War Drums are making me edgy.......

[MikeJ]

Or maybe I watched too many John Wayne movies....Love the Yellow Ribbon one where he and the old Chief trade intros and the Old Chief is worried about the young braves and their cries of War. "Ho, Nathan....Let's go hunting...."


Well, at lunch today I watched ten minutes of news...War with Iran....War with North Korea.....Read more of the same in the daily paper....What the F&8%!

First Iran may or may not develop the big bomb. Not our problem, problem of the European, Mideast, and United Nations.

Second, Iran has about a million soldiers just wanting an excuse to fight and die for Allah. They would blow up oil refineries...ships, ports, and what ever they felt like doing.

Third, If Iran and N. Korea allied themselves, we could be forever in the MidEast and fighting like hell to hold South Korea. Then the friggin Muslims would start up in the Far East, Indonesia and whereever they could.

Fourth, I can't go on...getting a headache. Anyone realize that this kind of war could cost tens of thousands of American lives or even higher. Stretch us till we are broke. And for what?

[skrewt]

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer
dont be too worried the republicans can do much in the short time they have left in Washington, Hillary will keep any more men from dying over a barrel of oil.

The problem with Hillary is not people dying over oil, but at the hands of the ATF, FBI and oh yeah, park police.
Bill and Hill prefer to flex their muscle at home.

[RoBoTeq]

We are already at war with Iran in the aspect that we are at war with fundamentalist Muslims worldwide. This war is a war without borders and as was stated by the President before we ever invaded Afghanistan; this fight will be where ever the enemy dwells and it will be a long one.

Nobody listened.

[rob10]

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer
dont be too worried the republicans can do much in the short time they have left in Washington, Hillary will keep any more men from dying over a barrel of oil.

The problem with Hillary is not people dying over oil, but at the hands of the ATF, FBI and oh yeah, park police.
Bill and Hill prefer to flex their muscle at home.

And your point is what? At home is were we need the attention, not wraped around a barrel of oil.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f263/disesen/hillary1.jpg In the dark!!

[smokin68]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
We are already at war with Iran in the aspect that we are at war with fundamentalist Muslims worldwide. This war is a war without borders and as was stated by the President before we ever invaded Afghanistan; this fight will be where ever the enemy dwells and it will be a long one.

Nobody listened.


I listened. He stated that any country harboring terrorists will be treated as a terrorist nation themselves, but yet here is Pakistan,a known terrorist hideout, being left alone along the Afgan border,instead on driving Bin Laden right through that country. More Lip Service.

[RoBoTeq]

No; more diplomacy. Pakistan has been cooperationg with us as has Saudi Arabia which is another haven for terrorists. Countries like these are responding to diplomatic methods of taking care of the radical Muslims, so it just wouldn't be prudent to treat them the same way as we are treating non-cooperative countries.

[skrewt]

The truly naive thing for you to believe is that we can avoid this just by staying home.
We can send our troops to die fighting and lose 2000 over the course of 3 years or we can loose 3000 civilians every couple of years to repeat 9/11's.
I prefer to fight personally.
The world is in the pickle that it's in simply because the UN is a completely toothless and corrupt organization.
If we truly had a "United Nations" we would stand together against this kind of crap, rather than bicker till the cows come home every time an issue comes up.
The "head in the sand" strategy didn't work for Bill and it won't work for the next dem president.
But sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, they'll try.

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
No; more diplomacy. Pakistan has been cooperationg with us as has Saudi Arabia which is another haven for terrorists. Countries like these are responding to diplomatic methods of taking care of the radical Muslims, so it just wouldn't be prudent to treat them the same way as we are treating non-cooperative countries. Yes, their co-operation takes the form of providing cover for OBL and Al-Qaeda, proliferating nuclear material to terrorist states, supporting Al-qaeda, supporting other terrorist organizations and producing Dog and
Pony find the terroists shows. With friends like these.....

