Nancy Pelosi's visit

[Lynn7]

Nancy Pelosi's visit (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O9V6G01&show_article=1)

So Iran and Syria have been working with terrorists for years and are responsible for killing and maiming our US soldiers and the Iraqi citizens and our government has taken the action of shunning them. But here comes Nancy Pelosi and visits Syria and the British hostages are released.

So will the media and the public praise her for her actions in talking to our enemies? Will they think that we can talk with these countries and work things out?


I think that what she did was an abomination. She is being used as a village idot for these murderers to strike out against President Bush in this publicity stunt. She is a dangerous woman to be third in line to be president because she is soooooo stupid. And the fact that Syria has such influence with Iran just shows that they are working together against us for sure.

[electriclite]

Only Nixon could go to China. . . . .

[Thrizzle]

The media is tearing her apart for it, and also failing to mention that she went with a GOP delegation. Pelosi going to Syria = horrid. GOP going to Syria = A OK.

Personally i don't see whats so horrible about diplomacy. It got the 15 british hostages freed.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The media is tearing her apart for it, and also failing to mention that she went with a GOP delegation. Pelosi going to Syria = horrid. GOP going to Syria = A OK.



Damn liberal media!!!

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by electriclite
Only Nixon could go to China. . . . .

Who said it was a good idea?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Who said it was a good idea?

Nixon or Pelosi and her GOP entourage?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The media is tearing her apart for it, and also failing to mention that she went with a GOP delegation. Pelosi going to Syria = horrid. GOP going to Syria = A OK.

Personally i don't see whats so horrible about diplomacy. It got the 15 british hostages freed.


They're all @$^%$&&*.

And "freeding" hostages got nothing to do with the diplomacy on the British side. Plan A and Plan B and Plan Z were all in the prick's hands.
And if anyone starts calling him kind and good-natured after that I'm afraid that someone is hopeless and lost.

Thank you.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by electriclite
Nixon or Pelosi and her GOP entourage?

It was cross-reference to Nixon.

[Thrizzle]

I doubt they didnt talk to Iran, that's just ridiculous. Even Syria is claiming they aided in negotiations.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I doubt they didnt talk to Iran, that's just ridiculous. Even Syria is claiming they aided in negotiations.


The game was played by one person (with the blessing of ayatollahs).

It was the relatively safe game for him. Like last year Hezbollah.

I did not say there were no negotiations. They were not important to those who were trying to score.

Expect more hostages.

[notchreturns]

I don't get what's wrong with saving lives?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by notchreturns
I don't get what's wrong with saving lives?

It wasn't saved - it wasn't taken. Now he wants to play a good cop.

[notchreturns]

I'm not sure anyone could say their lives weren't in danger. But now they're safe and out of Iran's hands.

I guess I just see it as a good thing, no matter how it happened.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The media is tearing her apart for it, and also failing to mention that she went with a GOP delegation. Pelosi going to Syria = horrid. GOP going to Syria = A OK.

Personally i don't see whats so horrible about diplomacy. It got the 15 british hostages freed.

I hadn't heard she went with a GOP delegation. If so then I hold them equally in contempt.

There was no diplomacy here. They (The iranians and the Syrians)were trying to undermine Bush. It is so obvious.And they can take more hostages any time they want. The particular people are not important. They have made everyone a laughing stock and they know it. They flexed their muscles and everyone was powerless to do anything about it because our countries (the US and the UK) have made it clear that although we are mighty in power, we do not have the heart to act. The problem is that they do have the heart to act. They now have carte blanche.

[BubbaStrangelove]

So if bashing Bush for sending men to war means you don't support the troops, what is it called when you bash someone who gets troops released from captivity?

[Lynn7]

When the president of Big Company X wants to break off talks with a vendor who has been destructive and lying, is it helpful if the Vice President or the CFO of that company goes to the vendor and wants to negotiate with that vendor? They would be fired for being subversive and insubordinate.

The problems with Iraq and Syria did not start with Bush- they have been going on forever. These countries cause a lot of death and destruction through all of their terrorist activities, especially to our own soldiers but also in Lebanon (where some of my husband's family members are living) and Israel.

Would we negotiate with a drug dealer? A serial murderer? A molester? You could never trust their motives or their word.

Listen Mr. Child molester- could you please agree not to molest children if we let you live near this elementary school? Or, Rev. Child Molester, we are going to locate you to a new church congregation- could you please not molest any more kids?


The governments of Syria and iran are evil. You can not negotiate with these people. Peolsi has proved she is an idiot and all who went with her Dem or Repub. To think you can negotiate with these people is just wild.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I hadn't heard she went with a GOP delegation. If so then I hold them equally in contempt.

There was no diplomacy here. They (The iranians and the Syrians)were trying to undermine Bush. It is so obvious.And they can take more hostages any time they want. The particular people are not important. They have made everyone a laughing stock and they know it. They flexed their muscles and everyone was powerless to do anything about it because our countries (the US and the UK) have made it clear that although we are mighty in power, we do not have the heart to act. The problem is that they do have the heart to act. They now have carte blanche.

Again lynn, you havent heard about the GOP delegation because you get your news from Faux News. Just thinking about all the people in this country who get the wrong information nightly and trust it gives me a headache!

And i think the American people have the heart to act, they just lack the justification. Iran/Syria being a source of instability in the region isnt enough, because guess what....the region has been unstable for as long as anyone can remember! lol.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Lynn, what do you think police negotiators do?

[Lynn7]

Actually I did not get my news about Pelosi from Fox News- I have seen stuff around the internet and on all different tv channels about it. I haven''t had time the past week to watch tv news in depth.


Bubba, Pelosi did not go over to secure the release of the hostages. She went on this tour for her own reasons. They released the hostages cause they wanted to draw attention to her visit to Syria (which they knew was against Bush's wishes) and they wanted to do it to lift her up above Bush- to try to shame him. It was the British's job to play the police negotiator role in this case.


Anyway, here is an excerpt from Dick Cheney's interview with Rush Limbaugh:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: She's not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interests of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He obviously was heavily involved, right now, in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government in Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Again lynn, you havent heard about the GOP delegation because you get your news from Faux News. Just thinking about all the people in this country who get the wrong information nightly and trust it gives me a headache!

And i think the American people have the heart to act, they just lack the justification. Iran/Syria being a source of instability in the region isnt enough, because guess what....the region has been unstable for as long as anyone can remember! lol.

What the hell are you talking about? Fox News does not bite GOP? Strange. I wonder what edition of Fox News I am watching.

