The Draft coming back? (not football) [Archive]

X21AAAPlayer

04-21-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by mwynn05
this would have a pretty big effect on me since i will be 18 in less than a year but i dont think it will happen any time soon
Aint that the truth. The reason I brought this up is because it will become a possibility. I'm not mentioning any names but a certain political leader got us in to a war that will last long past what we had hoped for. It is clear Iraq will not be suitable to run itself for a LONG time. And who could forget all the other countries that absolutely hate us at this point in time. We seem to always be getting involved with intangling foreign affairs and it ALWAYS nips us in the butt. We are having soldiers sent over there not once, but twice. Not to just Iraq either, to other countries where there is a possibility of some sort of conflict. And we can't forget about terrorism. Take the number of troops we have in different countries. Double or triple that and that's what we should have in America in case of another attack on our soil. I beleive the chances of the draft being reinstated will become greater, or lesser depending on the candidate that will be elected. Only time will tell.

sinton66

04-21-2004, 09:51 PM

vfunk, if you REALLY believe that, I have a suggestion for you. It is only a suggestion. You should do a little Bible reading, in particular, the Book of Revelations. There is a theory that the next war, based on writings in the Bible will be fought on both sides of a holy mountain. By my calculations, Jesus' second coming should happen somewhere between 2030 and 2035.

Greenwood Teach

04-21-2004, 10:12 PM

You may think it won't happen, but that's my job as a mom. I'm the official worrier.

PhiI C

04-21-2004, 10:49 PM

I agree with Sinton 66 in that it won't be necessary unless we get involved in a World War. But it amuses me when young people say they aren't gonna go if they reinstate the draft and get drafted. That is just like me saying I'm not going to pay any income tax. When it comes down to the nitty gritty you pay.

Ranger Mom

04-21-2004, 10:56 PM

IMO, if WWIII is what will cause the draft to be re-instated, I wouldn't worry so much about that as I would be worried about being right with the Lord!!

WWIII = Armageddon

X21AAAPlayer

04-21-2004, 11:10 PM

Possibly, but possibly not. There are a few countries that have the ability to end the world on the push of a button. Would they be willing to kill themselves just to kill another? I DOUBT IT. Well you never know though with some of these people now. It's really scary if you think about it.

AggieJohn

04-22-2004, 01:26 AM

draft won't most likely ever happen, i'm come on, we have the worlds largest volunteer army

vfunk

04-22-2004, 06:12 AM

sinton...I know what you mean, but wouldnt you also say its true that throughout history, many people have envisioned the second coming happening in their lifetime? It is also hard for me to fathom a holy war in which the US would be involved....most US citizens are too lazy in their religion. Fighting on the Gaza Strip has been going on for years, and I just think that the next big war wont be the final big war....just maybe the final war in which the US is still the US. I dont want to get too much into a religion talk about it all, because we all know how those go.

BullFrog Dad

04-22-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by vfunk
sinton...I know what you mean, but wouldnt you also say its true that throughout history, many people have envisioned the second coming happening in their lifetime? It is also hard for me to fathom a holy war in which the US would be involved....most US citizens are too lazy in their religion. Fighting on the Gaza Strip has been going on for years, and I just think that the next big war wont be the final big war....just maybe the final war in which the US is still the US. I dont want to get too much into a religion talk about it all, because we all know how those go. Quote: "I don't know what weapons will be used in WW3,
but I know sticks and stones will be used in WW4" [Einstein].

Keith7

04-22-2004, 11:38 AM

If this is true, I heard Mel Kiper predicts me to go in the first round!

slpybear the bullfan

04-22-2004, 12:31 PM

LOL Keith7, that is a good one!

BTW, the last draft had an age range of 18~26... (Vietnam).

Folks, pleeeeaaaassseee do not let the fighting in Iraq get blown out of proportion. ANYTIME one of our soldiers dies it is a big deal. But don't allow the reporting you hear to blow the scale out of proportion. It is nowhere near the size of previous large conflicts, especially in terms of casualties.

IMHO, that kind of reporting is sloppy and especially lazy.

As far as the potential draft goes....

1.) Armed Forces Recruiters are beating their targets by 75 to 100% right now. Please sleep safe and don't worry about this.

2.) The Cowboys desperately need a RB. Please stay up AND worry about this. :)

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-22-2004, 12:52 PM

I think the Cowboys need a QB more than they need a RB. :D

JasperDog94

04-22-2004, 01:37 PM

The jury is still out on Drew Henson.

X21AAAPlayer

04-22-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
LOL Keith7, that is a good one!

BTW, the last draft had an age range of 18~26... (Vietnam).

Folks, pleeeeaaaassseee do not let the fighting in Iraq get blown out of proportion. ANYTIME one of our soldiers dies it is a big deal. But don't allow the reporting you hear to blow the scale out of proportion. It is nowhere near the size of previous large conflicts, especially in terms of casualties.

IMHO, that kind of reporting is sloppy and especially lazy.

As far as the potential draft goes....

1.) Armed Forces Recruiters are beating their targets by 75 to 100% right now. Please sleep safe and don't worry about this.

2.) The Cowboys desperately need a RB. Please stay up AND worry about this. :)

Start off with the draft, end up on dallas cowboy's football. Only on the 3a downlow:D

JasperDog94

04-22-2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by true_blue_tiger
being a high school senior, I will serve if my number gets drawn, but if not for the draft, I do not plan on joining any branch.
Spoken like a true American!!!:clap: :clap:

crzyjournalist03

04-22-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I think the Cowboys need a QB more than they need a RB. :D

Kurt Warner is going to be available....man I'd love to see him with a star on his helmet...I'm one of the few guys left that thinks he's still an elite QB in this league.

sahen

04-22-2004, 05:38 PM

It would take a really really really bad situation for them to start the draft back up...I mean think about it...if we get into a big pickle do u really think they r gonna still be worried about Iraq? (unless if the pickle is in Iraq)....Once they realize we have a big prob, or atleast a prob w/ the magnitude of reinstating the draft, the American Military is gonna put all of it's might into resolving the problem...I am not saying we r invincible but it would take a heck of a disturbance to make our army small enough to require another draft and as far as the thing w/ the next major war being fought on our land i think no country would be capable of that for now...The U.S. has a long way left to fall before someone can do that and remember, Americans in the past have proven to be bred from a fiesty bunch, we beat one of the biggest superpowers at that time on our own land to start our nation and places like our great state of Texas beat a Mexican army that was one of powers in the world (the Mexicans had just beat a superpower in Spain).....so whoever does try to take America is gonna have a heck of a time doing it....and if they try they better have a huge alliance with most of the world behind them cause it is gonna be a costly endevour even if they suceed cause i dont believe Americans would go down w/o a huge fight...

vfunk

04-22-2004, 08:46 PM

ahhh sahen.....you need to read up on your world history....at one point, the Roman Empire covered much of the world, but even they were overthrown. Im not saying that a war will fall upon our soil soon, but I think that once it does reach American borders, we will crumble. We all feel safe when the war is thousands of miles away. But when danger rears its ugly ahead we panic because we arent used to it. Do you remember the panic of 9/11? I saw people filling up barrells of gasoline the next day in fear that the gas stations would not be there the next day. I know that was a terrible day, but Im just trying to make the point... and other countries are on our side, but once the fighting falls on our soil and other strong countries see the opportunity to become "the strongest", you dont think they will jump at that? Our allies will only remain as long as they have to, they will ride our coat tails until they see the chance to jump ahead...everyone wants to be the best and strongest....and eventually, everyone gets stabbed in the back. One of these days Great Britain will get tired of being #2 and Spain will become exhausted with "helping" and France has already become that way....remember France....they gave us the Statue of Liberty and were once our biggest ally....now they all mock us. All it takes is time, and if you cant see that, open the blinds and look out the window.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-22-2004, 09:13 PM

I too think that Kurt Warner is a great QB. He is calm and collected in the pocket, smart, and has a beautiful pass. His speed hurts him, but he is a good QB nonetheless.

spiveyrat

04-23-2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by vfunk
ahhh sahen.....you need to read up on your world history....at one point, the Roman Empire covered much of the world, but even they were overthrown. Im not saying that a war will fall upon our soil soon, but I think that once it does reach American borders, we will crumble. We all feel safe when the war is thousands of miles away. But when danger rears its ugly ahead we panic because we arent used to it. Do you remember the panic of 9/11? I saw people filling up barrells of gasoline the next day in fear that the gas stations would not be there the next day. I know that was a terrible day, but Im just trying to make the point... and other countries are on our side, but once the fighting falls on our soil and other strong countries see the opportunity to become "the strongest", you dont think they will jump at that? Our allies will only remain as long as they have to, they will ride our coat tails until they see the chance to jump ahead...everyone wants to be the best and strongest....and eventually, everyone gets stabbed in the back. One of these days Great Britain will get tired of being #2 and Spain will become exhausted with "helping" and France has already become that way....remember France....they gave us the Statue of Liberty and were once our biggest ally....now they all mock us. All it takes is time, and if you cant see that, open the blinds and look out the window.

The Roman Empire was an expansionist/imperialist regime and they spread themselves too thin making them vulnerable. The US is not an imperialist nation. The bigger a nation becomes, the harder it is to manage.

I remember 9/11 and I remember people uniting. I remember our resolve being as one with no partisan politics at play. I also remember being very angry after I got over the shock (didn't take very long) as were a lot of Americans. Crisis has a way of bringing Americans together.

By the way, the people you saw filling barrels full of gas were doing so not because they were afraid the gas station wouldn't be there the next day but because they were afraid gas prices would sky-rocket overnight.

olddawggreen

04-23-2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, there actually is talk about reinstating the draft, but with changes in the provisions that there were in the past. They are going take out many of the loopholes that kept people from going to war, such as being in college and being older than 45 years of age. They plan to extend the range of the age, not lower it, but raise it. This means they are planning to move the age to up around 50 or so, but for a reason. They want to bring in computer experts as well as experts in the tactics of war, not to actually fight in the war itself. This is just to say if they DO actually re-instate the draft. I for one don't think they will and hope they will not. Also, it is much like Sinton66 said, it's close to the election and not everything we hear may be true, this is just stuff that I've overheard at supper coming from the television, and we all know how reliable of a source it can be at times.

Your right Big Blue, there is a lot of talk going around about the draft. If they do reinstate the draft, I personally don't look for them to raise the age. Currently you cant even join the military after the age of 35. I could see them bringing on people over 35 as civilian contractors though if necessary.

olddawggreen

04-23-2004, 09:36 AM

For all you guys worried about being drafted, I truely found a way to beat the draft during Vietnam, I never even registered for the draft:eek: :eek: , I joined the Navy at the age of 17! While I would not recomend this to everyone, it worked for me. It helped me pay for college and I take great pride in knowing I served my country.
I have always thought that it would be a good idea for all young people to serve their country for a couple of years after high school in some way, not just in the military, but in some kind of service to their country and its people. Two years of service would give some people time to mature and get an idea of what they really want to do with their life. I think it would also be great if this two years of service could be tied to some kind of benifit package to help pay for college or training for jobs.
I think too many people take our country for granted. They support our troops, but fail to step up and contribute when its their turn. Being the father of three sons, I have the same fears as most parents. While I am not encouraging my boys to enter the military, I also am not discouraging it. It will be their decision. If there was a draft in place that required all young people to serve, but allowed them to choose how they would serve , I would support it.

pakrat

04-23-2004, 09:48 AM

During the days of the draft, we had boys who grew up in the shadow of WWII. They knew there was a need for a fighting force. Still some of them were unhappy in the military, but for the most part they served admirably. Todays young men (with the exception of football players:D ) are soft. Most of them couldn't handle boot camp. I would hate to know my defense depended on some of the punkrocker wannabes I have seen. We may already be in WWIII. This thing is far from over. We have a sworn enemy that consists of tough young men. We will only prevail if we have the will to fight. If we allow our young people to become decadent like the Roman Empire, then we will go the way of that empire. I personally think some sort of Military Obligation would be a good thing, even if it was only 6 mo. and all you learned was map reading, and a little respect for the military. Switzerland, known for its neutrality, mandates that all young men serve in the military. It is like our reserves. They meet on weekends and have acitve duty for a couple of weeks every few years. This is the result of living in the shadow of the iron curtain for 50 yrs.

olddawggreen

04-23-2004, 10:28 AM

Pakrat, Isreal too requires all young people, both men and women to serve for a period of time when they turn 18.

olddawggreen

04-23-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by olddawggreen
Pakrat, Isreal too requires all young people, both men and women to serve for a period of time when they turn 18. I spent some time working in the buffer zone (Siani Dessert) between Isreal and Egypt when I was younger. I saw first hand the young men and women of Isreal in uniform. They were a very dedicated and impressive bunch of young people. They didn't necessarly like the fact that they had to serve, they just knew that in order for their country to survive, that it was necessary for them to do their duty to their country.

pakrat

04-23-2004, 10:36 AM

I had forgot about Israel. Olddawggreen, I agree with your previous statements about the draft.

X21AAAPlayer

04-23-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by pakrat
During the days of the draft, we had boys who grew up in the shadow of WWII. They knew there was a need for a fighting force. Still some of them were unhappy in the military, but for the most part they served admirably. Todays young men (with the exception of football players:D ) are soft. Most of them couldn't handle boot camp. I would hate to know my defense depended on some of the punkrocker wannabes I have seen. We may already be in WWIII. This thing is far from over. We have a sworn enemy that consists of tough young men. We will only prevail if we have the will to fight.
Yes I agree with you totally. But be sure you're aware of the many young people that are willing to go over there and give whatever possible to defend this country. Like I said before Im seriously considering signing up. Im sick of seeing U.S. soldiers killed for a useless fight. It's like a modern day Vietnam but we are not losing as many lives as they did, yet.

pakrat

04-23-2004, 04:44 PM

X21AAAPlayer, I admire your patriotism. I will not urge you to join because it is serious business right now. But you renew faith in America's young men. If you join, let everyone know on this board so we can pray for you and thank God for young men like you.

X21AAAPlayer

04-23-2004, 05:24 PM

I know it's serious business and that's what's provoking me to join. I have friends over there right now. I mean wouldn't you feel the same and feel like that you're obliged to go? We just had a marine killed in our area. I know of a few people who feel the same as I do and who wish to be a part of it.

sinton66

04-23-2004, 05:27 PM

X21AAAPlayer

04-23-2004, 05:44 PM

I was referring to the dissapproval by a lot of people on the subject of the war. Take ten people and ask them if they feel the war is necessary or should we pull out. I bet most of them will say we shouldn't be there. I wasn't alive in the vietnam war but from what I've learned throughout the years it was like this as well. I wasn't meaning they were exactly the same. I guess I should've clarified myself. Sorry

sinton66

04-23-2004, 07:20 PM

Ok, let me tell you a little something about war and our lovely citizenry in this country. War has a way of increasing people's disapproval of it. That's because most are fair-weather friends that think a war should be over and done with in a month or two, and if it isn't, we should just pull out. The longer it lasts the more people will be against it. Just war or not, doesn't matter. It's been that way throughout our history as a nation. We had them in the revolutionary war, those that thought the price was too high and we should just give up and let England have their way.(Remember Benedict Arnold?) We had them in WWI, WWII, Korea, VietNam and even now. There will always be people who disapprove of the prosecution of war because war is nasty business. But war is necessary sometimes, and it's never pretty.

I thank God daily for the men and women in todays military that have the courage to fight for what's right and to defend this nation. The fact that it is an all volunteer force is even more impressive to me and I take it as a sign that our young people still have the American grit and spirit to compare and perhaps even match that of our revolutionary forefathers.

slpybear the bullfan

04-23-2004, 09:47 PM

Don't forget, there were a lot of folks here at home during Vietnam that worked hard to support the troops and didn't spend their time braless or buring draft cards. But that is too boring to make the news. Just ask my mother.

Today is much the same. Folks are waaayyy to more occupied with how their daughters select 7 year old Teeball team is doing to be worrying about what is going on in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Malyasia, etc. We are so blessed with wealth and a good life that here it is a couple of years after 9/11 and the majority of folks have completely forgotten that we have been attacked.