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
The truly naive thing for you to believe is that we can avoid this just by staying home.Who said anything about staying home? Support for the real war on terror, Afghanistan is near unanimous.

Too bad Bush diverted military and intelligence assets from the real war on terror to a nation that had no WMD, no ties to Al-Qaeda, hadn't attacked the U.S. or even had any plans to attack, was not a threat to the U.S.

Too bad Osama is still on the loose, Al-Qaeda is resurgent, the Taliban are growing stronger, acts of terrorism have tripled and quadrupled since 2003 and Al-Qaeda has a new training base in Iraq.

Too bad Bush's diversion from the war on terror to Iraq has resulted in thousands of casualties, billions of dollars pissed away or stolen and chaos if not civil war.




We can send our troops to die fighting and lose 2000 over the course of 3 years or we can loose 3000 civilians every couple of years to repeat 9/11's.
I prefer to fight personally.Laughable. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-qaeda.



If we truly had a "United Nations" we would stand together against this kind of crap, rather than bicker till the cows come home every time an issue comes up.Bush has already blown that option.


The "head in the sand" strategy didn't work for Bill and it won't work for the next dem president.
But sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, they'll try. Hyperbole and myth.

[MikeJ]

Iraq, Firaque. We got there and there is progress in building the Iraq Army and government. Same with Afghanistan.

But the drums are beating in a new direction and Bush has time enough to get us involved in another crisis over there.

I say no.

Get to the UN and if the UN can't handle it and we can't get at least a dozen nations to stand up with us, then let the Iranians and North Koreans build what they want. If then they cause problems with their neighbors, deal with it only if other nations join in. Otherwise, we will have more problems than you can imagine.

War is no longer the best way.

[RoBoTeq]

I was for going into Iran the moment I saw the brilliance of the strategic military standpoint of our being in Iraq. I cannot state this enough; get a map of the Middle East and Western Asia and outline Afghanistan and Iraq. Now! Every country that these two occupied countries border are our potential enemies that we should be prepared to enter at any given time.

[MikeJ]

Couldn't find a map yet but I did find:

http://www.meforum.org/about.php


Now, I gotta go clean the kitchen and get a roast or a C.B. Brisket ready to cook.

[1972torino]

what is this fetish you have with "dying over a barrel of oil"?we need oil?what powers your service van and your family car?...solar power?or maybe magic fairy dust?the sad truth is that we are slaves to the oil industry and it will take more than a war to change that

[RoBoTeq]

To make ascertations that we are in the Middle East over oil is just an ignorant distraction from the fact that we are at war with the Islamic world which has been attacking us worldwide over the past several decades.

Take a look at this map

http://i.infoplease.com/images/mapmiddleeast.gif

look at Iran. we are to the east of Iran in Afghanistan and have allied ourselves with Pakistan. To the West we on Iran's border with our troops in Iraq. To the South we have our battleships posed in the Gulf with permission from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and all other countries involved. To the north are either U.S. allies or a bunch of Stan contries that are in their own civil turmoil at this time.

We have brilliantly positioned ourselves at the devils doorsteps in the Middle East.

[smokin68]

Your statement would be true if you could trust those countries.What about Saudi Arabia and Jordan? I really trust Pakistan too.Serbia? The only one that might help is Kuwait, and it's tiny. We couldn't win a WW3 unless we get alot more firepower over there....

[skrewt]

Originally posted by smokin68
Your statement would be true if you could trust those countries.What about Saudi Arabia and Jordan? I really trust Pakistan too.Serbia? The only one that might help is Kuwait, and it's tiny. We couldn't win a WW3 unless we get alot more firepower over there....

I say we engage in a historically effective method of making the middle east one of our greatest allies.

Bomb them back to the stone age like we did Germany and Japan and they will become allies like Germany and Japan.

[MikeJ]

When we bombed Germany, (and we bombed that country with more devastation than the two A bombs on Japan), Germany had no more allies, no more friends in neighboring countries. At least none that could come to her aid. Also, Russia was approaching from the other side with a vengence.

