Home

Support

Posted By: HogWild

Support - 02/25/03

Here's wishing the best for our military in the upcoming conflict!

HogWild
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Quote
Here's wishing the best for our military in the upcoming conflict!

Amen to that--even from those of us who are strenuously opposed to Baby Bush's war on Iraq in particular and to American imperialism in general.

We're praying that you will stay safe and that you will soon be able to return to your families unharmed--both you folks in and on the way to the Mideast and all the rest of you in other dark, forgotten corners of the world where you have been tasked with imposing the will of America's politicians on the local people.

Be careful and come home soon in one piece!
Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak,

While I fully support you and will fight for you to believe what you want, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of GW Bush and America in the strongest possible terms.

If Baby Bush didn't have 150,000 troops in the Gulf with fingers on their triggers, Saddam wouldn't even be thinking about disarming. If the politicans in our country and the rest of the world would unite behind Baby Bush, there would be no need for continuing the hostilities (they have never ended) we have engaged in with Iraq since 1991. A united world--even a united US--would force Saddam to go into exile and would allow a peaceful regime change and for the first time in a long time, the Iraqi's could live free from tyranny and oppression. On top of that, we take out one huge terrorist threat. However, the buffoonery liberal politicans and the leaders of France and Germany are engaging in only worsen the situation.

No, I don't want to go back to the armpit of the world again, but I want a world safe for my children, and such a world needs to be free of terrorists and the dictators who support them. After Iraq, then we have work to do in North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. Terrorist and the countries that support them must understand in no uncertain terms terrorism is not acceptable and the punishments for engaging is such activities is severe.

The US is not imperialist. We want is peaceful relations with our neighbors and mutually beneficial trade. We do not desire the whole world to be under US rule, as we would if we were truly imperialist. Calling the US "imperialist" is like saying Bush is a Hitler and Saddam is a victim. While we are not perfect, we have more tolerance for those who hate us, are exceedingly generous, and do our best to improve the lot of the rest of the world. No one else even comes close.

The only way we have ever secured a peace is through strength and engagement in the world. As much as I'd like us to be isolationist, that is not a viable option in the 21st century.

Off my soapbox now.

Blaine
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak,

You have a right to free speach, as long as it dosen't infringe on another persons rights. The way you got these rights is exactly what you are speaking out againist now! Mr. Bush is sending these Men and Women to Iraq to protect these rights of yours. The people of the U.S. have been doing this since leaving England and other country's, and we must say they have done a good job of it too, since you're sitting on a computer excerising your rights now!
You claim this is an act of imperialism, You are wrong on this or you don't know what you are talking about. We are not going over there to take over the country of Iraq and install our goverment. We only want to take out Sadistic leaders who preys on others rights. They will be preying on yours if not taken care of now, and if we wait until you anti-war people decide to have a change of heart it will be either to late or we will have a lot more soldiers killed doing this. Imperialism, is exactly what Iraq had in mind when they took over Kuwait in the early 90's, we went over there then and run them out to prevent this and will be taking the steps now to prevent it from happening again.
How would you like it if, you made the statement you just made and your country's leader sent soldiers out to have you killed or tortured becuase he didn't like it? What if we let this person or person's go and you have to live in fear of your life or loved ones lives from being Gas'ed or a nuclear threat? Whould you want to carry a gas mask with you while hunting or fishing? Would you want to stay home 24/7 to make sure the Kids and Wife got to a fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear attack? I'm sure you wouldn't, but if we let something like this go then the possibility grows. I bet if someone made a threat againist you, Kids or Wife you would do something to prevent this threat from happening, right? What if, this thing you do to prevent this threat from being carried out was put down by everyone around you, wouldn't it make you feel bad? Yes it would and by you speaking againist this possible War, you are putting these Men and Women down that are trying to protect your rights.
Try to rethink your opinion on this matter and look at all the possibilties that make it right and wrong. I think you will see the reason Mr. Bush is trying to take care of this matter before it gets any bigger.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/25/03

It's okay. Lots of people disagree with me about Baby Bush. In my less cynical moments, I don't think he means to be a power-mad megalomaniac. He doesn't intend to suck the country and what he can get to of the world dry to support his imperialist ambitions. He's merely convinced that if the rest of the world ran their affairs according to his plans, the world would be a better place; and now that he's got the power to force them to run their affairs that way, it would be silly not to use it.

And yes, I think he is imperialist. No, he doesn't intend to take over the entire world, but he does intend to essentially seize Iraq and its oil resources and colonize it, placing his own military governor in charge. That's pretty freaking imperialist. But it's not just Baby Bush: we've done (or tried to do) the same sort of thing all over the world under other Presidents, except that we call them "peacekeepers" instead of military governors.

I cannot see any credible threat to the US from Iraq, terrorist or otherwise. (Even Iraq's neighbors say Iraq is no threat to them.) As a matter of fact, that seems to be the very reason Bush has chosen Iraq as the setting for his war: it's projected to be a pushover compared with somebody more serious like North Korea. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11, and it's very unlikely that Hussein and bin Laden could be in a room together for five minutes without killing each other.

Yes, yes, I know: "You want to try disarming him after he has nuclear weapons?" No, not particularly. Whether he has nuclear weapons is between him and the UN. If the UN is so all-fired convinced that he should be disarmed, then let the UN worry about disarming him. We shouldn't have a dog in that fight. And whatever the danger to us now from Iraq-equipped terrorism, it's nowhere near the danger we'll be in from terrorism sponsored by every oil-rich Muslim country in the Middle East once Iraq is an American colony.

America used to be a country to admire among the nations of the world. In the last couple of decades, however, we've been becoming a police state on the inside and the Evil Empire Jr. on the outside. (Generous? Are you kidding? Are armed robbers generous because they give some of their loot to charity? That's exactly what the US government does.)

But Baby Bush has done so much cowboy posturing now that it's politically impossible for him to back down, even with his public support hemorrhaging away. Watching him continuing to threaten, "This is your last chance!" and "This is your really last chance!" and "This time I really really really mean it, honest!" makes it difficult to avoid the cynical view: Papa Bush had a war, and Slick Willy had a war, and if Baby Bush doesn't get his war too, nobody will talk to him at cocktail parties. As I saw on a .sig the other day, "Yo, George! When even the Germans don't want to fight, get a frickin' clue!"

What he needs to revive his support is another horrific terrorist attack that kills thousands of people but can easily be blamed on Iraq. Stay tuned.

See what I mean about cynical?

No. I'm not a pacifist. I understand that war is sometimes necessary. I even believe that the United States has been involved in a few just wars. But this one is a stupid idea from beginning to end, apparently stemming from the theory that it's okay to give Bush whatever power he wants because he's a conservative and we can trust him not to abuse it. It's not worth a single drop of American blood, including the four guys killed yesterday in Kuwait when their chopper crashed during training. It's not even worth any Iraqi blood. Hussein is already killing plenty of Iraqis every day; he doesn't need any help from us.

Yes, I support our troops. I support bringing them home where they belong and not spending their lives on a stupid arrogant demonstration that the US military is bigger than the Iraqi military.
Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak,

If the US really wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just have taken it in 1991. There is a clear and present danger from Saddam. I'm sorry you can't see it, but then again England didn't see the threat from Hitler in the late 30's either. Of course Iraq's neighbors are going to say Saddam isn't a threat--they are afraid of him. After all, he is a thug who has killed milloins of his own people to stay in power.

Bush II alreayd had his war, and he could gain much more politically by not going to war in Iraq. However, he is govenred by principal, which is a rare things today in politics.

Blaine
Posted By: need one

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Why did we give away the Panama Canal, why did we rebuild Japan, why did we train the Saudi to drill oil wells along with Libbia, Kuwait, and South America. Why are we the first to help any country in emergencies and feed the hungry. Are you an alien or just a Democrat? -- no
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Quote
You have a right to free speach, as long as it dosen't infringe on another persons rights. The way you got these rights is exactly what you are speaking out againist now! Mr. Bush is sending these Men and Women to Iraq to protect these rights of yours.

Uh, no.

The way I got those rights, according to our founding fathers, was simply by being born. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident...that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Neither Baby Bush nor all his horses nor all his men has given me a single right in his entire life. On the contrary, he and his administration have actively attacked most of the rights the Constitution guarantees me with his USA PATRIOT Act, with his Department of Homeland Security, and now they're prepared to try for even more with "Patriot II."

Conversely, not a single one of my rights has ever been threatened by Saddam Hussein or by any other Iraqi. We may argue and speculate about exactly why Baby Bush is sending all those folks over to Iraq to kill people and break things, but one thing that ought to be crystal-clear to everyone concerned is that protection of my rights has nothing to do with it.

Quote
You claim this is an act of imperialism, You are wrong on this or you don't know what you are talking about. We are not going over there to take over the country of Iraq and install our goverment.

On the contrary, that's precisely what Baby Bush claims he intends to do. He's even picked out his military governor; haven't you heard?

Quote
[Sadistic leaders] will be preying on [your rights] if not taken care of now, and if we wait until you anti-war people decide to have a change of heart it will be either to late or we will have a lot more soldiers killed doing this.

Really? Which of my rights will they be preying on?

My assertion that none of my rights are threatened by Hussein is precisely the reason I'm opposed to sending our troops over to fight him. If he was dangerous to me or to the national security of the US--well, that's what the military is supposed to be for, right? That's why it's called the Department of Defense--because it's supposed to be defending us, not going around picking fights with nations it figures it can beat up on pretty easily.

