PDA

View Full Version : WTF?


Jeremy
03-12-2008, 06:24 PM
The former president said Mr. Obama has consistently argued "that anybody who did anything in the 1990s should be eliminated from being president in this decade. ... It just wasn't all that good and we just need to make a whole new beginning.

What the hell is Obama talking about? Is he really that deluded?

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 06:25 PM
link? this its real

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 06:29 PM
Clintons in Western Pa (http://post-gazette.com/pg/08072/864340-176.stm)

Change is overrated -- if it's change from the last eight years of the 1990s.

That was the message former President Bill Clinton kept hammering home yesterday during his first campaign trip for his wife through Western Pennsylvania, reminding voters of the peace and prosperity of his two terms in office and taking aim at the promises of change by her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

The former president said Mr. Obama has consistently argued "that anybody who did anything in the 1990s should be eliminated from being president in this decade. ... It just wasn't all that good and we just need to make a whole new beginning.

"Well," Mr. Clinton said to the approval of 2,200 people at Washington and Jefferson College, "I think there's a big difference between the 1990s and this decade, and I think Americans were better off."

Yesterday's remarks provided a clue to how the Clinton campaign will use the former president in Pennsylvania in the six-week run to the April 22 primary. He is popular here, having won the state in 1992 and 1996.

Still biting his signature lower lip at age 61, the former president can and will talk at length about his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's stands on fundamental issues like the economy, fuel prices and foreign policy, and how the challenges were similar to those he faced taking office in 1993. He spent half his time at the senior center fielding detailed questions about health care.

"Having him on stage to deliver [Mrs. Clinton's] message, and explain to people how she will bring about the change she's talking about, is an incredible resource," said Mark Nevins, a Clinton spokesman.

The former president is popular around Pittsburgh, said Allegheny County Democratic Committee Chairman Jim Burn, partially because he "comes from a very tough background, a hard-working family, a struggling family, and there are a lot of struggling families around here."

"People can relate to Bill Clinton because there's a lot of families like Bill Clinton's in Western Pennsylvania."

Not all the talk among voters yesterday was about the economy. There was also a strong vein of foreign policy nostalgia for the years before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The world liked [Mr. Clinton]. That's the most important thing right now," said Pat Carter, 66, of Claysville, as she waited to get into the college event.

"He left the world in better shape," agreed Frances White, 69, who waited three hours in the frigid early morning weather to hear the former president talk.

Early poll results, support from Gov. Ed Rendell and Mr. Clinton's popularity all contribute to Mrs. Clinton's status as the front-runner in the primary. That status is making the Clinton campaign somewhat boastful about her chances in the state -- the nomination "all comes down in no small measure to how she does in Pennsylvania," Mr. Clinton said yesterday -- and driving the Obama camp to play down expectations.

"I would expect that they will win this state," the Obama campaign's communications director, Robert Gibbs, told the Web site Politico. "It is the next state but it is not going to be the determinative state."

The front-runner status may also help keep the headstrong Mr. Clinton in check.

The former president likely hurt his wife's standing among black voters when he compared Mr. Obama's January win in the South Carolina primary to wins there by Jesse Jackson in the 1990s -- leaving the suggestion to some that the senator from Illinois appeals only to blacks, but not the country as a whole.

Since then he has taken a back seat, publicly, in his wife's campaign, and her big-state wins last week in the Ohio and Texas primaries may keep that strategy in place. His wife's campaign isn't worried about him freelancing, Mr. Nevins said.

"I don't think there's any need to. He knows Sen. Clinton better than anyone and he's more capable than anyone -- except Sen. Clinton -- at explaining her plans and her agenda," he said.

Still, he wasn't elected to those two terms in the 1990s by keeping his mouth shut, so who knows? In six long weeks on the campaign trail, anything can happen.

"At the end of the day, everybody knows why he's here," Mr. Burn said. "You never know what he's going to say, which is all the more reason to go and be at these events."

Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1581.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 06:37 PM
Clintons in Western Pa (http://post-gazette.com/pg/08072/864340-176.stm)

Change is overrated -- if it's change from the last eight years of the 1990s.

That was the message former President Bill Clinton kept hammering home yesterday during his first campaign trip for his wife through Western Pennsylvania, reminding voters of the peace and prosperity of his two terms in office and taking aim at the promises of change by her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

The former president said Mr. Obama has consistently argued "that anybody who did anything in the 1990s should be eliminated from being president in this decade. ... It just wasn't all that good and we just need to make a whole new beginning.

"Well," Mr. Clinton said to the approval of 2,200 people at Washington and Jefferson College, "I think there's a big difference between the 1990s and this decade, and I think Americans were better off."

Yesterday's remarks provided a clue to how the Clinton campaign will use the former president in Pennsylvania in the six-week run to the April 22 primary. He is popular here, having won the state in 1992 and 1996.

Still biting his signature lower lip at age 61, the former president can and will talk at length about his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's stands on fundamental issues like the economy, fuel prices and foreign policy, and how the challenges were similar to those he faced taking office in 1993. He spent half his time at the senior center fielding detailed questions about health care.

"Having him on stage to deliver [Mrs. Clinton's] message, and explain to people how she will bring about the change she's talking about, is an incredible resource," said Mark Nevins, a Clinton spokesman.

The former president is popular around Pittsburgh, said Allegheny County Democratic Committee Chairman Jim Burn, partially because he "comes from a very tough background, a hard-working family, a struggling family, and there are a lot of struggling families around here."

"People can relate to Bill Clinton because there's a lot of families like Bill Clinton's in Western Pennsylvania."

Not all the talk among voters yesterday was about the economy. There was also a strong vein of foreign policy nostalgia for the years before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The world liked [Mr. Clinton]. That's the most important thing right now," said Pat Carter, 66, of Claysville, as she waited to get into the college event.

"He left the world in better shape," agreed Frances White, 69, who waited three hours in the frigid early morning weather to hear the former president talk.

Early poll results, support from Gov. Ed Rendell and Mr. Clinton's popularity all contribute to Mrs. Clinton's status as the front-runner in the primary. That status is making the Clinton campaign somewhat boastful about her chances in the state -- the nomination "all comes down in no small measure to how she does in Pennsylvania," Mr. Clinton said yesterday -- and driving the Obama camp to play down expectations.

"I would expect that they will win this state," the Obama campaign's communications director, Robert Gibbs, told the Web site Politico. "It is the next state but it is not going to be the determinative state."

The front-runner status may also help keep the headstrong Mr. Clinton in check.

The former president likely hurt his wife's standing among black voters when he compared Mr. Obama's January win in the South Carolina primary to wins there by Jesse Jackson in the 1990s -- leaving the suggestion to some that the senator from Illinois appeals only to blacks, but not the country as a whole.

Since then he has taken a back seat, publicly, in his wife's campaign, and her big-state wins last week in the Ohio and Texas primaries may keep that strategy in place. His wife's campaign isn't worried about him freelancing, Mr. Nevins said.

"I don't think there's any need to. He knows Sen. Clinton better than anyone and he's more capable than anyone -- except Sen. Clinton -- at explaining her plans and her agenda," he said.

Still, he wasn't elected to those two terms in the 1990s by keeping his mouth shut, so who knows? In six long weeks on the campaign trail, anything can happen.

"At the end of the day, everybody knows why he's here," Mr. Burn said. "You never know what he's going to say, which is all the more reason to go and be at these events."

Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1581.

wow thats interesting, i stand corrected

Preacher
03-12-2008, 06:45 PM
I find it fascinating when the Clintons are now the recipients of the same kind of over-generalizing and rewriting of history that they portrayed on the 1980's.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 06:50 PM
I find it fascinating when the Clintons are now the recipients of the same kind of over-generalizing and rewriting of history that they portrayed on the 1980's.

Every administration has it's share of succes and failure. For someone like Obama to dismiss what Clinton did during his time in the White House is politics at it's worst. That kind of delusion is what will probably drive me to McCain come November.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 06:50 PM
If anyone on the boards is a Clinton fan

Look up "Hillary The Movie"
Very informative move made recently that will make you wish you never voted for her.

Preacher
03-12-2008, 06:58 PM
If anyone on the boards is a Clinton fan

Look up "Hillary The Movie"
Very informative move made recently that will make you wish you never voted for her.

Please Please PLEASE tell me it isn't a "Documentary" Michael Moore style.

As much as I dislike her, I CRINGE at the idea of SHEER Joseph Goebbels propaganda machine movies of Michael Moore, and (assuming that this is the same) this kind of movie.

We won't get back to decent politics until this kind of stuff is laughed off the public stage.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 07:26 PM
it isnt micheal moore its all real stuff legitimate just saw it today

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 07:34 PM
it isnt micheal moore its all real stuff legitimate just saw it today

Legit....with a conservative twist. :wink02:

revefsreleets
03-12-2008, 07:39 PM
WTF? is correct. Obama never said anything like this, and there isn't a single shred of evidence other than an editors headline and some speculative extrapolation to suggest otherwise.

Read it again. The "quote" is from slick Willie. Newsflash: If Bill Clinton makes up some shit, it isn't true. Christ, people, question the source.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 07:43 PM
WTF? is correct. Obama never said anything like this, and there isn't a single shred of evidence other than an editors headline and some speculative extrapolation to suggest otherwise.

Read it again. The "quote" is from slick Willie. Newsflash: If Bill Clinton makes up some shit, it isn't true. Christ, people, question the source.


Obama, however, didn't quite say that about Reagan. Here's what he did say: "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." More: "I think [John] Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we?re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren?t working. We?re bogged down in the same arguments that we?ve been having, and they?re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it?s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/21/595208.aspx

You're right, he never said anything like that. Obama is an idiot who's playing to the right and it's not going to work.

silver & black
03-12-2008, 07:44 PM
Please Please PLEASE tell me it isn't a "Documentary" Michael Moore style.

As much as I dislike her, I CRINGE at the idea of SHEER Joseph Goebbels propaganda machine movies of Michael Moore, and (assuming that this is the same) this kind of movie.

We won't get back to decent politics until this kind of stuff is laughed off the public stage.

