Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Long Before we Smack Putin

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Originally posted by bldg0031 View Post
    As much as I hate to say it I agree with Trooper on these points. I do believe they had WMD there. They used them in the early 90s against their own people .. do you really think they got rid of them? How easy would it be to bury it 100 feet down in the sand in that country so we would never find them.

    Some comments on the media being presented by JPR. While you sit there and say the media is bias on one side why isn't fox bias the other way. They are going to present the side of the story they want to air just the same as the others do the for their side. The only way to get the whole story is to read 3 or 4 people and make an informed decision as no one will show all the facts.
    I cannot believe there were the WMD's that was stated to get us going. I mean they stated X thousands of tons of VX, they talked about all these shops and labs working around the clock, X tons of WMD munitions... And what do we find when we get there? A questionable truck and some rusty munitions. Hardly the amount of hype that was stated in the hype to march us off to war.
    Burying stuff in the sand seems like an easy task, but consider the amount of movement and the amount vehicles and heavy equipment used to do this. In the amount of time from the initial warnings to the actual rolling over the border you mean to tell me no one saw anything? Our satelites that can tell if quarter is heads up did not see any type of large scale movement?
    I just think that an operation that big would be more than detectable for the amounts of WMD that was reported as being told to us. Moreover, the amount of labs, factories, and sites used in the production of these weapons that was reported has not even came into play. This seems like a lot of work in a short amount of time.

    Bldg- I agree with you on reading more than one site, but what JPR is getting at is that a majoirty of the sites that liberals read are all liberal motivated and therefore only repeating the same message. Unlike Fox which apparently has no ties to anyone and lays out "facts".
    Ever feel like you live in the state of confusion?

    Comment


    • Did they have the amount we advertised? Probably not. But is that really all that important? If they had any we needed to do something about it.

      Iraq isn't a small country. They have showed the ability to bury things before without us noticing why couldn't they do it again? To bury things isn't nearly as large of a process as you think. Plus we probably weren't focues on a few cranes, bulldozers, and dumptrucks.

      As for the fox thing. They have a few token people that speak their minds every once in a while. All the major networks do this. Tucker Carlson is a big time republican and he is on NBC. I hardly think the people you mentioned are the best speakers on behalf of the Liberal side. There is a reason they pick guys Like Sharpton. He sounds like a fool because he is so far out there most of the time. Look at hannity and Colmes. That Colmes guy is terrified to talk half the time. When hannity speaks up Colmes shuts up. Do you really think that is fair and balanced?

      Besides the Fox thing that we are really talking about is when they are presenting a story. The show the facts that they think best gets their point across. This is just like the other stations.

      One big point. They still present a link between Al Queda and Iraq. Our own government has shown facts that not only was there not a link but Bin Laden and Sadaam hated each other.

      I honestly believe that none of the networks really gives both sides and does a fair and balanced job. I would relate this to when we are discussing things. IM guessing if you saw a show that fox did that didn't do a fair and balanced job you wouldn't point it out. This is a natural thing to do. All media is bias. I hate to say it but there is really no way around it.
      Last edited by bldg0031; 06-20-2007, 02:35 PM. Reason: I can't type today

      Comment


      • My only problem with that is we are now talking "any amounts are worth invading for" and that entails we should be going to N. Korea, Iran, Syria, all former Soviet States, and so on until we rid everyone that may be considered "enemies". This of course is not only overly costly, but would isolate us greatly from the rest of the world.

        Also if we only invaded only "certain" countries cause of their WMD's then we open up a whole new realm of enemies. We would be playing a giant game "Whack-A-Mole" trying to police up WMD's and frankly America cannot do it.
        Ever feel like you live in the state of confusion?

        Comment


        • This thread should be changed to "How long Before we Smack Ahmadinejad"

          Putin's term expires next year and he is forbidden by the Russian Constitution for seeking a third term. However, there is nothing against preventing him from running in 2012.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Arkansas Red View Post
            My only problem with that is we are now talking "any amounts are worth invading for" and that entails we should be going to N. Korea, Iran, Syria, all former Soviet States, and so on until we rid everyone that may be considered "enemies". This of course is not only overly costly, but would isolate us greatly from the rest of the world.

            Also if we only invaded only "certain" countries cause of their WMD's then we open up a whole new realm of enemies. We would be playing a giant game "Whack-A-Mole" trying to police up WMD's and frankly America cannot do it.
            Well A couple issues with your statements. Sadaam has used chemical weapons before these other people haven't.

            I agree with some of your principles so I wont generally disagree that we shouldn't try to police the world. But I was also pro-war. Frankly, if done right I think we can and should elimate the people that are torturing and killing. I believe if you are strong enough it is your job to defend the weak.

            If Bush had come out and said this " Sadaam has violated sanctions. He is killing people left and right (trying to do genocide) and I want to stop it." I would have been all for the war. My problem all along hasn't been the war but how it was executed.

