The War in Iraq

[boranchistanger]

Wilson was indeed a conservative Democrat. Also, the KKK, a right-wing extremist group, was at one time associated, however unofficially, with the Democratic Party.

 

So what you are saying is that the KKK is a conservative organization? Are you implying that conservatives are racist? If so then I don't know what planet you're on.

 

Lincoln, on the other hand, said that slavery would not extend beyond its current bounderies, the classic, liberal, Big Government formula.

 

Then again conservatives today want a constitutional ammendment which defines marriage as union between man and woman. That is a very similar thing to the Republican's stance on slavery and the territories. Now, Lincoln is very hard to measure simply because he was a war-time president. As a war-time president like he was you don't get to see his stances on economic issues and so forth.

 

I look at his successor Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. Johnson was a liberal for his day and age. If you look at the Republicans who followed Johnson: Grant, Hayes and so forth you will see pure conservative stances on issues.

 

Let's diuscuss this somewhere else say... on AIM or MSN Messenger. I have both.

 

On another note, I have said this before, but there has been a stable democracy in the Middle East for 81 years now, and it is Turkey. Just because it is a Muslim state does not mean it is a monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy. Just in case you are, for some reason, of the opinion that Turkey is not in the Middle East, then I turn your attention to a map of the world, which shows that Turkey is right above Syria and Iraq, and part of its eastern border with Iran.

 

Turkey is no democracy! Turkey's military runs politics. Any attempts at democracy are that the military disapproves of are simply "rid of". The "democracy" in Turkey is powerless and a puppet with the military pulling the strings.

 

-Boran

[yaebginn]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html

 

scroll down until you get to the government section and you will find that Turkey is in fact a democracy. It has a parliament. You are incorrect, Boran.

[boranchistanger]

Of course Turkey has a parlament. But so did Iraq during Saddam. Look up Indonesia. Indonesia has a brutal dictatorship and yert it says "republic". Look at Bagladesh, Parlamentary democracy. Bangladesh has a very brutal regime with central authority with a puppet parlament. Turkey is ruled by the military, the parlament is for show.

 

-Boran

[yaebginn]

But officially, Turkey is a democracy. Accept the facts.

[boranchistanger]

And "officially" so is Iran, Indonesia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Brazil, Argentina and many other puppet "democracies". They are not true democracy's Yaebginn. Turkey is not a democracy, it is under military rule. It has a puppet parlament, just like Saddam had. And was Saddam's regime a democracy?

 

-Boran

[yaebginn]

No, it was a dictatorship. Shadowman was correct. Just swallow your pride and admit you were wrong, but you never were good at admitting you're wrong were you?

 

EDIT- and North Korea and such clearly arent democracys. Are you confusing Turkey with Pakistan? cause the military did take over that.

[Shadowman17]

Thank you, yaebginn. I also refer you, boran, to http://www.turkey.org. There you will be able to find all sorts of information about the history, as well as the government of the Republic of Turkey.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by VanLingo

Look, what's done is done. Now that we've seen how much you care about innocent people who have never done anything wrong in their life, why don't you edit your picket sign to "Vote Against Kerry"?

 

nö, Because he wants to allow abortion clinics in the U.S. And that kills more innocent people every year than the War in Iraq has in total.

that would indirectly mean "vote for bush" and that again would mean vote against gay marriage. also i see no problem with abortion in general. see below.

 

Originally posted by boranchistanger

They don't? I guess fighting terrorism isn't in our interests and isn't in the interests of the human race. Like I said earlier, we went into Iraq for one simple reason: To establish a democracy in the Middle East. Terrorism cannot thrive in a stable democracy. Like I explained earlier democracy will spread once Iraq is a stable one. Iran and Saudi Arabia are already beginning to rebel while the Syrian government becomes less and less popular.

you miss my point. i dont say fighting terrorism isnt our interest or that of the human race. i said you cant fight terrorism with a "localized" war. and that pushing that war isnt necessarily our interest.

 

OK, I give in. You're right. Here is how we should have treated Iraq. Bush and Blair should have invited Saddam to a nice tea party with lots of pink flowers. There President Bush should have asked Saddam to give up his WMD's. Remember Mr. President, you have to say please. That very nice gentleman Saddam would have then said "sure, OK. Here they are." Then, Mr. Blaire should have politely asked very nice man Saddam to stop harboring terrorism. Nice man Saddam would have then said "OK". Then, President Bush should have asked Very sane Saddam to make Iraq more democratic. Mr Saddam would have then said "OK". And there you have it, the problem is solved.

now do i hear a sharp tounge here??

seriously.. i dont think that would have worked..

