It's going down in Iran! [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

K.C.

02-11-2007, 04:23 PM

I have no doubt that Bush would abandon Iraq and invade Iran, the same way he abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq, if he could right now.Assuming the intelligence is true, it puts this country in a no win situation at an international level. If you don't respond, you allow everyone allied against U.S. involvement in the Middle East to claim a victory and use it as fuel to sway opinion over there even further to their side. And if you do respond, you're launching what will probably escalate into another war and regime change (because once you start in Iran, you have to go all the way with overthrowing that government). These fucking neo-cons have destroyed any hope we had at making in-roads in the Middle East with their policies since the day they took office in 2000.

Kevin

02-11-2007, 04:30 PM

They have no fucking idea what they are facing with Iran.. This is no Iraq.. This dude has spent most of his time and money preparing his military and weaponry.. Plus he has the Russian and the Chinese at his back.. If Bush goes in there with this depleted military.. He could have his doors blown off. This would be a HUGE Mistake.. This is what that Iran dude wants, why do you think he has been goading us the whole time?? This man is insane but he is not a dumb man. If Bush goes, he will have to go alone. No one will back him unless what basically what Hbox said happens.. Not a good idea..

This message was edited by Kevin on 2-11-07 @ 8:32 PM

burrben

02-11-2007, 04:35 PM

in the words of fergie, "OH SHIT"

Tenbatsuzen

02-11-2007, 04:36 PM

K.C. wrote: These fucking neo-cons have destroyed any hope we had at making in-roads in the Middle East with their policies since the day they took office in 2000.  Please stop tossing around "neocons" as an all-encompassing term.  Plus, everyone voted for the Iraq invasion.  Everyone is at fault at this, for the top down.

Wallower

02-11-2007, 04:37 PM

On the bright side, a little bit of the Iraqi violence was being directed from outside. Not that it will matter when this all goes down. I have to agree this looks pretty grim. The  Iranians are much more hardcore and organized than the Iraqui's from what I've read.

Wallower

02-11-2007, 04:44 PM

<img src="http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2208/ackbarsittingtr4.jpg" border="0" width="487" height="306" />  It's a trap! 

This message was edited by Wallower on 2-11-07 @ 8:45 PM

K.C.

02-11-2007, 04:44 PM

DarkHippie

02-11-2007, 04:45 PM

HBox wrote: After what they pulled with Iraq I'd have to see a video of Ahemdinajad handing over bombs to insurgents while holding two forms of government ID, a U.S. soldier there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and Ahmedinajad's grandma to confirm his identity. What if he'sj ust peeing on a 14 year old?

FUNKMAN

02-11-2007, 04:52 PM

we sold arms to Osama to kill Russians, no?    if so what's the problem?

Billy Staples

02-11-2007, 04:55 PM

Personnally, i have felt that for years...the biggest threat to the US is China. It startd with the shootingh down of the lane and not giving it back, shit with Taiwan, which we areobligated to defend.  I'm not sure why, a treaty or something. Wouldnt it be a nice little Easter egg basket full of rice, chopsuey and a nuke pointed at LA that they are waiting or even in cahoots and playing Bush and the country for fools by having this non war delete out resources....basically have no army andanti war sentiment increasing with every day W remains in office. China is a threat.  they may be buying our Nokia phones and E-Bay ideas as alibaba.com and have their own google in baidu.com and buying just about any iron and other metals they can get their hands on and the world is more than willing to sell...us too. China is THE market to invest in overseas right now, some will say.  Overseas markets are making $...ours isnt doing quite as well and China is actually trying to slow down their economic growth. I don't know, but they are silently bringing a lot of american and wordly companies into the country willingly, as does India now. I cant think of India as a threat (Sorry no convenince store joke).Both are growing, but China is the only one that scares me. Anytime I forget, I look at a map. Imagine if Chna had sleeper cells and they were all in take out restaurants?  My God we'd be doomed, they are everywhere. Beware the sleeping tiger, espcially if we get stupidly coerced into an Iran thing.  Just smells of Middle East trickery damn it. Good night and good luck<img src="http://www.kids-online.net/world/maps/china.gif" border="0" width="511" height="299" />

HBox

02-11-2007, 05:59 PM

DarkHippie wrote: HBox wrote: After what they pulled with Iraq I'd have to see a video of Ahemdinajad handing over bombs to insurgents while holding two forms of government ID, a U.S. soldier there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and Ahmedinajad's grandma to confirm his identity. What if he'sj ust peeing on a 14 year old?Umm, Rape Rooms. HELLO!

Captain Rooster

02-11-2007, 06:20 PM

HBox wrote: DarkHippie wrote: HBox wrote: After what they pulled with Iraq I'd have to see a video of Ahemdinajad handing over bombs to insurgents while holding two forms of government ID, a U.S. soldier there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and Ahmedinajad's grandma to confirm his identity. What if he'sj ust peeing on a 14 year old?Umm, Rape Rooms. HELLO!  Umm, Evil Doers. HELLO!

Snacks

02-11-2007, 06:20 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html</a>Too bad we wasted everything we had in Iraq. We're f**ked! Then again, one could make the argument that we wouldn't be at this point with Iran if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. F Bush for doing this to us. F him and the horse he rode in on. And everybody who voted for that guy, especially the 2nd time.That stement is so true. I know Kerry wasnt the best thing going but a chimp should have been able to run and beat Bush the 2nd time around. Its ashame that people were too fucked in the head and voted Bush back for a 2nd term.

FUNKMAN

02-11-2007, 06:21 PM

Snacks wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html</a>Too bad we wasted everything we had in Iraq. We're f**ked! Then again, one could make the argument that we wouldn't be at this point with Iran if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. F Bush for doing this to us. F him and the horse he rode in on. And everybody who voted for that guy, especially the 2nd time.That stement is so true. I know Kerry wasnt the best thing going but a chimp should have been able to run and beat Bush the 2nd time around. Its ashame that people were too fucked in the head and voted Bush back for a 2nd term.Fucking Ohio!

foodcourtdruide

02-11-2007, 06:30 PM

Snacks wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html</a>Too bad we wasted everything we had in Iraq. We're f**ked! Then again, one could make the argument that we wouldn't be at this point with Iran if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. F Bush for doing this to us. F him and the horse he rode in on. And everybody who voted for that guy, especially the 2nd time.That stement is so true. I know Kerry wasnt the best thing going but a chimp should have been able to run and beat Bush the 2nd time around. Its ashame that people were too fucked in the head and voted Bush back for a 2nd term.Never underestimate the insane stupidity of Christian Fundamentalists. Who cares about terrible decision making when there's a possibility that homosexuals might marry?!?!? They're going to make us all gay!

Yerdaddy

02-12-2007, 02:49 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: K.C. wrote: These fucking neo-cons have destroyed any hope we had at making in-roads in the Middle East with their policies since the day they took office in 2000.  Please stop tossing around "neocons" as an all-encompassing term.  Plus, everyone voted for the Iraq invasion.  Everyone is at fault at this, for the top down.This strategy of positing the fallacy that the democrats who voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq were voting for the war and thus are equally responsible is pure extremist conservative ideology and is what got us this war in the first place and then lost it for us. It is responsible for all of the costs to America of this false and failed war in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and national security. It seeks to shield from democratic accountability those who are most responsible for it - "if the dems are equally responsible then you might as well keep voting republican." It is a dangerous lie that will be put forward non-stop on Fox "News" until the 2008 elections. I'm having trouble coming up with the words to describe how much contempt I have for that lie and people who knowingly put it forward. Fuck it. This post is a challenge to you, Tenbats, to stand by that statement or abandon it. I'm challenging you now to a debate here on the board on the question: "Do the democrats hold at least 40% responsibility for the Iraq War?" I'll even spot you that 10% so you don't have to prove they share equal responsibility with the Bush administration, but you still have to prove that they hold enough of the responsibility for the war that the statement "Everyone is at fault for this" can fairly be used as a legitimate defense of the Bush administration. We can use a thread that only we can post in, a set number of exchanges, and separate poll thread to determine winner and loser (assuming the moderators can detect and deter cheating). There are other boards that have formal debates and we can work out the details if you accept. As for the stakes I'm going all-in. Loser leaves the board forever. I don't particularly want either of us to leave the board but that's my wager.I'm not trying to humiliate you or attack you in any way. This isn't personal. But I am going to attack your argument. You can either defend it or abandon it. If you don't want to take this challenge you don't have to come on here and admit you were wrong or take your post back or anything like that. If you don't post in this particular thread then I will never bring it up again. The subject will be dead. However, if you make some version of this statement again - the unsupported suggestion that democrats share equal or near-equal blame for the Iraq War with republicans (not even just the Bush administration) - then I'm going to light you up. Intellectually, of course. It is my honest opinion that this fallacy of yours is a deliberate lie designed to shield political leaders from being held responsible for hurting my country by deceiving the American public. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt once. But I think you're a smart enough guy to be held responsible for your statements. This isn't a true celebrity crime story we're talking about here. So if you expect to tow this particular line of propaganda again on the board I'm going to assume that you are willingly trying to defend your political leaders at the expense of my country. And I will never again shut up when I believe that his happening. I'm going to call you on it.Put up or shut up.