And since you call it Faux am I allowed now to call CNN (with the great exception for Glenn Beck) Communist News Network or Central Nazi Network? I am still working on MSNBC.
:)

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba, Pelosi did not go over to secure the release of the hostages. She went on this tour for her own reasons. They released the hostages cause they wanted to draw attention to her visit to Syria (which they knew was against Bush's wishes) and they wanted to do it to lift her up above Bush- to try to shame him. It was the British's job to play the police negotiator role in this case.


Then why are you saying, "Would we negotiate with a drug dealer? A serial murderer? A molester? You could never trust their motives or their word."

I mean, you are the one tying it altogether. My comments aren't directed at you sentiments toward Pelosi, but at you lumping all your beefs under the heading that the hostages got freed. I know it's not intentional, but you seem pissed off about the hostages being freed. For the sake of your argument, I don't know why you introduced your complaint by saying, "But here comes Nancy Pelosi and visits Syria and the British hostages are released."

Whether you are being sarcastic or not, why would you undermined the fact that several men can now eat diner with thier loved ones. It seems to be a line of positioning that Bush has been attacking since the start of this war - To me, it seems like a very good example of using language to create the idea that one does not support the troops. I mean, if saying you think the war is bad doesn't support troops, then wouldn't complaining about something related to the RELEASE of troops be a very obvious offense? I think it is undoubtedly.

[Lynn7]

Bubba,
Maybe I am addressing too many things at once. I think it's great the hostages are free. I think it was evil to take them like that and i don't beleive they went in to Iranian waters as they are getting ready to disengage from Iraq under intense public pressure. It makes no sense.

I know Pelosi did not go over there to negotiate for the hostages release. But it is cause she was there that they took advantage of an opportunity to get at Bush since they knew he did not approve of her visit and they know that Bush and Pelosi are divided in purpose.

The thing I am mad about is that our country has taken the tact of taking a hard stance against these countries cause they are doing evil things and they lie and do not keep their word and then she decides to go over there herself to meet with these people, giving them an opportunity to capitalize on division. If one of their own underlings did that, when he returned he (and his family) would all be executed for going against the country's leader. They would recognize an act like Pelosi's as undermining and disloyal. Can't she wait the year until Bush is out of office? And now Israel is upset with her for passing on a message to them they never permitted her to give. It's just all upsetting. But I think she is going to politically lose ground over this act of hers.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by Beenthere


And since you call it Faux am I allowed now to call CNN (with the great exception for Glenn Beck) Communist News Network or Central Nazi Network? I am still working on MSNBC.
:)

Woot. Glenn Beck rocks. :cool:

[Lynn7]

In the past CNN was also called Clinton News Network. :) They will get their chance again with Hillary coming along.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Beenthere
What the hell are you talking about? Fox News does not bite GOP? Strange. I wonder what edition of Fox News I am watching.

And since you call it Faux am I allowed now to call CNN (with the great exception for Glenn Beck) Communist News Network or Central Nazi Network? I am still working on MSNBC.
:)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704020007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040016
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040016

Just a few examples of Fox News failing to mention the GOP delegation....which actually criticized Bush while in Syria.

And i have no problem with you calling CNN the Central Nazi Network, ESPECIALLY now that Glenn Beck is on the network. ;)

Some of my favorites of 2007: Calling Hillary a "stereotypical bitch" (presumably for being a woman), calling Rosie O'Donnell a "fat witch", saying 'Democrats are as repsonsible for troop deaths as suicide bombers', asking a female guest to come over to his house because he'd like to take some racy photos (that actually happened, and the woman was speechless), calling Obama "colorless....he might as well be white", calling hurricane Katrina victims "scumbags", and saying to a muslim congressman guest "What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies' ".

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba,
Maybe I am addressing too many things at once. I think it's great the hostages are free.


Exactly. Being pissed off over political actions you disagree with NEVER equates to voicing lack of support for troops. Now when you get back to the Bush Village, you let everyone know what you've learned during your visit to the land we've had to live in for the past 5 years. .

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704020007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040016
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040016

Just a few examples of Fox News failing to mention the GOP delegation....which actually criticized Bush while in Syria.

And i have no problem with you calling CNN the Central Nazi Network, ESPECIALLY now that Glenn Beck is on the network. ;)

Some of my favorites of 2007: Calling Hillary a "stereotypical bitch" (presumably for being a woman), calling Rosie O'Donnell a "fat witch", saying 'Democrats are as repsonsible for troop deaths as suicide bombers', asking a female guest to come over to his house because he'd like to take some racy photos (that actually happened, and the woman was speechless), calling Obama "colorless....he might as well be white", calling hurricane Katrina victims "scumbags", and saying to a muslim congressman guest "What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies' ".

Well, since you did not mention any of Alan Colmes' statements and what the leader of New Black Panthers was saying on Fox News I understand it's just emotions...
And after you mentioned it I'll stuck with Communist News Network. That will exclude Beck. :)


P.S. Do you also collect all uber-liberal hate statements made on CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/KGB News/analytical programs? It would be only fair to collect both.
Oh well, all of them are so pale comparing to a vomit coming from the Russian TV News...

[Badbird]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So if bashing Bush for sending men to war means you don't support the troops, what is it called when you bash someone who gets troops released from captivity?

Hmm... head explodes.

So, I'm confused. Talking to Syria, Iran: bad. Giving Saudi Arabia a hand job for decades: okay.

Anyway, we don't own the world. What's wrong with communicating something - anything - every once and a while?


Also, if you don't think Fox News is taking it in the ass by the GOP and liking it, you are delusional. It's pretty well documented by countless critics that Fox is in the pockets of the GOP. Roger Ailes was specifically chosen by Rupert Murdoch to creative a "conservative" news channel. Fox News is always able to get exclusive interviews with the likes of Dick Cheney when everyone else doesn't even know where he is.

And I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who whined... Glen Beck is the biggest whining tool I've ever seen.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Beenthere
P.S. Do you also collect all uber-liberal hate statements made on CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/KGB News/analytical programs? It would be only fair to collect both.
Oh well, all of them are so pale comparing to a vomit coming from the Russian TV News...

Anyone who believes that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS are part of the "uber-liberal" media is either lying or has no idea what "uber-liberalism" is. Actually, I'm not even sure what you mean by "uber-liberal", but from the context in which you use it, I assume you mean anything to the left of Fox News.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by jolanar
Woot. Glenn Beck rocks. :cool:


Fuckin right he does.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Well, since you did not mention any of Alan Colmes' statements and what the leader of New Black Panthers was saying on Fox News I understand it's just emotions...
And after you mentioned it I'll stuck with Communist News Network. That will exclude Beck. :)


P.S. Do you also collect all uber-liberal hate statements made on CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/KGB News/analytical programs? It would be only fair to collect both.
Oh well, all of them are so pale comparing to a vomit coming from the Russian TV News...

