| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2003 : 20:49:30
|
Gale, Mork from Mars and we mystical denizens of the Bermuda Triangle would dearly love to see ol' Saddam drop over from a burst brain anyurism right about now. Or, even a 7.62 NATO round from a CIA sniper already in country into his head would be okay by me. But...this monster has been nurtured by Uncle Sam and yours and mine tax dollar$. That Bush 43 and his cronies have concocted the mother of all hypocrocies to justify an imperialistic invasion of another sovreign nation that was NOT a party to the Sept 11, 2001 Act of War while we have continued to bomb that nation for the past 12 years, is beyond all creduality.
This is simply a personal family vendetta by Bush 43 to clean up the mistake Bush 41 made in stopping the troops too early, and thereby was tagged by the wimp label. ( What is strange is that of all the modern presidents, Bush 41 was a combat pilot and was shot down in the Pacific while flying off a Navy carrier. He was NOT a wimp. Another truly brave president was Jimmy Carter. During his Navy days, a nuclear submarine reactor malfunctioned and Jimmy went in and defused the thing at tremendous personal risk. He was no sissy either!)
It's like the bumper sticker at the gun show says, 'It's not the other guys government I worry about, it's mine!' If the government wants to earn my trust, I want a televised tour of the Area 51 hangars, I want to see the alien bodies from the 1947 Roswell crash, and I want a televised tour of that Nevada brothel that the IRS seized for back taxes. But I do not want the U.S. to invade a country that has not attacked us on our dirt. |
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 03/08/2003 20:52:06 |
 |
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 21:29:47
|
Thanks Ghost I see where you are coming from and would have to agree with you through WWII. The Korean and Vietnam conflicts were not fighting a country but fighting Communism (an ideology) that for the most part has died because its fail to every meet a 5 year plan’s objectives.
911 was an attack on US soil and I am sure several CADO readers agree with Clint that we deserved it. I will say we have more foreign policy failures than successes and another one may be shaping up. There is not any non-evil choices for the President to choose from that are moral besides to do what the UN has for 12 years failed to do.
Saddam is not the problem because his death will not save the lives of the people of the North or South in Iraq or neighboring nations. The President clearly stated a long time back and congress said yes to a regime change. The war is to remove from power ALL of the current leadership. This is why this last round of inspections served no real function other than show the world Saddam was never going to live up to the 1991 agreement.
We can’t just let him kill all of the people of the region and say it is better than doing the work of the failed UN can we? Would it be moral to just let them die?
Just as we can know the stock market will not bottom until the 4 quarter of 2005 we can expect a Saddam very 20 years or so. 50-60’s – Castro, 70-80’s – Kadafe (sp), 90-00’s – Saddam. Since they can be predicted it would be nice if we would plan for them or instead just not create them. Force or a treat of force is about all that works on created monsters. We make and we break. What monster are we creating today that someone will have to deal with in 2020?
|
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 22:24:06
|
| We desereved what happened on 9/11/01? Are you smoking crack? A bunch of crazy, hateful people who are jealous that the US has achieved in 225 years what their civilization failed to achieve in 2 millenia took advantage of the freedoms our country offers and turned our own airplanes against us to murder 3000 innocent people. Yeah, we deserved that. What the hell is wrong with you? |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 22:51:03
|
Has anyone hear rumors that Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to allied forces because they thought the war had already started?
If this turns of to be fact instead of fiction it could mean resistant will be light all of the way. If it is a wrong war maybe it will be a short one Ghost. To bad Saddam is not willing to act so as there would be no loss of life. 3000 bombs within 30 minutes is going to be deadly. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 08:24:05
|
| I have to agree with that, claimfool. Murder is still murder. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 14:06:24
|
If this offer is accepted Bush will go down in history as the man that took out Saddam without an attack. The UN wants to control the oil fields instead of Bush so I expect we will see this happen. It could make 2004 hard on the Dem's. If it does work Bush will be one heck of a poker player and some troops starting to return by Easter weekend. I am praying for that.
http://www.sundayherald.com/31989
UN plan to give Saddam 72 hours to leave Baghdad
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 21:09:17
|
Gale, before you go writing off the Democrats in 2004, there is the rather small matter of the economy.
As memory serves me, didn't another President forget the economy after 'winning' a war in the Middle East? |
|
|
|
mshort68
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 21:44:26
|
| Just to put in my 2 cents. Dem o rats are the reason we are in this financial state since they stalled everything in the Senate when they had a little majority. George W. will win in a landslide. I can only hope that Daschle or Gephardt runs againt him. Finally, we have a true God fearing President in office and he will do the right thing, and that doesn't mean lick his cigars. |
The grass is always greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed! |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 21:45:31
|
| As long as he has a war he doesn't need to explain the econony. And we still have al quida and north korea.After them we can go after France and maybe Canada (oil). The attitude here that if we do not bow down and kiss the dirt at Bush43s feet we are anti american is VERy scary. are we no longer the land of the free, mybe it's the land of the free as long as you are republican. The only two redeming qualities I see In Bush 43 are Rice and Powel, and with out them I shudder to think were we would be. I respect the right of people here to be Rushimaniacs, pro bush and war hawks, Please respect my opinions, while it is still leagal for me to have them. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 22:12:10
|
Mark, the March 2003 issue of Vanity Fair magazine has an article entitled 'What If They Gave A War And Nobody Cared?' which discusses the very point you make.
