Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * We got him! < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Mailing entries for competitionsJim Maloney12-15-03  01:27 am
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

MJR (24.217.160.206)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 03:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3989009

At long last, we've captured the bastard!

-Mark
 

cheesehead (24.118.124.147)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 04:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Still can't find Osama. Now that would mean something. And where are the WMD?
 

Jared Cook (24.1.247.22)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 04:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's see... Drums of chemicals and Chemicaly capable warheads on banned missiles that were stored in separate locations. How would he ever put them together?
I guess that doesn't fit your description of WMDs, but That's like saying we have reduced out Nuclear arsenal by "disarming" the warheads.
Oh, and then there is the mobile weopons labs we found. Funny how he forgot to mention those in his cease fire demanded WMD destruction "evidence" he gave to the United Nations.
This was not a new war. We had a cease fire agreement that placed certain demands on the regime. If you think that Saddam was cooperative, you're crazy. We merely resumed the 1991 Gulf War that was never over in the first place. There was no peace treaty.
 

Walt Fischer (24.221.196.114)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 05:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

sweeeeeeTA!

Walt
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 05:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good news! I would, however, exchange a hundred Saddams to have Osama in custody (or dead).


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

davidw (12.74.20.147)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 05:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It surprises me how people have dwelled on the WMD issue. The FACT that there are approximately 270 mass burial sites in Iraq doesn't seem to mean much to some Americans, probably because it wasn't their family members being tortured and executed. The end justifies the means, which is why the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets.
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 06:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The problem is, Bush sold the war to the American people on the basis that Saddam had large stores of weapons of mass destruction and they were pointed at us. It's looking increasingly like that wasn't the case. We knew for years that Saddam had killed many of his people (we knew, for example, that he gassed the Kurds); but that wasn't why Bush sent our military to fight the war.


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

don price (65.32.41.166)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 06:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Quite frankly, most Americans couldn't care less how many Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis. The more the better. That said, I think I'll have a homebrew to help quench the ensuing flames.

Don
 

Andrew Leach (209.245.15.89)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 06:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

davidw,

By that reasoning we should have gone after N. Korea and or China and or....

Why did we focus on Iraq? Oil and a strategic location for bases in the middle east. Before 9/11 Bush mentioned Saddam in a few of his speeches. To him it would be an easy victory and millions of $$$ in Gov. contracts to his supporters.

This is a huge moral push for or soldiers over there. They needed this with the upcoming holidays away from home. May all of them return safely.

On a beer note it is a great day here in Denver for brewing.
 

Michael Boyd (66.81.210.167)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 07:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have yet to see any news that the coalition forces have found any “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or any weapons labs, mobile or stationary. This whole war is nothing more than a twofold scam by the chicken hawks in government to capture a non-stoppable source for oil and to keep the people rooting for something that’s portrayed as a game instead of trying to solve the huge domestic problems here in the U.S. The un-elected President is only doing what the people who had him appointed tell him. Our interests don’t lie in being the policeman for the world.
 

Doug J (67.73.179.111)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 07:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Christ.

Why don't you guys go to the World Expressions forum for this crap.

I've never been so happy to be a moderate, have a working brain and the will to use it.
 

Tacoma Brewers (67.170.64.39)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 07:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Just wait about 20 years or so, when the world's crude oil supply is running out, and all of our gasoline engines run dry. Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are going to become as poor as you could imagine.

I'm not exxagerating the 20 years of oil either...look it up, if ya like. All of our military vehicles, our cars, airplanes, diesel locomotives, trucks, etc...will have to be converted to something else.

If Mr. "oil man" Bush (Mr, because he's not really our prez) would focus more attention on this sobering fact instead of trying to pad his own wallet, we would be much better off.
 

Jared Cook (24.1.247.22)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 08:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Michael,

You haven't been watching the news then. SEVERAL mobile wepons labs have been found. There was even footage of them on the news. I don't know what kind of evidence you need, but you probably think O.J. is innocent.
 

Jim Keaveney (205.188.208.75)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 08:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"I have yet to see any news that the coalition forces have found any “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or any weapons labs, mobile or stationary."

At worst, he had them. At best, he concocted elaborate schemes to make people think he had them. either way, he dug his own grave. i guess we should have waited until he wiped out a few million more people to find out.

"This whole war is nothing more than a twofold scam by the chicken hawks in government to capture a non-stoppable source for oil and to keep the people rooting for something that’s portrayed as a game instead of trying to solve the huge domestic problems here in the U.S."

I thought ignorance was bliss. guess not. this war has cost the us so much $$ it is scary. to think this was some sort of profit scheme is moronic. i guess bush thinks he is going to get his billions spent on the war back in the form of oil contracts before the next election? get real. the us will be in the red on this one long after bush is gone even if he is reelected. the notion that this is a "game" is a slap in the face to all those brave americans who have given their lives. who portrayed this war as a game?

finally, on a day when americans should be celebrating, knuckleheads feel the urge to regurgitate anti-bush rhetoric like programmed fools. save it for the campaign.
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 08:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Don Price says: "I think I'll have a homebrew to help quench the ensuing flames."

That's the smartest thing anyone has said yet on this thread 8-) I certainly plan to hoist a homebrew tonight in honor of our troops and their victory today. (And, I hope that our soldiers stationed in Iraq have the opportunity to raise a glass of (clandestinely brewed) homebrew to congratulate themselves on a job well done.)

