posted on January 29, 2003 05:22:23 PM new
I guess one question I'd like answered by those PRO Saddam....is can you name one or two democrats who have said Saddam SHOULDN'T be removed from power? I haven't. Have you heard one say they KNOW Saddam doesn't have these weapons? I haven't.
So the only issue we're really in disagreement on is whether or not our government should continue to play the 12 year long waiting game....or end this issue now.
Of course, Helen, I know you won't answer....you don't answer questions you can't.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:23:22 PM new
That's precisely the point. It should not be the up to the spokesman of the oil industry to decide how many poor American kids will be sacrificed for a few barrels of oil.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:23:48 PM new
I just cant watch Fox news. Brit hume's face is sunk in like he is always sucking a lemon...john gibsons toupee is always on half cocked, and the females set with their legs spread open. Then you got the beltway boys 2 republicans making sense out of nothing, and dont forget oliver north shredding papers in the back.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:29:22 PM new
blairwitch - Did you miss Borillar's post where he stated the dems are looking for a "Rush Limbaugh" type for the democratic side? Hummmmm wonder why they'd feel the need to do that?
posted on January 29, 2003 05:37:52 PM new
davebraun said,
"That's precisely the point. It should not be the up to the spokesman of the oil industry to decide how many poor American kids will be sacrificed for a few barrels of oil."
And Linda,
your answer, "Shouldn't be. Well it is."
Linda, Don't you see the injustice in your position. Why should poor American kids be sacrificed for Bush's barrels of oil???
BTW, Those who oppose this war are not PRO SADDAM.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:49:24 PM new
Ba-Da-Boom
"I'll never forget that horrible evening I took my grandmother to the emergency room. After an hour of pacing, the doctor said, 'Sir, your grandmother is on an artificial life support system. Although her brain is dead, her heart is still beating.' I said, 'Oh, NO! We've never had a Democrat in the family before."
----------------------------
The Security Gap
"A survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, released last week, found that on the issue of keeping America strong, voters prefer Republicans by 50 percent to 22 percent. On the issue of national safety, Republicans are supported 54 percent to 16 percent, he said."
- Washington Times, 1/27/03
------------------------------
Getting' Pretty Hot in White House Kitchen
"Polls indicate popular support for the military action against Iraq is fading, and that most Americans do not favor an attack without U.N. approval. But the president knows this is meaningless. It is normal and natural for there to be jitters when war is near. The president knows that if the war goes badly, he'll be in political trouble even if the U.N. Security Council unanimously blessed the attack. And Mr. Bush knows that if the war goes well, those who are criticizing him now will be trying to convince people they were actually always really on his side. Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan."
- Columnist Jack Kelly
---------------------------------
Does this mean war? Not exactly. It's a misconception that the decision now facing America and the U.N. is whether to go to war with Iraq. The U.S. and the U.N. are already at war with Iraq, and they have been for 12 years. There was no surrender or peace treaty that ended the Gulf War; instead, the allies accepted a cease-fire predicated upon Iraq's compliance with a series of demands, embodied in various U.N. resolutions, concerning disarmament, human rights, sanctions, reparations to Kuwait, repatriation of war criminals, etc. These restrictions are supposed to be temporary: Baghdad's compliance was to restore both peace and Iraq's sovereignty.
Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the U.N. demands has turned the Gulf War into a 12-year-long cold war. America must now decide whether to prolong the war or to end it--and the only realistic way of ending it is regime change, which will probably require military conquest.
Iraq could have ended the war by complying in full with the U.N. resolutions, and President Bush generously went out of his way to keep this possibility open. (The U.N. could also end the war by dropping its demands and normalizing relations with Iraq--probably the outcome France and Germany would like--but that is not a realistic option. The U.S. would veto any such move in the Security Council on the sensible grounds that a fully sovereign Saddam would be as much of a menace as he was in 1990.)
posted on January 29, 2003 05:56:12 PM newLinda, Don't you see the injustice in your position. Why should poor American kids be sacrificed for Bush's barrels of oil???
Its an All Volunteer Military there is no draft. No 'boys or men' are being forced by the govt to serve. They signed up, they signed up to serve their country, they read the small print. It wasn't small print! They knew that if they were called up to serve, they would have to. Sure there are tons of people that enlist to get an education, but they knew that this is the Military, and what does a military do? You figure it out... I gotta go out.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:25:22 PM new
It is no loger an "All Volunteer Military" those who have finished their hitch are not being discharged they are having their period of service extended.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:34:15 PM new
>blairwitch - Did you miss Borillar's post where he stated the dems are looking for a "Rush Limbaugh" type for the democratic side?
Linda, I'm sure that your misquoting me was unintentional. I forgive you.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:38:34 PM new
>Its an All Volunteer Military there is no draft. No 'boys or men' are being forced by the govt to serve. They signed up, they signed up to serve their country, they read the small print.
NTS, no one is arguing that. Your point is way off-base to the discussion that you directed that remark towards.
Certainly, every volunteer knows that they might be required to fight and to risk loosing their lives. It is a risk and a wiling one if the cause is just.
Dieing for barrels of oil is not a just cause, no matter how you paint it.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:22:59 PM new
Borillar - Sorry I didn't make my point very well. You said: "A debate came up last week that I thought was both interesting and also, very telling about the political climate in America. The question was, "Would Liberals like to have a Rush Limbaugh-type radio personality?" Since Rush has done so much to promote the Republican Party and the Ultra-Right agenda so successfully, it was a question of whether Liberals would also benefit from such an entertainment personality spewing out their own demagoguery. And then stated you didn't believe they needed to do that.
But the debate you spoke of has been mentioned both in press and on TV. And there have been those who are against Bush policies that believe this IS necessary. That's what I should have stated.