I don't see it ending any time soon. What do you expect from a general population that is enamored with the likes of Jerry Springer?

silver & black
03-12-2008, 07:45 PM
Legit....with a conservative twist. :wink02:

No different than MM's stuff... with a liberal twist.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 07:46 PM
No different tham MM's stuff... with a liberal twist.

Sure.....Moore is the biggest idiot in America right now. He does more damage than he does good with his terrible movies. I wish people like him and Al Franken would just go ahead and move to France.

silver & black
03-12-2008, 07:47 PM
Sure.....Moore is the biggest idiot in America right now. He does more damage than he does good with his terrible movies. I wish people like him and Al Franken would just go ahead and move to France.

I'll be damned... we actually agree on something!

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 07:51 PM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/21/595208.aspx

You're right, he never said anything like that. Obama is an idiot who's playing to the right and it's not going to work.

???

You are correct - Obama's conduct is so much less reputable than someone who loaned $5 million dollars to her own campaign campaigning as a working class hero while droppin' her Gs while stump speaking (think she picked up that habit at Wellesley or was trained to speak that way at Yale Law?).

If it is not working i guess we will find out in November

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 07:51 PM
I'll be damned... we actually agree on something!

I'm not a raging liberal the way some idiots on here seem to think I am. I'm very much a moderate who hates all these extremist idiots on both sides need to shut up. Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Franken, Moore, etc have all done serious damage to the civil exchange of ideas in this country.

Preacher
03-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Funny,

What Obama is saying is correct.

JFK and Reagan both put the country on a fundamentally different path than their predecessors.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Funny,

What Obama is saying is correct.

JFK and Reagan both put the country on a fundamentally different path than their predecessors.

Different isn't better, it's just different.

silver & black
03-12-2008, 07:58 PM
I'm not a raging liberal the way some idiots on here seem to think I am. I'm very much a moderate who hates all these extremist idiots on both sides need to shut up. Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Franken, Moore, etc have all done serious damage to the civil exchange of ideas in this country.

I think that most of America is moderate... leaning slightly right or left. I don't know too many people that are in the extreme, one way or the other. Unfortunately, its the extereme that gets the publicity.

ShutDown24
03-12-2008, 08:02 PM
Lol, genius Barack!

All serious presidential candidates are a joke at this point. I'm not sure if I even want to vote. I feel obligated to do so, but honestly, if people think Bush was such a train wreck don't expect much over the next four-eight years...

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 08:03 PM
I think that most of America is moderate... leaning slightly right or left. I don't know too many people that are in the extreme, one way or the other. Unfortunately, its the extereme that gets the publicity.

It's the extreme that chooses the candidates as well. Not through the primary system, but through the selection that happens before that. Neither party wants to run a moderate out there because they're afraid it will alienate their base.

I'll vote the candidate who I feel is the most moderate. Here's a hint though, it isn't going to be Obama. The way he's run his campaign makes me feel sleazy.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 08:06 PM
It's the extreme that chooses the candidates as well. Not through the primary system, but through the selection that happens before that. Neither party wants to run a moderate out there because they're afraid it will alienate their base.

I'll vote the candidate who I feel is the most moderate. Here's a hint though, it isn't going to be Obama. The way he's run his campaign makes me feel sleazy.

So I guess if you vote only for non-sleazy candidates it will be for McCain or nobody?

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 08:10 PM
So I guess if you vote only for non-sleazy candidates it will be for McCain or nobody?

If I voted for only non-sleazy candidates, I would vote for Kermit the Frog. McCain has quite a bit of scum on his reputation.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 08:53 PM
If I voted for only non-sleazy candidates, I would vote for Kermit the Frog. McCain has quite a bit of scum on his reputation.

Sorry for the confusion, but you said

I'll vote the candidate who I feel is the most moderate. Here's a hint though, it isn't going to be Obama. The way he's run his campaign makes me feel sleazy.


Seems to me the sleaze factor is a legitimate consideration for you, which would seem to eliminate HRC. If that doesn't do it, I assume (incorrectly?) you do not see lunch pail Hill as the most moderate.

If not Obama and not HRC, if you intend to vote doesn't that pretty much leave it down to "St. John of Arizona" ?(George Will's line, not mine)

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 09:02 PM
Politics ruins all of us! aHHH

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 09:41 PM
Sorry for the confusion, but you said

I'll vote the candidate who I feel is the most moderate. Here's a hint though, it isn't going to be Obama. The way he's run his campaign makes me feel sleazy.


Seems to me the sleaze factor is a legitimate consideration for you, which would seem to eliminate HRC. If that doesn't do it, I assume (incorrectly?) you do not see lunch pail Hill as the most moderate.

If not Obama and not HRC, if you intend to vote doesn't that pretty much leave it down to "St. John of Arizona" ?(George Will's line, not mine)

There are always third party candidates.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 09:53 PM
Sorry for the confusion, but you said

I'll vote the candidate who I feel is the most moderate. Here's a hint though, it isn't going to be Obama. The way he's run his campaign makes me feel sleazy.


Seems to me the sleaze factor is a legitimate consideration for you, which would seem to eliminate HRC. If that doesn't do it, I assume (incorrectly?) you do not see lunch pail Hill as the most moderate.

If not Obama and not HRC, if you intend to vote doesn't that pretty much leave it down to "St. John of Arizona" ?(George Will's line, not mine)

Can you explain why you dont like Obama i am interested? :computer:

lilyoder6
03-12-2008, 10:00 PM
i thought bush was a good president and the times we went thru him... and personally i think that mcCain is the best bet since he knows the lives of military and the ppl.. i mean he was a pow for 8 yrs or so...

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 10:02 PM
yea but mcain wants the troops to stay longer in the war, which mean more mothers and familys with out their brother, fathers and sons.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 10:26 PM
Can you explain why you dont like Obama i am interested? :computer:

I do like Obama (in addition to a straight donation I also have a T-shirt purchased for $20.08 + shipping at http://store.barackobama.com/) - I was responding to Jeremy's post

The Wicked Witch Of The West is the candidate I loathe

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 10:29 PM
oh haha yea I as well donated to Obamas campaign

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 10:37 PM
yea but mcain wants the troops to stay longer in the war, which mean more mothers and familys with out their brother, fathers and sons.

Make no mistake....we're going to be in Iraq for a long time no matter who's elected President.

As far as Obama goes, I don't like people who pretend to be a Republican or a Democrat but sell out their own party for a few votes from the middle. It insults my intelligence. Obama is a Republican who used a D to get votes from the left. I think he'd be about 100 times worse than Bush could ever be.

GBMelBlount
03-12-2008, 10:39 PM
[B]Lol, genius Barack!

All serious presidential candidates are a joke at this point. I'm not sure if I even want to vote.



I personally am not overly happy with the choices but I am still going to vote. Though only a few are front page news, there are probably 20+ major issues one can consider when deciding between candidates. There will be alot of differences between the two major candidates come election time so IMO anyone who has issues that are important to them can probably pick a candidate they feel is best for them IF they do their homework.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 10:45 PM
Make no mistake....we're going to be in Iraq for a long time no matter who's elected President.

As far as Obama goes, I don't like people who pretend to be a Republican or a Democrat but sell out their own party for a few votes from the middle. It insults my intelligence. Obama is a Republican who used a D to get votes from the left. I think he'd be about 100 times worse than Bush could ever be.
If your going to insult a candidate back your self up, Obama is a great candidate and knows what hes doing.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 10:50 PM
If your going to insult a candidate back your self up, Obama is a great candidate and knows what hes doing.

Your "great candidate" doesn't even bother talking about the military on his website. What a great man you have there. I'm sure going to vote for a guy who pays more attention to disabled than he does to the military.

Be careful what you wish for.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 10:55 PM
Your "great candidate" doesn't even bother talking about the military on his website. What a great man you have there. I'm sure going to vote for a guy who pays more attention to disabled than he does to the military.

Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_52.php

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:01 PM
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_52.php

Yikes.....now I'm sure I won't be voting for him.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 11:01 PM
Hell yea Atlanta Dan ! Get your facts right jeremy , and Jeez big sig you have there what do you have against our next president?

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:02 PM
Hell yea Atlanta Dan ! Get your facts right jeremy , and Jeez big sig you have there what do you have against our next president?

Nothing, I like John McCain just fine. Obama is a total fraud, but McCain is a good guy.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:04 PM
Yikes.....now I'm sure I won't be voting for him.

Disagreeing with someone's position is not the same as saying he is not discussing the issue.

In my line of work making a statement that is easily disproved tends to undermine the argument:smile:

fansince'76
03-12-2008, 11:06 PM
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

So which is it? Will he keep troops in Iraq, or bring them home? And I'm sorry, it will take more than a skeleton-crew armed embassy guard to carry out offensives against al Qaeda. Sorry, still don't trust this guy.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 11:08 PM
Who do you trust?

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:08 PM
Disagreeing with someone's position is not the same as saying he is not discussing the issue.

In my line of work making a statement that is easily disproved tends to undermine the argument:smile:

In my line of work, staying on message is important as well. Obama has made statements that he would strip down the military. But his website says he wants a larger military.

Like I said, he's a fraud.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:08 PM
McCain has quite a bit of scum on his reputation.

But he's a good guy and you like him just fine?:toofunny:

At least try to keep your stories straight in the same thread:smile:

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:11 PM
So which is it? Will he keep troops in Iraq, or bring them home? And I'm sorry, it will take more than a skeleton-crew armed embassy guard to carry out offensives against al Qaeda. Sorry, still don't trust this guy.

So you want to buy into this?

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:12 PM
But he's a good guy and you like him just fine?:toofunny:

At least try to keep your stories straight in the same thread:smile:

We all have scum on us. Some of us more than others.

Just because someone has some dirt on them doesn't mean I like them any less. Besides, when you compare McCain to the Democratic Wonder Twins, he looks like George Figgin Washington.

fansince'76
03-12-2008, 11:12 PM
Who do you trust?

None of them, frankly. They're all saying whatever they think the voters want to hear. I will be at the polls in November voting for what I think is the lesser of two evils (as usual) which is a damn shame.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:14 PM
So you want to buy into this?