Ah yes Russia: the land where journalists are mysteriously murdered after they've written highly critical articles againt their president and governemnt.

A country truly rife with an unfettered liberal media.


And if the White House is going to wag its finger at Pelosi for going over and speaking with Syria, then someone needs to put a mirror up to them accompanied by the 9/11 report and repeat Saudi Arabia over and over again.


Oh and just to add a little weight to the bias angle:

When Republican Jeff Flake (R - AZ) went to meet with Castro's government, the State Dept spokesman replied thusly:

"This is our government. There are three branches of the government. They represent a branch of the government. The Executive Branch is responsible for the foreign policy of the United States. Senators and congressmen will travel overseas. We encourage them to do that to get an appreciation for what the situation is on the ground. And of course we hear back from them. That's a positive thing."

In the case of Republican Rep. Joe Pitts (one of the Republicans who ALSO took the trip to Syria), the Bush administration actually encouraged him to meet with Assad!

And now the press is giving Pelosi flack for wearing a hajib when visting a Muslim mosque. Yet they fail to recall that BOTH Laura Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/images/20050522-4_p44900-596-515h.jpg) and Condi Rice (http://www.mahablog.com/wp-content/uploads/condihijab.jpg) had adopted the scarf when they both made visits to the Middle East!

Wow, that liberal media is just out of control!

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Beenthere
P.S. Do you also collect all uber-liberal hate statements made on CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/KGB News/analytical programs? It would be only fair to collect both.

Psh, do you know how long it takes to collect all the Conservative hate speech? Those examples were just from Glenn Beck over the last few months alone!!!

And as for Pelosi, lets not forget that the Iraq study group recommended we engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by electriclite
Only Nixon could go to China. . . . .

..or Reagan hanging with the Soviets... It's treasonous I tells ya'!

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Anyone who believes that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS are part of the "uber-liberal" media is either lying or has no idea what "uber-liberalism" is. Actually, I'm not even sure what you mean by "uber-liberal", but from the context in which you use it, I assume you mean anything to the left of Fox News.

Because they take anything Bush or his people do wrong (could be the littlest thing) and pound it to death for weeks and when the Dems do something just as bad or worse, they ignore it or excuse it. I see it all the time. I switch around and see it ALL the time. Some are worse than others.

[shoe1985]

I don't get what is so wrong with having peace talks? Yes they were terrorists, but maybe this visit could do some good. We should try to resist war unless it is necessary to go to it. We could do some real good for these people, and maybe help the leaders become good people. To move forward, you need to move passed the past life.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I don't get what is so wrong with having peace talks?

Because Bush didn't do it.

Remember when Reagan did it he was a saint.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I don't get what is so wrong with having peace talks? Yes they were terrorists, but maybe this visit could do some good. We should try to resist war unless it is necessary to go to it. We could do some real good for these people, and maybe help the leaders become good people. To move forward, you need to move passed the past life.

There is nothing wrong with having peace talks. The problem is that when we and others have spoken to these people before they do not keep their word and they lie and then they maim and kill innocents and work with terrorist groups. So then instead of talking to them our government tries a different strategy of ostracizing them for their bad behavior- the only problem is that one of our 'leaders' (not elected by the nation but by her regional California constituents and by the House Democrats) decides she does not want to do this and subverts the policy the executive branch has decided on. A house divided cannot stand. We can only have one president. If he is doing really bad things the remedy is impeachment and removal not to go and do your own thing against our govenments policy. That can lead to anarchy. It's divisive at best.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is nothing wrong with having peace talks. The problem is that when we and others have spoken to these people before they do not keep their word and they lie and then they maim and kill innocents and work with terrorist groups. So then instead of talking to them our government tries a different strategy of ostracizing them for their bad behavior- the only problem is that one of our 'leaders' (not elected by the nation but by her regional California constituents and by the House Democrats) decides she does not want to do this and subverts the policy the executive branch has decided on. A house divided cannot stand. We can only have one president. If he is doing really bad things the remedy is impeachment and removal not to go and do your own thing against our govenments policy. That can lead to anarchy. It's divisive at best.

He is gone at the end of next year, so really it would be a waste of tax payers money to impeach him now.

Hey did Martin Luther King have the respect of all of the african americans? Doubtful, those against him probably believed he would make things worse. Yes, he was murdered, but in the end things have gotten much better. This is probably wrong to use this as a similar situation, but it is close enough. Maybe this is all it will take to show that not everyone supports the President, and a lot of people want peace, and not war.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Anyone who believes that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS are part of the "uber-liberal" media is either lying or has no idea what "uber-liberalism" is. Actually, I'm not even sure what you mean by "uber-liberal", but from the context in which you use it, I assume you mean anything to the left of Fox News.

Wrong. Uber-liberal statements not stations. You wouldn't argue that those I named lean towards left rather than center. And there you can hear a lot of coo-coo stuff coming from.. (see below)
As for the "uber-" - it's about idiocy and madness of those who give the word "liberal" bad reputation. I do not want to call the same name those who are normal and mostly commonsensical (liberal) with the suicidal masochistic psychopaths (uber-liberal). Uber-conservative stands for the similar disease.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Psh, do you know how long it takes to collect all the Conservative hate speech? Those examples were just from Glenn Beck over the last few months alone!!!

And as for Pelosi, lets not forget that the Iraq study group recommended we engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria.

You evidently do not watch Beck's show.

Iraq study group was full of assholes including those who want Israel disappear from the face of the planet. They can insert many of their suggestions up to their butt holes.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
..or Reagan hanging with the Soviets... It's treasonous I tells ya'!

Someone needs more History classes.

Reagan talked to the Soviets from a position of the greater power. Only when Ivans started to give up he changed to the softer position and hang with Gorbach (nick name of Misha back in Russia)



;)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Maybe this is all it will take to show that not everyone supports the President, and a lot of people want peace, and not war.

This is exactly what I have been talking about- people think that if they can show that they do not support Bush that the terrorists will somehow like us and leave us alone. Appeasement will never work with these people. They will lie to us and hurt us behind the scenes and when they are caught in evil actions they will lie and deny they did anything wrong and accuse us of making it all up.

That is why we need to stay strong in the face of the enemy. They hate us and want us all dead or at the best converted to Islam and under the submission of the Ayattolahs (I will choose death).

