Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tw-acs
    If it was not a pre empitive war the US administration would not have said it was a pre emptive war.
    LOL, now the administration is infallible? Ok, it was pre-emptive, because they said so.
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    The USA is not the UN, therefore can not act uniliaterally in enforcing UN policies because it is not the UN.
    The US was party to the cease-fire, and was allowed to enforce it's terms.
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    Why were the Saudi's allowed to leave they did no share the name Bin Laden?
    I've answered that question twice. How about: because the administration said so...
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    Do you have evidence saying waht is right or wrong? If so what is the evidence and what is your arguement justifying an act or a series of acts and which act or acts would you be talking about?
    I have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me the situation, show me the evidence, and I'll tell you if it's right or wrong. I've never claimed to have a magic right/wrong detector, if I did I'd never fail a test.
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    It was not a slam dunk, because it may be possible to mislead one nation but it is much more difficult to mislead other nations too.
    What country said definitively, that Saddam had "no WMD"?
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    5-7 years to maybe possessing a nuke.
    The "maybe" saves the statement. I maybe 5-7 years from posessing a nuke too.
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    NEVER having ability to possess a weapons delivery system capable of reaching USA.
    They allready had a perfect delivery system, an oil tanker.
    Originally posted by tw-acs
    THats some of the intelligence used to justify war on Iraq because of WMD, how is that an imminent threat?
    If you say so, but WMD means little to me. I wonder how many hundreds of kilotons of nukes are pointed right at me? BTW, I live close to MacDill AFB, so I'm guessing quite a few. Anyway, if it was the only reason given, you'd have a major point, although I still wouldn't care.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • After 9/11 the news said all air traffic was grounded. That was not correct because President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.

      As it turns out the FBI has a list of persons that shouldnt have been allowed to leave. The #2 man at the FBI was supposed to check to make sure none of the persons flying out of the USA after 9/11 on these special flights were on the FBI's list. As it turns out a number of individuals were on that list and they were allowed to leave the country without ever being interrogated, all under the authorization of President Bush.
      List,
      It's interesting that you are continuing to post this type of thing even after it was proven not to be true. The 9/11 Commission Report proved this to be untrue and unfounded along with a statement by Richard Clarke(no friend of Bush).

      In fact all but a handful were interviewed by the FBI according to Clarke and the 9/11 Commission.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Confed999
        I know Iraq wasn't wrong, and I agree with the rest, but I certainly don't know how to do it, in Iraq or Afghanistan. It seems all that can be done is to keep the peace until the locals can keep it themselves. The only other thing I would suggest is they fight it like a war, and it doesn't seem they are.
        Iraq was wrong. We told our people why they were going in, what they were going to face, and how they were going to face them. We were dead wrong about the WMD. We asked our people (I mean soldiers) to risk their lives and the happiness and well being of their families for that very reason. We should be completely honest that we were wrong to ask them to risk all and to suffer all for a threat that did not exist.

        No one argues that Saddam had WMD or had the capabilities for them. The arguement was that he was contained.

        As for fixing Iraq, I do not have any answers. I do know that the US doesn't have the tools to fix Iraq. The US needs another 100,000 troops from ANYWHERE. And it looks like she may finally found them - Sastani's militia.

        Originally posted by Confed999
        Also, with the lack of anything contradicting the original deal, I still believe the invasion was legal. Personally I think the legality is proof of another deal with a bad guy, and you know how much I dislike that...
        My job was to bring my people home first and foremost. The fastest way I know how is to complete my mission. And if my superiors, including the civilian leadership tells me that my mission is over, it's over. What I leave behind even if it's the bad guys taking a crap in my toilet I left behind comes extremely second of me bringing my people home.

        Comment


        • OOE, what is their to say he dident give his WMD to the Syrians as many claim? Ill say it again; if the US cant monitor its own borders what is there to say we can monitor Iraq's border with Syria.

          Comment


          • I find those reports with dubious intel at best. The Syrians neither need nor want Iraqi WMDs. They have their own stocks. They might share info but I really doubt that the Syrians have the facilities to look after Iraqi stocks as well as their own.

            Also, if the Iraqis did transport their WMDs in the fashion described, then Lady Luck was the Safety Officer. I know I don't want to be anywhere near a convoy like that.