 

Hmmm, even when we aren't at war we seem to lose quite a few people. Terrorist attacks during the CLinton administration against innocent Americans resulted in thousands dead. 911 resulted in 3000 deaths. In Iraq over 500,000 people died for no reason under Saddam. All of this to innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

yes, but why do the same like "the terrorists" and saddam? i mean.. what are we talking about getting rid of terrorism and saddam then, if we arent the slightest bit better?

 

Understand that only 2% of all abortions are done because of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. Only 2%! That means 98% of the 2 million+ abortions every year are done as a form of birth control. Murder is not birth control!

from a certain point of view, it is.

 

1.) She had a choice of whether or not to engage in sexual activity with that man knowing the consequences that may happen because of her actions.

 

2.) Under federal law the father must pay up some cash. The father is as equally responable as the woman in this.

 

3.) Like I said, the girl knows the consequences of her actiuons. She knows that having a child will put a strain on your life and may in fact ruin your future. Therefor, she should have waited to engage in this kind of activity until she was truly ready. She must now accept the consequences just like murderors do when they kill someone. ..

1.) some women doesnt have a choice..

 

2.) being father is not about paying cash. and sure the father is responsible, but is he going to help the girl because of that? and where do 16 year old girls/boy get enough money if they go to school and hav achild?

 

3.) having a child at 16 doesnt ruins a life. it may, of course, but this is very dependend to the "young parents" and their environment. but usually it isnt the right time to become parents. but it's also the time were human younglings usually start to discover their sexuality. and if they arent "prepared" properly, which should be again their own parents job, then it maybe that young girls/boys really see it "the wrong way" adn believe in "misinformations". and that may result in pregnancy.

 

but i have to add that it's not uncommon that a woman who has already two childs becomes pregnant again (because of known reasons .. ) and doesnt wishes another child or doesnt mind about another child BUT cannot afford it. or maybe it is for health reasons. if that woman is 40 then a pregnancy could be very risky, for both mother and child.

[yaebginn]

RayJones, from a certain point of view, You must be getting desperate. From a 'certain point of view' anything can be made logical. You could say its like in Spiderman 2. When Doctor Octopuss is saying how its a crime to steal, but it'd be a crime not to finish what he started. In his reasoning, he was in the right.

 

And shadowman, thanx. I'm very interested in Turkey.

[Guest Jed]

VanLingo, this is obviously a debate. Stop the flaming.

 

Everyone else settle down.

[yaebginn]

Boran. For one, Turkey is a democracy. They actually had a say in our troop placement, and we had to comply because they are, in fact a democracy. They want to be in the UN, but France doesnt want them to. And religion has a huge part in this. Bush is a Christian. And it doesnt matter how old you are, if you're not married, dont do it. Thats the best birth control ever. 100% guaranteed no pregnancies. Dont do it. Religion has a big part in abortions, gay marriages, alot of the topics we're on, thwe Bible has something to say on it. Read it sometime.

[Ewok Homie]

Boran the fact that you said i dont give **** about what the soldiers think is wrong. It shows that you would rather listen to bush then the actual people that are there. And who cares if kerry didn't get as high as an sat score as bush. Not to mention kerry is a war hero unlike bush. Which shows he has alot more patrisim then bush.

[Shadowman17]

President Bush has called for Turkey to be allowed into the European Union, so why would he do that if Turkey is under the direct authoritarian control of the military?

[yaebginn]

Originally posted by Ewok Homie

Boran the fact that you said i dont give **** about what the soldiers think is wrong. It shows that you would rather listen to bush then the actual people that are there. And who cares if kerry didn't get as high as an sat score as bush. Not to mention kerry is a war hero unlike bush. Which shows he has alot more patrisim then bush.

 

No, not more patriotic. I'm a Republican. But I hate it when other Republicans try to take away Kerry's glory. He was a war hero. I admit, the left dresses what he did alot, but he saved someones life, making him a hero. He only stayed in like three months, and tried for a purple heart every time he got a scratch, yes, but he was a hero. The thing about who cares is that everyone says Bush is stupid and all, but hes actually smarter than Kerry. And I know a few people who didnt serve in the armed forces, but they are as patriotic as the next guy. It's good to serve in the military, but it doesnt make you better than anyone else. Here's why I dont like Kerry.

