WOW! Finally someone who gets it!
02-15-2004, 11:54 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FL
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by billg
Way to go Rose I agree 100%. I supported President Bush before and I will sure support him again. And for you who don’t see Saddam as a modern day Hitler then you are blind. Do we want to wait until more Americans die before we put a stop to someone who openly hates the U.S. and was working to act on it?
I saw 911 as it was happening on TV and saw people have to jump from the top floors. Put yourself, your wife, and children in that position and ask yourself if we should wait. He killed 1000’s of his own people with chemical weapons (we’ve seen the mass graves on TV), how much more proof do you need that this madman, if given the chance would do it to the U.S.? Giving him more time is just plain stupid. We did that before WW2 and look what Hitler did. Why did Neville Chamberlain go down in history as one of the worst leaders of the 20th century, and conversely, Winston Churchill is remembered as one of the finest? It’s because Chamberlain thought the way to deal with Hitler was to appease him. (Remember the “peace in our time” speech?) Saddam played liberal Bill Clinton the way Hitler played Neville Chamberlain.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Way to go Rose I agree 100%. I supported President Bush before and I will sure support him again. And for you who don’t see Saddam as a modern day Hitler then you are blind. Do we want to wait until more Americans die before we put a stop to someone who openly hates the U.S. and was working to act on it?
I saw 911 as it was happening on TV and saw people have to jump from the top floors. Put yourself, your wife, and children in that position and ask yourself if we should wait. He killed 1000’s of his own people with chemical weapons (we’ve seen the mass graves on TV), how much more proof do you need that this madman, if given the chance would do it to the U.S.? Giving him more time is just plain stupid. We did that before WW2 and look what Hitler did. Why did Neville Chamberlain go down in history as one of the worst leaders of the 20th century, and conversely, Winston Churchill is remembered as one of the finest? It’s because Chamberlain thought the way to deal with Hitler was to appease him. (Remember the “peace in our time” speech?) Saddam played liberal Bill Clinton the way Hitler played Neville Chamberlain.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
If we are going to discuss "modern day Hitlers" then we had better include Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia. I believe more people were killed in these genocides than Iraq. They just didn't have as much oil.
Long live the SUV.
02-15-2004, 01:44 PM
#62
Registered User
This is probably the best post I have ever read.
As you know, I am a Marine and have been to deployed to East Timor and was recalled for Operation Enduring Freedom. I have friends that have died and have been injured in Iraq.
I do know that Pres. Klinton, in his 8 yrs, diminished the size of the military. In fact, he diminished it as much as the total size it was in WWII.
There are aspects of President Bush's policy that I don't agree with, but there are actions he has taken that overide the parts of his policy that I don't like. When it comes to voting time, you can be assured I am voting for President Bush.
Could you imagine what would have happened if Gore was in office for September 11, 2001?
NOTHING!
Mike
As you know, I am a Marine and have been to deployed to East Timor and was recalled for Operation Enduring Freedom. I have friends that have died and have been injured in Iraq.
I do know that Pres. Klinton, in his 8 yrs, diminished the size of the military. In fact, he diminished it as much as the total size it was in WWII.
There are aspects of President Bush's policy that I don't agree with, but there are actions he has taken that overide the parts of his policy that I don't like. When it comes to voting time, you can be assured I am voting for President Bush.
Could you imagine what would have happened if Gore was in office for September 11, 2001?
NOTHING!
Mike
02-15-2004, 06:39 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Va.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE]Originally posted by spots
If we are going to discuss "modern day Hitlers" then we had better include Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia. I believe more people were killed in these genocides than Iraq. They just didn't have as much oil. Long live the SUV. [/QUOTE]
Well lets start off with this.
Long live the SUV. and
'03 Dodge 2500 HO 6spd 2wd
'04 Ford F250 6.0 6spd 4wd
'04 Ford F150 gasser 2wd rolled and rebuilt. Salvage title. Service truck.
Looks like you are using quite a bit of that oil yourself.
