bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by Oceanists
How ever I do not support BUSH in anyway way , shape, or form. I believe clinton was a better president (JMO) i saw the economy rise , and then fall when presidancy changed hands
You're definately entitled to not support Bush and policy but please support the Presidency.
I'd also suggest you revisit the calendar to take another look at when the economy fell.
How ever I do not support BUSH in anyway way , shape, or form. I believe clinton was a better president (JMO) i saw the economy rise , and then fall when presidancy changed hands
You're definately entitled to not support Bush and policy but please support the Presidency.
I'd also suggest you revisit the calendar to take another look at when the economy fell.
1journeyman
Active Member
Poverty is down, home ownership is up, more people now have health insurance than ever before, The current admin. spends more money on Education than any previous one...
So tell me again what exactly about the economy has fallen? There was a recession, but it was at the end of Clinton's watch... we got out of it through the current admin.
You don't have to agree with the current admin, but please keep facts straight.
Puffer, sorry for your loss. You still have to keep it civil here, however. Your points get lost in your anger...
Hillary for President? That's a scary thought. I want someone with a backbone. Maybe is she were to spend a few more years in elected office then she would be qualified. She certainly isn't now. She wakes up and reads the polls every morning to see what her opinion is going to be for the day.
As far as Clinton being a better President, I stick by my opinion that he is responsible for the emboldened terrorists that we have today. Terrorists are never going to like us, but under his watch they quit fearing us.
So tell me again what exactly about the economy has fallen? There was a recession, but it was at the end of Clinton's watch... we got out of it through the current admin.
You don't have to agree with the current admin, but please keep facts straight.
Puffer, sorry for your loss. You still have to keep it civil here, however. Your points get lost in your anger...
Hillary for President? That's a scary thought. I want someone with a backbone. Maybe is she were to spend a few more years in elected office then she would be qualified. She certainly isn't now. She wakes up and reads the polls every morning to see what her opinion is going to be for the day.
As far as Clinton being a better President, I stick by my opinion that he is responsible for the emboldened terrorists that we have today. Terrorists are never going to like us, but under his watch they quit fearing us.
Posts that continue to have disguised vulgar words ** are going to be reported to administration....and I imagine that more will happen than just deleting the post, so please calm down and be civil, or end up somewhere else other than here. [And folks, please don't quote posts with vulgar words...more for us to try and edit out]. Just use the report.
Thanks!
Thanks!
1journeyman
Active Member
Thanks Beth. Nice to be able to discuss things around here.
scubadoo
Active Member
Hillary for president...very interesting especially since she now no longer supports the war. She has gone on record saying she would never have voted as she did. Perhaps someone should ask her if she actually planned on standing behind these words...or they were simply BS......where does she stand now? However, these are HER words as spoken on the day of her vote:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
...............And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
...............And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
darth tang
Active Member
Let's look at statistics. That is the true telling of how well we are doing over in the middle east. It is really quite simple. Many say we need more troops, many say we already have to many that died (of course one dead is already to many, but at war the numbers tell the tale) I don't see this and here is why.
To date since 2001 over 1 million troops have served in Iraq and afghanistan in about 4 years.
During Vietnam we had 8.7 million serve tours in Vietnam.
Total killed in action to date in Iraq and afghanistan is roughly 2500 total.
Total killed during Vietnam was a little over 58,000.
The percentage of death versus served in Iraq and afghanistan is .25%. Not even 1%. That in itself is amazing!!!! The only wars in our history with a ratio equal to this are the Spanish american war and the war of 1812. The first Gulf war had a higher percentage and everyone views that as a cake walk war with decisive victory and few casualties on our part.
The Vietnam percentage is .7%. Almost 3 times higher than the current war.
The Iraq/afghanistan cost to us to date is, 254.4 billion dollars.
The vietnam war adjusted for Inflation to date woiuld have cost us a little over 410 billion.
The iraq/afghanistan conflict has last almost 4 years now.
The Vietnam war lasted officially 8 years.