 

1. He marries for money, not love.

2. He switches sides alot.

3. He blows his wartime experoence out of preportion.

4. He's a democrat, and while alot are ok, my nature is to dislike them as a whole. My best friend is a democrat and I like him, but them as a whole, I dont like, which he is representing. He being Kerry, not my friend

[boranchistanger]

Boran. For one, Turkey is a democracy. They actually had a say in our troop placement, and we had to comply because they are, in fact a democracy.

 

Huh? Even authorization countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran had a say in where we put our troops. That proves nothing.

 

They want to be in the UN, but France doesnt want them to.

 

North Korea, China, Vietnam and many other countries are in the UN and they are also authorization countries. That also proves nothing.

 

President Bush has called for Turkey to be allowed into the European Union, so why would he do that if Turkey is under the direct authoritarian control of the military?

 

1. Turkey has the appearence of being a democracy. There is a parlaments and so forth. However, like I have said, Turkey is run by the military. If the military doesn't like something then it gets its way. The Turkish parlament in 2003 voted on whether to allow US troops in Turkey for Iraq. The Turkish military wanted none of that so it basically forced the parlament members to vote a majority "nay". That's just one example out of many.

 

2. There are many non-democratic countries in the EU. Slovakia,

Slovenia, Hungary to name a few.

 

Boran the fact that you said i dont give **** about what the soldiers think is wrong. It shows that you would rather listen to bush then the actual people that are there.

 

Take a wild guess at the percentage of Union soldiers in 1863 who felt that the war they were fighting was a rightful cause. Take a wild guess.

...

...

...

Less than 25%.

 

Take a wild guess at the percentage of US soldiers who felt that fighting in Somalia was a rightful cause.

...

...

80%.

 

Let's see here, in a justified and rightful war, the Civil War, less than 25% of the Union army felt that what they were fighting for was just. In a wasteful war like in Somalia 80% of American forces on the ground felt that was a just war.

 

The point is that you can't always go by what the soldiers on the ground think is OK. I will trust people who have experience, knowledge and expertise like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheny and Bush over the standard US marine.

 

And who cares if kerry didn't get as high as an sat score as bush. Not to mention kerry is a war hero unlike bush. Which shows he has alot more patrisim then bush.

 

Hold on hold on! Orthon, you said Bush was dumb. We never got into patriotism. If you want to get into that I would say that they both are equally patriotic. Kerry's service in the military was heroic. What he did afterwards, I'm not so sure.

 

2. He switches sides alot.

 

Got that right!

 

I threw nothing...I threw someone else's medals...I threw ONLY my ribbons...ya.

 

VanLingo, this is obviously a debate. Stop the flaming.

 

Everyone else settle down.

 

Unless I'm missing something Lingo hasn't flamed at all.

[yaebginn]

Bush wants Turkey in the UN, so are you saying that you're smarter than Bush and can see through Turkey's appearance of being a democracy? Seriously, you are sounding stupid. I showed you evidence that it is a democracy. Is this like when you said Texas had a crappy history? No matter how much evidence I show you, you're still gonna say its incorrect?

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by boranchistanger

Could you be a little clearer plz. I have no idea what you are saying lol.

 

man. woman. 10 years marriage. 3 kids. papa + mama making lurve. mama pregnant. not enough money for another kid.

 

 

I honestly don't feel the least bit sorry for you Ray. If you don't want a baby then keep your zipper zipped up and have fun with your girl in other ways. I can guarantee you that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't had sex with her.

 

:/

 

we both are old enough to have sex. and it's not that we dont wanted a baby, we just were'nt at a point were we wished for one. and as it happend we took responsibility. and we wanted it. and there was never a single moment were we felt sorry for this decision. and you know what? i find it great that life has put me into this situation this way. it's one of the greates experiences ever. and seriously i didnt posted this because anyone should feel sorry. maybe you missed that. completely.

 

Are people ignorant about their mistakes or what? After you get burned for "doing it" the first time you "do it" again and get burned again. You did have some bad luck though, I mean condoms are usually very reliable (Not learned from personal experience).

 

:///////

 

i DO learn from my mistake. and it was NO mistake to have sex with her. and it was no 'mistake' that she got pregnant. and yes condoms are usually reliable.. like the pill is should be. learned from personal experience.

