We Must Maintain World Peace [Archive]

vet93

12-30-2006, 11:24 AM

Tell that to British Prime Minister Chamberlain as he watched Hitler and the Nazis overrun Europe while he appeased and pursued "peace".

Tell that to the people of Poland as the Blitzkrieg ripped their country to shreds and Britain, France and the U.S. pusued "peace".

Tell that to the 6 million Jews who were gassed and incinerated while the world pursued a peaceful solution.

Tell that to the people of Somalia when a rival tribes machettied their wives and children just because they were of a different tribe.

Tell that to the familyof those in the World Trade Center who will never see their husbands, wives, or children again because they simple "lived in America".

I love peace and avoid conflict as much as the next person. However, there are people in this world who are evil or are influenced by those who are evil and they don't understand reason, they don't share your love of human life, they don't share your "live and let live" philosophy and they would love nothing more than to see you dead, your family dead and the country that I assume you hold dear destroyed. Now we can debate how the pursuit of our own self interests at the expense of others has gotten us to this point all that you want and I would agree with you on many points. However, the fact remains that the radical extremist that we are dealing with have used poverty and percieved injustice by the U.S. to whip up anti-american/anti-jewish sentiments to justify their "Holy War". Their leaders have raped the resources of these countries for years and have become wealthy at the expense of their own people and WE are the ones held responsible. This is EXACTLY what the Nazis did to justify their own land grabs and "ethnic cleansing".

Now we have a choice...we can respond like Chamberlain and try and appease and find a "peaceful" solution which is another way of saying "lets give them what they want so they will leave us alone". The only problem with that solution is that whatever you give them is never enough...they will always want more...because they know that you are weak and will pursue "peace" at all cost. Just like the Nazis did....sound familiar.

or

We can stand firm like Churchill and say enough is enough. We will Never, Never, Never Give up. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We will stand for freedom and resist tyranny and evil. That is what our President and Tony Blair have tried to do...however, they have not been competent enough and articulate enough to rally the world against the evil that exists. The jury is still out whether the World will see this situation for what it is in time to keep us from plunging into an age of darkness that this generation has never seen before.

Originally posted by carter08
war is never the answer
least expect
peace prevails
phil
for once i must disagree
i promise this is the last time
war is no good
peace rises up
war is unnessesary

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:28 AM

let me clarify
I have had time to sleep, so now i actuallly know what I type. A nation should not seek war, but if war finds it there can be but no other options than to respond. But after an effective response, there must be a withdrawal. The war should not engulf other nations because some feel that it should

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by vet93
We will stand for freedom and resist tyranny and evil. That is what our President and Tony Blair have tried to do...however, they have not been competent enough and articulate enough to rally the world against the evil that exists. The jury is still out whether the World will see this situation for what it is in time to keep us from plunging into an age of darkness that this generation has never seen before.

Good post up until here, but you're full of crap when you say that. Been watching Fox News frequently?

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Been watching Fox News frequently?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

vet93

12-30-2006, 11:44 AM

Sorry to dissapoint...I don't get Fox News...I live out in the country and only get ABC, CBS and NBC...No Satellite either. I really don't know what Fox is saying or who on Fox might be saying it...Notice I commended Bush and Blair for choosing to fight, but I am not happy with the way things have been handled.

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Good post up until here, but you're full of crap when you say that. Been watching Fox News frequently?

JJ7997

12-30-2006, 12:33 PM

sinton66

12-30-2006, 12:34 PM

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Germany didn't attack us in World War II, Japan did. Where would the world be today if the US didn't join the fight against Hitler and his army? Evil will always be in the world with us. The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. A lot of people don't agree with the US being the world's police force. I don't agree with it myself sometimes, but if not us, who then?

Germany declared war against us, and we were fighting a silent war against them to begin with. All of this got started with the American idea of neo-isolation after we failed to sign into law the League of Nations. The Nye Committee was formed to keep America out of WWII, and Americans were against it because many believed the "merchants of death" would be the only reason we went to war, but America kept on by passing cash and carry with Britain, supplying them food and armaments, the destroyer-base deal, trading ships for bases in the Carribean, lend-lease, lending Britain money, weapons, and goods to fight the Germans. America was fighting an undeclared war with Germany, and gave coordinates of German submarines to British warships, which was why American ships were being sunk by the Germans and nothing done about it by us because Roosevelt knew it was our own fault. On December 5th, Hitler signed a pact with Japan to go to war against America. The war with Germany was ultimately due to our own actions.

As for your bold quote, it's a great point, but good men also do things to protect themselves. I have seen more times than one your disgust over those who abuse the welfare system. Explain to me how invading a sovereign nation and ousting the leader for a group of people who are unwilling to stand up for themselves is any different from welfare abuse. America gained its independence by standing up for ourselves, and after we demonstrated our willingness to do whatever it took to win, we received help. In that case, it is not just our duty, but the duty of other nations to help and do the right thing for those who are willing to fight for the right thing themselves. Why should America sacrifice the lives of our troops, who are sons, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, for those who aren't willing to sacrifice their own lives for freedom and justice?

carter08

12-30-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Germany declared war against us, and we were fighting a silent war against them to begin with. All of this got started with the American idea of neo-isolation after we failed to sign into law the League of Nations. The Nye Committee was formed to keep America out of WWII, and Americans were against it because many believed the "merchants of death" would be the only reason we went to war, but America kept on by passing cash and carry with Britain, supplying them food and armaments, the destroyer-base deal, trading ships for bases in the Carribean, lend-lease, lending Britain money, weapons, and goods to fight the Germans. America was fighting an undeclared war with Germany, and gave coordinates of German submarines to British warships, which was why American ships were being sunk by the Germans and nothing done about it by us because Roosevelt knew it was our own fault. On December 5th, Hitler signed a pact with Japan to go to war against America. The war with Germany was ultimately due to our own actions.

As for your bold quote, it's a great point, but good men also do things to protect themselves. I have seen more times than one your disgust over those who abuse the welfare system. Explain to me how invading a sovereign nation and ousting the leader for a group of people who are unwilling to stand up for themselves is any different from welfare abuse. America gained its independence by standing up for ourselves, and after we demonstrated our willingness to do whatever it took to win, we received help. In that case, it is not just our duty, but the duty of other nations to help and do the right thing for those who are willing to fight for the right thing themselves. Why should America sacrifice the lives of our troops, who are sons, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, for those who aren't willing to sacrifice their own lives for freedom and justice?