I could pull other statistics from other wars for you guys and you would see we are doing a Bang up job all the way around. But go ahead and listen to the wolf crying people.....don't let the numbers tell you any different.
I firmly believe we will be out of Iraq in a little over a year.
To date since 2001 over 1 million troops have served in Iraq and afghanistan in about 4 years.
During Vietnam we had 8.7 million serve tours in Vietnam.
Total killed in action to date in Iraq and afghanistan is roughly 2500 total.
Total killed during Vietnam was a little over 58,000.
The percentage of death versus served in Iraq and afghanistan is .25%. Not even 1%. That in itself is amazing!!!! The only wars in our history with a ratio equal to this are the Spanish american war and the war of 1812. The first Gulf war had a higher percentage and everyone views that as a cake walk war with decisive victory and few casualties on our part.
The Vietnam percentage is .7%. Almost 3 times higher than the current war.
The Iraq/afghanistan cost to us to date is, 254.4 billion dollars.
The vietnam war adjusted for Inflation to date woiuld have cost us a little over 410 billion.
The iraq/afghanistan conflict has last almost 4 years now.
The Vietnam war lasted officially 8 years.
I could pull other statistics from other wars for you guys and you would see we are doing a Bang up job all the way around. But go ahead and listen to the wolf crying people.....don't let the numbers tell you any different.
I firmly believe we will be out of Iraq in a little over a year.
B
bandcampme
Guest
lame duck
Ok, after all the discussions, and opinions, left/right, conservative/liberal, etc....I think this is the problem:
Did we go to Iraq with the belief that there were WMBs & that such would be a threat to us and our allies"
Yes or No.
Simply answer yes or no....no explanation needed.
Did we find the threat of WBMs that we expected to find?
Yes or No?
If your answer is No....like it is for liberals/Dems, and most people in this country, then you are left with why are we at war now?
The issue is the WMBs, or the lack of them; people naturally start to wonder about the motives for war. Of course, that is natural to wonder.
All the justifications in the world isn't going to fix that basic question and the obvious answer. Since there was no WMB, why are we at war?
This is the very basic issue and no amt of discussion or evidence is going to change that....unless someone here has that evidence of WMB in their back pocket somewhere.
Did we go to Iraq with the belief that there were WMBs & that such would be a threat to us and our allies"
Yes or No.
Simply answer yes or no....no explanation needed.
Did we find the threat of WBMs that we expected to find?
Yes or No?
If your answer is No....like it is for liberals/Dems, and most people in this country, then you are left with why are we at war now?
The issue is the WMBs, or the lack of them; people naturally start to wonder about the motives for war. Of course, that is natural to wonder.
All the justifications in the world isn't going to fix that basic question and the obvious answer. Since there was no WMB, why are we at war?
This is the very basic issue and no amt of discussion or evidence is going to change that....unless someone here has that evidence of WMB in their back pocket somewhere.
darth tang
Active Member
Beth, I agree with you and can see the dillema most have when faced with this question. BUT, there is one more question.
Was the removal of Sadaam Husein a good thing or a bad thing for our country, Iraq, and the world.
Yes or No.
I find it hypocritical of so many to say the war was wrong, yet they are not asking for Sadaam to be given the country back. If we were wrong, and he did nothing wrong or that warranted his removal, should we not then give him his country back? Yet NOONE is saying this.......Just the war is wrong.
Was the removal of Sadaam Husein a good thing or a bad thing for our country, Iraq, and the world.
Yes or No.
I find it hypocritical of so many to say the war was wrong, yet they are not asking for Sadaam to be given the country back. If we were wrong, and he did nothing wrong or that warranted his removal, should we not then give him his country back? Yet NOONE is saying this.......Just the war is wrong.
B
bandcampme
Guest
no you have to focus on one question at a time without drifting.
if you must ask that question, you should also ask yourself:
-why aren't we at war with iran?
-why don't we do something about north korea?
-what of china?
if you must ask that question, you should also ask yourself:
-why aren't we at war with iran?
-why don't we do something about north korea?
-what of china?