 

 

So, you understood the risks of having sexual intercourse before you guys were ready to have kids, right? So, you do it anyways and get burned for it. Instead of giving this human a chance at life you killed him/her and yuou know what, that is wrong. If you absolutely couldn't take care of the baby you could have put him/her up for adoption. Anything is better than killing him/her.

 

://///////////////////////////////////////

 

no. just no. and i didnt get burned. man. NO!

and again, you missed my point.

 

Society forced nothing upon you Ray. You and your girl made the decision to have intercourse knowing the possible consequences. THere are no laws out there that say you have to have intercourse by x age, there is no "sex police" making sure everyone does it. You had the choice, you made the choice and you experienced the consequences. Society had nothing to do with this.

 

yes it did. we both would have taken another baby (because we wish more kids), but just cant afford it AND THAT is because of SOCIETY. :///

again, point missed.

 

Like I said, put the baby up for adoption, do something. At least give the baby a chance at living! Over 2 million lives are sucked up every year through the sick and inhumane process known as abortion. What if one of those 2 million plus people had grown up to find the cure for cancer? How about if one of those 2 million plus humans became an important leader? Think about it.

 

now, i just wont comment that. would have could have.. if the dog wouldnt had put a pile, he could have got the rabbit .. that is not the point.

 

and you clearly mistunderstood my point, or just didnt wanted to see it.

 

[Darth Groovy]

Originally posted by VanLingo

Whatsamatta, ET? You don't know Federal law? That woman would be guilty of Manslaughter in the 3rd degree -- accidental killing. Not murder -- Manslaughter.

 

And Jed, I think you need to read the entire thread before you start throwing out accusations.

 

^ This was the first flame of this thread. It was on the second page. You'd notice if you didn't have a personal bias in this discussion.

It's no secret that you don't like me, Jed. But if you let statements like that slide around, I'm not going to sit still. The above quote is much more directed and blatant than mine, so DO YOUR JOB and monkey on someone else's back.

 

Boran -- If you are truly posting these topics, then kudos to you for your excellent grammar and thought process. Now, if you would only use that grammar and intelligence in every other thread...

 

To anyone who discredits religion -- it's an easy thing to do when you're outmatched.

 

Vanlingo, there is a place within JK Forums called "The Senate Chambers" where real debate savy mods will tell you how this goes down.

 

It is not a good idea to say things like "Jed, I think you need to read the entire thread before you start throwing out accusations." Please understand that Jed is only doing his job.

 

I think you will find that the Senate does a FANTASTIC job and handling serious political debates such as this. Kudos to mods such as C'Jais and Skinwalker for keeping it under control.

 

I'm moving this thread to THAT location.

 

To Jais, and Skin: Sorry for "dumping this in your court" but you guys always seem to know how to keep these type of threads under control. If not for you guys, the "Senate" would not even exist. Thanks in advance. If you dissagree with the move, PM me, and i'll handle it from there.

 

*moves thread to the Senate*

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

To Jais, and Skin: Sorry for "dumping this in your court" but you guys always seem to know how to keep these type of threads under control.

 

No problem. I just wish we could stick to either the War in Iraq, Abortion or Suicide now

[SkinWalker]

If I get the time after work today, I'll split out the abortion posts to a new thread. However, from this point, the topic is "The War in Iraq."

 

Also, if you find you are missing a post, the Senate Singularity fed this morning. It fed well.

[toms]

wow... i wondered where this thread popped up from... i thought for a minute i had been totally blind and not noticed it in here for the last 2 weeks... so glad it turned out to have just been moved.

However don't we already have enough threads here on abortion and the war? Why not just leave this where it was and lock it, directing people over here if they want to continue talking about it...

[Darth Groovy]

Originally posted by C'jais

No problem. I just wish we could stick to either the War in Iraq, Abortion or Suicide now

 

LOL!

 

*hands C'Jais a whip stolen off the set of Catwoman*

[Ray Jones]

(groovy, groovy. i like your "new" style. err.. and welcome to the chambers, thread.)

[SkinWalker]

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

The simple reason we went into Iraq, along with 30+ countries, was to establish a democracy in the middle of the Middle East.

 

And yet the Bush admin gave the reason of WMD, the threat of Iraq to American national security, and their terrorist affiliations. None of these have been substantiated through quantifiable evidence.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Terrorism cannot prosper in a true stable democratic nation.