Are folks today angry and demanding that we pull out? Yes, a few. Are folks today fired up about seeing it through? Yes, a few.

I am afraid that I am very concerned that Americans aren't really worried to much about these events until it affects their little league schedule.

Sorry, I am just a little frustrated tonight.

For those of you with loved ones wearing BDUs... I am thinking about them... Please tell them thank you...

sinton66

04-23-2004, 10:31 PM

I agree Slpy. I think people in this country have had freedom so long that they have begun to take it for granted and have forgotten the price that was paid for it. I believe that is the major reason why public opinion is such a fickle mistress.

olddawggreen

04-24-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by X21AAAPlayer
Yes I agree with you totally. But be sure you're aware of the many young people that are willing to go over there and give whatever possible to defend this country. Like I said before Im seriously considering signing up. Im sick of seeing U.S. soldiers killed for a useless fight. It's like a modern day Vietnam but we are not losing as many lives as they did, yet.

X21AAAPlayer, I wouldn't tell our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afganistan that they are involved in a "useless fight". I would venture so say that they are in a much better position to see the big picture than you or I are, and they would tell you that they know exactly what their fighting for. Too many people seem to forget that we have been attacked on our home soil and many inocent civillians have lost their lives. Our response has been to attack both Afganistan and Iraq, both countries well known to harbor terriost and people who hate Americans and would do them harm if allowed to. I believe the message that we have sent is that we will go to what ever effort necessary to stop attacks on our citizens. I wish we weren't fighting in either countries, but most of all I wish 9/11 had never happened, it changed our world. We are at war and it will not end soon. If we are not strong or if we show these thugs that we won't stand our ground and finish what we start, I fear that it will never end.

X21AAAPlayer

04-24-2004, 05:47 PM

Yeah I know I read what I wrote and it didn't sound right after you brought it up. What really makes me mad is that we have soldiers over there trying to get the country ready for the Iraq government to take over and they are being treated like targets for some sick minded individual's target practice. Anyone can be a threat and it's that which makes me even more frustrated. Beleive me I haven't forgotten about 9-11. Im with a volunteer fire department and the events will be stuck in my mind for as long as I live. I may sound a little on the barbarian side when I say this but I think we are going too easy on Iraq and terrorists. Sinton, do you have family or friends overseas right now or are a vet yourself? Just curious, I don't know much about you but you seem to have a firm grasp of your ideas. Also, one more thing I have to get off my chest. I've talked to a few people about going in to the marines and the younger crowd always seems to accuse me of being just plain crazy. What's so wrong about wanting to fight overseas for this country? Ok guys sorry I'll get off the soap box now.

sinton66

04-24-2004, 09:02 PM

I don't currently have anyone serving in the military from my immediate family I have a nephew that has made a career in the Air Force. I am a VietNam era vet. I was in the Navy during the late 60's and early 70's. I never made it to Nam, but I did serve during that war. Had really tough duty too, being stationed at Pearl Harbor.;) (Somebody's got to keep all those radios working).
I was on a Submarine Rescue vessel. We ran practice ops with a couple of nuke subs all the time.

I did have an older brother that was wounded in VietNam. He was in the Marine Recon division. He was wounded four times in all, and left the military with a 50% disability because he lost most of the use of his right arm after having shrapnel from a land mine hit him in the elbow. He also left with a purple heart, a bronze star and a silver star. That's how I know so much about that war.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-24-2004, 09:43 PM

Actually, the reason why there were more casualties in Vietnam than there were in Iraq is that we had a preemptive strike against Iraq, the war was longer in Vietnam, and there was more fighting involved in Vietnam than there was in Iraq. We went into Vietnam in the midst of a war, and bringing in troops and airplanes was a lot more difficult than it was in Iraq. Fighting in Vietnam occured on a daily basis, and lasted for years. Iraq lasted only a couple of months and there is only a small skirmish a day in Iraq after all of the major fighting in Iraq was declared over. Also, the press isn't releasing the number of causualties suffered from foreign aid, such as Spain, England, and Australia. If you add those in to the number of soldiers lost, then it would probably be 2 or 3 times the number of causualties that are being reported now. I do have to commend you Sinton66 for serving your country. Half of the people don't have the tenacity to serve the country they live in today because they, like Dick Cheney, had better things to do in a time of war.

PhiI C

04-24-2004, 09:49 PM

I agree with Sinton 66 and remember he and I were around both now and when Vietnam was fought and there is no comparison between the two. Like Korea Vietnam was a war that our leaders and soldiers were not allowed to win. We won in Iraq. What is happening is terrorist attacks. I know it is costing lives but Iraq has a long way to go before it approaches the Vietnam casualities. We must never get involved in another Vietnam or Korea. What is ironic is that when Truman fired McArthur he was booed at baseball games and very unpopular and this helped Ike get in the white house. Now thanks to liberal media and movies Truman is made out to be the hero and McArthur the bad incompetent guy. This the guy that lead our forces to victory over Japan. Strange irony.

fred grunden

04-25-2004, 11:44 PM

I volunteered for the draft right out of highschool. They just moved you up to the top of the list and when your draft board had to send someone, you got the call. I served my 2 years and was out only 3 months when I got called back to active duty because of the Berliln Wall Crisis. So I spent almost another year.
But I was released from active duty in the fall of '62 and when Viet Nam started, I was still in the reserves but I guess the army thought I had been called on enough, because they left me alone when everyone else my age was being drafted and sent to Nam.
I have 3 brothers, they all served. (But not in Nam) My dad was a WWI vet. So we all did our duty. It was a positive experience for me. I was younger than most of the other guys. I got structure and discipline that was good for me at that age. I was removed from my old stomping grounds where I might have been bored and got into trouble like teenage boys can.:D But I could not compare my experience to a war time experience.

My wife worked at Ft. Polk during Viet Nam. She learned a little about the agonies of young men going to the war zone. Lyndon Johnson didn't have the guts to stand up to the doves and let the generals win the war. He promised not to esculate the war and thus won a landslide over Barry Goldwater who was promising to bomb the fool out of the Viet Cong. It drug on and
the media took control. Network news anchors told us everynight how bad the war was going, even when it wasn't. News anchors
were cynical and thought they were smarter than the generals.
They played into the emotions of a US public that had never been exposed to daily war on TV. The far left got very noisy while most Americans stayed quiet. All we were trying to do was stop the spread of communism. Now its different. We have an enemy who
wants to kill everyone of us. They want to wreck our economy. They know that if they can break the US, the rest of the world can be conquered easily.

olddawggreen

04-26-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by fred grunden
I volunteered for the draft right out of highschool. They just moved you up to the top of the list and when your draft board had to send someone, you got the call. I served my 2 years and was out only 3 months when I got called back to active duty because of the Berliln Wall Crisis. So I spent almost another year.
But I was released from active duty in the fall of '62 and when Viet Nam started, I was still in the reserves but I guess the army thought I had been called on enough, because they left me alone when everyone else my age was being drafted and sent to Nam.
I have 3 brothers, they all served. (But not in Nam) My dad was a WWI vet. So we all did our duty. It was a positive experience for me. I was younger than most of the other guys. I got structure and discipline that was good for me at that age. I was removed from my old stomping grounds where I might have been bored and got into trouble like teenage boys can.:D But I could not compare my experience to a war time experience.

My wife worked at Ft. Polk during Viet Nam. She learned a little about the agonies of young men going to the war zone. Lyndon Johnson didn't have the guts to stand up to the doves and let the generals win the war. He promised not to esculate the war and thus won a landslide over Barry Goldwater who was promising to bomb the fool out of the Viet Cong. It drug on and
the media took control. Network news anchors told us everynight how bad the war was going, even when it wasn't. News anchors
were cynical and thought they were smarter than the generals.
They played into the emotions of a US public that had never been exposed to daily war on TV. The far left got very noisy while most Americans stayed quiet. All we were trying to do was stop the spread of communism. Now its different. We have an enemy who
wants to kill everyone of us. They want to wreck our economy. They know that if they can break the US, the rest of the world can be conquered easily.

I agree FG. It just blows me away to see so many people that have appeared to forget all about the fact that we have been attacked at home by people that want to kill as many Americans and our Allies that they can and destroy our ecconmey and our way of life. I would be the first to say bring our troops home if the job was completed, but its not. And it totally burns me up to see some of the Demos using some of the problems that our troops are encountering, as a campain issue. :mad: It is unbelivable to see some people actually apear to be happy that things have gotten tougher over the last couple of months in Iraq. I mean you would think that some of them would really like to see our military suffer heavy losses and have a hard time, just so they can say what a terrible president Bush is and how Kerry will save us all. GIVE ME A BREAK! :mad: :mad:

X21AAAPlayer

04-26-2004, 04:07 PM

Well of course they are going to talk like that. There's no chance that they'll be affected in having to go over seas.:mad:

Mean_Machine

04-26-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by olddawggreen
I agree FG. It just blows me away to see so many people that have appeared to forget all about the fact that we have been attacked at home by people that want to kill as many Americans and our Allies that they can and destroy our ecconmey and our way of life. I would be the first to say bring our troops home if the job was completed, but its not. And it totally burns me up to see some of the Demos using some of the problems that our troops are encountering, as a campain issue. :mad: It is unbelivable to see some people actually apear to be happy that things have gotten tougher over the last couple of months in Iraq. I mean you would think that some of them would really like to see our military suffer heavy losses and have a hard time, just so they can say what a terrible president Bush is and how Kerry will save us all. GIVE ME A BREAK! :mad: :mad: Come on.... The war in Iraq is linked to 9/11 only because Bush said it was. not because Iraq commited any attack on the US. 2) If we did in Vietnam what we did in Iraq we would have been in a slugfest with The Good old USSR or China. Thats why we had to fight a limmited war. It was a Fine balance that kept us from WWIII.
Lets Remember the Reason for going to Iraq. WMDs.... That is the reason before it changed.. It can burn you up all it want to but sometimes the truth hurts. we should have been spending these troops an billions of $ hunting the fella who is responsible for 9/11. I think the draft is probable if Bush is reelected. I would ecpect Us to Jump on Syria or Iran and that would creat a need for a draft. but I believe the US people are smarter than that. It will all change in november;)

BHKrystal06

04-26-2004, 07:56 PM

X21AAAPlayer, I agree with whatever you decide. If you wanna go to Iraq, you should go. It's a good reason to go. Heck, I'd go if I was old enough. Just remember the people that love you.

Chupacabra

04-26-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Old Tiger
I hope they don't. Because I don't wanna get drafted. Joining the military isn't even a possiblity to me because I'm not gonna.

I hope you aren't implying that you would dodge the draft if it was reinstated and you got called up.

I think attitudes like this are one of the most serious problems facing our country today. For whatever the reason, many young Americans take what they have here for granted...and don't realize how much many young men and women before them have given up so we can enjoy our lives. It's fine if you don't want to join the military, it definately is not for everyone, and no one wants to be killed in a war, but as Martin Luther King Jr. once said "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live" and I can't think of a better reason to make the ultimate sacrifice than preserving the lives and freedom of your friends and family back home.

And, like most everyone else has said on here, the draft won't be reinstated anytime soon...for all the reasons everyone else has stated, and because most of our military leaders do not want draftees. The young American men nowadays lack the fighting spirit of our grandfathers in WWII, and those drafted would be more of a problem than a help. I'm not going to go into all the reasons, but the volunteer military is working just fine for us, and should stay that way.

Mean_Machine- I don't want to get into the whole Iraq argument, but I'll just offer up the way I feel about it. Ok, Iraq has not attacked the United States, but why wait for them to hit us first or an "imminent attack"...do we really need an event like September 11 before we can take action against anyone? What about a good offense as your best defense, it's much more efficient to eliminate what will become a threat before it is too late. We should have taked out Saddam during Desert Storm, that was a mistake. You say that WMDs are the reason we went to war, and that was a major point, at the time we went to war we had thought there were WMDs. I mean, Saddam obviously had them at some point, he used them on the Kurds, then he stops letting weapons inspectors look at them...that's pretty shady if you ask me. So he sent them to Syria, buried them, whatever. Was our intelligence wrong? Yes. Did President Bush embellish the evidence to convince us to go to war? Yeah. Is he wrong for doing that? No. He did what he needed to do to accomplish a goal, and I think that goal is just and right. We freed a nation and eliminated an obvious enemy of and eventual threat to our country. Oh, And Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush, I'd be pretty pissed off he tried to kill my dad too. Bottom line is that people are going to disagree, there are two sides to every story, and all politcians are liars.

Also, if you think we have given up the hunt for Osama, you're wrong, but I can bet that he is so busy running that he doesn't have time to plan another attack on American soil.

sinton66- thank you and your brother for your service to our country, and as usual, your comments are right on about the subject

Mean_Machine

04-26-2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Chupacabra
I hope you aren't implying that you would dodge the draft if it was reinstated and you got called up.

. Ok, Iraq has not attacked the United States, but why wait for them to hit us first or an "imminent attack"...do we really need an event like September 11 before we can take action against anyone? What about a good offense as your best defense, it's much more efficient to eliminate what will become a threat before it is too late. Ok So we better reinstate the draft for sure. because we should attack any country that could attack us first and is unfriedly to us JUST INCASE THEY DECIDE TO HIT US FIRST...... COME ON.. better get ready for about 5 more countries to take out after IRAQ if thats the criteria.. boy some people just will not see the mistakes.. Look I think we showed the world what happens to people who mess with us ( the Taliban for example) we dont need to start a war with potential enemies.. by your rational we would not even be here to type this because we should have had a preemptive strike against the USSR years ago because they were dangerous and could have been planing an attack on us.. but now its ok to think like that?? didnt fly then and does not fly now..

sinton66

04-26-2004, 10:30 PM

Here's a story from last week:

Al-Qaida WMDs Found As Jordan Thwarts "Massive Attack": WMDs Linked To Syria
posted 04/21, by mmglist (viewed 106 times) | Scope : National
Popularity : 7 (8 encourage, 1 discourage)
Relevance : 172

Terrorists linked to al-Qa'eda were poised to detonate a chemical bomb in the heart of Jordan's capital, Amman, that would have killed 20,000 people and contaminated a large area, it emerged yesterday.

King Abdullah praised Jordan's intelligence service for foiling a "crime never before seen in the kingdom". The target was the headquarters of the General Intelligence Department, on a hill in the city.

An official close to the investigation said three vehicles had been found, each filled with explosives, detonators and "primary materials" for making a chemical bomb. Had this device exploded, the official said, an area exceeding half a square mile would have been contaminated.

The terrorists also planned gas attacks on the American embassy in Amman and the office of Faisal al-Fayez, the Jordanian prime minister.

An undisclosed number of suspects have been arrested. Suleiman Darweesh and Muwafaq Adwan, two Palestinian militants linked with al-Qa'eda, are understood to be among them.

Jordan says the vehicles were smuggled over the border from neighbouring Syria. Syria has denied this. (of course they denied it)

I've never heard any intelligence agency say that Syria had developed a chemical weapons program. Hmmmmmm, I wonder where they got them? Al-Queida was operating out of Afganistan, right? How did they get into Syria? Could they also be operating in Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Palestine, and a dozen other middle east countries?

JasperDog94

04-26-2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by sinton66

I've never heard any intelligence agency say that Syria had developed a chemical weapons program. Hmmmmmm, I wonder where they got them? Al-Queida was operating out of Afganistan, right? How did they get into Syria? Could they also be operating in Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Palestine, and a dozen other middle east countries? Now come on 66, we all know that Afganistan was the ONLY country that has Al-Queida. There's NO CONNECTION to Iraq...at least that's all we hear from the national media and they're always right....right?

sinton66

04-26-2004, 10:49 PM

Yeah, I know. According to some, Iraq never had any ties to Al Queida at all. I guess it was just an oversight that Saddam let them establish that terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq and provided them shelter and protection while they trained to become slimy sneak murderers.