Japan also was isolated with no help from others. The end was at hand and Japan's only hope was for them to decide how it would be. The A bombs changed that.

With the MidEast situations and Muslims numbering in the millions spread over many countries, your attitude of "bomb the hell out of them" is....well not well founded.

My original thoughts,

" Well, at lunch today I watched ten minutes of news...War with Iran....War with North Korea.....Read more of the same in the daily paper....What the F&8%!

Iran has about a million soldiers just wanting an excuse to fight and die for Allah. They would blow up oil refineries...ships, ports, and what ever they felt like doing.

If Iran and N. Korea allied themselves, we could be forever in the MidEast and fighting like hell to hold South Korea. Then the friggin Muslims would start up in the Far East, Indonesia and whereever they could.


Thanks for the map Robo, and as you can see:

Kazakhstan: The largest of the Stan countries with a 47% Muslim pop, 44% Russian Orthodox, 2% Protestant. Rich in fossil fuel reserves with China,France and Germany as big importers.

Uzbekistan: During the Soviet era, intensive production of "white gold" (cotton) and grain led to overuse of agrochemicals and the depletion of water supplies, which have left the land poisoned and the Aral Sea and certain rivers half dry.

Muslim 88% (Sunnis), Eastern Orthodox 9%

Current concerns include terrorism by Islamic militants, economic stagnation, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization.

Turkmenistan: Muslim 89%, Eastern Orthodox 9%

President NIYAZOV retains absolute control over the country and opposition is not tolerated.

Overall prospects in the near future are discouraging because of widespread internal poverty, the burden of foreign debt, the government's irrational use of oil and gas revenues, and its unwillingness to adopt market-oriented reforms.

Kyrgyzstan: landlocked; entirely mountainous, dominated by the Tien Shan range; many tall peaks, glaciers, and high-altitude lakes

presidential elections in July of 2005 were won overwhelmingly by former prime minister Kurmanbek BAKIYEV. Current concerns include: privatization of state-owned enterprises, expansion of democracy and political political freedoms, reduction of corruption, improving interethnic relations, and combating terrorism.

Muslim 75%, Russian Orthodox 20%, other 5%.

Pakistan:
Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%), Christian, Hindu, and other 3%

An impoverished and underdeveloped country, has suffered from decades of internal political disputes, low levels of foreign investment, and a costly, ongoing confrontation with neighboring India.

chief of state: President General Pervez MUSHARRAF (since 20 June 2001)
head of government: Prime Minister Shaukat AZIZ (since 28 August 2004)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the prime minister
elections: the president is elected by Parliament for a five-year term; note - in a referendum held on 30 April

2002, MUSHARRAF's presidency was extended by five more years (next to be held NA 2007); the prime minister is selected by the National Assembly for a five-year term (next to be held NA 2007)
election results: AZIZ elected by the National Assembly on 27 August 2004 with 191 of the votes

Illicit drugs:
opium poppy in Federally Administered Tribal Areas, North-West Frontier Province, and Balochistan Province has rebounded since it was nearly eliminated in 2001; key transit point for Afghan drugs, including heroin, opium, morphine, and hashish, bound for Western markets, the Gulf States, and Africa; financial crimes related to drug trafficking, terrorism, corruption, and smuggling remain problems



What protests we saw with the Danish cartoons would be miniscule compared to protests and terrorist retaliations if we were to physically attack any more countries in the Mideast. (CIA-the World factbook) where I got the above info also lists men of miliatary age able to be called into service. Their numbers are huge. Who can tell which side of a conflict they will stand on? And things change every day/year in some of these countries. Musharaff's term may end in 2007 and who knows which way Pakistan will then lean?

The drums of war still make me edgy.

None of the countries on that map are a lock to be friendly towards the US. We will need troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time. And China has been threatening to Annex Taiwan, which it considers it's 23rd Province.
(Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 13,186,433 (2005 est.)

and, who knows what that nut in North Korea plans to do?

