Sign in to follow this  
Winnie G

As I Pound In My Vote Liberal Sign On The Lawn

Recommended Posts

TR2

but complain. Canada, France, Germany

I don’t care about France or Germany but Canada!

Were do you think Canada will get the men and women to send over to join the US?

I work with these men and women, 2PPCLI the ones the friendly fair bombed remember???

These military members are on a constant 6-month rotation in to war zones.

You cant squeeze blood out of a stone TR2 you know that.

Canada dose not have the manpower or military to do all that is asked of it by the UN let alone say Yesa Master to the Whitehouse.

Give your anti- Canada mantra a rest.

By the way if the USA goes to war with Korea I would start digging a bunker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were do you think Canada will get the men and women to send over to join the US?

Not the point, I just noted countries that were complaining and not doing anything to make a difference. Canada never even offered to help. I understand that the Canadian Forces are strapped, but they never even made the attempt to help the US. When Canada was asked, the answer was no.

I work with these men and women, 2PPCLI the ones the friendly fair bombed remember???

How many times are Canadians going to go over this. It happened and was an accident. It was a careless mistake that lef to the loss of 4 fine soldiers and wounded many more find soldiers. There isn't an American that doesn't feel bad about this, and wish we could take that moment back, but we cannot change what happened.

Give your anti- Canada mantra a rest.

I'm not anti-Canadian, I'm just explaining what reality is like. Canada has been fantastic in Afghanistan, but has failed to be there for its American brothers in Iraq. Of all the countries I'd expect to turn its back on the US, like what has happened, I wouldn't have expected Canada to be one of them. But don't worry, if you ever need the US, we will be there for you. We understand loyalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 08:50 PM

And, are you implying that they didn't (or aren't) protect our country?

If I were you, I'd go back over the last 15-20 years and see who committed all the acts of terrorism against the US (excepting 9/11/01). You'll find Saddam Hussein's finger in every single one of them. Maybe you don't mind almost-yearly terrorist attacks against this country or citizens of this country, but I would bet the rest of us are tired of it.

Why are you insinuating that we went over there to show off our stripes and declare everyone needs to be like us? I think that is far from the agenda the president had.

Yes, I am. I feel bad for saying that in a way, but I truly do think that.

What about the other middle eastern countries? Some of them have also had a hand in terrorism, but we didn't decide to go fight there.

And I take offense to this statement: "Maybe you don't mind almost-yearly terrorist attacks against this country or citizens of this country, but I would bet the rest of us are tired of it." I am all for us going to Afghanistan b/c we know that binLaden had a hand in the WTC. I'm not against war when it's necessary. And for the record, just until the last month or so I was all for the war in Iraq. Since then I have changed my mind. Bush gave us a reason why we were going in, and he was wrong, period. I trusted that we would find WMD.

From what I've read, many soldiers feel the very same way I do.

And look at the way the world's opinion has changed about our country. I think it's dangerous to have everyone see us as the world police. It leads to resentment, and resentment leads to more terrorist attacks.

The bottom line is that I don't feel any safer concerning terrorism since we went to Iraq. If anything, I feel less safe!

Sorry if that comes across as anti-American. I do love this country, but I think we're making some serious mistakes. My grandfather was a Marine and fought in WW2. My brother is a Marine, and fought in the first Gulf War. My brother agrees with me, and if my grandfather was alive, I bet he would too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bush gets re-elected then there will be another war with North Korea.

Super!

Why don't we do a survey of the Iraqi people:

*Who wants Sadaam back in power, check box A

*Who wants Sadaam to remain in American custody and never kill another innocent person, check box B

Then why don't we just go capture all the ruthless dictators in the world so they can never kill another innocent person? It's not our job! I'm all for killing his sorry a##, but where do we draw the line?

#1) Unless you are the President on the United States, you do as you are told. Everybody who wears the uniform knew and understood this before they signed their papers.

Exactly, which is why I pray W. doesn't get another term. (Not that I think Kerry will be any better. I think he'll go to the other extreme and be against fighting when we need to, AND cut back too much on military.)

#2) Going to Iraq has helped protect the future of the American people.

My point exactly... I don't think it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not our job!

It is our job. The United States is the only nation in the world in a position to do anything about it. I wish that negotiations would work. You cannot negotiate with irrational dictators (as we have learned). I would love to remove every dictator in the world,, though that's isn't necessary. Removing North Korea's Leader is necessary. North Korea has a history of selling weapons technology, and they are a country in desparate financial need. What happens when Al Quaeda buys a weapon from them/ They already have nuclear capabilities. I believe they are a bigger threat than Sadaam ever was.

