LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 NOTE: I meant that in a sincere and hopefully debate enabling way. no color added. just so you know. ps....I'm waiting for APU's book he's currently writing me back Not necessarily a book, I just have slower than molasses in mid-January 56K connection when I'm at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Yep, right down to the podium to take the oath for another 4 years as Commander in Chief. Nuke, I think we both know if Clark is the commander and chief, the military will be absolutely screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Apu, I don't disagree with much of that at all. I'd just argue that Pat Robertson saying anything negative about anyone should be the foundation of ANY arguement....the dude makes christianity look like a joke. (ashamedly, my parents donate to CBN...blech) Being a man of Justice trumps being man of mercy, imo. Tucker deserved to die, though I'm glad she made her peace with God. killing someone with a pick axe? I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the mental retardated murderer, but IIRC...didn't the stay that execution? I remember he was on Death row...but never executed. I could be wrong. I'm not a bush lover, like I used to be....and I'm not a clinton hater as I used to be. Clinton and Bush aren't dissimilar. different upbringings, but what billy lacked in connections, he had in brains, something that bush, well, we all know. The real issues here, sans rhetoric: death penalty legal or unethical? should politician personal lives matter? promising things that aren't kept post-election giving kick-backs to friends post-election changing policy post-election all but the first issue is universal and is a pressure on every politician. With the upcoming election, I just see no clear picture for our future from either side...I see no clear leader either. when was the last time we did?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 How can anyone with half a brain say that we didn't go after Iraq because of 9/11? So Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, there are many people with sources who will disagree with that, but lets pretend for the sake of argument that Iraq was blameless. So what? If I've got two neighbors that threaten over and over to burn my house down and one eventually succeeds in burning my garage down, I should go after the guy who burned my garage and ignore the other guy whose intentions are the same?? Why fight Hitler? He didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. In today's day and age where you've got individuals who with a little help can kill and murder countless numbers of Americans for no other offense than being Americans, you've got to take out the people willing to help them. To believe that Iraq didn't have means or desire to help hurt Americans is silly. Besides Apu, until you come up with a better solution than your previously stated solution of begging for forgiveness and handing out huge cash payouts, your b****ing about Bush is just empty griping. If, as you stated, Iraq got rid of it's WMDs in the mid-90's, then not only Bush was fooled, but Clinton, Britain, and the UN was fooled. Can't blame Bush for that, if it's true, which I doubt. If everyone in the world believed it to be true, and Bush acted on it, that doesn't make him a fool or a liar. If the world believed it, it's solely because Saddam wanted the world to believe it. He's more at fault than anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 lets pretend for the sake of argument that Iraq was blameless... As far as 9/11 goes, we don't have to pretend anymore. Bush and Co, conceeded yesterday that intelligence was greatly overstated and there were NO KNOWN LINKS between Saddam and bin Laden/Al Quaida. And the current war against Iraq has been on the schedule for several years, just read PNAC's own publications and pay special attention to the several members who now happen to make up much of the Bush Administration. Having an excuse to do what they planned on doing anyway was convenient, even if they couldn't decide on the right excuse... WMD, free the Iraqi's, American security, Osama and Saddam are really the same guy... honest... etc. The Neo-Cons got the disaster they hoped for in 9/11 (check it out if you don't believe me) and they now have war they have been trying to get off the schedule for some time now. Convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Did anyone see Ollie North talking about all the weapons they are destroying over there? I have no idea how valid his statement was, but he said they were destroying like 100 tons of weapons a day and at that rate it would take like 10 years (Going off memory...but it was some ridiculous sounding number) to destroy what they have found thus far. Of course none are the socalled WOMD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 As far as 9/11 goes, we don't have to pretend anymore. Bush and Co, conceeded yesterday that intelligence was greatly overstated and there were NO KNOWN LINKS between Saddam and bin Laden/Al Quaida. And the current war against Iraq has been on the schedule for several years, just read PNAC's own publications and pay special attention to the several members who now happen to make up much of the Bush Administration. Having an excuse to do what they planned on doing anyway was convenient, even if they couldn't decide on the right excuse... WMD, free the Iraqi's, American security, Osama and Saddam are really the same guy... honest... etc. The Neo-Cons got the disaster they hoped for in 9/11 (check it out if you don't believe me) and they now have war they have been trying to get off the schedule for some time now. Convenient. I had heard that there were links between Mohammed Atta and Iraq, but I have no reason to doubt you. But like I said, that is irrelevant. Let's face it, the Middle East is a problem spot and the Neo-Cons feel that they have a solution. These people are not psychotic maniacs. They are all a lot smarter than any of us and are a whole lot more knowledgable about foreign policy than any of us. I do not believe they are all twirling their moustaches thinking of new ways to ruin the world. They have what they believe is a solution to a problem for the United States. A problem for which solutions are in short supply. The only solutions I've heard are the neo-cons and Apu's apology and cash payment solution. I have no reason to feel their solution won't work. Surely it's worth a try moreso than Apu's. I doubt very much that anyone in the Administration had any knowledge of 9/11. Not sure if