Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 134
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charm City--the city that bleeds
    Posts
    2,790
    But the american who doesnt back the men and women of the armed forces in Iraq is a plan idiot. They were called to duty, or go to jail. They are there for us. All the freedoms in this united states that we have we have fought for and some died for. Do some history of past and present. Countries hate us. If it was'nt for the military do you think you could voice your opinion, vote, read and watch what you want,invest, save work for yourself. You seem like a good guy but just try to imagine yourself in a tent in the middle of the desert with people shooting at you and you can't leave go home or order a pizza. Oh and by the way the people at home[some] think its stupid and your fault for being there. JMO Victor
    There is no reason to blame those serving in the military for where they are deployed. Anyone who does is shortsighted. The focus could be toward those who make the policies.
    But to then say that McCain, who would stay in Iraq for 100 years, is somehow immune from criticism because he served, is patently absurd.

    He is lobbying for a job as POTUS, and is flat out telling us that we will continue to tell the Muslim world how to live. That's fine if you're talking about the community near Detroit, as that region is still under his jurisdiction.

    But as for a plan to counter the Muslim expansion worldwide, what has it accomplished?
    Oil went from $28 to $99 a barrel. Am I supposed to feel safer?
    I will support the troops in Iraq, but as for making the area into some sort of forward point of action(presumably for Iran), I do not support the top brass making that call. JMO
    It's great to be alive and pumping oxygen!

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    Yeah we ought to just let the crazy dude in Iran tell us how things should work.

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    There is no reason to blame those serving in the military for where they are deployed. Anyone who does is shortsighted. The focus could be toward those who make the policies.
    But to then say that McCain, who would stay in Iraq for 100 years, is somehow immune from criticism because he served, is patently absurd.

    He is lobbying for a job as POTUS, and is flat out telling us that we will continue to tell the Muslim world how to live. That's fine if you're talking about the community near Detroit, as that region is still under his jurisdiction.

    But as for a plan to counter the Muslim expansion worldwide, what has it accomplished?
    Oil went from $28 to $99 a barrel. Am I supposed to feel safer?
    I will support the troops in Iraq, but as for making the area into some sort of forward point of action(presumably for Iran), I do not support the top brass making that call. JMO
    I'm on board with you. However, anyone who disagrees with classical is an un-educated fool according to him. Anything you say that is different from his views is automatically an unsubstantiated remark. I've been saying the same thing over and over and he seems to interpret it a different way every time I say it. And America did send WMD's to iraq. American Type Culture Collection and the Center for Disease Control sent Anthrax, botulism and other chemicals and agents to Iraq, supposedly for medical research. Nobody can truthfully say that Reagan didn't know what was going on. But it's becoming obvious that classic is unable to continue any kind of conversation witohut turning to insulting anyone that disagrees with him.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    So you guys seriously think we should but out and just leave things alone with Iran.....let the U.N. and the international atomic agency take care of it?










    On a side note you do know we are part of the security council....You think we should back out of that.....is that truly what you think will make us safer? Retreat?

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    [QUOTE=BigJon3475;1772666]So you guys seriously think we should but out and just leave things alone with Iran.....let the U.N. and the international atomic agency take care of it?


    No, Iran needs to be dealt with. But the original comment I made that got this thread started was that Bush lied about why we needed to go into Iraq, nothing was said about Iran. All I was saying was that our govenment shouldn't lie and say America needs to go to war to protect our freedoms. We've been in Iraq for 5 years, Americans are still dying. WHY DIDN'T WE JUST DEAL WITH IRAN IN THE FIRST PLACE? And yes, pulling out of Iraq now would be bad, but how many more Americans need to die? It seems that no matter what we do, stay or leave, the Iraqis are going to keep killing each other. That's the mind set in that part of the world, get your point across with violence. If we leave, at least it wont be Americans that are getitng blown up by roadside bombs anymore. But my opnions and statements are all unsubstantiated and come form the nightly news, which I don't watch.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    Ohh.....all of that has already been addressed...You know...UN inspectors thing not being let in several post up. Is that part forgotten about already.....that's why we went in.....we already had numerous sanctions....do you need more? If you want to call it a lie in retrospect 20/20 is great.....is it really a lie though if everyone was preaching it or is it a lie if you find out the truth after the fact and you have already jumped shipped to the other side.


    You agreed with The Doc so there fore statements like this were implied that you agree with them....which is totally your right....just saying that's why Iran was brought into it.....It's obviously talking about telling the Muslim world what needs to be done and not done.....Like I said we are on the Security Council and

    "He is lobbying for a job as POTUS, and is flat out telling us that we will continue to tell the Muslim world how to live. That's fine if you're talking about the community near Detroit, as that region is still under his jurisdiction.

    But as for a plan to counter the Muslim expansion worldwide, what has it accomplished?
    Oil went from $28 to $99 a barrel. Am I supposed to feel safer?
    I will support the troops in Iraq, but as for making the area into some sort of forward point of action(presumably for Iran), I do not support the top brass making that call. JMO"

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
    Ohh.....all of that has already been addressed...You know...UN inspectors thing not being let in several post up. Is that part forgotten about already.....that's why we went in.....we already had numerous sanctions....do you need more? If you want to call it a lie in retrospect 20/20 is great.....is it really a lie though if everyone was preaching it or is it a lie if you find out the truth after the fact and you have already jumped shipped to the other side.


