Republican Convention
- Thread starter trouthead
- Start date
As for the WOMD arguement, sure... we found none... there may have been none to begin with but we'll never really know.
I kept my pot in a heat duct as a kid. My folks never knew and wouldn't know now unless I told em.
I don't care if there were weapons or not. Saddam's history was a jarble of unpredictable hostility to other nations and his own people. He was a threat, while possibly not globaly, DEFINATELLY locally. Personally, I believe both were the case.
As ex military myself I stand behind Bush 100% Nothing about Kerry is appealing to me atm, and from what I've already heard out of the man's mouth he will never be! What I've seen to date is no differant than the 8 years we went through with Clinton as far as lies, yet he's even less predictable when it comes to military action. I, for one, wouldn't want to be in the position of having to following the man into combat. Again, imo, it would all end up benifiting him in the end anyway. I don't trust the man and I don't believe a word that has come out of his mouth.
I kept my pot in a heat duct as a kid. My folks never knew and wouldn't know now unless I told em.
I don't care if there were weapons or not. Saddam's history was a jarble of unpredictable hostility to other nations and his own people. He was a threat, while possibly not globaly, DEFINATELLY locally. Personally, I believe both were the case.
As ex military myself I stand behind Bush 100% Nothing about Kerry is appealing to me atm, and from what I've already heard out of the man's mouth he will never be! What I've seen to date is no differant than the 8 years we went through with Clinton as far as lies, yet he's even less predictable when it comes to military action. I, for one, wouldn't want to be in the position of having to following the man into combat. Again, imo, it would all end up benifiting him in the end anyway. I don't trust the man and I don't believe a word that has come out of his mouth.
You're differentiating between internal terrorism and international.
There's a lot of differant names for the actions of the Iraqi govt, but the attacks made on tribes within the borders were no less than terrorist acts. The fact it was internal doesn't change anything. Biological attacks or "tests" as they were called were acts of terrorism.
Actions taken by the leaders of Iraq are easily found online. Look through Saddam's history and you'll find numerous counts of terrorist activity, funding, and hiding. It's not just him either. The govt behind him is responsible for numerous acts as well.
The tricky thing about terrorism is the definition of the word itself.
TERRORISM:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
There's a lot of differant names for the actions of the Iraqi govt, but the attacks made on tribes within the borders were no less than terrorist acts. The fact it was internal doesn't change anything. Biological attacks or "tests" as they were called were acts of terrorism.
Actions taken by the leaders of Iraq are easily found online. Look through Saddam's history and you'll find numerous counts of terrorist activity, funding, and hiding. It's not just him either. The govt behind him is responsible for numerous acts as well.
The tricky thing about terrorism is the definition of the word itself.
TERRORISM:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Coast Guard represent!!! From what I have heard the Coast Guard has the 2nd hardest bootcamp behind the marines. Of course that might be a bias opinion..... regardless.... it sure as hell isn't easy.
Yeah we are freeing the Iraqi Oil not the Iraqi's. Thats why its called Operation Iraqi Freedom.
C-man with all due respect... the whole story of going into Iraq for human rights concerns and encouraging democracy in the mid-east is so full of holes it looks like a block of swiss cheese. The American government doesn't give a damn about the attrocities commited against the Kurds or the Iraqi people as a whole. If this was the case why haven't we invaded China, Iran, or Rwanda. If we care so much about human rights why haven't we invaded one of the largest nations on earth for Tiananmen Square or one of the smallest for genocide.
To the extent of rebuilding Iraq, they only care about rebuilding Iraq to the point that it is stable enough for american corporations to rape Iraq of any usable resources be it human or natural ala Haliburton or any number of US corporations down their now. You know MickeyDees is just eyeing up Iraq once things settle down of course. This is one of the many reasons why Iraqi's hate the fact that they are occupied.
And as for WMDs, common you have to be kidding me. The story is the same as with human rights. Iran has nucler tech. Hell they even admitted it and we haven't attacked them(yet) and of course don't forget china. People say that we were lied too. Of course we were. They new there weren't any there. They new it all along. It was just an excuse albeit a very good one. Just mention WMDs and holy crap all of america is scared. They know how to push the buttons and they know when to push them.
War is peace.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
One step closer to 1984 we all are.
Yeah we are freeing the Iraqi Oil not the Iraqi's. Thats why its called Operation Iraqi Freedom.
C-man with all due respect... the whole story of going into Iraq for human rights concerns and encouraging democracy in the mid-east is so full of holes it looks like a block of swiss cheese. The American government doesn't give a damn about the attrocities commited against the Kurds or the Iraqi people as a whole. If this was the case why haven't we invaded China, Iran, or Rwanda. If we care so much about human rights why haven't we invaded one of the largest nations on earth for Tiananmen Square or one of the smallest for genocide.
To the extent of rebuilding Iraq, they only care about rebuilding Iraq to the point that it is stable enough for american corporations to rape Iraq of any usable resources be it human or natural ala Haliburton or any number of US corporations down their now. You know MickeyDees is just eyeing up Iraq once things settle down of course. This is one of the many reasons why Iraqi's hate the fact that they are occupied.
And as for WMDs, common you have to be kidding me. The story is the same as with human rights. Iran has nucler tech. Hell they even admitted it and we haven't attacked them(yet) and of course don't forget china. People say that we were lied too. Of course we were. They new there weren't any there. They new it all along. It was just an excuse albeit a very good one. Just mention WMDs and holy crap all of america is scared. They know how to push the buttons and they know when to push them.
War is peace.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
One step closer to 1984 we all are.
Last edited:
In the regards that Coast Guard can be stationed on the Mississippi River...and such.
Ok then....why doesn't the US just blow the whole damn country up and have a new middle eastern vacationing spot? Come visit Lake Iraq! The US doesn't want to take over....never have. Hell if they had we would have a territory called France right now.
Ok then....why doesn't the US just blow the whole damn country up and have a new middle eastern vacationing spot? Come visit Lake Iraq! The US doesn't want to take over....never have. Hell if they had we would have a territory called France right now.
Last edited:
You right they are not looking to take over Iraq and make it a territory or the 51st state. They just want the goods with out the responsibilty to the people.
That is in essence why we haven't invaded other countries. Obviously, we could but it all involves risk. Risk of internation uproar. Risk of impeachment. Risk of us getting our asses handed to us by former allies due to insurmountable aggression on our part. It just so happens that in the case of Iraq the risk was low.
That is in essence why we haven't invaded other countries. Obviously, we could but it all involves risk. Risk of internation uproar. Risk of impeachment. Risk of us getting our asses handed to us by former allies due to insurmountable aggression on our part. It just so happens that in the case of Iraq the risk was low.
Last edited:
We have been the 'World Police' since after WWII. Thats just the way it is. If we stand by and do nothing, we are heartless A**holes who do not care for anything or anybody else. If we go out and help people, even if it might not be the way that the world wants us to help, then we are only there for economic reasons, or some other inane reason. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. So whats it going to be?
Ive said before, I stand behind Bush 100%. I like that we do know where he stands on some issues. I like the way he talks. I think his grammer is just fine.
If we were in this for oil, then why the hell am I paying $1.75 a gallon????? What about the good days before the oil embargo in the '80's when gas was $.50 a gallon????? If we are stealing all this oil, then where is it going? It aint in my gas tank thats for sure.
Any President that had the misfortune to face such hardships that Pres. Bush has would come under the gun hard by the media and by the world. I dont like the media, nor do I belive what they say. As soon as his speech was over last night they imediatly started blasting on him, and talking about how Kerry was going to start to fight 'dirty' like the republicans. I meen come on, what was the hardest thing Pres. Clinton faced? Monica? Watergate? Bush has had to face many tough decisions, most of witch we will never know or understand. The President is the headpiece of the US. If something goes bad, he is to blame. If something goes good, he gets the praise. I would be scared to think what some of the past presidents might have done in this situation. IMO we had to take care of this our selves. Not that we didnt need the help of other countries, but we needed to show the world that we are not affraid to use force when we get backed into a corner. If the people of this country should be gratefull that we are able to still live our lives like normal. What if we hadn't retaliated after 9/11? I think that this would be a dangerous place to live. Terrorist would not think twice about attacking us because, hey, what are we going to do? I see trucks and federal officers with the DHS in my town from time to time. And it makes me sleep better at night.
USMC. What can I say? Know it, love it. C-Man, PI is nothing like they say. Its 10 times worse. You can not prepare your body or mind enough to deal with the stress of it. But after its all over, and you recive your EGA after the crucible, you would do it all agian and not think twice. Oh-Rah!
Ive said before, I stand behind Bush 100%. I like that we do know where he stands on some issues. I like the way he talks. I think his grammer is just fine.
If we were in this for oil, then why the hell am I paying $1.75 a gallon????? What about the good days before the oil embargo in the '80's when gas was $.50 a gallon????? If we are stealing all this oil, then where is it going? It aint in my gas tank thats for sure.
Any President that had the misfortune to face such hardships that Pres. Bush has would come under the gun hard by the media and by the world. I dont like the media, nor do I belive what they say. As soon as his speech was over last night they imediatly started blasting on him, and talking about how Kerry was going to start to fight 'dirty' like the republicans. I meen come on, what was the hardest thing Pres. Clinton faced? Monica? Watergate? Bush has had to face many tough decisions, most of witch we will never know or understand. The President is the headpiece of the US. If something goes bad, he is to blame. If something goes good, he gets the praise. I would be scared to think what some of the past presidents might have done in this situation. IMO we had to take care of this our selves. Not that we didnt need the help of other countries, but we needed to show the world that we are not affraid to use force when we get backed into a corner. If the people of this country should be gratefull that we are able to still live our lives like normal. What if we hadn't retaliated after 9/11? I think that this would be a dangerous place to live. Terrorist would not think twice about attacking us because, hey, what are we going to do? I see trucks and federal officers with the DHS in my town from time to time. And it makes me sleep better at night.