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 17-49: 4,810,831 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 194,605 (2005 est.)

Can the US police the world alone?
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 54,609,050
females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 2,143,873
females: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)






[Edited by MikeJ on 03-19-2006 at 09:08 AM]

[acmanko]

Looks to me like we strategically got ourselves surrounded by potential enemies.

[acmanko]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
To make ascertations that we are in the Middle East over oil is just an ignorant distraction from the fact that we are at war with the Islamic world which has been attacking us worldwide over the past several decades.

Take a look at this map

http://i.infoplease.com/images/mapmiddleeast.gif

look at Iran. we are to the east of Iran in Afghanistan and have allied ourselves with Pakistan. To the West we on Iran's border with our troops in Iraq. To the South we have our battleships posed in the Gulf with permission from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and all other countries involved. To the north are either U.S. allies or a bunch of Stan contries that are in their own civil turmoil at this time.

We have brilliantly positioned ourselves at the devils doorsteps in the Middle East. I don't see North America, how many Oceans seperate us.

[James 3528]

Hillary won't make it past the primaries and skrewt was right. She has too much baggage and elements of the democratic party know that. She is nothing but a dog and pony show for the press that will turn on her later. Get a grip. You would have to be a complete idiot to think she would get elected.

Like skrewt said, the democrats prefer making war on Americans..cough Wako. When they are not out right killing them thy are taking them to court. Unless of course you need to divert attention from Monica and bomb innocent Yugoslavians that rescued our downed pilots in WW2. Most American know the democrats won't dig in and fight. They saw that when our Army boy's bodies were dragged though the streets of Mogadishu. When the USS Cole was blow up.

Look at what they stand for. Everything perverted, the democrats like

[Edited by JAMES 3528 on 03-19-2006 at 01:04 PM]

[rob10]

You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

[James 3528]

Why should I be? Watch what I said. Anyone thinking different is a idiot. That would probably be you. Bottom line is, she will be good for the Republicans.

[geerair]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
The truly naive thing for you to believe is that we can avoid this just by staying home.Who said anything about staying home? Support for the real war on terror, Afghanistan is near unanimous.

Too bad Bush diverted military and intelligence assets from the real war on terror to a nation that had no WMD, no ties to Al-Qaeda, hadn't attacked the U.S. or even had any plans to attack, was not a threat to the U.S.

Too bad Osama is still on the loose, Al-Qaeda is resurgent, the Taliban are growing stronger, acts of terrorism have tripled and quadrupled since 2003 and Al-Qaeda has a new training base in Iraq.

Too bad Bush's diversion from the war on terror to Iraq has resulted in thousands of casualties, billions of dollars pissed away or stolen and chaos if not civil war.




We can send our troops to die fighting and lose 2000 over the course of 3 years or we can loose 3000 civilians every couple of years to repeat 9/11's.
I prefer to fight personally.Laughable. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-qaeda.



If we truly had a "United Nations" we would stand together against this kind of crap, rather than bicker till the cows come home every time an issue comes up.Bush has already blown that option.


The "head in the sand" strategy didn't work for Bill and it won't work for the next dem president.
But sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, they'll try. Hyperbole and myth.

[bb]

can't think of anything new huh geer ?



























Laughable

Ha

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528
Why should I be? Watch what I said. Anyone thinking different is a idiot. That would probably be you. Bottom line is, she will be good for the Republicans. Proves my statement about your insecurities of having a female Commander-In-Chief!! :eek:

[geerair]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
The truly naive thing for you to believe is that we can avoid this just by staying home.Who said anything about staying home? Support for the real war on terror, Afghanistan is near unanimous.

Too bad Bush diverted military and intelligence assets from the real war on terror to a nation that had no WMD, no ties to Al-Qaeda, hadn't attacked the U.S. or even had any plans to attack, was not a threat to the U.S.

Too bad Osama is still on the loose, Al-Qaeda is resurgent, the Taliban are growing stronger, acts of terrorism have tripled and quadrupled since 2003 and Al-Qaeda has a new training base in Iraq.

