krs
|
posted on March 10, 2003 12:04:50 AM new
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html
|
koto1
|
posted on March 10, 2003 01:22:37 AM new
Wow! Wonder if Dubya is going to listen to Dad.
"Who's tending the bar?  Sniping works up a thirst"
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 10, 2003 08:30:02 AM new
{{ bump for all the "righties" }}
Does this article now mean Bush Sr. is a "leftie"?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 10, 2003 08:44:13 AM new
Maybe Bush Jr. felt he had painted himself into a corner. With daddy talking like this, it could give him an out if he needs it. I'm sure they've both discussed this between themselves so this looks fishy to me. 
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 10, 2003 08:47:37 AM new
How can I put this bluntly... that is pure Bull Sh*t...
Anyone that believes that story also must believe that Elvis Lives....
Of course Daddy wants Jr. to finish what he started and should of done 12 years ago...
Roll through Iraq killing all who oppose us... then set up a real government...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
junquemama
|
posted on March 10, 2003 08:55:15 AM new
And just think about all those un-americans,hitting the streets.Or the Fonda's as they are being called.When conversations turn to name calling,the person doing the name calling is the one that needs watching.No longer can they argue a point,but display a childish game as the reason, for explanation of their reasons.I've noticed the ones who seem to be hell bent for the war,travel in packs to attack the one who thinks different from themselves.This has been going on here and other places.....This only cements my convictions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/05/politics/main542856.shtml
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 10, 2003 09:42:53 AM new
When conversations turn to name calling,the person doing the name calling is the one that needs watching.
I have been saying that about Borillar long before you posted this...
In packs? I don't see the Anti-war protestors going it alone... where is that statement coming from?
I think pro-troops are tired of anti-war protestors indirectly defacing our fine young men and women who are going to fight voluntarily... and many do support that idea... wish I could find the picture of the USS Iwo Jima from this past week, they had a nice sign hanging off their stern... supporting President Bush...
Having been in the Navy, I can tell you most are willing to go fight... after all that is what we trained to do.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 10, 2003 09:59:18 AM new
>I think pro-troops are tired of anti-war protestors indirectly defacing our fine young men and women who are going to fight voluntarily
In all of my reading and viewing FoxNews "balanced" reporting, I have yet to run across one of those articles detailing such things. Can you please relate a few incidents or expand on what you are talking about there, please? I'm confused.
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 10, 2003 09:59 AM ]
|
reamond
|
posted on March 10, 2003 10:02:31 AM new
When the shooting war starts in Iraq, some radical anti-war activists in America say they plan to move from peaceful protests to riots, destruction of property and other means to "disrupt the normal flow of life" in America.
That's the threat from organizer Leslie Cagan, the long-time Communist head of the United for Peace and Justice Coalition.
When they do turn violent and destructive it's time to call out the National Guard to shoot them dead.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31432
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 10, 2003 10:07:06 AM new
As I posted a couple of days ago, neither the extreme left (communist) nor the extreme right is peace-loving.
Irene
|
junquemama
|
posted on March 10, 2003 10:16:39 AM new
I read the artical and went to the sight,No where does the peace demonstrators call for any riot action or destroying of property.What can happen,and will happen,the opposing sides and Police will cause tempers to flair.Excuses will be made to bash heads,and shoot people.
|
krs
|
posted on March 10, 2003 10:58:02 AM new
"Having been in the Navy, I can tell you most are willing to go fight"
Too funny.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 10, 2003 11:25:42 AM new
What so funny, that the people in the military are backing their commander in chief?
Oh let me guess, your going to say something moronic about "they aren't doing the fightting"
Everyone in the Navy isn't just on ships... go figure...Ever hear of a Navy Corpsman?
Oh and I do know at least one Silver Star winner from Vietnam who is backing the attack...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 10, 2003 11:31 AM ]
|
msincognito
|
posted on March 10, 2003 12:23:28 PM new
It's because I care about the men and women of our armed forces that I oppose the current action. Saddam Hussein knows this war is against him personally and his elite Republican guard. If he does have weapons of mass destruction - nerve agents, disease bombs, etc. - Saddam and his guard have control of them and will not hesitate to use them. Cornered dogs bite - savagely. That doesn't mean you let them run free. But you do use due caution in penning them up.