Quote
Imperialism, is exactly what Iraq had in mind when they took over Kuwait in the early 90's, we went over there then and run them out to prevent this and will be taking the steps now to prevent it from happening again.

If I've given you the impression that I need to be convinced that Hussein is a bad guy, then I apologize. Of course he's a bad guy. Of course his bid for Kuwait was imperialist.

But prevent it from happening again? What do you mean? Is he threatening to take over Kuwait again? I hadn't heard that. Neither has Kuwait.

Quote
How would you like it if, you made the statement you just made and your country's leader sent soldiers out to have you killed or tortured becuase he didn't like it?

Have you read the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and "Patriot II?" Stuff like this is precisely what the Bush administration wants to be able to do here in America, to Americans. They're already doing some of it to a number of us. Do a Web search on the name "Jose Padilla" if this catches you by surprise.

Quote
What if we let this person or person's go and you have to live in fear of your life or loved ones lives from being Gas'ed or a nuclear threat? Whould you want to carry a gas mask with you while hunting or fishing? Would you want to stay home 24/7 to make sure the Kids and Wife got to a fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear attack? I'm sure you wouldn't, but if we let something like this go then the possibility grows.

Guess what? I've already spent over $2000 I don't really have, with the prospect of much more to come in the near future (including gas masks and potassium iodate), over the last few weeks to try to prepare my family for what I think will be coming once Baby Bush has successfully colonized Iraq. This is absolutely not a hypothetical for me.

Quote
Yes it would and by you speaking againist this possible War, you are putting these Men and Women down that are trying to protect your rights.

No again. I suppose I could say it yet one more time, but I doubt it'd do any good.

Ah, what the hey--here goes anyway: my rights are not in danger from Iraq, they're in danger from Baby Bush. How can American soldiers in the Middle East protect me from him?

Quote
Try to rethink your opinion on this matter and look at all the possibilties that make it right and wrong.

Always.
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak,

You don't see the "Big Picture", If we wait we will have a life threatening war on our hands. Maybe Iraq probably dosen't have the capabilities as of right now to be a threat or the U.S. but what about tomorrow? Give them time and it will happen I would bet my next paycheck on it in a heart beat! We would probably put in a Military run Goverment if we defeated Saddam, while the country was weak and open to other leaders like him, but you cannot tell me this is an act of imperialism. But in a short while the country could have elections and be able to FREELY elect what ever type of Goverment and leaders they wanted, without fear of their lives. You cannot have a free election if the people voting know they will be killed if they don't vote a certain way! Nor can you have a free and true election if your leader has henchmen stuffing a ballot box. You would know if you have ever been in another country, that people cannot express themselves like we do. Why? Because their goverment would kill them. I can only say you would have to be in another country like this to know, unless you are open minded enough to see this and from what I gather you aren't. You cannot be a supporter with out supporting the reason we have troops over there, the only thing you are doing is putting shame into their minds like the anti-war citizens did in the 60's and 70's. I know because I was on that end of the stick then and will suffer from now to my death because of it along with thousands of other that served then. I just hope these people that done this back then are open minded enough now to see what they done then and support this action now. If not I hope it will be on their conscious for the duration of their lives as well. This is hard for me to say and probably shouldn't but I have and if you are guilty of this, then you know how I feel about you.
Posted By: Tee

Re: Support - 02/25/03

I'd call Barak an idiot but he does that so well himself I don't need to. Anyone who fears US government more than ragheaded terrorist enemies that want to kill us is an idiot....Barak PLEASE MOVE TO FRANCE WHERE YOU BELONG, PLEASE <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/25/03

There's no need to call Barak an idiot or kick him out of the country. He is a good honest man, albeit one with a huge misunderstanding of this situation. His condcut has been above reproach here. I'm very willing for honest men to have disagreements.

Blaine
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Quote
If we wait we will have a life threatening war on our hands. Maybe Iraq probably dosen't have the capabilities as of right now to be a threat or the U.S. but what about tomorrow? Give them time and it will happen I would bet my next paycheck on it in a heart beat!

Yep, I've heard this before. When I think about it, though, it falls through. Iraq may have the capability to threaten the US at some point in the future, and because we think that if they had the capability they might make the threats, we have to pulverize them right now--but we're conveniently ignoring Red China and North Korea, both of which a) have the capability to threaten us, and b) have actually done so in so many words. Why are we going after Iraq and not China or North Korea? Whatever the real reason is, it obviously can't be because they're at the top of our threat priority list.

Quote
We would probably put in a Military run Goverment if we defeated Saddam, while the country was weak and open to other leaders like him, but you cannot tell me this is an act of imperialism.

No offense intended, but I can and I did. If somebody invaded America and set up a puppet government while they forced the population through a political indoctrination program, I'd call that imperialism, and I suspect you would too. I have to be fair...

Quote
But in a short while the country could have elections and be able to FREELY elect what ever type of Goverment and leaders they wanted, without fear of their lives.

They'll be given a slate of leaders to pick from who all support the US government--exactly the same way we are every four years.

Quote
You would know if you have ever been in another country, that people cannot express themselves like we do. Why? Because their goverment would kill them.

Do you know why Jose Padilla is in prison? Because he (an American) expressed himself in a way the US government didn't like. We don't have to go overseas to find repressive governments.

Quote
You cannot be a supporter with out supporting the reason we have troops over there, the only thing you are doing is putting shame into their minds like the anti-war citizens did in the 60's and 70's.

That depends on what you mean. I can appreciate and admire a Remington 870 slide-action riot shotgun, while still deploring the way Officer David Hawn used it to shoot a Mexican kid in the back while he lay face down on the floor with his hands cuffed. I can understand the beauty and craftsmanship of a Remington 700 heavy-barrel bolt-action rifle in 308Win, and still be horrified by the way Agent Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver in the face with it as she held her baby in the doorway of her house. Similarly, I can be inspired by the training, might, and magnificence of the United States Armed Services at the same time that I'm appalled at the arrogance, hubris, and corruption of its Commander in Chief.

As to the shame in their minds, that's a decision for them to make, not me. If they can defend their actions, then what I think doesn't make any difference. If they go ahead and do things they're ashamed of, then they're the ones soiling their character--and again, what I think doesn't make any difference. That goes for all of us, not just soldiers. If your employer orders you to commit a shameful act, you resign.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Quote
If the US really wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just have taken it in 1991.

1991 was Papa Bush. 2003 is Baby Bush. There's a difference. I never trusted Papa Bush either, but the worst thing he did to me was break his promise not to raise my taxes. Baby Bush is a whole different story. Even the Democrats never seriously dreamed of getting the sort of authoritarian legislation passed that Baby Bush has managed. (Why? Because the Republicans would have been watching them. But with Bush it's okay, because he's a "compassionate conservative.")

In addition, at least Papa Bush was honest enough to raise taxes. Baby Bush, on the other hand, claims to have lowered taxes, but is running up huge budget deficits. Deficits create inflation, which leeches away your money just as effectively--but less honestly--than increased taxes.

Quote
There is a clear and present danger from Saddam.

Can you show it to me?

Quote
Of course Iraq's neighbors are going to say Saddam isn't a threat--they are afraid of him.

You can do better than this, AFP. The reason they say Saddam isn't a threat is because they don't want the US tramping around in the Middle East where it doesn't belong, blowing [email protected]#$ up and hacking people off. If he was a threat, they'd want us there fighting him.

Quote
Bush II alreayd had his war, and he could gain much more politically by not going to war in Iraq.

To which war do you refer?

Gain more politically? You mean if he said, "Sorry, guys, just kidding" and folded up his tents and went home? He'd be a laughingstock! North Korea, which is scrutinizing us for any weakness, would become positively incorrigible. So would Iraq, and possibly the whole of OPEC as well. Tony "The Lapdog" Blair would be horribly embarrassed. The US would lose face all across the world--which is why he has to go to war now, even if he still can't find any WMDs and his public support sucks big green hairy ones.

He'd gain politically with me, but he doesn't care what I think: I didn't vote for him and I can't imagine ever doing so in the future.

Quote
However, he is govenred by principal, which is a rare things today in politics.

Just because he's not getting hummers in the Oval Office from the hired help and porking everything in a skirt doesn't make him a principled man. He's violated his oath of office (the one about upholding and defending the Constitution) much more severely, in my opinion, than Slick Willy did--perhaps even more severely than any President since Lincoln.
Posted By: Steelhead

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Subject: The Difference Between Barak , Conservatives and Texans.....


Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Barak Answer
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...
(sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice group Daddy!"


Enough said! Thanks for the new forum from a guy that is in his 19th year of service.

Posted By: RickBin

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak:

In the entire lifetime of this website, I don't think I have ever publicly made my feelings known when I disagreed with a poster. This time, I'm inclined otherwise.

You, sir, are delusional.

Saddam does not pose a threat to the US? Neither did Bin Laden.

Saddam has infinitely more money, power, and political support in the Arab world. Solely with the capability he is documented to have, right now, in terms of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, he poses a huge threat to the US. Look what a teaspoonful of Anthrax did to this country in the wake of 9/11. Saddam has tons of chemical WMD's unaccounted for. How can he not pose a threat? Why hasn't he used them? Because he's a tactician and a power-monger. He wants to win, to garner power. He knows he can do serious damage with what he has, but he'll lose in the end, a la Osama. He's been desperately after a nuke, and that is, by all accounts, a well documented certainty, for years. The day he gets them, he's on equal footing with the US. Explain to me how allowing that to happen is a good thing. Let me guess. You agree with France that increased inspections can keep him contained. Yeah. Riiiiiight!