that's what you're implying by saying it was convenient. I just find it interesting that people will make that accusation when many believe that FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and let it happen. FDR is widely held as one of our top 5 presidents regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I doubt very much that anyone in the Administration had any knowledge of 9/11. If they didn't have some idea/inclination that something was about to happen, then our 'intelligence' agencies were/are worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 My reasons to go to Iraq (oil is kind of a subreason, not my reason for why) were always for the intent to liberate, receive oil, as well as stop a country that potentially harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction with a leader willing to use those weapons on nations and innocent people. This leader had already done it (Gassing the Kurds). Now the administration may of had other reasons (maybe the oil; knowing it would put a boost to the economy; believing it gives Bush a better chance of being re-elected). I'm not going to get into it with their reasons. I long felt Iraq and Saddam were always given a long enough time and they always spurned the UN's resolutions and such. For 10 plus years it had been happenning and you can't continue to let someone get away with something. There is no way Saddam would of ever complied. Once you fail to comply a few times, with no real consequences, then you will continue to do so. The US already had trade sanctions against them, so its not like continuing to NOT comply would lead to anything else. Saddam wasn't really getting anything from us anyway (Well not recently...we could all debate on how dumb it was to put him in charge, supply him with weapons, etc, but at the time, he was the lesser of two evils). They liberated people and while its probably elitist of me to say that Democracy is the best policy, they are working on instilling that policy in Iraq, a policy in my mind is much better then a dictatorship or anything else. Of course people will rebel against it, I don't think anyone likes to be forced into actions, but I also think there was so much negative propaganda and lies told about the US and other nations over Saddam's period of rule that people believed we were an evil monster or something along those lines. I understand debating about whether the US should of been involved or that it is wrong to instill our political beliefs in another country, although I do believe that democracy/capitalism is the best method out there. The people of Iraq weren't free and no one should of had to live with what they had to deal with. Of course you can say the same about Africa and the absolutely ridiculous aids epodemic that is going on there. It is absolutely sickening to see how many people die there every day, let alone year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I doubt very much that anyone in the Administration had any knowledge of 9/11. Not sure if that's what you're implying by saying it was convenient. I just find it interesting that people will make that accusation when many believe that FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and let it happen. FDR is widely held as one of our top 5 presidents regardless. No, at this point I’m not going as far as saying anyone knew with certainty what was coming on 9/11. I don’t have enough faith in our intelligence gathering ability for that I guess. But the fact is that as early as 1997 Neo-Cons were bemoaning in communications mostly among themselves that their version of the New Worls Order/Pax Americana/whatever you want to call it was going to take excruciatingly long to bring about UNLESS there could be some catalyzing catastrophic event, “a modern Pearl Harbor” that would make it easy to ram otherwise unsavory policies and agendas through both at home and abroad. Basically, they got what they asked for, and noone should be surprised that they are taking full advantage of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 My reasons to go to Iraq (oil is kind of a subreason, not my reason for why) were always for the intent to liberate, receive oil, as well as stop a country that potentially harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction with a leader willing to use those weapons on nations an innocent people. This leader had already done it (Gassing the Kurds). It's real important to remember that the Kurds got gassed because they listened to Papa Bush when he urged him to rise up and take on saddam after we gave up. Big Bush promised we'd be right there with the Iraqi people and fully support them if they rose to challenge Saddam. Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It's real important to remember that the Kurds got gassed because they listened to Papa Bush when he urged him to rise up and take on saddam after we gave up. Big Bush promised we'd be right there with the Iraqi people and fully support them if they rose to challenge Saddam. Oops. From what I've heard on interviews and such, there were major arguments in the white house on whether to leave or to continue on. My memory is really fuzzy on this, but I thought it was Bush that backed down, despite Norman Schwarzkof's (I know I botched that name) continuing urges to whipe Saddam out and stay there for the time to complete the mission. (It could be the other way around). I do know that this time, the administration seems intent with staying in and fullfilling the mission. I also know I've heard interviews of intelligence reports saying that intelligence advised the White House not to oust Saddam because he was the lesser of two evils and allowing his son to take over would be even worse. My theory is, this can't be too true, cause if they feared them both, they would of taken them both out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It's real important to remember that the Kurds got gassed because they listened to Papa Bush when he urged him to rise up and take on saddam after we gave up. Big Bush promised we'd be right there with the Iraqi people and fully support them if they rose to challenge Saddam. Oops. Exactly. We cut and run then and it was a huge mistake. Yet, there are people who want us to do the same now. You can't win with some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 From what I've heard on interviews and such, there were major arguments in the white house on whether to leave or to continue on. My memory is really fuzzy on this, but I thought it was Bush that backed down, despite Norman Schwarzkof's (I know I botched that name) continuing urges to whipe Saddam out and stay there for the time to complete the mission. (It could be the other way around). As Colin Powell said (I'm paraphrasing) "There weren't any JFKs sitting around waiting to take over from Saddam". Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 WELL I wanted Hiliary Clinton but ill have to wait for 2008 :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 They didn't win in 1992. They didn't win in 1996. And they had to cheat to win in 2000. It amazes me that no one ever talks about how Clinton was the first President to win without winning a majority of the votes - and he accomplished that feat twice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 apu...you need to check murder laws in texas..first..the governor can not commute a sentence..he can only delay it 30 days and request a review from a review board(i forget the name)..also , texas does not have life w/o parole option to juries...so any convicted murderer that doesnt get the death penalty stands a good chance of returning to the streets someday...a major reason why so many are on death row there maybe you should use your energies to go after the texas legislature instead??..b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said. "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias. Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It amazes me that no one ever talks about how Clinton was the first President to win without winning a majority of the votes - and he accomplished that feat twice! As s much as I would love to agree with this, I can't. It's wrong. I know that Abraham Lincoln, for one, won with a minority of the vote. In fact, when he won in 1860 he got only about 40% of the vote. Of course, he wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states, but that's neither here nor there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It's real important to remember that the Kurds got gassed because they listened to Papa Bush when he urged him to rise up and take on saddam after we gave up. Big Bush promised we'd be right there with the Iraqi people and fully support them if they rose to challenge Saddam. Oops. The UN made that promise. Papa Bush was only doing what everyone was screaming for him to do at the time, which is stick with the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 As s much as I would love to agree with this, I can't. It's wrong. I know that Abraham Lincoln, for one, won with a minority of the vote. In fact, when he won in 1860 he got only about 40% of the vote. Of course, he wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states, but that's neither here nor there. Yeah, you're right. I know I heard that over and over and over again though. Huh. Truman only had 47% as well. Thanks for the correction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Yeah, you're right. I know I heard that over and over and over again though. Huh. Truman only had 47% as well. Thanks for the correction. I might be speaking out of hand here, and correct me if I am wrong. But, the issue with Mock President Bush is NOT that he won while not carrying a majority of the votes (which is not unheard of as previous posts indicate), but that he won when he did not even have the most votes in the Popular Election, Gore did. Or did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I might be speaking out of hand here, and correct me if I am wrong. But, the issue with Mock President Bush is NOT that he won while not carrying a majority of the votes (which is not unheard of as previous posts indicate), but that he won when he did not even have the most votes in the Popular Election, Gore did. Or did I miss something? That isn't unheard of either. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824, I believe, yet John Quincy Adams was elected president. I don't understand the bitterness about Bush's victory. Even after the Florida recount was completed after the fact, it was found thatBush won. Besides, how is it Bush's fault that these alleged Gore voters were too stupid to figure out a butterfly ballot. The same type of ballot used in Chicago and Illinois for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Besides, how is it Bush's fault that these alleged Gore voters were too stupid to figure out a butterfly ballot. The same type of ballot used in Chicago and Illinois for years. It goes sooo much deeper than that in Florida, and you either know that or you don't care to know it. The computer data company hired to purge the voting rolls of felons pointed out to Brother Jeb that their error rate was so high that thousands of people were wrongly taken off the rolls. Jeb said throw the names out anyway. Conveniently, most of these were black and more than likely not voting for Bush. Voters in black precincts (sp?) reported they were being turned away from the polls LONG BEFORE the voting was done, and before any of teh other stuff came to light. Several black precincts also opened late and closed early for 'unknown reasons'. At the same time, outside of Florida, a bunch of incorrectly submitted or late-receipt military absentee ballats were allowed in the count. Finally, the Florida recount WAS NEVER completed before the Supreme Court came in to hand the keys to Baby George. Two newspapers spent private funds to pay for the recount to be completed, and even that was blocked successfully for a time. Florida was an inside job, Jeb's present to his big brother. The night of the election when the already celebrating George was on TV and saw closing returns giving Florida to Gore, he gave his really confused Curious George look and then ran out to call Jeb because he knew Florida was a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Not to say much, but people act as if this happenned only in Florida. These stories could of been pulled up all over the place. The entire thing was bogus in my book. My grandpa, god bless him, was constantly pestered by Democrats in the leisure world he worked at. He said he knew people who would basically be forced to vote democrat at other senior citizens areas. I don't know how true it is, but these type of games have been going on for so long, don't even act as if its all republicans doing this and like I said earlier I don't buy into the crap that there was this huge conspiracy to let Bush win and that they were closing the polls early and that the ballots were really screwed up. If someone was dumb enough to screw up their ballot, thats there problem. I voted with the same butterfly ballot and never had a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.