WOW
see
i would know all this if you would give me those 200 pages of US History notes
wait
are you the right person
who am i thinking of
DOH :doh:

vet93

12-30-2006, 02:42 PM

BBDE...The United States was doing exactly what you said by helping the British with weapons and supplies. However, to say that we brought the action on ourselves, in my opinion may be a little bit strong. It almost implies that had we not helped Britain that Germany and Japan may would have bypassed us and we would all be living in quiet harmony right now. Germany and Japan knew that ultimately they would have to face the United States. We were strong allies with Britain and France to some extent we were also hindering Japan in Asia by helping the Chinese. They saw the United States as a threat to their global aspirations on both theatres. I think that it is fortunate for us that Japan thought that they could drive a nail in our coffin by bombing Pearl Harbor (it almost worked and had they been more bold it might have worked). What it did in reality is engage the United States in the war prematurely and galvanize the "sleeping giant" to turn its industrial might into a wartime juggernaut. A better strategy, in my opinion would have been to continue to let the Americans play war, without entering the conflict completely and allow the Germans time to seal Britains fate and possibly Russia's as well. Then they could have turned the full might of the German War Machine against American along with Japan and their Navy in the Pacific. This is great discussion, but the overall point is that one way or the other, the United States was going to have to battle the two heads of the evil Axis ...and it was probably better that we started the conflict sooner versus later. While the situation is completely different in the middle east...I still think that fighting the despotism that has been brought forth by radical Islam is the only way that we will be able to survive and thrive in the future. I also think that we should engage our industrial and technological might into decreasing our dependence on foreign oil so that those in the middle east who seek to harm us would lose their economic power and ability to black mail us here at home. It would mean a paradigm shift in the way that we think about fossil fuels and would hurt some of our industries in the short term...but the long term benefits would be tremendous.

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Germany declared war against us, and we were fighting a silent war against them to begin with. All of this got started with the American idea of neo-isolation after we failed to sign into law the League of Nations. The Nye Committee was formed to keep America out of WWII, and Americans were against it because many believed the "merchants of death" would be the only reason we went to war, but America kept on by passing cash and carry with Britain, supplying them food and armaments, the destroyer-base deal, trading ships for bases in the Carribean, lend-lease, lending Britain money, weapons, and goods to fight the Germans. America was fighting an undeclared war with Germany, and gave coordinates of German submarines to British warships, which was why American ships were being sunk by the Germans and nothing done about it by us because Roosevelt knew it was our own fault. On December 5th, Hitler signed a pact with Japan to go to war against America. The war with Germany was ultimately due to our own actions.

As for your bold quote, it's a great point, but good men also do things to protect themselves. I have seen more times than one your disgust over those who abuse the welfare system. Explain to me how invading a sovereign nation and ousting the leader for a group of people who are unwilling to stand up for themselves is any different from welfare abuse. America gained its independence by standing up for ourselves, and after we demonstrated our willingness to do whatever it took to win, we received help. In that case, it is not just our duty, but the duty of other nations to help and do the right thing for those who are willing to fight for the right thing themselves. Why should America sacrifice the lives of our troops, who are sons, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, for those who aren't willing to sacrifice their own lives for freedom and justice?

sinton66

12-30-2006, 03:15 PM

Gary,
"Unwilling" and UNABLE are two very different things. You shouldn't label people cowards unless you've walked a mile in their shoes. By the time the German people realized what an evil person Hitler was, he was too powerful for them to rise against. There were plenty of good men with conscience in Germany that were left doing what they could. They helped organize and run the underground railroads getting people out. Many of them immigrated to the US. When the US entered the war, multitudes of them enlisted and went back to Europe and Germany to fight. We trained them and EQUIPPED them with the ability to do so.

The Iraqi people were in the same boat, so to speak. They didn't rise against Saddam because of the brute force he commanded. A very capable brute force due in part to our contribution of weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons used on the Kurds). That's the only policy decision Reagan made that I disagreed with. I knew even then it was a mistake and that Hussein couldn't be trusted. To my way of thinking, we kind of owed them our support.

Can Iraq stand on their own two feet? Who knows? Japan did it after we defeated their leader.

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Aesculus gilmus
"War is good for business." — Dick Cheney and fellow shareholders of Halliburton

real lame:rolleyes:

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 05:53 PM

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by vet93
Tell that to British Prime Minister Chamberlain as he watched Hitler and the Nazis overrun Europe while he appeased and pursued "peace".

Tell that to the people of Poland as the Blitzkrieg ripped their country to shreds and Britain, France and the U.S. pusued "peace".

Tell that to the 6 million Jews who were gassed and incinerated while the world pursued a peaceful solution.

Tell that to the people of Somalia when a rival tribes machettied their wives and children just because they were of a different tribe.

Tell that to the familyof those in the World Trade Center who will never see their husbands, wives, or children again because they simple "lived in America".

I love peace and avoid conflict as much as the next person. However, there are people in this world who are evil or are influenced by those who are evil and they don't understand reason, they don't share your love of human life, they don't share your "live and let live" philosophy and they would love nothing more than to see you dead, your family dead and the country that I assume you hold dear destroyed. Now we can debate how the pursuit of our own self interests at the expense of others has gotten us to this point all that you want and I would agree with you on many points. However, the fact remains that the radical extremist that we are dealing with have used poverty and percieved injustice by the U.S. to whip up anti-american/anti-jewish sentiments to justify their "Holy War". Their leaders have raped the resources of these countries for years and have become wealthy at the expense of their own people and WE are the ones held responsible. This is EXACTLY what the Nazis did to justify their own land grabs and "ethnic cleansing".

Now we have a choice...we can respond like Chamberlain and try and appease and find a "peaceful" solution which is another way of saying "lets give them what they want so they will leave us alone". The only problem with that solution is that whatever you give them is never enough...they will always want more...because they know that you are weak and will pursue "peace" at all cost. Just like the Nazis did....sound familiar.

or

We can stand firm like Churchill and say enough is enough. We will Never, Never, Never Give up. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We will stand for freedom and resist tyranny and evil. That is what our President and Tony Blair have tried to do...however, they have not been competent enough and articulate enough to rally the world against the evil that exists. The jury is still out whether the World will see this situation for what it is in time to keep us from plunging into an age of darkness that this generation has never seen before.

What Vet93 said.:clap: :clap: :clap:

sinton66

12-30-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Pudlugger
real lame:rolleyes:

I suppose he'd (A.G.) say the same thing about McDonald/Douglass, Pratt and Whitney, Allison Aircraft, Jeep, and various others from the WWII era.

Military contracts are given to certain companies in part because they have the ability, personnel, and the RESOURCES to get the job done.

charlesrixey

12-30-2006, 06:06 PM

i agree with that 66

out in iraq, i saw a lot of civilian contractors, and given the situation (18 died in one day on my base) and they still kept plugging. I may hate halliburton, but their subsidiary out there (KBR) didn't do too bad.

Whose to say a less political pick would've done better?

sinton66

12-30-2006, 06:13 PM

I've got a very good friend with KBR in Iraq right now. He's one of the communications guys. He's been there about two years now and most probably isn't coming back until it's finished. I can't think of a single American contractor besides Halliburton that could have done what they are doing there.

charlesrixey

12-30-2006, 06:18 PM

the one thing i will say is the contractors are making a ton of money out there.