Another thing. You don't have a monopoly on the Constitution. It is a sacred document to all of us. It was was paid for in blood. It's been preserved at the cost of more blood. The rights delineated therein are your birthright because of that shed blood, not simply because our Founding Fathers put pen to paper. It, sir, has backbone behind it. It gives you the right to speak your peace, but it also gives me the right to call bullshit.

I call bullshit.

The United States is the greatest nation in the world. George Bush is its President. He may not be perfect, but he is a fine, moral, principled man with backbone. He is my President, and he is your President. He goes to war in the name of the USA against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and the other scumbag despots around the world who would see this Nation crumble, and my choice as to whom to support is EASY!

You choose to place your support elsewhere.

Like I said: You, sir, are delusional.

God Bless America.

Posted By: Sheister

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Rick,

Well said but I fear you are wasting your breath on this character.

The fact is, there has always been a segment of the population that was content to accept all the advantages of our society and feel perfectly snug and safe in their homes and beliefs without having to worry about having to sacrifice to defend or even earn these privileges we sometimes take for granted. God forbid, they might have to actually spill blood to earn these rights- that is what the Soldiers are for!
I guess for better or for worse, our system guarantees them the right to turn their noses up at and criticize whatever they don't agree with- all with the caveat " I was born with this right and if you don't like it tough!"
I get the feeling that most of these kind of people weren't the ones picked early when sides were divided up for games in school.
Having their head in the sand is a way of life and it is obvious that isn't going to change anytime soon. - Sheister
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/25/03

I agree AFP, but he does have a bad misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq and his rights.
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/25/03

Barak,

I have a few questions for you, answer if you don't care if you do then thats okay too, since its your right, but not because you were born.
1. Did you vote in the pres. election?
2. Have you been in the military?
3. Do you feel like you should be able to say whether you can own and have guns or not.
4. Would you "fight to kill", someone if they came in your house and raped wife and kids, while destorying your house.
5. What is your age?
Posted By: Tee

Re: Support - 02/26/03

AFP- I didn't call him an idiot, he did that himself. Perhaps he's too smart for his own good, which still can make some an idiot. His beliefs about the POSSIBLE (it's up to Saddam) war are on the same "track" as Woody Harelson, Susan Sarandin, Phil Donahue, Rosie Odonal, Fred Durst, I could go on and on add nauseum, so maybe he's not an idiot....NOT....) Also you said I had him kicked out of the country.. I was just begging for him to move, I think he'd enjoy himself alot more, definatly with a lot less fear, where he could enjoy his french whine....
Posted By: Tee

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Hey Jacques Chirac Barak- Any comment??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Tee

Re: Support - 02/26/03

I'll ask agian,,, any comment from idiot Barak.. I dought he has any.,,, watch Bill Oreilly tonight and there was a "piece" about the new book "usefull idiots" ,,,,
Barak, in spite of himself should be in this famous book, Barak you are a usefull Idiot..Thank you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

Regardless of the president, the desire of the nation has never been to seize Iraq's oil.

Show you a clear and present danger. I guess if you are not bothered by a thug from a criminal family who siezed power, executed even members of his own family, has killed millions of his own countrymen, possesses WMD, supports terrorists, is irrational, and hates the US--then I can't show it to you. Then again, the English weren't convinced Hitler was a threat in 1939.

Your mid east analysis isn't quite accurate. Having been deployed to Saudi twice, perhaps I have a little more perpective and a little better ability to read between the lines. The Arab world often plays both sides of the deck. The threat of Saddam is what got us over there in the first place, and only because he's still a threat to all the countries over there have we been allowed to remain in Saudi and Kuwait for so long.

Bush would gain an incredible amount politically if he pulls this Iraq thing off without going to war. If Saddam were to accept exile--along with his cronies--and iraq's WMD were found and destroyed without sending troops in harms' way. Bush would scoe a huge political victory. Escalating the fighting from it's current level is a 50/50 proposition for him politically at best.

The war he's already had is the regieme change in Afghanistan and the hunting down and killing of Al Qeada (sp?). He's gaines a s much politically form that war as he's going to gain in such a manner. remember, Bush 1 was thought unbeatable after Desert Storm, yet he lost to a man that became the worst president this country has ever had.

Bush II isn't perfect, but he is a moral man who seeks God in his decisions. Our country is better off for having him than not.

Blaine
Posted By: Tee

Re: Support - 02/26/03

When Barak called Bush,,,,, Baby Bush,,,,, is when I took offensive. To be honest I didn't read all of his (Baraks) "drivel".... been there, done that, and his "drivel" will make you ill, He offends me. Oh well, he is chicken [bleep]/cherry ass not to answer me now, or will you Barak, which rymes with Jacques or Chirac....Any comment Barak???? I stand behind my words, please move to France!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Tee,

Easy. When we make such statements, we look foolish as well, even if we are right.

Blaine
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
In the entire lifetime of this website, I don't think I have ever publicly made my feelings known when I disagreed with a poster. This time, I'm inclined otherwise.

I'm honored.

Quote
You, sir, are delusional.

Ah--there it is. You folks are disturbingly polite over here on this board; it's taken me a good month or so to be called delusional. And AFP even called me honest first--an experience that's at least as unfamiliar to me as voicing disagreements is to you.

But one takes what one can get. After all, more people have been to Paris than I have.

Quote
Saddam does not pose a threat to the US? Neither did Bin Laden.

Please elaborate; I'm not quite grasping your point.

Quote
Solely with the capability he is documented to have, right now, in terms of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, he poses a huge threat to the US.

Documented by whom? If you're talking about the same documents everybody else is, you mean a set of Iraqi documents and a set of UN estimates (in some cases based on earlier versions of those same Iraqi documents). Wouldn't you agree that Iraqi documents voluntarily submitted aren't among the most credible known sources of information? And hopefully we also agree that almost everything that comes out of the UN is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical, for a number of reasons. First, biological and chemical weapons have a finite lifespan. They keep their potency for a few years and are then useless. It's been 12 years since Gulf War I; if he had any chem or bio agents in 1991, they're not much good now. Secondly, while it's comparatively easy to make poison gas or isolate a deadly germ, it's a much bigger, more complex task to weaponize it. It's a big enough operation to make it tough to hide. If he had been manufacturing more weapons to replace the ones that decayed, my suspicion is that after 12 years we'd know about it.

And don't forget that there are many other countries that much more reliably pose a significantly greater threat to us right now. If we were really worried about threats, we'd be after those countries, not Iraq.

Quote
Look what a teaspoonful of Anthrax did to this country in the wake of 9/11.

Not much. It killed--what, 3 people? 5? I forget. A single digit, though, in just under a year and a half. Death is never a light thing, but getting nationally wigged out about anthrax is almost an order of magnitude sillier than getting nationally wigged out about children being killed in gun accidents.

Quote
Saddam has tons of chemical WMD's unaccounted for. How can he not pose a threat?

First, there's a substantial possibility that those chemical warheads have been imaginary since the very beginning. Second, even if they exist, after 12 years they're not particularly dangerous. Third, it would be just as silly for him to attack us with chemical weapons as it would be for him to conventionally bomb New York City. We'd blow him to smithereens, and he knows it. (And that war even I would support.) Fourth--once again--there are other countries belligerent to the US who actually do have real, up-to-date chemical weapons, and we're ignoring them.

Quote
He's been desperately after a nuke, and that is, by all accounts, a well documented certainty, for years. The day he gets them, he's on equal footing with the US.

Equal footing with the US is overstating the matter just a hair, don't you think?

Nuclear weapons are just as susceptible to deterrence as any other weapon.

Quote
Explain to me how allowing that to happen is a good thing.

There's a fundamental perspective disconnect here.

Us talking about what we should allow Iraq to have is roughly analogous to me talking about whether I should allow you to make love to your wife, or whether the state should allow you to keep and bear arms. Iraq is a sovereign nation; the US has no right to allow or disallow anything to it. If Iraq attacks us, we should squash it; but as long as it minds its own business, we need to mind ours.

The UN claims to have such a right. If the UN would like to try exercising it, then I say let 'em; but as I said before, we should have no dog in that fight.

Quote
Let me guess. You agree with France that increased inspections can keep him contained. Yeah. Riiiiiight!

As it turns out, I don't agree with France about much. I'm not particularly interested in keeping him contained. I am interested in keeping him from attacking the US, but I have complete faith that the same strategy that has worked for all our other enemies for so long will work just as well for him: the credible threat of quick and overwhelming retributive force.

(Note, in case it's necessary: what Baby Bush is cheerleading for right now is not retributive force, but aggressive force. There's a difference.)

Finally, let's please not forget why Saddam is honked off at us in the first place. We're clear on the other side of the world from him, and he'd much rather occupy himself killing and torturing other Iraqis, selling his oil at highwayman rates, and using the proceeds to rebuild Babylon. Why is he even interested in us?

Because we're starving and bombing his country, that's why. Why are we doing that? Skip skip skip...because he invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? Because the Papa Bush administration invited him to. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a Web search on "April Glaspie.") In other words, he's mad at us because we screwed him. Sure he's a lying, murderous tyrant; but chances are good that he'd be much less interested in us if we hadn't dealt so dishonorably with him.

Quote
Another thing. You don't have a monopoly on the Constitution. It is a sacred document to all of us.

