"Mix garbage with garage and you still get garbage"....wouldn't we get a dirty garage instead?
I agree man, these pinko commie bastahds should just go away. Don't they know that they're either with us or against us??!! Nuke em' I say, nuke em all'!!
Back in WWII, people much like yourself argued many of the same or similar points you are now, using much the same logic you are now, before, during and after the war.
History has proved the necessity of that war. I feel history will do the same for the current WOT and it's many battles. They will be recognized for what they are, battles toward a victory.
The thing I did not mention before, and I commend you for picking it up, is that during a time of war the old philosophies become new and are proven right, over and over.
You missed the point. This world is rapidly changing into something that hasn't existed before. That is boarders and nationalities are taking on a different meaning.
We can't just think of ourselves as just citizens of the U.S. but of the world.
This means no one country can take on the role of world policeman.
I've covered this before here many times but because the world is economically dependent on many countries ( not just one as has been the case in the past ) we can't afford any other kind of attitude. The old WWII attitudes don't work anymore.
Besides in the long run war doesn't help the economy anymore like it used to. It just costs money.
If the world is going to ever come to any kind of peace we have to accept that we aren't really french or german or even american. We are human beings.
At it's heart this what I find wrong with what Bush did in Iraq. He took it upon himself to go to war with Iraq. And apparently was willing to go to any length to do that.
In this new world where we can't afford a nationalistic attitude only it was very wrong.
It was also very wrong due to the fact that he has apparently lied to his own people to accomplish this goal.
The argument of the NAZI party of America then is the same argument made today. The parallels are striking considering the background of some of the characters here.
And I'm still waiting for a response regards the 167 billion, and then the 200 billion, and all the rest of it. Notice how scurried away on the slightest challenge to his garbage.
In April 2003 Congress appropriated $79 Billion to cover the cost of the war. I imagine you must recall that, it waseven broadcast on the nanny media.
September: Bush requested an additional $87 billion to cover additional costs into the near future (that does however include Afghanistan). I imagine you must recall that as well, unless you have your head planted firmly in the soil somewhere.
$79billion + 87billion = $166 billion...oops, I was out by 50% of the cost of one stealth bomber.
As of now, the cost incurred is some $93,553,980,000.
By the time you read this, the numbers would be out of date by some $124,000 per minute.
I'm a Rep, so I won't take your lame attempt at a threat personally...I'm just not a fanatical idiot who lets others like Limbaugh do the thinking for them.Like you.
In fact I think you're a ****ing coward who likes to talk tough so long as someone else is doing the dirty work for you. All talk is what you are. Go join the armed forces and go to Iraq if you're so brave. I didn't think so.
You missed the point. This world is rapidly changing into something that hasn't existed before. That is boarders and nationalities are taking on a different meaning.
We can't just think of ourselves as just citizens of the U.S. but of the world.
This means no one country can take on the role of world policeman.
I've covered this before here many times but because the world is economically dependent on many countries ( not just one as has been the case in the past ) we can't afford any other kind of attitude. The old WWII attitudes don't work anymore.
Besides in the long run war doesn't help the economy anymore like it used to. It just costs money.
If the world is going to ever come to any kind of peace we have to accept that we aren't really french or german or even american. We are human beings.
At it's heart this what I find wrong with what Bush did in Iraq. He took it upon himself to go to war with Iraq. And apparently was willing to go to any length to do that.
In this new world where we can't afford a nationalistic attitude only it was very wrong.
It was also very wrong due to the fact that he has apparently lied to his own people to accomplish this goal.
Now wait one minute.
As president you would take on an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. Your job would be to protect this nation, regardless of what the world thinks. Right or wrong from a pie-in-the-sky world viewpoint, that is what Bush is trying to do and you think it is wrong for him to uphold his oath?
Do you think SH cares about any country around the world thought? What do you do when he doesn't buy into your NWO viewpoint?
As president you would take on an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. Your job would be to protect this nation, regardless of what the world thinks. Right or wrong from a pie-in-the-sky world viewpoint, that is what Bush is trying to do and you think it is wrong for him to uphold his oath?
Do you think SH cares about any country around the world thought? What do you do when he doesn't buy into your NWO viewpoint?
Wow... is about all i can say.
One of his first duties as an elected official is to tell the truth to his own people. Even if that means sacrificing his goals.
It truly doesn't look good for the case of WOMD in Iraq.
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
If someone like SH truly threatens the world it can't just be up to us to rectify the situation.
But it's looking like Saddam wasn't capable anymore of threatening anyone but his own people.
A deplorable situation but not what this war was sold on.
The argument of the NAZI party of America then is the same argument made today. The parallels are striking considering the background of some of the characters here.