My point exactly... I don't think it has

I think it has preserved our future quite well. I think Sadaam would eventually have done something against the United States. We crippled his military in the first gulf war and you can't expect a man like that to not want revenge. He has called us the great satan for many years. He may have not had any WMD's but at the time, nobody knew. There white house may have falsified some documents, which i don't agree with, but it has been long known that sadaam had biological and chemical agents (I think we just might find them in Iran if we looked). He killed his own people, what would he do to "the great satan" if he thought he could get away with it. I realize I am talking a lot of "what ifs" and "mabye's" but I'm not prepared to gamble with my future and my kid's future.

The bottom line is that I don't feel any safer concerning terrorism since we went to Iraq. If anything, I feel less safe!

I'd feel more safe is our homeland security people, and border patrol weren't unionized!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tr2@Jun 18 2004, 06:53 AM

I believe they are a bigger threat than Sadaam ever was.

I will agree with you here. I would be more supportive if we went to war with N. Korea.

I don't want to offend you, because I know you are/were in the military. But I can't pretend to support a war that I don't agree with. I do waffle on this issue. One month I'm for it. One month I'm against it. It's a very complicated issue. And we don't know everything about it.

In summary, I can't stand Bush or Kerry! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 18 2004, 04:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 18 2004, 04:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 08:50 PM

And, are you implying that they didn't (or aren't) protect our country?

If I were you, I'd go back over the last 15-20 years and see who committed all the acts of terrorism against the US (excepting 9/11/01).  You'll find Saddam Hussein's finger in every single one of them.  Maybe you don't mind almost-yearly terrorist attacks against this country or citizens of this country, but I would bet the rest of us are tired of it.

Why are you insinuating that we went over there to show off our stripes and declare everyone needs to be like us?  I think that is far from the agenda the president had.

Yes, I am. I feel bad for saying that in a way, but I truly do think that.

What about the other middle eastern countries? Some of them have also had a hand in terrorism, but we didn't decide to go fight there.

And I take offense to this statement: "Maybe you don't mind almost-yearly terrorist attacks against this country or citizens of this country, but I would bet the rest of us are tired of it." I am all for us going to Afghanistan b/c we know that binLaden had a hand in the WTC. I'm not against war when it's necessary. And for the record, just until the last month or so I was all for the war in Iraq. Since then I have changed my mind. Bush gave us a reason why we were going in, and he was wrong, period. I trusted that we would find WMD.

From what I've read, many soldiers feel the very same way I do.

And look at the way the world's opinion has changed about our country. I think it's dangerous to have everyone see us as the world police. It leads to resentment, and resentment leads to more terrorist attacks.

The bottom line is that I don't feel any safer concerning terrorism since we went to Iraq. If anything, I feel less safe!

Sorry if that comes across as anti-American. I do love this country, but I think we're making some serious mistakes. My grandfather was a Marine and fought in WW2. My brother is a Marine, and fought in the first Gulf War. My brother agrees with me, and if my grandfather was alive, I bet he would too.

The WTC attack was only the last in a string of terrorist attacks. It might have been the biggest, but it is far from the only. What about all the American Embassies that have been attacked? Look at Saddam. What about the people who have been taken hostage? or the planes that have been hijacked and citizens killed? or the ocean liner (forget the name) and the old man who was pushed overboard in the wheelchair? Look to Saddam for all of them.

What is it about the WTC attack that you are so willing to go to war for, but the rest can be ignored? Is it the number of people killed? Is it the fact that it happened on American soil? Tell me why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 18 2004, 07:52 AM

The WTC attack was only the last in a string of terrorist attacks. It might have been the biggest, but it is far from the only. What about all the American Embassies that have been attacked? Look at Saddam. What about the people who have been taken hostage? or the planes that have been hijacked and citizens killed? or the ocean liner (forget the name) and the old man who was pushed overboard in the wheelchair? Look to Saddam for all of them.

What is it about the WTC attack that you are so willing to go to war for, but the rest can be ignored? Is it the number of people killed? Is it the fact that it happened on American soil? Tell me why.

I know that Sadam is a worthless piece of c###. He has done horrendous things against his own people, but what has he directly done to our country? I'm not saying he hasn't - I honestly want to know.