This is shaping up to be an interesting thread. But perhaps, as Doug K mentions, we should move this thread to the World Expressions forum.


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

John Jacox (24.92.176.114)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 09:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I feel that besides the valid reasons of failure to comply with the inspection requirements, and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of his subjects, we had to do this because we miscalculated when expecting his people to depose him after he was weakened by the first gulf war. After more than a decade, he was still a major threat to peace and stability in the region (not only to our "allies", but to all nations in the area). This caused us to maintain a major military force there. In the cold war era, we were able to do this in Europe, but due to the "peace dividend", our military (although excellently equipped and trained) is just not as large as it used to be. This (my opinion!) has caused us to not be able to "show the flag" in the other troubled parts of the world as much as we should.
 

Brandon Dachel (216.177.117.110)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 11:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> And where are the WMD?

Syria.

davidw - well spoken.

> By that reasoning we should have gone after N.
> Korea and or China and or....

N. Korea, under the rule of the current lunatic is an issue. China...be wary...they have a long term plan in mind and it isn't democracy.

> If Mr. "oil man" Bush (Mr, because he's not
> really our prez) would focus more attention on
> this sobering fact instead of trying to pad his
> own wallet, we would be much better off

Oh, God...this is the most tired, *emotional* argument. Stop the freakin 'the rich don't deserve their wealth' crap. That argument is simply the modern day socialist talking point. It's dangerous buying into this class-warfare argument.

> The un-elected President is only doing what the
> people who had him appointed tell him

Unelected? Another tired argument. He was elected by the voters of this country (the U.S.) in accordance with the rules that govern this country. He didn't win the popular vote. Popular vote doesn't matter (as it shouldn't). Don't like it? Quit b1tching about it and do something to change the law.
 

gregory gettman (67.75.118.38)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 11:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Take the political drivel to world veiws please this is not the place.............

NO one of us will ever know all the facts. Between the media filters and mis information no one could have an educated opinion about this whole matter. Just drop it............
 

Denny Conn (64.28.60.192)
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 11:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have extremely strong views about this, but if you think I'm gonna get into it here...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Suffice it to say, anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong.
 

Andrew Pearce (68.225.195.30)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 01:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is this thread about Saddam Hussein or the team of Navy SEALS we sent across the border to drag Bill Pierce back to the mother country?
 

Bill Pierce (24.141.63.119)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 01:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bush justified the war on three grounds: Saddam was a brutal despot who plundered his own people, he possessed weapons of mass destruction and was allied with international terrorism. Few people doubt the first reason, although there are other world leaders who have committed acts of great cruelty and gone unpunished. As for the second and third claims, there was (and remains) little hard evidence. Still, I'm sure there are few tears and much celebration today at the reports of Saddam's capture.

As others have mentioned, the true enemy of the United States, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. His capture would be a much greater coup and cause for real rejoicing.
 

Walt Fischer (24.221.196.114)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 02:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh yea Denny?
Welll... just so happens, I never lie, and im always right...
Political forum.... 2 doors down n to the left..
BrewON!

;>
Walt
 

Joe Williams (144.106.63.60)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John Jacox,
"I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense." Article I of the Code Of Conduct


The only way we are going to "show the flag in other troubled parts of the world" is on the shoulders of America's Sons and Daughters. Think long and hard before you tell your elected representatives to take the flag to another new trouble spot. I do not take my responsibility to America's soldiers or their families lightly, do not take your privlege to direct flag waving lightly.

Sergeant First Class Williams
 

Fredrik (213.114.44.229)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 06:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am glad I am not a politician! I would seriously replace government with a big computer, and all politicians with algoritms. The people on earth should have to agree on what algoritms to use. Not vote - agree. Majority decisions are not ultimate IMO. If majority thinks the minority is not going to fight back they have themselves to blame. Only the laws of nature are the real laws, wether we like it or not. I think politics should be based around the laws of nature. What does a human need? Food? Love? Those who doesn't get what they need are likely to "start wars" to survive.

That said, I can't wait to see Osama get shaved on live TV :)

/Fredrik
 

Beerboy (81.134.148.158)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

He was elected by the voters of this country (the U.S.) in accordance with the rules that govern this country.

Ha Ha, do those rules include getting family members to fix ballots, turn away voters and not count all votes. Sounds like democracy to me.

it is a great day that Saddam is captured. Hopefully he will be brought to justice for his crimes.

I agreed with the war when it started as i thought Saddam was a true tyrant and Bush Senior should have finished the job in the first Gulf War instead of wimping out like he did.

But I resent the arguments put forward by Bush, ie terrosim and WMD's, for the war and dragging our country into the whole conflict for what is basically a grudge and feeling he must finish his daddys business. That being said. I'm glad that Saddam has been toppled for the sake of the Iraqui people.

But what about Isreal, they have a massive army and stock of weapons, are we going to do anything about them? Seems to me that that's not a stable country and there are peoples beining oppressed. North Korea, Zimbabwe. Why stop at Iraq. Seems to me Robert Mugabe is every bit as evil as Saddam. Oh yeah, there's no oil in Zimbabwe.

The US seems to have put themselves in the position of global policeman for whatever reasons and it seems to cause a lot of pain and suffering in the US. Look at Vietnam, what was that all about?

How many people think Bush will be re-elected?
 

Bill Pierce (24.141.63.119)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Beerboy, a Bush re-election is at least even money at the moment. Don't underestimate the President or the people behind him, who are extremely determined to further their agenda.
 

