General Discussions

**Republikin** · 07-29-2004, 08:59 AM

[SNIPPED] [Admin edit: Lets leave the names out. If PMs become a problem, notify the admins]

This is the message:

Hi,
I just wanted to know what kind of drugs you are taking? What on earth would possess you to even have a miniscule amount of support for George W. Bush? The man is about as trustworhty and compassionate as Suddam Hussein! What do you call the immediate war on Iraq? He disregarded the United Nations, ruined our world reputation, and chose war as a prime choice for action. He cares about no one! He is slowly destroying our national parks, such as the idea to turn california sequoias by chooping dopwn the trees for logging, and is allowing oil drilling, graing and coal mining at numerous national monuments. He has limited the EPA's power to test factories and close down serious air polluting plants, and cut $500 million of the EPA's budget, plus calling them the "Department of Sticks and Berries". He cares only about oil and money. He spent the first months of his term on vaction, until 9/11. And do you know what he was doing while the towers were being attacked? He was in a class room full of children, and he was told what was happening. He then sat there, in a chair infornt of the classroom, and read a book called My Pet Goat for seven minutes. Just sitting there, without knowing what to do. He said nothing, did nothing. Ok, the president hears that his country is under attack, and he just sits there doing nothing! What kind of a president is that? He shouls have taken immediate action. But later on his idea is to blame Bin Laden, but fails to capture him. Then he gets this idea that Suddam has WMD's, which were nonexistant. It was a total farce. And do you really think Iraq is better off now. 11,000 Iraqi citizens have died during the war. There is still unrest, still crime and terrorism. It is going to be a miracle until we have Iraq together, and have turned it into a safe democracy. What good has it brought anyone. So many of our soldiers died fighting, because Bush assumed that there were WMDs. Bush has done nothing for America! He has sent million of American jobs over seas to countries like China, leaving millions of Americans jobless, because foreign labor is cheaper. He has made wonderful tax cuts for the rich, but has dug us a great deficit, because of his horrible economics and the war. We have a trillion dollar deficit, thanks to Bush. He has cut education bugets, environmental budgets, and increases military and oil budgets. He makes gross jokes about issues, if you haven't noticed, and joked during a video of himself looking under chairs and tables, saying "Where are those WMDs". Not funny! And he supports one of the most prejudice law in America today, banning gay marriage. What gives him the right to change the Constitution, all for discrimination. It's about hate, and to win ignorant conservative's votes. These people think they are Christians, and they are hateful. Nobody is sinless! Nobody has the right to judge! Bush is a fake Christian. He believes in war, discrimination, oil, monet and power!!!!! There isn't one thing Bush has done to benefit our country. I haven't even named all the terrible things he has done since his term. Please, out of human dignity, vote for a real president-John Kerry. Bush attacks Kerry with lies and negativity, he has nothing to offer America. Kerry has a new optimistic vision. Although, Kerry may not be perfect, but he's still a Hell of a lot better than stupid George W. Bush! Besides, Bush is an idiot, a 5 year-old could better speeches. Sorry....[/quote]
Now here is the emails I am getting...

Does anyone here actually think for themselves? It seems that I have heard this all before...Oh yeah, on CNN.

**scottfree** · 07-29-2004, 12:13 PM

The truth hurts!
Just my thought: I do not support Bush but do agree with the fact that Saddam had to go. This man had been ruling the country for too long and nobody could do anything about it. He was ruling with absolute evil, torturing anyone he wanted, having families murdered. Not to mention his two sons who were even more evil than he was, who killed family members to achieve higher posts and loved torturing people. EVIL,EVIL,EVIL!
Now I don´t agree with the way the war was started, but it had to be done. Saddam was there for so long, Bush could have waited a little longer before going in. I am also pretty sure that there are a lot of Iraqi´s who are very happy that he is gone. They have a freedom not that they haven´t experienced in over 20 years and are now allowed to take part in religous rituals which were banned under Saddam.
It is just sad that so many people had to die for it.
P.S. I don´t think anyone can build a really good opinion of what it is like in Iraq until they have been there! Don´t believe everything you see and read, there are a lot of biased opinions out there, even though it shouldn´t be that way. Make up your own mind and try to base it on independant sources, not CNN or BBC, they will lie at times if it benefits them.

**dbzguy** · 07-29-2004, 04:42 PM

you cant blame the way the war started all on bush, there is the congress who had to agree to goto war that way and that time, and bush has advisers that tell him what to do when he cant think of anything todo, and the people that decide ohw todo what the government tells them to do like the generals in the airforce and the army and the navy and the marines.

**Kyrnt** · 07:21 PM

It breaks my heart to read a message like that sent to cptnwinky by someone who had not the fortitude nor the confidence in their own facts to post to the forum itself.

Let's take a look at a few facts.

My favorite is the fact that liberals subscribe to this new belief that Bush is the only person who believed that Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.

Please consider:

Transcript of Kerry from the "Meet the Press" show, August 31, 2003. Read it for yourself here

Quote:

KERRY: It would have been inconsistent for me, with President Bush, not to suggest that the security issue of 1998, after we knew we had been finding weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, after we knew we had been destroying them, after we knew he still had more and we left the country without inspectors for four years, it would have been irresponsible not to stand up and say, “We need to hold him accountable.”

I welcome any responses supporters of Kerry have to that.

This is very important. Read this transcript of a speech that Kerry gave on the floor of the United States Senate on October 9, 2002 and referenced on the same "Meet the Press" episode. These are his own words!

Quote:

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

Read that again and tell me how "Bush is lying" about WMDs. I beseech anyone! The reversions of the Democrats to refer to Bush's assertions (and acknowledgment clearly by Democrats and others) that Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling these weapons is patently absurd and a warping of the truth.

The fact that vast numbers of my countryment are subscribing to such patent falsehoods in the face of clear evidence to the contrary causes me no small amount of grave concern for the future of my country.

Quote:

He disregarded the United Nations

I assume that this piece of propoganda is related to Bush's choice to request members of the UN Security Council to enforce their own resolutions. Consider these from House Joint Resolution 114 (October 10, 2002). By the way, you will plainly see that it is the Congress of the United States passing this law rather than the President of the United States acting unilaterally. Liberals, please actually read this rather than skimming it assuming that it is damaging to the arguments you so vehemently subscribe to.... even though it is.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Quote:

He spent the first months of his term on vaction, until 9/11.

This is a blatant fabrication. He spent the first months of his term on vacation? Ok. You're really telling us a lot about yourself here today.

I am very fond of your rant about why George Bush didn't hop right up in the middle of a classroom and stomp out on a war path, scaring the children and alarming the country. The quality of the hypocrisy that a president committed to action in response to terrorism and so roundly criticized by liberals for it would be concurrently criticized for not making such overtures in a more immediate manner. Why do I get the strong feeling that if he had done as you suggested, stomped out of the room, that the same people would be now criticizing him for poor leadership by creating panic and frightening the children? As you deny this to yourself mentally, save the effort. Yes, you would.

He was quiet. He was contemplative. You have no idea of his thoughts. Presidents in years past have had hours or longer to determine a course of action. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't meet with Congress for a declaration of war for 24 hours. I'm not criticizing FDR for that because it was reasonable. Reason is an element seriously lacking in liberal arguments on this point.

One last point on this issue: Congratulations for paying attention during the Michael Moore film. You absorbed his propoganda quite well. I'm proud of you. Hopefully you give the reason here at least equal attention as you did that performance of refuse.

Quote:

Then he gets this idea that Suddam has WMD's, which were nonexistant.

I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with John Kerry on this point. See his own quotes earlier in this post.

Quote:

And do you really think Iraq is better off now.

Yes, Iraq is a much better place now. Children are not being gassed by "Chemical Ali" at Saddam Hussein's direction. Uday Hussein is no longer picking women off the street to rape at his leisure. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are safe from invasion from a tyrant bent on regional domination. The majority Shiite Muslims now have a real voice in government instead of being dominated by the minority Sunnis. Kurds are safe from further tyranny from their own government and its troops. Electrical service has returned and often exceeds pre-war levels. Oil production has returned and now the money serves the people of Iraq instead of funding the playboy lives and palatial fetishes of Saddam and his sons. I could go on for quite a while. But let me end on this: Iraq is approaching democracy instead of tyranny. That's why America fights. That's why Americans die. The ambitions of tyrants, regardless of distance, have a tendency to pose a threat to American security. Historical examples: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, King George III.

Quote:

He has sent million of American jobs over seas to countries like China, leaving millions of Americans jobless, because foreign labor is cheaper.

He did? Bush did? Are you real sure about that? Didn't the companies that shut down American factories and open new ones in foreign countries have a hand there? Hasn't virtually every American president since World War II supported the premise of free trade zones (such as NAFTA)? Do you want to blame someone for exportation of jobs? Blame CEOs. Blame the companies that actually made the decisions. I didn't read any Executive Orders forcing companies to shut down and relocate to China. Your assertion is ludicrous and not supported by facts. It is propoganda.

Quote:

And he supports one of the most prejudice law in America today, banning gay marriage. What gives him the right to change the Constitution, all for discrimination. It's about hate, and to win ignorant conservative's votes. These people think they are Christians, and they are hateful.

"These people" are indeed Christians. It is the rule of nature and of Biblical doctrine that homosexuality itself is deplorable and unacceptable. It is those who participate in and advance the cause of homosexuality and who are trying to desecrate the holy institution of marriage by extending their definition (certainly not God's) to include homosexuals who deserve your moniker of fake Christians.

Quote:

There isn't one thing Bush has done to benefit our country.

I am positive that this statement is correct. I am sure that the overthrow of the extremist government of Afghanistan and subsequent break-up of al-Qaeda's sanctuary, training camps and living quarters contributed nothing to the security of America. I'll give no laundry list of examples because this post is already too long, but it takes a great deal of work to refute such a manifesto of disinformation and bias.

**Republikin** · 07-29-2004, 06:53 PM

Bravo Kyrnt. Personaly I am really getting tired of the lack of serious debate on issues and the blatant spewing of liberal propoganda. Everyone that I talk to who claim themselve to be a supporter of Kerry can not back up almost any claim they hear from the mouth of others and yet are so dead set in their ways that trying to reason with them by way of truth and fact is, unfortunatly in my opinion, pointless. This truly is a sad time in our country, if only Jefferson was around to see this now. I can imagine that he would lecture us on God and our personal responsibility to our country and ourselves.

On a little different note...Did you all know that the Heinz ketchup company has 60% of its workforce overseas? Did you also know that Kerry owns 4% of that company, sure not much but, he gets about 2 mil annually from it. Did you also know that the Heinz ketchup company contributed about 5 grand to the GWB campaign? So does this mean that if GWB's campaign goes well that Kerry's pocketbook will benefit? You see though, the Libs in this country are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Don't be afraid to admit you were wrong and embrace the truth. I will not look down on anyone who has common sense enough to see their being lied to blatently.

**DaveMo~** · 07-29-2004, 10:27 PM

When using the PM system, please make sure that the recipient is indeed receptive to having your PM. In other words, please no attacks or flames or continual badgering of other members. Thanks for your cooperation.

Back to the discussion!

Dave

**Kreative Networ** · 11:31 PM

Oh come on. Simple things.

Michael Moore is not even american. He has been spotted in places like Canada and France telling them that the average american is a self-centered moron. How american is that? and he calls himself a patriot. This whole Bush Bashing has gone too far.

I am an Arab American,and I will be voting for Bush. President Bush has led very well, and all those who say he is racist, please take a look at his Cabinet Officers.

Also, those who said he rushed into a unilatteral war, go check the 96 Resolutions passed by every single member of the security council, agreeing with BUSH! America and Bush had to keep their word, and do what the United Nations threatened to do 96 Times. They say we have no coalition, yet most of the Nato Members are in Iraq, and afghanistan, and that we have over 60 Countries. Just because France and Germany are not with us, does not mean we dont have international support. We have countries like Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia working with us 100%, offering to put troops in Iraq. Please, let these demi's go do some research, and quit listening to B-S Liberal Propaganda. Get the **** facts, they are simple and straight.

Vote for the RIGHT person, this is the most important election of the history.

P.S. - Terrorists WANT Bush Out: Doesn't that tell you something?

**Kreative Networ** · 07-29-2004, 11:25 PM

The whole WMD's in Iraq: here are some facts kids...

America's info on WMD's were all put together during the 8 years Clinton was in office. Also, the United Nations, France, Russia, Germany, China, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Japan, the UK and Itally ALL had information stating that Iraq had WMD's. To simply say that Bush took us to war under false pretenses is simply irresponsible. Even the beloved Kerry said it over and over again. Go take a look at www.georgewbush.com and look at the Kerry slide-show. The flip-flopper has no clue what is going on and does what clinton did, take polls. Did you know that Clinton had 3 Chances to pick up Bin Laden throughout his 8 years? Dont take my word for it, go look through the public records @ www.whitehouse.gov . Now listen, I hate Michael Moore and I don't agree with him on much, but I do agree with one thing, The America Public is STUPID, and will listen to whatever anyone says, without looking at facts, that is why movies like his were so successful. Please, take a look at what you hear before you say it, it makes us sound like morons, so please, just think before you speak.

Oh, and P.S. - Any great economist will tell you that the Economy of Today is to blame/give credit on the President 4 Years Before. Hmm, maybe thats where there was a recession in 2000. Let me think YEAH!

Oh, and Another P.S. - Many stupid people (lefties) say that Bush is to blame for our unemployment rate, but the funny thing is, those same people use Self Checkout Lines, and E-Tickets and Online Stock Trading. Don't you understand, that FACTS prove that over 85% of our unemployment is due to technology advancements?? Oh, and when were those Technology advancements? In the 1990's (No wonder Clinton's economy was so great). I love to argue, so if you have somethign to say, post it on here, I would love to make you look like an idiot to the whole board.

- Take Care
Bush-Cheney 2004

**elperrocaliente** · 11:44 PM

CAPTNWINKY:
"You see though, the Libs in this country are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Don't be afraid to admit you were wrong and embrace the truth."

Yeah, and you don't think George W. Bush is making millions of dollars from other companies himself? And what about his Enron buddies and his business ties with Saudia Arabia? I think Bush makes way more money than Kerry. And don't you think that George W. Bush has thown us a plethora of lies during his term as president? And excuse me, but radical conservatives are the one's who are biggots, the ones who oppose gay marriage, because they actually are so ignorant that they think they have justification for their hate, so they patch it up with this righteous religious crap. They aren't Christians, they want to tell people how to live their lives, and fail to uphold the separation of Church and State. Everyone is a sinner, and God is the one who judges, not people. Liberals care about all groups of people, whether they are black, latino, gay or lesbian, or rape victims that become pregnant wishing for an abortion? We cannot help people by shaking our heads at them, or condemning them, but by changing people's lives, encouraging them, and helping them. We are one people, we should not be categorized by race, sex, or sexual oreintation.

"Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers', they hate abortion
opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even
terrorists don't hate America like liberals do." - Ann Coulter

This was obviously written by a poor unfortuante conservative, who is totally blind, that they would say such an embarrassing statement like this. I hope none of you are this hateful. I am a liberal, and I'm not afraid to wave the flag. And who said Liberals hate other religions? I've know Liberals of every religion. I respect all religions. I just don't respect those who think that Christianity should rule America's law system, or that their religion is superior to anyone else's. But this is not just a Christian issue, it goes with any person of any religious background, but since there are many many Christians who make up most of America, and they have a right to practice those beliefs, but they should not go around forcing others to believe what they do. This is America, land of the free!!! We all have a God given right to do what we please, as long as we aren't harming anyone else in any way, shape, or form and are responsible for our actions. No one should be denied rights for who they are. America was made to become free from religious oppression, to be free to say what we think and have a voice, to do what we think is right for ourselves. Freedom. This is the American dream.

AND IF YOU ARE SO BLIND TO SEE THE LIES BUSH HAS TOLD US, THAN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS A MISTAKEN FOOL. AND IT DIDN'T MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT BUSH AFTER SEEING MOORE'S MOVIE, I ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS A COWARD AND A TERRIBLE LIAR. YOU DON'T NEED MORE THAN COMMON SENSE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT AN IDIOT HE REALLY IS. JUST LISTEN TO THE MAN SPEAK! THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED.

....and you spell it BLATANLY!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone, please give one good reason why Bush should be president?

And I Don't Watch The News To Get My Information, Thank You. But personally, i don't put my full faith in any politician.

**conkermaniac** · 07-30-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Now imagine this scenario, which will be pure speculation on my behalf, Saddam does have ties to Al-Quaeda (afterall the enemy of my enemy is my friend). He does have WMD's of whatever kind, chemical or otherwise. He has a handfull of piss poor inspectors in the country and can easily hide his real capability from them, which he did very often by just not allowing them into certain facilities. Now, he sees Bush, and 54 other countries aligning themselves against him and going to the UN and asking the UN nicely to enforce their own laws and sanctions on Iraq. This process took a few months if my memory serves me. Now, with the assumption that he does have ties to Al-Quaeda, how hard would it be for him to push most of his WMD programs research and probably meager stockpiles into the hands of Al-Quaeda operatives to promptly remove them from the country. You have to remember that Saddam's WMD's were not big ICBM's like we have. They had to be subtle in nature and have the capability of moving about the country with relative ease to avoid the inspectors. Think about it, these people were not bumbling hill-billys on the world stage. They spent and still spend years studying us and how to avoid us in any way possible. I find it more likely that they worked around our flaws to achieve their objectives rather than our flaws proved they had no objective.

This is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory. While it certainly is possible, Occam's Razor would have us accept the simpler explanation until WMD's are found: that Saddam did NOT have WMD's. You seem to be pretty intent on setting the "innocent until proven guilty" standard for Bush. Just so, Hussein receives the benefit of the doubt until he is proven guilty.

Quote:

Huh? Wait, this must be what Kerry is going through when he has to make a decision.

Remember that fact is something that can be proven by process of elimination or scientific evidence. Have we eliminated all possibilities yet?

You cannot prove a negative--one of the fundamental principles in logic. It is impossible to ask that I prove that WMD's never existed, or that Hussein did not have ties to Al Qaeda. Which is why I must rely on all available evidence and make the best possible judgement.

War is a very serious matter. Before you go to war, you must make sure beyond all reasonable doubt that your reasons are sound. Was Lincoln imagining that Fort Sumter was attacked by Beauregard? Was Wilson imagining the Zimmerman telegram? Was FDR imagining the attack on Pearl Harbor? Was Daddy Bush imagining that Kuwait was attacked? In all these cases, the answer is NO. But in the case of the Iraq war, Bush was not sure whether there were weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. The fact that there is nothing CLOSE to "reasonable doubt" that WMD's and Al Qaeda links exist warrants my suspicion. Of course, Bush cannot be faulted for stupidity alone, but there is evidence that he (actually, more likely the senior members of his administration) deliberately manipulated intelligence agencies to churn out the information he wanted to hear.

Now I don't like Kerry. He's a hypocrite. But his support for the Iraq war was the result of, I think, his naivete, not malicious intent. The Bush administration, however, was keen on attacking Iraq before 9/11. Kerry's hands may not be clean, but he is at least better than Bush.

**conkermaniac** · 02:37 AM

Quote:

Children are not being gassed by "Chemical Ali" at Saddam Hussein's direction. Uday Hussein is no longer picking women off the street to rape at his leisure.

In the old Iraq, if you obeyed the government and didn't speak up against it, you were generally safe. Now, that's of course against our principles of freedom of speech. But at least that's something you can control. If you can manage not to say "Hussein is crap" in public, then you won't be killed. The bulk of the people who were killed were political dissenters and criminals. What you are talking about is an oddity in Hussein's Iraq. It would be the equivalent of me saying, "Look at what happened to Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. That's why we should abolish all American corporations!"

How many women do you honestly believe that Uday raped? I don't believe that he was any worse than the typical serial killer that you would find just about anywhere. Just because he was the son of the leader did not make him any more fearsome than a regular criminal.

OK, now for what's happening today. Anyone perceived to have wealth is afraid to go walking out on the streets for very long for fear that they will be murdered and robbed. Little girls are routinely raped and/or kidnapped on the street and held for ransom. And of course, there's the almost daily car bombings that kill indiscriminately. These killings happen to anyone, and the worst thing is that people do not have any control.

I'm surprised that American conservatives always say that they are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, but somehow don't think this applies to Iraq.

Quote:

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are safe from invasion from a tyrant bent on regional domination.

Do you think Hussein really wanted to invade another country after we almost overthrew his regime the last time? And would an overthrow of the Saudi regime, which DOES sponsor Al Qaeda, be such a bad thing after all?

Quote:

The majority Shiite Muslims now have a real voice in government instead of being dominated by the minority Sunnis.

They have a real voice, true. But now they have too much of a voice that I fear that Sunnis will now be oppressed under a democratic government (read: mob rule).

Quote:

Kurds are safe from further tyranny from their own government and its troops.

Yes, and at least SOMEONE is happy about the new Iraq.

Quote:

Electrical service has returned and often exceeds pre-war levels. Oil production has returned and now the money serves the people of Iraq instead of funding the playboy lives and palatial fetishes of Saddam and his sons.

Because we all know that the pre-war money never went into things like some of the best schools in the region and a progressive healthcare system. I think a lot of the money was wasted by Hussein and his cronies, but to say that it never went into improving the lives of the Iraqi citizens is absurd.

Speaking of which...maybe Saddam believed in supply-side economics. Fund the rich and you'll help the poor!

Also, out of curiosity, did you know that in Hussein's Iraq, women made better wages (relative to men) than in America? I can't remember where I saw that, but I'll look for it.

Quote:

But let me end on this: Iraq is approaching democracy instead of tyranny. That's why America fights. That's why Americans die.

You could count all your fingers and toes--and all of mine too--and you wouldn't have come close to the number of tyrants we haven't removed. And Hussein wasn't even close to the worst.

Quote:

"These people" are indeed Christians. It is the rule of nature and of Biblical doctrine that homosexuality itself is deplorable and unacceptable. It is those who participate in and advance the cause of homosexuality and who are trying to desecrate the holy institution of marriage by extending their definition (certainly not God's) to include homosexuals who deserve your moniker of fake Christians.

I ask that you not judge whether others are true Scotsmen.

**DaveMo~** · 07-30-2004, 04:04 AM

It is great to discuss sensitive issues, but it must remain a discussion. When it becomes a debate because debate tactics are used, then members get offended. This will not be allowed here.

Only an example: I believe the grass is grey. Member A believes it's green. When Member A says that anyone that thinks the grass is grey is an idiotic bafoon, then they have just insulted me, and anyone else that may think the same as me. That is a debate tactic in attacking the person and not the argument.

Please keep this civil. If it's not, it will be closed.

Dave

**Mooofasa** · 07:34 AM

I hope that i only dicussed (put my opinion) without starting/ causing a debate. Sorry if i did.
Anyway, Our so called leader 'Blair' is a fairy basically put. I think that Bush says do it, Blair says do it. He is a puppet, and Bush is the puppet master. All these things that Blair has promised us, where are they? And to what expense has these things taken? Personally, i can't stand Blair as i hate Bush. They ,to me, are on the same low level. Here is my view on the war, and after.
I believe that Sadam bluffed abit. And President Bush didn't realise. If you think, they may have caught Sadam (or what they are making us believe that this is sadam, they do have that power), but if they hadn't caught him, then he could have just walked straight back into power (as some people still believe in him) after America AND Britain helped out. We (Americans and British) cleared the area and are now helping to rebuild Iraq. We are helping to rebuild a country that I think will just turn on us again. After rebuilding, Sadam just walks in and takes power of his newly built country. I think that it is just common sense. I also believe that there will never be peace in Iraq. There is too much spilt blood. They wanted us to get there leader out (most Iraqi's), but then they wouldn't have given anything to us, for clearing out there leader. I don't think we (british) are getting anything from it, if we are then just tell me. We (both British and Americans) are piling millions into the rebuilding of Iraq, when all the people that are loyal to sadam and the one's that don't want peace in Iraq are just going to destroy it again. We are having our people kid-napped and killed. I think that we should just pull out totally and let them get on with it. We supposedly got Sadam, but think of how many inacent Iraqis were killed to get to him. I don't think that P.Bush planned right what was going to happen after we got rid-of Sadam. His plan seems to be crumbling. This is just my personal opinion, but i think it is valid but that is just again, my personal opinion. And again, whenever he talks about Iraq, he is smiling. People are dying and he is smiling. Of course i couldn't find alot of pitures of him smiling at his speeches of Iraq as that would undermine him. The first image is him smiling whilst talking to the royal family about the war in Iraq. The second is him smiling at one of his speeches of the war in Iraq. And you guessed it, the final one is him smiling about the war in Iraq. He never stops smiling whilst talking about it.
Thank you,

PS, here in England, i haven't (neither has my family) seen on the news that the electrical services have been returned.

**Republikin** · 07-30-2004, 09:32 AM

http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.asp?speakerid=24

Nuff said. The times of great men and even greater causes are gone from this earth. I am simply appoled (and I will spell it however I like) at the lack of compasion and willingness to spread forth a good cause on this earth.

I am sorry but I can not continue this without going against Daves request. When people attack the very christian ideals that created this country and set them aside as secondary to self indulgence and ignorance it upsets me far beyond any political debate.

I am threw, you may say what you will. I will watch from afar.

**conkermaniac** · 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cptnwinky

This truly is a sad time in our country, if only Jefferson was around to see this now. I can imagine that he would lecture us on God and our personal responsibility to our country and ourselves.

Very interesting that you should say that. Jefferson was called an atheist by his contemporaries.

Modern historians do not believe that he was an atheist, but rather a deist. He did, however, reject the Bible as divine revelation and Jesus as the son of God. He also rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

**Mooofasa** · 07-30-2004, 10:10 AM

I too cant continue with Dave's request, as religion has nothing to do with this matter. Wars should not include going against religion. I am aethiest, and i dont believe that you should bring your or any body elses religion into this so called 'discussion'. I would also like to know who?

Quote:

When people attack the very christian ideals that created this country and set them aside as secondary to self indulgence and ignorance

Who attacked?

**Kyrnt** · 06:02 PM

Captain, while I lament your decision to drop out of the discussion, I do understand it. Fighting with reason and facts against blind passion can be frustrating, infuriating and depressing on the human condition. I have great respect for you, your views and your ability to present rational arguments like a gentleman.

My true bewilderment is reserved for the following response regarding the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi people after the 1991 revolt:

Quote:

Originally Posted by conkermaniac

The bulk of the people who were killed were political dissenters and criminals. What you are talking about is an oddity in Hussein's Iraq. It would be the equivalent of me saying, "Look at what happened to Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. That's why we should abolish all American corporations!"

Are you implying that the use of these weapons "wasn't so bad" because the majority were political dissenters and criminals? What about the children? I am so tempted to post images from the atrocity but I'll restrain. And what of the political dissenters? Is it acceptable to be murdered in the streets by a chemical gas cloud because you don't agree with your government? My heart fell at the reading of your post and the realization of your implications. Are you honestly comparing the deeds of a mass murdering tyrant to criminal businessmen? Sir, I beseech you to find your bearings because I fear your are hopelessly lost!

Children were gassed, conker! CHILDREN! Infants. Toddlers. Their young mothers, brothers and fathers. We've all seen the photographs of entire villages exterminated, people having dropped dead where they walked. Dead babies were clutched by dead mothers; never to know how or why their lives were ended.

But hey, they were mostly criminals. They were mostly political dissenters - people who believed differently than someone else.

As a species, we deserve the fury of the Almighty for criticizing our own efforts to stop the slaughter of the innocents.

The Iraq war is a just war. Just as Neville Chamberlain had the courage to acknowledge his mistake in acquiescing Hitler on the Sudetanland in 1938 following the invasion of Poland in 1939, it is the responsibility of world leaders not to delay in dealing with dictators who would dominate their neighbors and kill their own people.

How bad was Saddam Hussein? Why did the Iraq war need to fought and why did the UN Security Council pass repeated resolutions authorizing force against Iraq?

From Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime: (U.S. State Department Fact Sheet)

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

...senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings...

I invite anyone interested in criticizing the world's right to stop what was going on in Iraq to read: Fear -- Saddam's Chosen Method of Staying in Power. A few excerpts, particularly the individual who asked this question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by conkermaniac

How many women do you honestly believe that Uday raped? I don't believe that he was any worse than the typical serial killer that you would find just about anywhere. Just because he was the son of the leader did not make him any more fearsome than a regular criminal.

Udayy Saddam Hussein
Saddam's elder son. He has been frequently accused of serial rape and murder of young women. He maintained a private torture chamber, known as "al-Ghurfa al-Hamra" (the Red Room), disguised as an electricity installation, in a building on the banks of the Tigris.

"Members of Saddam Hussein's gang have raped women, especially dissident women. The wives of dissidents have been either killed or tortured in front of their husbands in order to obtain confessions from their husbands. Women have been kidnapped as they walk in the streets by members of the gangs of Udayy and Qusayy [Saddam's sons] and then raped."

Do you see now? Do you see how absurd your comparison with Udayy Hussein is to "a regular criminal." He had the support of the state. He had state funds at his disposal to setup torture and rape chambers at the protection of the government!

My dear God, I pray that you will make these people see the folly of their practice of protecting a position because they have not the courage to assert their original mistake of support!

**conkermaniac** · 07-31-2004, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyrnt

Are you implying that the use of these weapons "wasn't so bad" because the majority were political dissenters and criminals? What about the children? I am so tempted to post images from the atrocity but I'll restrain. And what of the political dissenters? Is it acceptable to be murdered in the streets by a chemical gas cloud because you don't agree with your government? My heart fell at the reading of your post and the realization of your implications. Are you honestly comparing the deeds of a mass murdering tyrant to criminal businessmen? Sir, I beseech you to find your bearings because I fear your are hopelessly lost!

Kyrnt, I can assure you that I am not hopelessly lost.

I believe that Hussein's policies were deplorable, but the question here is not how bad Hussein was. It is certainly not acceptable, from a human rights standpoint, to be murdered on the streets because of your political views. But to be murdered on the streets because of your perceived wealth is much worse. Why? Because keeping your trap shut is easy. But convincing potential thieves that you are not rich is not.

Quote:

Children were gassed, conker! CHILDREN! Infants. Toddlers. Their young mothers, brothers and fathers. We've all seen the photographs of entire villages exterminated, people having dropped dead where they walked. Dead babies were clutched by dead mothers; never to know how or why their lives were ended.

But hey, they were mostly criminals. They were mostly political dissenters - people who believed differently than someone else.

I have never heard of these allegations, unless you're talking about the Kurds. But you're right: it is inexcusable. I know too that innocent Kurdish villages were massacred indiscriminately. Still, this does NOT represent the general situation in pre-war Iraq. The executed primarily consisted of criminals and political dissenters. Does that make the minority of instances any less excusable? No, but we are not looking to indict Saddam so much as we are examining life under his regime compared to life under the current...well, anarchy.

Quote:

As a species, we deserve the fury of the Almighty for criticizing our own efforts to stop the slaughter of the innocents.

In stopping the slaughter of innocents, we slaughtered more Iraqi civilians than Hussein would have slaughtered in the few remaining years of his life...and most likely his regime.

Quote:

The Iraq war is a just war. Just as Neville Chamberlain had the courage to acknowledge his mistake in acquiescing Hitler on the Sudetanland in 1938 following the invasion of Poland in 1939, it is the responsibility of world leaders not to delay in dealing with dictators who would dominate their neighbors and kill their own people.

Again, I would like to point out that Hussein would never have attempted another attack on a neighboring country. He KNEW that America would invade if he did, and he KNEW that his regime would be toppled if Americans invaded. Hussein's efforts to avoid the current war only verifies the validity of this claim. I think that your statement about him "dominating his neighbors" is an exaggeration of his actual ability and an understatement of his sanity (as little as he may have).

I would also like to remind you that Hussein was not the worst leader in the world. If this war was fought for humanitarian reasons (which it was not--Bush made it clear that it was about WMD's and links to Al Qaeda), then we should have set our priorities straight. How many Africans are starving under leadership that continues to promote instability for personal gain? How many North Koreans are suffering under the most authoritarian police state in the world?

No country in the world fights for human rights, and America is no different. We fight wars because our politicians seek political or economic gain. Isn't it quite obvious that our government doesn't care about the Iraqis? We left the country in a mess.

Quote:

I invite anyone interested in criticizing the world's right to stop what was going on in Iraq to read: Fear -- Saddam's Chosen Method of Staying in Power.

Am I supposed to believe that that is the worst thing happening in the world today? Nobody in this thread is denying that Saddam was a bad leader who needed to be deposed. But there are many more leaders who more urgently need to be deposed.

Quote:

Do you see now? Do you see how absurd your comparison with Udayy Hussein is to "a regular criminal." He had the support of the state. He had state funds at his disposal to setup torture and rape chambers at the protection of the government!

Yes, I understand he had the support of the state, but is he any worse than rapists who DO NOT have the support of the state but are not being caught because of the lack of security? Under Hussein's leadership, his son may have had the right to rape women, and other rapists would have been caught and perhaps executed for being perverts. Under the current leadership, Saddam's rapists are gone, but now instead there are criminal rapists roaming the streets for victims. What I'm saying is that there were sexual atrocities under Hussein's regime, but the overthrow of the regime has only supplanted the old perverts with new perverts.

If there was security, we would be dealing with quite a different story. But now that we have left the fray, Iraq will be a hotbed of crime for years to come. Let's face it: the current government is far too weak to provide security and democracy to Iraq. Hmm...isn't this already beginning to sound familiar? And when people do not have physical and economic security, they turn to one who will provide it. This person is usually one with charisma, but also with authoritarian ambitions.

Germany chose Hitler. I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq, with its large Shi'ite base, chose a Taliban or an Ayatollah, except one far more powerful and dangerous.

**cjvj** · 06:04 AM

The iraq war is turning out to be a copy of vietnam. Huge Casualties (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net) between 11336-13305 iraqi Civilians have died due to the war in iraq. Also Coalition Casualties are nearing 1000. Soon, the americans will relize that peace and security will never come and they will pull there troops out, just as the spanish did...

We must ask, would more inncocent civilians have died if the war had not taken place? 13305 is a large number, i dont think that many would have died in the hands of saddam

**ahmed** · 07-31-2004, 01:11 PM

the most important and powerful man in america cant even read hehe

im iraqi, and in a way im glad of the war coz dat ******* **** Saddam is captured