I don't really understand what you mean by "a monopoly on the Constitution." But lest you make incorrect assumptions, please note that I am not among the Constitution's biggest fans. I think there are a couple or three fundamental problems with it, among which is the fact that it cannot be held morally or legally binding on anyone alive today except politicians and soldiers who have sworn to uphold and defend it.

Quote
It was was paid for in blood. It's been preserved at the cost of more blood. The rights delineated therein are your birthright because of that shed blood, not simply because our Founding Fathers put pen to paper.

Well, of course. (To the extent that it has been preserved, I mean, which seems to be less every day.) Were you under the impression that we disagreed on this point?

Quote
I call bullshit.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Quote
The United States is the greatest nation in the world.

The United States used to be the greatest nation in the world. Perhaps it still is, but it's rapidly becoming a socialist police state just like the Soviet Union that Reagan called an Evil Empire.

Quote
George Bush is its President. He may not be perfect, but he is a fine, moral, principled man with backbone.

Well, we agree about the backbone, anyway. He does have backbone. Fine, moral, and principled? Mmm, no, I don't think so. A fine, moral, principled man would honor his oath of office. Of course, that's not too resounding an indictment, because he's a politician by trade; and I can't think of a single fine, moral, and principled politician in Washington other than Ron Paul, who is something of a special case.

Quote
He goes to war in the name of the USA against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and the other scumbag despots around the world who would see this Nation crumble

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry to be so emphatic, but this is absolutely wrong. He's not going to war in the name of anybody; rather, he's sending tens of thousands of young American men and women to war in his name.

Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

1. Did you vote in the pres. election? Yes. I vote in every election, although the futility of it is becoming more and more evident to me. Perhaps one day I will stop.
2. Have you been in the military? No, just the militia. I had a chance to join the Navy and be a nuclear physicist on a submarine, but I wanted to study computer science, so I went to graduate school instead.
3. Do you feel like you should be able to say whether you can own and have guns or not. No, and neither should anyone else. I can own and have guns, and so can everyone else who isn't in prison or on parole.
4. Would you "fight to kill", someone if they came in your house and raped wife and kids, while destorying your house. I can't say for sure what I'd do in real life, but I hope I'd "shoot to stop," not "fight to kill." (Or are you talking about a scenario where I come home after the fact and find the deed already done?)
5. What is your age? Sufficient.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

AFP, I'd love to respond thoughtfully to your thoughtful post, but it's late where I am and I have to write six letters yet before I can sleep. Hopefully I'll get to you tomorrow, if I have some off time at work.
Posted By: RickBin

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak:

I was away all afternoon/evening, and a part of me was regretting having written my earlier post to you. In taking on the role of webmaster and facilitator, I gave up the liberty to always post freely what I feel. However, I made an exception this time, because I feel this issue is much larger than a website and my role as its moderator.

Upon reading your response to my earlier post, I will refrain from entering into a point by point rebuttal in the secure knowledge that it will serve no further purpose. You have made up your mind. So have I.

I will end my part in this discussion by stating that there is nothing I could add that would make my point any more clear than your response already has. If my post did nothing other than cause you to elaborate on your beliefs and philosophies, for all to see, then I will happily consider it an argument well made.

Bottom line: We differ greatly in our opinions, in the things we trust in and hold dear, and in our perceptions of our duties as Americans. I don't know what your ultimate goal is, but it sure doesn't seem to include supporting, strengthening, or serving the United States or the Constitution.

Nothing is perfect, but the United States IS the best country in the world, your wishy-washy equivocation notwithstanding. As a nation, she has my complete devotion and loyalty. Period.

I have one question for you, and one question only: Can you say the same?

For the record, I support our President one thousand percent. I believe he is doing the right thing, the only sane thing, in insisting that Saddam Hussein disarm, one way or the other. I honor the fine young men and women who have chosen to put their lives on the line in order to protect our freedoms, including yours. I also thank God that we have George W. Bush and not Al Gore as President. Bush is the right man at the right time in the right place. The world will be a better place for his having been President.

Thank God your guy, whoever he is, didn't win!

That's all.

God Bless America
Posted By: RAM

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Interesting. And scary.

I urge all the name callers to reread these threads. With a calm, open mind if possible.

The professor's always told me. "once you attack the individule, you've lost the debate"

And too many of you here are acting on emotion, and have done nothing but attack the individule.

If you look into the facts, you will find that "W" has done more to take the rights of Americans than ALL the democrats since FDR, PUT TOGETHER!!!

I'll leave you with one last thought from the professor, It's infinitely easier to control a slave that THINKS he's free, than to control a slave that knows he's a slave.
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Rick ET AL, I must agree with almost all that Barak has so inteligently stated. I believe this will become Americas version of the French in Indochina, except we will win the physical conflict. Morally we do not have the right to impose OUR will on other SOVERIGN NATIONS just because we can. The Iraquis are not a CLEAR AND PRESENT danger to the SOVERIGNITY of America. Yes the terrorist of the world CAN do us damage, no doubt about it. But they cannot, and will not destroy us or our way of life UNLESS we lower ourselves to their level and let them. North Kore is a far more deadly and capable threat to us than Saddam ever even dreamt of being!

That said, I will support our troops 110% in their endevors, and will not interfere with my governmant in it's mission, simply because I am a loyal American. I can still disagree with some of the policy and will excercise my right to say so!

I was about to post here to say that I have a group together over on another board that is putting together "comfort" stuff to send Montana Marine and any others we get addresses for, they are the ones I am concerned with, not GW and the rest of the leaders! I been to a war like this one, the troops need all the positive support we can offer, and that is what I will concentrate on. We have a guy that works in a warehous facility and he is getting together broken retail cases of powdered Gatorade, Kool-Aid nuts returned magazines and other comfort item. Just thought the board would like to know. Any service address will be kept by me and one other fellow and I will do the forwarding of the stuf, we are not passing the addresses around or putting them up on th net, we want only positive goods and messages going to those on the pointy end of the stick!
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

T LEE,
We have two or three right now from the 24 hour campfire that is deployed or with a duty assgn. overseas, and another getting ready to go. See about picking these up. I sent a 15lb. package to MM on the 5th or 6th can;t remember now. I sent hard candy, lots of gum, hot choc drink mix., AA batteries, aleeve for headaches, gun mag., paper backs, sun blocker, seems like another thing or two, can't remember. Sent it USP priorty mail, it runs a little more than a dollar a pound for the shipping. The girl at the Post office said it would take about three weeks to get there.

Concerning Barak, I am getting the impression he has a complete misconseption on how he gained his rights and retains them. I know he is set in his ways as far as his Ideals on the possible war with Iraq, or he is either pulling our leg on his thinking. I think Rick has figured it out too.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
Regardless of the president, the desire of the nation has never been to seize Iraq's oil.

As I reread this, it seems that you could mean either A) that it has never been the policy of a US President to seize Iraq's oil, or B) that even if it has occasionally been official US policy to seize Iraq's oil, the "American people" have never wanted to do so. I'll have to wait for a clarification before I can respond.

Quote
Show you a clear and present danger. I guess if you are not bothered by a thug from a criminal family who siezed power, executed even members of his own family, has killed millions of his own countrymen, possesses WMD, supports terrorists, is irrational, and hates the US--then I can't show it to you.

I agree with most of that except the "irrational" part; you'll need to elaborate a bit on why you consider him to be irrational. It seems to me that if he really were irrational, by now somebody would have used that weakness to kill him.

I'd say he poses a clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, based on what you've said. If he does materially support terrorism against the US (it's not clear so far that he's done anything other than cheer from the sidelines), then he poses a much muddier and less immediate danger to whatever Americans turn out to be targets of that terrorism. But a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States? When he invades and conquers New York City and begins marching on Washington DC, let's talk again.

Let me put it this way. I would support the following national foreign policy: "To whom it may concern: if the US can demonstrate to its satisfaction that your regime has provided material support to terrorism against Americans or American targets, the US will topple you from power--probably either by killing you or by providing opportunity and capability for your other enemies to kill you. We will then immediately withdraw all our forces from your country and leave your people to sort out the mess." That's a policy for retributive force, rather than aggressive (initiative) force.

Quote
Your mid east analysis isn't quite accurate. Having been deployed to Saudi twice, perhaps I have a little more perpective and a little better ability to read between the lines. The Arab world often plays both sides of the deck. The threat of Saddam is what got us over there in the first place, and only because he's still a threat to all the countries over there have we been allowed to remain in Saudi and Kuwait for so long.

Good point: I was unclear. He would be a threat to his neighbors if we weren't protecting them from him. Since we are, he isn't; therefore, they see no need for us to go to war with him.

Quote
Bush would gain an incredible amount politically if he pulls this Iraq thing off without going to war. If Saddam were to accept exile--along with his cronies--and iraq's WMD were found and destroyed without sending troops in harms' way. Bush would scoe a huge political victory. Escalating the fighting from it's current level is a 50/50 proposition for him politically at best.

Okay, I can see that.

Quote
The war he's already had is the regieme change in Afghanistan and the hunting down and killing of Al Qeada (sp?).

Ah, I see. I guess I was unclear again--I meant a war that he could claim to have won, as Papa Bush claimed to have won Gulf War I and Slick Willy claimed to have won Yugoslavia. Afghanistan is looking less and less like that war every day as the Taliban gains back its power despite our best efforts, and having bin Laden still out there making videotapes and audiotapes is a bit embarrassing.

Quote
remember, Bush 1 was thought unbeatable after Desert Storm, yet he lost to a man that became the worst president this country has ever had.