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

Let me just say SCREW Iraq. I hope those people drown in their own shit. If it means one more American dead, I am totally opposed to one more dead American for those people.

fansince'76
03-12-2008, 11:14 PM
So you want to buy into this?

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

I think it beats saying "I'm gonna bring 'em home - wait, no, I'm not."

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:15 PM
None of them, frankly. They're all saying whatever they think the voters want to hear. I will be at the polls in November voting for what I think is the lesser of two evils (as usual) which is a damn shame.

I dunno - I have given $$ to McCain in 2000 & Barack this year.

Last time I voted for a candidate I actually admired was The Gipper, IMO McCain and Obama both are a little less craven than most politicos.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:17 PM
I think it beats saying "I'm gonna bring 'em home - wait, no, I'm not."

But do you see any prospect of troop levels increasing? This seems like pandering to the "back our boys to the grave" crowd.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:20 PM
But do you see any prospect of troop levels increasing? This seems like pandering to the "back our boys to the grave" crowd.

Here's what I want. I want someone to come out and say, I want an America that's safe for Americans and not an Iraq that's safe for Iraqis. If someone would say that, I would go door to door for them.

Atlanta Dan
03-12-2008, 11:25 PM
Let me just say SCREW Iraq. I hope those people drown in their own shit. If it means one more American dead, I am totally opposed to one more dead American for those people.

So I guess that link does not increase McCain's good guy points?

FWIW I agree completely that we not throw more brave lives down the drain there :cheers:

tony hipchest
03-12-2008, 11:27 PM
speaking of backing up ones argument with facts...

If your going to insult a candidate back your self up, Obama is a great candidate and knows what hes doing.

:sofunny: ...texasfan just pulled a "jeremy" on jeremy.

this could get really funny.

:popcorn:

(btw- Richardson in '12)

theres still hope, even if things can get more *filtered* up than they already are.

fansince'76
03-12-2008, 11:31 PM
But do you see any prospect of troop levels increasing? This seems like pandering to the "back our boys to the grave" crowd.

Possibly and unfortunately, yes. What I don't want anymore of is doublespeak like I highlighted previously. Did I support the invasion? No. However, now that we're there, we're obligated as a country to see things through, and that's not going to be easy.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:31 PM
So I guess that link does not increase McCain's good guy points?

FWIW I agree completely that we not throw more brave lives down the drain there :cheers:

I've "planted my flag" on this election. McCain seems to want an Iraq and safe for Iraqis. I personally don't care about that. I think that whole region can drown in shit and nobody would care. The only reason we tolerate those people is because we're addicted to oil.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:32 PM
Possibly and unfortunately, yes. What I don't want anymore of is doublespeak like I highlighted previously. Did I support the invasion? No. However, now that we're there, we're obligated as a country to see things through, and that's not going to be easy.

No, we're not. We did what we set out to do. It's too bad for them that their country has descended in to Civil War, but that's not our problem.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 11:39 PM
ok ok guys i can settle this all.... Bill Cowher for President!!!

fansince'76
03-12-2008, 11:44 PM
No, we're not. We did what we set out to do. It's too bad for them that their country has descended in to Civil War, but that's not our problem.

Hell, if I had the answers, I'D be running for prez. :smile: The Iraq situation is a mess.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:46 PM
Hell, if I had the answers, I'D be running for prez. :smile: The Iraq situation is a mess.

A bad plan marred by yes men and bad execution. Our ground troops are doing an awesome job, but it's time for them to come home.

Who's going to do that? That's going to be a big issue with me.

BettisFan
03-12-2008, 11:47 PM
I want the troops home we dont need to be fighting over there to help anothers countries we need to help our country.

Jeremy
03-12-2008, 11:49 PM
I want the troops home we dont need to be fighting over there to help anothers countries we need to help our country.

Goddamn right! It's time we got tough with crime in cities like LA and Detroit instead of messing around in Baghdad.

Preacher
03-13-2008, 01:32 AM
Goddamn right! It's time we got tough with crime in cities like LA and Detroit instead of messing around in Baghdad.

This stuff cracks me up.

Do you want U.S. Military troops in LA and Detriot?

Or do you want billions of federal dollars spent on local problems?

I though you were a small govt. person.

Either one of these choices creates a larger reach of govt.

GBMelBlount
03-13-2008, 07:59 AM
Jeremy
A bad plan marred by yes men and bad execution.

That could be said about certain aspects of any war. That's why adjustments are made in wars i.e. troop surge. People can gripe about the war and personal privacy, but I thank God (and Bush) that I am able to wake up every day feeling that my wife, daughter and country are safe.

Jeremy
Goddamn right! It's time we got tough with crime in cities like LA and Detroit instead of messing around in Baghdad.

Not sure I see the relationship here.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 09:39 AM
This stuff cracks me up.

Do you want U.S. Military troops in LA and Detriot?

Or do you want billions of federal dollars spent on local problems?

I though you were a small govt. person.

Either one of these choices creates a larger reach of govt.

No.....I'm a safe and strong America person. I understand that some of you would reduce the size of the government even if it means reducing America to a second class nation. But I'm not one of you. Certain government programs need reduced or cut, but you can't just slash and cut with no thought to 20 years down the road. That's the problem with conservatives these days. All they think about is 12-24 months down the road. They don't care what they're doing to the future as long as they get their instant gratification.

GBMelBlount
03-13-2008, 09:54 AM
Jeremy
I understand that some of you would reduce the size of the government even if it means reducing America to a second class nation. But I'm not one of you.

Some specific examples please.

but you can't just slash and cut with no thought to 20 years down the road. That's the problem with conservatives these days.

Some specific examples please.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 09:55 AM
Some specific examples please.



Some specific examples please.

You're kidding right?

GBMelBlount
03-13-2008, 09:57 AM
You're kidding right?

No.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 09:58 AM
No.

Fine then. Go read the President's latest budget proposal.

GBMelBlount
03-13-2008, 10:09 AM
Fine then. Go read the President's latest budget proposal.

Why don't you post the specific things that are relevant to what you said so we can keep it on the thread and openly discuss it?

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 10:14 AM
This stuff cracks me up.

Do you want U.S. Military troops in LA and Detriot?

Or do you want billions of federal dollars spent on local problems?

I though you were a small govt. person.

Either one of these choices creates a larger reach of govt.

I tend to agree here with Preacher. I have ZERO desire to see uniformed troops of the US military marching in our streets as part of a "crack down" on crime.

More cops should do, with bigger and better guns, but once you use the Military to enforce domestic policy and law, well, thats a slippery slope. That is why we have a right to bare arms. To protect ourselves from that type of Military enforcement of domestic policies.

And as far as our Troops in Iraq. They chose to be Soldiers, they do what they are asked, they are doing what they have been asked, which is, to move the battlefield from Down Town NY to Down Town Iraq. I'd rather we fight them there, and not here. Its the lack of using a HAMMER that I don't agree with. Our M1A2 Tanks should be there in force, no Bradleys or Hummvees, we should be destroying all opposition forces with brutality and conviction, at least we should have done that from the begining, not the half arse Nam shiiite we tried to pull again.

By the way, I'm very proud that the guys who rolled into Baghdad were part of the 3rd Infantry Division...heck yeah...those were my boys...my friends...my fellow soldiers. Nothing like seeing the shoulder patch and knowing it was my guys that wooped arse on the opening days. "There are no Americans here"..."well except the 3rd Infantry Division Tanks that are kicking our arse"

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 10:17 AM
I tend to agree here with Preacher. I have ZERO desire to see uniformed troops of the US military marching in our streets as part of a "crack down" on crime.

More cops should do, with bigger and better guns, but once you use the Military to enforce domestic policy and law, well, thats a slippery slope. That is why we have a right to bare arms. To protect ourselves from that type of Military enforcement of domestic policies.

And as far as our Troops in Iraq. They chose to be Soldiers, they do what they are asked, they are doing what they have been asked, which is, to move the battlefield from Down Town NY to Down Town Iraq. I'd rather we fight them there, and not here. Its the lack of using a HAMMER that I don't agree with. Our M1A2 Tanks should be there in force, no Bradleys or Hummvees, we should be destroying all opposition forces with brutality and conviction, at least we should have done that from the begining, not the half arse Nam shiiite we tried to pull again.

By the way, I'm very proud that the guys who rolled into Baghdad were part of the 3rd Infantry Division...heck yeah...those were my boys...my friends...my fellow soldiers. Nothing like seeing the shoulder patch and knowing it was my guys that wooped arse on the opening days. "There are no Americans here"..."well except the 3rd Infantry Division Tanks that are kicking our arse"

Exactly.....win the war and come home. We're not trained to be an occupation force, yet that's exactly the role we're forced to fill.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 10:30 AM
But we "occupied" Germany for a very long time. And Japan as well. We made Japan re-write its consitution that it now needs "permission" to send a single soldier off its own soil. They aren't "allowed" to leave their island without our permission. That's what Iraq is going to be like for a long time.

We have to win the youth. The 5 year old kids now. Not the 50 year old men. We have to keep forces there, stabalize the country, protect it from outside forces, like Iran, the same way we kept Russia out of Germany. We broke it, we own it. It is our duty, as humanitarians, to stay, and protect the people from oppression and outside forces of evil. We aren't evil, we are good people with good intentions that are the only ones with ball big enough to take on very tough tasks.

Its up to us to change the people's hearts, from hatred of the US, to the love of freedom. Germans seem pretty happy now. It'll take a generation my friend, but in the long run...well the Nazis don't exist anymore. And that is because of the US and the US values of freedom.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 10:33 AM
But we "occupied" Germany for a very long time. And Japan as well. We made Japan re-write its consitution that it now needs "permission" to send a single soldier off its own soil. They aren't "allowed" to leave their island without our permission. That's what Iraq is going to be like for a long time.

We have to win the youth. The 5 year old kids now. Not the 50 year old men. We have to keep forces there, stabalize the country, protect it from outside forces, like Iran, the same way we kept Russia out of Germany. We broke it, we own it. It is our duty, as humanitarians, to stay, and protect the people from oppression and outside forces of evil. We aren't evil, we are good people with good intentions that are the only ones with ball big enough to take on very tough tasks.