Other leaders have done things that are just as bad or worse to their people. My point is that we can't go fight them all. Would you want your sons to have to do that (if you have sons)?

If Sadam has caused people in this country to die, then I'm all for going and getting him. But I don't think our president should give a reason for it (WMD), and when that turns out to be untrue, give a different reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but what has he directly done to our country? I'm not saying he hasn't - I honestly want to know.

Directly to our country, he hasn'tdone a lot. But Al Quaeda didn't do anything to us either, before they started murdering Americans. First the USS Cole, which we did nothing about, and then it was 9/11. We waited for Al Quaeda do actually do something to us before we responded. I am unwilling to make that mistake again. He called us the great satan for years and then there were rumors that he had WMD's. The only logical choice, for the preservation of our people, was to go after him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky

What about Bush being business partners with BenLaudin for over 30 years....in the Oil game? (I am talking old man Bush...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tr2@Jun 18 2004, 08:52 AM

but what has he directly done to our country? I'm not saying he hasn't - I honestly want to know.

Directly to our country, he hasn'tdone a lot. But Al Quaeda didn't do anything to us either, before they started murdering Americans. First the USS Cole, which we did nothing about, and then it was 9/11. We waited for Al Quaeda do actually do something to us before we responded. I am unwilling to make that mistake again. He called us the great satan for years and then there were rumors that he had WMD's. The only logical choice, for the preservation of our people, was to go after him.
But once again, can we go after everyone that might pose a threat somewhere down the road? I'm all about fighting al quaida, because they have attacked us. There are a lot of countries that fit the bill of possibly attacking, so we would be fighting all the time.

1. Think of how broke we would be as a country. War isn't cheap.

2. Thing of how many people would be killed. We would definitely have to re-instate the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky

It makes me wonder why we even try to dominate the world....

I think the best way to survive and thrive is to stay out of sight and keep a low profile.....but our country is constantly trying to show how big and grand and glorious it is....it literally invites trouble..

I would compare it to the church saying it is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH.....that is an invitation to come and take us down...

It would be like the bully....daring anyone to come and see if they can take him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the point, I just noted countries that were complaining and not doing anything to make a difference. Canada never even offered to help. I understand that the Canadian Forces are strapped, but they never even made the attempt to help the US. When Canada was asked, the answer was no.

Oh OK so Canada just sits above you and dose nothing? Who do you think offered help on 911 and diverted aircraft in to Canada? Not to munched the hundreds of search and rescue personal and firefighters that streamed over the border.

Its funny how you seem to forget the hostage taking in the 80 were American citizens were hide in the Canadian embassy, Or were you to young to remember that? President Reagan not only made a point of publicly thanking the Canadian government for their efforts but a new era of diplomatic relations bloomed.

Of course Daddy Bush trashed that and right on the heals of his Daddy Junior has made it worse.

QUOTE

I work with these men and women, 2PPCLI the ones the friendly fair bombed remember???

How many times are Canadians going to go over this? It happened and was an accident. It was a careless mistake that lef to the loss of 4 fine soldiers and wounded many more find soldiers. There isn't an American that doesn't feel bad about this, and wish we could take that moment back, but we cannot change what happened.

How many times are you going to say Canadians does not sacrifice and do nothing? We are in the middle of a after deployment baby boom on base from the last rotation in Afghanistan.

QUOTE

Give your anti- Canada mantra a rest.

I'm not anti-Canadian, I'm just explaining what reality is like. Canada has been fantastic in Afghanistan, but has failed to be there for its American brothers in Iraq. Of all the countries I'd expect to turn its back on the US, like what has happened, I wouldn't have expected Canada to be one of them. But don't worry, if you ever need the US, we will be there for you. We understand loyalty.

Loyalty holy cow cookies!

Man POWER is the issue TR2

Canadian military is only so big and are deployed in so many UN deployments.

The Canadian government had other commitments (UN)

Un like the US our military was involved at the time and what Canada did have we sent what more do you think Canada HAD?

I think a lot of it came from the Canadian citizens backing Bush after lousy diplomatic relations. Did you not see Bush address the nation and forget to mention Canada’s efforts on 911 but he did say thank you to Grate Britain. Deployment had not even been decided yet?

Again back side bum kissing at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh OK so Canada just sits above you and dose nothing? Who do you think offered help on 911 and diverted aircraft in to Canada? Not to munched the hundreds of search and rescue personal and firefighters that streamed over the border.