There is no peaceful coexistance with these people. And now today Iran is flaunting its nuclear intentions in our face again. And not just our face but the world's face and we are all too afraid to act. I guess we have to wait for another catastrophic attack again to get a little backbone (the poor sacrificial citizens who will have their lives taken when it should not be necessary) but then it may be too late to take action because they will be totally nuclear and very willing to use it.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is no peaceful coexistance with these people.

Muslims, Iran, or terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Beenthere


Iraq study group was full of assholes including those who want Israel disappear from the face of the planet. They can insert many of their suggestions up to their butt holes.

The panel was chaired by James Baker III, Reagan's Chief of Staff and Secretary of Treasury and Bush Senior's Secretary of State along with Lee H. Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Comission Report who holds a seat on George W's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

The panel also included Lawrence Eagelburger, George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State; Edwin Meese, Attorney General under Reagan, Reagan-Bush's Chief of Staff and Senior Issues Adviser during their presidential campaigns, Reagan's counselor during his presidency, and a member of his Cabinet and National Security Council; Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by Reagan; William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Charles S. Robb, chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission; and a Republican senator.

And you wonder why I question your sanity.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Muslims, Iran, or terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?

[Only] murderous Muslims, [only] mad Iranians, all Al Qaeda.

Did I pass?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
This is exactly what I have been talking about- people think that if they can show that they do not support Bush that the terrorists will somehow like us and leave us alone. Appeasement will never work with these people. They will lie to us and hurt us behind the scenes and when they are caught in evil actions they will lie and deny they did anything wrong and accuse us of making it all up.

That is why we need to stay strong in the face of the enemy. They hate us and want us all dead or at the best converted to Islam and under the submission of the Ayattolahs (I will choose death).

There is no peaceful coexistance with these people. And now today Iran is flaunting its nuclear intentions in our face again. And not just our face but the world's face and we are all too afraid to act. I guess we have to wait for another catastrophic attack again to get a little backbone (the poor sacrificial citizens who will have their lives taken when it should not be necessary) but then it may be too late to take action because they will be totally nuclear and very willing to use it.

"Muslim", "Iranian", and "Terrorist" are none of them synonyms. No one is trying to appease terrorists. Never has anyone on this board suggested that we should try and let the terrorists know we're anti-Bush to save our lives, despite your constant insinuation otherwise. What we're hoping to do is not ignore all Arab Muslims because we associate them with their dangerous minority and to freely express ourselves as citizens of a democracy.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
The panel was chaired by James Baker III, Reagan's Chief of Staff and Secretary of Treasury and Bush Senior's Secretary of State along with Lee H. Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Comission Report who holds a seat on George W's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

The panel also included Lawrence Eagelburger, George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State; Edwin Meese, Attorney General under Reagan, Reagan-Bush's Chief of Staff and Senior Issues Adviser during their presidential campaigns, Reagan's counselor during his presidency, and a member of his Cabinet and National Security Council; Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by Reagan; William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Charles S. Robb, chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission; and a Republican senator.

And you wonder why I question your sanity.

You can stop questioning my sanity and look closely who James Baker III really is/was. Fuck him, big time.He was my primary target.

You don't have to judge my intelligence by considering my POVs with a simple good Repubs/bad Dems approach.

Plus I was targeting the "recommendations"; it looks to me someone is now targeting me.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
"Muslim", "Iranian", and "Terrorist" are none of them synonyms. No one is trying to appease terrorists. Never has anyone on this board suggested that we should try and let the terrorists know we're anti-Bush to save our lives, despite your constant insinuation otherwise. What we're hoping to do is not ignore all Arab Muslims because we associate them with their dangerous minority and to freely express ourselves as citizens of a democracy.

Exactly, and it shows we all have our own opinions. Lynn, we know your a Bush fan, but not all of us are. Not everyone feels what he is doing is right. Declaring war, or saying someone is a terrorist is the wrong way to do things. It is like calling out a bully at school. What do you think they will? Of course they will attack you, it is instinct. Peace is what most Americans what in this day and age. If you want war, go join the military, then when you lose a limb, come back and say how great it is.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Exactly, and it shows we all have our own opinions. Lynn, we know your a Bush fan, but not all of us are.

Ha! Imagine how boring this place would be without Lynn or Beenthere....

[EVILxxx]

Bah. Now JohnTheHenchman, there is a catalyst.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Someone needs more History classes.

Reagan talked to the Soviets from a position of the greater power. Only when Ivans started to give up he changed to the softer position and hang with Gorbach (nick name of Misha back in Russia)



;)



Actually, it wasn't history when they were broadcasting the talks 24/7 on TV while they were going on. My school (and I assume most others) were holding the curriculum in order to play segments in the classroom and to have discussions about it, because believe it or not there was a time when that sort of thing was important. Of course you would already know all of this because as you've said several times in various debates you've had, you're like 40 years old. So, to you as well, you wouldn't view knowledge of the talks having been learned through history, but through experience.

The only positioning I see going on is you trying to make US/USSR peace this totally distinct and unique peace talk that cannot be compared to any other peace talk.

But since we've gotten in the mode for recommending course work to one another, you may want to check your community college to see if they offer a social conventions class.

;) ;)

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Actually, it wasn't history when they were broadcasting the talks 24/7 on TV while they were going on. My school (and I assume most others) were holding the curriculum in order to play segments in the classroom and to have discussions about it, because believe it or not there was a time when that sort of thing was important. Of course you would already know all of this because as you've said several times in various debates you've had, you're like 40 years old. So, to you as well, you wouldn't view knowledge of the talks having been learned through history, but through experience.

The only positioning I see going on is you trying to make US/USSR peace this totally distinct and unique peace talk that cannot be compared to any other peace talk.

But since we've gotten in the mode for recommending course work to one another, you may want to check your community college to see if they offer a social conventions class.

;) ;)

Irony. I wouldn't recommend History classes in a college to anyone right now. Who knows how many teachers/professors out there still grief the Soviet Union collapse.


Reagan did what we got to do when you deal with a scoundrel/bully. The Soviet Union was a biggest producer of all types of pus and major destabilizer in the history. On the positive side Stalinism was long gone, so he was dealing with stubborn elderly putzes who bought the escalation and ruined the economy that was never strong in the first place. (Prisoners, soldiers and ! students ! were cheap labor, military complex and space program ate a lot and oil prices were cheap as well).
Gorbachev had to start perestroika to keep "socialistic" system alive with cosmetic remodeling where huge repairs were needed. And in 1987 Reagan was able to switch to a warmer relationship with the falling Empire.