Sending troops right to his doorstep is basically like going after a rabid dog with bare hands. It's all but begging for mass U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties.
I would love to read the text of the Bush, Sr. speech at Tufts. It's clear that it's being spun seven ways to Sunday, but I'm curious to know what he actually did say.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 10, 2003 12:42:34 PM new
How do you contain missles or small canisters of bio or Chem weapons smuggled out of Iraq ?
How long to you want to have troops on the Kuwait border ?
Hussein is a mad dog no matter what we do. He will use these weapons no matter what we do, and he will make them available to terrorists no matter what we do.
You do not "contain" a mad dog? You kill it at your earliest convienence.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 10, 2003 12:44 PM ]
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 10, 2003 12:44:49 PM new
I was just waiting for someone to ask. 
Here's the
speech
Irene
|
msincognito
|
posted on March 10, 2003 12:59:26 PM new
Muchas smooches, Irene. I will peruse it at the time duly alloted for perusal. .. OK, never mind, I perused it now anyway. Verrrry interesting. Without hearing tone, etc. I have to say that he was clearly ambivalent about this action ... his defining remark came at the end of the first answer in the Q&A (on whether he thought it was a good idea to go forward unilaterally: I don't know. I just don't know.)
reamond, if he was going to use them "no matter what we do," why hasn't he used them in the last two weeks?
If he uses them, he's going to use them because of what we do. It doesn't mean we're to blame for his bad acts or his retaliation, or that he gains any moral ground. This is not a moral issue. It's a practical cause-and-effect one.
After reading the former President's remarks, I'm even more convinced of that. He raises a point I had not considered. Without the threat of U.S. military aggression, there would never have been the wave of anti-war sentiment across Europe and the Middle East. Has that "ripple" fed Saddam's intransigence and made a peaceful solution even less likely?
For me, the Bush administration is guilty of criminal stupidity and the reckless way it endangers the lives of the troops, the innocent bystanders and all the people who will die or suffer if the Middle East destabilizes. That's assuming that they believe what they do will be effective. If the real goal is to bargain the horrible deaths of Americans and civilians for money and power ... well ... you can judge the morality of that for yourself.
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 10, 2003 01:14 PM ]
|
colin
|
posted on March 10, 2003 01:48:30 PM new
The answers to all these problems is a simple one. All you anti Bush people should run for political office.
The only way change will be made is through the political system.
You could get elected to maybe something as minor as a Congress person to begin with, Tell the congress what your bill is and they would all vote it in.
Seeing your brilliance and commitment, the senate would stamp it with their seal of approval.
Oh, Oh, Bush would still be President. Your screwed.
Well, it seemed like the American thing to do.
Better stick to your hate Bush rhetoric on the boards for a while longer. Maybe someone will listen and ask YOU to run for President.
Amen,
It's a start in the Right direction,
Reverend Colin
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 10, 2003 01:56:00 PM new
"Sending troops right to his doorstep is basically like going after a rabid dog with bare hands. It's all but begging for mass U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties."
One thing that always amazes me is the number of people who would classify themselves as "liberal" who also feel they are much more clever than our military leadership.
|
msincognito
|
posted on March 10, 2003 01:56:06 PM new
You think Congress is minor?.
|
msincognito
|
posted on March 10, 2003 01:57:07 PM new
Actually, DeSquirrel, much of "our military leadership" agrees with me. (Or, to be more accurate, I agree with them.)
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 10, 2003 01:57 PM ]
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 10, 2003 02:04:22 PM new
Who in the military agrees that we should be afraid of Hussein and therefore should stay away and do nothing ?
There are those in the military that have said we should be prepared for Hussein unleashing weapons he is not supposed to have, but I haven't heard any say that we should retreat from Iraq out of fear.
|
junquemama
|
posted on March 10, 2003 03:12:03 PM new
reamond,Take the "fear" part out of the end of your sentence for the reasoning of not going to war.No one is afraid of Saddam.There are more far-reaching problems that none of you have, or can address.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 10, 2003 06:13:03 PM new
No there isn't.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 10, 2003 06:26:59 PM new
NO, I think Reamond hit it pretty good... just fear of something that "may" happen is what is keeping some from doing the right thing.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