            I think we are about to be put in an even worse position. The new Iraq congress is voting on whether to ask us to leave Iraq. What do we do? How do we stay when the people that were elected ask us to leave? I dont think we can or should leave but how do we stay when we are told we aren't wanted by the people we put in charge?

            Comment


            • I agree that we should fulfill a role as a defender of the weak; however, as you stated it is all in how we: 1) justify it and 2) manage said operations.

              As you mentioned IF Bush would have stated along the lines of, "Saddam is a bad guy here is the torture rooms, here is the execution fields, we saw the killings with gas in the Khurdish areas. I believe it is Americas job to liberate Iraq and allow peaceful democratic elections in Iraq." And IF we found WMD's of any sort or number that would be bonus. Then Bush could have stepped back and let the military do its job. I could get on board with this. The war would have been fully justified to a T with a sledge hammer of evidence.

              My biggest overall objection about this war is that no matter how you look at it this war's start will always be talked about as the war for massive amounts of WMD. We presented all this documentation with our President stating the large amounts and played on fear to get people to ralley to this cause. Yes WMD's are a very serious problem, but when you use fear as a tactic to swade opinion people have tendency to not think clearly and make decisions that have long term effects.

              The hardest problem for the US in future endeavors will be gaining trust of people in the international community. Many people will always think twice before lending troops to our causes in the fear of being tied another farce. Now this is all well and good if we had an army the size of China, but we do not. We will need help.

              As for other countries having not "used" chemical weapons I merely point out that N. Korea has successfully conducted tests with nuclear weapons in a not so distant past. This has been confirmed on numerous levels.
              Ever feel like you live in the state of confusion?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bldg0031 View Post
                Funny how you scold people debating you for name calling .. but when it suits you, you just enjoy throwing it out there.

                There is no media source that is fair and balanced
                Who is calling an names? Huh? What mean "names" did I call anyone. Hey, if it's mine and it stinks, I clam it proudly. But to say I called anyone names? What names?

                See, this is what you libs do - absent facts, stuff gets made up.
                The All New
                2013
                BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                - M1Garand

                (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                Comment


                • Originally posted by lt1z28 View Post
                  This thread should be changed to "How long Before we Smack Ahmadinejad" .
                  You have my vote. He needs more than a smack though. And not just for his not-so-veiled threat against Israel and his continuance of nuclear technology development. He also deserves it for his wardrobe. Those 80's leisure suits are really tacky.



                  Originally posted by lt1z28 View Post
                  Putin's term expires next year and he is forbidden by the Russian Constitution for seeking a third term. However, there is nothing against preventing him from running in 2012.
                  I think his term will expire before this thread does...
                  Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                  America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
                    Who is calling an names? Huh? What mean "names" did I call anyone. Hey, if it's mine and it stinks, I clam it proudly. But to say I called anyone names? What names?

                    See, this is what you libs do - absent facts, stuff gets made up.
                    Well first .. right there you called me a lib.

                    It seems that anytime someone disagrees with you they are part of the Kool aide drinking crowd ... that isn't a name? Kool aide drinking crowd.

                    A lot of republicans don't like bush. Are they all now liberals?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arkansas Red View Post
                      I agree that we should fulfill a role as a defender of the weak; however, as you stated it is all in how we: 1) justify it and 2) manage said operations.

                      As you mentioned IF Bush would have stated along the lines of, "Saddam is a bad guy here is the torture rooms, here is the execution fields, we saw the killings with gas in the Khurdish areas. I believe it is Americas job to liberate Iraq and allow peaceful democratic elections in Iraq." And IF we found WMD's of any sort or number that would be bonus. Then Bush could have stepped back and let the military do its job. I could get on board with this. The war would have been fully justified to a T with a sledge hammer of evidence.

                      My biggest overall objection about this war is that no matter how you look at it this war's start will always be talked about as the war for massive amounts of WMD. We presented all this documentation with our President stating the large amounts and played on fear to get people to ralley to this cause. Yes WMD's are a very serious problem, but when you use fear as a tactic to swade opinion people have tendency to not think clearly and make decisions that have long term effects.

                      The hardest problem for the US in future endeavors will be gaining trust of people in the international community. Many people will always think twice before lending troops to our causes in the fear of being tied another farce. Now this is all well and good if we had an army the size of China, but we do not. We will need help.

                      As for other countries having not "used" chemical weapons I merely point out that N. Korea has successfully conducted tests with nuclear weapons in a not so distant past. This has been confirmed on numerous levels.
                      Sorry AR, and i WISH i could find the transcript of the speach now, but the REAL fact is that the WMD was only a part of the reason we went to war to take out Saddam Hussein, IIRC it was bout #4 on the list when the president ran it down. it was ONE issue out of about 12. The MEDIA was the driving force behind the WMD issue being to prominent. WMD was never the sole issue, in fact, during the speaches before the authorization voite, the president DID in fact pretty much state exactly what you said in your second paragraph.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
                        Not "opposes" but THREATENS.


                        Check again. We LIBERATED them. Not invaded. You libs just hate facts, but the least you could do is call it what it is.

                        You may laugh at that, but it is very true.