Beerboy (81.134.148.158)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 01:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Which is what? That's the scary thing!
 

David Woods (63.95.170.150)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 01:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Fredrik,
What is an Al Goreitism? ;^)
 

cheesehead (24.118.124.147)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 01:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My political agenda: lick bush in '04.
 

Hercules (134.163.253.126)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 02:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The Bush administration put forth several arguements for going to war.

WMD: Saddam gave us every reason to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction, including actually using chemical weapons against the Kurds. We have found evidence that suggests that there was an aggressively pursued research program in place, and that some or all the materials were smuggled to the Bakaa valley in Syria during the early part of the war.

Middle East Security: Saddam was a clear threat to security in the region in that he had previously invaded one of his neighbors, he constantly violated the no-fly zone by firing on our planes, and he illegally developed long-range missiles and weopon drones. In addition, he violated many U.N. resolutions.

The War on Terror: Most convincing to me, Bush said that we had to go after states that were sponsoring terror because the effectiveness of terrorist organizations is greatly enhanced by having safe havens and financing provided by nations. We found the main HQ of Ansar-al-Islam in the Northern part of Iraq. Members of other terrorist organizations were killed while fighting against our troops or captured. Other camps have been found, including Salmon Pac, which contained the fuselage of a jumbo jet for practicing skyjacking. Saddam was openly giving $20,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber who successfully killed some Israelis.

Extremely stupid people keep repeating the same tired old mantras about how the war is for oil, and that Bush is going to get rich from the war, Bush didn't get elected (read the Constitution). The winner in the presidential elections of 1876 and 1888 lost the popular vote. Note also that Bill Clinton (with 43%) had the lowest percentage of popular vote for a winning candidate in the 20th century in 1992. The Constitution says that whoever wins the most electoral votes wins. Post-election recounts sponsored by newspapers hostile to Bush have concluded that he would have won the electoral votes even if the illegal recounts had continued. But don't worry, the next election won't even be close. You liberals will have to find some other reason hate Bush, Republicans, large companies, SUV's, Christians, Israel, Southerners, people who live in lightly populated areas, taxpayers, and any other groups you hate.
 

PalerThanAle (65.168.73.62)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

< [blah, blah, blah]....war is for oil...[blah, blah, blah.]

I thought it was because they outlawed beer. hmmmp, interesting.

PTA
 

cheesehead (134.84.5.34)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did you know there's oil in Iraq?

Saddam was nothing but a paper tiger. The Neocons had other fish to fry and there is no link that anyone has solidy proven tying Iraq to al Queda.

Did I mention oil?

Where's Osama? How about Mullah Omar?

Do you want an American empire? How are we going to pay for it? I know! Let's cut taxes for the rich!!!

If you think American can go it alone and we don't need the other democracies, youy're deluding yourself.

Yeah, Bush won: 5-4.
 

davidw (209.107.44.126)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ahh yes, it's Monday!

Just a few more things to add and I'll be done: I was in the US Army during the first Gulf War and had many friends that were shipped over there. Several of them came back and told about complexes of dozens of buildings the size of football fields that were wall to wall 50 gallon drums full of chemicals, not the kind of stuff you spray on your corn field either. After the war the UN went in and oversaw the destruction of much of these weapons. During the wonder years of the Clinton administration, when he wasn't banging his intern, he sought a policy of containment, the UN got to the point where the cooperation with the Iraqi government was anything but effective, so they pulled out. Both the chief weapons inspector at that time AND Bill Clinton just a few months ago on Larry King said they knew that Iraq still had WMD's when the UN pulled out. So with the UN gone and Clinton preoccupied with his own personal agenda what was there to motivate Saddam to disarm? Not a thing.

I'm not an advocate of any war, but just like most people here I drive my car to work every day. So we're all supporting the war because the fact that there is oil in the Middle East makes it a big concern to our government, which is motivated by the desires of it's people. If you don't like what our President or your congressman is doing, because ultimately congress gave the President the green light, vote them the hell out of office.

I have a son who is in the Army in South Korea right now. He comes back at the end of the month, will be stationed in the states until next August, and then he will be going to Iraq. I also have a nephew who will be shipping out in a couple weeks. In other words, I'm one of the people who this war effects directly, because my boy could end up being one of them on the news.

I'll say it again, the end justifies the means.
 

Ryan Larsen (216.27.223.203)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Your all correct!!

And none of you of you are corect!!

These days who the hell can tell!!

You can't trust the media or the government. :(

I don't know all the reasons soldiers are dying in Iraq. None of us do!
I'm glad Saddam has been captured. It is a positive turn for the situation in Iraq!

Now we need to find Osama and any other murderers who whish to harm us and our families!!!!!

It's a good thing we are free to speak our minds! Whatever our opinions may be.

If your free to vote, do so!
Pray for our soldiers and their families.

And of course RDWHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ryan
 

Beerboy (81.134.148.158)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Neocons, bloody hell. I just looked them up on the net, being an ignorant Brit I had no idea what they were. Neo nazi more like, Christ, if Bush is involved with that lot you yanks are in serious trouble.

I'm a Liberal and I'm proud! What ever happened to love your neighbour.
 

cheesehead (134.84.5.34)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Davidw-

The end justifies the means?

Hell, then let's carpet bomb the crap out of Iran, North Korea and Pakistan just for the hell of it!!! That theres logic.