I am not saying that the same schema would work with any other despotic regime, after all, nothing is that bad so far in comparison. But we better still consider anti-bully toughness. Smart and well calculated. With the emphasis that we're dealing with East now.

If anyone's interested: back in 1986 I was almost sent to Chernobyl (as a platoon commander in a construction battalion as a part of military support - it did not happed and honestly I never volunteered. Draft is draft.) In 1989 I was a part of crew filming the Soviet Army crossing Afghanistan border after the invasion was over. Practically everything what happened in the USSR after 1985 (including genocide, anti-alcohol campaign, centrifugal break up in ugly displays, ecological disasters, migration and post-Soviet hangover) I saw through the objective of the very bad Soviet movie cameras and French Eclair. :) You may say I could be a little bit subjective on the topic.

Thank you.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Irony. I wouldn't recommend History classes in a college to anyone right now. Who knows how many teachers/professors out there still grief the Soviet Union collapse.


Reagan did what we got to do when you deal with a scoundrel/bully. The Soviet Union was a biggest producer of all types of pus and major destabilizer in the history. On the positive side Stalinism was long gone, so he was dealing with stubborn elderly putzes who bought the escalation and ruined the economy that was never strong in the first place. (Prisoners, soldiers and ! students ! were cheap labor, military complex and space program ate a lot and oil prices were cheap as well).
Gorbachev had to start perestroika to keep "socialistic" system alive with cosmetic remodeling where huge repairs were needed. And in 1987 Reagan was able to switch to a warmer relationship with the falling Empire.

I am not saying that the same schema would work with any other despotic regime, after all, nothing is that bad so far in comparison. But we better still consider anti-bully toughness. Smart and well calculated. With the emphasis that we're dealing with East now.

If anyone's interested: back in 1986 I was almost sent to Chernobyl (as a platoon commander in a construction battalion as a part of military support - it did not happed and honestly I never volunteered. Draft is draft.) In 1989 I was a part of crew filming the Soviet Army crossing Afghanistan border after the invasion was over. Practically everything what happened in the USSR after 1985 (including genocide, anti-alcohol campaign, centrifugal break up in ugly displays, ecological disasters, migration and post-Soviet hangover) I saw through the objective of the very bad Soviet movie cameras and French Eclair. :) You may say I could be a little bit subjective on the topic.

Thank you.



The Mid-East is an entirely different situation. With the Soviet Union, we were fighting a country that was internally feeble with incompetant leaders (I'd hate to say it, but if someone like Stalin had still been in power the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have collapsed). Any approach we take over there will have a good deal of negative consequences. To say that the situation in the Soviet Union was worse than the one going on in the Middle East doesn't seem right at all. No matter how many people died in the gulags, millions of deaths would not have any affect on this situation. The Middle East is like a machine that runs on blood, and it has enough blood to last a long time. It's sad, but there will probably be no end to the fighting over there. That is, until someone finally presses the button.


Oh, and as Bubba mentioned, that age/experience argument will not work with most of us.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
The Mid-East is an entirely different situation. With the Soviet Union, we were fighting a country that was internally feeble with incompetant leaders (I'd hate to say it, but if someone like Stalin had still been in power the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have collapsed). Any approach we take over there will have a good deal of negative consequences. To say that the situation in the Soviet Union was worse than the one going on in the Middle East doesn't seem right at all. No matter how many people died in the gulags, millions of deaths would not have any affect on this situation. The Middle East is like a machine that runs on blood, and it has enough blood to last a long time. It's sad, but there will probably be no end to the fighting over there. That is, until someone finally presses the button.


Oh, and as Bubba mentioned, that age/experience argument will not work with most of us.

Are you trying to say that most of you as stubborn as former incompetent Soviet leaders or you prefer theory over practice? ;)


East is East. Soviet Union is responsible for what happened after WWII in the Middle East. I'm glad they failed but the poison spread. Besides all religious extremism.

I like your pessimism. In this context it's more realistic. We still can find a solution on how to neutralize the danger.

Speaking of future, I'm positive Middle East will be a peripheral player.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Exactly, and it shows we all have our own opinions. Lynn, we know your a Bush fan, but not all of us are. Not everyone feels what he is doing is right. Declaring war, or saying someone is a terrorist is the wrong way to do things. It is like calling out a bully at school. What do you think they will? Of course they will attack you, it is instinct. Peace is what most Americans what in this day and age. If you want war, go join the military, then when you lose a limb, come back and say how great it is.

We were minding our own business when we were attacked on 9-11. The terrorists aimed at killing our innocents on our airplanes and in our World Trade Centers. That was inexcusable. Deliberate, premeditated attacks- they did not try to avoid killing innocents.


If you think I am supporting the war because I am a Bush supporter you are wrong. I support Bush because I beleive that we are under attack and I think he is trying to do something about it. Thank God for Bush. I am convinced that the election debacle happened because he was being prepared for the coming spiritual warfare. It really is spiritual warfare. Being a Christian I see things in that light. The Bible has predicted all of this and it is going to get a lot worse unfortunately.

I'm putting it out there knowing full well that the board atheists/agnostics will have a good laugh on me (how dopey I am) but it is what it is.

Should you not call a bully out at school? Should people allow the mafia to go unchecked cause they might hurt someone? Should we try to ignore the evil that is around us?

We should stand firm against bullies on all scales. Don't be so cynical that you stop beleiving in fighting for right. Give me liberty or give me death. Live free or die. A limb for the war? A life for the cause of a free country? Once fredom is lost it is just about impossible to regain. Look around at the countries who do not live free. Is there any hope for them except that another bigger country comes along and sets them free as we did for Iraq, or France did for us?

Greater love has no man than one who lays down his life for a friend.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you think I am supporting the war because I am a Bush supporter you are wrong. I support Bush because I beleive that we are under attack and I think he is trying to do something about it. Thank God for Bush. I am convinced that the election debacle happened because he was being prepared for the coming spiritual warfare. It really is spiritual warfare. Being a Christian I see things in that light. The Bible has predicted all of this and it is going to get a lot worse unfortunately.


I was genuinely frightened by this paragraph. If this is what Christians take from the bible, then we are truely without much hope. Lynn have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy? That is what's happening here. The bible has predicted anything; but if you still have doubts about that you might want to check out the ancient Mayans. They "predicted" much more than the bible ever did....right before they were slaughtered by Christians who waged a "spiritual war" on them for their perceived demonic culture.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We were minding our own business when we were attacked on 9-11. The terrorists aimed at killing our innocents on our airplanes and in our World Trade Centers. That was inexcusable. Deliberate, premeditated attacks- they did not try to avoid killing innocents.