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by BandCampMe
no you have to focus on one question at a time without drifting.
if you must ask that question, you should also ask yourself:
-why aren't we at war with iran?
-why don't we do something about north korea?
-what of china?
These three are being handled, plus N. Korea already has nukes. Due to the failure of the previous administration to stop that. The china negotiations also faltered under the previous admin. Iran only recently became a problem.
With that Said. Sadaams goals and blatant defiance of the world community has been occurring since the late 80's. How long have N.Korea, China, and Iran posed a world wide problem when compared to the old Iraq regime.
In time these three will be dealt with. But to do that we must succeed where we have started already. Doing that will send a VERY PROFOUND message to the other three countries.
But all questions Beth and I asked were about Iraq. I noticed you didn't answer them, just deflected and brought in variables not immediately dealing with the current situation or country. I answered your variables, will you please answer the three other questions?
no you have to focus on one question at a time without drifting.
if you must ask that question, you should also ask yourself:
-why aren't we at war with iran?
-why don't we do something about north korea?
-what of china?
These three are being handled, plus N. Korea already has nukes. Due to the failure of the previous administration to stop that. The china negotiations also faltered under the previous admin. Iran only recently became a problem.
With that Said. Sadaams goals and blatant defiance of the world community has been occurring since the late 80's. How long have N.Korea, China, and Iran posed a world wide problem when compared to the old Iraq regime.
In time these three will be dealt with. But to do that we must succeed where we have started already. Doing that will send a VERY PROFOUND message to the other three countries.
But all questions Beth and I asked were about Iraq. I noticed you didn't answer them, just deflected and brought in variables not immediately dealing with the current situation or country. I answered your variables, will you please answer the three other questions?
B
bandcampme
Guest
china, iran, and north korea never posed a major threat, which makes the arguement that 'the previous administrations failed to...' speeches moot points.
you gotta focus on one agenda at a time, without drifting around and placing blames.
you gotta focus on one agenda at a time, without drifting around and placing blames.
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Beth, I agree with you and can see the dilemma most have when faced with this question. BUT, there is one more question.
Was the removal of Saddam Husein a good thing or a bad thing for our country, Iraq, and the world.
Yes or No.
I find it hypocritical of so many to say the war was wrong, yet they are not asking for Saddam to be given the country back. If we were wrong, and he did nothing wrong or that warranted his removal, should we not then give him his country back? Yet NO ONE is saying this.......Just the war is wrong.
Darth, it doesn't matter if removing him was good. The USA does not have a policy or a law that justifies removing leaders based on if it is better or not. See my point? The President does not operate in a vacuum. He must get permission from Congress [who are Representatives of the will of the American people] to go to war. He did, but now, since the greatest most technologically advanced country in the world seems to have made a mistake about WMBs, was the war justified--legally? Based on our very own standards and laws? It wasn't, Darth. So, no matter of justification can really make this wrong right. People naturally and rightfully start to question MOTIVES. The president's motives. And is there other reasons that this president had to go to war?? People who don't really trust the president to begin with now really are fueled. So you see, no amt of debating will change anyone's mind, because no one can fix the simple fact that war was unjustified....according to our own laws and standards.
This is the reason that it is such an issue! No one in their right mind will argue that Saddam was evil and should just be dead himself. But so are so many other leaders in the world. Are we going to oust all of them? Therefore, you just have to go back to the basic question, and NOT justify the why we did it after the fact.
Saying that, I absolutely do not believe that we should cut and run. We need to fix this big time.
Beth, I agree with you and can see the dilemma most have when faced with this question. BUT, there is one more question.
Was the removal of Saddam Husein a good thing or a bad thing for our country, Iraq, and the world.
Yes or No.
I find it hypocritical of so many to say the war was wrong, yet they are not asking for Saddam to be given the country back. If we were wrong, and he did nothing wrong or that warranted his removal, should we not then give him his country back? Yet NO ONE is saying this.......Just the war is wrong.