Back on the topic, we didn't need a draft for Afganistan. We didn't need a draft for Iraq. Iraq had by far the strongest military in the middle east, second only to Israel. Why would we need a draft for any of the others if it became necessary to take on another one? It probably won't become necessary. Iraq is in a strategic location in the middle east. All roads between Israel and the eastern portion of the middle east including Iran, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and many others go through Iraq. Control the borders of Iraq, and you control a whole bunch of middle east traffic of all sorts of things.

fred grunden

04-26-2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Yeah, I know. According to some, Iraq never had any ties to Al Queida at all. I guess it was just an oversight that Saddam let them establish that terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq and provided them shelter and protection while they trained to become slimy sneak murderers.

Back on the topic, we didn't need a draft for Afganistan. We didn't need a draft for Iraq. Iraq had by far the strongest military in the middle east, second only to Israel. Why would we need a draft for any of the others if it became necessary to take on another one? It probably won't become necessary. Iraq is in a strategic location in the middle east. All roads between Israel and the eastern portion of the middle east including Iran, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and many others go through Iraq. Control the borders of Iraq, and you control a whole bunch of middle east traffic of all sorts of things.

I just wish we could control our own borders, then maybe we wouldn't need to control Iraq's. The 911 Commission has convinced me that some want to blame Bush for 911. There was a lot more convincing argument for WMD in Iraq than for radical muslim thugs to fly airplanes into buildings. Just think how hot it would be for Bush if after 911 we had been hit by something from Iraq. And remember all that anthrax? Bush was just as scared about it as the rest of us.

Chupacabra

04-26-2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ok So we better reinstate the draft for sure. because we should attack any country that could attack us first and is unfriedly to us JUST INCASE THEY DECIDE TO HIT US FIRST...... COME ON.. better get ready for about 5 more countries to take out after IRAQ if thats the criteria.. boy some people just will not see the mistakes.. Look I think we showed the world what happens to people who mess with us ( the Taliban for example) we dont need to start a war with potential enemies.. by your rational we would not even be here to type this because we should have had a preemptive strike against the USSR years ago because they were dangerous and could have been planing an attack on us.. but now its ok to think like that?? didnt fly then and does not fly now..

I'm not saying we ought to invade any country at the drop of a dime, but we can't let these countries be breeding grounds for terrorism, it will hit us again if we don't clean up the Middle East. They have expressed their hate for us, and their desire to kill Americans and Christians wherever and however possible, and the only way we can change this is by overwhelming force, because these people do not negotiate.

The Cold War is a completely different story, we were competing nations in an arms race, no Middle Eastern country is going to threaten us with an all-out war that could destroy each country's entire population, we can risk invasion of these countries because we can defeat them with minimal casualties.

Since September 11 we are looking at the world in a different manner, it's not always a government we're after, so war is not always the answer. In my opinion war was needed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have to use unconventional tactics to suppress threats wherever they may be, and even if they are not imminent, because we can't afford that risk any longer, do you agree with that?

I'm going to offer to agree to disagree, feel free to respond after this, but lets not take this too far...I've seen other message boards go too far off topic about politics and the like, I'd rather just read and talk about 3a sports.

PI-fan

04-27-2004, 01:39 AM

If we don't need a draft why isn't the US sending new troops to Iraq and other places instead of extending their tours?

How ironic that the ppl the US thought would be happy that the US got rid of Sadaam... the shites? -r actually attacking the US, go figure.

Just curious, if the US was actually under seige and lets say being occupied in the near future, how many ppl on here would act like terrorists and attack the occupiers?

spiveyrat

04-27-2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Come on.... The war in Iraq is linked to 9/11 only because Bush said it was. not because Iraq commited any attack on the US. 2) If we did in Vietnam what we did in Iraq we would have been in a slugfest with The Good old USSR or China. Thats why we had to fight a limmited war. It was a Fine balance that kept us from WWIII.
Lets Remember the Reason for going to Iraq. WMDs.... That is the reason before it changed.. It can burn you up all it want to but sometimes the truth hurts. we should have been spending these troops an billions of $ hunting the fella who is responsible for 9/11. I think the draft is probable if Bush is reelected. I would ecpect Us to Jump on Syria or Iran and that would creat a need for a draft. but I believe the US people are smarter than that. It will all change in november;)

:rolleyes: You are just impossible! :rolleyes:

spiveyrat

04-27-2004, 07:03 AM

Everyone cool your jets...

Rumsfeld sees no Need for Military Draft

Thu Apr 22, 2:52 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration sees no need to reinstate the military draft, but it is pushing for improved Pentagon (news - web sites) management of the 1.4 million-strong force in order to meet wartime needs, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday. "I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld told the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention.

Some in Congress have questioned whether the long-term nature of the global war on terrorism might require a return to the system of military conscription that was abandoned in 1973. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., on Wednesday raised the possibility that compulsory military service might be necessary. The nation is engaged "in a generational war here against terrorism," Hagel said. "It's going to require resources."

"Should we continue to burden the middle class who represents most all of our soldiers, and the lower-middle class?" Hagel said. "Should we burden them with the fighting and the dying if in fact this is a generational — probably 25-year — war?"

Rumsfeld did not address the issue of burden-sharing, except to say the old system of conscription had "a lot of difficulties," including loopholes that permitted many to avoid being drafted.

He said the military simply does not need to abandon its all-volunteer approach. "We have a relatively small military. We have been very successful in recruiting and retaining the people we need," he said. Although the military is strained by its commitments in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere, it is working on ways to get more combat power out of the existing force, he said.

The Army, for example, is reorganizing to increase the number of combat brigades from 33 to as many as 48 over the next several years. And the Pentagon is finding ways to pull troops out of jobs that could be done by civilian Defense Department workers or government contractors, thus freeing more troops for combat-related duties.

sinton66

04-27-2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by PI-fan
If we don't need a draft why isn't the US sending new troops to Iraq and other places instead of extending their tours?

How ironic that the ppl the US thought would be happy that the US got rid of Sadaam... the shites? -r actually attacking the US, go figure.

Just curious, if the US was actually under seige and lets say being occupied in the near future, how many ppl on here would act like terrorists and attack the occupiers?

The US is and will continue to rotate the forces in Iraq. This is an entirely different military than what was common twenty years ago. The military will now call up the reserves before they would reinstate the draft. That's how it should be. Gone are the days when one could avoid the draft by joining the reserves.

Where did you get your information that "shiites" are attacking the US? I haven't heard that. One should be careful not to assume things not in evidence.

If the US was under siege, you would see patriots coming out of the woodwork. While the movie "Red Dawn" was just a movie, I could certainly see that happening if we were invaded. Considering the sheer number of guns in the hands of private citizens in this country, invading us would be a foolish undertaking by any nation.

spiveyrat

04-27-2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by sinton66

Considering the sheer number of guns in the hands of private citizens in this country, invading us would be a foolish undertaking by any nation.

Which I believe is the sole reason for each American's right to bear arms.

It just amazes me how forward-looking, insightful, and genereally thorough our founding fathers really were.

Mean_Machine

04-27-2004, 08:04 AM

Sadam didnot attack the US.. IF we are going to attack the people who have il feelings toward us and have the potental to kill our people then we better break out the draft. because by using your won reasoning we should attack North Korea, Iran,Syria just to name three. Heck The Koreans have NUKES and we dont even have a peace treaty with them after the Korean war. Just a cease Fire agreement. they have a missile program and nukes to boot. but we jump on Iraq.... BTW there are what could be called terorist training camps right here in the good ol USA. a few white supremasist ect..

JasperDog94

04-27-2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
BTW there are what could be called terorist training camps right here in the good ol USA. a few white supremasist ect.. And when was the last time they flew a plane into a building?

I don't agree with them or any "supremasist" group, but the groups you're talking about have no support from any major administration in the US, while the terrorist groups in the middle east do. There's a huge difference.

Mean_Machine

04-27-2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And when was the last time they flew a plane into a building?

I don't agree with them or any "supremasist" group, but the groups you're talking about have no support from any major administration in the US, while the terrorist groups in the middle east do. There's a huge difference.
Timothy McVey( not sure how to spell his name but you know what i mean.) was an extreemist and he did a little damage as you know.

PI-fan

04-27-2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
The military will now call up the reserves before they would reinstate the draft.

Where did you get your information that "shiites" are attacking the US? I haven't heard that. One should be careful not to assume things not in evidence.

Aren't the reserves called up already?

i know there r like 2 main tribes... shiites and sunnis... im not sure which one was against Saddam thats why i put a ? after shiites. Either way, here r some excerpts from a usatoday column;

"Shiite militiamen opened fire on a U.S. patrol, and seven insurgents were killed. "

"In Fallujah, Marines pressed ahead with plans to send patrols into the city alongside Iraqi security forces, despite a bloody battle Monday with Sunni insurgents at a mosque."

I Guess it's in 'evidence' now? :p
Wow you didn't know about it?

So far there have been at least the same number of troops killed in the month of April than during the actual invasion about a yr ago.
For the forum police the info was gotten from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-27-najaf-fighting_x.htm

JasperDog94

04-27-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Timothy McVey( not sure how to spell his name but you know what i mean.) was an extreemist and he did a little damage as you know. The point is: He dosn't have any support by the US. He acted alone (we won't get into the numerous eye-witness accounts of meeting with middle eastern people right now) and has no support here in the states. That's not the case with some of these governents that aid and supports terrorists and their families. Iraq being one of them.

Mean_Machine

04-27-2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by PI-fan
Aren't the reserves called up already?

For the forum police the info was gotten from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-27-najaf-fighting_x.htm

Oh NO Not USATODAY!!! thats a Liberal Leftwing unreliable source according to many on this site.:D

slpybear the bullfan

04-27-2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by PI-fan
Aren't the reserves called up already?

i know there r like 2 main tribes... shiites and sunnis... im not sure which one was against Saddam thats why i put a ? after shiites. Either way, here r some excerpts from a usatoday column;

"Shiite militiamen opened fire on a U.S. patrol, and seven insurgents were killed. "

"In Fallujah, Marines pressed ahead with plans to send patrols into the city alongside Iraqi security forces, despite a bloody battle Monday with Sunni insurgents at a mosque."

I Guess it's in 'evidence' now? :p
Wow you didn't know about it?

So far there have been at least the same number of troops killed in the month of April than during the actual invasion about a yr ago.
For the forum police the info was gotten from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-27-najaf-fighting_x.htm

*sigh*

It doesn't take much for the chips to come out on the shoulders...

In the interest of education, here is a quick history lesson from a member of the "forum police".

There "r like" three major parties in Iraq. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. the Kurds and Shiia both suffered at teh hands of the Sunnis... who were on the good side of Saddam's Ba'ath political party. After liberation, the Shiia's are out for revenge. Both Shi'ia and Sunni are pretty splintered now, with fringe groups within the parties using terror as their tool to try and unite Joe Iraqi with their party. As the date approaches in June where the Iraqi governing council will take over... it will get worse. It doesn't make sense to use terror against your own people to try and unit them... (to win Joe Iraqi to my side, I may kill Joe Iraqi when I blow myself up)... but heck... it makes about as much sense as inspiring children to be matyrs and strap on C4 and light themselves off in a bus, playground, restaurant, or daycare...

Cradle of civilization? :rolleyes: *sigh*

...so, to keep things on topic...

I will try and dig up some info regarding the advance of our weapons systems for the last 20 or 30 years. Our ability to project force has increased exponentially due to some pretty awesome force mulitpliers. I.e. we don't need as many troops, bombs, tanks, etc to do what we did years ago...

and to those who worry about people willing to serve our country or that young folks won't measure up to generations past

Posted on Sun, Apr. 11, 2004

Military recruiting isn't hurt by deaths

By Jack Dorsey

The Virginian-Pilot

NORFOLK, Va. - Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for military duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

The services believe that a combination of patriotism and the economy is driving people to the military and keeping them there.

"The war is not only not having a negative effect, but it is helping to reinforce the number of people who want to join," said Cmdr. John Kirby, a spokesman for the Navy's Bureau of Personnel.

Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," Guard spokesman Major Robert Howell said.

"Mass exodus has not been the case in the Army National Guard," said Howell, deputy chief of the Strength Maintenance Division at the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C.

The Guard was prepared to lose up to 18 percent of units returning from lengthy deployments, but they have averaged 16.6 percent, with some as low as 12.6 percent, Howell said.

The Guard fully expects to again reach its recruiting goal of 56,000 members this year to maintain its total strength of 350,000.

The Guard's goal for first-term re-enlistments, for those with less than six years of service, had been 65 percent this fiscal year, but re-enlistments have rocketed to 141 percent -- which indicates that additional members re-enlisted early, usually to take advantage of bonuses.

The goal for second- and third-term enlistments, or those considered "career" soldiers, was set at 85 percent in the Guard, but they have come in at 136 percent, Howell said.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all met or exceeded their year-end recruiting goals for fiscal 2003, which ended Sept. 30. The figures continued to climb in the first half of fiscal 2004, which was reached March 31.

The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month so far this year, Smith said.

The Navy is meeting all recruiting and retention goals, said Lt. Bill Davis with the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, Tenn.

"Thus far, through March, we've recruited 15,636, but this is normally our slow period," Davis said.

Link found here...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/8408503.htm&e=912

PI-fan

04-27-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan

There "r like" three major parties in Iraq. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. After liberation, the Shiia's are out for revenge.

Are those Shia the same as the shiites?

And when u say liberation do u mean occupation?

Shiia's revenge on whom? Shiia's hated the sunnis(Saddam fraction)- then they should be on the US side?,but r not? Why r they trying to kill the 'Liberators'?

If its just a small group of 'insurgents'- how small of a group?

slpybear the bullfan

04-27-2004, 08:38 PM

Yes. Shi'ia is being loosely thrown around today as a term for the Shiites.

No. When I say liberation I mean liberation. Liberation is the act of removing oppression. That is what the coalition did. Now, they are providing security to Iraq until the Iraqi Governing Council assumes power in June.

Yes, the Shiites want revenge on the Sunnis. The Sunnis had all the bucks and power back in the old days. After the liberation, the Shiites were VERY interested in gaining power over them. Some of the earliest news stories regarding the IGC were all about the Sunnis howling about how they were going to lose their position when the IGC took control, not enough representation, etc.

There is no reason to belive that any party leadership on either side would want to support the coalition forces... if they do, then when the coalition leaves they lose the power base. Besides, it is waayyy too easy to whip up the masses in hatred of the "Infidel Invaders" and unify your power base that way. Very simple concept.

That explains why they will launch terror strikes against both Iraqi and Coalition member alike. To make a name and draw supporters.

Yes, I believe it is a small group of TERRORISTS, not insurgents. I would define an Insurgent as a military force of partisans. TERRORISTS do not fall into that definition. TERRORISTS simply use violence to strike fear into the hearts of the undefended, so political or other goals can be accomplished. In the middle east, it is all about religion, whether this country wants to belive it or not. Islam drawers terroristic followers like a magnet. And that is something that Islam must address or be treated like a pariah. An Islamic proverb says, "Have faith in Allah but keep a hidden pistol". I find that completely appropriate in regards.

Yes, I think the number of terrorists to be small. There has been no large scale conflict against terrorists. The terrorists are not capable of fielding large armies, nor fighting against coalition forces on even terms. They are resorting to the timeless tactic of attacking the undefendable to create fear.

Just one Forum Policeman's opinions....

X21AAAPlayer

04-27-2004, 08:58 PM

What was going on today? I saw that fallujah (spelling?) was being shelled along with the marines making an attack. Have they finally decided to wipe the stronghold out?

sinton66

04-27-2004, 10:54 PM

Yeah, the military commander there said last week that they were going to have to go back on the offensive. They'd had the town encircled for a couple of weeks now.

X21AAAPlayer

04-27-2004, 11:30 PM

Ok from what I've heard on the news, and we know the media, they say that fallujah is the last stronghold. If there is a possibility of this, I say we basically bulldoze the town over with a heavy attack both air and ground. Would save a huge headache for the people over there. Attack and finish rather than sit and wait.

spiveyrat

04-28-2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan

Cradle of civilization? :rolleyes: *sigh*

Oh, the irony!

sinton66

04-28-2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by X21AAAPlayer
Ok from what I've heard on the news, and we know the media, they say that fallujah is the last stronghold. If there is a possibility of this, I say we basically bulldoze the town over with a heavy attack both air and ground. Would save a huge headache for the people over there. Attack and finish rather than sit and wait.

