Bush ready to start WWIII

reefraff

Active Member
Not all Dems and Liberals are against the military. I've heard some respectful and well reasoned objections to the war. There have been a number of Dem/Libs who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to entertain the troops.
Don't judge everyone based on the actions of a few idiots. You just have some people who are not very knowlegable or are perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer who will regurgitate anything they hear without thinking about it or even checking to see if it was true. They tend to throw out ignorant statements and then run and hide rather than defend them.
 

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Not all Dems and Liberals are against the military. I've heard some respectful and well reasoned objections to the war. There have been a number of Dem/Libs who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to entertain the troops.
Don't judge everyone based on the actions of a few idiots. You just have some people who are not very knowlegable or are perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer who will regurgitate anything they hear without thinking about it or even checking to see if it was true. They tend to throw out ignorant statements and then run and hide rather than defend them.

I personally can't really be classified one way or the other. At times my viewpoints are rather liberal, sometimes my views are in line with conservatives. I mostly just don't think anything should be legislated one way or the other, even though my own views may be that something is immoral, or that science explains something to my satisfaction, etc. When I first registered to vote it was as an independent. Then I switched to Democrat. A couple months ago I switched to Republican. I may just go back to independent someday, who knows. I was once told by an old boss (small business owner) that the country functions best with a Democrat President and a Republican majority in congress. I don't think too much power should be on one side or the other, that's why our country works... checks and balances. Both sides have their flaws; they both need to get their act together and stop picking fights with each other and/or everyone that doesn't agree with their sometimes-narrow viewpoints. We're one country and need to act like it. /rant
 

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Not all Dems and Liberals are against the military. I've heard some respectful and well reasoned objections to the war. There have been a number of Dem/Libs who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to entertain the troops.
Don't judge everyone based on the actions of a few idiots. You just have some people who are not very knowlegable or are perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer who will regurgitate anything they hear without thinking about it or even checking to see if it was true. They tend to throw out ignorant statements and then run and hide rather than defend them.
You're right, and there are a number of moderate democrats on Capitol Hill that I like. Additionally there are a number of democrats that I personally know, that are not like I describe. Unfortunately for the Democrat party, the few idiots we seem to agree on, are the loudest from the party.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by m0nk

I personally can't really be classified one way or the other. At times my viewpoints are rather liberal, sometimes my views are in line with conservatives. I mostly just don't think anything should be legislated one way or the other, even though my own views may be that something is immoral, or that science explains something to my satisfaction, etc. When I first registered to vote it was as an independent. Then I switched to Democrat. A couple months ago I switched to Republican. I may just go back to independent someday, who knows. I was once told by an old boss (small business owner) that the country functions best with a Democrat President and a Republican majority in congress. I don't think too much power should be on one side or the other, that's why our country works... checks and balances. Both sides have their flaws; they both need to get their act together and stop picking fights with each other and/or everyone that doesn't agree with their sometimes-narrow viewpoints. We're one country and need to act like it. /rant

The only problem with the Dem President, Pub Congress is the Dems get to appoint the Supreme Court Justices. Not a good thing. I like constructionists who don't try to redefine what the Constitution says based on what they "think" the founders would have wanted based on modern times.
 

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
The only problem with the Dem President, Pub Congress is the Dems get to appoint the Supreme Court Justices. Not a good thing. I like constructionists who don't try to redefine what the Constitution says based on what they "think" the founders would have wanted based on modern times.
Yeah, that was just his opinion, I personally just think no one side should have supreme power.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by m0nk