Its funny how you seem to forget the hostage taking in the 80 were American citizens were hide in the Canadian embassy, Or were you to young to remember that? President Reagan not only made a point of publicly thanking the Canadian government for their efforts but a new era of diplomatic relations bloomed.

Of course Daddy Bush trashed that and right on the heals of his Daddy Junior has made it worse.

You are changing the subject. I am talking about Iraq, not 9/11 or any other conflict. BTW, Canada did not send one single rescue professional into the US on 9/11, they all went of their own free will. I know because i was there and spoke to the Canadians who were there at the pile.

Canadian military is only so big and are deployed in so many UN deployments

So Haiti is more important than helping out the country that is closer to you than any other. It shows where the priorities of the Canadian government were. there wasn't even an offer of help.

Did you not see Bush address the nation and forget to mention Canada’s efforts on 911 but he did say thank you to Grate Britain

And yet Bush singled out Canada in the very next speech that he gave, as did Colin Powell and other US leaders. Rumsfeld sung Canada's praises constantly after 9/11. But you forget that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lt

Originally posted by Jiggs Casey@Jun 17 2004, 08:44 AM

On the issue of WMDs - yes, one shell with sarin gas was found. And perhaps banned Iraqi WMD components have been found in neighboring countries´ scrap yards. But how old were these things? (the sarin gas shell is believed to be from the Iraq/Iran war of the 1980s.) The components in scrap yards were probably just as old. The question really is, how many functional WMDs were in Iraq in March 2003 when Cheney said there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? I dare say not very many. Was Iraq able to evacuate them right before, or even during, the war? Not likely. Iraqi organization is an oxymoron.

Saddam played the neocons like a cheap violin. He apparently had no WMDs yet convinced US leaders, with the world´s most sophisticated and extensive intelligence capabilities at their disposal, that he had oodles of them lined up and waiting to be launched at the great Satan. Talk about effective psychological warfare, and we fell, hook, line and sinker.

Bush/Cheney took a huge gamble invading Iraq (the real reason for which we may never know). They lost the gamble, and we have lost almost 1,000 soldiers and marines in the process. Rumsfeld singlehandedly destroyed US foreign policy with his arrogance. Powell sold his credibility by touting "evidence" to the UN that even he didn´t appear to believe.

And they still won´t admit that they have made any mistakes.

What an administration. Thank the Lord for term limits.

I could say amen to that but we have had just as many stupid Democrats to...I wish we could find one honest person, that is not a puppet to a party.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by LaurelTree@Jun 18 2004, 04:24 PM

I could say amen to that but we have had just as many stupid Democrats to...I wish we could find one honest person, that is not a puppet to a party.......

True, true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in general with Shanstress, but it looks like the current admin is going the opposite way, and fast. Can the reinvigorated SS military draft be far behind? Mothers, hug your children:

"Stymied in Iraq, Hawks Still Positioning US as Globocop

Analysis - by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jun 15 (IPS) - Although their hopes for transforming Iraq into a pro-U.S. base in the heart of the Arab world have been badly set back, neo-imperial hawks in the Bush administration are proceeding as fast as possible to reinvent U.S. forces worldwide as ''globocop'', capable of pre-empting any possible threat to its interests at a moment's notice.

In the last month, the Pentagon has confirmed plans to sharply cut forces stationed at giant U.S. bases in Germany, South Korea and Okinawa, Japan, and to redeploy them to smaller, more widely dispersed facilities -- sometimes called ''lily pads'' -- along an ''arc of crisis'' stretching along a wide band from Southeast Asia to West Africa, as well as to bases in Guam and back home.

The planned redeployments, the most sweeping since the onset of the Cold War more than 50 years ago, are all part of a global strategy to build, in Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld's words, a ''capability to impose lethal power, where needed, when needed, with the greatest flexibility and with the greatest agility''.

As for where the ''need'' is, Pentagon officials state publicly that would be defined by threats to ''stability''. But a closer look at where Washington is most interested in acquiring access to military facilities suggests the determining factor may be proximity to oil and gas-producing areas, pipelines and shipping routes through which vital energy supplies pass.

To most analysts, the proposed redeployments make a lot of sense. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need for big U.S. military bases that housed conventional forces in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe evaporated from a strategic point of view, while the steady build-up of well-equipped and well-trained forces in South Korea, where Washington has stationed nearly 40,000 troops for the past 25 years, made it more than a match for North Korea.