                        Isn't it nice that we can sit back with no pressure and perfect vision and see perfectly after the fact what should have been? What a country.



                        He already had one. He took a 500% pay cut to be VP. And, he donated all 8 million of his stock in the company to charity long before anyone had ever heard of Haliburton, or Iraq, just so that he could run for office. But once again, you libs just HATE the pesky facts. They spoil that nice KoolAid taste.

                        Someone else brought up Haliburton, not me. I was merely addressing the obvious implication. Dick Cheney is a patriot and one of the world's great philanthropists. How much have you donayed to charity lately?

                        Anyway, Putin needs a stern stare and no bedtime snack. How's that? Warm and fuzzy enough
                        1 - Dont watch O'rielly for real news...its purely entertainment and should be taken as seriously as the Daily show
                        2- Cheney has caused 50,000 oof our troops to be killed or injuried......
                        3- If Cheney REALLY cared and was a philanthropist Darfur would has actually been helped and the people "liberated"
                        4- The Iraqi people havent been put in a better position, Saddam was an evil man, but he kept order, and on a yearly basis he had far less people killed
                        5- When we leave, whenever that is a new "saddam" will take over......you need to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM to appreciate it....you can not be given freedom...its not the iraqis arent "stepping up" its that they never(the large majority) decided to fight for it...revolutions need to be done by the citizens, not some other government that they will see as new rulers
                        6- If Cheney was a philanthropist he wouldve slapped Bush upside the head and said TEACH SAFER SEX to people in Africa...it would vastly reduce the HIV/AIDS crisis and the starving children problem


                        err it just make me so made when peope ignore the pesky little facts



                        btw, im a registred republican and most likely will vote republican or MAYBE independent...im just sick of all this bs

                        ALL LEADERS(well practically all) are hypocritical and pos........sorry thats a firmly held idea of mine, and untill i see proof of it chaning ill keep that idea

                        Comment


                        • "Lib" is short, for "Liberal." An abbreviation, man! Liberal, is a bona fide political mindset. It is not a nasty "name," last time I checked. Good grief.

                          Idiot, moron, dork...now those are names. Dummy, ignoramous, goofball, dimwit, simpleton, syphilated tongue bubble...those, are names. Stupid liberal, ignorant liberal, lying liberal..now those, are names.

                          Not lib.

                          As to the rest, disloyalty is the same no matter the political party. Liberal is not a politcal party. KoolAid, is the drink of choice for you LIBERALS no matter the political party you are registered under.

                          Have a nice day.
                          The All New
                          2013
                          BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                          Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                          - M1Garand

                          (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                          Comment


                          • thenicepython says:

                            1 - Dont watch O'rielly for real news...its purely entertainment and should be taken as seriously as the Daily show
                            2- Cheney has caused 50,000 oof our troops to be killed or injuried......
                            3- If Cheney REALLY cared and was a philanthropist Darfur would has actually been helped and the people "liberated"
                            4- The Iraqi people havent been put in a better position, Saddam was an evil man, but he kept order, and on a yearly basis he had far less people killed
                            5- When we leave, whenever that is a new "saddam" will take over......you need to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM to appreciate it....you can not be given freedom...its not the iraqis arent "stepping up" its that they never(the large majority) decided to fight for it...revolutions need to be done by the citizens, not some other government that they will see as new rulers
                            6- If Cheney was a philanthropist he wouldve slapped Bush upside the head and said TEACH SAFER SEX to people in Africa...it would vastly reduce the HIV/AIDS crisis and the starving children problem


                            err it just make me so made when peope ignore the pesky little facts



                            btw, im a registred republican and most likely will vote republican or MAYBE independent...im just sick of all this bs

                            ALL LEADERS(well practically all) are hypocritical and pos........sorry thats a firmly held idea of mine, and untill i see proof of it chaning ill keep that idea


                            Yep. You got it figured out. Thanks.
                            Last edited by 1042 Trooper; 06-29-2007, 07:46 PM.
                            The All New
                            2013
                            BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                            Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                            - M1Garand

                            (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
                              "Lib" is short, for "Liberal." An abbreviation, man! Liberal, is a bona fide political mindset. It is not a nasty "name," last time I checked. Good grief.

                              Idiot, moron, dork...now those are names. Dummy, ignoramous, goofball, dimwit, simpleton, syphilated tongue bubble...those, are names. Stupid liberal, ignorant liberal, lying liberal..now those, are names.

                              Not lib.

                              As to the rest, disloyalty is the same no matter the political party. Liberal is not a politcal party. KoolAid, is the drink of choice for you LIBERALS no matter the political party you are registered under.

                              Have a nice day.

                              I can see that you forgot your meds again.
                              Retired

                              Comment


                              • So, how long was it before are going to smack Putin? I mean, all this stuff about Vice President Cheney is fascinating to a foreigner but it doesn't really seem to advance the argument.
                                I'm a little bit waayy, a little bit wooah, a little bit woosh, I'm a geezer.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4583 users online. 248 members and 4335 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X