            But that wasn't the point that I was making. Our soldiers were told something that turned out not to be true. We owe it to our soldiers to admit our mistakes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              Iraq was wrong. We told our people why they were going in, what they were going to face, and how they were going to face them. We were dead wrong about the WMD.
              Their primary reason for Iraq was incorrect, though I still believe he could have projected power militarily as well as influentially, but that doesn't make the liberation wrong in any way. You see, that's the only one of the arguments for war that made any sense to me, and the only reason I support 100%.
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              My job was to bring my people home first and foremost. The fastest way I know how is to complete my mission. And if my superiors, including the civilian leadership tells me that my mission is over, it's over. What I leave behind even if it's the bad guys taking a crap in my toilet I left behind comes extremely second of me bringing my people home.
              I don't blame you for any bad deals with bad guys, politicians make, and break, the deals...
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Confed999
                Their primary reason for Iraq was incorrect, though I still believe he could have projected power militarily as well as influentially, but that doesn't make the liberation wrong in any way. You see, that's the only one of the arguments for war that made any sense to me, and the only reason I support
                I believe you're missing my point. I repeat LCol Collins' speach

                We go to liberate, not to conquer.
                We will not fly our flags in their country
                We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
                Show respect for them.

                There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
                Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
                As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
                Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
                But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

                Iraq is steeped in history.
                It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
                Tread lightly there.

                You will see things that no man could pay to see
                -- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
                You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.

                Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
                Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

                If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
                Allow them dignity in death.
                Bury them properly and mark their graves.

                It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
                But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
                We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
                There will be no time for sorrow.

                The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
                There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
                He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
                As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

                It is a big step to take another human life.
                It is not to be done lightly.
                I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
                I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

                If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
                The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

                If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
                You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.
                We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

                (On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

                It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
                We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
                If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

                As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

                Our business now is north.

                And I repeat

                (On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

                It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
                We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
                If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

                As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
                LCol Collins was wrong ... AND I AM WRONG! Both of us have admitted it. The least we could ask of Bush and Blair is that they admit it.

                Does not invalidate the other reasons but when you're asking people to sacrafice their lives and the well being of their families, the least is demanded of you is your honesty and your apologies when you're wrong.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                  I believe you're missing my point.
                  No, I get it, and I do not dispute it.
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • Invastion of Iraq. Its done, whether you agreed with it or not. We've got to fix the country and then get the hell out. I think both candidates agree on that. Kerry unfortunately can't even say that he didn't support the war in the first place, but dems had to pick Kerry because they knew moderates and independents would never vote for Dean.

                    Even though everyone is so concerned about terrorism, because it is easy fear. But in reality we have far more pressing issues to deal with. A candidate saying that, however, would be political death because people are fanatical about terrorism. I am not a politician, so I don't have to worry about that.

                    Economy: the Bush taxcut did infuse a little more money into the economy, but the long term cost of our huge debt will really drag us down in the future. We spend far too much money on our military, as we are able to fight any modern full scale war with far fewer forces. While some may be wasteful, social programs can actually benefit the economy by providing services to those who could not normally afford them. Paying for preventative medical care and education for people actually saves you money.

                    Healthcare: our healthcare provides worse care than most of the "socialist" European systems, yet costs 4x more. What's up with that I say? Is the free market saving us money like its supposed to? I don't think so. Its so much of a problem that many people can't even afford health insurance.

                    Tax cuts: Kerry's reasoning behind rolling back the tax cuts for the rich is this: While the average person has received some benefit from the tax cut, balooning education and healthcare costs have far outweighed that benefit. So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.