In addition, the presence and behaviour of U.S. forces in both Western Europe and Northeast Asia, particularly in South Korea and Okinawa, have become increasingly unpopular and a lightning rod for growing anti-Americanism and resentment. Reducing their ''footprint'' might have the opposite effect.

Indeed, Washington withdrew its troops altogether from Saudi Arabia over the past year in large part because their presence there had become politically untenable.

Nonetheless, both the plans -- and the ways they are being developed and implemented -- are provoking growing criticism at home, as well as abroad.

The reasons for this are not difficult to understand, particularly in light of the Iraq war.

In the first place, the planned redeployments appear designed to ensure that the United States could indeed enforce a ''Pax Americana'', based on its ability to exert unilateral military control over the production and flow of energy resources from Central Asia, the Gulf region and the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of West Africa in the face of potential rivals.

In that respect, the strategy is an update of the controversial 1992 draft Defence Planning Guidance (DPG) written under the auspices of current Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President ###### Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby -- both of whom played key roles in driving the Bush administration to war in Iraq.

The 1992 paper, which was significantly watered down at the insistence of then-Secretary of State James Baker and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, called for Washington to act as the guarantor of global security and predicted that U.S. military interventions would be a ''constant fixture'' of the future -- a prospect that, in light of the unhappy and costly experience in Iraq to date, is not very popular at the moment, either here or abroad.

A second concern is the damage that such a redeployment could do to Cold War alliances, particularly Washington's commitment to Europe, where the Pentagon wants to cut its military presence in Germany -- currently some 70,000 troops and scores of warplanes -- in half. Some of the forces would be sent home, while most would be moved to cheaper bases in Bulgaria and Romania, closer to the Caucasus and the Middle East.

''The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic'', wrote Kurt Campbell, a former senior Pentagon official now with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and Celeste Johnson Ward, in a 'Foreign Affairs' article last year. The redeployments, they warned, could be construed as the beginning of a withdrawal from what Rumsfeld last year scornfully called ''Old Europe''.

And that, in turn, could reinforce traditional isolationist tendencies in the United States that, before World War II, sought to prevent Washington from engaging in political ''entanglements'' with European countries or international institutions in ways that might constrain its freedom of action in the Americas or anywhere else.

Indeed, the repudiation of permanent alliances in favour of ''coalitions of the willing'' -- a major feature of the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies as it was in the Wolfowitz-Libby paper -- not only recalls isolationism; it is also entirely consistent with the strategy underlying the proposed redeployments.

A similar consideration worries South Korea, where Washington is proposing the withdrawal of more than 12,000 troops, including some 3,500 who are being sent to bolster beleaguered U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Koreans worry that such a significant withdrawal now might not only complicate a particularly tense time in intra-Korean relations, but may also signal Washington's desire to reduce Seoul's say in whether or not Washington attacks North Korea. ''This is about psychology'', Derek Mitchell, a former Pentagon Asia expert recently told the 'Los Angeles Times'.

A related concern was voiced by Campbell and Ward when the proposed redeployments were still on the drawing board. ''Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign'', they warned, ''they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States''.

That, in effect, is what has happened, as officials from both Germany and South Korea have complained that they were not fully consulted about the redeployments before they were leaked to the press or officially announced -- a failure that only increases the impression that Washington is proceeding unilaterally, even with its closest allies.

This is not surprising, because most of the same people -- including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defence for policy -- who led the drive to war in Iraq remain in charge of implementing the new global strategy.

While these officials have lost virtually all influence over policy-making in Iraq as a result of their virtually total failure to anticipate the challenges faced by U.S. occupation forces after the war, they are working feverishly to reconfigure Washington's global military forces for the coming generation. (END/2004)

* IPS Special Coverage: Iraq and the Middle East"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are changing the subject. I am talking about Iraq, not 9/11 or any other conflict. BTW, Canada did not send one single rescue professional into the US on 9/11, they all went of their own free will. I know because i was there and spoke to the Canadians who were there at the pile.

The topic that started this post was 911 TR2 your off topic! and by the way full of your self.

I know whom what and were Canada shipped in to NY, our search and rescue dog team were sent. Military trained search and rescue went and stayed till all was dreamed lost.

You seem to forget I LIVE AND WORK ON A ARMY BASE THAT SENT DEPYMENTS of trained men and women for that matter.

Your so self righteous pull your head out of your pity pot and see us as neighbors not enemy’s!