Darth, it doesn't matter if removing him was good. The USA does not have a policy or a law that justifies removing leaders based on if it is better or not. See my point? The President does not operate in a vacuum. He must get permission from Congress [who are Representatives of the will of the American people] to go to war. He did, but now, since the greatest most technologically advanced country in the world seems to have made a mistake about WMBs, was the war justified--legally? Based on our very own standards and laws? It wasn't, Darth. So, no matter of justification can really make this wrong right. People naturally and rightfully start to question MOTIVES. The president's motives. And is there other reasons that this president had to go to war?? People who don't really trust the president to begin with now really are fueled. So you see, no amt of debating will change anyone's mind, because no one can fix the simple fact that war was unjustified....according to our own laws and standards.
This is the reason that it is such an issue! No one in their right mind will argue that Saddam was evil and should just be dead himself. But so are so many other leaders in the world. Are we going to oust all of them? Therefore, you just have to go back to the basic question, and NOT justify the why we did it after the fact.
Saying that, I absolutely do not believe that we should cut and run. We need to fix this big time.
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
Darth, it doesn't matter if removing him was good. The USA does not have a policy or a law that justifies removing leaders based on if it is better or not. See my point? The President does not operate in a vacuum. He must get permission from Congress [who are Representatives of the will of the American people] to go to war. He did, but now, since the greatest most technologically advanced country in the world seems to have made a mistake about WMBs, was the war justified--legally? Based on our very own standards and laws? It wasn't, Darth. So, no matter of justification can really make this wrong right. People naturally and rightfully start to question MOTIVES. The president's motives. And is there other reasons that this president had to go to war?? People who don't really trust the president to begin with now really are fueled. So you see, no amt of debating will change anyone's mind, because no one can fix the simple fact that war was unjustified....according to our own laws and standards.
This is the reason that it is such an issue! No one in their right mind will argue that Saddam was evil and should just be dead himself. But so are so many other leaders in the world. Are we going to oust all of them? Therefore, you just have to go back to the basic question, and NOT justify the why we did it after the fact.
Saying that, I absolutely do not believe that we should cut and run. We need to fix this big time.
I can almost agree with you...but not quite. WMDS were one of many reasons given to go. If need be I can list all the reasons given in the beginning. But then again it would probably be a mote point as to many Americans latched on to only one reason and that was WMDs. With our reason being wrong we should then correct it and release the guy we removed. If we are going to use law strictly that is what should be done and the Americans that are argueing the reasons are wrong should be screaming for Sadaams release and reapointment to governor of Iraq. In our own court system, if someone is brought up on charges, they are jailed, if those charges are latter found to be unfounded, we release them.
Sadaam was charged with Hiding and building WMDS. This is what the American people wanted him removed for. Not his humanitarian crimes, nor his attempts to shot at our planes, and not for him paying families of terrorists that have children blow themselves up in Isreal. It was the WMDS charge. That was disproven so Hussein is innocent and should be freed.
Now, if you change the charge against him and try to justify not giving him his country back, you essentially change the cause of the war. It puts one in a real dilemma politically if thought out thoroughly. Atleast from my perspective.
Beth, I truly wish you would participate more in these type of discussions. You bring a different view point most do not give. I enjoy discussing these things with you.
Band camp, I noticed you still didn't answer the questions posed. Why?
Darth, it doesn't matter if removing him was good. The USA does not have a policy or a law that justifies removing leaders based on if it is better or not. See my point? The President does not operate in a vacuum. He must get permission from Congress [who are Representatives of the will of the American people] to go to war. He did, but now, since the greatest most technologically advanced country in the world seems to have made a mistake about WMBs, was the war justified--legally? Based on our very own standards and laws? It wasn't, Darth. So, no matter of justification can really make this wrong right. People naturally and rightfully start to question MOTIVES. The president's motives. And is there other reasons that this president had to go to war?? People who don't really trust the president to begin with now really are fueled. So you see, no amt of debating will change anyone's mind, because no one can fix the simple fact that war was unjustified....according to our own laws and standards.
This is the reason that it is such an issue! No one in their right mind will argue that Saddam was evil and should just be dead himself. But so are so many other leaders in the world. Are we going to oust all of them? Therefore, you just have to go back to the basic question, and NOT justify the why we did it after the fact.