    You agreed with The Doc so there fore statements like this were implied that you agree with them....which is totally your right....just saying that's why Iran was brought into it.....It's obviously talking about telling the Muslim world what needs to be done and not done.....Like I said we are on the Security Council and

    "He is lobbying for a job as POTUS, and is flat out telling us that we will continue to tell the Muslim world how to live. That's fine if you're talking about the community near Detroit, as that region is still under his jurisdiction.

    But as for a plan to counter the Muslim expansion worldwide, what has it accomplished?
    Oil went from $28 to $99 a barrel. Am I supposed to feel safer?
    I will support the troops in Iraq, but as for making the area into some sort of forward point of action(presumably for Iran), I do not support the top brass making that call. JMO"
    The UN inspectors weren't being let in..yeah..we got that part. Did that give Bush the right to lie and invent excuses as to why we needed to invade iraq? As far as your question about it being a lie only after people figure out it is a lie, people didn't figure it out until later because the "liberal" media was busy preaching the Bush line that we HAD to invade. Most Americans believed everything Bush and his cronies said. The fact that most Americans were to stupid to figure out they were full of crap doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. And you and claim we went into Iraq because we needed a set up to deal with Iran, then you claim we went in because Saddam was violating the UN sanctions. What was the real reason we went in?

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Sorry, but W did not lie about the reason we invaded Iraq. Saddam violated U.N. policy by not showing positive proof of having destroyed the WMD he himself claimed to possess. This proof was a requirement which was a result of the 1st ME confrontation.

    Your memory is apparently about a long as your t-wacker.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,573
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    Sorry, ...............Your memory is apparently about a long as your t-wacker.
    You meant "short" I assume.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    Sorry, but W did not lie about the reason we invaded Iraq. Saddam violated U.N. policy by not showing positive proof of having destroyed the WMD he himself claimed to possess. This proof was a requirement which was a result of the 1st ME confrontation.

    Your memory is apparently about a long as your t-wacker.
    BUSH DIDN'T LIE? hMM...YELLOW CAKE..MUSHROOM CLOUDS...aL-qaeda...maybe i'm thinking of something completely different, but I do believe he used all those in coming up with reasons why we needed to invade Iraq. The whole world knew he was in violation of the UN sanctions, and most of the world knew he had no WMD's as well. That's why nobody else saw the need to rush into Iraq, Saddam wasn't going to attack anyone the next day, the next year, or in 5 years. But we had to protect Iraq to protect our freedom..because we would all be being forced to join al-qaeda if we didn't attack.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    For:
    United States - The US maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.

    United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, publicly and vigorously supported American policy on Iraq, but was perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American president George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March.

    Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.

    Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.



    NO REAL STANDPOINT:
    Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.

    Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.

    Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

    Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

    Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and indicated that it would support a US led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started.




    AGAINST:
    France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the U.S. or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the UN Security Council on the February 14, 2003, after UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix presented is detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during WWII. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", said Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war. Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France for this position in March, 2003.

    Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security council.

    Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.

    China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.





    So it was 4 against 4 basically...if you have no standpoint you have no say in the matter. France we see now has gotten rid of the what we would consider the far leftist Jacques René Chirac for a more pro American Nicolas Sarkozy. Germany is trying hard for UNSC reform and is applying for more membership status. Russia...well theirs was a selfish standpoint they wanted the corruption to keep going on (food for oil type programs) they were profiting well from it and taking money from the US (or did you forget about that 10 billion dollar scam led by Saddam). China is also partly selfish in it because they wanted to see no disruption at all.....why would they, their economy has grown larger and larger by the second anything to jeopardize that they wanted no part of.

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
    For:
    United States - The US maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.

    United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, publicly and vigorously supported American policy on Iraq, but was perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American president George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March.

    Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.

    Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.



    NO REAL STANDPOINT:
    Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.

    Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.

    Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

    Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

    Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and indicated that it would support a US led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started.




    AGAINST:
    France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the U.S. or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the UN Security Council on the February 14, 2003, after UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix presented is detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during WWII. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", said Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war. Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France for this position in March, 2003.

    Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security council.

    Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.

    China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.





    So it was 4 against 4 basically...if you have no standpoint you have no say in the matter. France we see now has gotten rid of the what we would consider the far leftist Jacques René Chirac for a more pro American Nicolas Sarkozy. Germany is trying hard for UNSC reform and is applying for more membership status. Russia...well theirs was a selfish standpoint they wanted the corruption to keep going on (food for oil type programs) they were profiting well from it and taking money from the US (or did you forget about that 10 billion dollar scam led by Saddam). China is also partly selfish in it because they wanted to see no disruption at all.....why would they, their economy has grown larger and larger by the second anything to jeopardize that they wanted no part of.
    Again..yellow cake..al-qaeda.....mushroom clouds..they were all lies. I stated that everyone knew Saddam was in violation of the UN sanctions. But my point was they had to make up all these lies because Saddam was no threat, even if he was in violation. Americans would have never supported attacking Iraq if they didn't make up those LIES. But this is getting pointless, because it's impossible to rationalize with people who are set in their thoughts, and believe everything our president and his croonies tell them.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,372
    “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

    James Madison.
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event