This is a discussion not a who grater then I :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winnie,

You need to read what I have said, not what you want me to say. I said that Canadians have been no help in Iraq. I have not said they weren't any help in other places. Afghanistan is a place where the Canadian soldiers appear to have done very well. I was not over there so I have no first hand knowledge, but from what I hear they have done well.

I know whom what and were Canada shipped in to NY, our search and rescue dog team were sent

You are the expert. It's not like I was there or anything. It's not like i talked to numerous people every day. Tell me which fire department or EMS agency sent their people to NYC? The teams that were ordered to NYC were FEMA and affiliated US&R teams. By Wednesday evening there were an estimated 10,000 emergency workers in the NYC area. They were ordering people to go home. I know many people who risked their careers and jobs to come to NYC. And people like myself who booked vacation and lieu time to go. If there was some kind of military US&R team sent, that is different. If the people that you say were sent, were iron workers or heavy machinery specialists then that is different too. The largest fire departments and EMS agencies in North America did not send people officially so i don't believe that a smaller department, that isn't nearly as well staffed, could spare people to go to another country while putting their own district in some kind of peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ScribbledPaper

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jun 16 2004, 11:21 PM

Well I am sure this will shake a few angry voters out of their trees were Republicans fling their waste at each other.

So I tern on the TV this evening after proudly hammering in the stakes to my Vote Liberal sign in to my front lawn. And what do I hear?

Al Qaeda got no help from Iraq, says 9/11 panel?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=100822&nid=6

Words like "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated in the attacks fill my ears.

Well push me over with a feather!

You mean Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden weren’t queer bedfellows? Well what about those credible newspapers at the grocery check out were it was front-page news that Saddam and Bin Laden were married in their cave hid out last winter???

On top of that as I sat in a doctor’s office today and had the chance to read Time Magazine issue awarding the man of the year to the American soldiers, I was impressed and deeply touched but there was a under lining thought that fallowed the coverage that fallowed Tomb Radars that the reporter fallowed. It was after they been their awhile and watched as friends and leaders died even after Bush declared end of major combat was why the military was now in a almost hidden seek trying to draw out insurgents were more soldiers were being picked off in a urban shooting gallery then they were shooting back.

Some of the soldiers what to know were they get there turn to kick butt? And I quote “do they know what is going on over here”?

It brought back memories of Vietnam and a badly run war were the Whitehouse tied the hands of the military while young men and women died.

I have to say part of me was angry that those young men and women are target practice for insurgents, wile an election year drags on.

I would like to ask those of this board to think about those men and women when they vote.

I want to say SHOW ME THE WEPOINS of invisible Destruction!?

And explain to me the meaning of "no credible evidence"?

And does Bush deserve another four years in office to prove he was right the first time? While soldiers are picked off?

:angry:

I say lets boycott Canada and vote for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by Starsky@Jun 18 2004, 07:02 AM

What about Bush being business partners with BenLaudin for over 30 years....in the Oil game? (I am talking old man Bush...

Sorry, that's just not true. It's wrong on a number of levels, starting with the fact that the "bin Laden" involved is the Saudi construction magnate, not Osama, his estranged son. The Saudi Bin Laden group has never been involved in terrorist financing. And Bush Sr. was never a "business partner" with the Saudi bin Laden group. Both Bush and bin Laden Sr. have invested in some overlapping companies, but "business partner" is a term of art in corporate law, with a very specific meaning. You're not considered a "partner" with, say, Hustler Magazine, just because your pension fund and Larry Flynt have investments in the same merchant bank. That's the level of connection that the dissolute Moore is playing up in his screed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky

I guess it would depend upon what you call morality.

I see murdering our boys in many strange lands...which are not really liberated at all...in terms of quality of life, safety, and culture....a imoral act of an evil beast....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say NO!!!!!! Bush should not get another chance to finish the destroying of our country!!!!

Wow, Starsky, you and I are agreeing again!

BTW-for those of you who doubt the veracity of what Moore is saying in the movie, a better source is Paul O'Niel's book on his experience as Bush's Sec. of the Treasury. This guy had no reason to want to trash Bush. He was a Republican who had worked in other Republican administrations. He was well regarded for his integrity and skills as an economist. He was in on the Bush white house from the beginning as a member of the NSC and the Cabinet. He gives a detailed first hand account of Bush's myopic world view and his "sell america to big business" agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheProudDuck

This guy had no reason to want to trash Bush.

... except for having been fired ... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this