Sure we were. Have you ever read what we were doing before 9/11? We were pushing them to be like us. It is like that in all of history. The Muslims feel like they are under attack, and are defending themselves. 9/11 was a way of saying, "Get off our backs, and let us live our own lives."

Have you ever heard of ethical relativism? Don't judge a culture until you know enough about it to give a view. Just because they live different than us, doesn't mean we should view what they do wrong, it is just different. See that is the funny thing with people that support the war. They believe that because our ways work, at least so far, that others don't. We step in when we need too.

We were attacked by Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. I am still waiting for the WMDs to show up. Where are they Lynn? Exactly, they didn't exist because they were destroyed many years ago. Where did Bin Laden go? We got Saddam almost immediately. You know why we didn't get Bin Laden yet? Simple, it is a great tool to keep Americans scared that they could be attacked by him at any time. How do you know he isn't being held in a secret prison right now? Hell maybe Saddam is too, he did have many lookalikes.

The United States knows what we are doing at all times. If Bin Laden was such a serious threat, he would be captured by now, hell we would have been attacked on home land by now. They don't stop at just one attack on people, they keep going.

[EVILxxx]

Sure we were. Have you ever read what we were doing before 9/11? We were pushing them to be like us. It is like that in all of history. The Muslims feel like they are under attack, and are defending themselves. 9/11 was a way of saying, "Get off our backs, and let us live our own lives."

Bullshit.
The Mujahideen was created during the Afghani-Soviet war to fight the Russians. They didn't have any serious problems with us until the invasion of Kuwait. At this time Saudi Arabia rejected Usama Bin Ladin's offer of aide, telling him that America's military was needed to defeat Saddam. Placing troops and military bases in Saudi Arabia was seen as an insult by Usama and his followers. It has been escalating since.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Bullshit.
The Mujahideen was created during the Afghani-Soviet war to fight the Russians. They didn't have any serious problems with us until the invasion of Kuwait. At this time Saudi Arabia rejected Usama Bin Ladin's offer of aide, telling him that America's military was needed to defeat Saddam. Placing troops and military bases in Saudi Arabia was seen as an insult by Usama and his followers. It has been escalating since.

Exactly, us stepping in. You notice a trend, the people want to fight on their own, but we feel we need to help. We will all disagree.

It is similar to today with illegal immigrants. More people are losing their jobs to illegals, and it is slowly causing tensions.

It is so much fun to talk politics because everyone has a view, and really nobody is wrong, it just differs because of background for everyone. Like a lot of people dislike Bush because of how their life is going at the moment. I liked Clinton because my family was doing so much better.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Irony. I wouldn't recommend History classes in a college to anyone right now. Who knows how many teachers/professors out there still grief the Soviet Union collapse.


Originally posted by Beenthere
Are you trying to say that most of you as stubborn as former incompetent Soviet leaders or you prefer theory over practice?


How is it that whenever you join a conversation, you somehow bring up the Soviet Union?

Do you wake up at night in a cold sweat screaming "Daddy wasn't a communist! NO DADDY!!! WHY?!?!"

I'm with Quentin, you need a psychological examination.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Sure we were. Have you ever read what we were doing before 9/11? We were pushing them to be like us. It is like that in all of history. The Muslims feel like they are under attack, and are defending themselves. 9/11 was a way of saying, "Get off our backs, and let us live our own lives."

Have you ever heard of ethical relativism? Don't judge a culture until you know enough about it to give a view. Just because they live different than us, doesn't mean we should view what they do wrong, it is just different. See that is the funny thing with people that support the war. They believe that because our ways work, at least so far, that others don't. We step in when we need too.

We were attacked by Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. I am still waiting for the WMDs to show up. Where are they Lynn? Exactly, they didn't exist because they were destroyed many years ago. Where did Bin Laden go? We got Saddam almost immediately. You know why we didn't get Bin Laden yet? Simple, it is a great tool to keep Americans scared that they could be attacked by him at any time. How do you know he isn't being held in a secret prison right now? Hell maybe Saddam is too, he did have many lookalikes.

The United States knows what we are doing at all times. If Bin Laden was such a serious threat, he would be captured by now, hell we would have been attacked on home land by now. They don't stop at just one attack on people, they keep going.

I realize that we have had a feeling of superiroty and have been intrusive at times in our history. We can be obnoxious at times as can every other country. But when we were attacked on 9-11 it was because one man had an agenda.We had been watching for years as he was training his terrorists. It was not about Muslims saying "Let us live our own lives".He said he hated the fact that we were on Saudi Arabian soil. As infidels we were desecrating the "holy" land. We were not there without invitation. We were wanted there by the Saudi government.

And you are critical of our past intursiveness but are you saying it is understandable that our innocents were killed for any reason?

Bin Laden began this and he was celebrated by those Muslims who hate our country. It started by one evil man but now has helped propel a movement. The movement is world wide against people who are considered infidels. That's us. And they will kill anyone. We try not to deliberatedly kill innocents but they deliberately target people at work, at the marketplace, at weddings, restaurants, on a bus, kids on the street taking candy from our soldiers. These are evil people.

I dont think the US is as good at finding people as you seem to think. Why did it take so long to catch those two snipers (in the D.C area years ago) who lived right in our country and basically lived in their car?
Bin Laden has people hiding him who would be loyal even to the point of giving up their lives.

WMDs were used in Iraq by Hussin against the Kurds. He would have looked for ways to strike out at us and his sons would have for sure. They had no care for human life. They did not blink an eye to kill all those Kurds with gas. Would they have cared for us?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I was genuinely frightened by this paragraph. If this is what Christians take from the bible, then we are truely without much hope. Lynn have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy? That is what's happening here. The bible has predicted anything; but if you still have doubts about that you might want to check out the ancient Mayans. They "predicted" much more than the bible ever did....right before they were slaughtered by Christians who waged a "spiritual war" on them for their perceived demonic culture.

Christians who study the Bible absolutely beleive in the spiritual realm and how its forces influence our lives.

Self fulfilling prophecy? Nope? We didn't bring the 9-11 attacks on. We are responding. We are actually responding in a Christain way which is to target the actual perpetrators and avoid trying to kill all in our way. It would be so easy to decimate any country who strikes at us. We are powerful when we use our power without focus. It is our kindness that weakens us. The enemy is powerful because although their capablities are limited, they are not afraid to kill all. Even their own!