...that the country functions best with a Democrat President and a Republican majority in congress. I don't think too much power should be on one side or the other, that's why our country works... checks and balances. ..
Agreed.
The problem is the Democrats have a proven track record of appointing judges to the bench that are Activists rather than Constructionists. This permantently has damaged the checks and balances our forefathers envisioned in the Constitution.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Agreed.
The problem is the Democrats have a proven track record of appointing judges to the bench that are Activists rather than Constructionists. This permantently has damaged the checks and balances our forefathers envisioned in the Constitution.
Judges who legislate from the bench instead of judiciate.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Looks like Bush is 'd@man the torpedos" and wanting to leave WWIII as his finally legacy before we get him out of office. Was reading the paper this morning, and apparently his final statement during his Mid-East trip, is he wants to sell the Saudis the capability of allowing standard weapons to be converted into precision-guided 'smart' bombs. His logic is that it will limit Iran's clout in the Gulf. He's wanting to give very dangerous technology to a country that's never been cooperative with the US. Bush says he wants to give them this technology so "Saudi Arabia can support the peacemaking efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians". He also doesn't want to limit the sales to the Saudis. The deal could potentially transfer some $30 billion worth of military hardware to six Persian Gulf nations (Saudi, Egypt, Israel, and three others). All this in an effort to isolate Iran. No it's called, "Let's give the opposing forces to Iran high technology weapons, so they can start blowing Iran to pieces." Of course Iran will retaliate, and the fight will begin. Naturally the U.S. will have to go into the fracus for "peacekeeping measures". That's what Bush has been pushing for the last six months. He can't get Congress to approve any type of involvement or attack against Iran, so he does the next best thing. Give Iran's enemies the weapons to start a war for him, then sit back and wait for the cry for help. The U.S. of couse will have to get involved. One of these nations will obviously have WMD's or have terroristic ties...
Give and sell technology to what you call our enemies? Please comment on the following facts and if you supported and agreed with CLinton and supported what you are about to read.
President Clinton has approved $23.8 billion in licenses and sales to Saudi Arabia since 1993, including some of the most sophisticated weapons the U.S. produces: General Dynamics M1A2 Abrams tanks, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Strike Eagle attack aircraft, and Rockwell GBU-15 smart bombs. Saudi Arabia also buys arms directly from American corporations, bypassing Pentagon middlemen; purchases include the $300 million upgrade and support system for the Peace Shield radar system that the country bought directly from Raytheon in 1998. The kingdom may also make its next purchase of F-16 fighters directly from Lockheed Martin, much as Singapore did in 1997
During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.
In fiscal year 1993, the United States sold over $31 billion worth of weaponry to more than 140 nations, the first time any nation had topped the $30-billion barrier.
When a Saint Louis television reporter asked him in August 1992 whether he would back the sale of seventy-two McDonnell Douglas F-15 combat aircraft to Saudi Arabia, Clinton not only said yes, his Missouri campaign office immediately put out a press release broadcasting his support for the deal. The F-15 is built in Saint Louis, and it was clear that Clinton's decision had more to do with the political realities of Missouri than it did with the strategic realities of the Middle East. Amazingly, Clinton's endorsement of the sale came two-and-one-half weeks before President George Bush formally announced his decision to go ahead with it.
Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.
Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.
I'll leave off the rest of "chinagate"
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
No dems assume that cuting and running will become a fad, and the terrorists will follow in kind. It will be the new thing in the world to do; bury your head in the sand. Economists agree this will help the sand and quarry industries explode.
I wonder what the world and this country would look like if we adopted the we can't win philosophy and the world will go to heck with or without us back in WWII days, etc, etc, etc ?
 

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I wonder what the world and this country would look like if we adopted the we can't win philosophy and the world will go to heck with or without us back in WWII days, etc, etc, etc ?