Yerdaddy

02-12-2007, 04:18 AM

Back to the subject, first of all that CNN article sucks and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/middleeast/12weapons.html?hp&ex=1171342800&en=644043fb3060b87 9&ei=5094&partner=homepage" target="_blank">this NYT piece</a> is better. Not because of some conspiracy or bias or anything - just that the CNN journalist wrote a more sensationalist article with less actual information. It's what they do. Anyway...I think this is a stunt put on by the adminstration to point the finger at Iran and blame them for things going bad. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400461_pf.html" target="_blank">It's similar to the propaganda campaign they used to get us into Iraq</a>, but I don't think it's a build-up to war like they did before. It might be, but I still doubt it. (The second carrier group sent to the Persian Gulf worries me though.) This is similar to what Putin was doing the other day when he called up on our shit - propagandizing for political advantage on a number of different areas (for lack of a better word). First of all, the country is only now coming to terms with the fact that we can't win in Iraq and it's Bush's fault. By pointing to the different elements of of the war that are problems he's trying to deflect attention from his responsibility. "Look what Iran is doing! It's their fault, not mine!" Which is the equivalent of saying "Yeah I got my ass kicked, but how was I supposed to know that that if I start a fight with a Mexican in front of his house his whole family was going to join in?" A guy who says that is retarded. So is Bush. Problem is this thing still has an effect on a public that was at least dumb enough to make him president twice. For the rest of the Bush term we're going to see lots of these sorts of media events highlighting the difficulties we face in Iraq. But the point is always going to be to distract us from the specific mistakes we've made all along and the fact that all of those difficulties were known before the war but the White House and their supporters chose to ignore them. "Iran is right next door to Iraq? Who knew?!" I also think it's a part of the tough talk on Iran that the White House uses for leverage in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program and maybe even with Russia over it's aid to Iran - "you help them, they hurt us = you hurt us. You dick." But I don't think this is a push to war.As to whether Iran is aiding anti-US elements that's always been the case. Let's see... Iran is almost completely Shiia and Iraq is 60% Shiia... we let an election decide who runs Iraq and the Shiia parties won... the biggest Shiia parties at the time had been supported by the Iranian government and based in Iran for decades... these parties all have militias that we now want the parties to disband and kick them out of the Iraqi security forces... the parties don't want to disband their militias and the militias don't want to be disbanded... I can't imagine why Iranian bombs would end up being used against American soldiers! But the situation is such that you cannot say Iran wants to kill US soldiers. Iran wants influence over Iraq. It's allies want advantage over each other within the Iraqi government. We compete with them for influence while our soldiers clash with their militias while fighting Islamist and Sunni insurgent groups and the whole thing is a fucking mess. But suddenly the US is going to stand up and say "We have evidence that Iran is responsible for 170 American deaths out of about 3500." What does that statement mean in the context of this war?Especially since it threw in a link to the president of Iran (who doesn't control his own military and intelliegence agencies, but who we all know as evil because he says crazy evil shit about Israel and has facial hair) without any evidence that that link exists! [quote]In

sr71blackbird

02-12-2007, 04:54 AM

We should sneak out of Iraq in the middle of the night and leave a huge cache of weapons in a pile, and as they lift off the last weapon, it pulls a wire that detonates a massive nuclear bomb hidden below the cache!

Dan 'Hampton

02-12-2007, 05:20 AM

That camel jockey promised big things on my birthday.  Thanks for nothin you member's only jacket wearing hate mongerer.

Dan 'Hampton

02-12-2007, 05:23 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: We should sneak out of Iraq in the middle of the night and leave a huge cache of weapons in a pile, and as they lift off the last weapon, it pulls a wire that detonates a massive nuclear bomb hidden below the cache!  My brother-in-law has a friend who served in Afganistan and said that they would collect arms from whomever pile them up, lay explosives around them and run away.  A min later he'd see terrorist or whoever running to the pile grabbing guns and them BLAM! Gone.

K.C.

02-12-2007, 05:55 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: This strategy of positing the fallacy that the democrats who voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq were voting for the war and thus are equally responsible is pure extremist conservative ideology and is what got us this war in the first place and then lost it for us. It is responsible for all of the costs to America of this false and failed war in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and national security. It seeks to shield from democratic accountability those who are most responsible for it - "if the dems are equally responsible then you might as well keep voting republican." It is a dangerous lie that will be put forward non-stop on Fox "News" until the 2008 elections. I'm having trouble coming up with the words to describe how much contempt I have for that lie and people who knowingly put it forward. Fuck it. This post is a challenge to you, Tenbats, to stand by that statement or abandon it. I'm challenging you now to a debate here on the board on the question: "Do the democrats hold at least 40% responsibility for the Iraq War?" I'll even spot you that 10% so you don't have to prove they share equal responsibility with the Bush administration, but you still have to prove that they hold enough of the responsibility for the war that the statement "Everyone is at fault for this" can fairly be used as a legitimate defense of the Bush administration. We can use a thread that only we can post in, a set number of exchanges, and separate poll thread to determine winner and loser (assuming the moderators can detect and deter cheating). There are other boards that have formal debates and we can work out the details if you accept. As for the stakes I'm going all-in. Loser leaves the board forever. I don't particularly want either of us to leave the board but that's my wager.I'm not trying to humiliate you or attack you in any way. This isn't personal. But I am going to attack your argument. You can either defend it or abandon it. If you don't want to take this challenge you don't have to come on here and admit you were wrong or take your post back or anything like that. If you don't post in this particular thread then I will never bring it up again. The subject will be dead. However, if you make some version of this statement again - the unsupported suggestion that democrats share equal or near-equal blame for the Iraq War with republicans (not even just the Bush administration) - then I'm going to light you up. Intellectually, of course. It is my honest opinion that this fallacy of yours is a deliberate lie designed to shield political leaders from being held responsible for hurting my country by deceiving the American public. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt once. But I think you're a smart enough guy to be held responsible for your statements. This isn't a true celebrity crime story we're talking about here. So if you expect to tow this particular line of propaganda again on the board I'm going to assume that you are willingly trying to defend your political leaders at the expense of my country. And I will never again shut up when I believe that his happening. I'm going to call you on it.Put up or shut up.All I have to say is it would seem basic common sense to me that the party that controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, most of the Governorships, the Courts, and the CIA may bear a LITTLE bit more of the blame than the other.

Dan 'Hampton

02-12-2007, 06:17 AM

Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist?  Which is what this country should do.

booster11373

02-12-2007, 06:23 AM

Does Bush want to go down as the worst President ever?

K.C.

02-12-2007, 06:40 AM

dschef wrote: Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist?  Which is what this country should do. True. That's the mistake Yerdaddy made in his assessment. It's not Pat Buchanan isolationism, which is extreme conservatism, that's being practiced...it's neo-conservatism. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 2-12-07 @ 10:40 AM

A.J.

02-12-2007, 06:51 AM

K.C. wrote: All I have to say is it would seem basic common sense to me that the party that controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, most of the Governorships, the Courts, and the CIA may bear a LITTLE bit more of the blame than the other. Governors affect foreign policy and deploy troops overseas?

K.C.

02-12-2007, 06:58 AM

A.J. wrote: K.C. wrote: All I have to say is it would seem basic common sense to me that the party that controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, most of the Governorships, the Courts, and the CIA may bear a LITTLE bit more of the blame than the other. Governors affect foreign policy and deploy troops overseas?Not really...just using it to emphasize how deep Republican control ran from 2002-2006. There was pretty much no check on them, save the occasional Democratic filibuster.

Snacks

02-12-2007, 11:52 AM

I agree with yerdaddy on everything he wrote, but doesnt the American people deserve some of the blame as well? Americans voted him in 2000 and never said boo when he hijacked the presidency, and then after everything had happened over the next 4 years the majority of voting Americans releceted the puppet and his masters.I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down.

foodcourtdruide

02-12-2007, 12:08 PM

A.J. wrote: K.C. wrote: All I have to say is it would seem basic common sense to me that the party that controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, most of the Governorships, the Courts, and the CIA may bear a LITTLE bit more of the blame than the other. Governors affect foreign policy and deploy troops overseas?Indirectly they do. Governors have a big effect on national elections in their state.

busybeeman

02-12-2007, 12:35 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html</a>Too bad we wasted everything we had in Iraq. We're f**ked! Then again, one could make the argument that we wouldn't be at this point with Iran if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. F Bush for doing this to us. F him and the horse he rode in on. And everybody who voted for that guy, especially the 2nd time.F Bush and CondiAnd they daddy and mommyF the Republicrats and DemoplicansAnd all the other f-ing politiciansF Hillary and ObamaF Bush's mommaF-em all!They ain't no good at all.What we need is a billionaire who ain't no punkWe need an independent, like Donald Trump.