I don't know if it's the LAST stronghold or not, but the military is dealing with it. There are terrorists from other mid-east countries coming in and making trouble also. Some of the ones caught have turned out to be Iranian and Saudi. So, it's obvious we're not just dealing with a few disgruntled Iraqi citizens.

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
I don't know if it's the LAST stronghold or not, but the military is dealing with it. There are terrorists from other mid-east countries coming in and making trouble also. Some of the ones caught have turned out to be Iranian and Saudi. So, it's obvious we're not just dealing with a few disgruntled Iraqi citizens. Oh no. now they have done it! Its time to turn those troops east and head into IRAN to Show those Iranians what happens when you mess with the US ARMY. Then we can get those dirty Saudis. Our invasion of Iraq has created dozens on Binladens throughout the world. I fear We are Just throwing Gas on the Fire in Iraq . We proved our point in Afghanistan and that was a great opperation and needed to happen ( Binladen was being knowingly sheltered by the Taliban ) but now we have taken our eye off the ball by going into Iraq. now the war on terror may never end.:doh: :doh: :doh:

spiveyrat

04-28-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Our invasion of Iraq has created dozens on Binladens throughout the world.

So, we are to just lie around and take it! "Thank you sir, may I have another"??!!!

but now we have taken our eye off the ball by going into Iraq. now the war on terror may never end.:doh: :doh: :doh:

There are no terrorists in Iraq?

You didn't really expect this war on terror would be over in months or a year, did you? It's kind of difficult to kill an enemy that hides from you because they wear no uniform, and carry no flag. They could be the old man sitting on his porch or the lady walking down the street with her kids in tow. This is a war unlike any ever fought. It's not between nations (unless those nations harbor or lend aid to terrorists). Rather, it is a war against a radical movement that spans many nations.

X21AAAPlayer

04-28-2004, 12:39 PM

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by X21AAAPlayer
Well whatever the case, terrorism can not stand and we should made due with all of our weapons to wipe them out. That is everyone except the nuclear ones.
This ought to ruffle some feathers around here.:thinking:

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
So, we are to just lie around and take it! "Thank you sir, may I have another"??!!!

There are no terrorists in Iraq?

You didn't really expect this war on terror would be over in months or a year, did you? It's kind of difficult to kill an enemy that hides from you because they wear no uniform, and carry no flag. They could be the old man sitting on his porch or the lady walking down the street with her kids in tow. This is a war unlike any ever fought. It's not between nations (unless those nations harbor or lend aid to terrorists). Rather, it is a war against a radical movement that spans many nations.

1) we didnot just lie down and take it! we took down the Taliban as we should have. that was completely justified no doubt. but Iraq was not and Bush had to fudge on information to get the us to go along.. remember WMDs.... ( none found yet ) remember Ties to Binladen tothe Iraqi government?? .... ( none found yet) Not a justified war if you use the reasons we used to go in. there have been NO terrorist attacks by Iraq since the atempt on Bush Sr years ago and CLinton gave them a bloody nose for that with bombings...

2) Yes there are Terrorist in Iraq NOW. thanks to the US invasion. we are creating more there and elswhere every day. but Iraq was not considered a terorist stronhold of anykind prior to the US invasion according to Bushs Terrorisim Experts.

BTW I have seen a war like the one you discribe above with and enemy much like the one you discribe . One that is hard to tell from the friendlies... VIETNAM. Its sounding more and More like that all the time. So we have fought a war like the one we are in now. The war protest didnt realy take hold in the US untill the Late 60s so you may see a few comming in a year or two after we get a gut full of the body bags.

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
...Yes there are Terrorist in Iraq NOW. thanks to the US invasion. we are creating more there and elswhere every day...
Yes, you are correct. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there. All those camps were just summer camps for kids with good grades. All those adults carrying machine guns on the monkey bars were just camp couselors that were very firm diciplinarians (sp?). Iraq was a haven for peace loving individuals that were very tolerant and accepting of other people's views. We're the one's that turned Iraq into a terrorist stronghold. We should just leave...Give me a break.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
BTW I have seen a war like the one you discribe above with and enemy much like the one you discribe . One that is hard to tell from the friendlies... VIETNAM. Its sounding more and More like that all the time.
Way to jump in on the latest Dem. campaign. Try as much as you can to make it sould like the most unpopular war ever. If you keep saying it over and over and over, it must be true, just ask OJ...:rolleyes:

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
If you keep saying it over and over and over, it must be true, just ask OJ...:rolleyes: OJ?? COME now! why compare me to him? You would not like to be called ADOLPH would you?:D

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 02:13 PM

I never called you OJ. I'm just using him as an example that if you say something often enough, you might even convince yourself that it's true.

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
OJ?? COME now! why compare me to him? You would not like to be called ADOLPH would you?:D
careful now. You might want to read the sticky at the top.

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 02:18 PM

I think you need to be careful about putting the cart befor the horse. READ what I wrote....... If your going to conect any dots then your reaching. COMPAR ME TO A MURDER and then tell me to be carefull about anything . its hypocritical.....

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I never called you OJ. I'm just using him as an example that if you say something often enough, you might even convince yourself that it's true. I never called you adolph either did I???

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I never called you adolph either did I???
Did I say that you did? No. I simply stated that you might want to read the sticky at the top of the board before you start typing names. And once again, I never called you OJ.

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I think you need to be careful about putting the cart befor the horse. READ what I wrote....... If your going to conect any dots then your reaching. COMPAR ME TO A MURDER and then tell me to be carefull about anything . its hypocritical.....
This is so typical. If someone reads something you wrote and doesn't come to the exact same conclusion that you did, you tell them to READ it again. Like there's something wrong with someone else's comprehension. Maybe it's the way you phrased it. Maybe, just maybe, it could be taken more than one way. Don't assume that just because someone gets a different conclusion than you, that they are wrong and you are right. That's a very elitist attitude. I'm not saying that you have an elitist attitude, but some people might get that impression.

sinton66

04-28-2004, 04:18 PM

remember WMDs.... ( none found yet )

Do all of us a favor, mean_machine. To take a little leeway with ex-prez' Clinton's line, DEFINE WMD's. What exactly do you expect they should look like? What form should they take? What picture do you have in your mind that if you saw it, you would agree THOSE are WMD's? I get the feeling that what the mainstream media is looking for are row after row of assembled weapons similar to "Missle City" in downtown Hanoi and ANYTHING short of that doesn't qualify. What exactly do you know about chemical weapons and how they are produced? What exactly do you know about nuclear material and how it's converted to weapons? What exactly do you know about biological agents and how they are produced? THEN apply all this KNOWLEDGE to the situation in Iraq, and tell us how Iraq wasn't guilty of any of it.

The existance of WMD's was NOT the only reason we went into IRAQ. The capability to PRODUCE WMD's and even conducting research into these types of warfare, were reasons too. All were outlawed by UN resolution after resolution which Hussein ignored for twelve years.

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Do all of us a favor, mean_machine. To take a little leeway with ex-prez' Clinton's line, DEFINE WMD's. What exactly do you expect they should look like? What form should they take? What picture do you have in your mind that if you saw it, you would agree THOSE are WMD's? I get the feeling that what the mainstream media is looking for are row after row of assembled weapons similar to "Missle City" in downtown Hanoi and ANYTHING short of that doesn't qualify. What exactly do you know about chemical weapons and how they are produced? What exactly do you know about nuclear material and how it's converted to weapons? What exactly do you know about biological agents and how they are produced? THEN apply all this KNOWLEDGE to the situation in Iraq, and tell us how Iraq wasn't guilty of any of it.

The existance of WMD's was NOT the only reason we went into IRAQ. The capability to PRODUCE WMD's and even conducting research into these types of warfare, were reasons too. All were outlawed by UN resolution after resolution which Hussein ignored for twelve years.

What Do I know? what Do you know? we dont have to know but wepons inspectors know and they have not found any. US officials have found NONE. the White House even admits we have found none.:D

I have said it before. N Korea fits the criteria for invasion bush layed out more than Iraq. They have Nukes and we dont even or never even signed a peace treaty after the war with them. Only an agreement to stop shooting and fighting. we had a peace settlement with Iraq after the war. but we know this war was politialy inspired so as to divert attention from the crappy job Bush has done domesticly.. Those are the hard facts.:D

JasperDog94

04-28-2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
...the crappy job Bush has done domesticly.. .
Yeah, that's why the stock market is up from the recession that he inherited (compounded by 9-11) and that, my friend is a FACT.

sinton66

04-28-2004, 08:47 PM

Therein lies the problem. You didn't answer a single question, merely changed the subject.

Ok, I'll tell you what I know. I know they found large stores of pesticides stored in three modern buildings in seperate locations along with huge stores of conventional ammo. One of these locations was camoflaged from view, surrounded by an electric fence, and guarded by a General, two Colonels and several lesser officers plus about fifty troops. I also know that the base element for chemical agents is PESTICIDES. Practically every chemical weapon known to mankind is made from pesticides. They also found three portable chemical labratories. While no vast stores of ready to use chemical weapons were found, EVERYBODY over there is convinced that Hussein had the ability to crank production back up on a moment's notice. Mossad has said repeatedly that he shipped the stores he had into Syria. Just last week three trucks full of chemical weapons were intercepted in Jordan. Jordanian officials said the trucks crossed over from Syria. Coincidence? Don't think so.

I also know they found vials containing biological agent under the sink in the home of one of his scientists. The material was identified as Ricin. The media report I saw on this basically described it as a "starter" kit. Well, DUH! Where do they think this stuff comes from? How do you launch a biological agent without a sample to reproduce? They also found a number of empty warheads.

I know they also discovered facilities for processing enriched uranium, and found a store of that.

I also know they found numerous missiles that were on the banned list. They also found documentation in Iraq that shows Hussein was trying to buy BALLISTIC missles from China. What do you suppose he intended to do with those? If he wasn't a threat to anybody, why would he need long range missiles?

All of these things were reported in the media, then convieniently forgotten about. So, my conclusion is they already found WMD's, just not in the quantities the mainstream media apparently deems significant.

PI-fan

04-28-2004, 09:36 PM

I just find it weird that a person that has all kinds of WMD's didn't use them? If you knew u would b killed or captured then killed would'nt u attack with every WMD u had? :rolleyes:

One of the talkshows... on the radio r saying that N.Korea has around 8 Nukes, not the 2 the CIAs is saying.

So why does N.Korea have nukes anyways? anyone?

$18,000,000,000 to be given to the new iraqi government? :mad: They should give that to the school systems in the US :(

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 10:31 PM

Great! its solved ! Sinton66 has done it! call washington! Sinton66 has proved to the world where everyone els has failed that Iraq had WMDs..:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Mean_Machine

04-28-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by PI-fan
I just find it weird that a person that has all kinds of WMD's didn't use them? If you knew u would b killed or captured then killed would'nt u attack with every WMD u had? :rolleyes:

EXACTLY! If they had them they would have used them on US troops.. You know , Use them or loose them.. WAKE UP EVERYONE.. WMDs was an excuse to INVADE. hence diverting attention from the crappy domestic job.

sinton66

04-28-2004, 10:39 PM

You have got to be kidding. IF he had them and used them on US troops, he would have openly admitted he had been deceiving the UN, and the entire world would have nailed him. Nobody ever said Hussein was stupid, merely crazy.

PI-fan

04-28-2004, 10:58 PM

the US is going to KILL HIM!! yes no???

so what was it to him if ppl found out he was deceiving anyone.

sinton66

04-28-2004, 11:51 PM

No, the US will NOT kill him. He will be turned over to the Iraqis for trial/punishment once their government is stabilized.

spiveyrat

04-29-2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
EXACTLY! If they had them they would have used them on US troops.. You know , Use them or loose them.. WAKE UP EVERYONE.. WMDs was an excuse to INVADE. hence diverting attention from the crappy domestic job.

As I have said before, you are just impossible. :rolleyes: You have an amazing ability to overlook any truth that the other side provides. You concede nothing ever. You should run for office because you have that tried-and-true democratic tactic down pat... deny, deny, deny.

sinton66

04-29-2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Great! its solved ! Sinton66 has done it! call washington! Sinton66 has proved to the world where everyone els has failed that Iraq had WMDs..:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Well, brother, at least I can think for myself. I don't have to resort to tired old clap-trap rhetoric. If that's the BEST you got, you're no match for the brain trust on this site.

Mean_Machine

04-29-2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
Well, brother, at least I can think for myself. I don't have to resort to tired old clap-trap rhetoric. If that's the BEST you got, you're no match for the brain trust on this site. Well you sure can Justify anythinhg old shrub does. Remember the reason?? WMDs.. well if we dont find any, we can just claim he was a bad fella and needed to go( BTW, how many others in the world fit the bill ) . You can reach and grab all you want. EVEN TEH PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF ADMIT THEY HAVE FOUND NO WMDs.. but you say they have... LOL you have no Idea how funny that is. Sinton66 is the good old weapons expert!! he has proof sadam has WMDs!!!! I can see the headlines..:clap: :clap:
ONly a few more moonths of the idiot though nad in november its adios!!:clap: :clap: :D :D

spiveyrat

04-29-2004, 08:33 AM

People in this country get arrested every day for possession of drug paraphernalia. What's the difference?

JasperDog94

04-29-2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by PI-fan
I just find it weird that a person that has all kinds of WMD's didn't use them? If you knew u would b killed or captured then killed would'nt u attack with every WMD u had?
Very simple: If he used WMDs then he proves the US right. He was going to lose power anyway, whether he used WMDs or not. This way, it looks like Bush made it all up. He's smarter than we give him credit for.

It's kinda like a guy that has all the ingredients for a bomb. He's got all the stuff laying around his house, detailed plans on how to make the bomb, has used bombs in the past, yet everyone wants to say, "But he didn't have any bombs." Wake up!:nerd: :doh:

sinton66

04-29-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Well you sure can Justify anythinhg old shrub does. Remember the reason?? WMDs.. well if we dont find any, we can just claim he was a bad fella and needed to go( BTW, how many others in the world fit the bill ) . You can reach and grab all you want. EVEN TEH PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF ADMIT THEY HAVE FOUND NO WMDs.. but you say they have... LOL you have no Idea how funny that is. Sinton66 is the good old weapons expert!! he has proof sadam has WMDs!!!! I can see the headlines..:clap: :clap:
ONly a few more moonths of the idiot though nad in november its adios!!:clap: :clap: :D :D

How will it affect your little "friendly" wager if the Democrats realize what a TURKEY Kerry is and drop him before the convention? My opinion is you should still have to ante up one month per better.

Mean_Machine

04-29-2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
How will it affect your little "friendly" wager if the Democrats realize what a TURKEY Kerry is and drop him before the convention? My opinion is you should still have to ante up one month per better. Keep dreaming . I just hope the debate over military sevice continues. AWOL rich spoiled c student vs decorated war vetran( 3 purple hearts and silver star). Im just glad your in on the little wager. its going to be sweet to see " Kerry in the greatest president in history " on your sig. :clap:

PI-fan

04-29-2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
How will it affect your little "friendly" wager if the Democrats realize what a TURKEY Kerry is and drop him before the convention?

...if I see anybody referring to the other side as "communist" or "facist/Nazi", I'm going to rom people for it.

How bout adding "Turkey" to that list lol

What if you guys were a dictator and you were losing the war, but u had WMD, you guys are telling me u would not use them cuz u don't want your enemy proven right? -what the heck? That's probably the last thing from your mind. You know that you WILL b killed during the war if not surely AFTER the war.

From all the gung-ho attitudes around here i'd thought you guys would say 'hey i'd go down with guns a blazzing' - as in what do i got to lose?, gonna take as many of them down with me as i can, attitude (ie., use WMDs).

:thinking:

Back to the subject, i too don't think there will b a draft, well not till after the elections.