This is a typical lame liberal response. Blame everything on oil. If we have so much of this oil why are the prices so high? Where are they storing all this oil? I know if the storage facilities were all of a sudden being filled to capacity then the liberal press (CNN, MSNBC, ABC and, CBS) would be all over it looking for a juicy scandal to help their do nothing candidates out. What proof of this do you have that this is happening or is this just plain liberal whining as usual? I notice when the liberal camp has nothing intelligent to say they start with the same old empty rhetoric. If they don’t come up with the plan of action first then it’s about oil, or tax breaks for the rich. Hindsight is 20/20 with the information Bush had at the time I think he acted as he should have. If Russia or any of the other nations that are whining, would have been in our place you can bet they would have taken payment in oil. If this war was so bad then why did so many democrats support it? It’s funny now that it’s election time that this is their cry. Maybe it’s because they have no good ideas so all they can do is whine.
Now for Rwanda ask Klinton
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm
For Cambodia there is plenty of blame not just the USA.
http://www.hmongnet.org/hmong-au/refugee.htm
Bosnia, again ask Klinton
Why would I believe that; when Sudan tried to hand over bin laden to that administraton they turned it down.
http://www.tupbiosystems.com/article...bin_laden.html
If we are going to discuss "modern day Hitlers" then we had better include Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia. I believe more people were killed in these genocides than Iraq. They just didn't have as much oil.
Long live the SUV. [/QUOTE] Well lets start off with this.
Long live the SUV. and '03 Dodge 2500 HO 6spd 2wd
'04 Ford F250 6.0 6spd 4wd
'04 Ford F150 gasser 2wd rolled and rebuilt. Salvage title. Service truck.
Looks like you are using quite a bit of that oil yourself.
This is a typical lame liberal response. Blame everything on oil. If we have so much of this oil why are the prices so high? Where are they storing all this oil? I know if the storage facilities were all of a sudden being filled to capacity then the liberal press (CNN, MSNBC, ABC and, CBS) would be all over it looking for a juicy scandal to help their do nothing candidates out. What proof of this do you have that this is happening or is this just plain liberal whining as usual? I notice when the liberal camp has nothing intelligent to say they start with the same old empty rhetoric. If they don’t come up with the plan of action first then it’s about oil, or tax breaks for the rich. Hindsight is 20/20 with the information Bush had at the time I think he acted as he should have. If Russia or any of the other nations that are whining, would have been in our place you can bet they would have taken payment in oil. If this war was so bad then why did so many democrats support it? It’s funny now that it’s election time that this is their cry. Maybe it’s because they have no good ideas so all they can do is whine.
Now for Rwanda ask Klinton
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm
For Cambodia there is plenty of blame not just the USA.
http://www.hmongnet.org/hmong-au/refugee.htm
Bosnia, again ask Klinton
Originally posted by Sweeper54
They might have listen to the Eygptian warnings?
They might have listen to the Eygptian warnings?
http://www.tupbiosystems.com/article...bin_laden.html
02-15-2004, 08:19 PM
#66
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spirited debate to say the least, but there is something wrong with it, if I may. What is wrong you may ask. It is the way many of the posters belive that they are right and that only they are right. And what is wrong with that? Bear with me a minute. I do not necersarily imply that those who are not right are wrong. Double talk you say, but it is not, I will now explain.
Both sides, I will call it just A and B have not only large numbers of supporters but among them a good number of highly educated people, I readily admit, smarter than I and many of us I dare say. They can't be all right nor can they be all wrong. Nobody ever is. Further more history has proven time and again that decisions made by majorities are not always the right or the correct ones, no matter by what margin does that majority win. So I say to you take the side you believe in and support it, because it may be the best for you. That may not make it the best for someone else. If you want to "fight" for your side do so by pointing out its merits not what you believe are the other side's shortcomings. You just may convince sombody to join your side. Ultimately no matter what the outcome is make the best of it, do not abandon your beliefs but use them in the next "fight" for life is like a pendulum it swings from side to side, the problem is when it stops or the support breaks and the ball falls. By the same toke do not cling on to something that is obviously wrong just out of spite.
Oh yea it is a poor argument to assume what someone would or would not have done in a particular situation. And no I did not vote for Gore but even so, no one could say with certainty what he would have done.
Ultimately we all want what is the best for our country and sometimes we must dwell on what we are doing wrong in order that we may do it better. Have faith and good will prevail, God Bless America.