Ever seen the Mad Max movies....
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Congress' ratings have been in the dumpers for as long as I can rememeber. When has anyone ever approved of what Congress is doing?
Typical response. Show the facts, and you have to turn them around to make your poor performing president look better.
Because of the backlash of Dubya's rating bringing them down. Cause and effect. Your leader sucks, so you must suck as well. The Democrats just got back the control of Congress a year and a half ago? How long has their approval rating sucked? Bushes rating has sucked since his second term began.
Here are your facts regarding the current Congress..all time HISTORICAL low.
PRINCETON, NJ — A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...6/214938.shtml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...21/ai_15254325
I'll have to try and find the reports of the technology China has passed on to Iran.....they purchased this technology during the CLinton years. I recall reading a couple articles regarding the technology passed on to Iran.
Google "Loral China" and I think you'll find some of the info you are looking for. Also "Bernard L. Schwartz" related to campaign finance investigations.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
On February 6, 1996, despite reports that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, and over the objections of our State and Defense Departments, Clinton signed waivers for four U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. On the very same day, Wang Jun (a "Chinese arms dealer") attended one of Clinton's now-famous campaign coffees in the White House and spent some time in Ron Brown's Commerce Department office. Wang Jun owns a huge stake in a Chinese enterprise that benefited from Clinton's waivers, China International Trade and Investment Corporation.
On Feb. 15, 1996, the Chinese rocket launching a $200-million Loral satellite blew up. Without telling the U.S. Government, Loral scientists prepared a 200-page report advising China how to improve the guidance of its missiles and forwarded this helpful advice to China without Pentagon approval.
The rationale for allowing U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets is that the technology is safely locked up in a black box, and Americans monitor the launch to assure that it stays secured. But when the Loral rocket blew up, the parts were scattered. The Pentagon refused comment on the Drudge report that the Loral engineers who reviewed the recovered debris said that the encryption hardware was missing.
U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China's targeting was made more accurate by Loral's unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral's actions were "criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful."
In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.
Congress is finally starting to realize that American national security is at stake. On May 20, the House voted 364 to 54 to ban the export of all satellites to China. And, by 417 to 4, the House passed a resolution warning Clinton not to enter into any new agreements with China involving space or missile technology during his forthcoming trip to Beijing. The resolution also rebuked Clinton by declaring that his decision to issue the waiver to Loral Space and Communications earlier this year was "not in the national interest of the United States," and instructed the President to indefinitely suspend all U.S. satellite exports to China, including a pending Loral deal.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Google "Loral China" and I think you'll find some of the info you are looking for. Also "Bernard L. Schwartz" related to campaign finance investigations.
Yep..amazing what was done.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Monk, I can't agree with you more. This back-and-forth argument is an effort in futility. The same people who are for this war will continue to do so no matter what you say. It gives them ammo to 'dig' at the liberals and Demos any chance they get. The war wouldn't have ever existed if Clinton would have done his job in the first place. At least that's their logic. I agree to differ.
My opinions and viewpoints come straight from what I've heard from people who have actually been over there. I've had four friends and relatives deployed over the last few years for various tours. One has come home in a body bag, one with his right leg blown off, and the other two, fortunately, made it back safe at home 'physically' (the jury is still out on their mental stability). You want the truth about this war? Sit down and talk to somebody that's been there. They laugh when they listen to these politicans who say, "We're making progress in Iraq. The people are with us, and want to move forwards with democracy." They say democracy is the least of their worries. Many of the Iraquis don't like, or appreciate the soldiers, and have no problems with them getting their heads blown off. Their logic is we're the targets that keep them from getting shot at. You can agree to disagree. They have no reason to lie. I'll be interested to hear journey's perspective since he says he's going over there soon. Hope he doesn't come back in a body bag like my cousin. Who will I argue with over Saint Dubya and abortion?
Fort Huachuca is located in this town..feel free to google it to get the particulars of what is located there... I am hearing different stories from the brave guys and gals returning from Iraq I encounter in town through conversation, etc.
 

mess88

Member
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by mess88
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A

Hillary is not someone I beleive capable to lead this country given the times we live in.
 

sigmachris

Active Member
Originally Posted by mess88
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A

The Bush family are just a bunch of public servants? They started 2 wars and who knows what would happen if Jeb ever gets elected.
You also contradict yourself saying Hilary would cause / start WWIII but then claim the terrosits would start a war then hint a woman couldn't lead us in war. Kind of sexist don't you think?
For the record, I am an independent and haven't decided on who I am voting for.
 
Top