In fact, it was a constant source of tension for the servicemen stationed out there, since even with our benefits we were only making 10,000 extra per tour--

the lowest paid contractors were making 75,000 dollars tax free!

the average pay for a contractor is close to 100,000 per year!

charlesrixey

12-30-2006, 06:19 PM

also, a lot of the contractors were doing the same jobs servicemen were-- truck driving, fueling, driving dump trucks and operating heavy equipment. '

Big source of contention!

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 06:46 PM

You will get a lengthy reply from me tonight, but the Texas game is on. ;)

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by charlesrixey
the one thing i will say is the contractors are making a ton of money out there.

In fact, it was a constant source of tension for the servicemen stationed out there, since even with our benefits we were only making 10,000 extra per tour--

the lowest paid contractors were making 75,000 dollars tax free!

the average pay for a contractor is close to 100,000 per year!

Charleyrix how much would you demand for pay with the possibility some monster would saw your head off with a rusty dull knife screaming Allah Achbar! and put the video on the internet? Jeesh.....get real, it is dangerous over there. It isn't the Metroplex you know.:rolleyes:

sinton66

12-30-2006, 07:15 PM

I understand your point, Charles. I can't fault people for collecting big money for the effort. The military guys weren't there for the pay. (If you join the military for the pay, you need to study some economics.) I'd be looking to cash in also if I went over there. Also, the money isn't "tax free" until after a full year over there. What I was saying about Halliburton is I can't think of a single company besides them with the resources to do the trucking, communications, computers, construction, road building, feeding the troops, repair and maintenance of the oilfield and many other aspects. Few companies are diverse enough to do it all.

pirate4state

12-30-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You will get a lengthy reply from me tonight, but the Texas game is on. ;) I bet they can hardly wait. :p ;)

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by pirate4state
I bet they can hardly wait. :p ;)

:D :D :D :D :cheerl:

thatsminty

12-30-2006, 08:24 PM

world peace is available.

press, go.

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by thatsminty
world peace is available.

press, go.

You need to reinflate your head.:D

sinton66

12-30-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Pudlugger
You need to reinflate your head.:D

:clap: :clap: :clap:

thatsminty

12-30-2006, 08:52 PM

:kiss:

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 09:19 PM

First of all, history proves that we got ourselves into WWII prematurely by our actions towards Germany and Japan. If you want to debate that, that's fine, but there are thousands of pages of historical text that back me up my assertion in this matter.

Now, to the War in Iraq. Many of you have lost sight as to why we went to war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq based on the premise: A. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and B. Iraq had ties to al Queda and was a threat to the United States.

Here are some facts for you:

The United States government sent Joseph Wilson, a senior diplomat, to Nigeria to investigate the claims that Iraq was actively pursuing uranium to enrich and build nuclear bombs with. What Wilson found was that Iraq had never pursued nuclear material, and any evidence was based upon forged documents. Despite this, Cheney declared months later that Saddam was actively pursuing nuclear materials. Cheney said this in March, and in October, the State Department declared that any claims related to this were "highly dubious."

On September 17, 2002, Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq with unrestricted access to all areas, along with suprise inspections.

While all this was going on, Condoleeza Rice warned Americans of ties between Iraq and al Queda, even though it was already proven after 9/11 that al Queda had no ties to Iraq and that al Queda despised Iraq. Cheney pressed on with claims of UAVs that could disperse biological weapons of mass destruction across America, and the idea itself was completely preposterous.

Hans Blix, the leading UN inspector came back with only a few things after months of searching Iraq with 250 inspectors who visited 270 sites 300 times and found this: a few missiles with a range of over 90 miles, which were destroyed, 16 gas warheads for artillery rockets, which were also destroyed, and the conclusion that there was no nuclear program and no weapons of mass destruction.

One day after the Blix report, on January 28, 2003, in front of the nation, Bush claimed, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein has the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and the VX nerve agent," and, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," and concluded with, "year after year, Saddam has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, and went to great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. The only explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to intimidate, dominate, or attack." Bush also threw in, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Queda."

In October of 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to use armed forces to enforce, "All relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions," and to defend the security of the United States, "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Nothing in the resolution expressely permitted or inferred a war in the purpose of regime change or for Saddam's removal. On the contrary, the only authority to use force was linked to only to the issue of alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and their potential use on the United States.

I'm not trying to be political here, these are facts. My only intention is to shed some light on some events that have been kept in the dark to many. As far as Halliburton goes, the United States Army was doing many of the jobs themselves, and we have in essence subsidized the jobs over to Halliburton. This decision has not been cheap to the American taxpayers. The war in Iraq was supposed to be a cheap war, with it being paid for mostly by Iraqi oil. This is my spill on the War in Iraq. Everything that we were initially told about this war was false and based on either flawed intelligence or lies, I'll let you decide.

Now, to the oppression of the people in Germany. The world knew what was happening, but there was no organized group to step up against it due to the failure of Wilson's League of Nations. What people are failing to realize is that Jews were being placed in concentration camps. America placed Fillipino insurgents in concetration camps when America was trying to gain control of that area. This all happened after WWII, but during the war, Japanese Americans were too placed in concentration camps. Jews were had not began to be killed until after the gears of war began turning in Germany and the fighting had begun. I never called anyone cowards in Iraq, I just pinpointed their contentedness to sit idly by. When Saddam gassed the Kurds he used biological weapons that were given to him by the Reagan administration. During this time we were more worried about the Cold War with Russia and our national well-being to do anything, and rightfully so, as America should always come first.

I for one am not in support of running blindly into war, that was my basic premise in the beginning. Self sacrifice for those who will not do the same is not only wrong, it is unfair, and what is even more unfair than that is people who are willing to send our troops to their deaths based on situations they know little about.

I leave you with a quote from the late Pope John Paul II, "Say no to war, it is always a defeat for humanity." You don't have to be Catholic to relate to that. (This was directed to America before our invasion of Iraq.)

sinton66

12-30-2006, 09:42 PM

You're rehashing OLD news Gary. I won't even read your entire response, I already know what it says. The reasons we went into this war (according to you) have nothing whatsoever to do with your statement that we shouldn't be there fighting for people that WON'T fight for themselves and our responses to that statement. You convieniently changed the subject as usual. That's an old trick. If you can't dazzle people with your brilliance, then baffle them with BS.

FYI, the weapons were given to Saddam as a deterrant to Iran during and after the hostage crisis and had nothing to do with the cold war with Russia.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
You're rehashing OLD news Gary. I won't even read your entire response, I already know what it says. The reasons we went into this war (according to you) have nothing whatsoever to do with your statement that we shouldn't be there fighting for people that WON'T fight for themselves and our responses to that statement. You convieniently changed the subject as usual. That's an old trick. If you can't dazzle people with your brilliance, then baffle them with BS.

