|
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 19:39:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RodP on Apr 21, 2004 19:50:30 GMT -5
Cute.
It's a shame that you would minimize the price paid for Democracy. The very freedoms which you are both enjoying and exploiting right now.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 21, 2004 20:01:32 GMT -5
Nice 1984 ref at the bottom --DX TD
|
|
|
Post by Charis on Apr 21, 2004 20:16:40 GMT -5
*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Apr 21, 2004 20:20:51 GMT -5
hmm... It would be funny, if 90% of the troops who have served their time in Iraq didn't decide to go back again.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 21, 2004 21:12:35 GMT -5
hmm... It would be funny, if 90% of the troops who have served their time in Iraq didn't decide to go back again. Funny? It was a job they chose to do - when one joins the military, they know they may have to go to war - hello! <><
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 21, 2004 22:22:09 GMT -5
Cute. It's a shame that you would minimize the price paid for Democracy. The very freedoms which you are both enjoying and exploiting right now. Would you say this war is about ourdemocracy?
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 23:00:20 GMT -5
Funny? It was a job they chose to do - when one joins the military, they know they may have to go to war - hello! <>< One logically concludes that their country going to war will have purpose beyond seeking hegemony. That is to say, having more purpose than profits for politian's buddies, and equally, more than the conquest of a bunch of power hungry EGOS who think it's their God ordained right to seek world domination no matter who they destroy (and I mean this country in terms of our lives and our freedoms) as well as run us into bankruptcy. "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be reguarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."
President George Washington Farewell Address, September 17, 1796"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarrented influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disarterous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address, January 1961[/b][/color]
|
|
|
Post by Ben johnson on Apr 21, 2004 23:59:19 GMT -5
Let's see. We intercepted a shipment of CRYOSTATS in England, bound for Iraq. Cryostats are high-performance switches used in the production of nuclear bombs.
We intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes, consistent with equipment used to refine weapons-grade uranium.
We KNOW that saddam had a nuclear bomb production facility; we KNOW that the Iraelis bombed it in the 80's; shall we presume saddam did not begin another one?
A convoy of trucks was LEAVING Iraq at the same time as our troops were ENTERING on the other side. We could not patrol the OTHER border, because Turkey wouldn't LET us.
We KNOW he used chemical weapons on entire villages. We KNOW that we found chemical weapon contaminants in Iraqi rivers, including nerve-gas SERIN, the same agent used to murder Japanese on their subway system.
We KNOW that Iraq is bigger than California, and much is covered with sand; making infinite the number of hidding places for equipment and materials.
We KNOW that saddam harbored and funded Al-Qeda (sp?). Thus he was involved in 911.
Perhaps we could ask the "anti-Bush anti-military-action" protesters the SAME QUESTION that was asked back in about 1939, of those saying "leave Hitler alone --- he isn't a real danger" --- Should we have TAKEN Iraq when we did, or WAITED UNTIL WE SAW THE FLASHES OF NUCLEAR BOMBS?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 22, 2004 0:46:17 GMT -5
Kee said
We did!
The men and women who sign up for military service know that one day warfare is on the agenda - that is what they do - train for warfare! Hello! <><
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:07:54 GMT -5
click hereThere are plenty of fools out there. It's funny, but the soldiers don't feel like that stupid cartoon describes.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:09:00 GMT -5
hmm... It would be funny, if 90% of the troops who have served their time in Iraq didn't decide to go back again. You won't see that, no matter how much you'd like to. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:12:14 GMT -5
Would you say this war is about ourdemocracy? Yes, anyone with a little sense would know that the reason we are there is because of the terrorists and what they did here on 9/11.
Maybe you'd like to serve Bin Laden and the rest of the terrorists with arrest warrants like Clinton wanted to do and that would make you feel better.
The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:17:35 GMT -5
One logically concludes that their country going to war will have purpose beyond seeking hegemony. That is to say, having more purpose than profits for politian's buddies, and equally, more than the conquest of a bunch of power hungry EGOS who think it's their God ordained right to seek world domination no matter who they destroy (and I mean this country in terms of our lives and our freedoms) as well as run us into bankruptcy. "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be reguarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."
President George Washington Farewell Address, September 17, 1796"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarrented influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disarterous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address, January 1961[/b][/color] Too bad they're not here today to offer an opinion of world events now. This is a different world from when both of them lived. I wonder what they would say about the traitors who give aid and support to the enemy with their protests? The protestors are using the very freedoms Washington fought for to undermine those same freedoms they now enjoy.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:20:31 GMT -5
Let's see. We intercepted a shipment of CRYOSTATS in England, bound for Iraq. Cryostats are high-performance switches used in the production of nuclear bombs.We intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes, consistent with equipment used to refine weapons-grade uranium. We KNOW that saddam had a nuclear bomb production facility; we KNOW that the Iraelis bombed it in the 80's; shall we presume saddam did not begin another one? A convoy of trucks was LEAVING Iraq at the same time as our troops were ENTERING on the other side. We could not patrol the OTHER border, because Turkey wouldn't LET us.We KNOW he used chemical weapons on entire villages. We KNOW that we found chemical weapon contaminants in Iraqi rivers, including nerve-gas SERIN, the same agent used to murder Japanese on their subway system.We KNOW that Iraq is bigger than California, and much is covered with sand; making infinite the number of hidding places for equipment and materials. We KNOW that saddam harbored and funded Al-Qeda (sp?). Thus he was involved in 911.Perhaps we could ask the "anti-Bush anti-military-action" protesters the SAME QUESTION that was asked back in about 1939, of those saying "leave Hitler alone --- he isn't a real danger" --- Should we have TAKEN Iraq when we did, or WAITED UNTIL WE SAW THE FLASHES OF NUCLEAR BOMBS?Maybe all of the protestors/traitors should reside in one place and the terrorists could attack that place first.
They would be the first to yell "protect us"!!
[/color]
|
|