That percieved demonic culture was a pretty brutal culture. If you went to a country who performed human sacrifices you might be offended too.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Irony. I wouldn't recommend History classes in a college to anyone right now. Who knows how many teachers/professors out there still grief the Soviet Union collapse.-


If by irony you mean taking pot shots aimed at the education of someone you know relatively nothing about, then later realizing that the fact that you made the statement is funnier than the statement itself.... I agree. It was a very ironic exchange, and little else..



]
Reagan did what we got to do when you deal with a scoundrel/bully.

By "do what we got to do", and given the context of this statement, I would assume that you mean invade another country and fight a two month war for just reasons, then afterward fight on the scoundrel's home country's soil, and when you remove the scoundrel, continue fighting for an additional 4 years before asking for another quarter million troops and more money from tax payers?



The Soviet Union was a biggest producer of all types of pus and major destabilizer in the history. On the positive side Stalinism was long gone, so he was dealing with stubborn elderly putzes who bought the escalation and ruined the economy that was never strong in the first place. (Prisoners, soldiers and ! students ! were cheap labor, military complex and space program ate a lot and oil prices were cheap as well).
Gorbachev had to start perestroika to keep "socialistic" system alive with cosmetic remodeling where huge repairs were needed. And in 1987 Reagan was able to switch to a warmer relationship with the falling Empire.[quote]

I think it helped that our culture also infiltrated the Soviet Union before its fall. It seems like we had a lot of citizens, starting to be Americanized, who were supportive. They people really wanted Americas help, they were defecting faster than a Iraqi prostitute in Vegas. Something like that can really influence a leaders POV, assuming they are not a total asshat. The black market for American goods was insane before the fall. Sometimes instead of freedom, all people really want is to look good in Bugle Boy jeans.


[quote]I am not saying that the same schema would work with any other despotic regime, after all, nothing is that bad so far in comparison. But we better still consider anti-bully toughness. Smart and well calculated. With the emphasis that we're dealing with East now.


That how I feel. I'm not an anti-war person by any means, but I really feel like our effectiveness in this war isn't meeting the costs. That image of US tanks, traveling hundreds of miles across the desert toward Iraq still makes no sense to me (aside from explaining why gas prices are s high). I've been saying since day one that I don't get why that sort of spectacle is needed in the 21st century. The only thing I can get was that it's more intimidating to have a bunch of tanks slowly approaching you than being effectively taken out by the countless amount of remote drones we have or even having cargo jets dropping manned tanks directly onto your home base. I think it was Eddie Izzard who said that it's obvious Bush and his team would really suck at playing the game "Risk"

Admittedly though, I'm far from being a military man.












Originally posted by Vong
How is it that whenever you join a conversation, you somehow bring up the Soviet Union?


In Beenthere's defense, I brought up the Soviet peace talks.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Christians who study the Bible absolutely beleive in the spiritual realm and how its forces influence our lives.

Self fulfilling prophecy? Nope? We didn't bring the 9-11 attacks on. We are responding. We are actually responding in a Christain way which is to target the actual perpetrators and avoid trying to kill all in our way. It would be so easy to decimate any country who strikes at us. We are powerful when we use our power without focus. It is our kindness that weakens us. The enemy is powerful because although their capablities are limited, they are not afraid to kill all. Even their own!

That percieved demonic culture was a pretty brutal culture. If you went to a country who performed human sacrifices you might be offended too.

Iraq iraq iraq iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

And "kindness weakens us"?? Listen to yourself Lynn. You know whats wrong with that statement.

And about the Mayans....they were an extremely sophisticated culture that knew more about astrology than anyone else has in the history of man, and maybe even more than we do today. They have made more correct predictions about the future than the bible has, many more. Maybe they did have a brutal culture, but you know what seems brutal to me? Invading a foreign land and killing/enslaving an entire people for not converting to christianity.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Vong
How is it that whenever you join a conversation, you somehow bring up the Soviet Union?

Do you wake up at night in a cold sweat screaming "Daddy wasn't a communist! NO DADDY!!! WHY?!?!"

I'm with Quentin, you need a psychological examination.

Oh, you are with Quentin... :rolleyes:

You need glasses, Young Dude. Conversations were about Reagan and peace talk with the Soviet Union. You want me to talk about Namibia? :confused:

I know why you are so annoying every time I mention the USSR. In your eyes they screwed up the greatest theory you worship.

(My daddy's a gigolo. Singer and artist. I happened to sleep with the daughters of women he slept with. The only nightmarish dreams I saw about him were the ones where he was trying to steal my shiksas.:eek:)

Next stop - France. We'll see what Vong would say about me talking about nice French folks for a change.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Iraq iraq iraq iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

And "kindness weakens us"?? Listen to yourself Lynn. You know whats wrong with that statement.

And about the Mayans....they were an extremely sophisticated culture that knew more about astrology than anyone else has in the history of man, and maybe even more than we do today. They have made more correct predictions about the future than the bible has, many more. Maybe they did have a brutal culture, but you know what seems brutal to me? Invading a foreign land and killing/enslaving an entire people for not converting to christianity.

I am not saying it is wrong to be kind. It is necessary to be kind but it does weaken us when dealing with them cause we don't go in and destroy all of Sadyr (sp?)City.We try to only targe the actual people who are doing the bad. And that weakens us because the city stands to strike and kill us again.

It does not matter how sophisticated a society is if they are evil. The Soviet Union was pretty sophisticated too. But I am glad they are gone. The Bible does not teach Christians to go and capture and covert people so if they did it they were using it as an excuse to invade and take over. The Bible says if a town does not accept you to shake the dust off your feet and move on.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Can we cool it with the pot shots. If I wanted to see this level of squabbling I'd become a polygamist.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We try to only targe the actual people who are doing the bad. And that weakens us because the city stands to strike and kill us again.

It's about sacrifice and sticking to your convictions no matter what. Sacrifice and beliefs aren't weakness, but strengths. Giving in is the weakness. By only targeting those who were responsible for 9/11 and bringing them to justice rather than striking out at others in anger, we exhibit strength.


It does not matter how sophisticated a society is if they are evil. The Soviet Union was pretty sophisticated too.
Every culture has ugly practices. All of the Christian nations that existed hundreds of years after the mayans would today be considered evil.

The Bible does not teach Christians to go and capture and covert people so if they did it they were using it as an excuse to invade and take over.
Exactly, but it happens. It happens all the time. And isn't it possible that its happening again today. Why pursue Iran and Iraq when there are many other nations that are just as dangerous if not more so? Might we have something to gain from those two countries?