Someone else brought up the situation in Iraq, not me. What I wrote is based upon fact and fact purely, no opinions at all. Your choice to read it or move on, it's your right. I never asked anyone to agree with me or tried to convince them to, but don't try to make fact your BS.

SWMustang

12-30-2006, 09:48 PM

[i]

The United States government sent Joseph Wilson, a senior diplomat, to Nigeria to investigate the claims that Iraq was actively pursuing uranium to enrich and build nuclear bombs with. What Wilson found was that Iraq had never pursued nuclear material, and any evidence was based upon forged documents. Despite this, Cheney declared months later that Saddam was actively pursuing nuclear materials. Cheney said this in March, and in October, the State Department declared that any claims related to this were "highly dubious."

[/B]

I'm not going to change your mind but I would like throw one thing out there. There were probably thousands if not tens of thousands of documents with conflicting reports about what Saddam was up to. Some of the documentation was most likely put out by the Iraqi government in a misinformation campaign. It's really easy to pick one document (or several) out of thousands and say "See, they new all along." Maybe our Government can't show you the documentation that led us to war because it would compromise our intelligence gathering ability.

I'm not advocating blind faith, but it seems like people are willing to give tyrants the benefit of the doubt more often than they'll give their own government.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by SWMustang
I'm not going to change your mind but I would like throw one thing out there. There were probably thousands if not tens of thousands of documents with conflicting reports about what Saddam was up to. Some of the documentation was most likely put out by the Iraqi government in a misinformation campaign. It's really easy to pick one document (or several) out of thousands and say "See, they new all along." Maybe our Government can't show you the documentation that led us to war because it would compromise our intelligence gathering ability.

I'm not advocating blind faith, but it seems like people are willing to give tyrants the benefit of the doubt more often than they'll give their own government.

I have my own reasons and motivations for believing what I posted, but I didn't want to throw that out there, it's too political. It's not that I have more faith in a tyrant, it is because I have reason not to believe why we went there in the first place. If you want to know why, we can talk about it in PMs.

sinton66

12-30-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Someone else brought up the situation in Iraq, not me. What I wrote is based upon fact and fact purely, no opinions at all. Your choice to read it or move on, it's your right. I never asked anyone to agree with me or tried to convince them to, but don't try to make fact your BS.

We ALL know you're familiar with books, Gary.
I'll be happy to discuss this with you sometime. However if you want to have a meaningful dialogue on the Germany subject, you need to go visit a local VFW chapter and talk with some people who were there. Ask questions of people who LIVED it. Also make SURE some of them are first or second generation German Americans. If you limit your knowledge to what you can glean from books or from instructors, you will come away with a very limited view of history. There is no substitute for experience.

My point on the Iraq subject is that you reverted to your old trifle instead of sticking to the issue that you yourself raised. And, sorry if i offended you, but that IS a BS old trick. Why didn't you defend your statement that they won't fight for themselves?

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
We ALL know you're familiar with books, Gary.
I'll be happy to discuss this with you sometime. However if you want to have a meaningful dialogue on the Germany subject, you need to go visit a local VFW chapter and talk with some people who were there. Ask questions of people who LIVED it. Also make SURE some of them are first or second generation German Americans. If you limit your knowledge to what you can glean from books or from instructors, you will come away with a very limited view of history. There is no substitute for experience.

My point on the Iraq subject is that you reverted to your old trifle instead of sticking to the issue that you yourself raised. And, sorry if i offended you, but that IS a BS old trick. Why didn't you defend your statement that they won't fight for themselves?

You're right, all of my knowledge results from reading about it, I have never heard about what happened first hand. That does not mean that anything that I said about Germany was false, either. But I do agree with what you are saying.

As for Iraq, face it, it has been the reasoning behind a lot of this discussion, and it wasn't directly brought up by me first, I'm just the first to combat the ideas that were presented. My only reason for posting what I did was because of what someone else said about Bush and his stance on the war, commending him for what he did. I don't think that it is something to commend him for, and that is my right, and it is also his right to commend him in the same token. I did defend my statement that they didn't defend themselves. Sitting idly by for over 17 years and doing nothing to defend themselves proves as much. As far as the Jews who were being persecuted, their backs were against the wall and there was nothing they could do. In cases such, it is not only our duty, but the world's to step in and do something. Those cases slide by, but as you said earlier, we can't be the world police, not alone, we can't afford it. We turned our back on the world and have done it again by our actions towards the United Nations. Desert Shield and Desert Storm were so successful because we practiced competence and brought in a group of other nations in order to do the right thing. It takes the world, not just America.

We have our own problems as a nation, gang violence, prejudices, poverty, and starvation. Who are we to try to monitor the actions of everyone else and fix their problems by ourselves. We have to do what is right within ourselves first and foremost, and what is beneficial to our nation as a whole. I never said that we should sit idly by and watch innocent people get killed, only that we should not fight for the democracy of others when they won't fight for themselves.

Txbroadcaster

12-30-2006, 11:19 PM

You say we turned our backs on the United Nations...I say why did we wait so long. I am not advocating what we have done in Iraq, but I can not advocate the United Nations when the ONLY reason they did not want us to go into Iraq because they had their hands in the cookie jar as far as the oil for money program.

There were TWO countires leading the way agianst the US and action in Iraq...Russia and France..why? Because they wanted to see things worked out peacefully? NO..because those two countires were ACTIVELY going agianst UN rules and trading weapons with Saddam

The UN is a GREAT thing in theory, but the greed, corruption and lack of ability to do anything makes it a farce. They have sat and watched far more massacres, wars, and violence as "peacekeepers" than done good.

They still wont do anything viable in Africa, They continually in fight and nothing gets resovled.

The American government is not perfect, but the UN is by far as bad or worse.

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:23 PM

http://www.one.org/images/home/header_002.gif (http://www.one.org/)

SintonFan

12-30-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Who are we to try to monitor the actions of everyone else and fix their problems by ourselves. We have to do what is right within ourselves first and foremost, and what is beneficial to our nation as a whole. I never said that we should sit idly by and watch innocent people get killed, only that we should not fight for the democracy of others when they won't fight for themselves.
.
Who are we? We're the FREAKIN U S of A! That's who we are. Are morals, while not perfect, are superior to most of those around the world who kill first when someone says something that is not acceptable in their midst.
.
Our great NATION will never ever be perfect, hence the illusion of utopia will never be attained. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but many ways of trying to get us closer to perfection have failed miserably(yet continue to be pushed forth by a few in the minority who happen to have the biggest mouths. lol) .
Why not fight for democracy? If not us who then? France? Germany? I think those of you who want to suddenly pull out of Iraq or anywhere in the world for freedom and democracy is very short-sighted and based on emotion instead of intelligent thought(I don't think you are one of those). Don't take this the wrong way G-man, I've talked to you and respect you opinion but I do think you will seen on the wrong side of history when all this plays out eventually.

