I don't want to argue with you, but do you even read?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you know the answer to this question. I read most of the page and it is seriously slanted. I fyou do not want to go to war, read this page and accept what he says at face value. It will make you feel better about your position.
[quote]<strong>Point 1: Part of Bush's platform when he was running was pro-vet, and to many people this referred to this issue. He seems to have forgotten about this, and that's why people are upset.<hr></blockquote></strong>
What did I say about this. More backup than just his page and the article he quotes. How about a DOJ statment on it, or a legal proceeding or something. Basically it appears that the families were promised full health care for life and now they are not getting it. So the governement is looking for another way to save money. As much as I hate it when the government makes such cuts, you cannot pin this on Bush or his administration. Why have they done nothing about this one issue, I do not know. It still does not add up to a toatl disregard of his campaign promises, it is one instance in likely hundreds if not thousands of issues he will have to make decisions on. Unless you have forgotten the US government does not move as quickly as we would like in many ways. Compared to the US Goverment the Titanic turned on a dime and gave 5 cents change...
[quote]<strong>Point 2: The only blame I hinted at here was the Admin under Bush Sr. They conducted a war and obviously did something that affected the US troops. I included it as another reason why we should not go to war, but under a heading stating that are troops have to potential of falling victim to non-combat illnesses due to something the US is doing. I could say that the Bush Sr. admin did not properly care for our own troops, and there is potential for that to happen again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is not what I took out of the discussion. It was really besides the point that i was making. However, if you want to not go to war because people may or may not get hurt or sick then that is your personal thought. However, I think you should reconsider taking your next bite of food or a bath or driving as any of these can potentially be fatal. It carries no weight in the larger scheme. Unless you have empirical evidence that if we invade Iraq will go ape and unleash plagues not seen since biblical accounts that is...
That is not what I took out of the discussion. It was really besides the point that i was making. However, if you want to not go to war because people may or may not get hurt or sick then that is your personal thought. However, I think you should reconsider taking your next bite of food or a bath or driving as any of these can potentially be fatal. It carries no weight in the larger scheme. Unless you have empirical evidence that if we invade Iraq will go ape and unleash plagues not seen since biblical accounts that is...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are not talking about a plague or eating bananas. We are talking about tens of thousands US troops becoming ill as a result of carelessness or neglect by their superiors, a chain of command that leads directly to President Bush I.
In addition, this is just one reason out of many for not going to war.
We are not talking about a plague or eating bananas. We are talking about tens of thousands US troops becoming ill as a result of carelessness or neglect by their superiors, a chain of command that leads directly to President Bush I.
In addition, this is just one reason out of many for not going to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are reaching sir. Nobody even knows yet what caused GWS. That I will say reflects poorly on the DOD and the Administration that was in power when the syndrome was discovered. Hint, It was neither Bush admin. I do hope that GWB's admin does something more about it or that we discover what caused the syndrome. Although with it being some 10 years later it would be difficult I would think to be sure of the cause now. who knows...
<strong>I think it is hilarious that many here think Saddam's regime will be replaced with a shamocracy. Nonsense. The vast majority of people in Iraq are themselves Islamic fundamentalists, held back by Saddam's military regime. If proportional representation were to take hold after the US removes the dictator they put in power, things would be, er, uglier than they are now. It would be an Axis Of Super-Duper Evil, if you will.
As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
And America's (or the Bush Admin's) response to all this is to go to war with some dirt-poor, landlocked pile of crap half a world away because the USA feels 'threatened' by it.
More terrorist attacks on your country, we all know, will be 'resolved' by tightening border control, more rigorous screening, retinal scans, fingerprinting, whatever. Tighter security. Which locks those bad people out, but unfortunately locks you in as well.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your country is annoying. Your good nature is the only redeeming aspect of your country's existence. We would be quite content if you sank into the Atlantic.