Its up to us to change the people's hearts, from hatred of the US, to the love of freedom. Germans seem pretty happy now. It'll take a generation my friend, but in the long run...well the Nazis don't exist anymore. And that is because of the US and the US values of freedom.


We owe our own people more than we own a bunch or Iraqis. I don't care about them and I honestly don't believe that most American care about them either.

steelwall
03-13-2008, 10:35 AM
Fact is Ive been through 5 presidents in my life time...never noticed much of a change. Fix health care and social security then you've made an impact. But I dont see that happening with any of the current contenders.

The usual political BS.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 10:49 AM
We owe our own people more than we own a bunch or Iraqis. I don't care about them and I honestly don't believe that most American care about them either.

sigh..

our own people...well...I would argue that All People...are our people.

People in the US have more rights and opportunity than 90% of the world. We owe our people the rights that they currently already have. We owe them protection and owe them fairness. We give them this. Its the people that have no voice, the ones that are oppressed, that need our help the most. Its very easy to give a hungry person a fish. Its harder to teach them to fish. But which is better for everyone? Teach others about freedom, about lack of oppression, about fairness, for all, women, children, black, white, red, yellow, brown, and they will teach others the same. Allow oppression and well, that's all people with know.

Its very easy to say "screw those people" when in reality, we are all human beings.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 11:23 AM
sigh..

our own people...well...I would argue that All People...are our people.

People in the US have more rights and opportunity than 90% of the world. We owe our people the rights that they currently already have. We owe them protection and owe them fairness. We give them this. Its the people that have no voice, the ones that are oppressed, that need our help the most. Its very easy to give a hungry person a fish. Its harder to teach them to fish. But which is better for everyone? Teach others about freedom, about lack of oppression, about fairness, for all, women, children, black, white, red, yellow, brown, and they will teach others the same. Allow oppression and well, that's all people with know.

Its very easy to say "screw those people" when in reality, we are all human beings.

We ARE NOT the planet's big brother. It's time we cleaned up our own back yard and forced others to do the same.

HometownGal
03-13-2008, 11:39 AM
We ARE NOT the planet's big brother. It's time we cleaned up our own back yard and forced others to do the same.

I agree in part with what you are saying, Jeremy, with regard to not being the world's "big brother". I have always believed that our government should focus more on taking care of its own - those who elect these "leaders" into office and who pay gobs of money each year to fund all of the government programs which are supposed to benefit our citizens. What I don't agree with is "forcing others to do the same". Our country shouldn't be flexing its muscles as a world bully, but I think what we should do in the future is to stop aiding countries who clearly hate us and would destroy us if they had the opportunity. I have no problem with helping good people around the world who are oppressed but damn it U.S. - take care of your own first!!!

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 11:48 AM
I agree in part with what you are saying, Jeremy, with regard to not being the world's "big brother". I have always believed that our government should focus more on taking care of its own - those who elect these "leaders" into office and who pay gobs of money each year to fund all of the government programs which are supposed to benefit our citizens. What I don't agree with is "forcing others to do the same". Our country shouldn't be flexing its muscles as a world bully, but I think what we should do in the future is to stop aiding countries who clearly hate us and would destroy us if they had the opportunity. I have no problem with helping good people around the world who are oppressed but damn it U.S. - take care of your own first!!!

Thank you! At least someone on here gets what I'm saying.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 01:05 PM
We ARE NOT the planet's big brother. It's time we cleaned up our own back yard and forced others to do the same.


forced other to do the same?
how exactly? By yelling at them to clean up but not offering a helping hand or some guidance or much needed support? Should we allow dictators and killers to be in power and slaughter countless thousands of people while we stand aside and say "its their problem"? Wouldn't that be the same as seeing a man beating a woman in the streets and doing nothing to help? or seeing your neighbors house on fire late at night and saying "oh well, they'll probably wake up and get out in time"

and when you say clean up our own back yard, exactly what to you mean? Are you saying we should just shoot all our criminals? Or how about round up all illegal aliens, regardless of situation, and send them packing?

When I was training in the Army, back in 92, we were told then, "Being a Policeman of the world isn't a US soldiers job, but only a US soldier can do it." Drill Sgt. Jordan.

I see your point...but ever since we stopped opression in WWII, we have been looked upon as global leader in the fight for freedom. Its our calling, it is what makes our Nation so great. Our Freedom, our love of Freedom, and our Fight to always stay Free.

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 03:13 PM
forced other to do the same?
how exactly? By yelling at them to clean up but not offering a helping hand or some guidance or much needed support? Should we allow dictators and killers to be in power and slaughter countless thousands of people while we stand aside and say "its their problem"? Wouldn't that be the same as seeing a man beating a woman in the streets and doing nothing to help? or seeing your neighbors house on fire late at night and saying "oh well, they'll probably wake up and get out in time"

and when you say clean up our own back yard, exactly what to you mean? Are you saying we should just shoot all our criminals? Or how about round up all illegal aliens, regardless of situation, and send them packing?

When I was training in the Army, back in 92, we were told then, "Being a Policeman of the world isn't a US soldiers job, but only a US soldier can do it." Drill Sgt. Jordan.

I see your point...but ever since we stopped opression in WWII, we have been looked upon as global leader in the fight for freedom. Its our calling, it is what makes our Nation so great. Our Freedom, our love of Freedom, and our Fight to always stay Free.

No, it's not. It was a role we were forced in to by the absolute weakness of the English and mainlaind Europe. It's been almost 70 years since we cleaned up that mess. It's time that the rest of the world started carrying some of the load.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 03:42 PM
No, it's not. It was a role we were forced in to by the absolute weakness of the English and mainlaind Europe. It's been almost 70 years since we cleaned up that mess. It's time that the rest of the world started carrying some of the load.

Its time for Americans to stop taking their own freedoms for granted and recognizing that in order to stay free, we need to protect those that can't protect themselves.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-13-2008, 03:53 PM
I just saw this thread and the beginning statement is based upon what Bill Clinton is paraphrasing that Obama said???? That is a joke. I said that AussieSteeler said that Jeff Otah is slow and soft.......when really he said that a report said Otah looked slow and soft at the combine.

I am not a US citizen, dont live in the US or have a vote, so I am not biased.

As for the the US having a role as big brother or being forced into any role. Please try and be objective. They didnt march into Iraq to save the country from Hussein, or find the "weapons of mass destruction". "W" did it to finish what his daddy started in the 90's and keep the oil flowing.

Fighting for freedom isnt some hallowed hallmark, or international duty of the US. Its done only in cases where its financially or politically advantageous to the country. In case you have not noticed, there is a dictatorship some 70 miles south of Miami beach that's been there for a while. Why not roll some Blackhawks and tanks in there and free the people from opression??? Probably because there is nothing there but sand, sugarcane and cigars.

Did you know that the average doctor in Cuba makes $30 a month, while the average street sweeper makes similar?? They are not free to earn a living based upon their ambition......go, free them now!!

I like Americans and I've got your back when its the proper cause. 9-11 was horrific and squashing terrorism is a noble cause. But thinking its some duty to selectively play big brother to the Saudi's and Iraqis because there is black gold in the ground, while ignoring the plight of Tibet, Cuba, and African 3rd world nations isnt exactly great foreign policy.

Hillary is running on Bill's success and similar platforms and seems to be running a mud slinging campaign....which is too bad. Noted feminist Eve Ensler recently said she would like to see a fellow woman in the White House, but she cant endorse Hillary because of her policies or lack thereof.

Like some other posters, I think you guys need to focus on getting your own back yard in order before helping others clean theirs up. Then you can focus on helping other help themselves out.

Preacher
03-13-2008, 03:55 PM
No, it's not. It was a role we were forced in to by the absolute weakness of the English and mainlaind Europe. It's been almost 70 years since we cleaned up that mess. It's time that the rest of the world started carrying some of the load.

You are absolutely right there. The problem is, the rest of the world WONT carry the load. They will simply drop the ball and go home or worse (oil for food scandal anyone?)

Thus, America is left looking outside its borders for threats, real or perceived. You may or may not agree with president Bush that Iraq was a threat. But please tell me you understand that the reason we went in was that we PERCEIVED it as a threat. Thus, it wasn't about cleaning up someone elses problems (yet how many times do we clean up the french's problems? When will we ever learn. . . sorry, different topic), it was about perceiving a threat against us.

And talk about not looking into the future? To call for the troops to come home now is the very short-sightedness you are accusing others of. To stay in Iraq does a few things.

1. Once this war (not civil) is settled (make no mistake about it, we are fighting a proxy war against Iran and Syria right now), we will have cooled a major source of Mideast fomenting of terror and upheaval. It is well document how Saddam funded suicide bombers in Israel and paid their families. To create a govt. that is at the very least does not foment the upheaval in that struggle is a MAJOR step forward.

2. It gives us a major base of operations in the Mideast against Syria and Iran. Regardless of what anyone wants, we are heading towards a conflict with those countries, which leads us to the third point.

3. It is a check against what I perceive as the new coming axis powers, Russia, Iran, and China. We need to have troops in Afganistan and Iraq to surround Iran and remind Russia that we sit under what has been for them an eternally soft underbelly that they have a REAL hard time defending.

4. The presence of US military in the mideast acts as a buffer to terrorist attacks on US soil. In short, we fight this war THERE instead of here. Whether president Bush intended for this outcome or not, the good thing about the outcome is that it has taken the focus of terrorism on mainland US away and placed it in Iraq. Are they still trying to hit us in mainland US? Absolutely. but they are occupied with hitting the US flag and forces there.

While every soldier is invaluable to this nation, I would prefer to have 4000 soldiers die in Iraq over 5 years (and, by the way, liberating millions more for the oppression of Saddam) than 3000 people from 80 nations die one Tuesday morning (most of whom were civilians).

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-13-2008, 04:04 PM
Its time for Americans to stop taking their own freedoms for granted and recognizing that in order to stay free, we need to protect those that can't protect themselves.


Great Point!!!!

Here is an article citing the worlds 10 worst dictators. The US should start helping those countries protect themselves:thumbsup:

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-13-2005/featured_0

Actually, it looks like the US funds most of these dictatorship regimes insead of overthrowing them like they did in Iraq. I wonder why.

Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade?s 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries.

Government-sponsored aid has failed to promote economic growth in the third world. From 1970 to 2000, more than $400 billion poured into poor African countries with no development to show for it. Parade?s list of dictators makes our foreign aid record even more disturbing. Not only has it failed to promote development, in many cases our aid has supported oppressive dictatorships.

If they didnt support these dictatorships, I bet most people with sub-prime mortgage issues could keep their houses:smile:

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 04:16 PM
You are absolutely right there. The problem is, the rest of the world WONT carry the load. They will simply drop the ball and go home or worse (oil for food scandal anyone?)

Thus, America is left looking outside its borders for threats, real or perceived. You may or may not agree with president Bush that Iraq was a threat. But please tell me you understand that the reason we went in was that we PERCEIVED it as a threat. Thus, it wasn't about cleaning up someone elses problems (yet how many times do we clean up the french's problems? When will we ever learn. . . sorry, different topic), it was about perceiving a threat against us.

And talk about not looking into the future? To call for the troops to come home now is the very short-sightedness you are accusing others of. To stay in Iraq does a few things.

1. Once this war (not civil) is settled (make no mistake about it, we are fighting a proxy war against Iran and Syria right now), we will have cooled a major source of Mideast fomenting of terror and upheaval. It is well document how Saddam funded suicide bombers in Israel and paid their families. To create a govt. that is at the very least does not foment the upheaval in that struggle is a MAJOR step forward.

2. It gives us a major base of operations in the Mideast against Syria and Iran. Regardless of what anyone wants, we are heading towards a conflict with those countries, which leads us to the third point.

3. It is a check against what I perceive as the new coming axis powers, Russia, Iran, and China. We need to have troops in Afganistan and Iraq to surround Iran and remind Russia that we sit under what has been for them an eternally soft underbelly that they have a REAL hard time defending.

4. The presence of US military in the mideast acts as a buffer to terrorist attacks on US soil. In short, we fight this war THERE instead of here. Whether president Bush intended for this outcome or not, the good thing about the outcome is that it has taken the focus of terrorism on mainland US away and placed it in Iraq. Are they still trying to hit us in mainland US? Absolutely. but they are occupied with hitting the US flag and forces there.

While every soldier is invaluable to this nation, I would prefer to have 4000 soldiers die in Iraq over 5 years (and, by the way, liberating millions more for the oppression of Saddam) than 3000 people from 80 nations die one Tuesday morning (most of whom were civilians).

Who cares? One American dying for those ungrateful bastards is too many.

Preacher
03-13-2008, 04:28 PM
Great Point!!!!

Here is an article citing the worlds 10 worst dictators. The US should start helping those countries protect themselves:thumbsup:

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-13-2005/featured_0

Actually, it looks like the US funds most of these dictatorship regimes insead of overthrowing them like they did in Iraq. I wonder why.

Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade?s 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries.

Government-sponsored aid has failed to promote economic growth in the third world. From 1970 to 2000, more than $400 billion poured into poor African countries with no development to show for it. Parade?s list of dictators makes our foreign aid record even more disturbing. Not only has it failed to promote development, in many cases our aid has supported oppressive dictatorships.

If they didnt support these dictatorships, I bet most people with sub-prime mortgage issues could keep their houses:smile:

that is a bit misleading. What kind of aid?

For instance, in Korea, we are giving food and energy so that people don't starve and freeze to death (and hope that N. Korea doesn't develop nukes.

In the cold war, guess who was one of the biggest contributors to the Soviet Union? the US. We sold them 9 million metric tons of grain and seeds and 4 million metric tons of corn in 1988.

many of these nations are getting aid for specific reasons.

Libya: They gave up their WMD. Just opened the doors and said come have a look. (actually, exactly what we were demanding Saddam to do. I guess one nation learned from our actions... and we have reduced the terrorist threat from there.) If our aid assures that, I have no problem with it.

Pakistan: Ground 0(a) in teh war on terror. Give 'em aid.


Fact is, when you deal with leaders of nations, sometimes you choose the beast instead of the devil.

Much like we supported Saddam against Iran and the Ayatolla. Much like we supported Obama and others against the soviet union.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 05:20 PM
I think we should be doing more in Darfur, that we should be doing more to get Kim out of NK (But China has him on a leash, they pretty much face slapped him when he set off a nuke) We should disallow any trade with China as long as they don't improve their human rights.

We are in Iraq, Babylon, not for Oil...we are there to fight the Jihadist machine on their own soil. I think we should cut off aid to the Saudi's, they are the perverters of Islam of the worst sort, with their Wahhabism.

If we were "stealing" Iraq's Oil, I wouldn't be paying 3.25 a gallon at the pump. The idea was to build them up into a Democracy to allow them to develop their own trade and peaceful government.

Same way now we buy Cars from Germany and Electronics from Japan. That would be Oil from Iraq, textiles from Pakistan, we need to lift these people up from the oppression they have known their entire lives. Not "screw them" or "forget them".

Teach them to fish, help them, raise them up to a higher level and give them something to look foward to, instead of more death and more slaughter.

What are we to clean up in America? Should we start killing teenagers in Gangs en masse? Should we start shooting all illegals on sight? Maybe we should build some ovens while were at it, clean the place up correctly?

America is a Great nation, and I'm proud of it, every day. Do our leaders make the best decisions every day, nope, they make mistakes, but Americans put good will and helping hands above Conquering and Destroying.

Trust me, if we wanted to Destroy and Conquer, we could, we have the technology and the means...but we CHOOSE to help, we Choose to not call Iraq our 51st state, we Choose to raise up those that need help, shoot only after we are shot at, and actually follow the rules of engagement.

Sure, we have idiots in our service, but where else do politicians debate torture of the enemy? Heck, they still chop off hands in Saudi Arabia, Iran uses lashes, China...China just kills everyone they want...Russia, please...

The US has a Moral Fabric that we use in all of our Decisions.

silver & black
03-13-2008, 05:44 PM
If your going to insult a candidate back your self up, Obama is a great candidate and knows what hes doing.

It works both ways. What makes him a great candidate, and what is he doing that he knows about?

HometownGal
03-13-2008, 05:51 PM
It works both ways. What makes him a great candidate, and what is he doing that he knows about?

I wondered much the same. In fact, though I am going to vote for McCain because his platform most closely mirrors my own views and beliefs - I don't think any of the candidates can be described as "great".

Borski
03-13-2008, 05:55 PM
*sigh* none of the candidates stand to much for what I want, all I want to see now is who the VP choices will be.

BettisFan
03-13-2008, 06:27 PM
Looks like another 4 years of Succession...

fansince'76
03-13-2008, 07:43 PM
Fact is, when you deal with leaders of nations, sometimes you choose the beast instead of the devil....Much like we supported Obama and others against the soviet union.

Freudian slip there, Preacher? :wink02: :chuckle:

Jeremy
03-13-2008, 09:18 PM
[QUOTE=Dino 5 Rings;376225]
Same way now we buy Cars from Germany and Electronics from Japan. That would be Oil from Iraq, textiles from Pakistan, we need to lift these people up from the oppression they have known their entire lives. Not "screw them" or "forget them". [QUOTE]

You want to sell out your own countrymen for people who want to murder us in our beds.

Yes, I say screw them and forget them. America is under no moral obligation to lift anyone up from oppression or poverty. They created the conditions in which they live. I'm sorry, but they need to live with the consequences of their actions or they'll never learn.

So in closing, screw Iraq, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, and all of these other countries that suck the lifeblood from our once great nation.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-13-2008, 09:33 PM
that is a bit misleading. What kind of aid?

For instance, in Korea, we are giving food and energy so that people don't starve and freeze to death (and hope that N. Korea doesn't develop nukes.

In the cold war, guess who was one of the biggest contributors to the Soviet Union? the US. We sold them 9 million metric tons of grain and seeds and 4 million metric tons of corn in 1988.

many of these nations are getting aid for specific reasons.

Libya: They gave up their WMD. Just opened the doors and said come have a look. (actually, exactly what we were demanding Saddam to do. I guess one nation learned from our actions... and we have reduced the terrorist threat from there.) If our aid assures that, I have no problem with it.

Pakistan: Ground 0(a) in teh war on terror. Give 'em aid.


Fact is, when you deal with leaders of nations, sometimes you choose the beast instead of the devil.

Much like we supported Saddam against Iran and the Ayatolla. Much like we supported Obama and others against the soviet union.


Its Non-Military aid.

My point is that some on this board take their history lessons from Hollywood rather than books and believe there is this great history of doing good for the sake of freedom. That isnt always the case as you apparantly know.

While Tom Hanks and John Wayne looked pretty cool on Omaha beach, it wasnt until Pearl Harbour in 1941 when the US decided to get in the War to liberate the rest of those who couldnt defend themselves. War had been going on for 2 years already.

If you have all the chips at the bargaining table, you should have some kind of leverage. If the US has all this money in the form of aid to give to oppressive dictators, they should demand something in return in the form of using that aid to better the people of that nation. You know.....kind of "defending those who cant defend themselves". Kind of makes you wonder what it is they are getting out of it.....military bases??, natural resources??

A lot of people mistake a noble cause for self interest.

GBMelBlount
03-13-2008, 10:11 PM
If you have all the chips at the bargaining table, you should have some kind of leverage. If the US has all this money in the form of aid to give to oppressive dictators, they should demand something in return in the form of using that aid to better the people of that nation. You know.....kind of "defending those who cant defend themselves". Kind of makes you wonder what it is they are getting out of it.....military bases??, natural resources??

A lot of people mistake a noble cause for self interest.


what natural resources? We get the vast minority of our petroleum from the middle east. And what, 5% from Iraq? Doesn't sound like a black gold grab to me.

fansince'76
03-13-2008, 10:22 PM
While Tom Hanks and John Wayne looked pretty cool on Omaha beach, it wasnt until Pearl Harbour in 1941 when the US decided to get in the War to liberate the rest of those who couldnt defend themselves. War had been going on for 2 years already.