 

You are obviously young. I recall being in Germany in the mid-80's when the threat of terrorism prospered very well throughout Europe. What prevents terrorism from prospering is the elimination of capital resources. To suggest that it is democracy is an outright fallacy. Indeed, there is historical record of terrorist acts being committed or sponsored by several democratic nation-states. Incidentally, the fact that nations like Cuba and China are not on the list of terrorist sponsors is evidence that your argument is fallacious.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

So, in order to combat terrorism, which is what this war is about, we needed to establish a democracy in the Middle East.

 

Then why send thousands of troops to Iraq where the terrorists were not, ignoring Afghanistan where the terrorists were? At the outset of the invasion of Iraq, we had less troops in Afghanistan than there are cops in most major cities. Establishing a democracy in Iraq endeavor doomed for failure as evident by past attempts at "spreading democracy" in the Middle East and other regions of the world. Democracy can only seed from within, not from without.

 

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

And that is why Iraq was chosen for this special country.

 

Iraq's lure was likely its oil fields, the second largest in the world, and the temptation for OPEC to adopt the Euro (abandoning the Dollar) as its base currency.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

...with foreign Christians marching into a country in which the people hate the US [...] All we have are a few scattered and relatively small militias with isolated terrorists attacks. [...] that there have only been 800 deaths!

 

That most Islamic people hat the U.S. along with individual Americans is a common fallacy among those that have not traveled to the Middle East and interacted with the people. While there is a distinct disdain for the materialistic and arrogant nature of American culture, there is at the same time a respect and admiration for those who are allowed to live and prosper in a nation where dissent is patriotic. That American are Christian matters only to the most fundamental of Muslims to my experience. If the American forces had marched into Iraq under a Christian flag, then certainly their reception would have been different. The United States is not a Christian nation, but rather a nation with a Christian majority. Our religious diversity is admired and respected throughout the world. Or at least it was.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

There was credible evidence from all over the world which showed that Saddam had WMD's and moved them to Syria where I personally believe they are.

 

You have sources? I disagree. There is no credible evidence.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Al Queda [sic] training camp in northern Iraq?

 

It wasn't Al Qaeda, it was Ansar al-Islam (HRW, 2004). In addition, the camp was in the Kurdish regions and within the coalition-controlled No-Fly Zone. If anyone is connected to this camp, it is the coalition. Perhaps this is why Bush & Co. hasn't drawn attention to it.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

How do you explain the close connection between Bin Ladin and Zarquowi?

 

The connection between Bin Laden and Zarqawi is obvious and apparent. The connection between Zarqawi and Saddam, however, is tenuous at best. There is very little to suggest that Zarqawi did anything more than enter the country and obtain medical aid. To draw a conspiratorial connection based on so little empirical evidence is an extremely ignorant venture. Zarqawi's current proliferation is a direct result of U.S. action in Iraq, which offers him nearly free reign in a near anarchy.

 

Bottom line: Saddam posed no credible terrorist threat to the United States. Period. Speculation upon speculation and your introduction of support for the PLO/Hamaas does not imply support for Al Qaeda.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

How many Iraqis died every year under Saddam? Over 100,000.

 

Source? I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I have to wonder what methodology could be applied to accurately measure this. 100k/year seems a bit counterintuitive. That's well over 1 million in the period post-Desert Storm.

 

But popular rhetoric among warmongers is to use justification: "he was cruel/evil/tyrannical/etc.;" "the world is a better place now;" etc. ad nauseum. No doubt. But when the argument is posed thus: why not use this standard for all tyrannical leaders and regimes?, it doesn't stand up. Indeed the first argument cannot rightfully be applied since this would mean the U.S. would need to preemptively strike Israel and Russia, not to mention Zimbabwe and North Korea.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

For both the wars congress, made of republicans and democrats, overwhelmingly supported the president along with the majority of the population.

 

Afghanistan was justified and, ironically, blundered by not following through with the commitment to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. Support in this endeavor was righteous, but in the question of Iraq, it was coerced by deception. The lawmakers and public were assured by authority that WMDs and terrorism were both real threats from Iraq. As it happened, this was a deception.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Coalition troops will be needed until at least the beginning of 2005.

 

Which supports the notion of the incompetence of the Bush administration.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Africa has no US interests in it.

 

Only several million impoverished people who aren't white. But that isn't a new reason for us to overlook genocide and human rights violations, is it?

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

African countries pose no threat to American security.