Depending on what you mean by worst, I agree with you. He was certainly the trashiest excuse for a human being we've ever had in the White House. However, if the primary job of American government is to preserve and defend the Constitution, then there have definitely been worse presidents than Slick Willy--Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt among them. After observing him for a few years, I'm pretty sure Baby Bush doesn't even understand what the word "liberty" means, although he seems to think he does.

Quote
Bush II isn't perfect, but he is a moral man who seeks God in his decisions. Our country is better off for having him than not.

Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

I guess you woke up this morning with everything just fine, no attacks on you or family. No worrys thru the night about this either, right? Ever wonder what it would be like to live in a country where you could have awaken to something of this nature? Ever wonder what it would be like to worry about every person approaching your house, whether they may arrest you or family members, to make you work (slave work) in the leaders factorys making mass weapons of destruction under poor safety conditions. Do you know why you don't have to worry about this? I know you are a person with a good education and smart enough to see this. It isn't because you were just merely born, You think this because you never did have to worry, because from the day you were borm you have been protected from it, you now assume it is like that anywhere you go and it is your birth right. The only reason you can have this is thru our country leaders and soldiers protecting these rights. Whether they do it with war or the threat of war it has become their duty to do so, they are obligated by the constitution to uphold it, the same document that gives you these rights as a person living under it.
If we were after Oil as you say, don't you think we would do this in our own back door? We could go to the southern parts of North America and northern South America and obtain all the oil we would ever need, without all the shipping and so forth. Those countrys would be a easy to take as you say Iraq would. We could attack from the north and by sea in a much shorter time span. As far as that goes you can throw that out the door, it isn't the reason. If we were after the land don't you think we would have kept Canada when we won it during the French/Indian wars of the late 1700's. Now, there could be an act of Imperialism, when we fought the American Indians for the land of this country. But now, present day I throw that thought of Imperialism out the door too!! The only reason we are considering the idea of getting Saddam out of Iraq is to protect our rights and others thru out the world. I'm sure Mr. Bush would let Saddam step down and leave the country with the same style of goverment in force, he has offered it as an exception. This tells you right there we are not acting nor implementing Imperialism.
North Korea, give it time and we will have problems there too. Our leaders see it and you do to, but we are only so many and can do only so much. Take care of this item in Iraq and you will see the U.S. confront this problem also. Whether it is thru talks, threatening war or war itself, but bet your a$$ we will see it thru. We cannot let these countrys develop such weapons to threaten the world to get what ever whim they come up with. They would not hesitate to attack others to get things such as oil, land, or food once they have these weapons of mass destruction, this has been proven in the past 40 years with North Korea. They didn't build on the same values we and others have, that are trying to control the WMD.
Barak, you really need to do some reading on this and open your eyes. I'm not trying to change the way you want to be but only make you aware of how you obtain and keep these rights that are given to you from the constutition. Don't confuse them with your birth rights which are worthless without the constutition. We all have gotten comfortable with our living and tend to forget how we get to be this way. They have been won with blood and kept with blood in some occasions and with negotiations on others, regardless we must remember they were not and are not assumed or given freely by no means.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
I was away all afternoon/evening, and a part of me was regretting having written my earlier post to you. In taking on the role of webmaster and facilitator, I gave up the liberty to always post freely what I feel.

I understand. But if you feel you have something to say, then I encourage you to log in using a non-administrator account and "post freely what you feel" from there. I know I seem incorrigible, but I'm actually not. I've tried to form my opinions and positions after thinking through at least the standard arguments that have been presented on both sides. Therefore, standard arguments don't have much chance of changing my mind, because I've probably already considered them. But if you have arguments that haven't already appeared in newspapers and on web sites and TV, I might very well be susceptible to them.

You may have noticed that I'm a rather unconventional thinker, not to put too fine a point on it. (Actually, I believe your word was "delusional.") I got that way by seeking out and listening to unconventional arguments. Maybe you have some unconventional arguments?

Quote
Nothing is perfect, but the United States IS the best country in the world, your wishy-washy equivocation notwithstanding. As a nation, she has my complete devotion and loyalty. Period.

I have one question for you, and one question only: Can you say the same?

I'd love to be able to say yes or no, but the answer depends on what you mean by "nation."

Do you mean the original idea of our founders that a nation could be based on individual liberty, and that governments should exist only at the consent and pleasure of the governed, in order to protect and preserve that liberty? Well, in that case, my answer is yes.

Do you mean the nation as it exists in implementation today, with an oppressive, confiscatory government growing by leaps and bounds, with one mailed jackboot on the neck of those same individual liberties and the other constantly trying to widen the empire across the world? With hundreds of millions of people who have been so blinded to history and acclimated to authoritarian socialism by the public schools that they're like so much livestock, waiting dumbly to be fenced, fed, shorn, milked, and butchered by the authorities? In that case, my answer is (guess what!) no, absolutely not.

Quote
For the record, I support our President one thousand percent.

I don't think I've ever supported a President even one hundred percent. I prefer to think for myself. Probably the one I've disliked the least in my lifetime has been Reagan; but politics is an occupation that pragmatically requires its successes to be scum, and the US Presidency is one of the highest expressions of that occupation.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
I guess you woke up this morning with everything just fine, no attacks on you or family. No worrys thru the night about this either, right?

You might be surprised.

Quote
Ever wonder what it would be like to live in a country where you could have awaken to something of this nature?

Sure I have. I'm as prepared for it as I can reasonably be, although of course my resources are limited. As I said on another board here, I fully expect that I will die either in prison or during my arrest. Let's see: I'm a white heterosexual male, a fundamentalist Christian, a husband, a father, a libertarian, a firearms enthusiast, a militia member, a general-aviation pilot (one that likes to fly VFR in uncontrolled airspace, to boot), an occasional cigar smoker, and a loudmouth. Each of those is a reason for the government to hate me, and I have no doubt that it'll get around to me sooner or later. I'm just not cut out to be a "dying peacefully in your beds, many years from now" kinda guy.

Quote
It isn't because you were just merely born, You think this because you never did have to worry, because from the day you were borm you have been protected from it, you now assume it is like that anywhere you go and it is your birth right. The only reason you can have this is thru our country leaders and soldiers protecting these rights.


"You sleep peacefully at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in your defense," eh?

Look--if you managed to get through all the apparent paranoia above, there seems to be a misunderstanding that needs to be set straight.

There are differences between the existence of a right, the recognition of a right, and the free exercise of a right. When I quoted the Declaration of Independence, I was talking only about the existence of rights.

According to the Declaration, I had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property the instant I was born. So do Europeans (even the French!); so do Iraqis; so do the poverty-stricken, illiterate, disease-ridden subjects of the very worst tyrannies that exist or have ever existed on this earth. The Declaration says all men.

Different governments recognize these rights, and allow the free exercise of them, to different extents. For example, I have the right to keep and bear arms. For good measure, that right is guaranteed to me by the Constitution, although I would have it even if that wasn't the case. The government I live under, however, recognizes that right only in my home, at a government-inspected shooting range, and in a couple of other government-approved places. That doesn't mean that I don't have the right to carry a concealed weapon into a post office or a courthouse: but my government does not allow the free exercise of that right--in much the same way that Iraqis have the right to free speech, but Hussein doesn't allow the free exercise of that right. The government's refusal to recognize the right says nothing about the existence of the right, only about the character of the government.

To get a government to recognize a preexisting right generally takes some kind of fight--maybe voting, maybe argument, maybe litigation, maybe bloodshed. This is the conflict of which you speak, and I'm well aware of its necessity--perhaps more aware than some. But rights themselves are absolute, whether they're recognized and freely exercised or not. That's what I meant when I quoted the Declaration.

Aside from that, I think that either we've already covered most of the other stuff in your post, or that we agree about it. If there's some point to which you particularly wanted me to respond, let me know.
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 02/26/03

I need addresses then, we are collecting quite a lot of stuff and need to spread it around some. MM ain't gonna be able to handle it all, Marine or not! LOL
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Good deal, T LEE <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

I won't give up......


You say, "According to the Declaration, I had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property the instant I was born. So do Europeans (even the French!); so do Iraqis; so do the poverty-stricken, illiterate, disease-ridden subjects of the very worst tyrannies that exist or have ever existed on this earth. The Declaration says all men."

How do you figure you have a God given right? Show me documentation where you have this so called right. Better yet show me what is protecting this so called "God given right". I would think the only thing you or I would have guaranteed upon birth is that first breath we sneak in before the ball bat hits the back of the head. Declaration or no declaration, look at the acts of Polpot (spelling). The only reason it hasn't happened here in the U.S. is the general population knows they would loose MOST of their rights under the constutition of the United States of America. These are the rights you have given to you by the people that have protected them up to this minute, not because God give them to you. You have elected to stay in this country and the people of this country have made the laws for us to live under, which you are confusing with rights taken away from you or not allowed. You cannot walk into a US Post Office with your weapon because of the laws we have enacted to protect your rights. In other words protecting your life and others in case a person wanted to rob the Post Office and shot you instead of the person holding the money bag. It is also along the lines protecting the persons work place from the same thing. This right never was removed from you, only edited to help prevent such from happening.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
I won't give up......

Good for you.

Quote
How do you figure you have a God given rights? Show me where you have this so called right.