ChrisTheCop

02-12-2007, 01:03 PM

Snacks wrote: I agree with yerdaddy on everything he wrote, but doesnt the American people deserve some of the blame as well? Americans voted him in 2000 and never said boo when he hijacked the presidency, and then after everything had happened over the next 4 years the majority of voting Americans releceted the puppet and his masters.I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down.  I'd start a poll,but I dont think I'd get honest answers. Only you can answer in your heart, because it's definitely uncool these days to say you WERE for the invasion....but who among us wasnt glued to CNN on the day and time the president stated we'd start.....and when it started...who among us wasnt shouting, "YEAH....BOOM goes the Dynamite!!!" "Shock and Awe, babay!!" or words to that affect....and/or, being a little disappointed that it wasnt shocking or aweing enough?I know, go ahead and say, "I was appalled from the get go..." I say BS.My point is, if youre upset with the way things are going, ya gotta accept a teeny weeny bit of the blame. And no, I'm not leaving the board for this.

riverofpiss

02-12-2007, 01:33 PM

The U.S. would have a much more difficult time with Iran than they have had with Iraq.  The population in Iran would fight much more fiercely than the Iraqi's, just look at the support that the Iranian leader has whenever he holds his anti-american rally.  Iran has a large, well equipped,army that is ready and waiting to go to war with the United States.  Add the fact that China and Russia are ,apparently, on Iran's side in this and that adds up to disaster for Bush.  And there is no way that Iraq can be abandoned like Afghanistan was.  There isn't alot of support from countries around the world that would take up the slack from Iraq, as my country has in Afghanistan, and there is no way that the U.S. can fight both wars at the same time with minimal support in the world community.If the U.S. moves to Iran get ready for a draft because that is the only way that the U.S. would have a chance of being successful there.  It's either that or bring back the hydrogen bomb for one more kick at the can.

Snacks

02-12-2007, 02:39 PM

badmonkey

02-12-2007, 03:46 PM

Snacks wrote: I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down. I intended to vote for Nader in 2000 but couldn't vote due to expired registration.  This was when I was being influenced by liberal friends and not researching, paying attention, and thinking for myself. I voted for Bush in 2004 and I find it very interesting when you say that anybody that voted for Kerry was "thinking for themselves" but those that voted for Bush were "voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves".  My vote for Bush was based upon my own comparison between the two candidates.  I listened to Kerry's speeches and his answer to every policy question that could have swayed my vote was something along the lines of how he wasn't going to show his hand before he was elected.  His main campaign slogan appeared to be "John Kerry is not George Bush".  If he'd shown some leadership and given me a reason to vote for him, he might have gotten my vote.  A plan for action of his own rather than bitching about the actions of Bush would have gone a long way. As for the Republicans being completely at fault with the War in Iraq, you should read the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:pub l243.107" target="_blank">resolution</a> that congress wrote and votd for if you haven't already.  The title alone is pretty straight forward: "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002"  I wonder how so many Democrats misunderstood what this document was and voted for it when they meant to vote against it.Maybe I just don't get it, not smart enough or something.  Must be my southern upbringing. Badmonkey

NortonRules

02-12-2007, 04:03 PM

Has anoyone in this thread blamed Saddam Hussein yet?  It's funny how the liberals blame Bush, who was trying to do the right thing, instead of Saddam, who was seen on video, heard on audio talking about having WMD's and how he's going to use them, has used them in the past, killed, tortured, etc...  Somehow he's not at all to blame in this, but Bush solely is.  Not to mention Bill and Hillary also leading the charge (but somehow everyone conveniently forgets that).  Don't forget that Mike Wallace (I think it was him), went over to Iran to speak with their leader.  He came to the conclusion that he was a wonderful guy and was just misunderstood by the world.  The fact that he says routinely that he vows to remove Israel from the face of the Earth didn't worry Mike Wallace and CBS.  They still think he's a fine gentleman.  I know they'll take his side in any future conflicts, as will most people on this board.

high fly

02-12-2007, 04:08 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Tenbatsuzen wrote: K.C. wrote: These fucking neo-cons have destroyed any hope we had at making in-roads in the Middle East with their policies since the day they took office in 2000. ÿPlease stop tossing around "neocons" as an all-encompassing term.ÿ Plus, everyone voted for the Iraq invasion.ÿ Everyone is at fault at this, for the top down.ÿÿ<hr color="cococo" align="left">

You are mistaken.
First off, if you look at Bush's request October 7, 2002 for authority to use military force, he stated clearly that this did not mean we would invade.
He and other members of the administration swore-and-be-damned that before we went to war that they would get another UN resolution authorizing us to do so.
They lied.

Second, if you will go back and check, you will ind that most, around 3/4 of the Democrats didn't vote for it.

As the leader, Bush must have the responsibility for what he led us into as well as the bogus bums rush he and his administration executed to make us think if we did nothing that Saddam would nuke American cities and spray us with anthrax and small pox.

high fly

02-12-2007, 04:13 PM

K.C. wrote: dschef wrote: Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist?  Which is what this country should do. True. That's the mistake Yerdaddy made in his assessment. It's not Pat Buchanan isolationism, which is extreme conservatism, that's being practiced...it's neo-conservatism. This message was edited by K.C. on 2-12-07 @ 10:40 AM A better term would be Wilsonian make-the-world-safe-for-democracy wild-eyed liberalism...

Bulldogcakes

02-12-2007, 04:34 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:This strategy of positing the fallacy that the democrats who voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq were voting for the war and thus are equally responsible is pure extremist conservative ideology and is what got us this war in the first place and then lost it for us. It is responsible for all of the costs to America of this false and failed war in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and national security. It seeks to shield from democratic accountability those who are most responsible for it - "if the dems are equally responsible then you might as well keep voting republican." It is a dangerous lie that will be put forward non-stop on Fox "News" until the 2008 elections. I'm having trouble coming up with the words to describe how much contempt I have for that lie and people who knowingly put it forward. Daddy, I think you're over reacting here. Its not a "fallacy" to simply point out that their was broad bi-partisan support for this war. Its a fact. And why do both parties seek bi-partisan support for policies? For political cover, plain and simple. Politics 101. I also think that no matter what ANYONE says, this is Bush's war and will be remembered forever so. You dont expect them to come out and say "Yeah we fucked up, now go vote for Hillary you crazy kids! See ya in 2012!" Sure they're seeking to spread the blame, but they're also setting up a counter punch that you haven't seen coming, because of your intense feelings about this administration. It's this. Hillary is going around saying she was "lied to" by this administration <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/02/12" title="Here's the 1st campaign commercial "Can we AFFORD to take that RISK??"">Not true, by her own statements</a> (re Monday Morning politics segment). If Hillary was able to be duped by this administration, how will she fare with Foriegn leaders? With those (Lobbyists/Interest groups/fill in the blank) in Washington? Is she really READY to assume the Oval Office, if she's so gullible?Here's the 1st '08 campaign commercial (cue the dark, creepy music) bmmmmmmmmmm "Can we AFFORD to take that RISK??" Electing the 1st female Pres will make many voters uncomfortable, many if not most of them women. Republicans will seek to exploit that every chance they get, Hillary will try to reassure everyone that she's a safe bet. We'll see who's the better salesman, but I dont think Hillary is much of a salesperson myself.

WRESTLINGFAN

02-12-2007, 05:10 PM

dschef wrote: That camel jockey promised big things on my birthday.  Thanks for nothin you member's only jacket wearing hate mongerer. He is the poster boy for casual Fridays<img src="http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/photos/iran_president_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg" border="0" alt="pres" title="pres" width="180" height="266" />

Bulldogcakes

02-12-2007, 05:19 PM

high fly wrote: K.C. wrote: dschef wrote: Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist? Which is what this country should do. True. That's the mistake Yerdaddy made in his assessment. It's not Pat Buchanan isolationism, which is extreme conservatism, that's being practiced...it's neo-conservatism. A better term would be Wilsonian make-the-world-safe-for-democracy wild-eyed liberalism...So true. There is very little that is "conservative" about this policy, and administration.

Snacks

02-12-2007, 05:24 PM

high fly wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: K.C. wrote: These fucking neo-cons have destroyed any hope we had at making in-roads in the Middle East with their policies since the day they took office in 2000.  Please stop tossing around "neocons" as an all-encompassing term.  Plus, everyone voted for the Iraq invasion.  Everyone is at fault at this, for the top down.   You are mistaken. First off, if you look at Bush's request October 7, 2002 for authority to use military force, he stated clearly that this did not mean we would invade. He and other members of the administration swore-and-be-damned that before we went to war that they would get another UN resolution authorizing us to do so. They lied. Second, if you will go back and check, you will ind that most, around 3/4 of the Democrats didn't vote for it. As the leader, Bush must have the responsibility for what he led us into as well as the bogus bums rush he and his administration executed to make us think if we did nothing that Saddam would nuke American cities and spray us with anthrax and small pox. I was just about to post that exact information, I couldnt have said it better.Plus, the UN and almost all its member countires said the USA was not approved for military action based on the rules and terms of the UN. Bush thumbed his nose at the UN and the world and did what he wanted anyway. 2 wrongs dont make it right. So even if Sadam had WMD's it was the UN who needed to decide what action was needed, not Bush. But Bush had a hard on for Sadam and used whatever he could as an excuse to go to war to sell it to the American people. No one has ever said Sadam was a goood man. But we had no right to invade a soverign nation who never threatend us. I will say this again, If we have weapons/nucs and we give other coutries weapons and nucs then we cant say much when other countries try to protect themselves and creat weapons and nucs.Remember people the same way we feel we are the good guys and they are evil, they think they are the good guys and we are evil. Sometimes seeing both sides of the story helps you understand. Soimetimes you also need to understand that we are not always right.