                    While it is true that the tax burden for the rich has been increasing, it is because their salaries have been increasing. In 1980, CEOs made 42x the average worker, and in 2003 that gap increased to a whopping 300x the average worker. Meanwhile, the real earning power of a minimum wage worker has decreased dramatically due to inflation. The progressive rate of the tax curve is justified in keeping up with the expanding gap between the rich and poor. This is because the centralization of weath is bad for the economy. For example, just look at Russia.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by barrowaj
                      Invastion of Iraq. Its done, whether you agreed with it or not. We've got to fix the country and then get the hell out. I think both candidates agree on that.
                      Are you sure Kerry still isn't on the 6 month plan? He has convieniently removed that statement from his website, so does that mean he's in for the long haul, or still going to cut and run.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      But in reality we have far more pressing issues to deal with.
                      Nothing more pressing than war.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      We spend far too much money on our military, as we are able to fight any modern full scale war with far fewer forces.
                      Are you saying we don't currently need more troops and better equipment? Seriously?
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      While some may be wasteful, social programs can actually benefit the economy by providing services to those who could not normally afford them.
                      Lets start by cutting the wastful ones, instead of rasing taxes, and privatize the rest.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      Paying for preventative medical care and education for people actually saves you money.
                      Except that everything the government does costs 2x as much, or more, than it does in the private sectior, with less quality. You want to know what socialized medicine will look like, look at today's medicaie and social security.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      Kerry's reasoning behind rolling back the tax cuts for the rich is this
                      To propagate class warfare, to descriminate by income, to commit gross wealth redistribution and to make the people totaly dependant on the government. Really it's to buy votes from foolish people who will lose their jobs, and see inflation increase substantially, to maintain profit margins. Every 2% increase in the top end tax bracket, and I have to fire 1 person.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      balooning education and healthcare costs have far outweighed that benefit. So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.
                      And voting for the trial lawyers is going to help reduce the costs? I say they're the problem, who do you think has to pay for all their law suits?
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.
                      I have more money, and I have an "average" income.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      it is because their salaries have been increasing.
                      Ummmm, it's done as a different percent. People with higher incomes pay a higher percent of their income. If it were just that they had to pay more money, but the same percent, nobody would care. Anything else is unfair and descriminatory. I personally think the bigger tax burdens should pay more taxes, like people with kids should not get a tax break, they should be paying more.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      just look at Russia.
                      Yeah, look at Russia, and see what liberalism get you...
                      Last edited by Confed999; 27 Aug 04,, 00:38.
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Confed999
                        Yeah, look at Russia, and see what liberalism get you...
                        Yes, I suppose that liberalism has destroyed Russia. Although I don't think that you are referring to the same sense of liberalism that I am.

                        Current projections indicate that It will take until 2020 for Russia to recover its GDP to the level that it was in 1989. The current state of affairs is an example of capitalism gone wrong.

                        Comment


                        • Russia is not a Capitalist country, it is a corrupt socialist country. The Government doesn't protect property rights very well and it outright violates them an awful lot.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Praxus
                            Russia is not a Capitalist country, it is a corrupt socialist country. The Government doesn't protect property rights very well and it outright violates them an awful lot.
                            No kidding, where is the capitalism in Russia? Just because they are not communist, it doesn't make them remotely capitalist.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

                              Are you a socailist christine?

                              Kerry has been hailed by Gen. Giap, commander of the communist N. Vietnamese Army, as being instrumental in the Communists victory in Vietnam. He is considered a war hero to them. A picture of him hangs in a place of honor in the vietnam victory museum in hanoi. On top of that, he is an admitted war criminal, and wrongly accused his fellow sailors of commiting attrocities in Vietnam. Accusations that he has never backed up with a single ounce of proof.

                              Kerry is the last man we need running this war. He is the very worst of what an American can be. A liar, cheat, and fraud.

                              His is also the ultimate flip-flop man.
                              Yo, Have you heard, the Vietnam war is over! He testified in front of a congresstional hearing, along with alot of other people, of which many were Vietnam Vets, at a time when the US was looking for a way to withdraw from Vietnam and save face! If Kerry is the worst a American can be, then what would that make Sec. of Defense McNamara and Gen. Westmoreland?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                Forget it Praxus, just another leftist socailist fool.

                                Miss, you can speak about what drill instructors 'put in your head' once you've actually been in the military. Until then, allow me to inform you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

                                Kerry is a disgrace to the uniform of the united states military. He is a liar, an opportunist, and a socailist.

                                And he is a national war hero for the OTHER side in the war he fought in.

                                Miss, you can jam John F'ing Kerry where the sun don't shine.
                                Sec. Of defense Robert McNamara, years after the Vietnam conflict, on a TV talk show, like meet the press, stated that the Vietnam conflict was a mistake. He may have said that in his book, that I haven't read, he didn't say in retro-spect or hind sight . That indicates to me that he MAY have believed that to some degree during his tenture as Sec. of defense. Kerry got out of the service and voiced his oppinion on the war, as your doing on this board. I respect you for your service to the country, as I respect any military people, including John F-in Kerry! When you join the servie you take a oath, as do the President and congress, to protect the Constitution of the united States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. As I see it, the enemy is domestic and the fight should be in the halls of congress, not the sands of Iraq!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X