That would take out a bunch of crazies. After all those nukes are just sittin' there doin nuthin. What a waste.
 

davidw (209.107.44.126)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 04:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes cheese, the fact that we removed a dictator who was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens is a good thing in my eyes, whatever the motivation.
 

Jim Keaveney (205.188.208.75)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Saddam was nothing but a paper tiger."

paper tigers dont kill a million people.

"Where's Osama? How about Mullah Omar?"

dont know, we are looking for them. good bet would be in a hole similar to sadam's. perhaps with your bush conspiracy drivel, you believe they are staying in a comfy room at camp david.

"Let's cut taxes for the rich!!!"

you mean, lets ease a bit of the enormous burden we have placed upon big corps and successful businesses to pay for pretty much everything we all take for granted as part of government services. ok, robin hood. in case you have not noticed the plan SEEMS to be working so far. is it so inconcievable to the bush bashers that allowing big corps some relief may prevent them from laying off the blue collar workers and maybe even hire some?
 

Denny Conn (140.211.82.4)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Walt, the George Pappoon quote!!! Good job, man! :)
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 08:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jim Keaveney says:
"in case you have not noticed the plan SEEMS to be working so far."

I think that remains to be seen. It certainly appears that the national economy has bounced off the bottom. But, if Bush's economic ideas work, how do you explain the current economy of Texas? (Stop by sometime and we can share a homebrew.)


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

Jim Keaveney (205.188.208.75)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

hey chris:

i agree. that is why i capitalized "seems" for emphasis. we shall see. there have been some good signs, especially most recently, but we have a ways to go.
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jim Keaveney says:
"you mean, lets ease a bit of the enormous burden we have placed upon big corps and successful businesses to pay for pretty much everything we all take for granted as part of government services. ok, robin hood."

Jim,
Go to the website for the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the United States and see who really funds our goverment. I just did. Individual taxpayers, not corporations, provide the vast majority of tax dollars for our government. They aren't funding "pretty much everything we all take for granted," we are.

PS Sorry for posting two separate messages. I just wanted to check out the numbers before I responded.

Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

Jim Keaveney (205.188.208.75)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris:

did any of your research include what percentage of the population pays what percentage of the taxes?
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jim Keaveny says:
"hey chris:

i agree. that is why i capitalized "seems" for emphasis. we shall see. there have been some good signs, especially most recently, but we have a ways to go."

Hey Jim,
Thanks for responding. We shall indeed see what's in store for the economy. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the recovery continues and gains steam.

If Texas is any indication, however, we're in for a bumpy road. Bush implemented many of his economic ideas in Texas before he implemented them at the national level. And, the results have been disasterous for our state.

Of course, there are numerous factors -- both internal and external -- affecting our economy. And, the US economy is bigger and more complex than that of Texas. So, I don't think we can necessarily look to Texas for exactly what the future of the US economy holds. Unfortunately, I don't think the track record of Bush's economic policies can be ignored either.

I'll be very happy if I'm wrong about this.


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jim says:
"did any of your research include what percentage of the population pays what percentage of the taxes?"

Jim,
I haven't got to that part yet. I seem to remember that, in terms of dollar amount, the top income earning bracket pays the most, followed by the second highest income bracket and on down the line.

In terms of percentage of income earned, I think -- but am not sure -- that middle income or upper middle income taxpayers pay the most. This is from memory, however, and I worry more about retaining memories regarding hot break than tax rates 8-) So, don't quote me. I'll find out and report back, though.


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

Jim Keaveney (64.12.96.42)
Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

it was sort of a rhetorical question, chris. the point is, corporations are responsible for most of the revenue our government collects, right? There is the direct revenue: 1) taxes paid; and 2) double taxation in the form of taxation of the corp profits collected by the shareholders. Then there is the the indirect, which is the taxes paid by the corporate employees based on their salaries (if you are an employee/shareholder this is triple taxation). Now, before getting all balled up about the my counting the indirect, consider that in theory, profitable corps employ more workers and pay higher salaries. this may not always be the case, but certainly the reverse is true -- corps that are losing money lay off workers and slash salaries.

i am not saying the bush plan will work, but it is certainly one way to go. personally, i am cautiously optomistic.
 

Beerboy (81.134.148.158)
Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 09:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"corps that are losing money lay off workers and slash salaries"

rather than accept a loss in shareholders profits - seems fair to me! pah. As long as the sharholders and directors are still getting their fat bonuses who gives a f$ck about the workers.
 

Jim Keaveney (64.12.96.42)
Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 02:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"who gives a f$ck about the workers"

the workers

who gives a f$ck about the directors and shareholders?

the directors and sharehoders.

sorry, every corp is not charitable. most of them are just businesses. the incentive for working hard and taking risk is big profit. if hiring more workers will earn bigger profits, they wil hire more. if paying higher salaries will earn bigger profits, they will pay them. "evil corporation" philosophy 101.
 