Too bad Bush's diversion from the war on terror to Iraq has resulted in thousands of casualties, billions of dollars pissed away or stolen and chaos if not civil war.




We can send our troops to die fighting and lose 2000 over the course of 3 years or we can loose 3000 civilians every couple of years to repeat 9/11's.
I prefer to fight personally.Laughable. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-qaeda.



If we truly had a "United Nations" we would stand together against this kind of crap, rather than bicker till the cows come home every time an issue comes up.Bush has already blown that option.


The "head in the sand" strategy didn't work for Bill and it won't work for the next dem president.
But sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, they'll try. Hyperbole and myth. The classics need nothing new.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by James 3528
Why should I be? Watch what I said. Anyone thinking different is a idiot. That would probably be you. Bottom line is, she will be good for the Republicans. Proves my statement about your insecurities of having a female Commander-In-Chief!! :eek:

No dumb ass, I said you thinking she will be President gives you ten degree black belt in idiot. Not in a woman President, which I am not sure she qualifies for that also.

[MikeJ]

Why would anyone think that Hillary has a chance? With the baggage she is carrying, she would be a liability to the Dems, wouldn't she? Don't they have someone else in the wings that might have a chance?

Personally I don't think we are ready for a president that uses a bidet although the Clintons might have left one behind.

As I have stated, the war drums worry me and if the next 3 yrs are like the last three, I might want to bury my head in the sand if it will save tens of thousands of young American lives over another eight years of occupying countries that don't give a rats ass about democracy.

[James 3528]

Well as I stated. >>>>> idiot!

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528
Well as I stated. >>>>> idiot! We have DRUNKEN idiots in the Whitehouse now that you rightwing nuts adore!!

[skrewt]

Originally posted by MikeJ
As I have stated, the war drums worry me and if the next 3 yrs are like the last three, I might want to bury my head in the sand if it will save tens of thousands of young American lives over another eight years of occupying countries that don't give a rats ass about democracy.

So you would save tens of thousands of soldiers lives and ultimately sacrifice a couple cities?
It is only a matter of time before Iran has the bomb, and only a matter of a little time after that before they get creative in delivering it.

All the dem yayhoo's will be crying about how there was no direct evidence that Iran provided the bomb to the terrorists, meanwhile a couple million people fry in NYC.

Wake up you dem lapdogs, this is not a police matter. We don't need to convince a jury when our nation is at stake.
Go gather evidence and build your legal cases on the backs of someone else's life and let me defend mine.

All this screaming and hollering about Gitmo as if these POW's have rights under the US constitution is insane.
I will never understand why dems rush to defend our enemies. Tongues waggin' and their mouths frothing, eager to pick up the banner of AL Queda and scream "allah ahkbar"!

Friggin' traitors.

[geerair]

Yeah, the pre-emptive thing worked out well in Iraq didn't it?

Bush hasn't the credibility to convince rational people that he knows what he is talking about or that he is not lying everytime he opens his mouth.

[MikeJ]

resort to assinine assumptions based on what little you can gleam from someone's meager posts.

For the record, I voted for Bush twice and I come from a Democratic background.

Of course I don't want to see a city suffer a Nuclear Attack. (why do you think it will be NYC?). To cripple us, the terrorists don't have to strike us here. They can cripple our economy, taint our water, etc.

But, unless I see something resembling a united effort to change Iran, a whole bunch of nations...united in a common effort, I can't condone invading another country because of a POSSIBLE threat to our shores.

Here's something to chew on since you seem rabid:

ARTICLE ONE
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end:
to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, let's hear how futile and cowardly the UN is and how we can justify our actions in overthrowing a standing government in a country.

Afghanistan and Iraq are in the past! Forget about them. What was done is done.

Can we keep using our military to overthrow? We have used the CIA to assassinate, promote, remove and hinder governments in the past. That was a cold war issue?