Midkiff

02-12-2007, 06:10 PM

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/1182036204_s.gif

TheMojoPin

02-12-2007, 06:15 PM

NortonRules wrote: Has anoyone in this thread blamed Saddam Hussein yet?For what?  Being an inhuman prick?  Nobody has to point out the obvious.  Nice spin, though. It's funny how the liberals blame Bush, who was trying to do the right thing,And failed utterly because of his and his administration's incompetence. instead of Saddam, who was seen on video, heard on audio talking about having WMD's and how he's going to use them, has used them in the past, killed, tortured, etc...  Somehow he's not at all to blame in this, but Bush solely is.Nobody is saying Saddam should be let off the hook for being a bastard, so quit making it up that "liberals" are doing that. Not to mention Bill and Hillary also leading the charge (but somehow everyone conveniently forgets that).And if they were in charge and fucked it up as badly, do you honestly think people wouldn't be pissed at them?  Don't forget that Mike Wallace (I think it was him), went over to Iran to speak with their leader.  He came to the conclusion that he was a wonderful guy and was just misunderstood by the world.No, he didn't.  You're flat out lying.  The fact that he says routinely that he vows to remove Israel from the face of the Earth didn't worry Mike Wallace and CBS.That's an absurd assumption on the part of Wallace and CBS that has no basis in reality. They still think he's a fine gentleman.  I know they'll take his side in any future conflicts, as will most people on this board.  No, you're wrong.  That last part is so absurd, based on absolutely nothing anyone has actually said here and off the topic at hand that it's beyond being funny.  "OH NOES!!!  THE LIBERALS SAID THINGS!!!"  Please.

Midkiff

02-12-2007, 06:17 PM

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/1182036204_s.gif

patsopinion

02-12-2007, 06:18 PM

It might be nice to start over. it was after ww3 that we discover warp according to star trek.  In order to create perfection you first need a blank canvas.

TheMojoPin

02-12-2007, 06:18 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: high fly wrote: K.C. wrote: dschef wrote: Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist? Which is what this country should do. True. That's the mistake Yerdaddy made in his assessment. It's not Pat Buchanan isolationism, which is extreme conservatism, that's being practiced...it's neo-conservatism. A better term would be Wilsonian make-the-world-safe-for-democracy wild-eyed liberalism...So true. There is very little that is "conservative" about this policy, and administration.  Actually, this was all birthed in the heady days of McKinley and TR's grand ol' "we'll make the world safe with a dash of Christianity and a heaping helping of DEMOCRACY, whether they want us to or not!  We know they need it!Hi, Cuba!  Hellooooooo, Philippines!  Get yo' ass over here, Hawaii!

HBox

02-12-2007, 06:28 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: NortonRules wrote: Has anoyone in this thread blamed Saddam Hussein yet? For what? Being an inhuman prick? Nobody has to point out the obvious. Nice spin, though.  It's funny how the liberals blame Bush, who was trying to do the right thing, And failed utterly because of his and his administration's incompetence.  instead of Saddam, who was seen on video, heard on audio talking about having WMD's and how he's going to use them, has used them in the past, killed, tortured, etc... Somehow he's not at all to blame in this, but Bush solely is. Nobody is saying Saddam should be let off the hook for being a bastard, so quit making it up that "liberals" are doing that. Not to mention Bill and Hillary also leading the charge (but somehow everyone conveniently forgets that). And if they were in charge and fucked it up as badly, do you honestly think people wouldn't be pissed at them?  Don't forget that Mike Wallace (I think it was him), went over to Iran to speak with their leader. He came to the conclusion that he was a wonderful guy and was just misunderstood by the world. No, he didn't. You're flat out lying.  The fact that he says routinely that he vows to remove Israel from the face of the Earth didn't worry Mike Wallace and CBS. That's an absurd assumption on the part of Wallace and CBS that has no basis in reality.  They still think he's a fine gentleman. I know they'll take his side in any future conflicts, as will most people on this board.  No, you're wrong. That last part is so absurd, based on absolutely nothing anyone has actually said here and off the topic at hand that it's beyond being funny. "OH NOES!!! THE LIBERALS SAID THINGS!!!" Please.I don't know why you are even bothering with him. He's a troll who shows up once a week, spews his shitty cliches and then disappears again.

Midkiff

02-12-2007, 06:32 PM

patsopinion wrote: It might be nice to start over. it was after ww3 that we discover warp according to star trek.  In order to create perfection you first need a blank canvas.   hahahahahha friggin golden dude

epo

02-12-2007, 07:50 PM

Umm...this Iran thing...not so fast.  According to this Voice of America article from today, General Pace says we don't know shit yet about the Iranian Government being involved.  <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm">Link here.</a>

keithy_19

02-12-2007, 08:38 PM

keithy_19

02-12-2007, 08:41 PM

I know we can blame the president, we can blame his cabinet, we can blame the generals, we can blame all the republicans, we can blame the democrats, we can blame all the people who supported the war, we can blame all the people that voted for bush, we could blame all the people who didnt vote for kerry, orWe can all blame the peoplein iraq, whether being Iraqi, or Iranian, whoa re killing are troops. I know that all things stem from someplace. But it seems there is more outcry about the past and not the fact that people are killing Americans. That's what it seems to me at least.

HBox

02-12-2007, 08:46 PM

Midkiff

02-12-2007, 08:48 PM

I guess it all boils down to the fact that we are barely sentient monkeys two hairs above eating each other. As long as superstition rules our lives, monkeys is what we'll always be- killing each other like the chimps in Faces of Death. A few of us have risen a tad above pond scum, but most of us haven't, and never will. Stupid people won't stop f**king, and modern medicine keeps their retard offspring alive and getting voted into office.

kellermcgee21

02-12-2007, 09:01 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: I guess it all boils down to the fact that we are barely sentient monkeys two hairs above eating each other. As long as superstition rules our lives, monkeys is what we'll always be- killing each other like the chimps in Faces of Death. A few of us have risen a tad above pond scum, but most of us haven't, and never will. Stupid people won't stop f**king, and modern medicine keeps their retard offspring alive and getting voted into office. ever see idiocracy?<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw">http://youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw</a>

Midkiff

02-12-2007, 09:09 PM

Holy yambags! Somebody read my mind!!!!

Snacks

02-12-2007, 09:38 PM

keithy_19 wrote: I know we can blame the president, we can blame his cabinet, we can blame the generals, we can blame all the republicans, we can blame the democrats, we can blame all the people who supported the war, we can blame all the people that voted for bush, we could blame all the people who didnt vote for kerry, orWe can all blame the peoplein iraq, whether being Iraqi, or Iranian, whoa re killing are troops. I know that all things stem from someplace. But it seems there is more outcry about the past and not the fact that people are killing Americans. That's what it seems to me at least. The reason you dont hear blame for the Iraqi's is this whole thing wouldnt have started if ..... thats why the blame goes elswhere. Some of the Iraqi's are fighting for what they think is right, the same way our soldiers are there fighting for what they think is right. The problem is Iraqi's never asked for our help, to come there and oust Sadam. A lot of them feel like we invaded their country so they are fighting us, the same way we would fight someone who invaded our country. Its the whole 2 sides thing.Its a shame, I think every American wishes that we can all go forward and create a free Iraq now, it just wont happen and to a lot of the world we look like the bad guy and for good reason. THe UN and almost every memeber country didnt want us to invade Iraq. It really was a no win situation for America. Everything would have had to be done with no hickups anything less would turn in to a disaster. Turns out not to be a hickups but a big throw up. The blame game will continue until its over, and that may be soon. The Iraqi's need to step up and help get their country going, but that wont work until we are out (IMO).

scottinnj

02-12-2007, 10:21 PM

Having voted for Bush twice, and falling hook, line and sinker to Secretary Powell's presentation at the U.N. and now feeling like a 2 dollar whore at sunrise: HOW MUCH OF THIS IS TRUE, AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS CHENEY'S BULLSHIT?

scottinnj

02-12-2007, 11:04 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: Holy yambags! Somebody read my mind!!!! Wasn't me...I never saw Faces of Death.  What did the monkies do?