Beerboy (81.134.148.158)
Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 04:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I can't get into this debate, I'm too left wing.
 

davidw (209.107.44.126)
Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 05:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris,

The economy in Tejas must be pretty bad if you're relegated to brewing with sweet potatos! ;)
 

Chris Colby (66.25.196.39)
Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 08:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David,
Yes, it's terrible. Last year I was on top of the world, making lambic with Green Apple Jolly Ranchers. Now I'm relegated to making ESB with sweet potatoes. Next year I may be down to just malt, hops water and yeast 8-)


Chris Colby
Bastrop, TX
 

Belly Buster Bob (131.137.245.197)
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 07:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

having done my time in "The War on Terrorism" I would just like to add....
Historically,no government willingly sends its troops to war without that being in the Government's or Country's best interest. Financially or for the safety of its people. The American people were not at risk of attack by Saddam
Nuff said!
That S.O.B. cost me 9 months of my childrens lives. He wasn't hurting me any. Have we (Americans or Canadians)been given the task of protecting the world from boneheads? Maybe we all should spend some time looking in.
quote from a fellow soldier
"you ain't seen anything in your life untill you've seen a mass grave"
 

NRE
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, thank you for your service. I don't know what I would do if I had to spend nine months away from my kids, much less in a war zone.

But I must respectfully disagree with you. Hindsight is . . . well, you know the saying. It's easy to criticize the president now when we know that our intelligence was wrong. However, given 9/11 and the state of our intelligence (along with England's, Russia's, and other countries' intelligence), wouldn't it have been a lapse of duty if Bush hadn't taken some action to protect us? After all, even Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't partisan propaganda.

Bush never said that Saddam was an immediate threat. The point of this war was preemption--to topple his regime before he became a threat. I don't think that after 9/11 we have the luxury to wait for threats to become immediate. Erring on the side of caution doesn't bother me when our national security is at stake--on the one hand--along with ending the oppression of millions of innocent people--on the other hand.

Saddam proved he had the capability and the willingness to produce and use WMDs. This is a fact supported by those mass graves. The fact that we attacked him at a time when he had depleted his WMDs seems like perfect timing to me! We got him while he was weak.

If we left him alone, would he have produced WMDs in the future? Given them to terrorists, or used them against us himself? Who knows? I'd say the likelyhood is just about as good as a handful of men taking down the World Trade Center.

The world is heading for disaster of unprecedented proportions. If America doesn't step up to stop it, no one will. If I were you, I'd be proud that I was one of the few people on this planet who actively took part in making the world safer for your children.

You don't really believe the world was safer with Saddam in power, do you? If not, then you have performed an immeasurably good service to mankind. Thank you.
 

NRE
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I meant to say, "However, given 9/11 and the state of our intelligence AT THE TIME . . ."
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 4097
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 07:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

• "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.

• "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

• "The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."-- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "We know for a fact there are weapons there." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003.

• "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- Bush, Jan. 28, 2003.

• "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.

• "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Bush, March 17, 2003.

• "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." -- Fleischer, March 21, 2003.

• "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." -- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003.

• "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003.

• "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -- Bush, May 3, 2003.

• "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -- Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003.

• "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003.

• "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -- Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003.

• "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the -- our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." -- Bush, July 17, 2003.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Listerdister

Post Number: 93
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny, where are the quotes from the Democrat side?

The ones by John Kerry? The ones by Al Gore and Bill Clinton while they were in office? All of them saying the exact same thing?

While you are right that Bush and his people were wrong, so were the democrats.

At least be fair about these statements.
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 389
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No WMDs? Nope, just tons of uranium, some sarin gas, and the occasional buried MiG. But heck ,why would we call uranium, sarin gas rounds, and fighter jets WMD's? That might prove that the current administration was right, and that's the LAST thing the Bush bashers would admit.

From the AP last June:

"In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

"The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis," the AP said.

"Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as 'a major achievement' in an attempt to 'keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.'"

***********

"We've found 10 or 12 Sarin and Mustard rounds," Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer told Fox News, after his team uncovered the WMD cache last June.

"We're finding things and we're getting reports of hidden caches almost every day which we have to investigate," Duelfer added.

************

From the AP in August 2003:

"American teams hunting for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands, U.S. officials say.

"At least one Cold War-era MiG-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the tops of its twin tail fins poking up from the sands, said one Pentagon official familiar with the hunt. He said search teams have found several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad. ..."

The find astonished even then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman, now CIA Director, Porter Goss.

"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," Goss told the AP. "These are craft we didn't know about."

************

But heck, I guess those kinds of things aren't WMD's. Just like commercial airliners aren't weapons either…oh wait...
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 390
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bottom line, like Ron and NRE said, we had faulty intelligence that both the Clintonistas and the Bushies relied on, just that Bush followed through on the intelligence due to fears of another 9/11 whereas Clinton just worried about stained dresses. Faulty intelligence that was guaranteed as a "slam dunk" by a Clinton appointed director mind you, but that's just a technicality.

But I realize if you only get your news from the Communist News Network you'd never actually hear anything that might go against Clinton, so you guys are excused since you have been led to believe that Bush's administration dreamt all this stuff up.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 1916
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, you beg the relevant questions: does this constitute sufficient justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation that has resulted in the the loss of 1500 American lives and those of nearly 100,000 Iragis, and does it justify the military and civil occupation that continues? Has it lessened terrorism and made the world a safer place? Has it brought those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US any closer to justice, or for that matter, the architects of terrorist actions in more than a dozen other countries?

The materials cited in your post could have been found in any of about 40 nations in the world. How many others should be the target of American military involvement?
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 392
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm not sure if we are justified in being there with what we now know. The point was however that the intelligence we had at that time (which was quoted by Kerry, Clinton, Gore, and others while Bush was still in Texas) more than justified reigning in Saddam and ridding him of the weapons he had at that time. Has it lessened terrorism? I haven't looked at recent statistics, but a democratic Iraq will help stabilize the middle east.