We still are governed by that Charter of the United Nations. We still must present our case to that body, even if it seems futile. And without a COMPLETE COALITION OF WILLING NATIONS, a huge number of cohorts, we better sit back and take a blue pill. Nuke threat or not or we will have nuked cities in great numbers and we can of course nuke someone else.




[Edited by MikeJ on 03-19-2006 at 09:06 PM]

[MikeJ]

http://www.un.org/terrorism/

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by rob10
You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

If that is what you got from James's post you really are an idiot.

Hillary may be scary, but she is not to be feared as far as being a real contender for the presidency. There are too many good ole boy democrats that are not going to allow a woman president as well as all of the other good ole boy factions.

There are not yet enough fags and ultr-liberal women to support voting Hillary into the presidency. If the Dems put her up, they are more stupid then I have even thought they were.

[James 3528]

Actually I think there are a lot of good ol boy democrats that will vote for a woman. Which means they won't vote for Hillary.

[rob10]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by rob10
You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

If that is what you got from James's post you really are an idiot.

Hillary may be scary, but she is not to be feared as far as being a real contender for the presidency. There are too many good ole boy democrats that are not going to allow a woman president as well as all of the other good ole boy factions.

There are not yet enough fags and ultr-liberal women to support voting Hillary into the presidency. If the Dems put her up, they are more stupid then I have even thought they were. New York state where she was elected Senator in one of the most populous states in America. You rightwing nuts have never been able to dispute this robodroid!!

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by James 3528
Actually I think there are a lot of good ol boy democrats that will vote for a woman. Which means they won't vote for Hillary.

Good point. Are we really sure what she is?

And thank the heavens that the rest of the country is not as screwed up as New York is.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by rob10
You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

If that is what you got from James's post you really are an idiot.

Hillary may be scary, but she is not to be feared as far as being a real contender for the presidency. There are too many good ole boy democrats that are not going to allow a woman president as well as all of the other good ole boy factions.

There are not yet enough fags and ultr-liberal women to support voting Hillary into the presidency. If the Dems put her up, they are more stupid then I have even thought they were. New York state where she was elected Senator in one of the most populous states in America. You rightwing nuts have never been able to dispute this robodroid!!

Yes, Einstein. Heavily populated with brain donors and democrats. You have an amazing grasp of the very obvious.

[hvtec]

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer
dont be too worried the republicans can do much in the short time they have left in Washington, Hillary will keep any more men from dying over a barrel of oil.

The problem with Hillary is not people dying over oil, but at the hands of the ATF, FBI and oh yeah, park police.
Bill and Hill prefer to flex their muscle at home.

And your point is what? At home is were we need the attention, not wraped around a barrel of oil.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f263/disesen/hillary1.jpg YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING

[James 3528]

http://www.gravett.org/sauce/wp-content/clinton.jpg

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by rob10
You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

If that is what you got from James's post you really are an idiot.

Hillary may be scary, but she is not to be feared as far as being a real contender for the presidency. There are too many good ole boy democrats that are not going to allow a woman president as well as all of the other good ole boy factions.

There are not yet enough fags and ultr-liberal women to support voting Hillary into the presidency. If the Dems put her up, they are more stupid then I have even thought they were. New York state where she was elected Senator in one of the most populous states in America. You rightwing nuts have never been able to dispute this robodroid!!

Yes, Einstein. Heavily populated with brain donors and democrats. You have an amazing grasp of the very obvious. More and more of the country will be voting democrat. Knowing you, you will probably move to Cuba when Hillary wins.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by rob10
You are a LITTLE scared of Hillary!!

If that is what you got from James's post you really are an idiot.

Hillary may be scary, but she is not to be feared as far as being a real contender for the presidency. There are too many good ole boy democrats that are not going to allow a woman president as well as all of the other good ole boy factions.

There are not yet enough fags and ultr-liberal women to support voting Hillary into the presidency. If the Dems put her up, they are more stupid then I have even thought they were. New York state where she was elected Senator in one of the most populous states in America. You rightwing nuts have never been able to dispute this robodroid!!