 

Neither did Iraq, at least not in any way that has been empirically demonstrated.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

We are fighting a war on terrorism, not a war against tyranny and human rights violations.

 

Terrorism is the symptom. With a more honorable position in the world –a compassionate and consistent one- terrorists will find less support. That warmongers cannot see this is testament to the fact that a desire to segregate and divide is taking precedent over unification and convergent destiny.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Remember, US foreign policy rightfully revolves around two things in the proper order:

 

1. US interests

2. Promoting democracy and improving the world

 

It is fallacious to assume that capital resources are fiscal or physical. Social and political capital are equally important and a balance is needed between social, political, monetary, and natural resources / capital. Looking at only the physical/fiscal payoff is shortsighted and ignorant. It serves the present without investing in the future.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Clinton sent our troops into Bosnia, an operation in which there was absolutely no US interests involved.

 

Patently false. This gained much political and social capital in the world. Indeed, there are many immigrant Americans who are very grateful. Moreover, stability has been returned to a region where people can continue to live and prosper. Bosnia is a success in every respect. Further atrocities were averted and tourism is getting back underway.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-14-2004 04:27 PM:

Iraq is in the interests of the United States because once the operation in Iraq is completed, which may take awhile, the War on Terror will begin to turn to our side.

 

This is the kind of ignorant rhetoric that worries me about my nation. That people can really buy into this nonsense is evidence of the severe lack of critical thinking that is in emergence. First, Iraq is in the interests of a few in the United States who will benefit financially from the second largest oil fields in the world at some point in the future. Second terrorism will continue for as long as our nation continues to turn it's collective back on the cares of the world all-the-while exploiting resources and labor from the peripheral nations. There is every indication that democracy cannot be seeded by military intervention. History has demonstrated this on numerous occasions. We are doomed to failure in Iraq. The warmongers of the nation should hope Kerry gets elected so the whole mess can be blamed on the Democrats. Then perhaps we can manage to get a true leader in the Whitehouse like John McCain.

 

Posted by VanLingo on 07-17-2004 12:59 AM:

ET Warrior, I dare you to invite a military friend of yours to read what you've posted.

I have several friends in the military [...] [e]ither one of these fellows wouldn't think twice before punching you in the mouth.

 

I'm a military friend of his (retired). I read it and found it spot on. Don't make the ignorant assumption that just because one is in the military, one is a warmonger. In fact, I'd say that the political diversity of soldiers is representative of the nation's population. If your two friends would indeed "punch" someone in the mouth for exercising their right to Free Speech, or for questioning the notion of what the invasion of Iraq was about, then they don't deserve to wear their uniforms. They are un-American and un-patriotic. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Posted by VanLingo on 07-17-2004 12:59 AM:

while I don't believe myself to be in real danger, I do fear for the security of other Americans.

 

As you should. Which is why we should have followed through in our commitment to engage the enemy in Afghanistan instead of diverting precious funds, troops, and resources to Iraq in order to satisfy the desires and predetermined goals (Abrams, 1/26/98) of the self-described neo-conservatives, who are, in all likelihood, traitors to the American people. We've abandoned the fight against terrorism to appease the pocketbooks of the few in our nation who are keen to assume power and keep it. Tyranny is coming if it isn't stopped in it's tracks now.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-17-2004 05:38 AM:

Now, he got a DIRECT invitatyion from Saddam inviting Zarquowi to Iraq in order to recieve medical treatement

 

Source? There is speculation by those that want it to be true, but the fact remains that Zarqawi was in the country and received medical aid. Empirical evidence to suggest anything else simply does not exist.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-17-2004 05:38 AM: Now, the Al Queda training camp,

 

Your continued insistence that the camp was "Al Qaeda" rather than Ansar al-Islam demonstrates both your ignorance to the real data as well as your belief system. You want it to be true, therefore an a priori notion is assumed. As I stated earlier in this short post, the camp was situated in the Kurdish region and within the coalition-controlled No-Fly Zone. Any Iraqi military elements in this zone, even if on the ground, were subject to attack from coalition forces. The camp was untouched and left alone. Now this is the part where you should engage your critical thinking engine (assuming that it exists). Why was the camp not engaged as an enemy element? I can tell you what my Blackhawk crew chief buddy told me: it was assumed to be anti-Saddam, pro-Kurd and marked as a "friendly" element on the map. I believe him. Don't you wonder why this camp isn't talked up by the Bush admin?