I'd say give the military guys a raise... those private (Halliburton-Vice Prez ex-company) :doh: security guys that r gettin paid by the US govt. make in a week what a regular military serviceman makes in a month. :(

Mean_Machine

04-29-2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by PI-fan
How bout adding "Turkey" to that list lol

What if you guys were a dictator and you were losing the war, but u had WMD, you guys are telling me u would not use them cuz u don't want your enemy proven right? -what the heck? That's probably the last thing from your mind. You know that you WILL b killed during the war if not surely AFTER the war.

I'd say give the military guys a raise... those private (Halliburton-Vice Prez ex-company) :doh: security guys that r gettin paid by the US govt. make in a week what a regular military serviceman makes in a month. :(

Your right PI-fan If they had them they would have used them. Sadam knew he was toast. and if he did have them he would have known that we would find them. So he would have used them. They did have a program in the past but say they did away with it. we have not seen any proof otherwise regardles of what our ultra weapons expert sinton66 says. the White House says we have not but believe we still may. You think we would hesitate to use everything in our arsinal if we were being overun?? no way. we would NUKE them. we would not be worried about some pubblic oppinion polls on hwo we would look. Sadam is not the type to care about how the world views him. he would have used them if he had them. this is a diversion from the job shrub is doing. If he was worried about countries that may make WMDs to give to terrorist then we should have taken down N. Korea.

Ranger Mom

04-29-2004, 11:47 AM

I thought we had already addressed the issue of calling him "shrub"!!

I read, with interest, almost everything you write MM....but when I read that, I am suddenly reminded how childish you can be.

I have a friend whose son's nickname is Steele, when his little 7 year old brother gets mad at him, he calls him "tin" or "aluminum"....that's who you remind me of when you say that!!

spiveyrat

04-29-2004, 11:48 AM

Saddam knew if he used any WMD's he would lose support of the UN and the rest of the world. He figured with their support, the US could be leveraged into backing down. He was hoping by not using WMD's, the US would bow to the will of the UN and let him continue on in violation of UN resolutions for 12 more years. Good strategy, but...

It is starting to look like the UN isn't the "good guys" they are supposed to be with this Oil for Food scandal that appears will break soon.

spiveyrat

04-29-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I thought we had already addressed the issue of calling him "shrub"!!

I read, with interest, almost everything you write MM....but when I read that, I am suddenly reminded how childish you can be.

I have a friend whose son's nickname is Steele, when his little 7 year old brother gets mad at him, he calls him "tin" or "aluminum"....that's who you remind me of when you say that!!

Tin?! LOL!!!

RM, it's just retaliatory. I sometimes *sigh* stoop to that level and call Kerry "sKerry". But, to me, he IS scary! :)

Ranger Mom

04-29-2004, 11:56 AM

It STILL reminds me of a bunch of kids though.....I have a feeling this thread will be locked down before long.....I can see the direction it is heading!!

HighSchool Fan

04-29-2004, 12:17 PM

mean machine, you keep bashing Bush for the war with iraq. just answer one question for me. Did john kerry vote to go to war against iraq with the same intelligence that Bush had?

spiveyrat

04-29-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
It STILL reminds me of a bunch of kids though.....I have a feeling this thread will be locked down before long.....I can see the direction it is heading!!

Yeah, it probably won't be long.

Mean_Machine

04-29-2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by HighSchool Fan
mean machine, you keep bashing Bush for the war with iraq. just answer one question for me. Did john kerry vote to go to war against iraq with the same intelligence that Bush had? Intelegence given to the President (Bush) theyn relayed to the congress by the White House as It saw the Intelegence.. Its called Misleading people. Bush slanted the info to make it look bad. Now we are learning the truth.

HighSchool Fan

04-29-2004, 01:21 PM

Face the facts, kerry saw the same intelligence and voted for the war. He is now changing his views on this as he does on all other subjects. I'm a registered Democrat but i can't vote for someone that can't make up his mind. You would think that a so called war-hero would vote to spend the money to ensure that our troops would be safe. kerry was handpicked by the clintons to run. they know his record and know that he will lose, this giving hillary a chance to run in 2008.

JasperDog94

04-29-2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
If he was worried about countries that may make WMDs to give to terrorist then we should have taken down N. Korea.
BIG difference. In the 80's, we were in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. It was basically a standoff. Each side could have wiped out the other several times over. A similar case can be made for N. Korea. They already have them. You treat them differently than somebody that has the capability to produce nukes. Plus the fact that N. Korea is surrounded by people that are already putting pressure on them. South Korea and China aren't exactly just sitting around to see what happens.

Here's an analogy for you:

Say you were in a fight. One person has already used all the bullets in his gun, and hasn't reloaded yet (Iraq). On the other side is a guy carried a bazooka (N. Korea). The guy with the bazooka will take more time to deal with so you quickly take out the other guy before he reloads and you have to fight them at the same time.

Now I know that the time I spent with this analogy will fall on deaf ears, but hey...I tried.

sinton66

04-29-2004, 02:57 PM

JasperDog94

04-29-2004, 03:56 PM

slpybear the bullfan

04-29-2004, 09:57 PM

:rolleyes:

Guys, when a "Dictator" wants to "go out in a blaze of glory" he doesn't just go push a button and it magically happens.

To pull off the use of WMDs requires a systematic, trained response by soldiers equipped for the task.

If you study the march to Bagdad, all Iraqi command and control structures were long gone well before the 3rd and the Marines got close. No Iraqi WMDs or for that matter, large scale forces of any kind had the communication and command nets to mount any kind of organized attack. It really was an incredible campaign... A modern day Blitzkrieg that old Gen Patton or Stonewall would have been amazed at.

Also, President Bush didn't draft up his own slanted version of a brief for congress. The NSA/CIA drafts that up for the Intelligence committee and then that body gives a reccomendation prior to voting... So, folks can keep trying to turn this into "Bush's Private War" but the facts remain...

1.) Our Nations intelligence services told our Nation's leaders (including congress) that Iraq was a definite threat for many reasons... among them a willingness to harbour and aid terrorists and a desire for a WMD program.

2.) Our Natoin's Leaders, (yup, both parties), all were given his information and the majority voted to take the battle to Iraq, including Mr. Kerry. I find it very Ironic that both President Bush and Congressman Kerry both decided that a war was necessary when presented with the same evidence... Funny how elections can sway people with dubious integrity.

Those are simple facts. They will be twisted like crazy for political purposes this year. Just read the news... You would think that Citizen Kerry had been an outspoken Anti-Iraq-War protestor to hear him speak now. The fact is, he made the same decision to go to war as the President.

But... that is why politics are at the same time good and bad... fun to discuss... but soon degenerates into a whipping... Just read this thread for proof...

PI-fan

04-29-2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
BIG difference. A similar case can be made for N. Korea. They already have them. You treat them differently than somebody that has the capability to produce nukes.

So u r sayin NKorea has them so treat them different than Iraq who DOESN'T have WMDs yet?

Hmm, i understood Prez. Bush said they had WMD!?!? as one of the main reasons of going to war.

What i don't get is, why does the USA have to fight a war that Iraqi's own ppl need to fight?
If he was so bad, why didn't the Iraqis go into a civil war?
I mean, the US didn't like how it was being treated so they rebelled against Britain, The Vietnamese kick France out of their country, plenty of countries rebelled thoughout history, heck even Mexico stood their ground against Spain.

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's an analogy for you:

Say you were in a fight. One person has already used all the bullets in his gun, and hasn't reloaded yet (Iraq). On the other side is a guy carried a bazooka (N. Korea). The guy with the bazooka will take more time to deal with so you quickly take out the other guy before he reloads and you have to fight them at the same time.

not sure what iraqi's bullets were? More like he's trying to acquire a bazooka?

Then at the end did u mean you DON'T have to fight them at the same time?
If thats the case then u r for a third war in about 6-8 yr span!?!(Assuming Bush gets re-elected)
I think the USA averages a war every 20yrs or so; Bush has 2 wars in a 3-4yr span already, 3 wars in a span of 6 to 8 yrs, wow. :eek:

PI-fan

04-29-2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
:rolleyes:

Guys, when a "Dictator" wants to "go out in a blaze of glory" he doesn't just go push a button and it magically happens.

To pull off the use of WMDs requires a systematic, trained response by soldiers equipped for the task.

If you study the march to Bagdad, all Iraqi command and control structures were long gone well before the 3rd and the Marines got close. No Iraqi WMDs or for that matter, large scale forces of any kind had the communication and command nets to mount any kind of organized attack.

What's 'before the 3rd and the Marines'? 3rd Division?

A yr later and the WMDs disabled, lets just go and pick em up then, what's the big deal?
If they can move them around(to hide them) :rolleyes:
why not launch them? Oh wait u gonna say 'it's complicated to launch those things' -well for something so complicated, shouldn't the 'communications' be durable enough to say launch em!! Heck, all they needed to do is watch CNN, oh wait there was a blackout.... sure sure and no one in Iraq has backup generators(being a 3rd world country and all).

For being a 'MAJOR THREAT' they sure did go down fast.

Another thing, I didn't know the CIA had private meetings with the congress like they did with Bush,...
Bush was like is this all u got (hesitant at attacking Iraq) - CIA - 'Sir it's a slam dunk' -LMAO :p

JasperDog94

04-30-2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by PI-fan
So u r sayin NKorea has them so treat them different than Iraq who DOESN'T have WMDs yet?

Who doesn't have NUKES yet. But to answer your question, yes you treat them differently.

JasperDog94

04-30-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by PI-fan
I think the USA averages a war every 20yrs or so; Bush has 2 wars in a 3-4yr span already, 3 wars in a span of 6 to 8 yrs, wow. :eek:
That's like saying WWII was several different wars. One was a continuation of another in Afg. and Iraq. But please, feel free to think of it any way you want to.

JasperDog94

04-30-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by PI-fan
What i don't get is, why does the USA have to fight a war that Iraqi's own ppl need to fight?
If he was so bad, why didn't the Iraqis go into a civil war?
Once again it's not the same thing as other countries evicting a FOREIGN governing entity. If you do any studing, you'll see that Iraq is made up of several factions. None by itself was strong enough to oust Saddam. Just ask the Kurds.

Using your logic, we should just sit by and let every dictator that wants to aquire whatever weapons program that they want and just say, "Well, they ought to rise up against that guy and get rid of him." Sounds great and maybe they should, but in this case it wasn't gonna happen.

sinton66

04-30-2004, 02:21 PM

Besides. we already tried that in Cuba back in the 60's. Didn't work then either. Cia promised Cuban dissidents American military support if they staged a "coup", and Kennedy didn't follow through with the promise. This is the famous "Bay of Pigs" incident you hear references to. Castro crushed the revolt in short order, rather brutally too from what I heard.

JasperDog94

04-30-2004, 02:33 PM

Funny how nobody's talked about that 66. A democrat promised support, didn't give it, and a massacre insued. At least Bush is keeping his promise.

spiveyrat

04-30-2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Funny how nobody's talked about that 66. A democrat promised support, didn't give it, and a massacre insued. At least Bush is keeping his promise.

Not sticking up for anyone here, but to be fair, the democratic party of the '60's is not the same party we see today.

That said, it IS an interesting point, nontheless. :thinking:

spiveyrat

04-30-2004, 02:55 PM

Hey, all of a sudden, everyone's donating member icons are working on my screen now! :)

Mean_Machine

05-02-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That wasn't the bet. The bet was that if Bush wins, you put "George W. Bush is the greatest president in US history" but if Kerry wins I put "George W. Bush was the worst president in US history". Don't go flip floppin' on me now. At least wait till closer to the election...:D That was the bet. Now you want to play word games.. HAHA you see the writing on the wall dont you. I knew you would not follow through. NO FAITH IN SHRUB?? Dont worry I didnt expect any of you to follow through.

BTW. notice how Sinton66 is running away from the wager?:clap:

slpybear the bullfan

05-02-2004, 09:50 PM

1.) Yes, Third Infantry Division.

2.) Command and Control means where a grunt receives his orders from. Everyone gets them from someone unless you are top dog. In a dictatorship, command and control is built upon very regimented operations plans and there is very little room for small unit initative. If I compare Iraq's military to other military forces with WMD, then you would expect tactical WMD units to be under extremely tight control at a strategic level. Capt or Lt. Joe Iraqi would not have authority on his own to use those weapons.

To put it in blunt terms... You asked the question why the WMDs were used. The reason I propose is that the soldiers who operated those systems were waiting for orders (per strict op rules). Those orders never came because the Iraqi Command and Control net was decimated early on in the war.

3.) Yes, they were a MAJOR THREAT and did go down fast. It doesn't take a lot to make the "MAJOR THREAT" list. It also doesn't take as much manpower to project as much force to eliminate a MAJOR THREAT these days.

4.) Yes, believe it or not, the President does not go around and set Foreign Policy on his own. Congress is involved. They are briefed by NSA through the intelligence committee. And Congressmen such as John Kerry heard the intelligence on Iraq and voted to use force to enforce the UN Resolutions.... Funny how no one is touching that one....

Originally posted by PI-fan
What's 'before the 3rd and the Marines'? 3rd Division?

A yr later and the WMDs disabled, lets just go and pick em up then, what's the big deal?
If they can move them around(to hide them) :rolleyes:
why not launch them? Oh wait u gonna say 'it's complicated to launch those things' -well for something so complicated, shouldn't the 'communications' be durable enough to say launch em!! Heck, all they needed to do is watch CNN, oh wait there was a blackout.... sure sure and no one in Iraq has backup generators(being a 3rd world country and all).

For being a 'MAJOR THREAT' they sure did go down fast.

Another thing, I didn't know the CIA had private meetings with the congress like they did with Bush,...
Bush was like is this all u got (hesitant at attacking Iraq) - CIA - 'Sir it's a slam dunk' -LMAO :p

sinton66

05-02-2004, 09:54 PM

BTW. notice how Sinton66 is running away from the wager?

I'll make a bet with you, mean_machine. I'll bet that JD94 is correct and you are dead wrong as usual. I say he stated the bet correctly. Here's the stakes: If you're right you get to stay on 3A Downlow a little longer. If I'm right, I rom your wise arse. Deal?

spiveyrat

05-03-2004, 06:41 AM

JD94 is right.

http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15267&perpage=20&highlight=presidential&pagenumber=20

sinton66

05-03-2004, 06:56 AM

Awwww, Spiveyrat, don't give him the link until he accepts the bet.:D

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
I'll make a bet with you, mean_machine. I'll bet that JD94 is correct and you are dead wrong as usual. I say he stated the bet correctly. Here's the stakes: If you're right you get to stay on 3A Downlow a little longer. If I'm right, I rom your wise arse. Deal? I take offence to you calling me that. Its time for you to go. :D you go ahead and ROM away. It just proves what I have said about things on here. I notice you dont want in on it but you like to mouth about it. all talk and no guts. thats you and I dont have to call you a name as you did me. I say you should be ROMed for you calling me a "wise arse" you just broke your own little rule. that again shows what type of person you are.:eek: :eek: :eek:

sinton66

05-03-2004, 07:16 AM

So are you taking the bet or are you "running from it"? I've said this before, and I'll repeat it for your benefit. Only a MORON would decide to take on a moderator. Keep pushing.

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
1.) Yes, Third Infantry Division.

2.) Command and Control means where a grunt receives his orders from. Everyone gets them from someone unless you are top dog. In a dictatorship, command and control is built upon very regimented operations plans and there is very little room for small unit initative. If I compare Iraq's military to other military forces with WMD, then you would expect tactical WMD units to be under extremely tight control at a strategic level. Capt or Lt. Joe Iraqi would not have authority on his own to use those weapons.

To put it in blunt terms... You asked the question why the WMDs were used. The reason I propose is that the soldiers who operated those systems were waiting for orders (per strict op rules). Those orders never came because the Iraqi Command and Control net was decimated early on in the war.

3.) Yes, they were a MAJOR THREAT and did go down fast. It doesn't take a lot to make the "MAJOR THREAT" list. It also doesn't take as much manpower to project as much force to eliminate a MAJOR THREAT these days.