Let's see, the U.S. doesn't get involved in a war until its attacked (WWII) and it gets criticized. The U.S. takes the bull by the horns (Iraq) and it gets criticized. Yep, sounds about right.

A lot of people mistake a noble cause for self interest.

And the U.S. has no right to look after its own interests? I guarantee you that if the U.S. didn't look out for its own interests, nobody else is damn sure going to. It's a hardball world.

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2008, 10:54 PM
[QUOTE=Dino 5 Rings;376225]
Same way now we buy Cars from Germany and Electronics from Japan. That would be Oil from Iraq, textiles from Pakistan, we need to lift these people up from the oppression they have known their entire lives. Not "screw them" or "forget them". [QUOTE]

You want to sell out your own countrymen for people who want to murder us in our beds.

Yes, I say screw them and forget them. America is under no moral obligation to lift anyone up from oppression or poverty. They created the conditions in which they live. I'm sorry, but they need to live with the consequences of their actions or they'll never learn.

So in closing, screw Iraq, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, and all of these other countries that suck the lifeblood from our once great nation.

did you just try to accuse me of selling out my own country men?

Seriously...you need to check yourself...really dig down deep and check yourself.

TroysBadDawg
03-14-2008, 09:06 AM
The Clinton's Left this country better off when they left office...Right. That is why on 9-11 the Air force only had two count them 1 plus 1 equals two ready fighters and one was a reserve fighter. The Democrats cut the military to the bones. I got this fact from the horses mouth, my brother-in-law who was the one who had to order up the fighters with needed assets he could find.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:11 AM
what natural resources? We get the vast minority of our petroleum from the middle east. And what, 5% from Iraq? Doesn't sound like a black gold grab to me.


I'm just questioning what is it that some of these nations have that may be of interest that makes the US want to financially support nations where there is brutal dictatorships??? If your neighbour down the street beat on his kids and wife would you give him $$ if he needed it just because you are a good citizen???? I dont think so and I doubt that is what is happening.

The fact that the US gets 5% from Iraq and they have the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world might mean the US wants to get more in the future.....maybe 20%.

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:28 AM
Let's see, the U.S. doesn't get involved in a war until its attacked (WWII) and it gets criticized. The U.S. takes the bull by the horns (Iraq) and it gets criticized. Yep, sounds about right.

Absolutely correct. I'm just trying to enlighten some other posters that think the US gets involved and somehow polices the rest of the world under the strict ideals of freedom and democracy. England asked for help in WW2 and the US stayed on the sidelines until attacked, nobody criticized them after they got involved.


And the U.S. has no right to look after its own interests? I guarantee you that if the U.S. didn't look out for its own interests, nobody else is damn sure going to. It's a hardball world.The US has every right to look after its own interest, but at what cost?? How many innocent people and how many US servicemen and women lose their life in the search for "Weapons of mass destruction" when they never existed. I guess you cant get re-elected by saying we are gonna go trade some lives to keep the pumps working and getting rid of a dictator is an added bonus in the deal.

I had a university professor that grew up in Egypt and they made fun of Saudi Arabia because it was nothing but a big sandbox. Now the US has military forces and bases there. What gets the US criticized more oftten is when they take the bull by the horns on somebody elses ranch and its not even their bull. Then strutting around like you did somebody a favour.

TroysBadDawg
03-14-2008, 11:28 AM
I'm just questioning what is it that some of these nations have that may be of interest that makes the US want to financially support nations where there is brutal dictatorships??? If your neighbour down the street beat on his kids and wife would you give him $$ if he needed it just because you are a good citizen???? I dont think so and I doubt that is what is happening.

The fact that the US gets 5% from Iraq and they have the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world might mean the US wants to get more in the future.....maybe 20%.

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

As much as I hat to say it, free enterprise equates to supply and demand, correct me if I am wrong. We have the demand, they have the supply. The Chicago exchange is setting the price with the speculators, and the Petroleum industry in making windfall profits on us. Unfortunately they are not all American owned. BP is UK owned and is showing the largest profit margin. The only way to short change that is to do what other countries have done and that is to nationalize the Petroleum industry. But then, so goes free enterprise.

Just my humble opinion.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:37 AM
The Clinton's Left this country better off when they left office...Right. That is why on 9-11 the Air force only had two count them 1 plus 1 equals two ready fighters and one was a reserve fighter. The Democrats cut the military to the bones. I got this fact from the horses mouth, my brother-in-law who was the one who had to order up the fighters with needed assets he could find.

I dont think you can blame the Democrats, Republicans, Clintons for what happened on 9-11. Nobody ever thought they would need to scramble fighters in NYC in a moments notice.

I think the real problem is how is it that known or suspected terrorists could be allowed in into the country on a legal passport or student visa without much scrutiny. I think it goes with the US history of immigration, but now "give us your tired, poor, huddled masses" but we are gonna frisk them first before we let them in. I think that is the way it has to be and the US will be better off from now on.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:44 AM
As much as I hat to say it, free enterprise equates to supply and demand, correct me if I am wrong. We have the demand, they have the supply. The Chicago exchange is setting the price with the speculators, and the Petroleum industry in making windfall profits on us. Unfortunately they are not all American owned. BP is UK owned and is showing the largest profit margin. The only way to short change that is to do what other countries have done and that is to nationalize the Petroleum industry. But then, so goes free enterprise.

Just my humble opinion.

I completely agree with you. Its just funny that in the 80's when there was an oil crunch everybody started driving K-Cars, Chevettes, Honda Civics, but now I still see a lot of Suburbans, Escalades, H2's and other SUV's.

I think we have to get back to more efficient transportation, reducing dependancy on oil and changing the power of supply/demand in this industry. If nobody needs oil, then the middle east is really nothing more than a sandbox with tons of history.

GBMelBlount
03-14-2008, 12:03 PM
El-Gonzo Jackson

The US has every right to look after its own interest, but at what cost?? How many innocent people and how many US servicemen and women lose their life in the search for "Weapons of mass destruction" when they never existed.

We lost 3,000 civilians on our soil on 9/11? We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since. I live in the U.S. and the safety and well being of my family is the number one priority. So although I think the loss of lives in Iraq is tragic, the United States is safer now IMO and I believe we are winning the war on terror.

As far as WMD's, it is funny how many people supported the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence sources around the world (or their "own sources" in Hillary's case) and then turncoated when it was more politically advantageous. For you to say that WMD's never existed as if it is without question, is ridiculous. Do you realize how much time Iraq had to move WMD's out of the country between the time they new we were going to invade and when we actually did?

fansince'76
03-14-2008, 12:12 PM
I had a university professor that grew up in Egypt and they made fun of Saudi Arabia because it was nothing but a big sandbox. Now the US has military forces and bases there. What gets the US criticized more oftten is when they take the bull by the horns on somebody elses ranch and its not even their bull. Then strutting around like you did somebody a favour.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Yep, never mind we were INVITED into Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Saudi was next on Saddam's list of countries to invade after Kuwait. What gets the U.S. criticized is that they look after their interests just like every other country does, but when the U.S. does it, they're the "big bully." The only part we screwed up as far as Iraq goes was not finishing the job back in '91 when we should have. 2003 was 12 years too late.


Any armed attempt to roll back the Iraqi invasion (of Kuwait) depended on Saudi Arabia, which shares a border with both Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia had neither the power nor the inclination to fight Iraq alone; if the Saudi government invited foreign troops into the country to attack Iraq, however, it risked appearing to be under their influence. Saudi rulers did eventually open the country to foreign forces, in large part because they were alarmed by Iraq’s aggressive diplomacy and because U.S. intelligence reports claimed that Iraqi forces were well positioned for a strike against Saudi Arabia.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_1____4/persian_gulf_war.html#s4

HometownGal
03-14-2008, 12:19 PM
We lost 3,000 civilians on our soil on 9/11? We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since. I live in the U.S. and the safety and well being of my family is the number one priority. So although I think the loss of lives in Iraq is tragic, the United States is safer now IMO and I believe we are winning the war on terror.

As far as WMD's, it is funny how many people supported the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence sources around the world (or their "own sources" in Hillary's case) and then turncoated when it was more politically advantageous. For you to say that WMD's never existed as if it is without question, is ridiculous. Do you realize how much time Iraq had to move WMD's out of the country between the time they new we were going to invade and when we actually did?

Great post Tom. :thumbsup: Nothing more I can add!

TroysBadDawg
03-14-2008, 12:42 PM
We lost 3,000 civilians on our soil on 9/11? We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since. I live in the U.S. and the safety and well being of my family is the number one priority. So although I think the loss of lives in Iraq is tragic, the United States is safer now IMO and I believe we are winning the war on terror.

As far as WMD's, it is funny how many people supported the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence sources around the world (or their "own sources" in Hillary's case) and then turncoated when it was more politically advantageous. For you to say that WMD's never existed as if it is without question, is ridiculous. Do you realize how much time Iraq had to move WMD's out of the country between the time they new we were going to invade and when we actually did?

If you want to know where the WMD are look in Syria. The U.S. has had a hands off policy on it since the Golf police action. Some call it a war, but congress did not declare war, so it can not be claimed a war just like Korea or Viet Nam. Only Congress can make a declaration of war. The press at it's best again. They should read the Constitution beyond the 1st amendment.

tony hipchest
03-14-2008, 12:45 PM
As far as WMD's, it is funny how many people supported the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence sources around the world (or their "own sources" in Hillary's case) and then turncoated when it was more politically advantageous. For you to say that WMD's never existed as if it is without question, is ridiculous. Do you realize how much time Iraq had to move WMD's out of the country between the time they new we were going to invade and when we actually did?before he was executed saddam admitted that the UN pretty much sut down/dismantled all his WMD programs.

he carried on the ruse that they still existed and there were mobile labs and all that bs as more of a deterrent of an iranian attack than to scare america or terrorize the world.

ive actually heard people say he hid them in iran! LMAO. thats the last thing he would do.

GBMelBlount
03-14-2008, 01:18 PM
before he was executed saddam admitted that the UN pretty much sut down/dismantled all his WMD programs.

he carried on the ruse that they still existed and there were mobile labs and all that bs as more of a deterrent of an iranian attack than to scare america or terrorize the world.

ive actually heard people say he hid them in iran! LMAO. thats the last thing he would do.