Anyone who believes after 12 years we need to give the inspectors more time is acting in Saddam's best interests....he's been exceptional at stalling what he agreed to do in 1991....and therefore, imo, is pro-Saddam because they are supporting a continuation of this 'game'.
But come on, Borilla. Name me one democrat who has publically made a statement saying Saddam doesn't have these weapons. Name me one democrat who has said we should not go to war. Bet you can't. Most of the dems just want to 'play' politics with our country's safety by prolonging the inspections.....
Off to watch Greta
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 29, 2003 07:25 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 07:53:15 PM new
The Dems are indeed playing politics, just as the rest of the politicans do; i.e. the Repubs.
I thought that your first request was rhetorical in nature. After all, isn't it plainly obvious to everyone how the Dems chose to go about this? They can fight against this action without being called unPatriotic by supporting it on the one hand and supporting a blocking movement on the other. If pressed, they can site Bush the Elder's Gulf War coalition, common sense, and a host of analysists and prestigious people whom all state that we should not act unilaterrally.
It's a great, fail-safe political position to be in to go agasinst the republican War juggernaut. I wholeheartely approve of such a political play, as it is about time that they stop acting like scared fish in a barrel.
posted on January 29, 2003 08:25:47 PM newAfter all, isn't it plainly obvious to everyone how the Dems chose to go about this? They can fight against this action without being called unPatriotic by supporting it on the one hand and supporting a blocking movement on the other.
No I don't believe it is. And I don't find you liking it very funny either. We have tens of thousands of troops that are overseas. Taken away from their families, jobs, life. You find playing politics at a time like this amusing? I don't. It stinks to me and in the long run I believe it will end up hurting the democratic party. Don't think others don't see what's gone on. More obstructionism by the dems.
posted on January 29, 2003 09:14:17 PM new
There is no weapon of Mass Destruction – It is the Oil.
This whole plot was set up from 2000 after Bush was selected as president. Afghanistan was a minor part of the ultimate objective. The objective was to get the oil in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The US population and the rest of the world would not support an unjust war to conquer other countries for oil to satisfy the pockets of the elites. Bush & Company needed a reason to get the US and the world population angry enough to support a war.
To do this the CIA with the help of the Mossads plotted and orchestrated the hijacking of the planes and the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/2001. This gives Bush & Co. the excuse to invade Afghanistan and get the pipeline laid. (Osama Bin Laden is no longer a priority, and never was).
The next target is Iraq, when that is done, it will be Iran, and then the CIA will assist in some disturbance or uprising in Saudi Arabia that will kill the monarch. The US military already in the region will move in to calm things down and restore peace. They will install their puppet regime and control the oil.
This will give Bush & Co control over 2/3 of the world oil supply and will be able to dictate which country gets oil and at what price. Meanwhile Israel will get to eliminate the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslims from the Middle East and convert the region into a Jewish colony.
posted on January 29, 2003 09:24:38 PM newTo do this the CIA with the help of the Mossads plotted and orchestrated the hijacking of the planes and the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/2001.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:57:44 PM new
God Helen, you call that someone with a brain? WTF?
To do this the CIA with the help of the Mossads plotted and orchestrated the hijacking of the planes and the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/2001. This gives Bush & Co. the excuse to invade Afghanistan and get the pipeline laid. (Osama Bin Laden is no longer a priority, and never was).
Jesus H. Christ. I don't believe we're hearing this #*!@. Its not just Anti American.... its frikking heartless to say the least.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:03:31 PM new
if that is krs posing as kennycam, well, if it is you KRS, then this is f*cked up, totally. If it isn't, well I apologize.
posted on January 30, 2003 01:00:59 AM new
>To do this the CIA with the help of the Mossads plotted and orchestrated the hijacking of the planes and the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/2001.
I'd also be interested in knowing what the source of these allegations are. While efforts to enquire deeply into 9-11 and the role that our own government played up to then, including Herr Busche have been buried and hushed up, I would only hope that it isn't based upon just more opinion. Certainly, if kennycam could let us know on what he is basing his conclusions on it wold be a big help.
NTS, I can hardly believe you're being "shocked" at what kennycam said. After you've been on here and seen all of the reports and discusssions that have come through here in the past years, what kennycam had to say is only being repeated by many, many Americans. So, please -- no more theatrics.
posted on January 30, 2003 06:37:56 AM newDon't ever take what I say here as an indication of how I really feel.
Helen
rememberthat!
Helen
Yes, NTS, unless it's the subject about parents not being blamed for nor held responsible for their childrens actions. Then she means it.... and she's *very* sensitive about that subject.
Only NearTheSea and I know what I'm really talking about, Linda.
It takes a certain kind of mentality to worshipfully fall at the feet of George Bush and believe with all your heart and soul every word and every lie and dumb remark.
May you someday wake up and see the light.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 30, 2003 07:24 AM ]
posted on January 30, 2003 07:22:53 AM new
A Large Presidency Bush isn't overreaching, he's taking on the big problems of our day.
In two short years the liberal establishment has changed its view of President Bush from a not-so-bright scion without an agenda to an evil, even radical, genius. The new view is just as false as the old, but after listening to his State of the Union speech, we can understand their anxiety: They're afraid the Bush project might succeed.
This clearly isn't a mini-me Presidency, à la Bill Clinton and Dick Morris. Mr. Bush laid out an agenda on Tuesday night for transforming both U.S. national security and domestic policy. If successful, it would represent one of the more consequential six-month periods in recent American history. Instead of shrinking from the challenges of the day, or passing them down to future Presidents, Mr. Bush is bidding to use his November victory and high political standing to accomplish things worthy of his office.
Well it is.
