with a "wink" of "well done"...he fooled the west again. What better way to keep out intruders then by posting a sign that there is a "big dog" inside (whether there is one or not). But he sealed the deal (and the ruse) by double-crossing them and killing them. No, they knew better. Saddam had a cabinet meeting and asked if it would be best for Iraq if he stepped down and left Iraq. Only one person said yes. He was arrested. When the man's wife begged Saddam to let her husband come home, Saddam sent him home in a bag cut up into parts. That's Saddam's way, and the sons-in-law knew that. [/color] Saddam didn't know that there was someone out there with a "big dog" too who was willing to challenge his "dog". But it may turn out that there was more "bark" then "bite" in ol' Saddam and we were "barking up the wrong tree". Saddam didn't think the US would attack without France and Germany in the coalition. If he didn't have the WMD's, all he would have had to do was verify their destruction andwe wouldn't have attacked. [/color] In a close vote, I would hope all parties would react the same. And don't tell me the Republicans would have slunk off if the decision went the other way. You know and I know that once it was that close, either party would have fought the outcome. It just helps to have friend in high places in close elections. Nixon knew the election was stolen in favor of Kennedy in 1960. He said he wouldn't challenge the vote in Illinois for the sake of the presidency. Not all people are like the Democrats!
The dead voted in enough numbers ibn Illinois to give the win to Kennedy. By the way, the dead in Duval county in Texas elected Johnson to the U.S. Senate also. So, we had a president and a vice president who were elected by the dead!! [/color] In both movies there were factual mistakes. As I said, it was not a documentary. Who said it was? The battle certainly wasn't exactly as it was portrayed, but certain events of the battle certainly were. [/color] But that was his campaign promise about "no child left behind". So did he forget? Unfortunately, the Democrats can still gum up the works, as they are doing with judicial appointments. [/color] Pure speculation and a generalization on your part. Are you sure you want to get into another "blanket" statement debate with me? No, distortions of what I intend are annoying. Especially when those distortions become lies later. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 5:44:10 GMT -5
Back to the reality check...there was more concern about getting Clinton out of office then him taking any offensive action in Afghanistan. Remeber the "Wag the Dog" stuff. They accused him of that for the actions we took in Kosovo. And I still remember the uproar over the cost of a cruise missle that was "...shot in the butt of a camel in Afghanistan". Hindsight seems to be pretty good now!! But he is the "heart and soul" of the extremist. He been raised to almost "mythical status" by his followers. To capture him and put a "human" face on this "terrorist rock star" would hopefully deflate some of there ambitions. Hopefully, but that wouldn't end it. [/color] So Nixon failed? Interesting! So what could the military have done differently that would have "won the hearts and minds" of the North Vietnamese, short of going nuclear...or would you have propose that as your solution? \ There was a lot that could have been done. Certain targets were off limits to the US. The military wanted to bomb levees that would have flooded the food supply in the North. Look, if americans were fired on from across the Cambodian border, the US troops were instructed NOT TO RETURN FIRE! What a way to prosecute a war!! Westmoreland was a joke, but he followed orders from the White House. Johnson was quoted as saying, "they can't bomb an outhouse without my approval. The military wasn't fighting the war, Johnson was. My brother finished his 20 years in '68. He was there for the Tet offensive. He would have been sent back, but retired instead because the americans weren't allowed fight as they were trained. Vietnam was a defensive action, and the US never intended to win. That's what you get with Democrats. [/color] So where is the funding for all these cost over-runs? Perhaps he could use some of the contributions from his re-election "war chest". Afterall, a war is a war! Did you ask these same questions when Clinton was wasting cruise missles? [/color] Your recollection is incorrect. We went there to protect the relief workers from the tribal "warloads", who were being hapkmtyolred and killed. That is why GH Bush sent American troops to begin with. That is what Bill Clinton inherited. True, but Clinton decided to take on the warlords offensively instead of just protecting the relief workers. When the mission changed, logistics should have changed first. [/color] Then why is Don Rumsfield micromanaging the war against the better judgement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? How? I don't see any Khe Sahns(sp) in Iraq. [/color] I used to feel that way too after the loss of my firefighter brother-in-law at the Twin Towers (my sisters husband). I was