Are we still arguing from the Declaration? Its writers "declared...to be self-evident" the "truth" that "all men...are endowed by their Creator" (that's God) "with certain unalienable rights." That's what I mean by God-given rights--I'm assuming that you're willing to accept the Declaration as a premise when talking about rights. It's perfectly acceptable for you to reject it, but if you do, then we'll have to go clear back to first principles.

Quote
Declaration or no declaration, look at the acts of Polpot (spelling).

Which ones? Are you pointing out that he refused to recognize the people's rights or to permit the free exercise thereof? If you are, I agree with you.

Quote
The only reason it hasn't happened here in the U.S. is the general population knows they would loose MOST of their rights under the constutition of the United States of America.

If God gave me my rights, then only God can take them away. People can threaten me with harm if I exercise my rights, but they're mine nonetheless; I can't lose them to a person or a group of people.

Quote
You have elected to stay in this country and the people of this country have made the laws for us to live under, which you are confusing with rights taken away from you or not allowed.

Whom do you mean when you say "the people of this country?" Me? I've never made a law. My representatives in the legislature? I don't have any representatives in the legislature: I didn't vote for a single one of them.

Laws (the sort you speak of) are things of man; rights are things of God. No man-made law can take away (or even affect) a right. Laws that prohibit the exercise of rights are immoral, and the Supreme Court has decreed that laws prohibiting the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Constitution are meaningless. (Marbury v. Madison, 1803: "An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.")

Of course, that is not to say that the government will not use an unconstitutional, meaningless law as an excuse to apply coercive force to you: coercive force is what governments do for a living. But it doesn't make it right.

Quote
You cannot walk into a US Post Office with your weapon because of the laws we have enacted to protect your rights.

Almost. Actually, I cannot walk into a US Post Office with my weapon because of the laws you (you said "we") have enacted to prohibit the free exercise of my rights. (The particular right in question happens to be a fairly special one, in that it's specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. That means any law that infringes it falls squarely into the crosshairs of that reference from Marbury v. Madison above.)

Quote
In other words protecting your life and others in case a person wanted to rob the Post Office and shot you instead of the person holding the money bag. It is also along the lines protecting the persons work place from the same thing.

Aw, c'mon: you're not one of those, are you? You're on an outdoorsman's website, and your username implies that you're a hunter and the owner of a semiautomatic rifle. And you're going to try to make the VPC/HCI/MMM argument that carrying a gun will make me less safe in a robbery? More Guns, More Crime? I'm really disappointed.

Quote
This right never was removed from you, only edited to help prevent such from happening.

Rights can't be "edited" by men, any more than they can be created or destroyed. The word you're looking for, I suspect, is "infringed."
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

You say, " Aw, c'mon: you're not one of those, are you? You're on an outdoorsman's website, and your username implies that you're a hunter and the owner of a semiautomatic rifle. And you're going to try to make the VPC/HCI/MMM argument that carrying a gun will make me less safe in a robbery? More Guns, More Crime? I'm really disappointed."

No, That isn't my point here, what i'm saying is Mr. Bad A** walks into the Post Office to pickup his crazy check that comes in on the first of the month like clock work. Well today he is carrying, and the Police officer noticed it also. He stops him and tells him to remove the weapon before entering the Post Office. Well Mr. Bad A** tell the PO to take a hike since he has a Constutitional right to carry a firearm, so the PO lets it go. Mr. Bad A** enters and goes to his box and the check isn't there, holy cow does he go off!! Well, it just so happens that Mr. Barak is also there trying to mail some software out and picked up his mail also. Mr. Bad A** sees the mail in Mr. Barak's hand and goes to thinking he has stolen his check since his mind is so disfigured now from being upset, he pulls out the weapon and unloads it on Mr. Barak. Mr. Bad A** is normally a easy going guy, and also goes to Chruch every Sunday, but still a tough ole guy. Now if Mr. Barak had voted in his State and Federal elections for his legislators then the whole incidence could have been avoided, but no, he held a belief that no person had a right to set laws that would govern his rights in society today and held to those beliefs.
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

You say, "If God gave me my rights, then only God can take them away. People can threaten me with harm if I exercise my rights, but they're mine nonetheless; I can't lose them to a person or a group of people."

Go ahead and walk into the Post Office/ Federal Building brandishing a loaded .45 1911 and You'll see how fast, your God given rights are removed, and for a perfectly good reason too.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Quote
Go ahead and walk into the Post Office/ Federal Building brandishing a loaded .45 1911 and You'll see how fast, your God given rights are removed, and for a perfectly good reason too.

Sigh.

Like RickBin, I'm not convinced of the utility of further correspondence.

I have no God-given right to threaten people; but if I do threaten someone, then he has a God-given right to self defense.

I did vote for candidates in state and local races, except in cases where I couldn't support any of the candidates. My candidates didn't win, is all.

And I'm afraid your scenario is very strained, especially if you're using it as a justification for infringing people's rights.
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Barak,

Okay, I see you're getting tired, and I do believe we are beating a dead horse here, you are set in your ways and there is no convincing you different on this forum...... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
So now, when are you flying out so that I can teach you how to fish?
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Flying out where?
Posted By: 7400Hunter

Re: Support - 02/26/03

KY
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 02/26/03

Possibly sometime this spring or summer, if you're serious. I'd be bringing my wife and at least one daughter (maybe both) along to share in the benefit of your wisdom. (Both daughters are college-age.)

Posted By: AFP

Re: Support - 02/27/03

Guys,

I think all that can be said has been said. We've just been rehashing what was alrready stated. To that end I am bugging out of this thread.

Blaine
Posted By: ConradCA

Re: Support - 03/03/03

You may disagree with his policies and that is OK. You undermine your arguments by resorting to name calling. Our President deserves respect. Don't call him names! George Bush has integrity, and honor.

There are a few simple reason why we need to defeat Iraq. The first and most important one is to show that rest of the world that then can't mess with us. We have had eight years of a "President" who was more interested in his dick and image then in the country. Iraq, the terrorists and North Korea are problems created by Clinton.

We fought a war and our soldiers died to defeat Saddam. The war ended with an agreement that required Saddam to eliminate his weapons of mass distruction and he broke this agreement which is justification for the war to resume. In addition, his attempted assasination of former President Bush was an act of war which justifies attacking Iraq.

It is people like you that caused WWII. They were too afraid to stand up to evil and defeat the Nazis before they became strong. Saddam is weak now and now is the time to take him out.

Your charges that "he is imperialist" is completely bogus. We could have easily conquered Iraq in 1991 if we wanted to take it over. There was nothing stopping us. What you call imperialism is just the mechanism for sucessfully transitioning Iraq from an evil dictatorship to a better government. We have done it before with Japan, Germany and Italy. We defeated them and then rebuilt their countries and societies along demcratic lines and an honest person would have to admit that they are better off because we did.

Do you think that Saddam Hussein deserves to be in charge of Iraq ? I know he worked hard for the job. Murder and torture is hard work! Did you know that his role models are Hitler and Stalin ? Do you think that the Iraqi people will fight to the death for Saddam ? If you are honest you will admit that the Iraqi people will be better off if we are sucessfull.

Leaving logic and policies aside for a moment. I would like to know why you hate our President ? Are you a true blue Democrat and upset that Al Gore did not succeed in stealing the election ? Or do you hate rich people ? You do realize that hating people because they are republicans or because they have money in not to much different than hating people because they are black.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/03/03

ConradCA,

Most of this stuff has already been hashed over in this thread and others. Bush has no honor or integrity or else he'd keep his oath of office; "teaching the world a lesson" is not a good reason to invade and colonize a sovereign country; Iraq's disarmament is a UN issue, not a US issue, and should be taken care of by the UN; and the question of whether Saddam "deserves" to be in charge of Iraq is one that the US has no business asking, much less answering: it's a question for the Iraqi people. New arguments on these issues are welcome, but bare assertions or repetitions of the standard screeds are a waste of time.

But there are some personal misapprehensions in your message that I've seen other places as well, and I figured I could take a stab at correcting those.

Quote
It is people like you that caused WWII. They were too afraid to stand up to evil and defeat the Nazis before they became strong. Saddam is weak now and now is the time to take him out.

First, people like me are not pacifists. We are not the "War Is Never The Answer" folks you've seen on TV waving signs. Most of us, in fact, would have supported US entry into WWII if we had been of decision-making age at the time--probably even before Pearl Harbor.

Second, no matter how long we ignore Saddam, it is unlikely that he will ever become a threat to the national security of the US. He'd have to take over pretty much the entire Middle East before he could do that, and brutal dictators have never been able to successfully rule large regions without being overthrown. Saddam, especially, as a secular Arab, would never be able to handle the more religious Muslim states.

Third, killing weak people whom you think might eventually develop into a threat to you is not a moral stance that I care to be a part of. That sounds like Pharaoh, or King Herod, or the modern pro-abortion gang.

Quote
Leaving logic and policies aside for a moment. I would like to know why you hate our President ?

I do not hate Baby Bush. One does not hate politicians for being corrupt and dishonorable: it's a fruitless and unprofitable activity, much like hating fish for swimming. I am angry at him because he has stolen large helpings of my liberties and his administration has its eye on seconds and thirds.

Quote
Are you a true blue Democrat and upset that Al Gore did not succeed in stealing the election ?

No, I'm not a Democrat--true-blue or any other kind. I have never been a Democrat. (I have, on the other hand, been a Republican.) I have, on occasion, voted for Democrats, though.