Peter
Both sides, I will call it just A and B have not only large numbers of supporters but among them a good number of highly educated people, I readily admit, smarter than I and many of us I dare say. They can't be all right nor can they be all wrong. Nobody ever is. Further more history has proven time and again that decisions made by majorities are not always the right or the correct ones, no matter by what margin does that majority win. So I say to you take the side you believe in and support it, because it may be the best for you. That may not make it the best for someone else. If you want to "fight" for your side do so by pointing out its merits not what you believe are the other side's shortcomings. You just may convince sombody to join your side. Ultimately no matter what the outcome is make the best of it, do not abandon your beliefs but use them in the next "fight" for life is like a pendulum it swings from side to side, the problem is when it stops or the support breaks and the ball falls. By the same toke do not cling on to something that is obviously wrong just out of spite.
Oh yea it is a poor argument to assume what someone would or would not have done in a particular situation. And no I did not vote for Gore but even so, no one could say with certainty what he would have done.
Ultimately we all want what is the best for our country and sometimes we must dwell on what we are doing wrong in order that we may do it better. Have faith and good will prevail, God Bless America.
Peter
02-15-2004, 08:49 PM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Llano, TX
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that comes to my mind most is the quote about "not changing horses in mid-stream." I believe Roosevelt made it during WWII. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq is not near over. The worst mistake the US could do is put a different leader in at this time. I do not approve of all the things Bush has done, but simply voteing him out and a democrat in will not change many things at all. It's a fact that a past president's policies and influences do not end when he leaves office. Many say that it takes to the end of the next president's entire first term for his policies and practices to be emplimented with any effect. For sure the economic conditions cannot be blamed solely on Bush. Also, please do not be swayed by right wing, or left wing reporting. Although it should not be, many reporters have an ajenda of their own. If they are knowingly pushing one party or the other, it's really not reporting.
02-15-2004, 09:40 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cloquet, MN
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to point out why I appreciate Sweeper54's statements, but I have to address them first before I can explain why. So:
<<I agree Old Soddom needed to go, BUT, sending American forces oversea on what now appears to be trumpted up charges is wrong.>>
So there were good reasons to go, but since one of the possible reasons hasn't panned out, the whole thing was wrong? I don't buy that. Even with the benefit of hindsight, when second-guessing the President is awfully easy, I don't buy that argument anymore.
<<When it's all said and done we'll be so far in debt as a country there will be no hope for Social Security.>>
How much hope is there for SS as it sits? It's going to be bankrupt by the time I get to collection age. That's a poorly conceived system that needs a major overhaul, and somebody's going to suffer to rectify the mistakes made when it was put into practice. Maybe you would like Bush to leave it alone so that you're not included in the group that has to bear the burden of the sacrifices needed to correct SS?
<<THIS DIDN'T START WITH 9/11!!!!!!!
This started a long time ago. These people have hated us for years>>
Yes, it ENDED with 9/11. There have been and will always be people in this world who hate us. People are jealous of #1, and we are #1. But we've taken the fight to those people on their own turf now, instead of sitting back and waiting for a new attack on our soil. No more quietly putting up with the dangerous lunatics of the world that wish us harm. That ended with 9/11. Notice there have been no attacks since?
(about Saddam's support of terrorist attacks)<<IN ISRAEL! Why do WE have to stop him?>>
Because Israel is an ally. I would think you'd have learned while serving in the military that we have an obligation to defend both ourselves and our allies.
<<OIL>>
Yes, oil. It could be gold, diamonds, uranium, or any other source of money that allows manipulation of the global economy and accumulation of devastating offensive weapons. What better reason to go to war? Religion? Murder? Should we only act after a direct attack? Terrorists have learned not to do that. We can't rely on that kind of provocation. And if we could, would it be better to let Saddam (or whoever) sell oil (or whatever) until he can buy a few nukes and really make a big bang when he does decide to attack?
<<There's a rule of offense that says any defense can be overcome. To think we can pour money into a shield to protect us is wrong.>>
This one kills me. You don't like the attack on Saddam, but you don't think defense is the answer either? What do you suggest? Hide in the basement and prepare to surrender when they (whoever 'they' might be, I guess) smash the door down?
Anyway, some interesting things have been going on since we've been over there in Iraq. Our homeland has been safe. Our economy has improved. Lybia has become less of a threat. North Korea has quieted their sabre-rattling. Al-Queda has been and is being crippled. Heck, Pakistan and India have quit threatening to nuke each other.
We have enemies in the world. But we did before, and we always will. We might as well be strong, and show our strength, and let them decide how to behave around us. Thank God we still make our own decisions for our country, and don't cowtow to the U.N.