I'm a Rep, so I won't take your lame attempt at a threat personally...I'm just not a fanatical idiot who lets others like Limbaugh do the thinking for them.Like you.
In fact I think you're a ****ing coward who likes to talk tough so long as someone else is doing the dirty work for you. All talk is what you are. Go join the armed forces and go to Iraq if you're so brave. I didn't think so.
You are so fscking clueless tiz not even funny. Btw, I really think that some army boys paying you a visit wouldn't be a bad idea.
One of his first duties as an elected official is to tell the truth to his own people. Even if that means sacrificing his goals.
It truly doesn't look good for the case of WOMD in Iraq.
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
If someone like SH truly threatens the world it can't just be up to us to rectify the situation.
But it's looking like Saddam wasn't capable anymore of threatening anyone but his own people.
A deplorable situation but not what this war was sold on.
You basically told us all here that you think that the US president in your view, should be beholden to world politics (should I read UN?) rather than the US constitution.
And now you are saying that even if the POTUS was given bad intel, that that is just as bad as him directly lying.
Man, I am sorry for whatever somebody did bad to you. You obviously have a grudge against this POTUS or is it your country?
Maybe I am reading this wrong. but it would seem that you are suggesting that the former US administration be brought to trial for what SH and his cronies did.
Tell me that is not your position, please.
Too damn right it's my position. It enrages me, anyone with any decency I hope and trust, to see senior officials of my country in close association with foreign war criminals. Whoever was aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein when it was well known what he was doing should be charged with being accessory to war crimes. Accessory, or aiding and abetting a crime can carry the same penalties in law as the crime itself. I trust you believe that should Osama bin Laden, for example, be brought to justice, he should be charged with terrorism offenses (for financing and enabling al qaida presumably) in the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemen., even though bin Laden personally probably didnt lay a finger on anyone....or, as Bush himself said shortly after 9-11: "anyone who harbors and finances terrorists is as guilty as the terrorists themselves". Do you agree with that, or should there be a special allowances for certain privileged and well connected people, even though they have blood on their hands?
You basically told us all here that you think that the US president in your view, should be beholden to world politics (should I read UN?) rather than the US constitution.
And now you are saying that even if the POTUS was given bad intel, that that is just as bad as him directly lying.
Man, I am sorry for whatever somebody did bad to you. You obviously have a grudge against this POTUS or is it your country?
Whew....
Read my post again and quit trying to put words in my mouth.
What I said is if he accepted bad intel because it's what he wanted to hear ( which he seems like he's really wanted to get something on Saddam ) that's just as dishonest. The president has many advisers. I'm sure he had more than one option with this situatiion.
The thing I'm saying about his loyalties is to the U.S. first and the world second. But most definitely the world.
The thing is it's looking like the U.S. wasn't threatened here.
Too damn right it's my position. It enrages me, anyone with any decency I hope and trust, to see senior officials of my country in close association with foreign war criminals. Whoever was aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein when it was well known what he was doing should be charged with being accessory to war crimes. Accessory, or aiding and abetting a crime can carry the same penalties in law as the crime itself. I trust you believe that should Osama bin Laden, for example, be brought to justice, he should be charged with terrorism offenses (for financing and enabling al qaida presumably) in the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemen., even though bin Laden personally probably didnt lay a finger on anyone....or, as Bush himself said shortly after 9-11: "anyone who harbors and finances terrorists is as guilty as the terrorists themselves". Do you agree with that, or should there be a special allowances for certain privileged and well connected people, even though they have blood on their hands?
Well, that will never fly. There is no way for you to prove it. Even if it was true, those involved could easily and believably explain their actions as being what they thought would be best for their country. You have to know that, right?
The problem seems to fall in the lap of our intel agencies. But I would hope that instead of hanging parties, you would condone better funding and reform.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
"Mix garbage with garage and you still get garbage"....wouldn't we get a dirty garage instead?
I agree man, these pinko commie bastahds should just go away. Don't they know that they're either with us or against us??!! Nuke em' I say, nuke em all'!!
Actually I'd line you up against the wall.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Back in WWII, people much like yourself argued many of the same or similar points you are now, using much the same logic you are now, before, during and after the war.
History has proved the necessity of that war. I feel history will do the same for the current WOT and it's many battles. They will be recognized for what they are, battles toward a victory.
The thing I did not mention before, and I commend you for picking it up, is that during a time of war the old philosophies become new and are proven right, over and over.
You missed the point. This world is rapidly changing into something that hasn't existed before. That is boarders and nationalities are taking on a different meaning.
We can't just think of ourselves as just citizens of the U.S. but of the world.