SintonFan

12-30-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by carter08
http://www.one.org/images/home/header_002.gif (http://www.one.org/)
.
For one usually so opinionated you seem to be riding on some coattails on this issue.:rolleyes:
What is your opinion on this as this discussion unfolds. And NO a graphic or two WILL NOT suffice.:eek:

Pudlugger

12-30-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
First of all, history proves that we got ourselves into WWII prematurely by our actions towards Germany and Japan. If you want to debate that, that's fine, but there are thousands of pages of historical text that back me up my assertion in this matter.

Now, to the War in Iraq. Many of you have lost sight as to why we went to war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq based on the premise: A. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and B. Iraq had ties to al Queda and was a threat to the United States.

Here are some facts for you:

The United States government sent Joseph Wilson, a senior diplomat, to Nigeria to investigate the claims that Iraq was actively pursuing uranium to enrich and build nuclear bombs with. What Wilson found was that Iraq had never pursued nuclear material, and any evidence was based upon forged documents. Despite this, Cheney declared months later that Saddam was actively pursuing nuclear materials. Cheney said this in March, and in October, the State Department declared that any claims related to this were "highly dubious."

On September 17, 2002, Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq with unrestricted access to all areas, along with suprise inspections.

While all this was going on, Condoleeza Rice warned Americans of ties between Iraq and al Queda, even though it was already proven after 9/11 that al Queda had no ties to Iraq and that al Queda despised Iraq. Cheney pressed on with claims of UAVs that could disperse biological weapons of mass destruction across America, and the idea itself was completely preposterous.

Hans Blix, the leading UN inspector came back with only a few things after months of searching Iraq with 250 inspectors who visited 270 sites 300 times and found this: a few missiles with a range of over 90 miles, which were destroyed, 16 gas warheads for artillery rockets, which were also destroyed, and the conclusion that there was no nuclear program and no weapons of mass destruction.

One day after the Blix report, on January 28, 2003, in front of the nation, Bush claimed, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein has the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and the VX nerve agent," and, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," and concluded with, "year after year, Saddam has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, and went to great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. The only explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to intimidate, dominate, or attack." Bush also threw in, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Queda."

In October of 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to use armed forces to enforce, "All relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions," and to defend the security of the United States, "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Nothing in the resolution expressely permitted or inferred a war in the purpose of regime change or for Saddam's removal. On the contrary, the only authority to use force was linked to only to the issue of alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and their potential use on the United States.

I'm not trying to be political here, these are facts. My only intention is to shed some light on some events that have been kept in the dark to many. As far as Halliburton goes, the United States Army was doing many of the jobs themselves, and we have in essence subsidized the jobs over to Halliburton. This decision has not been cheap to the American taxpayers. The war in Iraq was supposed to be a cheap war, with it being paid for mostly by Iraqi oil. This is my spill on the War in Iraq. Everything that we were initially told about this war was false and based on either flawed intelligence or lies, I'll let you decide.

Now, to the oppression of the people in Germany. The world knew what was happening, but there was no organized group to step up against it due to the failure of Wilson's League of Nations. What people are failing to realize is that Jews were being placed in concentration camps. America placed Fillipino insurgents in concetration camps when America was trying to gain control of that area. This all happened after WWII, but during the war, Japanese Americans were too placed in concentration camps. Jews were had not began to be killed until after the gears of war began turning in Germany and the fighting had begun. I never called anyone cowards in Iraq, I just pinpointed their contentedness to sit idly by. When Saddam gassed the Kurds he used biological weapons that were given to him by the Reagan administration. During this time we were more worried about the Cold War with Russia and our national well-being to do anything, and rightfully so, as America should always come first.

I for one am not in support of running blindly into war, that was my basic premise in the beginning. Self sacrifice for those who will not do the same is not only wrong, it is unfair, and what is even more unfair than that is people who are willing to send our troops to their deaths based on situations they know little about.

I leave you with a quote from the late Pope John Paul II, "Say no to war, it is always a defeat for humanity." You don't have to be Catholic to relate to that. (This was directed to America before our invasion of Iraq.)

So wrong. Where to begin?

1. Tell the millions of Polish, Jews and Russians that died at the hands of the Nazis that "history proves we got into WWII way to early". What rubbish. When someone asserts that there are thousands of pages in history backing up some preposterous assertion you know you are being snowed. Hitler would have had a nuclear bomb and the means to drop it on New York by 1946 if we hadn't stopped him. Hitler declared war on the US, FDR only asked for a declaration of war against Japan until that happened.

2. The 911 report stated no direct links between Al Queda and the 911 attacks not no ties between Iraq and Al Queda. That is a misrepresentation foisted on the American people by the enemedia, leftist academics and certain Democrats in Congress.

3. Wilson is a proven liar and a weasel. British intelligence subsequently supported the yellow cake Iraqi connection in Niger.

4. Saddam had 18 months to ship WMDs to Syria where they probably are now if not in Lebannon with Hezbollah.
Over 500 sarin filled artillary shells were recovered from ammo dumps and other hiding places after Desert Storm.

5. After I got halfway through your screed I just threw up my hands. Hopefully someday you will wake up and smell the coffee. I hope it wont be too late by then if we as a nation show as little resolve and understanding of the current world crisis as you.

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
For one usually so opinionated you seem to be riding on some coattails on this issue.:rolleyes:
What is your opinion on this as this discussion unfolds. And NO a graphic or two WILL NOT suffice.:eek:

The people of Africa need our help. That is a more pressing need than an illegal takeover of a foreign nation

As the Great Neil Yound said

"lets impeach the president for lying."

or as I say in one of my songs

"Put the President in Prison"

See
Look
No pictures

sinton66

12-30-2006, 11:44 PM

Gary,
The Iraqi people were powerless to do anything against Saddam because of his ruthless power due in part to our contribution. He maintained death squads and ruled with brute force. That doesn't mean they are gutless, only that they needed help from a stronger force.

Your unquestioning belief in what some goof-ball from the UN says in print is naive at best. Of course the UN Inspectors came away with nothing after exhaustive searches. Those searches were stalled off for YEARS by Hussein. If he had nothing to hide, why did he stall? If the UN were worth their salt, why did they LET him stall the inspectors? Mossad says they know for a FACT he had weapons and dispersed them to Syria before the inspectors were allowed in. I tend to believe them because it's in their best interest to know these things. You believe who and what you CHOOSE to believe despite your contention that you aren't espousing a personal opinion.