I was fully expecting Gore to win the election--by a halfway decent margin--and was somewhat surprised when he didn't. I think he would have been a better President than Baby Bush, in the sense that he would have been able to get much less done, because he would have had to fight Congress and everybody would have been watching him through a microscope. My liberties probably would have been safer from him than they have been from Baby Bush--not because he would necessarily have had a smaller appetite for them (although I suspect he would have), but because he would never have been able to successfully commit atrocities like the USA PATRIOT Act or the Homeland Security Act. He would probably also have been less fiscally deceptive, raising taxes instead of running a huge deficit like Baby Bush is doing. (Bush is raising taxes too, except that his taxes come in the form of inflation.)

Quote
Or do you hate rich people ?

I used to hate rich people. Believe it or not, it was Rush Limbaugh who convinced me of the folly of that, back when he was still worth listening to and had not yet become such a brainless Republican shill.
Posted By: T300WbyMag

Re: Support - 03/03/03

RickBin, Trying to reason with Comrad Barak is like trying to reason with a Mega Liberal DemocRat.....




God Bless America!!!!!
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/03/03

It is not "comrad" Barak, this is free America and ALL are entitled to their opinions. Whether YOU like them or not.

Find fault and show it with his logic, don't try to assassinate his charactor, that's a demorats tactic! Show him where he is wrong if you can, with facts and logic. Don't be childish, sheesh, just like my dog Spot, can dish it out, but can't take it!
Posted By: T300WbyMag

Re: Support - 03/04/03

T LEE I call it like I see it, Comrad Barak is more than capable of taking up for himself.. You need to mind your own business...

Have A Nice Day
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/04/03

Barak is a friend and I'll mind any damn business I want as long as I don't step on anybody else's right to do the same, Thank you very much. Who died and left you in charge anyway?
Respond with something to refute what he says, you know, like a grown up.
Posted By: T300WbyMag

Re: Support - 03/05/03

T LEE, Who died and left you in charge should be the question?? Barak and I have had a few discussions before and he has been known to throw a sucker punch remark too... Barak seems like a very intelligent man who does not need you hovering over him like a mother hen....If you are his friend and share his unsavory Liberal point of view that is your right, I on the other hand have a more conservative/ProAmerican point of view. I very rarely respond with a negative remark but will throw one back if it is needed..... As far as I am concerned the matter is closed...

Have a Nice Day




God Bless America
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Works for me!
I don't necessarily think like a liberal, in fact I am actually somewhat right of Atilla The Hun. However my eyes are open and I am not afraid to question my government and it's motives, I was guarenteed the excercise of that right in the Constitution and BoR. Remember? Unquestioningly following .gov policy is the response of sheep, and exactly what the liberals want of the sheeple, makes them much easier to control. Free thinkers are a thorn in the side of the liberal movement.

I am fully aware that Barak needs no one "hovering" over him for protection, but I AM entitled to my opinion as are YOU, or does that bother you?

Blindly following the party line is foolish and never intended by the Founding Fathers, hell if they had, we would still kneel before the throne of England.

As you say "It's over", well till the next time Sir. I am not as elequent as Barak, but I don't back down either unless someone can SHOW me the error of my thinking. I don't intimidate by way of threat or inuendo. "SHOW ME THE FACT'S" or as Joe Friday used to say. "Just the fact's Mam/Sir, just the fact's". I have no time for the emotional side of such serious matters, that's for the liberals when they can't respond with fact's and logic.

Have a good one, I now leave it to moulder upon the heaps in cyberspace.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Quote
If you [T LEE] are his [Barak's] friend and share his unsavory Liberal point of view [...]

Okay, I admit it, you suckered me in.

(Thanks for having my back, there, amigo.)

Which of my points of view would you label as Liberal?

My rabidly pro-gun stance, perhaps? (I agree with L Neil Smith that until a twelve-year-old girl can walk into a hardware store and slap down cash on the barrelhead and walk out with a fully-automatic machine gun, without filling out any papers or asking permission from anyone but her parents, there's too much gun control in this country.)

How about my stand on abortion? (Morally it's murder in all cases except those of self-defense; legally it should be regulated by the states, not the feds.)

Mmm...my position on the income tax? (Eliminate it, and replace it with nothing.)

Universal suffrage? (It's a bad idea: anyone who receives any form of unearned entitlement or benefit from the government should not be allowed to vote for a year: it's a conflict of interest.)

Increased government funding for education? (Stop it cold: all schools should be private.)

Fiat currency? (Go back to the gold standard.)

Where are those liberal points of view?

Are you under the impression that everyone except liberals worships Baby Bush? Is that (the fact that I think he's a power-grabbing megalomaniac) why you think I'm liberal?
Posted By: Steelhead

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Quote
... Barak seems like a very intelligent man



I would say he is a very educated man. Educated and intelligent are two entirely different animals.
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Well, I must really be slowing down in my advanced years. You see, I had a bit of an
epiphany this morning while watching the network news.

What has happened in this country since 9/11? I'll tell you what, we have been running
around like "Chicken Little" crying "The sky is falling", desperately looking for a target
for our righteous rage at the attacks, in doing this, we have ceased to pay attention to
most of the real problems in society here, and the world in general. What we have been
doing, is focusing on Saddam and not the terrorists. Yeah, we got lucky and the Paki's
caught one of Bin Laden's top men for us, but the focus has been on Saddam.
Meanwhile our oil prices are skyrocketing due mostly to a strike in Venezuela, the
market is unstable, tourism is off, airport security has become a comedy of errors at
GREAT expense to taxpayers,national paranoia is at an all time high, we have a new
cabinet level position with yet another burdensome bureaucracy (at our expense)to do
little but alarm the sheeple that can not or will not THINK for themselves. Duct tape
and Plastic sheeting anyone? Give me a break! Much ado about threats real and
imagined, whipping the armchair commando's into to a frenzy over a little [bleep]
country in the mid-east, all the while spending money hand over fist on it. OUR TAXES
and SOCIAL SECURITY/VETERANS BENEFITS funds. All the while our children are being
cheated out of an education via public schools that do not focus on education, rather
social programming. They lower the standards to accommodate and make the
kids "feel good about themselves" rather than raising the bar and challenging them,
nay, teaching them to LEARN. To strive for accomplishment and the satisfaction of a
job well done.

We encourage people to not work and strive for a better life, by telling them they are
"entitled" to the benefits and fruits of others labor instead. Sound's a bit like socialism,
not liberty to me! Karl Marx would be proud of us!

Does all this ring a bell? What did we do to the former Soviet Union and Com-Block
countries? We put them into economic ruin, causing them do the very same things. We
broke them economically! What is North Korea doing? Starving their people by spending
the vast majority of their national product on an unnecessarily large military, they are
almost bankrupt thanks to that policy. We are defeating ourselves hunting non-existent
witches! The PRC would do the same, were it not for trade with the U.S. What's wrong
with this picture?

This whole mess stinks of the Gulf of Tonkin, or even further back, "Remember the
Maine".

I believe that if we don't change focus, FAST, we are going to accomplish the terrorists
goals for them, the closing of our society and free way of life. We will become
financially and morally bankrupt. A society like the former Soviet Union. Oh, we will
maintain the facade of freedom for a few more years, maybe a couple of generations in fact,
but sooner or later the government will be totally changed from "Of the People, by the
People, for the People" to "Of the government, by government mandate, to the people".
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Bravo, T LEE.
Posted By: eddieleon

Re: Support - 03/05/03

T LEE

We have become paranoid since 9-11. We are doing exactly what the
terriorists wanted. It would be impossible for them to destroy our freedoms but we are doing it for them. Most of this is attributed to our politicians on both sides of the aisle wanting to get their name and pix in the papers for reelection.

No one can deny that 9=11 was horrible and an act ofwar. Our overreaction is only accomplishing the terrorists goal.

Personally, I would like to bring our troops home and cut off our aid to those who aren't for us. No one can be bought, so why be the sucker and pay for our own problems. I really don't mean isolationism. But more practical application of involvement of our resources.

I think T Rosevelts big stick policy should apply. For what it is worth.
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Quote
Personally, I would like to bring our troops home and cut off our aid to those who aren't for us. No one can be bought, so why be the sucker and pay for our own problems. I really don't mean isolationism. But more practical application of involvement of our resources.

I think T Rosevelts big stick policy should apply. For what it is worth.


Thank you Sir, my point exactly, in much fewer words!
I do not wish to hobble our military like we did prior to WWII or what Klintoon did to it during his watch, we NEED them. They however shoud be used more judiciously IMHO.

Cutting the societal leeches, foreign and domestic, off at the knees and putting those resources to work at home promoting business, sane health care and education would be a far better way to regain the America we once had and cherished.

An Imperial Rome we do not need to be, nor should we become. We all know what happened to the Romans!
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Quote
Cutting the societal leeches, foreign and domestic, off at the knees and putting those resources to work at home promoting business, sane health care and education would be a far better way to regain the America we once had and cherished.

Or even better, refraining from extorting said resources from the people in the first place.
Posted By: T LEE

Re: Support - 03/05/03

Roger that Sir!
Posted By: eddieleon

Re: Support - 03/05/03

In earlier days of our countries history we allowed the business magnets to build the ties with other countries. They exploited they opportunities in other countries. Needless to say it didn't help our image but at least strength wise we were respected. Those exploits were brought home in many ways to benefit us.

I find it odd that in dealing with the rest of the world our leaders find bribes criminal offences. Ever go to Mexico. If you don't pay off the cop on the corner your car will be stripped. This is true from Del Rio to Mexico City.