Our guys have died over there (Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, others). My prayers go to their families. And my prayers go to our president for doing the tough thing, the unpopular thing, by sending them over to fight for our safety and security. It's that kind of security and stability that allows a man (even a military man) to talk disrespectfully of our President even in wartime - something that would mean death in other parts of the world. Sweeper54 reminds me that Bush has provided us with that security, so I appreciate what he says.
<<I agree Old Soddom needed to go, BUT, sending American forces oversea on what now appears to be trumpted up charges is wrong.>>
So there were good reasons to go, but since one of the possible reasons hasn't panned out, the whole thing was wrong? I don't buy that. Even with the benefit of hindsight, when second-guessing the President is awfully easy, I don't buy that argument anymore.
<<When it's all said and done we'll be so far in debt as a country there will be no hope for Social Security.>>
How much hope is there for SS as it sits? It's going to be bankrupt by the time I get to collection age. That's a poorly conceived system that needs a major overhaul, and somebody's going to suffer to rectify the mistakes made when it was put into practice. Maybe you would like Bush to leave it alone so that you're not included in the group that has to bear the burden of the sacrifices needed to correct SS?
<<THIS DIDN'T START WITH 9/11!!!!!!!
This started a long time ago. These people have hated us for years>>
Yes, it ENDED with 9/11. There have been and will always be people in this world who hate us. People are jealous of #1, and we are #1. But we've taken the fight to those people on their own turf now, instead of sitting back and waiting for a new attack on our soil. No more quietly putting up with the dangerous lunatics of the world that wish us harm. That ended with 9/11. Notice there have been no attacks since?
(about Saddam's support of terrorist attacks)<<IN ISRAEL! Why do WE have to stop him?>>
Because Israel is an ally. I would think you'd have learned while serving in the military that we have an obligation to defend both ourselves and our allies.
<<OIL>>
Yes, oil. It could be gold, diamonds, uranium, or any other source of money that allows manipulation of the global economy and accumulation of devastating offensive weapons. What better reason to go to war? Religion? Murder? Should we only act after a direct attack? Terrorists have learned not to do that. We can't rely on that kind of provocation. And if we could, would it be better to let Saddam (or whoever) sell oil (or whatever) until he can buy a few nukes and really make a big bang when he does decide to attack?
<<There's a rule of offense that says any defense can be overcome. To think we can pour money into a shield to protect us is wrong.>>
This one kills me. You don't like the attack on Saddam, but you don't think defense is the answer either? What do you suggest? Hide in the basement and prepare to surrender when they (whoever 'they' might be, I guess) smash the door down?
Anyway, some interesting things have been going on since we've been over there in Iraq. Our homeland has been safe. Our economy has improved. Lybia has become less of a threat. North Korea has quieted their sabre-rattling. Al-Queda has been and is being crippled. Heck, Pakistan and India have quit threatening to nuke each other.
We have enemies in the world. But we did before, and we always will. We might as well be strong, and show our strength, and let them decide how to behave around us. Thank God we still make our own decisions for our country, and don't cowtow to the U.N.
Our guys have died over there (Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, others). My prayers go to their families. And my prayers go to our president for doing the tough thing, the unpopular thing, by sending them over to fight for our safety and security. It's that kind of security and stability that allows a man (even a military man) to talk disrespectfully of our President even in wartime - something that would mean death in other parts of the world. Sweeper54 reminds me that Bush has provided us with that security, so I appreciate what he says.
02-15-2004, 10:09 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Antrim NH
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
erics76 wrote:
"The thing that comes to my mind most is the quote about "not changing horses in mid-stream." I believe Roosevelt made it during WWII. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq is not near over. "
We did it twice during the Viet Nam war
"The thing that comes to my mind most is the quote about "not changing horses in mid-stream." I believe Roosevelt made it during WWII. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq is not near over. "
We did it twice during the Viet Nam war
02-15-2004, 10:31 PM
#71
Chapter President
Sweeper54 wrote: "We did it twice during the Viet Nam war."
True, and look who started it, ran it, and how it ended.....a disgrace to the country and humiliation to many GI's who saw their friends die there. As I said before, I didn't get to go, but many of my friends and family did, and they are still ****** about the way Jane Fonda and her buddy Kerry and many others failed to support them. Have you ever talked to a Viet Nam Vet that was told not to kill the enemy and was spit on when they arrived back in California? It's not a pretty story. I didn't totally agree with the war, but I was totally in disagreement with how it was handled and how it ended.