There's an old saying you'd do well to learn. You should believe NONE of what you hear, very little of what you read and only HALF of what you see.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Who are we? We're the FREAKIN U S of A! That's who we are. Are morals, while not perfect, are superior to most of those around the world who kill first when someone says something that is not acceptable in their midst.
.
Our great NATION will never ever be perfect, hence the illusion of utopia will never be attained. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but many ways of trying to get us closer to perfection have failed miserably(yet continue to be pushed forth by a few in the minority who happen to have the biggest mouths. lol) .
Why not fight for democracy? If not us who then? France? Germany? I think those of you who want to suddenly pull out of Iraq or anywhere in the world for freedom and democracy is very short-sighted and based on emotion instead of intelligent thought(I don't think you are one of those). Don't take this the wrong way G-man, I've talked to you and respect you opinion but I do think you will seen on the wrong side of history when all this plays out eventually.

Spoken with a true Texan macho mentality. What we do is not always right, I don't know what gave you that idea. We fought for our own democracy, and unless a nation is willing to fight for their own, I'm not willing to fight for it for them, nor condemn others to death to do so, for that matter. I'm sorry that I'm not all gung ho on the War in Iraq, everyone knows that I have been against it since the beginning. I don't think that it is worth the cost of lives to be over there right now. We made the mess that Iraq is today, and everyone has made the assumption that we are obligated to stay there. I don't think that is the case. I don't think that we should just up and leave right now, but I think that an exit strategy before the end of next year is appropriate for the situation. Saddam could have been ousted a long time ago, but the foresight of one man, George H.W. Bush, summed up the situation with this quote, "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent or international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. Maybe he was right, maybe not going in and ousting Saddam was such a good idea, and would have cost more lives than needed to be lost. :thinking: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think that in the end, history will be proving me right. The 9/11 Report already has once...

DaHop72

12-30-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by carter08

As the Great Neil Yound said

"lets impeach the president for lying."

So carter, tell me more about the great Neil Yound???

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:49 PM

I tried to read the 9/11 report a few years ago
I got bored
I should try reading it again
I may understand it now

JFK
THE GRASSLY NOLL
CONTROVERSY

Open the borders

Save Darfur

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by DaHop72
So carter, tell me more about the great Neil Yound???

oops
I'm a retard
I meant Young'
you know this
stop taunting me

I see the needle and the damage done
Every junkies like the setting sun

Txbroadcaster

12-30-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
, but I think that in the end, history will be proving me right. The 9/11 Report already has once...

History already proved Saddam was a vicious murderer...history has already proved the UN is a corrupt entity that accomplishes only what it sees fit to line their pocket with money.

carter08

12-30-2006, 11:53 PM

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Gary,
The Iraqi people were powerless to do anything against Saddam because of his ruthless power due in part to our contribution. He maintained death squads and ruled with brute force. That doesn't mean they are gutless, only that they needed help from a stronger force.

Your unquestioning belief in what some goof-ball from the UN says in print is naive at best. Of course the UN Inspectors came away with nothing after exhaustive searches. Those searches were stalled off for YEARS by Hussein. If he had nothing to hide, why did he stall? If the UN were worth their salt, why did they LET him stall the inspectors? Mossad says they know for a FACT he had weapons and dispersed them to Syria before the inspectors were allowed in. I tend to believe them because it's in their best interest to know these things. You believe who and what you CHOOSE to believe despite your contention that you aren't espousing a personal opinion.

There's an old saying you'd do well to learn. You should believe NONE of what you hear or read and only HALF of what you see.

You have the belief that the UN is not looking out for the best interest for the world as a whole. Just because they didn't succumb to the American idea that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to not only our national security but that of others doesn't mean they are "goof balls." In the end it turns out they were right. That intelligence that says that Iraq shipped their weapons to Syria was the same that said Iraq was trying to attain uranium from African nations. It was false, but people still believe it. Our own weapons inspectors went into Iraq, guess what they found? You guessed it, absolutely nothing. They even went as far as saying that Saddam had destroyed its biological and chemical weapons probably in 1991, but no later than 1996, and was not seeking to reconstitute it's nuclear program. Are these guys "goof balls" too Tony?

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-30-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
History already proved Saddam was a vicious murderer...history has already proved the UN is a corrupt entity that accomplishes only what it sees fit to line their pocket with money.

You're right, he was a vicious murderer. He gassed the Kurds in the late 1980s. I pretty much hit that earlier. As far as the UN, that is your opinion, and Fox News'. ;)

SWMustang

12-31-2006, 12:01 AM

Txbroadcaster

12-31-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You're right, he was a vicious murderer. He gassed the Kurds in the late 1980s. I pretty much hit that earlier. As far as the UN, that is your opinion, and Fox News'. ;)

I love how when you dont agree with something you say It is FOx News opinion..get over that rhetoric crap. The scandals are WELL docummented and I dont even watch Fox, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they fall inline with party thinking...Heck I can say you fall in line with leftist journalism, which holds no water either.

SintonFan

12-31-2006, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by carter08
The people of Africa need our help. That is a more pressing need than an illegal takeover of a foreign nation

As the Great Neil Yound said

"lets impeach the president for lying."

or as I say in one of my songs

"Put the President in Prison"

See
Look
No pictures
.
I understand the debate over whether or not we need to help Africa. We should be there. No ifs, ands or buts. But this thing called 911 came along and changed our direction for world policy. Those savages who bombed us want to kill us and eliminate us from the face of the Earth. They are seeking nuclear bombs to do so. Things changed a lot on that infamous day(I bet you think it was a government conspiracy roflatyou). I see your heart-felt plea for world peace but we have to do some tough things first even if it means "an illegal takeover of a foreign nation". For goodness sake, please stop spouting that crap that sounds like a bad rewind of 60's "youth movements".
Interesting. Do you really have to go to others to develop you own opinion? And some of those opinions you have heard use music to influence your emotions. I call that propaganda, but when you are young, you often are more apt to pay attention to emotions versus cold hard logic. I go to many places to seek knowledge, but can decide for myself. Try to seek info from more than one place and diversify your choice views. :)

pirate4state

12-31-2006, 12:09 AM

Are you guys about done?? :rolleyes:

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I love how when you dont agree with something you say It is FOx News opinion..get over that rhetoric crap. The scandals are WELL docummented and I dont even watch Fox, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they fall inline with party thinking...Heck I can say you fall in line with leftist journalism, which holds no water either.