This means no one country can take on the role of world policeman.
I've covered this before here many times but because the world is economically dependent on many countries ( not just one as has been the case in the past ) we can't afford any other kind of attitude. The old WWII attitudes don't work anymore.
Besides in the long run war doesn't help the economy anymore like it used to. It just costs money.
If the world is going to ever come to any kind of peace we have to accept that we aren't really french or german or even american. We are human beings.
At it's heart this what I find wrong with what Bush did in Iraq. He took it upon himself to go to war with Iraq. And apparently was willing to go to any length to do that.
In this new world where we can't afford a nationalistic attitude only it was very wrong.
It was also very wrong due to the fact that he has apparently lied to his own people to accomplish this goal.
Originally posted by bunge
Let's see some links.
Keeping a close ear to the Nazi party of America should be right up your alley.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Keeping a close ear to the Nazi party of America should be right up your alley.
What rock did you crawl out from under?
Originally posted by jimmac
What rock did you crawl out from under?
?!
The argument of the NAZI party of America then is the same argument made today. The parallels are striking considering the background of some of the characters here.
http://www.claremont.org/writings/pr...21203palm.html
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=2435
http://www.talkingproud.us/International090103.html
still doing a lot of reading on the matter, but these articles are very interesting.
Originally posted by majorspunk
And I'm still waiting for a response regards the 167 billion, and then the 200 billion, and all the rest of it. Notice how scurried away on the slightest challenge to his garbage.
In April 2003 Congress appropriated $79 Billion to cover the cost of the war. I imagine you must recall that, it waseven broadcast on the nanny media.
September: Bush requested an additional $87 billion to cover additional costs into the near future (that does however include Afghanistan). I imagine you must recall that as well, unless you have your head planted firmly in the soil somewhere.
$79billion + 87billion = $166 billion...oops, I was out by 50% of the cost of one stealth bomber.
As of now, the cost incurred is some $93,553,980,000.
By the time you read this, the numbers would be out of date by some $124,000 per minute.
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
Originally posted by majormistake
Actually I'd line you up against the wall.
I'm a Rep, so I won't take your lame attempt at a threat personally...I'm just not a fanatical idiot who lets others like Limbaugh do the thinking for them.Like you.
In fact I think you're a ****ing coward who likes to talk tough so long as someone else is doing the dirty work for you. All talk is what you are. Go join the armed forces and go to Iraq if you're so brave. I didn't think so.
Originally posted by jimmac
You missed the point. This world is rapidly changing into something that hasn't existed before. That is boarders and nationalities are taking on a different meaning.
We can't just think of ourselves as just citizens of the U.S. but of the world.
This means no one country can take on the role of world policeman.
I've covered this before here many times but because the world is economically dependent on many countries ( not just one as has been the case in the past ) we can't afford any other kind of attitude. The old WWII attitudes don't work anymore.
Besides in the long run war doesn't help the economy anymore like it used to. It just costs money.
If the world is going to ever come to any kind of peace we have to accept that we aren't really french or german or even american. We are human beings.
At it's heart this what I find wrong with what Bush did in Iraq. He took it upon himself to go to war with Iraq. And apparently was willing to go to any length to do that.
In this new world where we can't afford a nationalistic attitude only it was very wrong.
It was also very wrong due to the fact that he has apparently lied to his own people to accomplish this goal.
Now wait one minute.
As president you would take on an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. Your job would be to protect this nation, regardless of what the world thinks. Right or wrong from a pie-in-the-sky world viewpoint, that is what Bush is trying to do and you think it is wrong for him to uphold his oath?
Do you think SH cares about any country around the world thought? What do you do when he doesn't buy into your NWO viewpoint?
Wow... is about all i can say.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Now wait one minute.
As president you would take on an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. Your job would be to protect this nation, regardless of what the world thinks. Right or wrong from a pie-in-the-sky world viewpoint, that is what Bush is trying to do and you think it is wrong for him to uphold his oath?
Do you think SH cares about any country around the world thought? What do you do when he doesn't buy into your NWO viewpoint?
Wow... is about all i can say.
One of his first duties as an elected official is to tell the truth to his own people. Even if that means sacrificing his goals.
It truly doesn't look good for the case of WOMD in Iraq.
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
If someone like SH truly threatens the world it can't just be up to us to rectify the situation.
But it's looking like Saddam wasn't capable anymore of threatening anyone but his own people.
A deplorable situation but not what this war was sold on.
Originally posted by majorspunk
?!
The argument of the NAZI party of America then is the same argument made today. The parallels are striking considering the background of some of the characters here.
Sigh!