Comments
<strong>
I don't want to argue with you, but do you even read?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you know the answer to this question. I read most of the page and it is seriously slanted. I fyou do not want to go to war, read this page and accept what he says at face value. It will make you feel better about your position.
[quote]<strong>Point 1: Part of Bush's platform when he was running was pro-vet, and to many people this referred to this issue. He seems to have forgotten about this, and that's why people are upset.<hr></blockquote></strong>
What did I say about this. More backup than just his page and the article he quotes. How about a DOJ statment on it, or a legal proceeding or something. Basically it appears that the families were promised full health care for life and now they are not getting it. So the governement is looking for another way to save money. As much as I hate it when the government makes such cuts, you cannot pin this on Bush or his administration. Why have they done nothing about this one issue, I do not know. It still does not add up to a toatl disregard of his campaign promises, it is one instance in likely hundreds if not thousands of issues he will have to make decisions on. Unless you have forgotten the US government does not move as quickly as we would like in many ways. Compared to the US Goverment the Titanic turned on a dime and gave 5 cents change...
[quote]<strong>Point 2: The only blame I hinted at here was the Admin under Bush Sr. They conducted a war and obviously did something that affected the US troops. I included it as another reason why we should not go to war, but under a heading stating that are troops have to potential of falling victim to non-combat illnesses due to something the US is doing. I could say that the Bush Sr. admin did not properly care for our own troops, and there is potential for that to happen again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is not what I took out of the discussion. It was really besides the point that i was making. However, if you want to not go to war because people may or may not get hurt or sick then that is your personal thought. However, I think you should reconsider taking your next bite of food or a bath or driving as any of these can potentially be fatal. It carries no weight in the larger scheme. Unless you have empirical evidence that if we invade Iraq will go ape and unleash plagues not seen since biblical accounts that is...
<strong>
That is not what I took out of the discussion. It was really besides the point that i was making. However, if you want to not go to war because people may or may not get hurt or sick then that is your personal thought. However, I think you should reconsider taking your next bite of food or a bath or driving as any of these can potentially be fatal. It carries no weight in the larger scheme. Unless you have empirical evidence that if we invade Iraq will go ape and unleash plagues not seen since biblical accounts that is...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are not talking about a plague or eating bananas. We are talking about tens of thousands US troops becoming ill as a result of carelessness or neglect by their superiors, a chain of command that leads directly to President Bush I.
In addition, this is just one reason out of many for not going to war.
<strong>
We are not talking about a plague or eating bananas. We are talking about tens of thousands US troops becoming ill as a result of carelessness or neglect by their superiors, a chain of command that leads directly to President Bush I.
In addition, this is just one reason out of many for not going to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are reaching sir. Nobody even knows yet what caused GWS. That I will say reflects poorly on the DOD and the Administration that was in power when the syndrome was discovered. Hint, It was neither Bush admin. I do hope that GWB's admin does something more about it or that we discover what caused the syndrome. Although with it being some 10 years later it would be difficult I would think to be sure of the cause now. who knows...
Interesting interview. Speaks to the whole NATO/UN issue.
<strong>I think it is hilarious that many here think Saddam's regime will be replaced with a shamocracy. Nonsense. The vast majority of people in Iraq are themselves Islamic fundamentalists, held back by Saddam's military regime. If proportional representation were to take hold after the US removes the dictator they put in power, things would be, er, uglier than they are now. It would be an Axis Of Super-Duper Evil, if you will.
As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
And America's (or the Bush Admin's) response to all this is to go to war with some dirt-poor, landlocked pile of crap half a world away because the USA feels 'threatened' by it.
More terrorist attacks on your country, we all know, will be 'resolved' by tightening border control, more rigorous screening, retinal scans, fingerprinting, whatever. Tighter security. Which locks those bad people out, but unfortunately locks you in as well.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is Paris, this time of year?
<strong>
How is Paris, this time of year?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
(You see? Not very helpful is it?)
<strong>What country was he talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France, I think.
<strong>
France, I think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why we have good sailors