Saying that, I absolutely do not believe that we should cut and run. We need to fix this big time.
I can almost agree with you...but not quite. WMDS were one of many reasons given to go. If need be I can list all the reasons given in the beginning. But then again it would probably be a mote point as to many Americans latched on to only one reason and that was WMDs. With our reason being wrong we should then correct it and release the guy we removed. If we are going to use law strictly that is what should be done and the Americans that are argueing the reasons are wrong should be screaming for Sadaams release and reapointment to governor of Iraq. In our own court system, if someone is brought up on charges, they are jailed, if those charges are latter found to be unfounded, we release them.
Sadaam was charged with Hiding and building WMDS. This is what the American people wanted him removed for. Not his humanitarian crimes, nor his attempts to shot at our planes, and not for him paying families of terrorists that have children blow themselves up in Isreal. It was the WMDS charge. That was disproven so Hussein is innocent and should be freed.
Now, if you change the charge against him and try to justify not giving him his country back, you essentially change the cause of the war. It puts one in a real dilemma politically if thought out thoroughly. Atleast from my perspective.
Beth, I truly wish you would participate more in these type of discussions. You bring a different view point most do not give. I enjoy discussing these things with you.
Band camp, I noticed you still didn't answer the questions posed. Why?
B
bandcampme
Guest
because i don't want go to band camp
1journeyman
Active Member
I've argued and continue to argue that we didn't need "WMD"s to go to war.
Iraq invaded our ally, the soverign country of Kuwait. The coaliton of allied forces drove them out. Iraq "surrendered" but then spent years not adhering to the peace treaty; Therefore, we have technically been at war for the past 10 years.
The WMD thing was a HUGE mistake. The current administration used that to try to get everyone on board. In hindsight we should have just invaded...
Iraq invaded our ally, the soverign country of Kuwait. The coaliton of allied forces drove them out. Iraq "surrendered" but then spent years not adhering to the peace treaty; Therefore, we have technically been at war for the past 10 years.
The WMD thing was a HUGE mistake. The current administration used that to try to get everyone on board. In hindsight we should have just invaded...
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
Ok, do you want to identify yourself, or must I go thru an ID search to find out?
Beth, are you trying to become the front runner for "My Personal Favorite Person of the Year" Award?
Thanks for all ya do for us round here.
Ok, do you want to identify yourself, or must I go thru an ID search to find out?
Beth, are you trying to become the front runner for "My Personal Favorite Person of the Year" Award?
Thanks for all ya do for us round here.
I was hesitant to use the term "law" in the post above for fear that it might be taken in the context of courts, and legalities. Only an extremist anarchist wacko would argue that "now we need to release Saddam". And I know there are those who fit that bill as well.
My purpose for bringing up the Yes or No angle was to just say that those who are on the "against" side, are not just crazy liberals. They have their point, and its a good one too. And for conservatives, we can't just "justify" what we do "after the fact" because the WMB thing fell through. I don't know if we will ever know if Bush had other motives or not; at this point, all I care about is Success in Iraq. Success for us. Success for the Iraqis. Success for a free country in an area of the world that is still so barbaric. This is the 21st Century. Time for all mankind to live in modern times, with modern values and morals.
Darth, thanks for the comment, but you guys obviously do a lot more political reading than I do. I feel like I'm back in a Political Science class here.
My purpose for bringing up the Yes or No angle was to just say that those who are on the "against" side, are not just crazy liberals. They have their point, and its a good one too. And for conservatives, we can't just "justify" what we do "after the fact" because the WMB thing fell through. I don't know if we will ever know if Bush had other motives or not; at this point, all I care about is Success in Iraq. Success for us. Success for the Iraqis. Success for a free country in an area of the world that is still so barbaric. This is the 21st Century. Time for all mankind to live in modern times, with modern values and morals.
Darth, thanks for the comment, but you guys obviously do a lot more political reading than I do. I feel like I'm back in a Political Science class here.