To quote the Bush bashers, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, so no, it hasn't brought those responsible for 9/11 to justice. That operation is going on next door and is making decent headway from what I've heard.

Something needs to be done about terrorist supporting countries that have the ability to produce nucular (heh, that was supposed to be funny!) weapons, but I don't know what that is at this time.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 1918
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 01:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Now we're beginning to find some common ground, Mike. During the first presidential debate, John Kerry said he felt the single biggest threat to world peace (he didn't mention terrorism until later) was the proliferation of nuclear weapons among unstable nations that could not only use them against their neighbors but also let them fall into the hands of other groups. And I doubt Bush would greatly disagree with that assessment.

As for the faulty intelligence that reported the presence of WMDs in Iraq, we need to focus less on the president himself and more on changing the climate of validating the evidence to justify a biased conclusion rather than reaching valid conclusions supported by unbiased evidence.
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 393
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 02:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, I agree Bill. That's what really bothers me, politics are so partisan nowadays. Maybe they've always been and I just haven't paid close enough attention in the past. But anyway, the Dems and the left just want to hang Bush for Iraq. They don't seem to want to fix the system that gave him information that may have been out of date, faulty, or outright false, they just want to see him hang because he used intelligence given to him that someone in his position is supposed to trust. That's just wrong.

We'll see how Goss does with reforming the whole mess, the GOP swears he will be a good non-partisan intelligence leader, but of course the Dems say he is a partisan hack. Time will tell.
 

Dan Listermann
Advanced Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 863
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 03:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am ill convinced that the "intelligence" was not highly influenced by the strong predispositions held by the Administration.
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 394
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 04:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes Dan, I know, W just wanted to go in to Iraq to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy. I've heard it a million times parroted by the big 3, CNN, and the rest of the left out there. I ain't buying it. They're all . I've made it my way of thinking to never believe a news agency who's goal is to remove the current president and get their guy in office. They'll say anything to promote their agenda.
 

Dan Listermann
Advanced Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 864
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 07:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I suppose you can rationalize it that way, Mike.
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: Listerdister

Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 09:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Democratic amnesia. Very convenient at this stage of the power struggle.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He represents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for WMD... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with WMD is real." Sen JOHN KERRY JAN 23, 2003

“I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMD in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen JOHN KERRY OCT 9, 2002 (PRIOR TO BUSH’S CALL FOR WAR)

"Iraq's search for WMD has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that is will continue for as long as Saddam is in power" AL GORE SEPT 23, 2002

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD and the missiles to deliver them." BILL CLINTON FEB 4, 1998

"We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
AL GORE SEPT 23, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed my Iraq's WMD program." BILL CLINTON FEB 17, 1998

"He will us those WMD again, as he has ten times since 1993." SANDY BURGER (Clinton Nat Sec Adv) FEB 18, 1998.

"We have known for years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMD." Sen. TEDDY KENNEDY SEPT 27, 2002

"Iraq is a long was from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our Allies is the greatest security we face." MADELINE ALBRIGHT (Clinton Secretary of State) FEB 18, 1998

"Hussein has ...chosen to spend his money on building WMD and palaces for his cronies." MADELINE ALBRIGHT (Clinton Secretary of State) NOV 10, 1999

"Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. NANCY PELOSI DEC 16, 1998

"We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and has since embarked on a crach course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports that Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. ROBERT BYRD OCT 9, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indcate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status...... LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED BY BOB GRAHAM (Democrat FL) DEC 5, 2001

"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (Democrat, CA) OCT 10, 2002

"We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of WMD. Sen JAY ROCKEFELLER (Democrat WV) OCT 10, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMD and the means of delivering them." Sen. CARL LEVIN (Democrat MI) SEPT 19, 2002
 

Pat Riotic
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 09:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There it is - proof that it was actually the Democrats who got us into this quagmire. They were the ones calling the shots from behind the scenes and forcing the president's hand.

Everyone needs to stop questioning this president's decision to take the US to war. He has said it over and over - "The US is safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power". How many times does he have to say that in order for us all to believe it? Whether it costs 1,400 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, severs our ties with our allies around the world and creates more terrorists than it kills, this war will be worth it because this president says it was worth it. Oh, and if anything goes wrong then he can just blame it on the liberals who forced him to do it.

We all need to stop questioning this super intelligent man who was chosen by God to lead our nation. He took us to war as an absolute last resort - there were NO OTHER OPTIONS. Obviously the inspections weren't working because they were unable to find any banned weapons. War was the only answer and now we need to stay the course, because to turn back now and change our tactics would show weakness at a time when we least need to do that. Besides, the whole war idea was fault of the liberals since they were the ones calling the shots and making the tough decisions.

This president doesn't need to convince us that he has a plan to bring the troops home - he's said that many times as well, "We'll leave when the job is done". What defines "done"? Stop asking stupid questions and believe him - he'll let us know when we're done. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
 

NRE
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Pat, your post misses the point (on purpose?). The above quotes were never used to support the claim that liberals called the shots, or got us into this quagmire, or forced Bush's hand, or proved that WMDs existed, or proved we are now safer with Saddam out of power. They were in direct reponse to the post above them which stated: "I am ill convinced that the 'intelligence' was not highly influenced by the strong predispositions held by the Administration."