Author James Wolcott, uncovers and reveals the Bush administration hawk's attempts to silence dissent by discrediting celebrities, academics, allies and anyone else disagreeing with their position while attempting to stifle any meaningful debate.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 22:51:46
|
Mark, isn't it funny that you feel that those who support the president think everybody who doesn't is anti-American yet you call everyone who does support the president a Rushimaniac, whatever that means.
I do feel however that those who can't see why we need to eliminate this threat to our way of life are simply living in a dream world.
I don't understand why people keep saying this is all about oil as if GW wants to steal the Iraqi's oil. The only way that it is about oil is we need to keep crazy people from being in control of the worlds oil. You can't let Hussein turn off the spigot that controls the fuel that runs the world. He has attacked Kuwait, he has attacked Isreal and he threatened to roll into Saudi Arabia. If it wasn't for the US he would probably be in control of half of the worlds oil right now. And I think that he probably doesn't like that very much. So, what better way to get back at the US, the country that thwarted his plan to dominate the Persian Gulf than to hand a suitcase full of botulin or anthrax or ricin or sarin to Al Queda, the sworn enemy of the Great Satan? That is why we need to disarm Iraq by force and make sure a friendly government is in control over there. We won't pay anything to rebuild them because they have plenty of crude, oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.
As far as Al Queda goes, we proved last week that we are still rounding them up. It isn't high profile because we are hunting them down like the criminals that they are and I don't remember the last time the local police chief came on the air to announce which criminals he has his eye on and where he thinks they are. You don't hear about the arrests until they are made, that's why you aren't hearing much about it. If you let the heat die down, the weasels will start venturing out of their caves.
And then there's N. Korea. Isn't it funny how when GW goes to the UN and tries to work that insane process everyone accuses him of being unilateral on the issue, even though more than 40 countries are with us, but when Kim Jong Il threatens to fire up the plutonium, no one mentions the UN, they just accuse Bush of ignoring the issue. You can't win with these people. Why isn't the UN Security council bringing this up? During that rather odd press conference held Thursday, GW said he considers N. Korea to be a regional issue. He thinks China and Japan should be seeking a resolution. I personally think that the UN should be doing more on the subject, but why aren't people on the left congratulating GW for being multi-lateral on N. Korea?
I am a little sick about all the politics that has come out of this. I think when it comes to national security politics should take a back seat, but unfortunately the loyal oposition doesn't see it that way anymore. Since Clintonism has taken over the Democratic party it has become win at any cost and that to me is just sickening.
Jim, I don't agree with trying to discredit celebrities, not that you have to because they have no credibility when it comes to foreign policy anyway. If they weren't famous for playing make believe or singing a song, nobody would be listening to them anyway. Why has so much of the lefts efforts at opposition been placed on the shoulders of Hollywood? Why don't Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton go on the Sunda morning talk shows and defend their positions? Today, Tony Snow said at the end of his program that none of the leaders of the Democratic party will even come on the Sunday shows. Yesterday the Dems chose their least popular member, Calif. Governor Gray(out) Davis to deliver the parties rebutal to Bush's Saturday radio address. Why isn't someone with some credibility and political clout willing to step up? Hillary Clinton taylors her feelings on the issue to the audience to which she is speeking. Sometimes she is behind Bush, sometimes she thinks the UN should be the one to decide.
And lastly, the economy. As we all know, the economy is cyclical. It is like a 100 mile long freight train and it takes a long time to stop and a long time to change direction. Believe it or not, we are heading in the right direction. The recession that started at the end of the Clinton Administration is over. What exactly could the administration do to change the economy? In times of economic slowdown the government has very few options in our country. If inflation is low, they can lower interest rates. Rates are as low as they've been in 40 years, Greenspan has used up just about all of his rate cuts, he is now actually looking for signs of deflation, if that happens he has to raise interest rates. The government can cut taxes to spur consumer spending and get the economy running. GW did that in his first term and it seems to be working, most of the cuts haven't kicked in yet, but it did get us out of that nasty Clintonn recession.
Now that the fire is lit, we need to stoke it to see if we can get the economy boiling again. The way you do that is accelerate the tax cuts, and increase government spending. That will create deficits in the short term, but any economist will tell you that governments should run a deficit in a slow economy. That's becaue government services rarely get cut, but when the economy slows down tax receipts go down. So tell me, besides the three things I mentioned, lowering interest rates, cutting taxes, and increasing government spending, what can the federal government do to help the economy?
|
Edited by - KileAnderson on 03/09/2003 22:56:46 |
|
|
|
claimfool
5 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 23:20:18
|
| God help us!----As my grandma use to say---Lordy! |
|
|
|
mshort68
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 05:27:51
|
| There you go Jim discrediting celebrities. If you listen to those idiots like Marting Sheen, you should be silenced. An olderthendirt you failed to mention Cheney and Rumsfeld who are extremely intelligent individuals and are the brains behind the admin. Personally, I think Rush is too far to the left. I'm much more extreme than that. |
The grass is always greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Iraq
Forum Locked