USMC. What can I say? Know it, love it. C-Man, PI is nothing like they say. Its 10 times worse. You can not prepare your body or mind enough to deal with the stress of it. But after its all over, and you recive your EGA after the crucible, you would do it all agian and not think twice. Oh-Rah!
What about the bombing of the Kohl and the WTC? Oh and what about those little genocide issues in Serbial and Rwanda that EVERYONE seems to have forgotten about?
Iy's not taht I or most other liberals think that we should not have retaliated- I just think we should have retaliated -rationally. Why did it take us so long to get into Afghanistan? why did we not have current intelligence on Bin Ladins approximate whereabouts? we've known that he was a threat for years. And I find it so laughable that they keep using that "Al Quaeda is very difficult to infiltrate, yaddda yadda" That kid, John walker lind walked right in. 22 year old college dropout. you're telling me the CIA can't get in? Maybe we should get rid of it.
And the thing that nobody has still really answered is why Iraq? It can't be nukes- we knew Libya, Syria, and North Korea were at LEAST working on them Iran has them- Iraq was a maybe.
Can't be terrorism- since we know Saudis were most of the hijackers, we know that they fund terrorism. and terrorists don't come out of dictatorships.
Can't be human rights because as bad as he is, Saddam's not the only violator, and likely not the worst, so why?
Iy's not taht I or most other liberals think that we should not have retaliated- I just think we should have retaliated -rationally. Why did it take us so long to get into Afghanistan? why did we not have current intelligence on Bin Ladins approximate whereabouts? we've known that he was a threat for years. And I find it so laughable that they keep using that "Al Quaeda is very difficult to infiltrate, yaddda yadda" That kid, John walker lind walked right in. 22 year old college dropout. you're telling me the CIA can't get in? Maybe we should get rid of it.
And the thing that nobody has still really answered is why Iraq? It can't be nukes- we knew Libya, Syria, and North Korea were at LEAST working on them Iran has them- Iraq was a maybe.
Can't be terrorism- since we know Saudis were most of the hijackers, we know that they fund terrorism. and terrorists don't come out of dictatorships.
Can't be human rights because as bad as he is, Saddam's not the only violator, and likely not the worst, so why?
Well this thread covered a lot of ground. So I'd just add that I think the reason for the Iraq war was that the Bush administration wants a power base in the Middle East and Iraq was beaten down by 10 years of sanctions so a likely candidate. I think they are beginning to realize that they miscalculated on how easy this might be to set up.
I've had a sense for a long time that we are in a world war. By the looks of today's news, bombs going off in Indonesia, etc. I am further persuaded by this idea.
The cover of the New Yorker magazine is interesting this week. It has a crowd of elephants crossing the Brooklin Bridge with fearful looks on their faces. That sums the convention up for me. "You should be afraid in this dangerous world, and we are the party that will protect you." Unfortunately I think it might work. Looking at the faces of the delegates that ran from fear to ecstasy---well chalk it up to the human condition.
I've had a sense for a long time that we are in a world war. By the looks of today's news, bombs going off in Indonesia, etc. I am further persuaded by this idea.
The cover of the New Yorker magazine is interesting this week. It has a crowd of elephants crossing the Brooklin Bridge with fearful looks on their faces. That sums the convention up for me. "You should be afraid in this dangerous world, and we are the party that will protect you." Unfortunately I think it might work. Looking at the faces of the delegates that ran from fear to ecstasy---well chalk it up to the human condition.
I think if there is a new World War brewing, it's going to be bad. The populations in many countries the US long considered as allies are rising up against Bush's current "leadership." As elections are being held in those countries, all a candidate would have to say is that he or she opposes Bush and chances are he or she will win. The EU doesn't want anything to do with us, although as of now, they are bound by NATO. Many Australians are PO'ed also, and with today's bombing, those opposed are saying, "See what our alliance with US gets us?"
Without a change in direction in this country, it will be US against the world....
.... and that ain't a good situation to be in.
Without a change in direction in this country, it will be US against the world....
.... and that ain't a good situation to be in.
After all the crying I've heard about this election (not here but at home) that's the most true statement I've seen. It's also the scariest.
I and my family are republican. My fiance and hers are democrat. *imagine the dinner conversations when it turns to politics* From what I've gathered, folks aren't so much voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. I find that concept terrifying. Take a good look at the family you're planning on giving control of the most powerful military on the planet.
I don't think it's party lines that scare me when I think about that. It's Kerry and his support of terrorism. I don't care what you call it and it doesn't matter if it's his wife's money or not. Kerry, through his wife, funds terrorism. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
I and my family are republican. My fiance and hers are democrat. *imagine the dinner conversations when it turns to politics* From what I've gathered, folks aren't so much voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. I find that concept terrifying. Take a good look at the family you're planning on giving control of the most powerful military on the planet.
I don't think it's party lines that scare me when I think about that. It's Kerry and his support of terrorism. I don't care what you call it and it doesn't matter if it's his wife's money or not. Kerry, through his wife, funds terrorism. Why is this so difficult to grasp?