Obama supporters. I have one question

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580322
Jmick, like many others, seems unwilling to draw any destinction between civilians killed by US soldiers and those deliberately targetted by terrorists and radical Shiites funded by and trained in Iran.

That's the problem with this whole debate. There is a moral relativism that has infected our Nation's way of thinking.
Can you imagine a newpaper in 1944 publishing the a report saying something like "The unneccessary War in Europe is responsible for the deaths of 20 million civilians..."
My whole point is this, if we had not attacked Iraq on false pretenses there would not have been 300k to a million dead men, women and children in Iraq.
You can not compare WWII to Iraq, again this is apples to oranges. We chose to invade Iraq, we were forced into WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The events in Europe were of grave national interest and security. The events in Iraq were of little or no threat to our national security. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists, most will agree Sadam kept that element out of Iraq, they had no WMD's and they were not responsible for 9/11.

 

[crashbandicoot]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580344
My whole point is this, if we had not attacked Iraq on false pretenses there would not have been 300k to a million dead men, women and children in Iraq.
You can not compare WWII to Iraq, again this is apples to oranges. We chose to invade Iraq, we were forced into WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

How were we not forced into Iraq ? Had Sadam not followed the U.N's resolutions , Had he stopped his atempts to hinder the nuclear weapons inspection teams , Had he stopped pushing into the no fly zone , Had he not continued to support terrorist actions , Had he not commited genocide, Had he not indorced acts of human right violations , Had he not invaded Kuwait in the early 90's . You could claim we had no cause for action in Iraq . But he did all of the above and we were forced to deal with him and his regime .

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2580361
How were we not forced into Iraq ? Had Sadam not followed the U.N's resolutions , Had he stopped his atempts to hinder the nuclear weapons inspection teams , Had he stopped pushing into the no fly zone , Had he not continued to support terrorist actions , Had he not commited genocide, Had he not indorced acts of human right violations , Had he not invaded Kuwait in the early 90's . You could claim we had no cause for action in Iraq . But he did all of the above and we were forced to deal with him and his regime .
Shouldn't it have been the responsiblity of the UN and not the US? What about N. Korea, haven't they broken the U.N's resolutions and committed human rights violations? On top of it, they are real threat to our national security...they have ICBM's and real bombs. We invaded because there was a different agenda and the american people were mislead. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say the MAJORITY of Americans would agree we were mislead and the "war" has been one miscue after another and will fail because there is no endgame...well, I think the real end game is through Tehran but we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580378
Shouldn't it have been the responsiblity of the UN and not the US? What about N. Korea, haven't they broken the U.N's resolutions and committed human rights violations? On top of it, they are real threat to our national security...they have ICBM's and real bombs. We invaded because there was a different agenda and the american people were mislead. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say the MAJORITY of Americans would agree we were mislead and the "war" has been one miscue after another and will fail because there is no endgame...well, I think the real end game is through Tehran but we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Endgame???????
What was the "endgame" for Germany, Japan, England, Spain, Mexico, THE SOUTH.....
This "exit strategy" and "endgame" stuff is crap. You get pushed into a war and kick butt. SIMPLE.
Example: A home invader comes in your house. He assaults your spouse and kicks your kids. You have a gun. Do you use it? Or do you even have one?
Tell you what...talk him into playing nice and see how far that gets ya.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2580424

Endgame???????
What was the "endgame" for Germany, Japan, England, Spain, Mexico, THE SOUTH.....
This "exit strategy" and "endgame" stuff is crap. You get pushed into a war and kick butt. SIMPLE.
Example: A home invader comes in your house. He assaults your spouse and kicks your kids. You have a gun. Do you use it? Or do you even have one?
Tell you what...talk him into playing nice and see how far that gets ya.
That's a terrible analogy comparing a war to a home invasion. If someone broke into my house they'd have my mastiff to deal with and I'd be there as well. Actually, I think the beware of dog signs that are very visible throughout my property would be enough to deter 99% of intruders. I don't need a gun to be safe or to feel secure.
Are we really kicking butt in Iraq???