able to find forgiveness after much prayer and guidance from our Lord, Jesus Christ. It certainly is not a popular stance in our family, but I figure if my sister can do so, who am I to harbor hate for them. God will take care of them as He sees fit. I don't see revenge. I see self defense and preventative action. It would certainly happen again if we didn't act first. I will always believe Clinton could have prevented 9/11 if he would have taken meaningful action. Bin Laden would be in US custody or dead if Clinton wanted to handle the problem. He just didn't want the pkmtyolhle. [/color] You seem to forget that the initial phase was to protect the oil fields so that Saddam did't torch them the way he did in Kuwait. Sure! Iraq has the means to rebuild itself. Why should those means be allowed to be destroyed? [/color] I would hope that you're not naive enough that this was done just because of our philanthropic nature. If the oil fields were lit up, the price of crude would have gone sky high, and we'd be paying $4 or $5 per gallon for gas. Thank God for "W"!! [/color] Real leaders are respected not feared! Show me one! In politics, fear brings respect. That's reality! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 23, 2004 6:09:57 GMT -5
Real leaders are respected not feared! Show me one! In politics, fear brings respect. That's reality! [/color] [/quote] Using that logic, Saddam Hussein must have really been respected by you and this administration. Intimidation only works for the short-term. It will then turn to animosity. No, I'll stand with my original statement. It may be idealistic, but it is certainly something we could all strive for.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 4, 2004 5:58:36 GMT -5
Using that logic, Saddam Hussein must have really been respected by you and this administration. Intimidation only works for the short-term. It will then turn to animosity. No, I'll stand with my original statement. It may be idealistic, but it is certainly something we could all strive for. Kadaffi is a good example, Pakistan is another. They're both afraid of the US military and that's why they've come around. I wonder where Kadaffi got his WMD's from? There is no indication that he was producing them from within Libyia. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 4, 2004 6:16:31 GMT -5
[quote author=genesda
The Democrats are already talking about how they will dump Kerry if his poll numbers get too low before the election. By the way, this is "free" on Rush's web site.
Democrats Discuss Torching Kerry May 3, 2004
Listen to Rush… (...explain how Democrats in the press are beginning to ease out Kerry) (...roll the Torricelli montage, and explain why Dems are considering dumping Kerry) By the way, this "montage" is priceless. It has Torricelli standing in the Senate saying how outraged he is at the accusations made against him for his corruptness in office, and after every outrage, there is another voice counting off the list of "gifts" he received illegally. You can hear the montage at www.Rushlimbaugh.com. That's "free" too.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Here's this New Jersey story, folks. Now, I don't know who wrote this. We did this by virtue of just a search. We found something from the Newark Star-Ledger over the weekend, and it says, "Jersey should be proud. People all over the country are talking about what some have called 'the Torricelli option [for John Kerry].' The Torricelli option, of course, is named after the former U.S. senator from New Jersey named Bob who bolted from the ballot in 2002 after a precipitous drop in the polls. The last-minute switcheroo permitted the Democrats to save the Senate seat." He didn't decide to get out on his own. Torricelli didn't say, "Oops my poll numbers are bad. I think I'm leaving." He was in the midst of a scandal. He was forced out by the Democrats because his poll numbers were bad, because of the scandal. And you remember, when he finally announced his resignation, who did he apologize to first? He apologized to Bill Clinton, Don Clinton, for embarpkmtyolring him and the Democrat Party. Now, just to buttress this. I mean, some people may not remember this, but the Torricelli (option).
Oh, and this story goes on to say, "That's why we're hearing rumblings within both parties [italics added] about pulling a Torricelli in the event their presidential candidates tank in the polls. " Now, excuse me, uh, I'm as informed as anybody on this stuff, and I am not aware of the Republicans trying to come up with a backup plan if they have to Torch Bush. Is there any? What have I missed? Is there anything going on out there that says that the Republicans are unhappy with Bush and might have to do a Torricelli on him? Because this story in the Newark Star-Ledger yesterday on Sunday, yesterday, indicates that. Yes, well, it's an option. I just want to put this Torricelli in perspective again. For those of you who haven't heard it, it wasn't.... In fact, he had nothing to do with this decision. He was forced out by the Democrats. Here's a new montage that puts it all into perspective. [/color]
|
|