Yes, Einstein. Heavily populated with brain donors and democrats. You have an amazing grasp of the very obvious. More and more of the country will be voting democrat. Knowing you, you will probably move to Cuba when Hillary wins.

Look at the polls. Especially the ones geer keeps posting.
Bush has low numbers and the dems are right there with him.
Nobody has approval numbers even in the 40's.
There is no rush to support the dems and there treason.

[rob10]

How about that aborted port deal!!

[James 3528]

What about it, Einstein?

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528
What about it, Einstein? Just one of many things Bush and Bush Jr. have manpipulated to give the ragheads a heads up on our national security. Old man Bush still has strong ties to Arab oil. Selling ones country to the enenmy is reason of the highest order. GW is guilty. I hear impeachment drums in the background. Hillary may have the deciding vote in the Senate :eek: :D !! The rightwing nuts and bushdroids are imploding quicker than the Twin Towers.

[James 3528]

You should be on meds or take them.

[tonys]

If G'Dub'Ya's actions are grounds for impeachment, then every pres. since WWII should have been put on the chop'n block.

yes, he's guilty of being a simple boy playing with adults.
but, just because he has and will do business deals with those camel-hump'n towel heads - doesn't mean he's sold-out the country.

...it would be nice to see Cheney go, though.

[MikeJ]

More war drums. Lumping all Arabs and all persons of Middle Eastern origins as camel humping ragheads only leads to a sterotype. Last I heard, that port deal wasn't anything like the left-wing press made it out to be. This is a global economy these days. Everything you touch was probably made by one of those yellow skinned slope heads, wasn't it? Maybe you'd better look more carefully before you buy if you want to be American as apple pie. (Watch out, the aluminum was probably processed in China.

[tonys]

Then, why not give Libyans controll of Airport Management. ...they're good guys, now right?
Sure, the feds control the 'security', but we'll give the foreigners the keys to the place.

...simple minded left-wing-media comments are a tad Rush-Limb., no?

[skrewt]

Originally posted by tonys
...simple minded left-wing-media comments are a tad Rush-Limb., no?

The truth is the truth regardless who says it.

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528
You should be on meds or take them. What, no links to rebuttals. :D

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by tonys
...simple minded left-wing-media comments are a tad Rush-Limb., no?

The truth is the truth regardless who says it. Problem. Rush is like Bush, the only time they don't lie and beat up strawmen is when their mouths are shut.

[MikeJ]

"simple minded left-wing-media comments are a tad Rush-Limb., no?"

Maybe, maybe not, I gave up on Rush a few years ago. He kind of grates on you and he twists information until it comes out the way he wants it to.



"The truth is the truth regardless who says it."


Not really, and that is the problem with many of the newspapers today. You can hide truth, you can pass on partial truths, or you can omit the truth behind the facts so that one may not even get a fair and factual presentation of the story. Which, is about what happened to the port deal in the first place.

Go back and read how the port information was first presented. It took days to get all the facts in print. That is not fair journalism. It's more liken to a lie than it is to reporting the truth. These newspeople have resources you and I don't have. They have staff to work on a story and present all the facts and not try to sway the reader or use scare tactics. But they don't. They lie by withholding all the truth.


That's why I don't follow much in the press anymore. If it is an important issue, I watch Bill O'Reilly and others on the cable network.



You want to prove this? Ask a returning soldier.

[MikeJ]

http://globalization.about.com/od/bigstories/a/UAEports.htm
SearchGlobalization Issues
Globalization Issues



Six Reasons to Take a Deep Breath
From Keith Porter,


Your Guide to Globalization Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
American Ports and the UAE Contract
February 21, 2006
There is a lot of "outrage" brewing over reports that a company owned by the United Arab Emirates might end up operating some major American ports. But the stories I have seen are heavy on political posturing by members of Congress (from both parties) and short on a lot of facts.

Kathy Gill, the About Guide to U.S. Politics has great coverage here and here.