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 03:04 AM

ChrisTheCop wrote: Snacks wrote: I agree with yerdaddy on everything he wrote, but doesnt the American people deserve some of the blame as well? Americans voted him in 2000 and never said boo when he hijacked the presidency, and then after everything had happened over the next 4 years the majority of voting Americans releceted the puppet and his masters.I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down.  I'd start a poll,but I dont think I'd get honest answers. Only you can answer in your heart, because it's definitely uncool these days to say you WERE for the invasion....but who among us wasnt glued to CNN on the day and time the president stated we'd start.....and when it started...who among us wasnt shouting, "YEAH....BOOM goes the Dynamite!!!" "Shock and Awe, babay!!" or words to that affect....and/or, being a little disappointed that it wasnt shocking or aweing enough?I know, go ahead and say, "I was appalled from the get go..." I say BS.My point is, if youre upset with the way things are going, ya gotta accept a teeny weeny bit of the blame. And no, I'm not leaving the board for this.  During the invasion of Iraq I wasn't able to post "boom goes the dynamite" because I had been banned from this board for my political views. The guy who banned me had built up a visceral hatred of me because I had been opposed to the war and critical of Israel. It was Jon who intervened, reviewed my grievances, reviewed the history and reversed the decision dispite the fact that he had personal and practical reasons to let the ruling stand. He earned a level of respect that day that can never be lost. He can come over to my house and fuck my sister. (Then again, everyone else does.) That story is a metaphor for what the climate was like in America before the war. I was demonized for being against the war even though I was citing the Army War College, military generals, Bush's father, Department of Energy, hell the reports the administration was citing for reasons for the war were often reasons not to go to war. Anyway, I was being me. I was posting thousands of words full of links and sources and all the bullshit I do now and I was treated by the pro-war people exactly like I'm treated now: I was insulted, ignored, my words were always distorted, my patriotism was questioned many times...I haven't changed anything in five fucking years. Now you're telling me I was cheering the war and I should take my share of the blame and shut up? Do you really believe I'm going to forget all that I've said and done over these years - watching the damage being done to Iraq and America and predicting the general trends before they happen because I'm paying so close attention so it's like it's all happening in slow motion for me - do you really think that I'm going to pretend that it was impossible to make a rational decision about whether we should have gone to war or whether to keep blindly supporting Bush as he made arrogant mistake after arrogant mistake in conducting this war and eventually losing it? You think I should give all you guys a Mulligan for that? I should let you all go on watching your Fox "News" and right-wing radio for ways to win arguements without listening to mine, or to belittle and insult me instead of debating me civilly or even asking yourself if I'm even worthy of listening to - even when I'm citing the Army on questions of war? You just want me to go away and let you guys go on doing things the way you done for the last 15 years? Well, Chris, some days I'm real fucking close. Other days I

kellermcgee21

02-13-2007, 03:28 AM

I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference.  All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world.  Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave.

This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM

sailor

02-13-2007, 03:36 AM

kellermcgee21 wrote: I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference. All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave. This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM it doesn't chance chris's point that the majority of the people were in favor of the war.  all yerdaddy had to say was not me, but that's not how he rolls.

kellermcgee21

02-13-2007, 03:45 AM

sailor wrote: kellermcgee21 wrote: I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference. All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave. This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM  it doesn't chance chris's point that the majority of the people were in favor of the war.  all yerdaddy had to say was not me, but that's not how he rolls. well chris did say "My point is, if youre upset with the way things are going, ya gotta accept a teeny weeny bit of the blame."  You have to expect that to get a reaction from Yerdaddy....especially after he laid out the loser leaves town challenge to Matty earlier in this thread over pretty much saying the same thing.  And that's why I love yerdaddy's posts because he takes his stand and backs it up.... and you can tell he does care about politics and the state of the world.

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 03:49 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: This strategy of positing the fallacy that the democrats who voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq were voting for the war and thus are equally responsible is pure extremist conservative ideology and is what got us this war in the first place and then lost it for us. It is responsible for all of the costs to America of this false and failed war in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and national security. It seeks to shield from democratic accountability those who are most responsible for it - "if the dems are equally responsible then you might as well keep voting republican." It is a dangerous lie that will be put forward non-stop on Fox "News" until the 2008 elections. I'm having trouble coming up with the words to describe how much contempt I have for that lie and people who knowingly put it forward. Daddy, I think you're over reacting here. Its not a "fallacy" to simply point out that their was broad bi-partisan support for this war. Its a fact. And why do both parties seek bi-partisan support for policies? For political cover, plain and simple. Politics 101. I also think that no matter what ANYONE says, this is Bush's war and will be remembered forever so. You dont expect them to come out and say "Yeah we fucked up, now go vote for Hillary you crazy kids! See ya in 2012!" Sure they're seeking to spread the blame, but they're also setting up a counter punch that you haven't seen coming, because of your intense feelings about this administration. It's this. Hillary is going around saying she was "lied to" by this administration <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/02/12" title="Here's the 1st campaign commercial ">Not true, by her own statements</a> (re Monday Morning politics segment). If Hillary was able to be duped by this administration, how will she fare with Foriegn leaders? With those (Lobbyists/Interest groups/fill in the blank) in Washington? Is she really READY to assume the Oval Office, if she's so gullible?Here's the 1st '08 campaign commercial (cue the dark, creepy music) bmmmmmmmmmm "Can we AFFORD to take that RISK??" Electing the 1st female Pres will make many voters uncomfortable, many if not most of them women. Republicans will seek to exploit that every chance they get, Hillary will try to reassure everyone that she's a safe bet. We'll see who's the better salesman, but I dont think Hillary is much of a salesperson myself.  You're skipping over some basic political truths about the role of democrats and the lead-up to the war: They were the opposition in the executive and legislative branch of government. That means public debate is domated by the Bully Pulpits of the White House and both houses of Congress. The White House controlled the entire intelligence community and could and did determine what information the Congress and the public did and did not have access to. And, being the minority, dems in Congress had no power to ask for more than they got. (If, in 2008, the standard for choosing the president is the ability to thwart the elected leadership of the entire federal government and make the intelligence community provide them the truth with no constitutional authority to do so, then you can just go ahead and make Bush President-for-life now and get it over with.)Second, Bush was making public statements that he wanted peaceful resolutions to the Iraq issue. Nobody believed him. He wanted war. But the resolution to authorize force was predicated on the assumption that Bush would exhaust all peaceful options before resorting to war. It was a fact at the time that in order for Bush to push policies of diplomacy, forcing in inspectors, or launching the war he had to have the authorization fr

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 03:54 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: high fly wrote: K.C. wrote: dschef wrote: Wouldn't an extreme conservative ideology be isolationist? Which is what this country should do. True. That's the mistake Yerdaddy made in his assessment. It's not Pat Buchanan isolationism, which is extreme conservatism, that's being practiced...it's neo-conservatism. A better term would be Wilsonian make-the-world-safe-for-democracy wild-eyed liberalism...So true. There is very little that is "conservative" about this policy, and administration.  So why does virtually everyone who calls themselves a conservative keep voting for him? You're like Muslims! Whenever it's convenient various subgroups of Muslims are thrown out or lumped in with the rest of the herd depending on whether they're an asset or an embarassment to the topic of conversation. Take a little responsibility. He's a shithead. Yes. But if you voted for him he's your shithead!

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 04:07 AM

scottinnj wrote: Having voted for Bush twice, and falling hook, line and sinker to Secretary Powell's presentation at the U.N. and now feeling like a 2 dollar whore at sunrise: HOW MUCH OF THIS IS TRUE, AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS CHENEY'S BULLSHIT?Somebody did a big piece a few months ago on this question based on interviews with Powell, his staff chief, Cheney's people and others. It had to be in the WP, NYT or the New Yorker, but I lost my flash memory with most of my files and I can't post it now. Remind me again later and I'll try to find it. There's been alot written on this subject but that was the one based on so many interviews with the primaries.

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 04:10 AM

sailor wrote: kellermcgee21 wrote: I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference. All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave. This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM  it doesn't chance chris's point that the majority of the people were in favor of the war.  all yerdaddy had to say was not me, but that's not how he rolls. There are some people who I respond to more seriously specifically because I do respect them. Chris is one of those people.

booster11373

02-13-2007, 04:33 AM

Do you think that the Bush Cheney admin has nothing left to lose? and they say fuck the people and party that elected us we dont have to run again and we have a shit load of money and will get a shit load more no matter what, so lets invade Iran it really wont be our problem for long, we will fuck over  who ever gets elected next so what do we care

Midkiff

02-13-2007, 04:37 AM

scottinnj wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Holy yambags! Somebody read my mind!!!! Wasn't me...I never saw Faces of Death.  What did the monkies do?They would get a wild hair up their asses and decide to gang up on one of their own. They frigging kill one of their own chimp brothers, rip him/her/or baby in pieces, then you'd see their monkey asses sitting in the trees feasting on bloody chimp parts. Mmmm yummy.

sailor

02-13-2007, 05:34 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: sailor wrote: kellermcgee21 wrote: I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference. All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave. This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM it doesn't chance chris's point that the majority of the people were in favor of the war. all yerdaddy had to say was not me, but that's not how he rolls. There are some people who I respond to more seriously specifically because I do respect them. Chris is one of those people.  i was just saying the quick two-word post isn't your style.  i saw chris's post as a challenge to everyone, not a piece of disrespect directed at you.  regardless, that's between you two, i s'pose.