4.) Yes, believe it or not, the President does not go around and set Foreign Policy on his own. Congress is involved. They are briefed by NSA through the intelligence committee. And Congressmen such as John Kerry heard the intelligence on Iraq and voted to use force to enforce the UN Resolutions.... Funny how no one is touching that one.... WRONG! Bush has set this foreign policy on his own. Bush slanted this information to make it look like there was more there than there was. that has been said. CIA does hold daily briefings with bush. Remember what happend to the fella who spoke out against bush in the war in Iraq and the missleading information he gave everyone?? his wife was exposed by the white house as being a CIA agent. All because he told the truth about the real information and misinformation in the presidents address.. Id say that is as crooked as it gets.. wonder if they could ROM this poor guy and his wife too for saying things they dont want said.. sound familiar??:clap: :clap:

spiveyrat

05-03-2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
Awwww, Spiveyrat, don't give him the link until he accepts the bet.:D

:eek: OOPS! Sorry! Didn't mean to infringe on your bet! :doh:

spiveyrat

05-03-2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I take offence to you calling me that. Its time for you to go. :D you go ahead and ROM away. It just proves what I have said about things on here. I notice you dont want in on it but you like to mouth about it. all talk and no guts. thats you and I dont have to call you a name as you did me. I say you should be ROMed for you calling me a "wise arse" you just broke your own little rule. that again shows what type of person you are.:eek: :eek: :eek:

??? :rolleyes:

Next thing you know, he'll be offended we call him mean_machine.:hand:

spiveyrat

05-03-2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
WRONG! Bush has set this foreign policy on his own. :clap: :clap:

Nope, you're wrong (again). This country's leadership was set up with a system of checks and balances that won't allow dictatorship from any branch of the government whether it be executive, legislative, or judicial.

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
??? :rolleyes:

Next thing you know, he'll be offended we call him mean_machine.:hand: So I can call someone a Stupid ares or a dumb ares or mabe a Facist ares??? thats ok?? no, if I did sinton would cry about it and Rom away! but the hypocracy here is to forbid that and name call your self. but thats ok he is a moderator so he can name call when he wants:D

Sans Couth

05-03-2004, 08:14 AM

I have a question?

Does a wise-arse lean to the left or the right?

Just wondering what part of the political spectrum they tend to populate?

Reason I ask, is I read the rule as to not call anyone a Facist or a Communist in a politcal debate.

I didn't know that wise-arse was a political insult.

I guess I must be a Stupid-arse.:D

sinton66

05-03-2004, 08:21 AM

At least YOU can SPELL it.:D

JasperDog94

05-03-2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Keep dreaming . I just hope the debate over military sevice continues. AWOL rich spoiled c student vs decorated war vetran( 3 purple hearts and silver star). Im just glad your in on the little wager. its going to be sweet to see " Kerry in the greatest president in history " on your sig. :clap:

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That wasn't the bet. The bet was that if Bush wins, you put "George W. Bush is the greatest president in US history" but if Kerry wins I put "George W. Bush was the worst president in US history". Don't go flip floppin' on me now. At least wait till closer to the election...:D

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
That was the bet. Now you want to play word games.. HAHA you see the writing on the wall dont you. I knew you would not follow through. NO FAITH IN SHRUB?? Dont worry I didnt expect any of you to follow through.

BTW. notice how Sinton66 is running away from the wager?:clap:

I just want this on record...

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
At least YOU can SPELL it.:D make fun of it all you want but you know it is hypocritical to state that name calling would not be tolerated and here you do it your self. but then your an almighty moderator that does not have to follow your own policies.:D

JasperDog94

05-03-2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Hey MM,

How about a friendly bet on the outcome of the election involving your signature on 3adownlow.

How's this sound:

If Kerry wins my signature will read "George W. Bush was the worst president in US history."

If Bush wins, you change your signature to "George W Bush is the greatest president in US history."

The loser has to use that signature for a period of one month.

How's that sound?

Originally posted by Mean_Machine I am All over that... Remember you said that..

So what do you have to say about that MM?

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 10:10 AM

thats easy. I have not ever backed away form it. I just remembered it differently but its just as sweet in the end. I just know some dont have the guts to get into it although they enjoy spouting off about it or comenting about the wager. I think its a friendly deal .I dont have a problem with it at all. I will Follow through but Im sure several will not.

Ranger Mom

05-03-2004, 10:14 AM

That was how I remembered the bet too!!

I stayed away from it, because win OR lose....I wouldn't put the Bush was the worst prez...when I don't believe that to be so!

I never saw anything about having to put anything about Kerry in a signature!!

Mean_Machine, I think you are making mountains out of molehills....you know perfectly well what we were talking about on the name-calling.......you are just trying to stir things up.

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
That was how I remembered the bet too!!

I stayed away from it, because win OR lose....I wouldn't put the Bush was the worst prez...when I don't believe that to be so!

I never saw anything about having to put anything about Kerry in a signature!!

Mean_Machine, I think you are making mountains out of molehills....you know perfectly well what we were talking about on the name-calling.......you are just trying to stir things up. No Im not. I just am trying to make a point so you will see how hypocritical it is. I may be missing it but isnt wise arse the same as wise a$$?? then if thats ok you can call someone a dumb A$$. if its ok then fine but someone should not cry foul when someone does it if they do it. Point made i hope.

Ranger Mom

05-03-2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
So I can call someone a Stupid ares or a dumb ares or mabe a Facist ares??? thats ok?? no, if I did sinton would cry about it and Rom away! but the hypocracy here is to forbid that and name call your self. but thats ok he is a moderator so he can name call when he wants:D

Okay, if we are gonna get nit-picky!! The problem is not in the word ARSE.....give me a freakin break. (Freakin is sometimes used in place of ANOTHER word, just like arse is.)

In the above quote, I find that being called Stupid, Dumb or Facist is where the deragatory word comes in....not ARSE!!

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Okay, if we are gonna get nit-picky!! The problem is not in the word ARSE.....give me a freakin break. (Freakin is sometimes used in place of ANOTHER word, just like arse is.)

In the above quote, I find that being called Stupid, Dumb or Facist is where the deragatory word comes in....not ARSE!! True , then why use Arse? we know why. Look you know he meant "Wise A$$". Fine I can take it. but lets not have double standards here is all im saying. If someones views being likened to views of an unpopular political party can be an insult or name calling then Surely Being called a Wise A$$ is too. maybe you dont se it that way and thats ok , but it is not a crazy notion im raising here.:)

slpybear the bullfan

05-03-2004, 12:20 PM

Again, this thread is exactly why I would vote for no Political threads.

It is okay to verbally slam and trash our President, Congressmen, or make other verbal diareha (sp?) about the political leaders of our country. Sweeping generalizations, etc. And you know what I mean.... the stuff that goes outside the bounds by both sides.

But we want to slice hairs about the slightest perceived name calling or comments... ??? The irony is pretty funny.

You can start the thread off with reasonable discussion and debate between parties on here... but it is a guarantee that the wheels will be shot off in about 15 to 20 posts. Again, the threads are fun... until some folks just want to stir the pot and aggrevate...

*sigh* (WARNING: Personal Aside coming... "Everyone on these threads know the intent of the words and posts that are made. And still sometimes it is like playing cards with my sisters kids.") LOL ;)

Sans Couth

05-03-2004, 12:24 PM

Slpybear,

You are so Wise

And sometimes you can be a creative Arse.

I hope you don't take offense to me calling you a Wise-Arse.:D

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Again, this thread is exactly why I would vote for no Political threads.

It is okay to verbally slam and trash our President, Congressmen, or make other verbal diareha (sp?) about the political leaders of our country. Sweeping generalizations, etc. And you know what I mean.... the stuff that goes outside the bounds by both sides.

But we want to slice hairs about the slightest perceived name calling or comments... ??? The irony is pretty funny.

You can start the thread off with reasonable discussion and debate between parties on here... but it is a guarantee that the wheels will be shot off in about 15 to 20 posts. Again, the threads are fun... until some folks just want to stir the pot and aggrevate...

*sigh* (WARNING: Personal Aside coming... "Everyone on these threads know the intent of the words and posts that are made. And still sometimes it is like playing cards with my sisters kids.") LOL ;) Very Good! now lets ALL live by the Same standards. ......But what some view as truth Is that persons right and the right to say it is what is important. Standards should be the same for all. If you dont want someone to call you an ARSE ( A$$) then dont do it your self.:)

sinton66

05-03-2004, 09:05 PM

Hey mean_machine:

http://www.gifs.net/animate/bmoon.gif

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Hey mean_machine:
http://www.gifs.net/animate/bmoon.gif I hope your not getting your hopes up Im married and not gay so if your giving an invitation your out of luck LOL:D

sinton66

05-03-2004, 09:52 PM

I've been married longer than you've been alive. And TRUST me, if I was gay, I could do a lot better than you.:D

Mean_Machine

05-03-2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
I've been married longer than you've been alive. And TRUST me, if I was gay, I could do a lot better than you.:D well thats good. for a second I thought you may have spent some time in the big house and miss the good old times. :doh:

spiveyrat

05-04-2004, 06:37 AM

Ahem... well... okay... Speaking of politics... :D

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Ahem... well... okay... Speaking of politics... :D
Good call. Remember our motto - "Don't ask. Don't tell." Thank you Mr. Clinton for that wonderful motto.

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Good call. Remember our motto - "Don't ask. Don't tell." Thank you Mr. Clinton for that wonderful motto. Yes and also to Credit Mr Bush for the motto .. If you do tell then we will expose your wife as a CIA agent and end her future there so keep your mouth shut or els..:D

CHS_Grad '85

05-04-2004, 10:05 AM

Yes and also to Credit Mr Bush for the motto .. If you do tell then we will expose your wife as a CIA agent and end her future there so keep your mouth shut or els..

:rolleyes: Maybe... but its not as catchy...:D

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by CHS_Grad '85
:rolleyes: Maybe... but its not as catchy...:D
LOL!:clap: :clap:

spiveyrat

05-04-2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by CHS_Grad '85
:rolleyes: Maybe... but its not as catchy...:D :evillaugh

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 10:39 AM

I think The Motto " Mission Accomplished" is a knee slapper of a Motto for Bush as well.

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 10:48 AM

Kerry's motto: "Whatever you believe is what I believe."

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 11:15 AM

Or Bush could have the motto " charg it and Let the kids pay it off":thumbsup:

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 11:19 AM

Or an ad
"Bush Cheney , Spreading Love throughout the arab world" with a picture of the Iraqi POWs and US interigators in the wonderful poses that were on the news this week and weekend.;)

spiveyrat

05-04-2004, 11:28 AM

heh heh, I think we've got something started here. :D

Sans Couth

05-04-2004, 11:34 AM

I thought "Charge it and let the kids pay it off" was the Motto for Social Security.

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Or an ad
"Bush Cheney , Spreading Love throughout the arab world" with a picture of the Iraqi POWs and US interigators in the wonderful poses that were on the news this week and weekend.;)
This is what I don't understand. The left loves it when our military is caught in a bad situation. That just gives you more ammunition to go at Bush. Understand that our military is fighting for our country. You may not see it that way, but please lay off enthusiasm when something like this happens to our men and women in uniform. They will be delt with. Try not to gloat and use that to your political advantage. That's just really low...

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is what I don't understand. The left loves it when our military is caught in a bad situation. That just gives you more ammunition to go at Bush. Understand that our military is fighting for our country. You may not see it that way, but please lay off enthusiasm when something like this happens to our men and women in uniform. They will be delt with. Try not to gloat and use that to your political advantage. That's just really low... calm down this is fun... Hey you know I dont think we should be there in the first place so I think Bushs little war is to blame. Im glad they are being dealt with as they should. :D but I thought that one would get a rise out of you. but it is meant as a chuckle.

Hey , I saw a little bill board internet ad that was kinda funny. It said." You dont Want Dick and Bush running the country do you?" :)
I cracked up when I saw that.

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Sans Couth
I thought "Charge it and let the kids pay it off" was the Motto for Social Security. I think with the good old Deficit like it is( $500 Billion ) Bush took it over for sure.:thumbsup:

Sans Couth

05-04-2004, 12:33 PM

I love the way left fielders try and bundle the entire US economy into one little word like Deficit.

spiveyrat

05-04-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Sans Couth
I love the way left fielders try and bundle the entire US economy into one little word like Deficit.

I'll try to bundle it up into one little word too... How about "thriving"? :cool:

spiveyrat

05-04-2004, 02:21 PM

I saw a story on the news yesterday that showed how the president (any president at any time) really has very little effect on the economy. It said that he only has an effect on about 11% of the economy. Of that 11%, an even smaller amount can be attributed to the president. I wish I had seen the whole story. I didn't get a full grasp on it.

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
calm down this is fun... Hey you know I dont think we should be there in the first place so I think Bushs little war is to blame. Im glad they are being dealt with as they should. :D but I thought that one would get a rise out of you. but it is meant as a chuckle.

Sorry, I don't share your sense of humor. I don't find anything funny about the situation our troops are in.

JasperDog94

05-04-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I think with the good old Deficit like it is( $500 Billion ) Bush took it over for sure.:thumbsup:
Here's some news that I'm sure you'll love...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4898377

sinton66

05-04-2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Sans Couth
I love the way left fielders try and bundle the entire US economy into one little word like Deficit.

Unfortunately, they tend to leave out the other little word, "projected".;)

Mean_Machine

05-04-2004, 09:55 PM

Was that supose to be a good news article?? it Said that the deficite could be only $420 BILLION ( still a record ) instead of over $520 BILLION.... Remeber the Black ink during Clinton? But what the heck put it on the credit card and let our kids pay it!!! LOL

slpybear the bullfan

05-04-2004, 10:08 PM

Heh.. Heh... yeah... That Crazy President... doesn't he know that he should cut back on all that spending to get us back to a balanced budget... I mean heck, it is just a small war on terror... just how much money do our Troops really need?

*pulling back tongue from out of cheek*

And, Oh darn... perhaps we shouldn't overlook this little tidbit on from the link posted above...

"The 5.5 percent average [economic growth] pace in the latest three quarters was the largest since 1984," said Mark J. Warshawsky, assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy, in a statement to the department's borrowing advisory committee.

Hmmm... yet another arrow yanked from the quiver...

PI-fan

05-04-2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That's like saying WWII was several different wars. One was a continuation of another in Afg. and Iraq. But please, feel free to think of it any way you want to.

Continuation? one was against terrorists the other against a dictator. Two different wars to me, but feel free to think of it any way you want to.

Back to the 20yr war estimate involving the US seems too much...

The US enters...

WWI 1917 ends in 1918
(23 yrs till next major war)

WWII in 1941 ends 1945
(5 yrs till next major war)

Korean War 1950 to 1953
(11 yrs till next major war)

Vietnam 1964? to 1973
(17 yrs till next major war)

Persian Gulf War I 1990-1991
(10 yrs till next major war)

Afghanistan war 2001-???
(2 yrs till next major war)

Gulf War 2 2003-????
(2 yrs till N.Korean war?)
:eek:

seems to avg. a war every 11 yrs. :eek: (not counting last one :) )

PI-fan

05-04-2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Funny how nobody's talked about that 66. A democrat promised support, didn't give it, and a massacre insued. At least Bush is keeping his promise.

Ahhh, but u also forget the promise from Republican, Bush I, to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam during the Persian Gulf War I. :thinking:

sinfan75

05-05-2004, 04:54 AM

Bush I never promised Iraq he would oust Saddam. He just drove em out of Kuwait. Of course the Iraqi people wanted us to. Do agree with what I heard last night on Hannity and Colmes from a returning Iraqi war vet. Our troops ain't trained to be policeman, they're trained to attack and destroy. Let em do what they do best and leave the policing to the UN and Iraq.

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by sinfan75
Bush I never promised Iraq he would oust Saddam. He just drove em out of Kuwait.