That was actually a joke, hence the ;). I will say that I like Lou Dobbs. Is he a leftist?

carter08

12-31-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I understand the debate over whether or not we need to help Africa. We should be there. No ifs, ands or buts. But this thing called 911 came along and changed our direction for world policy. Those savages who bombed us want to kill us and eliminate us from the face of the Earth. They are seeking nuclear bombs to do so. Things changed a lot on that infamous day(I bet you think it was a government conspiracy roflatyou). I see your heart-felt plea for world peace but we have to do some tough things first even if it means "an illegal takeover of a foreign nation". For goodness sake, please stop spouting that crap that sounds like a bad rewind of 60's "youth movements".
Interesting. Do you really have to go to others to develop you own opinion? And some of those opinions you have heard use music to influence your emotions. I call that propaganda, but when you are young, you often are more apt to pay attention to emotions versus cold hard logic. I go to many places to seek knowledge, but can decide for myself. Try to seek info from more than one place and diversify your choice views. :)

Oh
Thats a low blow
and italicizing emotions
shame
i know more than i let on

Txbroadcaster

12-31-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
That was actually a joke, hence the ;). I will say that I like Lou Dobbs. Is he a leftist?

I dont know..that was my point I dont believe any of the leftist media, right wing media BS...people get editoiarlist like Haggery or Limbaugh confused with actual news. I dont listen to any of them, I form my own opinions

My biggest opinion is BOTH parties care NOTHING for the average man, both want to pander and bs there party's path BEFORE the countries. Simply put, they care more for their party than the country as a whole.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
I go to many places to seek knowledge, but can decide for myself. Try to seek info from more than one place and diversify your choice views. :)

The best idea I've heard all night. :thumbsup:

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I dont know..that was my point I dont believe any of the leftist media, right wing media BS...people get editoiarlist like Haggery or Limbaugh confused with actual news. I dont listen to any of them, I form my own opinions

My biggest opinion is BOTH parties care NOTHING for the average man, both want to pander and bs there party's path BEFORE the countries. Simply put, they care more for their party than the country as a whole.

You're right, which is why I'm running for President in 2036. My slogan: A moderate you can count on.

What do you think?

sinton66

12-31-2006, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You have the belief that the UN is not looking out for the best interest for the world as a whole. Just because they didn't succumb to the American idea that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to not only our national security but that of others doesn't mean they are "goof balls." In the end it turns out they were right. That intelligence that says that Iraq shipped their weapons to Syria was the same that said Iraq was trying to attain uranium from African nations. It was false, but people still believe it. Our own weapons inspectors went into Iraq, guess what they found? You guessed it, absolutely nothing. They even went as far as saying that Saddam had destroyed its biological and chemical weapons probably in 1991, but no later than 1996, and was not seeking to reconstitute it's nuclear program. Are these guys "goof balls" too Tony?

Gary,

You still don't get it. It wasn't OUR intelligence sources that said weapons went to Syria. It was Mossad, Israel's Intelligence agency. NOTHING has yet proven them wrong. As far as I know, Mossad never claimed they were reviving their nuclear program. (If they believed that, they wouldn't have waited for us to intervene, they would have bombed the crap out of them as they did before.) As far as our internal intelligence sources, you are told what they WANT to tell you, nothing more and nothing less, and I can ASSURE you some of it is disinformation. Think about it, if there is really cause for National Security concern, why would they divulge everything they know? They wouldn't, and would be jailed if they did.

I can tell you from personal experience that our government has done things that go against every moral fiber in my body, but as a patriot I understand WHY they were done and truth be told I would expect them to be able to handle whatever happens regardless of how they got there.

Tell you what Gary, if you HONESTLY believe Hussein had no ties to terrorism at all, then you are simply being mislead. Notice I didn't SAY Al Queida. As far as I'm concerned a terrorist is a terrorist. Hamas, Al Queida, Palestine Liberation Army, whatever, they are all terrorists, and Iraq is right in the middle of all of them.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
Gary,

You still don't get it. It wasn't OUR intelligence sources that said weapons went to Syria. It was Mossad, Israel's Intelligence agency. NOTHING has yet proven them wrong. As far as I know, Mossad never claimed they were reviving their nuclear program. As far as our internal intelligence sources, you are told what they WANT to tell you, nothing more and nothing less, and I can ASSURE you some of it is disinformation. Think about it, if there is really cause for National Security concern, why would they divulge everything they know? They wouldn't, and would be jailed if they did.

I can tell you from personal experience that our government has done things that go against every moral fiber in my body, but as a patriot I understand WHY they were done and truth be told I would expect them to be able to handle whatever happens regardless of how they got there.

Tell you what Gary, if you HONESTLY believe Hussein had no ties to terrorism at all, then you are simply being mislead. Notice I didn't SAY Al Queida. As far as I'm concerned a terrorist is a terrorist. Hamas, Al Queida, Palestine Liberation Army, whatever, they are all terrorists, and Iraq is right in the middle of all of them.

So the word of other nations is better that than of our own? Our information was never flawed to begin with. Not about 9/11, not about Iraq. You can believe Isreal intelligence if you want, but I will believe ours first and foremost. The action that is taken with the information that is given is decided by the powers at hand. Saddam was a tyrant and a bad human being, and I'm sure he would have loved nothing more than to get back at America, but after 1993 and Clinton's missile barrage on Baghdad, I think that he got the idea. Do you honestly believe that America is safer now that we invaded Iraq? I don't feel safer, I believe that we pissed a bunch of fanatics off and created more terrorist followers. Look at the insurgency in Iraq if you want proof.

SWMustang

12-31-2006, 12:38 AM

I think we've talked enough about whirrled peas and BLT's.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j200/pattonwb/ali_g.jpg

sinton66

12-31-2006, 12:39 AM

Okay Gary, lets see what you know about Middle East History. What CAUSED the Iranian hostage crisis? What do the history books say?

And don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say their information was better. I said you might not have been told everything we know.

And YES, I do believe we are safer now because we invaded Iraq. Why? Because the fight is THERE instead of here. Is that logic too simple for you?

SintonFan

12-31-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by carter08
Oh
Thats a low blow
and italicizing emotions
shame
i know more than i let on
.

i know more than i let on
.
If you do then you would set us straight right? We can all say that we know more than we let on, but how can we know if what you are saying is true unless you enlighten us?:p

bulldogman06

12-31-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If we are attacked, then yes, we must fight to maintain our rights.

If you think that we should go fight for the rights of others when they are unwilling to fight themselves, go buy yourself a gun and get over there and take care of it yourself instead of condemning the lives of our troops for your personal beliefs. This is to nobody in particular, but everyone in general.

Ok, I didnt have time to read this whole post, but i saw this and had to comment. when you sign up for the miltary, what in the hell do you think you are signing up for? free college? then everyone would do it! no soldier has been forced over there, there has been no draft, those people have taken up their guns and gone over there to fight for their country. sorry if you signed up for the miltary and didnt think you would have to fight, its the miltary, not some organization that says they will do one thing and then does something totally different. you know what you are getting into when you sign up for it. PERIOD. too many people are complaining about losing soldiers. its war. thats what the miliutary is for. when you sign up you must be prepared for that. they dont pay for your college for nothing. you dont get a free ride. those troops did decide to "buy themselves a gun and go over there and take care of it" except, wait, they didnt even have to buy the gun. or the body armor. or the most advanced technology known to man. they got it for free, along with the money for college, and the pay check. dont sign up for the military if you arent prepared to fight. end of story

bulldogman06

12-31-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
So the word of other nations is better that than of our own? Our information was never flawed to begin with. Not about 9/11, not about Iraq. You can believe Isreal intelligence if you want, but I will believe ours first and foremost. The action that is taken with the information that is given is decided by the powers at hand. Saddam was a tyrant and a bad human being, and I'm sure he would have loved nothing more than to get back at America, but after 1993 and Clinton's missile barrage on Baghdad, I think that he got the idea. Do you honestly believe that America is safer now that we invaded Iraq? I don't feel safer, I believe that we pissed a bunch of fanatics off and created more terrorist followers. Look at the insurgency in Iraq if you want proof.

Gary, you know I love ya man, but all the proof i need is the proof that we have not had another terrorist attack on the U.S. since we have been over there. not one! thats what I care about, innocent American citizens. forget the UN, we are the reason there is a UN! they can say whatever they want but without America they have no real power. the UN really stands for Unanimous Nonsene.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by sinton66
Okay Gary, lets see what you know about Middle East History. What CAUSED the Iranian hostage crisis? What do the history books say?

And don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say their information was better. I said you might not have been told everything we know.

From what I remember, America brought the Ayatollah over to New York to gain medical treatment. I'm not positive, but I think that he died. I'm not going to lie and say I am familiar with the subject in question, but I do know that 52 Americans were captured and were held hostage until Carter left office. I know there was a big controversy about Reagan's involvement in the situation, as they were released on the day of Reagan's inauguration. I'm not sure what the history books have to say on this one, it's not something that we went over in high school or my college history class. Please, enlighten me. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, that was the impression I got, and I apologize.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by bulldogman06
Gary, you know I love ya man, but all the proof i need is the proof that we have not had another terrorist attack on the U.S. since we have been over there. not one! thats what I care about, innocent American citizens. forget the UN, we are the reason there is a UN! they can say whatever they want but without America they have no real power. the UN really stands for Unanimous Nonsene.

All very true, but there was this one that I just can't shake. That is another argument though, and I have a very, very strong argument for that one as well. Keep on keeping on, though.

bulldogman06

12-31-2006, 01:05 AM

haha, you know how i feel just like I know how you feel. im out, im tired and I have to be up at 6. later

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

12-31-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by bulldogman06
Ok, I didnt have time to read this whole post, but i saw this and had to comment. when you sign up for the miltary, what in the hell do you think you are signing up for? free college? then everyone would do it! no soldier has been forced over there, there has been no draft, those people have taken up their guns and gone over there to fight for their country. sorry if you signed up for the miltary and didnt think you would have to fight, its the miltary, not some organization that says they will do one thing and then does something totally different. you know what you are getting into when you sign up for it. PERIOD. too many people are complaining about losing soldiers. its war. thats what the miliutary is for. when you sign up you must be prepared for that. they dont pay for your college for nothing. you dont get a free ride. those troops did decide to "buy themselves a gun and go over there and take care of it" except, wait, they didnt even have to buy the gun. or the body armor. or the most advanced technology known to man. they got it for free, along with the money for college, and the pay check. dont sign up for the military if you arent prepared to fight. end of story

If you think it's a good idea to fight for something that's not right, then you go right ahead and do it. A lot of people sign up for the military because they can't afford to go to college. It is the only alternative they have. Others do it because of pride in their country. Everything you said is true, but our leaders need to put us in wars that are justifiable. Surely you can agree with that.

bulldogman06

12-31-2006, 01:11 AM

again. you know how i feel about this war. i think it was justifiable.... but agree to disagree. if you cant afford to go to college, take out a loan, do what it takes. not everyone is meant to go to college. getting a free ride is takin the easy way, and if you arent willing to pay the price, DONT SIGN UP! there is no such thing as a free ride.

espn1

12-31-2006, 01:11 AM

It is inarguable that liberals – in the modern American sense of the word – are the most flawless human beings on the planet. They are smarter, better-educated, wealthier, kinder and morally superior to those benighted quasi-Neanderthals called conservatives, who would like nothing better than to drag society back to the Middle Ages, or, according to some high-minded liberal theorists, the Iron Age.

How do we know this? Why, liberals tell us so!

Perhaps it has escaped me, but I have not personally witnessed any call for a return to the monarchy, much less land grants held in fief, on the part of even the most conservative Republican. And the last time I looked, the Bush administration was very much in favor of steel – certainly the U.S. steel industry appears to be most appreciative of his efforts in enacting a 30 percent tariff on their behalf.

But being a liberal means never having to worry about the facts. Facts can be uncomfortable, and of course, anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is a violation of our constitutional rights. The only fact that matters is the foundational fact that you can only feel what is right, so if a fact happens to contradict your feelings, obviously that fact must be wrong. Sentio, ergo rectum.

Due to this inescapable and irrefutable logic, I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision – whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.

1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

7. Change the subject.

Alternatively ...

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

Remember: As long as you haven't admitted you're wrong, you are right. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise is evidence of criminal hate and probably mental imbalance, too. Never forget that an answer to a question you have asked should always be regarded as a personal attack if the answer is something you don't like, and that the answer to all evils personal, spiritual, moral and societal is more government money.

Now, if you don't mind, I should probably go exercise my newfound moral superiority. The world won't save itself, after all – not without the fount of all that is good and wise and smart and cute, which is to say, me.

sinton66

12-31-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
From what I remember, America brought the Ayatollah over to New York to gain medical treatment. I'm not positive, but I think that he died. I'm not going to lie and say I am familiar with the subject in question, but I do know that 52 Americans were captured and were held hostage until Carter left office. I know there was a big controversy about Reagan's involvement in the situation, as they were released on the day of Reagan's inauguration. I'm not sure what the history books have to say on this one, it's not something that we went over in high school or my college history class. Please, enlighten me. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, that was the impression I got, and I apologize.

Okay, there was ONE and only one cause for Iran to seize the hostages. When the Shah of Iran fled to the US as the Ayatolla came into power, Jimmy Carter FROZE the entirity of Iranian assests on deposit in American Banks. It was simply about money. I know this to be FACT because an Iranian national working for my company here in the US told me that's why they did it when I asked her the reason as it was happening. She was a nice lady who tried to conceal her country of origin for fear of backlash by American co-workers.

The point behind this is first hand information is ALWAYS better than news reports or somebody's theory of historical events. Forget the spin doctors. You have to LIVE to gain knowledge, not just read. I've heard all kinds of theories of why it happened, but now you know what I know.