foodcourtdruide

02-13-2007, 06:04 AM

sailor

02-13-2007, 06:18 AM

foodcourtdruide wrote: ChrisTheCop wrote: Snacks wrote: I agree with yerdaddy on everything he wrote, but doesnt the American people deserve some of the blame as well? Americans voted him in 2000 and never said boo when he hijacked the presidency, and then after everything had happened over the next 4 years the majority of voting Americans releceted the puppet and his masters.I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down.  I'd start a poll,but I dont think I'd get honest answers. Only you can answer in your heart, because it's definitely uncool these days to say you WERE for the invasion....but who among us wasnt glued to CNN on the day and time the president stated we'd start.....and when it started...who among us wasnt shouting, "YEAH....BOOM goes the Dynamite!!!" "Shock and Awe, babay!!" or words to that affect....and/or, being a little disappointed that it wasnt shocking or aweing enough?I know, go ahead and say, "I was appalled from the get go..." I say BS.My point is, if youre upset with the way things are going, ya gotta accept a teeny weeny bit of the blame. And no, I'm not leaving the board for this. I can 100% honestly say that when I saw those bombs dropping my first thought was how many innocent people were being killed. It's the same reaction I had when Israel leveled Lebanon.Fortunately, not all American males in this country think that the Iraqi war is a video game. Sorry, you're wrong about this.  so you're opposed to all war?  if so i can respect that.

Midkiff

02-13-2007, 06:29 AM

I actually am opposed to all war other than true self-defense. By that I mean literally a bunch of strapped dudes lined up on the border ready to march in and take over. It's the same as violence between individuals - it shouldn't happen other than self-defense.

sailor

02-13-2007, 06:35 AM

jdmidkiff wrote: I actually am opposed to all war other than true self-defense. By that I mean literally a bunch of strapped dudes lined up on the border ready to march in and take over. It's the same as violence between individuals - it shouldn't happen other than self-defense. cool.  it's odd, because you have a lot of anger in your posts (in various threads).  not your typical pacifist.

foodcourtdruide

02-13-2007, 06:37 AM

sailor wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: ChrisTheCop wrote: Snacks wrote: I agree with yerdaddy on everything he wrote, but doesnt the American people deserve some of the blame as well? Americans voted him in 2000 and never said boo when he hijacked the presidency, and then after everything had happened over the next 4 years the majority of voting Americans releceted the puppet and his masters.I Blame Bush, I Blame the red staters for thinking and voting based on religious beliefs and not thinking for themselves. I Blame the dems for not fighting Bush the same way he fought the DEms, the dems should have gotten personal and nasty instead of backing down. I'd start a poll,but I dont think I'd get honest answers. Only you can answer in your heart, because it's definitely uncool these days to say you WERE for the invasion....but who among us wasnt glued to CNN on the day and time the president stated we'd start.....and when it started...who among us wasnt shouting, "YEAH....BOOM goes the Dynamite!!!" "Shock and Awe, babay!!" or words to that affect....and/or, being a little disappointed that it wasnt shocking or aweing enough?I know, go ahead and say, "I was appalled from the get go..." I say BS.My point is, if youre upset with the way things are going, ya gotta accept a teeny weeny bit of the blame. And no, I'm not leaving the board for this. I can 100% honestly say that when I saw those bombs dropping my first thought was how many innocent people were being killed. It's the same reaction I had when Israel leveled Lebanon.Fortunately, not all American males in this country think that the Iraqi war is a video game. Sorry, you're wrong about this.  so you're opposed to all war?  if so i can respect that. I understand why wars need to be fought. I'm no passivist, but seeing innocent people die is still sad and I think it's callous to root for bigger explosions when you know innocent people are being killed.

sailor

02-13-2007, 06:40 AM

foodcourtdruide wrote: sailor wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: I can 100% honestly say that when I saw those bombs dropping my first thought was how many innocent people were being killed. It's the same reaction I had when Israel leveled Lebanon.Fortunately, not all American males in this country think that the Iraqi war is a video game. Sorry, you're wrong about this. so you're opposed to all war? if so i can respect that. I understand why wars need to be fought. I'm no passivist, but seeing innocent people die is still sad and I think it's callous to root for bigger explosions when you know innocent people are being killed.   i can see that.  i disagree, but i can see your point.  i also misread your original post.

Midkiff

02-13-2007, 06:46 AM

sailor wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: I actually am opposed to all war other than true self-defense. By that I mean literally a bunch of strapped dudes lined up on the border ready to march in and take over. It's the same as violence between individuals - it shouldn't happen other than self-defense.  cool.  it's odd, because you have a lot of anger in your posts (in various threads).  not your typical pacifist. I guess that's true. I think it comes from just being tired of being trodden on for so long as a peacenik/treehugger/environmentalist, and at least a halfway intelligent person and a nice guy. It gets really old being shat on for being those things. If you combine that with enough physical size and strength to actually be somewhat physically intimidating to at least the average size person, and an upbringing nowhere near violence-free, you end up with a peace-lover not at all hesitant to use violence to enforce peace. I'm the only tree-hugger I know who carries knucks and keeps something next to the bed ready to splatter an intruder's brains like any good homophobic republican.I don't know where I was going there.

Yerdaddy

02-13-2007, 09:07 AM

sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: sailor wrote: kellermcgee21 wrote: I don't blame Yerdaddy for feeling insulted....many times I have seen you give a in depth look at an issue with information we wouldn't see otherwise and it is met with indifference. All I can say is it would be a sad day when we knew we wouldn't be hearing your side of whatever's going down in some far corner of the world. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears and I would bet that if you made a poll asking if ronfez.net wanted you to stay it would be 90% to stay with 10% assholes with an agenda to have you leave. This message was edited by kellermcgee21 on 2-13-07 @ 7:33 AM it doesn't chance chris's point that the majority of the people were in favor of the war. all yerdaddy had to say was not me, but that's not how he rolls. There are some people who I respond to more seriously specifically because I do respect them. Chris is one of those people.  i was just saying the quick two-word post isn't your style.  i saw chris's post as a challenge to everyone, not a piece of disrespect directed at you.  regardless, that's between you two, i s'pose. Actually here's how I roll: Last night I watched a girl open a beer bottle with her pussy, another one pull 30 razor blades out of hers, another shot ping pong balls across the room, another shot darts at balloons and then pulled the darts out of the ceiling, another sucked up clear liquid from one coke bottle and squirted out black liquid, then I checked out a few clubs with names like "Super Pussy" and "Girl Sex" and another one with just the KISS logo, got hit on by about a dozen ladyboys and a half dozen whoers, turned down the 16 year-old just outside my hotel before turning in alone. Today I'm obsessed with the thought that my country is in the process of needlessly provoking a global conflict that will kill millions and last generations and the public is too busy fighting against each other to pay attention to what's happening and possibly prevent this from happening. The feeling is only made worse by the fact that I've been pretty good at predicting events to this point. So yeah, I roll like... well... Bill Clinton? Fuck.

A.J.

02-13-2007, 09:11 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Last night I watched a girl open a beer bottle with her pussy, another one pull 30 razor blades out of hers, another shot ping pong balls across the room, another shot darts at balloons and then pulled the darts out of the ceiling, another sucked up clear liquid from one coke bottle and squirted out black liquid, then I checked out a few clubs with names like "Super Pussy" and "Girl Sex" and another one with just the KISS logo, got hit on by about a dozen ladyboys and a half dozen whoers, turned down the 16 year-old just outside my hotel before turning in alone. They SO need Islam over there.

Bulldogcakes

02-13-2007, 03:55 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:Second, Bush was making public statements that he wanted peaceful resolutions to the Iraq issue. Nobody believed him. He wanted war. But the resolution to authorize force was predicated on the assumption that Bush would exhaust all peaceful options before resorting to war. It was a fact at the time that in order for Bush to push policies of diplomacy, forcing in inspectors, or launching the war he had to have the authorization from Congress. All options - peaceful or otherwise - were contingent on that one resolution. Exactly, no one believed him, so how can anyone claim they didn't think he'd take that authorization and run with it? Are they arguing that they didn't understand what they were voting for and who they were giving it to? If so, they are arguing their own incompetance. As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts.  The dems had a choice of authorizing the use of force as submitted by congressional republican leadership or vote against it and be accused of tying Bush's hands. That's also why the resolution was brought up for a vote three weeks before the mid-term elections. Republicans were calling disabled war vets cowards and traitors for not supporting the war. And they were winning elections by doing it. So each democrat was faced with possible political suicide - before the administration's public claims about the necessity of going to war could be verified - depending on how they judged their constituencies' feelings on the war. The democrats could only roll the dice, vote one way or another, and submit floor speeches defining their exact position on that particular resolution. Yes the Dems were spineless, in retrospect. But let's backtrack. Its late 2002, 9/11 is still fresh in everyone's mind. And lets face it, Democrats have a reputation (deserved or not) for being wussies in middle America. They WANTED to look tough by supporting the war, and some of the NY Dems (and others I'm sure) supported the war because if successfully prosecuted (and it looked like a slam dunk at the time) they thought it could help foster peace in the Middle East. As far as the arm twisting and the way Republicans backed Dems into a corner, thats just good politics right there. Though I'm sure it sucks to be on the wrong end of it. Give Bush credit, he played the politics perfectly. Too bad he didn't put as much thought into the policy.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-13-07 @ 8:01 PM