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-17-2004 05:38 AM: That's quite a few links to terrorism.

 

But none that are pre-invasion. All are direct result of U.S. invasion and subsequent a occupation, that effects an inefficient measure of security in the country. Too bad our "coalition" doesn't have any actual troops to send to assist. The Iraqi people could use the security that a doubled amount of troops could offer. We're letting them down.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-17-2004 05:38 AM:

quote:

I have several friends in the military. One -- Gary M. -- is in the Army airborne division and just returned from Iraq. Another -- Robbie C. -- is a Humvee driver who also recently returned from Iraq.

Either one of these fellows wouldn't think twice before punching you in the mouth.

 

I'm glad they have returned safetly. Could you tell them that Boran thanks them so so much for protecting this great country please?

 

I've got a few friends in Iraq, too. A dozen or so that I can think of off the top of my head. And they're pissed at being there because they no it doesn't have a thing to do with protecting U.S. soil (well, three are pretty Gung Ho... but they always did get off on deployments). But you know what? They're still there.

 

Posted by B1GC on 07-17-2004 07:13 AM:

The Un is a bunch of liers anyway, they are worse than saddam and Bush.

 

Really, I'd love to participate in a thread that discusses "UN lies and the evidence of worse than Bush and Saddam character." At least you have Saddam and Bush aligned, albeit more closely than even I would have. But do youreally want to split hairs and talk about corporate corruption, or can we simply agree that humans are status-seekers by nature and corruption is inevitable? It's how it's dealt with that's important. What was the UN's response to the corruption? Did UN officials take action to correct it? Or did Kofi Annan take the side of the corrupt members and staff of the UN? Was it the entire UN that was corrupt, or a specific minority? What was the nature of the corruption (did you bother to actually read all the news related to the scandal, or merely cue in on the negative sound bites that support your discontent for the UN?)?

 

I ask these questions to make a point that unless you can answer them, your opinion is uninformed. Perhaps the answers support your contention. Perhaps not.

 

Posted by B1GC on 07-17-2004 07:13 AM:

anything concerning the UN is a lie,

 

"Anything?" Not just some things or even most things, but "anything?" That's a little over the top, don' t you think? Empirically speaking, this is not only untrue, but an unfair characterization.

 

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

it has the best healthcare in the world, gthe most new technological innovations every year and is the protector of the free world.

 

Actually, among core nation-states, the United States has some of the worst healthcare. We are far surpassed by nations like Norway, Germany and (I believe) Denmark. Moreover, there is every indication that we will soon fall to the wayside in technological innovation, due to our own failures in science and technology education. The breakdown here appears to be the public school system. No Child Left Behind is an outright lie.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

I rarely ever hear Bush or any of his administration [on the media].

 

Perhaps its because the neo-conservative puppet masters are smart enough to keep him out of the limelight and off the airwaves.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

Talk to any soldier in the service right now and he will laugh if you ask him if he's got a paycheck cut [...] if there was a paycheck cut, congress would be the culprit, not the president.

 

What Bush did cut was the program that pays to educate the children of servicemembers, the DoD school system (Bush, 2/27/01). He also cut veteran's health care by a considerable margin (Washington, 12/22/02).

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM: And how were we able to get over 30 countries in our coalition? I'm pretty curious to hear your response.

 

Convincing 30 Banana Republics to sign on or lose some sort of foreign aid couldn't have been difficult. One of the coalition members was Honduras. I worked closely with this "army" in 1985 – 86. Their recruiting tactic: send a truck into town and abduct any boy that looked as though he were at least 15. I met more than one 13 year-old Honduran Army soldier assigned to Palmerola Air Base near Comeyagua.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 02:50 PM:

 

Your lack of knowledge is extyremely disturbing.

 

And yours is typical of the warmongering believers that place their undying faith in right-wing extremism simply because it's most vocal members are willing to "talk tough." Strength and wisdom aren't mutually exclusive traits, yet they appear absent in this radical facet of American politics.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

Every citizen in the US has access to healthcare, the best in the world actually.

 

Obviously you are a member of the white middle-class. "Access" is highly debatable in definition. "Best in the world" is merely arrogant overstatement and doesn't withstand the test of comparison.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-18-2004 05:45 AM:

And most companies give there employees healthcare benefits anyway.