Originally posted by Gilsch
I'm a Rep, so I won't take your lame attempt at a threat personally...I'm just not a fanatical idiot who lets others like Limbaugh do the thinking for them.Like you.
In fact I think you're a ****ing coward who likes to talk tough so long as someone else is doing the dirty work for you. All talk is what you are. Go join the armed forces and go to Iraq if you're so brave. I didn't think so.
You are so fscking clueless tiz not even funny. Btw, I really think that some army boys paying you a visit wouldn't be a bad idea.
Originally posted by majorspunk
You are so fscking clueless tiz not even funny. Btw, I really think that some army boys paying you a visit wouldn't be a bad idea.
Wait! What's that I hear? Your rock's calling you!
Originally posted by jimmac
One of his first duties as an elected official is to tell the truth to his own people. Even if that means sacrificing his goals.
It truly doesn't look good for the case of WOMD in Iraq.
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
If someone like SH truly threatens the world it can't just be up to us to rectify the situation.
But it's looking like Saddam wasn't capable anymore of threatening anyone but his own people.
A deplorable situation but not what this war was sold on.
You basically told us all here that you think that the US president in your view, should be beholden to world politics (should I read UN?) rather than the US constitution.
And now you are saying that even if the POTUS was given bad intel, that that is just as bad as him directly lying.
Man, I am sorry for whatever somebody did bad to you. You obviously have a grudge against this POTUS or is it your country?
Whew....
Originally posted by NaplesX
Maybe I am reading this wrong. but it would seem that you are suggesting that the former US administration be brought to trial for what SH and his cronies did.
Tell me that is not your position, please.
Too damn right it's my position. It enrages me, anyone with any decency I hope and trust, to see senior officials of my country in close association with foreign war criminals. Whoever was aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein when it was well known what he was doing should be charged with being accessory to war crimes. Accessory, or aiding and abetting a crime can carry the same penalties in law as the crime itself. I trust you believe that should Osama bin Laden, for example, be brought to justice, he should be charged with terrorism offenses (for financing and enabling al qaida presumably) in the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemen., even though bin Laden personally probably didnt lay a finger on anyone....or, as Bush himself said shortly after 9-11: "anyone who harbors and finances terrorists is as guilty as the terrorists themselves". Do you agree with that, or should there be a special allowances for certain privileged and well connected people, even though they have blood on their hands?
Originally posted by jimmac
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
This is a first.
At least you are leaving an opening that maybe he is not lying.
This is wise.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You basically told us all here that you think that the US president in your view, should be beholden to world politics (should I read UN?) rather than the US constitution.
And now you are saying that even if the POTUS was given bad intel, that that is just as bad as him directly lying.
Man, I am sorry for whatever somebody did bad to you. You obviously have a grudge against this POTUS or is it your country?
Whew....
Read my post again and quit trying to put words in my mouth.
What I said is if he accepted bad intel because it's what he wanted to hear ( which he seems like he's really wanted to get something on Saddam ) that's just as dishonest. The president has many advisers. I'm sure he had more than one option with this situatiion.
The thing I'm saying about his loyalties is to the U.S. first and the world second. But most definitely the world.
The thing is it's looking like the U.S. wasn't threatened here.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Too damn right it's my position. It enrages me, anyone with any decency I hope and trust, to see senior officials of my country in close association with foreign war criminals. Whoever was aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein when it was well known what he was doing should be charged with being accessory to war crimes. Accessory, or aiding and abetting a crime can carry the same penalties in law as the crime itself. I trust you believe that should Osama bin Laden, for example, be brought to justice, he should be charged with terrorism offenses (for financing and enabling al qaida presumably) in the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemen., even though bin Laden personally probably didnt lay a finger on anyone....or, as Bush himself said shortly after 9-11: "anyone who harbors and finances terrorists is as guilty as the terrorists themselves". Do you agree with that, or should there be a special allowances for certain privileged and well connected people, even though they have blood on their hands?
Well, that will never fly. There is no way for you to prove it. Even if it was true, those involved could easily and believably explain their actions as being what they thought would be best for their country. You have to know that, right?
The problem seems to fall in the lap of our intel agencies. But I would hope that instead of hanging parties, you would condone better funding and reform.
Originally posted by NaplesX
This is a first.
At least you are leaving an opening that maybe he is not lying.
This is wise.
Even if that's the case it doesn't get him off the hot seat.
If he didn't lie and believed bad intel because it was what he wanted to hear that's just as bad.
[/B]
Sorry, this is what you said. I did misunderstand because now I see the statement for the crap it is.
If he knowingly "beleived" a lie perpatrated to him, that also is a lie. Right?
So the statement should read:
Even if he didn't lie and he lied thats just as bad.
Please god, is it my time yet?