high fly

02-13-2007, 06:34 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:  That story is a metaphor for what the climate was like in America before the war. I was demonized for being against the war even though I was citing the Army War College, military generals, Bush's father, Department of Energy, hell the reports the administration was citing for reasons for the war were often reasons not to go to war. Anyway, I was being me. I was posting thousands of words full of links and sources and all the bullshit I do now and I was treated by the pro-war people exactly like I'm treated now: I was insulted, ignored, my words were always distorted, my patriotism was questioned many times...Back then I was getting a lot of mileage from Pat Buchannon's prediction beforehand that we would be taking to orselves a California-sized West Bank to call our very own.One clue that should have been obvious was when the inspectors were there and we were sending them hither and yon and they kept coming up with squadoosh.Time after time       nothing.I've always liked the reasoning that the reason we didn't find all that WMD and those underground production and storage facilities is because in the dead of night, when no one was looking, Saddam loaded it all up, tunnels and all, on the backs of flatbed trailers and sent it off to Syria.That way, just when the Butcher of Baghdad needed his WMD the most, it would be out of reach.

high fly

02-13-2007, 06:53 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: . As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts. Why the hell do some people think we are the UN?We are the U. S.Those resolutions were between the UN and Iraq. When force was authorized, it was with the understanding that Bush would keep his word and get a UN resolution authorizing the U.S. tostep in abd help a dispute between Iraq and the UN.The inspectors DID go back in, and Bush pulled them out.Before Bush, we spent a grand total of $12 billion over 12 years to keep Saddam in his box and no Americans died, except when we scored what the call in soccer an "own goal" when we shot down one of our own helicopters over Kurdistan.Lost in all this is America's strategic interest in the Gulf. Before Bush and the neocons, we not only had a measure of stability in the Gulf which kept the price of crude low, we also had, in Iraq, a strategic check on Iranian ambitions. Now with Iran's biggest enemy in the Gulf removed, Iran's influence has grown dramatically, at our expense. We now have a government in Iraq with a constitution based on the Koran, and we have handed Iran's allies, the Iraqian Shiites political power. It looks as if George W. Bush is trying to outdo Ronald "Dutch" Reagan in rewarding the Iranians.Sure would like to see Bulldog discuss this one at length.

high fly

02-13-2007, 06:53 PM

Sorry gang for the double post

This message was edited by high fly on 2-14-07 @ 3:33 PM

Snacks

02-13-2007, 06:54 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Exactly, no one believed him, so how can anyone claim they didn't think he'd take that authorization and run with it? Are they arguing that they didn't understand what they were voting for and who they were giving it to? If so, they are arguing their own incompetance. As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- True, but yet the UN never approved war like actions. They denied a request to go to war and Bush went anyway.I would love to know how many if any UN Resolutions condeming America there are? Is there a way to find out which countries and for what and how many each nation might have?

Snacks

02-13-2007, 07:03 PM

high fly wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: . As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts. Why the hell do some people think we are the UN?We are the U. S.Those resolutions were between the UN and Iraq. When force was authorized, it was with the understanding that Bush would keep his word and get a UN resolution authorizing the U.S. tostep in abd help a dispute between Iraq and the UN.The inspectors DID go back in, and Bush pulled them out.Before Bush, we spent a grand total of $12 billion over 12 years to keep Saddam in his box and no Americans died, except when we scored what the call in soccer an "own goal" when we shot down one of our own helicopters over Kurdistan.Lost in all this is America's strategic interest in the Gulf. Before Bush and the neocons, we not only had a measure of stability in the Gulf which kept the price of crude low, we also had, in Iraq, a strategic check on Iranian ambitions. Now with Iran's biggest enemy in the Gulf removed, Iran's influence has grown dramatically, at our expense. We now have a government in Iraq with a constitution based on the Koran, and we have handed Iran's allies, the Iraqian Shiites political power. It looks as if George W. Bush is trying to outdo Ronald "Dutch" Reagan in rewarding the Iranians.Sure would like to see Bulldog discuss this one at length.Agreed. Thats the eason why most who think the world really isnt a better place without Sadam. Not because he wasnt a bad man he was, but his country and that area od the middle east was under somewhat control, plus Iran back in the day had a similar enemy with us Iraq, now if Iraq becomes under control of Iran whos fault is that? Ours. Everyone wants to bitch about sadam, nothing will change, its like reverse racsim. When Sadam was incontrol 1 type of muslim was in power and the others wsuffered and were poor. Now the other muslim sec is in power and the other has now become the poor and suffering. The only thing this waqr has accomplished is: moew hate, hi oil prices, hate towards america around the world, a huge American divide, deaths of thousands of Americans and close to a million Iraqi's. Anyone who can actualy say anything that has happened since GW Bush has become president is a good thing or the world is better off is crazy.I would rather have a president getting blow job then a president who has fucked up America and the world with self serving interest.

keithy_19

02-13-2007, 07:38 PM

Snacks wrote: high fly wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: . As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts. Why the hell do some people think we are the UN?We are the U. S.Those resolutions were between the UN and Iraq. When force was authorized, it was with the understanding that Bush would keep his word and get a UN resolution authorizing the U.S. tostep in abd help a dispute between Iraq and the UN.The inspectors DID go back in, and Bush pulled them out.Before Bush, we spent a grand total of $12 billion over 12 years to keep Saddam in his box and no Americans died, except when we scored what the call in soccer an "own goal" when we shot down one of our own helicopters over Kurdistan.Lost in all this is America's strategic interest in the Gulf. Before Bush and the neocons, we not only had a measure of stability in the Gulf which kept the price of crude low, we also had, in Iraq, a strategic check on Iranian ambitions. Now with Iran's biggest enemy in the Gulf removed, Iran's influence has grown dramatically, at our expense. We now have a government in Iraq with a constitution based on the Koran, and we have handed Iran's allies, the Iraqian Shiites political power. It looks as if George W. Bush is trying to outdo Ronald "Dutch" Reagan in rewarding the Iranians.Sure would like to see Bulldog discuss this one at length.Agreed. Thats the eason why most who think the world really isnt a better place without Sadam. Not because he wasnt a bad man he was, but his country and that area od the middle east was under somewhat control, plus Iran back in the day had a similar enemy with us Iraq, now if Iraq becomes under control of Iran whos fault is that? Ours. Everyone wants to bitch about sadam, nothing will change, its like reverse racsim. When Sadam was incontrol 1 type of muslim was in power and the others wsuffered and were poor. Now the other muslim sec is in power and the other has now become the poor and suffering. The only thing this waqr has accomplished is: moew hate, hi oil prices, hate towards america around the world, a huge American divide, deaths of thousands of Americans and close to a million Iraqi's. Anyone who can actualy say anything that has happened since GW Bush has become president is a good thing or the world is better off is crazy.I would rather have a president getting blow job then a president who has fucked up America and the world with self serving interest.Fags can't get married, douche bag. Wooo! EDIT:: That was a joke. Just for the readers notice. 

This message was edited by keithy_19 on 2-13-07 @ 11:39 PM

HBox

02-13-2007, 07:40 PM

keithy_19 wrote: Snacks wrote: high fly wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: . As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts. Why the hell do some people think we are the UN?We are the U. S.Those resolutions were between the UN and Iraq. When force was authorized, it was with the understanding that Bush would keep his word and get a UN resolution authorizing the U.S. tostep in abd help a dispute between Iraq and the UN.The inspectors DID go back in, and Bush pulled them out.Before Bush, we spent a grand total of $12 billion over 12 years to keep Saddam in his box and no Americans died, except when we scored what the call in soccer an "own goal" when we shot down one of our own helicopters over Kurdistan.Lost in all this is America's strategic interest in the Gulf. Before Bush and the neocons, we not only had a measure of stability in the Gulf which kept the price of crude low, we also had, in Iraq, a strategic check on Iranian ambitions. Now with Iran's biggest enemy in the Gulf removed, Iran's influence has grown dramatically, at our expense. We now have a government in Iraq with a constitution based on the Koran, and we have handed Iran's allies, the Iraqian Shiites political power. It looks as if George W. Bush is trying to outdo Ronald "Dutch" Reagan in rewarding the Iranians.Sure would like to see Bulldog discuss this one at length.Agreed. Thats the eason why most who think the world really isnt a better place without Sadam. Not because he wasnt a bad man he was, but his country and that area od the middle east was under somewhat control, plus Iran back in the day had a similar enemy with us Iraq, now if Iraq becomes under control of Iran whos fault is that? Ours. Everyone wants to bitch about sadam, nothing will change, its like reverse racsim. When Sadam was incontrol 1 type of muslim was in power and the others wsuffered and were poor. Now the other muslim sec is in power and the other has now become the poor and suffering. The only thing this waqr has accomplished is: moew hate, hi oil prices, hate towards america around the world, a huge American divide, deaths of thousands of Americans and close to a million Iraqi's. Anyone who can actualy say anything that has happened since GW Bush has become president is a good thing or the world is better off is crazy.I would rather have a president getting blow job then a president who has fucked up America and the world with self serving interest.Fags can't get married, douche bag. Wooo! EDIT:: That was a joke. Just for the readers notice. This message was edited by keithy_19 on 2-13-07 @ 11:39 PM[size=2]Actually, more fags can get married today than when Bush entered office.