[Lynn7]

We weren't pursuing Iraq or Iran. iraq acted first when it invaded Kuwait- if we had not defended Kuawait we would probably not be invloved with Iraq now but when we fought in Iraq 1 and chased Hussein home, he promised us things he went back on like allowing weapons inspectors indefinitely. He threw the weapons inspectors out. He was breaking the oil for food program

Iran has been providing weapons to terrorists and insurgents to strike at our soldiers. They have been talking about destroying Israel. They have been proudly going nuclear. How can it be that we are pursuing them?

[Thrizzle]

We invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait? Alright im spent.

Let me ask you one question kind of unrelated to our discussion and just out of my curiousity. Yes or no question, if it were your call and knowing what we now know, would you have invaded Iraq in 2003?

[Lynn7]

I am saying that it has been a string of events going all the way back to Iraq 1. It's not like 9-11 happened and we said- oh- let's go invade Iraq. All through the Clinton years we watched as Iraq broke the terms they had agreed to- and we let them until after 9-11 when we could not be seen as weak anymore.

So, yes, If I could go back I would do it again knowing everything I knew now- we have had no more attacks on our soil- we have kept the terrorists occupied elsewhere and we have gotten much needed info from catching terrorists over there.

Most importantly, going forward into the future- now that Iran's leader is emerging as Hitler 2, I am so glad we have our troops positoned next door to him. If we weren't, how would we ever get permission to move our troops over there at this point? He could be destroying countires like Israel without any problem. He has no conscience. We done good.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I am saying that it has been a string of events going all the way back to Iraq 1. It's not like 9-11 happened and we said- oh- let's go invade Iraq. All through the Clinton years we watched as Iraq broke the terms they had agreed to- and we let them until after 9-11 when we could not be seen as weak anymore.

So, yes, If I could go back I would do it again knowing everything I knew now- we have had no more attacks on our soil- we have kept the terrorists occupied elsewhere and we have gotten much needed info from catching terrorists over there.

Most importantly, going forward into the future- now that Iran's leader is emerging as Hitler 2, I am so glad we have our troops positoned next door to him. If we weren't, how would we ever get permission to move our troops over there at this point? He could be destroying countires like Israel without any problem. He has no conscience. We done good.

I don't know how old you are, but when you turn 18, you better join the military. Maybe it will change your mind. I am for a draft just because of what you say. People like you are so brainwashed by what you hear or read. You believe you know so much about this war, but you and me don't know anything. I have friends over there, and I have heard some positive stories, and some negative stories.

I am sorry, but I am so sick of people like Lynn saying we should be in war. This person has never gone to war, or know what happens to the people their. I have friends that come back and have been in therapy for years because of what they have seen, or the limbs they lost. It is not a fun thing. If you strongly believe in this, go fight and learn why we should force peace talks more, and war less.

If I could go back, I would have taken out Bin Laden, and maybe, just maybe, we would have hit them hard, and keep going until the whole mess was destroyed. He was the reason we are such a hated country right now.

Saddam the threat, was nowhere near as threatening as you think he was. Why is it that his army pretty much didn't fight for him? His army knew he was joke by this time, but he held everything under control, something we might never do.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7 All through the Clinton years we watched as Iraq broke the terms they had agreed to- and we let them until after 9-11 when we could not be seen as weak anymore.


Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998. It worked and it didnt cost us any lives.


So, yes, If I could go back I would do it again knowing everything I knew now- we have had no more attacks on our soil- we have kept the terrorists occupied elsewhere and we have gotten much needed info from catching terrorists over there.


It has been 5 and a half years since 9/11, which was 8 years after the last attack on our soil. You can't attribute the lack of Al Qaeda activity in the US to Iraq.


Most importantly, going forward into the future- now that Iran's leader is emerging as Hitler 2, I am so glad we have our troops positoned next door to him. If we weren't, how would we ever get permission to move our troops over there at this point? He could be destroying countires like Israel without any problem. He has no conscience. We done good.

Actually, Iraq was the only country in the region that was keeping Iran in check. The two countries hated each other and had even gone to war with each other in the 80's. Now that balance is gone and Iran has more power and influence. Oh, and Afghanistan is next to Iran, so we were positioned next to the country when we went after the real terrorists.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I don't know how old you are, but when you turn 18, you better join the military. Maybe it will change your mind. I am for a draft just because of what you say. People like you are so brainwashed by what you hear or read. You believe you know so much about this war, but you and me don't know anything. I have friends over there, and I have heard some positive stories, and some negative stories.

I am sorry, but I am so sick of people like Lynn saying we should be in war. This person has never gone to war, or know what happens to the people their. I have friends that come back and have been in therapy for years because of what they have seen, or the limbs they lost. It is not a fun thing. If you strongly believe in this, go fight and learn why we should force peace talks more, and war less.

If I could go back, I would have taken out Bin Laden, and maybe, just maybe, we would have hit them hard, and keep going until the whole mess was destroyed. He was the reason we are such a hated country right now.

Saddam the threat, was nowhere near as threatening as you think he was. Why is it that his army pretty much didn't fight for him? His army knew he was joke by this time, but he held everything under control, something we might never do.

I am too old to be in the military but I do have three sons so I am not talking in a vacuum_-i know my kids could be affected by all this.

I really hate the thought of war and would love nothing more than to live in peaceful cooexistence with all countries. That has been taken away from us. Al Qaeda and many other terrorist groups have targetted our country for extinction along with Israel and then the other countries who are "infidels." But actually, the Muslim countries are not exempt from attack either. these terrorists kill their own without blinking an eye. What about last week when a car was allowed to go through the checkpoint with two small kids in the backseat and then the driver proceeed to go to the marketplace and blow the car up with the kids inside? (I think i heard he got out first but blew up the kids). Aren't these people worth fighting against?

If we do nothing then they will be coming here. You realize that right? So when they got here and started blowing up our malls and banks etc with their suicide bombers, would that involve you?Would you choose to fight against them then or just keep living your life and trying to avoid public places so you won't get blown up? Might work except our econmy will be affected by all this and you might not have a job and might have trouble getting food. then what?


People seem to think if we pull out of Iraq everything will go back to what it was before 9-11. The problem is that the terrorist attacks had been going on against the US for many many years. None had been on our soil so we pretty much over looked them. If we overlooked the 9-11 attacks they would be on our streets right now.


Let's be thankful that there are many brave men and women who are willing to volunteer to risk their lives to fight for us to live in peace. That way the people who do not want to fight don't have to right now. But the time will come when we no longer have that option. War is ugly but it has always been the way of the world. Show me where in history we have been long without war. Did the Jews in Germany go looking for war? Why were they targetted for extermination? We did not go looking for this either but people hate us and want to kill us. We need to react.