We can't let Iraq end the same way. We are there for the right reasons and we, as a nation, need to "stay the course".
Hmmmmmmm....lost control and got a "little" off the subject.
CR
True, and look who started it, ran it, and how it ended.....a disgrace to the country and humiliation to many GI's who saw their friends die there. As I said before, I didn't get to go, but many of my friends and family did, and they are still ****** about the way Jane Fonda and her buddy Kerry and many others failed to support them. Have you ever talked to a Viet Nam Vet that was told not to kill the enemy and was spit on when they arrived back in California? It's not a pretty story. I didn't totally agree with the war, but I was totally in disagreement with how it was handled and how it ended.
We can't let Iraq end the same way. We are there for the right reasons and we, as a nation, need to "stay the course".
Hmmmmmmm....lost control and got a "little" off the subject.
CR
02-16-2004, 02:57 AM
#73
Registered User
I have been quiet on this one. Most of what I would have said near the beginning has already been said. During Vietnam we were treated to the chants of "Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" This was the only war that the US lost. A political mess that has never gone completely away, lets not do that again. Those who would pull us out abruptly, and place the American troops under UN authority when off American soil, would create another disaster in world respect for the US.
Looks like we will have the choice of Kerry or Bush. Kerry stated that he would put the US troops under UN control when off American soil. Exactly what we need, those who hate the US, commanding our troops. I think anyone voting for this concept is terribly naive. The US must retain its sovereignty. And those who hate the US must know that pushed too far, America strikes back, and hard. Without that the terrorists will destroy this country.
Anyone who went to school, and I assume everyone here has, must remember that the bully or the strong dude never got picked on. Its no different on the global scale, wimp out and we are finished. Remain strong and dedicated to freedom and America retains its respect even if some do hate us. THEY MAY HATE US, BUT WILL RESPECT US.
I also wanted to comment, when did you last see a "blue collar" President? Are you kidding, wealthy people are in business with business connections. That is a given, weather it is Bush, Clinton, Kerry, or any other also-ran.
We all drive SUV trucks, you better hope that the oil keeps flowing until something better comes along. We have about the lowest fuel prices in the World. If that is due to Bush, than I say thanks Bush. I wonder who gets the profits in Europe with their inflated gas and fuel prices, wonder if it could be the oil companies. Wonder how many of the European leaders have "oil" connections.
Looks like we will have the choice of Kerry or Bush. Kerry stated that he would put the US troops under UN control when off American soil. Exactly what we need, those who hate the US, commanding our troops. I think anyone voting for this concept is terribly naive. The US must retain its sovereignty. And those who hate the US must know that pushed too far, America strikes back, and hard. Without that the terrorists will destroy this country.
Anyone who went to school, and I assume everyone here has, must remember that the bully or the strong dude never got picked on. Its no different on the global scale, wimp out and we are finished. Remain strong and dedicated to freedom and America retains its respect even if some do hate us. THEY MAY HATE US, BUT WILL RESPECT US.
I also wanted to comment, when did you last see a "blue collar" President? Are you kidding, wealthy people are in business with business connections. That is a given, weather it is Bush, Clinton, Kerry, or any other also-ran.
We all drive SUV trucks, you better hope that the oil keeps flowing until something better comes along. We have about the lowest fuel prices in the World. If that is due to Bush, than I say thanks Bush. I wonder who gets the profits in Europe with their inflated gas and fuel prices, wonder if it could be the oil companies. Wonder how many of the European leaders have "oil" connections.
02-16-2004, 06:36 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Antrim NH
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackjack wrote:
"So let me ask You sweeper54 since I don't think you were there. Does this mean that for all of us that were in that war that it meant nothing?....."
Blackjack I'm not slighting your service during the war. I'm only saying that during that time the people who are seeking office now did thing they say they don't do now.
Your boy "w" is amoug that group.
"So let me ask You sweeper54 since I don't think you were there. Does this mean that for all of us that were in that war that it meant nothing?....."
Blackjack I'm not slighting your service during the war. I'm only saying that during that time the people who are seeking office now did thing they say they don't do now.
Your boy "w" is amoug that group.