I don't remember that promise either. The only reason we went to Iraq the first time was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. There was regret we didn't get him the first time, though.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Understand that our military is fighting for our country. You may not see it that way, but please lay off enthusiasm when something like this happens to our men and women in uniform. Well I dont see it as something that happened to OUR men and wommen in uniform. The issue is what we do to the men in Uniform ( or in this case out of uniform ) of other countries. We should not be there. Our people are victims as well of a political war. Your right.. Using war for political gains is very low. Shame on BUSH.

sinton66

05-05-2004, 07:30 AM

True, our troops aren't trained to be a police force. The US has sent scores of professional police over there to train the Iraqi police, but so far it's not paying any dividends. Apparently, they're not yet ready to stand up to the armed thugs in their country. The objective is to get Iraq to set up a functional democracy of their own, and the best way I can think of for that not to happen is to let the UN get involved.

sinton66

05-05-2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Well I dont see it as something that happened to OUR men and wommen in uniform. The issue is what we do to the men in Uniform ( or in this case out of uniform ) of other countries. We should not be there. Our people are victims as well of a political war. Your right.. Using war for political gains is very low. Shame on BUSH.

The actions of a few perverts in the military only reflect negatively on the ENTIRE US military in the minds of narrow-minded people with their OWN political agendas. The military and the current administration are both fuming over the actions of this group, and they will be dealt with.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
The actions of a few perverts in the military only reflect negatively on the ENTIRE US military in the minds of narrow-minded people with their OWN political agendas. The military and the current administration are both fuming over the actions of this group, and they will be dealt with. your right, It does reflect negitavely on our entire military and our country as a whole not just in arab minds but in the minds of europeans and people all over the world. The world didnt support the US invasion of Iraq. They did in Afgahnastan because of Binladen and 9/11 but not Iraq. We should never have put our young people in the situation for this to happen. Like it has been said before we have created 100s of new binladens in the world because of this invasion and we are creating more and more every day. we can not win this way because we are simply throwing Gas on a fire and making things worse. we need to get out Look at ways we can protect ourselves in the future and start to mend our relationships with France, Germany and the rest of Europe. I dont think Bush is the one if for no other reason of the way Europeans and others around the world see Bush. They dont like him, they dont respect him, dont think he is smart enough, ect... I wish if a Republican had to be there it was McCain instead of Bush. He would have been way better.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 09:41 AM

Funny how all the focus is on what a SMALL MINORITY of our troops may have done. There was a similar photo in Britain that showed troops doing some thing they should not have. Now they're saying that the Britain photo is a fake due to several errors. Don't assume that these photos are real either. They may be, they may not be. Let the investigation determine any wrong doing.

Hey remember how great things were before we got to Iraq. Terrorist training camps, thousands of starving people, girls weren't allowed to go to school, if you spoke out against Saddam you and your family would be killed. Oh yeah, and who could forget those rape rooms. Ahh the good ol' days before that evil USA butted in stopped all the fun.:devil:

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I wish if a Republican had to be there it was McCain instead of Bush. He would have been way better.
If you think McCain would have backed down from the UN, then you are sadly mistaken.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Like it has been said before we have created 100s of new binladens in the world because of this invasion and we are creating more and more every day. we can not win this way because we are simply throwing Gas on a fire and making things worse. we need to get out Look at ways we can protect ourselves in the future and start to mend our relationships with France, Germany and the rest of Europe.
Yeah, let's back down and crawl into a little hole and bury our heads in the sand. The problem will go away. Let's depend on countries that won't enforce resolutions that THEY THEMSELVES MADE. Those are the kind of people that I want to trust.

BTW - Who are all these "experts" that say we've created 100 more BinLadens? If that were really true, we would see thousands of terrorist acts every month throughout the world....nope not seeing it.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Funny how all the focus is on what a SMALL MINORITY of our troops may have done. There was a similar photo in Britain that showed troops doing some thing they should not have. Now they're saying that the Britain photo is a fake due to several errors. Don't assume that these photos are real either. They may be, they may not be. Let the investigation determine any wrong doing.

Hey remember how great things were before we got to Iraq. Terrorist training camps, thousands of starving people, girls weren't allowed to go to school, if you spoke out against Saddam you and your family would be killed. Oh yeah, and who could forget those rape rooms. Ahh the good ol' days before that evil USA butted in stopped all the fun.:devil: have we forgot the reason GIVEN for invading??? Look at the world and Many many nations could fit that discription in many ways but shoud we INVADE???? NO of course not.. If you want to buy into the reasons Bush gave for Invading Iraq go ahead but you are in the minority considering the world oppinion. most people in the world dont agree with what we ahve don here. they did in afgahanastan but not Iraq.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yeah, let's back down and crawl into a little hole and bury our heads in the sand. The problem will go away. Let's depend on countries that won't enforce resolutions that THEY THEMSELVES MADE. Those are the kind of people that I want to trust.

BTW - Who are all these "experts" that say we've created 100 more BinLadens? If that were really true, we would see thousands of terrorist acts every month throughout the world....nope not seeing it.
well if we use your criteria we better get ready to invade 10 other nations.

BTW the attacks of 9/11 took years of planing. your blind if you cant see what will come of this. If Im an Arab and My family dies at the hands of bombing by americans I would be enraged. If my children were killed by bombs or shells from americans I would be looking for some payback. YOU CANT SEE THAT???? Some arab people now feel sorry for the Iraqis and now hate the US. HATRED OF THE US IS AT A NEW HIGH.

HighSchool Fan

05-05-2004, 10:20 AM

The 911 attack wouldn't of happened if Bill Clinton, democrat, had some backbone. He had numerous attempts to get Bin Ladin and didn't do it.

How many times did Clinton go to the U.N. to get approval to go to Kosovo? The answer is...NONE. At least Bush went to the U.N. and got a resolution to use force to deal with Saddam. The worst thing that could happen for America is for another weak democrat to be elected president.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
If you want to buy into the reasons Bush gave for Invading Iraq go ahead but you are in the minority considering the world oppinion. most people in the world dont agree with what we ahve don here. they did in afgahanastan but not Iraq.
You're assuming that I give a rip about "world opinion". Most of the world is jealous of the life we live in the US so they'll find some reason to hate us.

When in comes to WMDs, I go back to a previous statement by Sinton66: What is your definition of a WMD? The world's (and media's for that matter) opinion is that they should see nice little boxes labeled "Weapons of Mass Destruction". They had the facilities to make the weapons. They had the components to make the weapons. They had made them previously. That had used them previously. We've found trucks smuggling illegal materials into and out of Syria. We've found components used to make nuclear weapons.

That said, if you choose not to connect the dots, then that's your choice. The world has already made up it's mind. We should never base our decision on "world opinion". The rest of the world would love nothing more than to see our great nation crumble.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
If Im an Arab and My family dies at the hands of bombing by americans I would be enraged. If my children were killed by bombs or shells from americans I would be looking for some payback. YOU CANT SEE THAT???? Some arab people now feel sorry for the Iraqis and now hate the US. HATRED OF THE US IS AT A NEW HIGH.

This is exactly why we need better border control. Neither party has enough backbone to force illegal immigrants to leave the country when caught.

The police policy in Houston is that if you catch an illegal alien, you cannot take him in INS. Why you ask? Because they'll just let him go anyway. Remember John Lee Malvo, the sniper? If he would have been deported when they caught him the first time, there would be a few more empty graves here in the US.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
HATRED OF THE US IS AT A NEW HIGH.
Maybe I should, but I really don't care. The middle east has hated us since we started supporting Isreal.

That begs a question: How come the "world opinion" is more concerned with treatment of Iraqi prisoners than suicide bombers that target women and children?:thinking:

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
When in comes to WMDs, I go back to a previous statement by Sinton66: What is your definition of a WMD? The world's (and media's for that matter) opinion is that they should see nice little boxes labeled "Weapons of Mass Destruction". They had the facilities to make the weapons. They had the components to make the weapons. They had made them previously
Have you not ever been watching News programs where WHITE HOUSE officals admitt that we have found none??? Dont you think if we have found evedence of WMDs the WHITE HOUSE would be the FIRST to say it?? They know we have not and admit it... Yes they did make them ( chemical) in the past and used them but continued to state they had none now and had destroyed them. we have not found the contrary... Your the proplem and people like you You cant force people to do and think the way you want them to. Might does not make right. We need Our Allies and if you think we dont that shows just how little you know about the real world. we dont want to be on the wrong side of world oppinion. we have always been respected and looked up to until Bushs war on IRAQ. Its time to go back to being the example of freedom . Not a reminder of the days of the Roman Empire and that we will impose OUR will on others because WE know what is best for everyone.. Its that arogance the world has come to resent not envy .

HighSchool Fan

05-05-2004, 11:10 AM

Again, this goes back to Clinton. If he would of stood up to Saddam when Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors we wouldn't be their today. The only thing that Bush is guilty of is cleaning up Clinton's mess in the middle east. Bill Clinton dropped the ball for all Americans.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
we have always been respected and looked up to until Bushs war on IRAQ.
:confused: Are you even serious?!? You think that the reason people don't respect us is because of Bush?!? I think you are the one that needs to get a clue. I'm sure that Clinton's little scandal with the infamous dress was well respected throughout the world.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 11:17 AM

To answer your questions about the White House not saying anything about the chemicals they found is because every time they find something, the media comes out and says, "But this is not what we're looking for." Like I said, if you choose not to connect the dots then that's fine. But don't act all high and mighty that we've found no evidence of a chemical weapons program. We actually found some ricin (sp?) in a scientist's home, but that's not enough. As the media says, "We need a substantial amount to prove anything." Give me a break!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
:confused: Are you even serious?!? You think that the reason people don't respect us is because of Bush?!? I think you are the one that needs to get a clue. I'm sure that Clinton's little scandal with the infamous dress was well respected throughout the world. You dont remember that the europeans didnt care about a dress. What does a Dress have to do with the world??? NOTHING.. People dont like us anymore because we unilateraly take action when and where we want regardless of UN approval or not. Clinton was well liked in Europe and the world and even had a 68% approval rating when he left office. Bush will not be anywhere near that. LOL. Bottom line is that Most people in the world could care less what happens behind closed doors or in bed rooms of the white house. that type of stuff is none of my business just like what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business. If they do a good Job at what they are suppose to do thats what matters. I didnt vote for a priest to run the country. we elected a president.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
that type of stuff is none of my business just like what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business.
...and that, my friend will be the downfall of this country. When there are no morals left and "world opinion" rules the day, so goes the country.

BTW - The taxpayers didn't pay for my bedroom, but they sure did the oval office.:doh: :doh:

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
that type of stuff is none of my business...

I think it is all of our business. My wife was telling me about a study she saw a few days ago where kids were asked about cheating and lying. The kids came back saying that since we had a president who lied under oath, they didn't perceive cheating on a lil 'ol test a problem.

If that's the caliber of people who are/will be our doctors, lawyers, ditch diggers, tax collectors, service station attendants, engineers, etc., I think IT IS INDEED our business. Integrity is everything.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Integrity is everything.
...unless the "world opinion" says it isn't...:D

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
...unless the "world opinion" says it isn't...:D

Well yeah, of course. I just figured it went without saying.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
...and that, my friend will be the downfall of this country. When there are no morals left and "world opinion" rules the day, so goes the country.

BTW - The taxpayers didn't pay for my bedroom, but they sure did the oval office.:doh: :doh: There have been other political parties that think there is no right to privacy or other freedoms.. I think it was during WWII..;)

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
[B]. My wife was telling me about a study she saw a few days ago where kids were asked about cheating and lying. The kids came back saying that since we had a president who lied under oath, they didn't perceive cheating on a lil 'ol test a problem.

/B] Yeah sure they did LOL...and if you believe that then I have beach property in Arizona to sell you.:doh:

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
There have been other political parties that think there is no right to privacy or other freedoms.. I think it was during WWII..;)
Way to skirt the issue. Once again, by bedroom was paid for by ME, not the American taxpayers. Clinton had no business doing that in the oval office.

When you are elected president, guess what? You have no privacy. Obviously, what you did in the past is relevant as well as what you're doing now. Just ask any political candidate. Your life becomes an open book.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yeah sure they did LOL...and if you believe that then I have beach property in Arizona to sell you.:doh:
Believe it. I taught in the public schools and cheating on tests is the least of our problems. Thanks to Clinton, kids don't think that oral sex is sex anymore. Thanks again Mr. Clinton.

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yeah sure they did LOL...and if you believe that then I have beach property in Arizona to sell you.:doh:

Truth hurts...

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
[B
BTW - The taxpayers didn't pay for my bedroom, but they sure did the oval office.:doh: :doh: [/B] I dont care who paid for it. I have a right to privacy regardles if I have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. so you have to own something you live in inorder to have privacy or anyother right?? Sounds very aaaaa lets see, a political party In WWII had that view about personal rights and freedoms . I remember pictures of book burnings.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I dont care who paid for it. I have a right to privacy regardles if I have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. so you have to own something you live in inorder to have privacy or anyother right?? Sounds very aaaaa lets see, a political party In WWII had that view about personal rights and freedoms . I remember pictures of book burnings.
Nice colorful analogy.

You may have that right, but the President of the United States is held to a higher standard.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Believe it. I taught in the public schools and cheating on tests is the least of our problems. Thanks to Clinton, kids don't think that oral sex is sex anymore. Thanks again Mr. Clinton. Now you Guys are really cracking me up. I cant believe how gulable you are to believe that.. I can see the headlines!! the nation has lost its moral value because President clinton Lied aobut having an afare. LOL .

well thats ok the fellas in the national guard can just skip out and never show up and use the excuse that they thought its ok to skip and never go because the comander in chief never went.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Nice colorful analogy.

You may have that right, but the President of the United States is held to a higher standard. I would think IF I HAVE THE RIGHT ( average Joe in the usa ) THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CERTAINLY HAS IT.

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 01:31 PM

What kids see, they imitate. Does Columbine ring a bell? If you don't understand this, you must not have kids. Heck, even when I didn't have kids, I knew this, though.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
What kids see, they imitate. Does Columbine ring a bell? If you don't understand this, you must not have kids. Heck, even when I didn't have kids, I knew this, though. The problem in this country with kids is that parents do not teach thier kids morals and then blame teachers , politicians, and music. ect.... you sound just like them. take responisbility and teach right from wrong and guess what. Presidents can be wrong too kiddos!! they do bad things because they are human and those errors should be pointed out... Raise your kids and teach them right from wrong and quit blaming everyone els... drop your crutch and take responibility.. quit crying about Bill or who ever.. Look in the mirror and you will find the person responible and the person who can make a difference.. stop passing the buck and blaming people for the lack of morals you see. you take care of yours and thats it.

HighSchool Fan

05-05-2004, 01:57 PM

You want people to quit crying about bill or whoever, then you need to quit crying about Bush.

vet93

05-05-2004, 02:10 PM

I grow tired of the people saying that the only reason we went into Iraq was for WMD's. Did it figure prominently....yes, given the intelligience of the day. This intelligience is not disputed by the Bush or Clinton administration. During the time leading up to the war Saddam was increasing his flaunting of all of the UN Security Council Resolutions that the Iraqi government had agreed to abide by. His people were routinely and increasingly shooting at our planes in the "no-fly" zone. Inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq for a couple of years and while there were "hints" that Iraq might let inspectors back in to do their jobs...they were never allowed. Sadam was continuing his abuse of dissidents on a large scale especially the Shiites and the Kurds and he was giving large sums of money to the families of palestinian "martyrs" in Isreal. After 911 it was made quite clear that we were going to "drain the swamp" where much of the destabilizing activity was taking place. Afghanistan was the primary spot at the time but Iraq was a close second. For those who had a sense of reality in the beginning it was quite clear that this is/was going to be a long, hard fought and in some cases bloody conflict. Our enemy has no country to defend, no citizenry to protect and does not have to worry about consensus or public opinion. We are facing an enemy who hates us for what we stand for and who we are, not because we are in Iraq or any other place. They hate us because of our freedoms, our wealth, our influence and because we are unclean infidels. They are not content in living peacably in their half of the world. They are not content leaving us alone to do "our thing" because "our thing" is an abomination to Allah in their eyes. Their goal is a regional theocracy that gains control of the oil wealth of the Saudi's and all of the other middle eastern countries so that they can control the flow of oil and bring the West to its knees. Their hatred goes beyond "I don't like what you are doing...can you please change". Their hatred stems from the fact that we are infidels worthy only of death....our humanity means nothing more to them than a herd of sheep that needs to be slaughtered. The irony of this situation is that the people in the states who are their staunchest defenders (liberals) are the people that they abhor the most because their "liberal" ideals are the ones that that they hate America the most for. You cannot appease an enemy that is bent upon your ultimate destruction. You cannot barter with them because in their eyes you have nothing to barter except for your own suicide. You cannot reason with people like this because reason does not play into their decision making. Their form of reason centers around a violent form of Islam that mandates the death of all infadels, whether you are trying to "appease" them or not. This way of thinking is so foreign to us that it is difficult to comprehend but we had better start learning how these people think. They respond only to strength and resolve. They will back down only when they are met with a substantial lethal resistance. They will only go away when they are dead or stripped of their influence. This is not an enemy where we can use statesmanship and diplomacy to come to an agreement with. We cannot treat them like communist countries of the past because they do not have the pragmantic world view that the communist leaders have. This is all not to say that we have to stoop to the ruthlessness and hatred that our enemy possesses but it does tell us that weakness and appeasment will do nothing but add fuel to the fire. If we don't understand these facts in relation to our enemy, then we are destined to fail. Our will and determination to remain free and democratic has to outlast their determination to see the death of the western infidels.