So are you saying it is a FACT there were no WMD's in Iraq after the "shut/down - dismantlement?"

tony hipchest
03-14-2008, 01:57 PM
So are you saying it is a FACT there were no WMD's in Iraq after the "shut/down - dismantlement?"what i am saying is that once saddams fate was sealed, and he had nothing to gain/lose by lying. he became very candid with the fbi investigator assigned to him.


what im also saying is that his side of the "story" seemed a hell of alot more believable than our own president's. Saddam said it as FACT, and i think he would know better than anybody.

i have 2 choices-

1) i can believe saddam was afraid of his neighbor (who possessed nukes) who he had been at war with for 8 years. after the UN and US shut his programs down, he wanted to contine the ruse because who he felt was his biggest threat (iran) might take advantage of his vulnerability. or

2) i can believe he was driving around WMD's in moblie labs and tractor trailers, that we watched with sattelites, that miraculously disappeared as soon as we got boots on the ground. we could find the leader in a spider hole but we cant find the weapons.


if it is FACT that they are in syria, why is there no evidence or the intelligence to support it, like the "evidence" that suggested they were in iraq in the 1st place? should i just assume that we are cool with syria possessing them as long as they are out of iraqs hands?

saddam was a psychopath but he wasnt dumb. i find it very believable that his WMD/nuclear program and continued ruse was more of defensive measure as opposed to building up for an offensive strike against america.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 02:17 PM
We lost 3,000 civilians on our soil on 9/11? We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since. I live in the U.S. and the safety and well being of my family is the number one priority. So although I think the loss of lives in Iraq is tragic, the United States is safer now IMO and I believe we are winning the war on terror.

As far as WMD's, it is funny how many people supported the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence sources around the world (or their "own sources" in Hillary's case) and then turncoated when it was more politically advantageous. For you to say that WMD's never existed as if it is without question, is ridiculous. Do you realize how much time Iraq had to move WMD's out of the country between the time they new we were going to invade and when we actually did?

So how many US Servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq since?? Over 3500 since the invasion. The US is safer since 9/11 because of increased security in the US, not because you invaded Iraq. Besides, most of the Al Quada cells were in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also, if you believe that Iraq moved the WMD somewhere, without the great US intelligence community, and their satellite images that can see your license plate from space being able to detect them you might be selling your own country's intel short. Also, who was gonna harbour them?? Most likely they would have sold them to the highest bidder and they would have used them by now.

Say I throw a rock thru your window and you see me do it. Then you go throw a rock thru the window of my neighbour 3 doors down because you think he might have some bigger rocks in his yard. It doesnt make sense!?!?!?!? Thats what happened in Iraq.

Iraq and Afghanistan were 2 different missions based upon 2 different reasons for invasion. The fact that most are not that good at geography made it easy to link the 2. One was to seek out those responsible for the terror attacks, the other was to finish off an old score and make sure the oil kept flowing.

I am not a US citizen and am just trying to enlighten some of you on why you are perceived in a certain way by other countries that some believe you have to defend because they cant do it for themselves.

I believed in the Afghan mission, but thought the Iraqi one was unwarranted and is costing your fellow americans their sons and daughters for no reason.

Also, the start of this post was based on a He said, he said arguement between Bill Clinton and Obama, to which my original point was.......you cant take it seriously because they are both putting words in each others mouths like most politicians do.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 02:27 PM
Yep, never mind we were INVITED into Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Saudi was next on Saddam's list of countries to invade after Kuwait. What gets the U.S. criticized is that they look after their interests just like every other country does, but when the U.S. does it, they're the "big bully." The only part we screwed up as far as Iraq goes was not finishing the job back in '91 when we should have. 2003 was 12 years too late.




http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_1____4/persian_gulf_war.html#s4


Exactly, the US looks after their own interests.

Some on this board believe that the US fights for countries that cant fight for themselves. The fact is that they do so ONLY if it can further their own interests in some way and does not go out of their way to overthow oppressive dictatorships just for the sake of furthering freedom and independence.

Other nations like Britain, Australia, Canada, France, etc do conduct controversial peace keeping missions in some conflicted areas mostly based on keeping the peace rather than furthering their own agenda.

That is why some other nations view the US the way they do. They see the US as only being in it for their own benefit and because they love a good fight. For right or wrong, that is how some view it.

fansince'76
03-14-2008, 04:23 PM
Exactly, the US looks after their own interests.

Some on this board believe that the US fights for countries that cant fight for themselves. The fact is that they do so ONLY if it can further their own interests in some way and does not go out of their way to overthow oppressive dictatorships just for the sake of furthering freedom and independence.

Oh, I agree - as an American, I hold no illusion that we take up arms for some "higher moral purpose" than simply looking out for #1. It's been that way with every country large and small throughout recorded history. Why should I believe we're any different? However, it doesn't excuse the amount of flak we get for doing something EVERYONE else does.

Other nations like Britain, Australia, Canada, France, etc do conduct controversial peace keeping missions in some conflicted areas mostly based on keeping the peace rather than furthering their own agenda.

That's a huge crock. Most of those countries are in peacekeeping missions under the auspices of NATO or the UN - much like the U.S. is. As far as France goes, oil-for-food, anybody? Yeah, the U.S. is a selfish bastard of a nation, and everybody else in the world is only concerned with the well-being of others. Hell, if it wasn't for the warmongering and selfish U.S., the rest of the world would be free to all join hands and sing Kumbaya. What a bunch of bullshit.

lilyoder6
03-14-2008, 04:27 PM
wow.,. i mean i can't beleive the us is so selfish.. i mean they are so selfish that they joined ww 1 and 2 to help the allies win, and to stop the the killings of the jews.. man we are just too selfish..


no shit evry country is going to look out for themselves since they need to take care of the ppl that live there..

BettisFan
03-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Exactly, the US looks after their own interests.

Some on this board believe that the US fights for countries that cant fight for themselves. The fact is that they do so ONLY if it can further their own interests in some way and does not go out of their way to overthow oppressive dictatorships just for the sake of furthering freedom and independence.

Other nations like Britain, Australia, Canada, France, etc do conduct controversial peace keeping missions in some conflicted areas mostly based on keeping the peace rather than furthering their own agenda.

That is why some other nations view the US the way they do. They see the US as only being in it for their own benefit and because they love a good fight. For right or wrong, that is how some view it.

I cant beileve your views on the world are so messed up, To say that other countries for caring and taking care of the world problems is wrong? And that we need to care for our selves? Why do you think that is so important now that each candidates supports Isreal? If they did not they would lose so many votes. Its important to help other countries in need or we wont make progress and we wont have allies to help us.

GBMelBlount
03-14-2008, 10:16 PM
El Gonzo Jackson

Also, if you believe that Iraq moved the WMD somewhere, without the great US intelligence community...

I wouldn't say great. As you know, our human intelligence which many feel is the most important was COMPLETELTY gutted and ruined in the 90's imo.

and their satellite images that can see your license plate from space being able to detect them

You got me there. That, coupled with the fact that all Iraqi vehicles carrying WMD's are REQUIRED to have license plates labeled "WMD's on board" kind of screws my argument.

And besides. if the license plate fell off, I'm sure the high tech satellites with x-ray vision would detect them anyway. Sorry, my bad.

Lastly, as TH mentioned, why would Sadam lie? With all due respect Tony, Sadam was not a good and decent man. He was hateful and vengeful but very smart. Being that muslims are encouraged to lie and deceive infidels, plus with his hatred for Bush fo ruining and humiliating him, isn't it possible, assuming Sadam was very smart and cunning, that his last victory would be undermining his nemesis?

My point is, there are reliable accounts, though the exception, that there were WMD's that were moved, but because you will never see them on AP or the main stream media, it is never something that is considered by most as even remotely possible anymore.

tony hipchest
03-14-2008, 10:53 PM
I wouldn't say great. As you know, our human intelligence which many feel is the most important was COMPLETELTY gutted and ruined in the 90's imo.



You got me there. That, coupled with the fact that all Iraqi vehicles carrying WMD's are REQUIRED to have license plates labeled "WMD's on board" kind of screws my argument.

And besides. if the license plate fell off, I'm sure the high tech satellites with x-ray vision would detect them anyway. Sorry, my bad.

Lastly, as TH mentioned, why would Sadam lie? Great point. I would definitely take the word of Sadam. Sadam was a good and decent man...just misunderstood. As you know, it is against the muslim religion to lie and deceive infidels. Lastly, why would Sadam lie? Big deal if Bush ruined and humiliated him. Sadam was a good guy who always forgave and turned the other cheek. He had no reason to hate or undermine his nemesis. Besides, Bush is the terrorist & oppressor, right?

i get it. since UFO's dont fly around with liscence plates they are undetectable, yet we still have to accept that they exist?

and since a man is horrible person they are incapable of having a moment of truth with a confidant?

that about settles that... WMD do exist. :thumbsup:

...which begs the question, if WMD were such a threat to us americans and the sole premise of us taking the war to iraq, where are they and why are we doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get them from the country that now has them (you know, if theyre such a huge threat to our safety and all)?

where theres smoke theres fire, and the only WMD smoke ive seen is the smoke thats been blown up our collective asses for the past 6 years.

i may look into your theory further if you can answer this. why the HELL would syria want saddams WMD being stored in their country when they know we could easilly wipe them out? what do they have to possibly gain?

im beginning to think sasquatch and the loch ness monster live in syria too. maybe jimmy hoffa is buried there in the lost city of atlantis. i guess we will never know....

GBMelBlount
03-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Sorry, Tony. I thought you had exited the thread and not posted so I edited my post to be less combative. Then I saw you had posted. That is why there is a disparity between my edited post and your quote of mine.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:08 PM
I cant beileve your views on the world are so messed up, To say that other countries for caring and taking care of the world problems is wrong? And that we need to care for our selves? Why do you think that is so important now that each candidates supports Isreal? If they did not they would lose so many votes. Its important to help other countries in need or we wont make progress and we wont have allies to help us.