I don't pretend to know any details of the proposed port deal. Maybe that is why I can't get too outraged yet. But I did come up with six reasons why we should all take a deep breath:

1) These ports have been operated by foreign companies for quite some time. The company that runs them now (P&O) is British (a great American friend). The company buying P&O is part of the United Arab Emirates (also a great American friend).

2) Among the 9/11 hijackers there were a couple of people born in UAE. But that hardly seems like a rational consideration for analyzing a business deal. The government of UAE is as (or even MORE) opposed to radical Islamic extremism as Americans are. It is a clear and present threat to their very existence. And a terrorist attack on the United States would have huge repercussions on the economy of the UAE.

3) The company, Dubai Ports World, runs ports all over the world. They have a track record. They have every reason to protect the security of the American ports. If they fail, they will lose business everywhere.

4) Some are suggesting that the Bush Administration or their cronies (or the Blair Administration or their cronies) are somehow making money on this deal. The implication being that they are selling out American security for a buck (or a pound). But, lacking evidence, there is no scandal.

5) In my opinion, the members of Congress making this story into a big deal actually know that this sale is not a big deal. But they also know that the American public is afraid of anything to do with the Arab world. So they are rushing out to the cameras to prey on that American fear. Most of you are skeptical about what you hear from politicians, right? Now is not the time to give up that skepticism.

6) We should not fall into the trap of judging all Arabs by the actions of a small percentage. We wouldn't want them to judge all Americans by the actions of a few, would we? So let's judge this deal on it merits. Can the company fulfill the contract obligations? Are it's other customers satisfied? Has it allowed any security breaches in previous ports? Does it screen all employees? And so on.

I will grant, however, that this whole deal rubs against the grain of American public opinion. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is reported to have said about the deal, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history." And I agree.

The American people have been told that Arabs are just a bunch of crazy people. The other day, writing about the Danish Cartoon story, far-right wing columnist Ann Coulter said, "The 'offense to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem."

I am afraid too many Americans share Coulter's view.

Most Muslims and most Arabs, like most Americans, are fine people who live ordinary lives, work hard, help their kids with their homework, and just try to get through to the next day. They don't deserve to be lambasted as an entire group anymore than Baptists should be denigrated because of Pat Robertson's words....or Americans should be hated because of Abu Graib...or Danes should be killed because of those cartoons.

The mere religion or ethnicity of a company's owners should not be enough to raise red flags about a contract.


Suggested Reading:
America's Most Wanted
Who Makes U.S. Foreign Policy?
Outsourcing and Offshoring



[Edited by MikeJ on 03-20-2006 at 08:14 PM]

[pabull]

Here is my take on the situation, I am a conservative Republican, BUT, IMO the fault lies with Bush being to PC!!

Case in point: I spoke with my uncle (who was a Marine during Vietnam). His view is the same as mine. If the Marines would have been allowed to do their job, the country could have been taken over in 3 wks time.

Iraq is the same ****!! Our problem is....We are worried about "collateral damage". I say...screw the women, children, of Iraq!! It has done been proven that they, as well as women and children in Vietnam, are committed to the cause. i.e. will strap bombs to themselves.

Let our boys do their jobs!! If a few "innocent towelheads" get killed...oh well. This is war!! You win by making the other poor sonofa***** DIE for their country.(George Patton WW2).

Yes, my only child WILL be going over there. I say let them use whatever tools they have at their disposal to thwart, and subsequently KILL these pricks!!

That is MY take on all of this, although it might piss off some "free-thinking FAGS" like "queerair".

TOO GODDAMMED BAD!!!

[Edited by pabull on 03-22-2006 at 01:07 PM]

[batdude]

a further data point on whether Darwin nailed it

[evildberg]

Quote from pabull:

Let our boys do their jobs!! If a few "innocent towelheads" get killed...oh well.

Pabull towelheads isn't PC anymore. Since they aren't actually towels on their heads we have to call them little sheet heads now