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Come on.... The war in Iraq is linked to 9/11 only because Bush said it was. not because Iraq commited any attack on the US. 2) If we did in Vietnam what we did in Iraq we would have been in a slugfest with The Good old USSR or China. Thats why we had to fight a limmited war. It was a Fine balance that kept us from WWIII.
Lets Remember the Reason for going to Iraq. WMDs.... That is the reason before it changed.. It can burn you up all it want to but sometimes the truth hurts. we should have been spending these troops an billions of $ hunting the fella who is responsible for 9/11. I think the draft is probable if Bush is reelected. I would ecpect Us to Jump on Syria or Iran and that would creat a need for a draft. but I believe the US people are smarter than that. It will all change in november;)

Ranger Mom

05-05-2004, 02:18 PM

Yeah.........What Vet93 said!!!:p :clap: :p :clap:

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
The problem in this country with kids is that parents do not teach thier kids morals and then blame teachers , politicians, and music. ect.... you sound just like them. take responisbility and teach right from wrong and guess what. Presidents can be wrong too kiddos!! they do bad things because they are human and those errors should be pointed out... Raise your kids and teach them right from wrong and quit blaming everyone els... drop your crutch and take responibility.. quit crying about Bill or who ever.. Look in the mirror and you will find the person responible and the person who can make a difference.. stop passing the buck and blaming people for the lack of morals you see. you take care of yours and thats it.

Nope, sorry, but you can't pin that one on me. I'm not one of those that you are speaking of. And I can't be every kid's parent. Nor can I control everyone else's kid. I will agree with you that the problems with kids starts at home. But, parents can't be with their kids 24 hours a day. We can't control everything our kids see. The key is having a good relationship with your kids... but NOT being their best friend.

Those kids who answered that they didn't have a problem with cheating or lying... those weren't my kids. If anyone should be able to be a role model for kids, it ought to be the president.

I am a good practicing Catholic and proud to be one. I whole-heartedly agree with what the Church teaches and try to incorporate it into my everyday life. I strive for holiness not just on Sunday, but every day of the week. So, don't question my morals or tell me to look in the mirror. Maybe you should pull weeds in your own yard before you come pull them in mine. :hand:

spiveyrat

05-05-2004, 02:50 PM

Wow Vet, that was just beautiful, man! *sniff, sniff*

Well thought out and well written.

HighSchool Fan

05-05-2004, 02:54 PM

that was perfect Vet

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Now you Guys are really cracking me up. I cant believe how gulable you are to believe that.. I can see the headlines!! the nation has lost its moral value because President clinton Lied aobut having an afare. LOL .

well thats ok the fellas in the national guard can just skip out and never show up and use the excuse that they thought its ok to skip and never go because the comander in chief never went.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Here's a story for you:

3 years ago a teacher I worked with intercepted a note from a cheerleader inviting other students to watch while she "satisfied" a fellow student. This was to be done at the movie theatre. When confronted witht the note in front of her parents, she said that she wasn't going to have sex. When asked where she got the idea that oral sex wasn't sex she stated, "President Clinton said that it wasn't sex."

Say what you want, but Clinton had a profound impact on the definition of "sex" to our children.

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 03:12 PM

Wow Vet93. That was most impressive and well thought out.:clap:

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by vet93
I grow tired of the people saying that the only reason we went into Iraq was for WMD's. Did it figure prominently....yes, given the intelligience of the day. This intelligience is not disputed by the Bush or Clinton administration. During the time leading up to the war Saddam was increasing his flaunting of all of the UN Security Council Resolutions that the Iraqi government had agreed to abide by. His people were routinely and increasingly shooting at our planes in the "no-fly" zone. Inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq for a couple of years and while there were "hints" that Iraq might let inspectors back in to do their jobs...they were never allowed. Sadam was continuing his abuse of dissidents on a large scale especially the Shiites and the Kurds and he was giving large sums of money to the families of palestinian "martyrs" in Isreal. After 911 it was made quite clear that we were going to "drain the swamp" where much of the destabilizing activity was taking place. Afghanistan was the primary spot at the time but Iraq was a close second. For those who had a sense of reality in the beginning it was quite clear that this is/was going to be a long, hard fought and in some cases bloody conflict. Our enemy has no country to defend, no citizenry to protect and does not have to worry about consensus or public opinion. We are facing an enemy who hates us for what we stand for and who we are, not because we are in Iraq or any other place. They hate us because of our freedoms, our wealth, our influence and because we are unclean infidels. They are not content in living peacably in their half of the world. They are not content leaving us alone to do "our thing" because "our thing" is an abomination to Allah in their eyes. Their goal is a regional theocracy that gains control of the oil wealth of the Saudi's and all of the other middle eastern countries so that they can control the flow of oil and bring the West to its knees. Their hatred goes beyond "I don't like what you are doing...can you please change". Their hatred stems from the fact that we are infidels worthy only of death....our humanity means nothing more to them than a herd of sheep that needs to be slaughtered. The irony of this situation is that the people in the states who are their staunchest defenders (liberals) are the people that they abhor the most because their "liberal" ideals are the ones that that they hate America the most for. You cannot appease an enemy that is bent upon your ultimate destruction. You cannot barter with them because in their eyes you have nothing to barter except for your own suicide. You cannot reason with people like this because reason does not play into their decision making. Their form of reason centers around a violent form of Islam that mandates the death of all infadels, whether you are trying to "appease" them or not. This way of thinking is so foreign to us that it is difficult to comprehend but we had better start learning how these people think. They respond only to strength and resolve. They will back down only when they are met with a substantial lethal resistance. They will only go away when they are dead or stripped of their influence. This is not an enemy where we can use statesmanship and diplomacy to come to an agreement with. We cannot treat them like communist countries of the past because they do not have the pragmantic world view that the communist leaders have. This is all not to say that we have to stoop to the ruthlessness and hatred that our enemy possesses but it does tell us that weakness and appeasment will do nothing but add fuel to the fire. If we don't understand these facts in relation to our enemy, then we are destined to fail. Our will and determination to remain free and democratic has to outlast their determination to see the death of the western infidels. The problem with this is that you imply that all or most people in the arab world are Islamic fundimentalist and extreemist who want to destroy the US. WRONG. Most arabs like American culture and imitate it all the time. Its the Extreemist(a vast minority) that dont. The problem with our actions in Iraq is that it has created more extreemist. So if all the people in the Arab world were extreemist your argument would hold water , but because they are mostly not extreemist your completely wrong.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's a story for you:

3 years ago a teacher I worked with intercepted a note from a cheerleader inviting other students to watch while she "satisfied" a fellow student. This was to be done at the movie theatre. When confronted witht the note in front of her parents, she said that she wasn't going to have sex. When asked where she got the idea that oral sex wasn't sex she stated, "President Clinton said that it wasn't sex."

Say what you want, but Clinton had a profound impact on the definition of "sex" to our children. Again Pull out the crutch and make excuses .. pass the buck.. Parents are responsible for the moral direction of the kids. To imply that A man has moraly damaged our kids is rediculous.

again Is it an excuse for our National Guardsmen to not show up for duty because Bush negelcted to? No thats no excuse becuase it is wrong. you let kids get away with excuses and it only gets worse. Parents who let it happen can blame them selves not anyone els..

vet93

05-05-2004, 05:43 PM

Where did I imply that all (or most) Arabs subscribe to the "violent form of Islam" that I mentioned? I agree with you that this sect is in the minority but to be quite honest...it doesn't matter whether there are 5 of these guys or 5 million. The response to their brutality and convictions concerning the west and our form of government is the same. Do you expect the "moderate" Arabs to hunt down and destroy these guys? They may not share the extreme political views as the wahabi muslims but they certainly don't have the resolve and concensus to effectively deal with these guys. Do you think that they would risk their lives on a large scale to save a bunch of westerners. While they may admire our society, they certainly don't admire it enough to stop them from acts of terror against the United States or Europe. What did these moderate Arabs do to stop 911, the world trade center bombing, the Madrid bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the bombing on the Marine Barracks, the attack on the U.S. embasies? There is another aspect of the Arab mentality that you are not taking into consideration....many of these "moderates" may privately condemn the actions of the extremist but few would come out and openly express opposition against an Arab "brother". Therefore, you have a situation where the only thing that is being heard in the Arab world is the cymbal banging of the radical extremist. How often do you hear the moderate viewpoint expressed on Al-Jazeera? Not very often. It would be nice if we could conduct this war against only the combatants themselves. However, when your enemy is perfectly willing to use innocent peoples as their shield and protection against you....then what do you do? Do you appease them....Go ahead and take Iraq....It is yours. Why don't you take Kuwait too and Saudi Arabia. How about we make you guys a deal....If we leave you alone and let you have the whole Arabian Peninsula....can we count on you not to use oil to manipulate the global economy to your advantage? Do we have your word that you won't try to harm our economy and people? Do we have your word that you won't enslave all of these "moderate" Arabs to a living Hell of Wahabi fundamentalism? Ask the people of Afghanistan how wonderful their world was under this type of theocracy. Remember....these guys are not in this thing to make a few bucks and settle down to a nice retirement...if they were....we could bargain with them. The only way you can deal with a terrorist is not to back down...because American giving up on this battle is EXACTLY what they are counting on. If we back down who will stop them?

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
The problem with this is that you imply that all or most people in the arab world are Islamic fundimentalist and extreemist who want to destroy the US. WRONG. Most arabs like American culture and imitate it all the time. Its the Extreemist(a vast minority) that dont. The problem with our actions in Iraq is that it has created more extreemist. So if all the people in the Arab world were extreemist your argument would hold water , but because they are mostly not extreemist your completely wrong.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by vet93
I agree with you that this sect is in the minority but to be quite honest...it doesn't matter whether there are 5 of these guys or 5 million. The response to their brutality and convictions concerning the west and our form of government is the same. This statement shows in a nutshell why your wrong and if most cant see it they got to be in denial. You invade a country of millions and disrupt hundreds of thousands of lives for a few people??? NO. talk about hitting a knat with a sledge hammer..... Your only going to throw Gas on the fire as we have done. we did have the wolds sympathy all the way up until the invasion of IRAQ. they knew we should not have done it, many of us knew, and the vast majority of the world knew we were not justified in toing it. BOTTOM LINE IRAQ WAS BUSHs PUNCHING BAG .. Because he did not get Binladen. when you get frustrated you sometimes look for something to beat up on and Iraq was it. We have Just created a generation of AMERICA HATERS and gave fuel to the terrorist in recuitment . we have dammaged our selves in a huge way. New Poll out from the WALL STEET JOURNAL AND NBC that only 37% think the country in going in the right direction and 51% of the people think we are headed in the wrong direction. BAD NEW FOR BUSH.

vet93

05-05-2004, 05:54 PM

Agreed...parents are responsible for the moral direction of our kids. But....in the prescence of a vacuum (lack of parental mentoring)...the "moral direction of our kids" will have to come from somewhere. In steps our President and his sex scandal and lying under oath. How can this help? At what point do we begin to stand up as a society and say enough is enough. That type of behavior is unacceptable whether you are the President of the U.S. or if you are manager of the local Dairy Queen. Unfortunately, the President's mistakes are a little more high profile. This is not just a Clinton thing....what Nixon did while in office was just as damaging and did much to sew seeds of distrust in our nation on many levels. It is not enough for a parent to raise kids with moral convictions we must ALSO stand up as individuals and publically encourage decency, good character, marital fidelity, courage and many of the other character traits that our nation was built on.

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Again Pull out the crutch and make excuses .. pass the buck.. Parents are responsible for the moral direction of the kids. To imply that A man has moraly damaged our kids is rediculous.

again Is it an excuse for our National Guardsmen to not show up for duty because Bush negelcted to? No thats no excuse becuase it is wrong. you let kids get away with excuses and it only gets worse. Parents who let it happen can blame them selves not anyone els..

JasperDog94

05-05-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
again Is it an excuse for our National Guardsmen to not show up for duty because Bush negelcted to?
Two words: PROVE IT!

vet93

05-05-2004, 06:22 PM

Disrupt hundreds of thousands of lives? You make it seem like Iraq was some kind of utopia before we invaded. How about the 300 to 500 thousand innocent Iraqi's that were murdered by Sadam? What about the brutality of Udai and his brother? What about the mass graves etc...etc....We are not perfect...and the abuses that has been discovered and made public by OUR soldiers are certainly despicable....but we are a far cry from the brutality of Saddam and his Baath Party thugs. Iraq has a chance at a form of self-government for the first time in a long time. Hopefully they will be able to put aside differences so that in the future two Iraqi's can get on the computer and debate issues like you and I and not worry about the other guy squealing and you hearing a death-squad at the door.

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
This statement shows in a nutshell why your wrong and if most cant see it they got to be in denial. You invade a country of millions and disrupt hundreds of thousands of lives for a few people??? NO. talk about hitting a knat with a sledge hammer..... Your only going to throw Gas on the fire as we have done. we did have the wolds sympathy all the way up until the invasion of IRAQ. they knew we should not have done it, many of us knew, and the vast majority of the world knew we were not justified in toing it. BOTTOM LINE IRAQ WAS BUSHs PUNCHING BAG .. Because he did not get Binladen. when you get frustrated you sometimes look for something to beat up on and Iraq was it. We have Just created a generation of AMERICA HATERS and gave fuel to the terrorist in recuitment . we have dammaged our selves in a huge way. New Poll out from the WALL STEET JOURNAL AND NBC that only 37% think the country in going in the right direction and 51% of the people think we are headed in the wrong direction. BAD NEW FOR BUSH.

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Two words: PROVE IT! The funny thing is He cant prove he went or was there. there should be records of him being in attendance.. Dont you think if there was proof that he was there as he says that there would be a record of it????? of course there would be. ;)

Mean_Machine

05-05-2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by vet93
Disrupt hundreds of thousands of lives? You make it seem like Iraq was some kind of utopia before we invaded. How about the 300 to 500 thousand innocent Iraqi's that were murdered by Sadam? What about the brutality of Udai and his brother? What about the mass graves etc...etc....We are not perfect...and the abuses that has been discovered and made public by OUR soldiers are certainly despicable....but we are a far cry from the brutality of Saddam and his Baath Party thugs. Iraq has a chance at a form of self-government for the first time in a long time. Hopefully they will be able to put aside differences so that in the future two Iraqi's can get on the computer and debate issues like you and I and not worry about the other guy squealing and you hearing a death-squad at the door. So now we go liberate all people who do not have a good life? Its not up to us. IRAQ didnt attack us We invaded them. WMDs??? none... BINLADEN?? Remember him?? If we spent the money we did in Iraq hunting him down maybe we would have him. Dont remember many Iraqis who were on the terrorist list who hijacked the airliners that crashed into the WTSs...