Honestly I cant believe your grammar is so messed up, but that it besides the point. I never said caring for others is wrong......if you really cared for others your would ask your government why it financially supports oppressive dictatorships like these...cited as the worlds 10 worst dictators, while it still has an embargo on Cuba.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-13-2005/featured_0

There are US businesses that would gladly sell to Cuba, but because they parked some missiles there some 50 years ago they cant. Let's be serious, you can buy a Big Mac and a Coke in Vietnam and that was just in the 70's.

GBMelBlount
03-14-2008, 11:14 PM
tony hipchest

what im also saying is that his (Sadam's) side of the "story" seemed a hell of alot more believable than our own president's. Saddam said it as FACT, and i think he would know better than anybody.

I guess that this pretty much sums it up Tony. You take Sadam's word ( a terrorist) who is encouraged to lie and deceive infidels, over Bush's. I find it funny you blame this war on Bush like most liberals. The list of liberals who had access to the same worldwide intelligence on Sadams WMD and suported the invasion is significant. They agreed with Bush based on the same information he had access and agreed with his decision to go to war. Now it's "Bush's war." If that is how you feel, I'm fine with that. My family has been safe since 9/11 and we are winning the war on terrorism.

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:17 PM
Oh, I agree - as an American, I hold no illusion that we take up arms for some "higher moral purpose" than simply looking out for #1. It's been that way with every country large and small throughout recorded history. Why should I believe we're any different? However, it doesn't excuse the amount of flak we get for doing something EVERYONE else does.



That's a huge crock. Most of those countries are in peacekeeping missions under the auspices of NATO or the UN - much like the U.S. is. As far as France goes, oil-for-food, anybody? Yeah, the U.S. is a selfish bastard of a nation, and everybody else in the world is only concerned with the well-being of others. Hell, if it wasn't for the warmongering and selfish U.S., the rest of the world would be free to all join hands and sing Kumbaya. What a bunch of bullshit.


I agree, as a nation you are like a baseball umpire. When you make a mistake, you get reamed on, but when you do something good....it mostly goes ignored. The thing is instead of learning from mistakes you defend it vigorously and go right back to making the same controversial policy decisions with that great cowboy bravado.

The US is to the rest of the world like George Steinbrenner was to MLB in his prime. Yankee fans loved him most of the the time and the rest of the league thought he was running off half profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfiltered.

Again, I love the US as a nation, but this is just how some of the rest of the world sees you and why.

tony hipchest
03-14-2008, 11:25 PM
I guess that this pretty much sums it up Tony. You take Sadam's word ( a terrorist) who is encouraged to lie and deceive infidels, over Bush's. I find it funny you blame this war on Bush like most liberals. The list of liberals who had access to the same worldwide intelligence on Sadams WMD and suported the invasion is significant. They agreed with Bush based on the same information he had access and agreed with his decision to go to war. Now it's "Bush's war." If that is how you feel, I'm fine with that. My family has been safe since 9/11 and we are winning the war on terrorism.i have never "blamed" this war on bush. that is a gross misrepresentation. i did say i dont believe that the WMD teleported themselves into obscurity in syria though.

but i cant speak for saddam no longer, when you can hear his words yourself and then make up your own mind of who you chose to believe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

i guess conservatives would never even bother to listen to a killers confessions on his deathbed though, right?

oh well. not my loss.

keep in mind that george piro was an fbi agent who was seeking out intelligence for the US much like the agents who were seeking out intelligence in regards to the WMD that were dismantled.

this is not 2 seperate sides or wanting to believe a dictator over our president. OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE is/has provided 2 conflicting stories.

i like to look at it as we finally got down to the bottom of the story rather than try to prove and believe g-dub and the faulty intelligence was right all along.

(i believe EVERY american who gives half a rats ass should listen to what piro has to say)

El-Gonzo Jackson
03-14-2008, 11:28 PM
i im beginning to think sasquatch and the loch ness monster live in syria too. maybe jimmy hoffa is buried there in the lost city of atlantis. i guess we will never know....

I bet OJ could find Nicole's killer there too......wonder if they have a golf course:wink02:

Honeslty fellas, I have enjoyed the spirited discussion, but here is what I can see from this post.

The US sometimes likes to be the cowboy and get into other countries fights, for differing reasons and is either praised or criticized for it.

One side of Americans questions the government and wonders why are they really doing things and makes a decision to back the administration or buck them after considering the facts.

The other side just trusts the administration because they were voted in and backs them with little or no question and replies to all those that oppose .....kiss my a$$.

Have fun with it and the topics of sub prime mortgages, factory closings, healthcare and education costs/benefits before you have to vote. I'm off to some draft talk. I'm out.

BettisFan
03-15-2008, 12:24 AM
Honestly after listening to Bush's most recent speech again more intently it seems as if we are going no where fast and need serious help, i dont think any of these candidates can do that.

tony hipchest
03-15-2008, 01:03 AM
Honestly after listening to Bush's most recent speech again more intently it seems as if we are going no where fast and need serious help, i dont think any of these candidates can do that.
you watched a GW speech TWICE? :jawdrop:

:toofunny: you know what, after i watched the 1st coat of paint dry, i took a pass on watching what the 2nd coat would do.

GBMelBlount
03-15-2008, 08:27 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

i guess conservatives would never even bother to listen to a killers confessions on his deathbed though, right?

(i believe EVERY american who gives half a rats ass should listen to what piro has to say)

I am a "conservative" and have no problem listening to the interview. I am just not inclined to believe the words of that rat bastard as gospel, But that is just me.

Preacher
03-17-2008, 02:03 AM
i may look into your theory further if you can answer this. why the HELL would syria want saddams WMD being stored in their country when they know we could easilly wipe them out? what do they have to possibly gain?
.

Can i take a shot at this answer?

We can't easily take out Syria. It would be an act of complete aggression which the mideast would not support. We couldn't use our bases that we currently use.

Why? and what makes it different from the current war? Thanks for asking!

The current war was based on an active war that was only suspended by cease fire. Thus, we had world authority (which was why we really DIDNT have to go to the UN) through the UN resolutions in the early 90's to go to war against Iraq. Furthermore, almost EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY was in agreement with the US that Iraq had WMD. Thus, while they didn't want to go to war (many of whom were getting payments from iraq), they couldn't argue with the logic. The same isn't true of Syria. If we were to go and announce that Syria has WMD, no one would believe us. The political game has been played to such a level that reality is what people want, not what is. THus, no one CARES if we have proof, if we can prove that the weapons were transfered. they simply wouldn't go for it. Syria knows that, and I would argue, knew that.

On top of that, Syria has the backing and support of Iran. Thus, to move weapons to Syria is essentially the same as moving weapons to Iran. Sure Iraq and Iran went to war, but they BOTH hate America more. that is why Iran allowed Iraq's Migs to land there and protected them in the first gulf war.

What does Syria have to gain? Well, 1. They are pushing for regional hegemony over Palestine and Lebanon. WMD gives them that much more ability. 2. It gives them more bargaining power with Iran. 3. If Saddam made it through, which it sounds like he was hoping he would, Syria now has a strong hand in bargaining and dealing with Iraq. That isn't a bad place to be with a country that is fickle with its neighbors.


And no, I don't trust what Saddam said. Why? Because if he thought this man had the ear of the president, why would he give the president anything that would help him?

revefsreleets
03-19-2008, 07:13 PM
Thanks, Preach. I don't need to read through the detritus now! But I may just still skim back through just to see how weird some of the posts may be...

tony hipchest
03-20-2008, 09:49 PM
Because if he thought this man had the ear of the president, why would he give the president anything that would help him?i dont know. why would he gas the kurds?

why would he invade a neighboring nation over a personal slight?

why was he such a sick demented psychopath?

your question is about as easy to answer as mine. why would he lie in his ultimate moment of vulnerability?

his confessions actually did bush a favor by legitimizing the attack and war on iraq. why would he help bush out in this way?

by admitting that he planned to continue all WMD research and development he pretty much lets bush off the hook.

which brings me back to my original question. if the dismantling of WMD wasnt true, why would he say that if he werent being as candid as he was in the rest of the interview?

Stlrs4Life
03-21-2008, 01:34 PM
it isnt micheal moore its all real stuff legitimate just saw it today



No, the reps would never put out false stuff.

fansince'76
03-21-2008, 03:18 PM
No, the reps would never put out false stuff.

Yep, neither would the Dems. Face it, both sides lie like a rug.

Preacher
03-21-2008, 03:19 PM
i dont know. why would he gas the kurds?

why would he invade a neighboring nation over a personal slight?

why was he such a sick demented psychopath?

your question is about as easy to answer as mine. why would he lie in his ultimate moment of vulnerability?

his confessions actually did bush a favor by legitimizing the attack and war on iraq. why would he help bush out in this way?

by admitting that he planned to continue all WMD research and development he pretty much lets bush off the hook.

which brings me back to my original question. if the dismantling of WMD wasnt true, why would he say that if he werent being as candid as he was in the rest of the interview?

There is one answer that I think takes care of all of these questions. . .

He was mentally unbalanced just as Hitler was (No, I am not dropping the YOUR A NAZI and I have just gone to the extreme type argument here, rather, using an example of another irrational world leader). If that were the case, then he anything would make sense to him.

Preacher
03-21-2008, 03:28 PM
Yep, neither would the Dems. Face it, both sides lie like a rug.

A badly laid rug on the head of an overweight bald man!!

http://distractiblemind.ambulatorycomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/WindowsLiveWriter/b9914f97463e_129E4/toupee.gif.jpg

tony hipchest
03-21-2008, 03:48 PM
There is one answer that I think takes care of all of these questions. . .

He was mentally unbalanced just as Hitler was (No, I am not dropping the YOUR A NAZI and I have just gone to the extreme type argument here, rather, using an example of another irrational world leader). If that were the case, then he anything would make sense to him.
which helps support my point. just because he was a psycho sociopath doesnt mean WE get to pick and choose what he was lying or telling the truth about.

again, why would he admit stuff that actually made bush look good and justify the invasion of iraq and then turn around and lie about the WMD?

for what its worth, i do believe russia acted like the repo man, and wanted to get some of its unpaid for equipment back before it was destroyed by the UN or bombed by americans..