Yerdaddy

02-14-2007, 01:53 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Second, Bush was making public statements that he wanted peaceful resolutions to the Iraq issue. Nobody believed him. He wanted war. But the resolution to authorize force was predicated on the assumption that Bush would exhaust all peaceful options before resorting to war. It was a fact at the time that in order for Bush to push policies of diplomacy, forcing in inspectors, or launching the war he had to have the authorization from Congress. All options - peaceful or otherwise - were contingent on that one resolution.Exactly, no one believed him, so how can anyone claim they didn't think he'd take that authorization and run with it? Are they arguing that they didn't understand what they were voting for and who they were giving it to? If so, they are arguing their own incompetance. As far as the peaceful options go, there were 17(?) UN Resolutions condemning Iraq in the 10 years since Gulf 1, many of them demanding inspectors be let back in to no avail. There were various inspection regimes set up and Saddam constantly played games with them (BTW-as did WE according to Frmr Chf Insp Scott Ritter). Sanctions were in place since Gulf 1, and only the people suffered as a result, not Saddam. The Food for Oil program became a fiasco. Peaceful options were tried exhaustively since the Gulf War TEN years earlier (with sporadic exceptions when Clinton was bombing Iraq every 5 minutes). To claim we just needed to try again is to ignore all prior efforts.  The dems had a choice of authorizing the use of force as submitted by congressional republican leadership or vote against it and be accused of tying Bush's hands. That's also why the resolution was brought up for a vote three weeks before the mid-term elections. Republicans were calling disabled war vets cowards and traitors for not supporting the war. And they were winning elections by doing it. So each democrat was faced with possible political suicide - before the administration's public claims about the necessity of going to war could be verified - depending on how they judged their constituencies' feelings on the war. The democrats could only roll the dice, vote one way or another, and submit floor speeches defining their exact position on that particular resolution.  Yes the Dems were spineless, in retrospect. But let's backtrack. Its late 2002, 9/11 is still fresh in everyone's mind. And lets face it, Democrats have a reputation (deserved or not) for being wussies in middle America. They WANTED to look tough by supporting the war, and some of the NY Dems (and others I'm sure) supported the war because if successfully prosecuted (and it looked like a slam dunk at the time) they thought it could help foster peace in the Middle East. As far as the arm twisting and the way Republicans backed Dems into a corner, thats just good politics right there. Though I'm sure it sucks to be on the wrong end of it. Give Bush credit, he played the politics perfectly. Too bad he didn't put as much thought into the policy. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-13-07 @ 8:01 PM I'll change up the order of your points a bit:You're saying that the inspections didn't work and were not a good alternative to war. Thus the dems actually had only two choices - vote for or against the war. The republicans proposed the resolution knowing the dems had a reputation as pussies to overcome. It was also assumed at the time that the administration would prosecute the war successfully. The dems went along to look tough and take credit for the benefits they expected to come from this. Republicans deserve credit for playing the politics of all this right.Let me know if this isn't an accurate su

high fly

02-14-2007, 11:20 AM

I was demonized for being against the war even though I was citing the Army War College, military generals, Bush's father, Department of Energy, hell the reports the administration was citing for reasons for the war were often reasons not to go to war. Anyway, I was being me. I was posting thousands of words full of links and sources and all the bullshit I do now and I was treated by the pro-war people exactly like I'm treated now: I was insulted, ignored, my words were always distorted, my patriotism was questioned many times... Yerdaddy, back in the 60s I had the pleasure and honor of knowing a man who opposed the Vietnam War early on.Circa 1964, he said,"We don't want to piss away our resources in that rathole."On May 14, 1966 in a speech at Pierce College, he came out publicly against the war, saying in part,"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own."and about SE Asia,"... as related to the present and future safety and freedom of the people of this country" was not "worth the life or limb of a single American."In 1968, this fine man appeared in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He opened by sarcastically thanking them for letting him speak,"Particularly when you think that now an Indiana farm boy has been asked to come here and talk about maters of great national interest and to give his views without any fear of reprisal whatsoever except being called a dissenter, a traitor, and being accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That is all."The speaker was Genuine American Hero General David Shoup who earned the Medal of Honor leading Marines in some of the most vicious fighting of World War II at a place known as Tarawa.And asked about a 1968 version of a "surge," and how many troops it would take to win, Shoup said,"I think you can just pull any figure you wanted out of a hat and that would not be enough."And one last Shoup quote on patriotism:"The courage of one's convictions and the willingness to speak the truth as one sees it for the good of the country is what patriotism really means - far more than flags and bands and the national anthem."

This message was edited by high fly on 2-14-07 @ 4:11 PM

sr71blackbird

02-14-2007, 11:37 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Last night I watched a girl open a beer bottle with her pussy, another one pull 30 razor blades out of hers, another shot ping pong balls across the room, another shot darts at balloons and then pulled the darts out of the ceiling, another sucked up clear liquid from one coke bottle and squirted out black liquid, then I checked out a few clubs with names like "Super Pussy" and "Girl Sex" and another one with just the KISS logo, got hit on by about a dozen ladyboys and a half dozen whoers, turned down the 16 year-old just outside my hotel before turning in alone. They SO need Islam over there.And what exactly is Yerdaddy doing over there hmmm..?

Midkiff

02-14-2007, 11:41 AM

General David Shoup was obviously awesome. I frigging bow to him. I need to go find his grave and put flowers on it.

mendyweiss

02-14-2007, 11:46 AM

<img src="http://www.findagrave.com/photos/2001/222/shoupdavidm.jpg" border="0" width="400" height="572" /> jdmidkiff wrote: General David Shoup was obviously awesome. I frigging bow to him. I need to go find his grave and put flowers on it.

high fly

02-14-2007, 12:04 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: General David Shoup was obviously awesome. I frigging bow to him. I need to go find his grave and put flowers on it. He was a tremendous warrior and patriot.Someone once said (accurately) that he had eyes like holes burned in an old blanket.There is another lesson we can learn from this hero. Shoup was Commandant of the Marine Corps during the Cuban Missile Crisis.At the time, many were arguing for an invasion of Cuba because they felt we had to go by a worse-case scenario and it was the only way to be certain the Soviets had taken out their nukes.(Just in case Castro foiled UN inspectors or sumthin)Shoup got real pissed off about the invasion plan because it didn't have a large enough force (cough cough) and finally briefed Kennedy and advised him to not invade.It was not until after the Cold War wasover that it came out that the Soviets had 70 tactical nukes in Cuba we knew nothing about. Orders were given to use them if America invaded. This would have brought on World War II and all of us likely would not be alive. But to some, General David Shoup was a traitor. They and their kind are rather common today.    

This message was edited by high fly on 2-14-07 @ 4:07 PM

TheMojoPin

02-14-2007, 08:34 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Last night I watched a girl open a beer bottle with her pussy, another one pull 30 razor blades out of hers, another shot ping pong balls across the room, another shot darts at balloons and then pulled the darts out of the ceiling, another sucked up clear liquid from one coke bottle and squirted out black liquid, then I checked out a few clubs with names like "Super Pussy" and "Girl Sex" and another one with just the KISS logo, got hit on by about a dozen ladyboys and a half dozen whoers, turned down the 16 year-old just outside my hotel before turning in alone. They SO need Islam over there.And what exactly is Yerdaddy doing over there hmmm..?If he's in Bangkok, I'll throw down a few hundred baht that he hit up the Firecat.

CaptClown

02-15-2007, 03:15 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: If he's in Bangkok, I'll throw down a few hundred baht that he hit up the Firecat.Isn't that 50 cent in US dollars?

Yerdaddy

02-15-2007, 11:36 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Last night I watched a girl open a beer bottle with her pussy, another one pull 30 razor blades out of hers, another shot ping pong balls across the room, another shot darts at balloons and then pulled the darts out of the ceiling, another sucked up clear liquid from one coke bottle and squirted out black liquid, then I checked out a few clubs with names like "Super Pussy" and "Girl Sex" and another one with just the KISS logo, got hit on by about a dozen ladyboys and a half dozen whoers, turned down the 16 year-old just outside my hotel before turning in alone. They SO need Islam over there.And what exactly is Yerdaddy doing over there hmmm..?If he's in Bangkok, I'll throw down a few hundred baht that he hit up the Firecat.You lose the few hundred baht, but I am writing the name down. Is it better than "Super Pussy"?