In some parts of the world, that is the only way to do business. To atribute another society with our home grown philosophy is stupid. If we are to deal with them it must be on their own terms.

When I was in Germany the Krauts were allowed to charge us what they could get. Prices to Germans were regulated. Good old American ingilnuity
(any way I spell it looks wrong)worked. Get a German girl to go into a store with a GI and purchase somthing then call the cops for overcharging someone with the ken card.

When playing in someone elses back yard, they get to make the rules.
Posted By: Fredrick

Re: Support - 03/08/03

When all comes to all, this conflicy with Iraq really boils down to stabelize the situation in the whole middle east region. I think that is the goal of all involved nations. they just cant agree of in wich way to do this.

However , I think this campaign will cost a lot of american blood. The US military machine will win in the desert, but in urban areas the defenders has the advantage. American soldiers did not get to Bagdad in 1991, but they will do it this time. And Saddam will probably defend the city at all costs. Saddam measures success after how well he is doing. If he still sits after a war that costs hundred of thousands of lives and total destruction of Iraq, saddam still think he has won. The air force can`t bomb Bagdad to hell because of the civil population, so ground forces has to move in. Once they are in, they won`t face the enemy befor he is so close that you can smell him. Then the airforce cantuse bombs, because they will harm friendly troops. In my opinion it will be much the same type of fighting as the rangers did in Mogadishu, only they will be better prepared this time. But so will the enemy. remember that senior members has fought in both the Iraq-Iran war and the first golf war, so it is an experienced enemy they will meet.

Saddam will loose at last, but it will cost.
Posted By: ConradCA

Re: Support - 03/13/03

The key is that his popularity among Iraq's people is very brittle. They support him now only because they are afraid of him. When they are called to sacrific their lives for him the vast majority of the citizens of Iraq will surrender or turn on him.

Once we defeat his forces in the open field, capture most of his regular army, occupy most of the country and beseige the cities he won't stand a chance.
Posted By: kiwi_hunta

Re: Support - 03/20/03

Sorry guys but Barac is right and is one of the few Americans who seems able to view objectively, The USA and world have bigger and greater problems than Iraq, Iraq has the greatest oil reserves, USA is the biggest user of oil in the world and thats how the rest of the world see,s it.
Syria, Iran and Palistine harbour more terrorists , Saudi Arabia finances Bin Laden, yet B. Bush targets Iraq get real ,why do you think the United nations is unwilling to condone the conflict, because under its charter a country may only attack another if it is at risk of being attacked, is Iraq going to attack USA duh I think not, I would be more worried about the threat of the Yellow peril guys, don't let Nationalistic fervour overide logical thinking,anyway my best wishes for the safe return of all combatents and a prayer for there familys, Godbless.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/20/03

I was listening to a local talk-radio show the other day, and a guy called in and said something I found very discouraging.

"I'm just sick to death of the French," he sputtered. "They want we should give Saddam more time? How about this: how about we give him just as much time as he gave those folks in the World Trade Center?"

So now apparently the feds have succeeded in creating in (at least a segment of) the general populace the impression that Saddam Hussein was behind the events of 9/11/01. Perhaps that's why the war has so much popular support. I had thought that Americans were a little smarter than that. I guess I still hope that some of us are.

We are becoming the new Evil Empire. It was disheartening to observe how much of the stuff Baby Bush said about Saddam Hussein last night is actually true of Baby Bush as well.
Posted By: Skidrow

Re: Support - 03/20/03

Don't think its any more absurd than the guy I heard on a talk show a while back who said the attack on the Trade Center was part of a covert Jewish plot to gain U.S. support for Israel. Just goes to show that if you spend enough time listening to talk shows you're likely to hear just about anything. Maybe even something you agree with. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Doesn't have to be credible. Can't be wrong because its just an opinion. Doesn't have to be factual. Doesn't have to be one you agree with. I guess you just pick one you like and go with it. Don't much care what the rest of the world thinks about us. Been to most of the rest of the world and I wasn't any more impressed with them than they probably are with me. At least we've got flush toilets and toilet paper instead of a foot print on either side of a hole in the floor and a left hand. Guess it all depends on your perspective. At least we can all be happy in knowing that we're right. At least in our own opinion.
Posted By: ConradCA

Re: Support - 03/20/03

Just because there are worse enemies than Saddam that
does not mean we should not take him out now when it is
relatively easy. As a matter of fact it good strategy to deal
with your enemies when they are weak. Would you rather
waited until he has developed nuclear weapons ? Or used
his chemical and biological weapons against us ?

I don't care what the United Nations or other countries think.
We can decide for ourselves what constitutes a treat to the
US. Who would have thought that OMB was a big threat to us
before 9/11 ? But they launched the most deadly attack on
the US in modern times.

We need to take Saddam out for the following reasons:

1) We need to make a statement to the rest of the world
that can't mess with us with out suffering enormous
consequences. Especially after the 8 years of corruption
and weakness under Clinton.

2) Saddam is a threat to us and very well could attack us.
It would not be very difficult for him to smuggle anthrax
or VX gas into our country and then use it to kill 1,000's
or 100,000's of our people. It would be very difficult for
us to trace this back to him.

3) We fought a war against him, Americans died in that
war and we stopped the war and left him in power only
because he agreed to our terms to end it. But he never
complied with the agreement that ended the war. If we
can't resume the war to enforce the agreement that
ended the war then what is the point of have an
agreement that ends a war ?

4) We need to clear the decks and get ready to deal with
N. Korea. Another problem caused by Carter and Clinton.
You do remember that they signed an agreement with N.
Korea in which we gave them 6 billion dollars in
exchange for them stopping development of nuclear
weapons ? They just lied and Clinton let them get away
with it. Just the other day Clinton lied about this situation
when he said that he did not know they were cheating.
It was published in the paper back when he was president
and he did not do anything about it. He was worried that
it would hurt is reputation.

I can't see why people are getting so upset about us
removing Saddam from power. Do you think that he has any
right to be the leader of Iraq ? He came to power through
murder and torture and that is how he maintains his rule. He
is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people
through wars that he started. His own people don't support
him. Look at how easily they surrendered in the Gulf war and
now.

About the only reason that might make sense is that the
people of Iraq will suffer. Do you think that they are not
suffering under the rule of Saddam ? He started 2 major
wars, both of which he lost with many of his people dead. He
has caused the suffering of the people of Iraq under the trade
embargo. He takes the money and food provided to feed
them and used it to maintain his power and gains a
propaganda point that the embargo is killing 100,000s of Iraqi
children. He also has the power to end the embargo by giving
up his WMD, but chooses to hold on to them.

The real effect of the anti-war crowd is providing aid and
comfort to Saddam. He sees the large demonstrations against
the war and finds a glimmer of hope that we will give up and
back down. The protesters by providing hope to Saddam are
partially responsible for causing this war.
Posted By: ConradCA

Re: Support - 03/20/03

I agree! His childish use of name calling is disgusting.

I am done discussing this issue with him until he appoligizes to our president and the people who post on this discussion board.

Conrad
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/20/03

Most of your points have already been addressed elsewhere in this thread, so I won't go all into it again.

But North Korea? Are you implying that after we colonize Iraq we'll set about colonizing North Korea too? I suppose I wouldn't put something like that past a power-mad megalomaniac like Baby Bush, but I'm damn sick of footing the bill for all the toys he uses in his little imperialist adventures.

I'd be a lot less upset if Baby Bush had to pass the hat before throwing his wars, and get voluntary contributions from all the pro-war people--and then be forced either to mount a campaign that didn't exceed those voluntary contributions, or to give them all back. Then I wonder how self-righteous we'd be about "liberating the Iraqi people." $21,000 for a JDAM unit to put on the tail of a 2000lb low-drag bomb, or for a new car, a nice new computer, and a raftload of cool guns?
Posted By: MCRORoutdoorsman

Re: Support - 03/20/03

I don't think our government has any intention of colonizing Iraq, N. Korea or any where else. But Saddam is a tyrant who given a chance would do harm to americans. I believe he needs to be removed from power and who else but the U.S. has the muscle and the will to get it done? And when this is done if N. Korea wants to play hardball with us they should expect similar treatment.
Posted By: Barak

Re: Support - 03/21/03

I gotta admit I'm positively impressed by Baby Bush's decision to withhold Shock & Awe when it looked like it might not be necessary. I didn't expect it from him.

I am, of course, inclined to look at it a bit cynically: it didn't cost him anything, but it'll make him look like a hero when the war's over. But I'm not sure he's smart enough to analyze things like that.

Anyhow, what's important is not what I think Bush wants, or what Bush says he wants, or even what he really does want; but what the Islamic extremists in that part of the world think he wants. And I think they think he wants to colonize Iraq. Further, I think that when he gets done doing to Iraq what he has in mind, it's going to look to them like an American colony. And I think they're not going to like that.

That's what has scared me into spending all kinds of money on TEOTWAWKI supplies.
Posted By: MCRORoutdoorsman

Re: Support - 03/22/03

Barak we have reached some common ground! I think your right to be concerned about how our enemies view our actions. And I think its great that you are preparing for whatever may happen down the road. As we used to say in the boy scouts, be prepared. We probaly will see some kind of fall out at home from this war were fighting. Still its better to kill them over there than to try to keep them from killing us over here. Having a prowesteren Iraq will make that easier. We also agree that there is some monetary interest in this venture. I think this is an excelent opertunity for the U.S. to lay hands on some Iraqi oil at a very good price. (and free is a very good price)
© 2020 24hourcampfire