 

I challenge you to source that statement. Very few companies give anything to their employees with regard to healthcare. The cost of healthcare is through the roof. Between my company and my wife's and my veteran's benefits, I still pay a sizeable chunk to ensure that the three of us can get through a hospital visit without taking out a mortgage. If our combined income were any lower, it would be cost prohibitive and I still wouldn't be eligible for state or federal assistance because my income would be too high. For an advanced society, our healthcare system is primitive and barbaric.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

And I find it quite remarkable too that there are more Native Americans today than there were in 1776. Very wierd isn't it?

 

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM: Now, you mention Uganda. Like I said earlier, why should US forces die for something that will not benefit the country they are fighting for?

 

The preservation of life and prevention of genocide or mass homicide as well as countless atrocities such as child slavery, rape, and torture wouldn't benefit a country the U.S. troops went to fight for? Didn't you make an argument that this was a reason for invading Iraq?

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

Why should Americans die for no reason just like they did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and others (All under Clinton by the way).

 

Ahh... you have to love the blame game that warmongers engage in. Why is it that warmongering, right-wing extremists look for ways to divide and segregate? The number of false dichotomies that exist in American (and hence world) politics is troubling. "Either you're with us or against us," etc. Bleh. Unpatriotic to be sure.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

Alright, let's get one thing straight, Bush is not a "dumbet". He [...] graduated Yale with honors and has been extremely successful in everything he does.

 

Indeed. I was under the impression that he had a "C" average throughout his Yale experience. He comes across as a boob when he speaks in public, which is why he gives few press conferences.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

Now, Michael "Krispy Kreme" Moore is not an intellkegent [sic] human being. He is a Socialist, and he has admitted so. And no socialist person is very smart.

 

Really? And you have some empirical data that supports the statement that "no socialist is smart?" Can your typical socialist spell intelligent? Why is socialism bad, exactly? Is there some balance that a nation-state can find with socialist attributes while maintaining capitalist virtues? Do these very traits not exist at a very successful level in many European and Scandinavian countries? Is not the Euro fast overcoming the Dollar in strength? It appears to me that you have many a priori notions at work here.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

Michael Moore uses lies to get his point accross, like this example in Fahrenheit 911.

 

Moore implies that the African American inner city community is suffering the most in Iraq. In fact, 70% of the casualites in Iraq have been to white-males.

 

Really? He implied that, or did you simply infer that. It appeared to me that Moore was saying that the economically challenged of our nation are being taken advantage of by the lure of our country's greatest unemployment agency: the US Military. Indeed, the young man whose family Moore profiled and who died in Iraq was white. How did you infer Moore's call to the African American plight from that?

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

Moore says that the Bush family has strong connections with the Bin Ladin family along with the Saudi Royal family. In fact that is a completely false claim, shown by Bush's repeated pressure and threats of sending troops into Saudi Arabia. Bush has also authorized a ton of money to be sent to Saudi rebel forces.

 

I don't know. The evidence seems clear. In fact, Moore isn't the first to raise these questions. The Bin Laden/Saudi ties are there. Whether you choose to bury your head in the sand or not.

 

Finally, Michael Moore makes that old claim that Bush "cheated" his way into office. He says that if there was a recount Gore would have won. Unfortinately Michael Moore overlooks the fact that numerous studies have been executed by newspapers and news stations and all have found that under any recount Bush would have won Florida.

 

And yet there were also studies that indicate that a great number of minority voters were, indeed, disenfranchised. Moreover, the popular vote of the nation favored Gore over Bush. Again, Moore has a point. Though I agree it is one that has been beat to death and there is little to be done but fire Bush in November.

 

Posted by boranchistanger on 07-19-2004 01:01 PM:

So this man [Moore] is a liar and, well, a Socialist. And I hate guys who are liars.

 

And yet you support Bush? Does that make you a hypocrite, ignorant or simply a cult-follower? There is, after all, every indication that Bush has a cult of personality surrounding him. My advice: avoid the Kool-Aid.

 

References

 

Abrams, Elliot, et al (1/26/98) Open Letter to President Clinton. Project for the New American Century

 

Bush, George W. (2/27/01). Address of the President to the Joint Session of Congress.

 

HRW (2004). Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

 

Washington, Wayne (12/22/02) Frustrated Veterans Accuse Bush of Breaking Promise. Boston Globe.

[ET Warrior]

Ahh, good ol' fashioned SkinWalker post

 

I was actually going to PM you Skin and inform you of this thread and invite you to partake, but then Groovs sent it over here and I figured you'd notice