In addition, they effectively counter the common misconception that Bush's intelligence was partisan and intensionally misleading. Doesn't it bother you at all that the same people who claim that Bush lied to the American people were saying the same things as Bush? We cannot debate these issues productively if we are going to dismiss one another's points, ignore the fallacies of those leaders we support, and proceed disingenuously in our arguments.

I believe we ARE safer with Saddam out of power. Any time you take out a murdering dictator, you make the world a safer place. Am I wrong? Isn't this self-evident?

How can you claim that the war is creating more terrorists than it kills? Have you got some figures to back that up, or is it just a blind ideological rant? Give us the numbers and your sources, please.

I'll agree with your implicit point that there were other options than the one Bush (and Congress, don't forget) chose. Think you could have done better than our leaders? Please share your idea; how would you have done it? More "containment," appeasement, and inaction like the UN chose? Diplomatically phrased threats? Another ambiguous resolution?
 

Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 454
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

How about a 2000 pounder in his living room? Seemed to work pretty well with Khadaffi (or however the hell you spell it this week).

I don't care which of these liars you quote. They're ALL liars. They've all read the same LIES that the CIA gave them, so of course they are all going to repeat the LIES to us.

The fact is that Saddam was slowly rotting away, but unfortunately his population was taking the brunt of the sanctions. During the nineties when the sanctions were in place, it was reported that over 4,500 children died each *month* from disease and starvation due to the sanctions. Nice. That's the UN (led by the USA) that did that.

Now tell me how this is any different from a WMD? Dead people are dead people, regardless of the process. I think I'd rather be gassed and die in a few minutes than be forced starve to death or vomit up my guts over the course of a week with dysentery. Their hatred for us started long before W got his way, and it isn't based on propaganda, it's based on watching people around them DIE OFF over the course of a decade. Their sons, daughters, cousins, etc. dying from disease and starvation while the two despots duke it out. It is certain they hated Saddam, but we didn't do anything good for them either. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But we're the "good guys", right? I am not apologizing for Saddam's depravity, just pointing out the fact that we are the biggest hypocrites on the planet, and it is no wonder we are so hated worldwide. But you Bush warmongers just keep your clean little heads tucked away in the sand and deny it; maybe it will go away.

He didn't have "nucular" (I have to admit that W is one of the smartest men on the planet; only *he* knows how to pronounce "nucular") weapons, nor was Saddam even close to getting nucular weapons. (Of course, just a few miles away, Iran is quietly building plants and enriching uranium and will have nukes within the next couple of years). Sure, Iraq had some bio-weapons and also some gas. Any third-rate country can and probably does possess these. We certainly do, but remember: we're the good guys, so it's OK.

So why go after Saddam? Why not put those 150,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and get the people who have actually declared war on us and committed atrocities against us? There are less than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (at least that's what the liars tell us). I fail to understand, but please don't explain with black-and-white reasons. I've heard enough sickening GOP spin for the rest of my life, thanks.

There can be only two reasons why we invaded Iraq, and neither one has a damn thing to do with 9/11: oil is the first reason, and revenge for defying daddy is the second. It really is that simple, and given the incredibly mundane mind that runs our country, it is certainly the most plausible.

But it's OK, in four years Bush and his cronies will take their defense and Halliburton stocks back out of the trusts that they currently reside in, and they will be twice as rich as they are now. After all, why have only 100 billion dollars when you can have 200 billion just by tricking the stupid, apathetic, self-centered American populace and killing a bunch of useless Arabs? Pretty simple plan really, and nobody will be smart enough to see the obvious, especially when you feed their xenophobia at the same time. If they do protest or raise intellignet questions, just call them "un-patriotic" or "conspiracy theorists" and they will go away. And if you really want to make it work, take away all their freedoms and privacy first so you can keep an eye on them via the phone companies and Internet. It's just so freakin' OBVIOUS.
 

Tom12
Junior Member
Username: Tom12

Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 03:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There can be only two reasons why we invaded Iraq, and neither one has a damn thing to do with 9/11: oil is the first reason, and revenge for defying daddy is the second.

Would have to disagree with you their Joe. This war has nothing to do with oil or Bush's daddy, As much as I dislike Bush he is displaying US foreign policy traits that can be traced back to the conception of your Republic.

Another good viewpoint is from the program 'The Power of Nightmares' it was on BBC over here a while back, theres a good link here if you want to take a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 2028
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, it sounds a little like an extension of the "national security state" concept advanced back in the 1980s by Gore Vidal and others. According to this view, the conservative and military-industrial elements that held sway during World War II needed to create an enemy to justify their existence and control of the nation after the war was over. During the Cold War, of course this was the Soviet Union. Today it has been replaced by the threat of terrorism.
 

Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 458
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill,

Precisely, and the current situation has a player who has major interests in the military industrial complex as the President of the US. Orchestrate a war, then make a killer profit. Sweet deal for them, raw deal for the people dying (us and them).
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 414
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 06:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah, I get it, this terrorism thing is all an illusion. I just imagined 9/11, it didn't really happen. And the first Trade Center bombings. And the USS Cole. And the embassy bombings. And the Spain train bombing. And the thousands of "smaller" level terrorist attacks. All imagined I guess.

Yes, I will agree, there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. BUT, if you don't think there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism I want to know where you got those rose colored glasses.

No matter how much the left wants to believe that we are responsible for Islamic terrorism, we aren't. The radical leaders have stated and have documented that their goal is to rid the world of everyone who doesn't follow their way and believe what they believe. Their goal is worldwide radical Islamic rule. Period.
 

Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 415
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 06:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here's a good piece that seems to be the way you have to think if you hate Bush.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy slows under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

During the Clinton administration the US eliminated over 18,000 foreign correspondents (many assigned to the CIA). Way to go Bill.
Guess who the fall guy is for the poor CIA information on IRAQ. Our new sheriff George.
 

Pat Riotic
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 06:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

NRE - It is one thing to say that Saddam was a threat and quite another to take a country to war and have the reasons for that war proved to be wrong. Ultimately responsibility for that decision rests with the president since he was the one who made the decision. It sucks that it has to be that way, but saying "they said it too" doesn't hold water. If the intelligence was wrong and he didn't figure that out before the war, then he is responsible.

Does removing a murdering dictator make the world safer? Not in this case. Saddam was rendered militarily impotent by the inspections and could have been isolated indefinitely. I do believe in a general way that removing dangerous leaders from power does make the world safer, and 49% of this country tried to do that. Unfortunately the threat of hot-steamy man-love got in the way and the world will have to pay the price for four more years.

As far as the war creating more terrorists than it kills, as soon as the worldwide Gallup poll of potential terrorists is finished I'll have the data. Until that time, I believe it is safe to assume that the number of individuals willing to participate in terrorism against the US has a direct correlation to the hatred of the US. This war is responsible for increasing hatred against the US.

Could I have done better? Yep - the status quo was just fine before the war. It has been proven that the inspections were working. I suppose the occasional 2000 pound bomb in his living room might have been necessary to keep him in line. There are 1,400 dead Americans at this point, and I don't think a piece of crap like Saddam is worth that price.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 2030
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 08:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The relevant issue is not the reality of terrorism or the September 11 attacks. They were and remain threats. The point is that a climate of terror furthers certain interests in the US, in some ways ironically as much as it furthers their enemies abroad.

I'm not convinced the US removal of Saddam Hussein and current occupation of Iraq has made anywhere (Iraq, the US or the rest of the world) a safer place. It has resulted in the death of 1400 American military personnel, an expense of several hundred billion dollars and earned the US hatred in some quarters and general disdain in others. It has eroded personal freedoms and has sown the seeds for what could be a great and lasting division among Americans at home. I am trying to exercise restraint by not mentioning the "V" word.
 

Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 460
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 08:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, Mike, what you are saying is that even though you agree Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 we go after him becasue he supports terrorism in general?

Um, not a good policy. Did we do this to the leaders of the IRA? Nope, we negotiated. Did we do this to the PLO? Nope, we negotiated. We did do it to Khadaffi, and the world shunned us for quite a while. By the way, it is ILLEGAL to forcibly remove or try to assassinate a sovereign leader before he is found guilty. Pesky detail that international law is, but it exists nevertheless. But if you are the biggest bully on the block, what difference does some stupid inconvenient law make, right?

So what's different about Saddam? The old existing grudge, that's what. Oh yeah, and the oil. Don't forget about the oil because if you do, then you, my friend, have the rosiest glasses of all.

And the defense contracts. Same story, different stocks.
 

Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 461
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 09:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill,

I'll help you out:

VIETNAM

I don't mind saying it, because that's exactly what this is: yet another un-winnable quagmire. Oh, I forgot, we already won a year ago. That's right. Never mind the fact that more servicemen have died since we "won" than beforehand. That's just a "coincidence". Yeah, tell that to their families.

What's that phrase about those who don't learn from the mistakes of history?
 

Pat Riotic
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 09:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here's a good piece that seems to be the way you have to think if you love Bush.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - bad...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - good...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - bad (no oil there)...
Bush spends HALF A TRILLION in Iraq - good...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - bad (no oil)...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - good...
Clinton protects muslims from Christians in Serbia - bad (Christians don't kill people)...
Bush wastes our military strength and international goodwill to go after a two bit dictator - good...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - bad (waste of a bomb)...
Bush uses the Clinton military to bomb terrorist camps - good...

Clinton lies about a relationship - bad...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit and declares victory in an ongoing US bloodbath - good...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - bad (no oil)...
Bush launches a war to remove nonexisting WMD from Iraq - good...

No mass graves found in Serbia - bad...
No WMD found Iraq - doesn't matter...

Stock market bubble pops under Clinton - bad...
Economy slows because of Bush's mismanagement - good (the richest 1% got their tax break)...
Clinton unable to take custody of Bin Laden during a partisan impeachment proceeding - bad...
World Trade Center falls because Bush was on vacation - not his fault...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - good...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq to "wag the dog" - bad...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq under false pretenses - good...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Bush - good...
Milosevic not yet convicted - bad...
Saddam not yet convicted - good...

In the month of August 2001, Condi Rice gets a memo on her desk saying, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack within US". Bush stays on vacation, the twin towers fall, the Pentagon is attacked, thousands of Americans die, she gets promoted to Secretary of State. Way to go sheriff.
 

Ken Anderson
Advanced Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 645
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The BBC piece may tie in with the belief I've always held. That is that bungling, lazy, salary sucking American bureaucrats immediately tried to cover their asses after 9-11 by proclaiming a highly refined terrorist network was responsible. What a bunch of bullshit. Officials of the CIA, the FBI, the INS, etc, were downright embarrassed and humiliated by their ineptitude, and were trying to save face. The media bought into it hook, line and sinker (Hey, they LOVE a good story.). It's snowballed from there, and now look at the situation we're in. Pathetic.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: