You shouldnt have...

I might just pollute this area with political rantings and strange finding from all my pointless internet browsing throughout my day.

You really might have thought twice about this one. As I'm sure I'll piss a few of you off. :twisted:

 

Try us. Go to bigsoccer.com and look at that politics website for about 5 minutes then give us the best you've got.

I actually heard people over there saying that the tsunami was good cause it wiped out islamic terrorists

 

i wouldnt go that far, I don't see the death of hundreds of thousands as a good thing not matter what they believe. I'm a Yank, but I still have reservations about a scary religious extremist bringing us to war.

 

Re: RE: You shouldnt have...

BigSoccer has some rowdy postings on the Politics thread. We can get some nice discussion in here on various topics. The person on BigSoccer who said the tsunami was good was a bit far fetched, and one I do not believe in, but everyone has an opinion.

 

Re: RE: You shouldnt have...

Good man...
But then he ruins it:

This will be my first and last posting on this particular forum.

And that's why...

If you want to talk/argue politics with me... first learn how to rebut whatever Rush Limbaugh says (sometimes he's dead WRONG!) but without lemming speak, like that... then log into the Matchnight political forums

 

RE: Re: RE: You shouldnt have...

I dont see how I could ruin my own acknowledgement of the value of human life no matter what creed they may represent. I simply stated in less words that the secular president whom doesnt reflect one speckle of my political views spends my money like a crazy man. I also have no parallel with a loud mouth pill popping hippocrate (Rush) and have no interest in giving him forum enough to rebut anything that man says.

Just to note, we spent 350 mil + military aid to help homeless dying people, barely spent a cent on trying to save Ruwandons (sp?) from genocide, but can spend ridiculous amounts killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

I'd like to see the figures of how many tsunami victims compared to Iraqis killed.

 

Well, you've done it... presented a target rich environment which lead me to post yet again.

Iraqi's killed? By whom.. and with what intent? Are you including those bones found by the tens of thousands? Are you considering the slaughter houses of Fallujah?
Do you consider car bombings and beheadings the acts of "Freedom Fighters" or the acts of those desperate to retain religious and despotic power? And get Western Press coverage to convince their readers or viewers that ANY action in such arena is hopeless.
Maybe that explains Rwanda

Would you agree that it makes some difference? And where do you get your figures? Michael Moore?

Rwanda?!!!!! Yes I CERTAINLY agree... and I've been using that point for years in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left and BillClinton(whom I voted for, BTW!) and those who would yield the Holy Sceptre of Humanitarianism to the festering corruption of the UN.

You may feel yourself informed...I consider you and others who parrot the mantra of the lemming left, to be "indoctrinated".

In other words... you are either a political tool led by your "intellectual superiors" or you are too lazy with the exercise of self-immersion in Pop Culture to be bothered by thinking for yourself.

I will make no excuse for the Warts of Limbaugh land.. tired ever-present kindergarten homilies by Hannity, in particular.. but the excesses of those who attempt to balance those out lead me to near-despair.

The last point: you seem to equate Dubya saying he "has a deep faith" to mean he is a Religious Zealot.
"I pray about it" in your mind apparently means " God tells me what to do"

Both of which are ludicrous to anyone with a minimum knowledge of the Christian - or any other religious- Community.

And, you used the term "secular" in describing the Administration's motivation; while you are technically accurate, in terms of modern usage of the word, I dont believe you meant that. But I believe it to be true.. see above.

So I guess, for me, the bottom line is NOT that you 'piss me off'; it's that you make me want to weep.

...More...

 

man bush supporters are a testy lot considering they won

 

Let's just say I'm fed up with that toss-away innuendo crap.

We still have idiots saying Bush stole Fla 2000 though it's been disproved by Dem papers (Miami Herald, AJC) over and over.. same as would have made a rolling banquet out of it if there'd been any truth.

So every time some idiot throws that "VRWC" hand out there,I'm gonna try and call his bluff

 

I didn't vote for bush last fall (or in 2000) but 51% of american's did.

We'll see if the next four years is better than the previous 4, either way, we get what we deserve

 

Its amazing that I wrote a few sentences and your protecting Bushie as if I attacked him openly. Have a field day trying to justify the mess in Iraq, (UH OH). And no, Micheal Moore is not my main source of information, I dismiss him as propaganda just as most media sources these days, I read an array of politcal commentary and form my own opinion, even if I was a Jesus freak I still would support the ban on abortion, a war with little justification, forcing democracy on other nations, special interests lobbying, corporate power bolstering, ruthless spending, ban of gay marriage nationwide, etc....

I dont like the guy, neither do almost half the American public and that not an exaggeration.

Pettyfog, you obviously have loads of pro-Bush rhetoric to throw around, no question about it. I'm glad there still exists few of you who follow leaders blindly. I dont have a faith, literally, so if I cant follow the all knowing blindly, I cant follow a man who takes 30 seconds for rebutle in a presidential debate blindly either.

He is anything but a great leader. I dont think there is much more anynoe can say about that.

 

See.. that's the point..
I dont follow him "blindly", his domestic policy SUX.

But I'll criticize him where it's due and defend him against stupid, moonbat throway lines"

 

Try making sense..

Smokin' is on the mark. Read your earlier post - I can't believe it makes sense even to you. You don't provide logical arguments for any of your positions and you jump from one topic to another like a 5-year old on a sugar high.

We have spent over $200 million in Iraq. 1300 lives of our own citizens and thousands of Iraqi civilians have died and many more are injured. The premise given by the Administration for this is that we were under an imminent threat due to Saddam's possession of WMD's and his ties to Al Qaeda. No WMD's have been found and no ties to Al Qaeda have been proven.

So try to answer a few questions:
Why are we there? Would the current justification of the Administration(Saddam was a bad guy and we liberated the Iraqi people) have flown with the public and Congress prior to the war? Are we better off throwing money into this war or spending it shoring up the many weak points in our homeland security such as ports, railroads, power plants, chemical plants and aid to local law enforcement? What is our exit strategy? How long are we going to be there and how much will it cost? Are we creating more terrorists throughout the Middle East by staying there than we would by leaving the place as soon as we can? Where are the funds and the soldiers coming from if we have to increase our strength, as some in the Administration are hinting? If we need to be there to secure oil supplies why has the Bush administration done absolutely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

See if you can provide some coherent answers instead of ranting and raving.

 

RE: Try making sense..

I cant believe I'm going through all this again... you talk about ME !

Do I have to reming you of the more than 1 dozen Secutrity council resolutions flouted and about which nothing was done? Do I have to restate the various opinions of EVERY intelligence service in the west that there WERE WMD's? Which are, and someday will be proved to be, in the Bekaa Valley, BTW!

Do i have to point out the OTHER sections (that you wont have read because they dont bash Bush's motive) in the Duelfer report which explained WHY Saddam was playing the UN?

Are we creating more terrorists? Probably... but which came first... the abuses, the beheadings, the car bombings, Fallujah? Would it make a difference if we catered to them?

What is the Arab view of these who prefer to talk out and negotiate differences?
- Go back to the days of the Barbary Pirates and answer me that!

Do those "insurgents" want Iraqi's to have a say in their own government?

Who has done this... could the publicity given each and every act of these thugs on world media have some motivation?

I am never going to convince you guys.. I know that.

But to imply that the US is in there to "kill innocent civilians" and that Bush is a "Scary Religious Extremist" simply because he talks about his faith?
Address that!

You cant... and you cant address the corruption in the UN which one MIGHT surmise you believe in as the alternative to military action.. and it goes much further than Oil for Food, Smokin addressed one of the issues in his remark on Rwanda: UN cant go into a combat zone.. they are totally ineffective. And the US, shamefully, also did nothing.

In background as peacekeepers, they aint all that stellar either.

There we go, also bringing up the "oil " agenda again! Which wont hold a freakin ounce of water!
Oil is a commodity, we will buy it from anywhere, oil seeks its own level.

I could go on and on

Did the US screw up after gaining the military victory? Yep... but recall that the intelligence services tried to vet senior officers in the Iraqi army and Republican Guard before the invasion but they wouldnt commit... for good reason, if you look at the history under Saddam.

They SHOULDNT have disbanded the entire army. They SHOULD have gone into Fallujah 6 months before they did.

They SHOULD have made a hard-fast agreement with Al Sistani, early on!

 

RE: Try making sense..

I hate to say it, but the war in Iraq has cost a little bit more than $200 million. Its more along the lines of $150 billion.

did we do a good thing in iraq by deposing saddam hussein? yes

Do i think he posed an imminent threat? I don't think so but how can we be 100% sure

Are there other dictators out there who are a threat to democracy and possible threat to our country? absolutely.

Why have we not gone into those countries?

We have no US interests in those countries. If Iraq didn't have huge deposits of oil, they'd just be another Sudan or Somalia (who both absolutely have Al Quaeda training bases)

 

Re: RE: Try making sense..

Obviously I meant $200 billion, and if we're not there already we will be soon enough. Interesting how the press has lost interest in the cost issue. The real question is where are our resources best spent to improve our security. I think an indefinite commitment in Iraq is not the answer and in fact is counterproductive. I'm sick of this thread but thanks Johnny for providing some logical answers and coherent discussion that were sorely missing from "fog".

 

RE: Try making sense..

Absolutely the most accurate deposition i can agree with, instead of making conditions better of there, we made it worse. There are more terrorists over in Iraq now then before. Not only that, but outside of my completely irrelevant opinion, those muslim families in and outside of iraq are recruiting at a pace that is more dangerous to us than ever before, a different approach would have avoided giving those young kids and excuse to be America-haters. But do understand one thing, whether you like it or not, the US is the poster child of the anglo capitalistic world, we are the representative and example of the way those countries will percieve and treat us in the future.... my gripe is with the future, cuz thats all that is certain.