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580441
That's a terrible analogy comparing a war to a home invasion. If someone broke into my house they'd have my mastiff to deal with and I'd be there as well. Actually, I think the beware of dog signs that are very visible throughout my property would be enough to deter 99% of intruders. I don't need a gun to be safe or to feel secure.
Are we really kicking butt in Iraq???
Yes we are. And we shall in Iran as well. It is our duty to do so.
Question, why do we have a military?
To protect our interests as well as our allies' interests. Whether those interests are domestic or foreign.
And the analogy is spot on. Just on a more personal level. And your Mastiff may be viewed as a cruel, unneccesary, weapon to avoid diplomacy in some eyes. That dog might actually hurt somebody.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580378
Shouldn't it have been the responsiblity of the UN and not the US? What about N. Korea, haven't they broken the U.N's resolutions and committed human rights violations? On top of it, they are real threat to our national security...they have ICBM's and real bombs. We invaded because there was a different agenda and the american people were mislead. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say the MAJORITY of Americans would agree we were mislead and the "war" has been one miscue after another and will fail because there is no endgame...well, I think the real end game is through Tehran but we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Because the UN has proven it can't to squat since the "UN" war in Korea.
BTW,
More great Bill Ayers stuff is coming down the pike. Does Obama have any friends who love the USA?

 

[1journeyman]

The UN is a joke. They failed in Korea, failed to do anything in SE Asia, ran from Africa, failed to uphold 17 Resolutions in Iraq, is rife with corrpution, etc.
I love when Liberals point to Korea. Korea developed nuclear weapons under the nose of Clinton. North Korea has 20,000+ Artillery pieces within shelling distance of Seoul. Yet Libs act as though we should attack North Korea and not deal with Saddam or potentially deal with Tehran.
Why the heck do they think attacking a nulcear power is better than attacking a country before they get nuclear capability?
We've said it repeatedly. Saddam brought the invasion on himself. Saddam duped the world into thinking he had WMDs. The current admin thought he had them, the previous admin attacked him in 1998 because they said he had them, every leading Intel Agency in the world said he had them, the UN said he had them...
We were lied too; Saddam lied to us.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580632
The UN is a joke. They failed in Korea, failed to do anything in SE Asia, ran from Africa, failed to uphold 17 Resolutions in Iraq, is rife with corrpution, etc.
I love when Liberals point to Korea. Korea developed nuclear weapons under the nose of Clinton. North Korea has 20,000+ Artillery pieces within shelling distance of Seoul. Yet Libs act as though we should attack North Korea and not deal with Saddam or potentially deal with Tehran.
Why the heck do they think attacking a nulcear power is better than attacking a country before they get nuclear capability?
I think it was Cater that started that ball rolling. He did that while busy giving away the Pamama Canal on 9/7/77.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580632
We've said it repeatedly. Saddam brought the invasion on himself. Saddam duped the world into thinking he had WMDs. The current admin thought he had them, the previous admin attacked him in 1998 because they said he had them, every leading Intel Agency in the world said he had them, the UN said he had them...
We were lied too; Saddam lied to us.
I will give him this, Saddam bet the pot on a pair of deuces, and bluffed the whole world.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2580242
KOOLAID??? OMG............. This is the second time I have seen this word on this thread when speaking about Obama. You guys keep getting more and more closer to your point. I don't think you people realize he does have a white maternal mother. I wonder if he had his mother's skin tone and hair would people still feel he was racists and everything else.
To everybody who's behind and believe Obama is the right choice, let the people who can't see past his skin color talk to themselves. If we don't respond to them then eventually they'll get tired of talking to each other. Maybe we should start another thread for only Obama supporters.

I can see right past Obama's skin color and right into his marxist soul. You wanna make this about race go right ahead, it appears it is you who cant see past his skin.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2580640
...I will give him this, Saddam bet the pot on a pair of deuces, and bluffed the whole world.
Much like the Taliban.
President Bush bowed to the UN and pulled out of Iraq in Desert Storm. President Clinton's Foreign Policy was all about putting a kinder face on the USA. That's why first the Taliban then Saddam were surprised when the USA didn't back down from our threats.
As Roosevelt said; "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Talking doesn't work.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2580625
Because the UN has proven it can't to squat since the "UN" war in Korea.
BTW,
More great Bill Ayers stuff is coming down the pike. Does Obama have any friends who love the USA?
So being a radical anti war activist means you hate the US? Wasn't the group anti-war and racism? I guess some people would have you believe that being a mindless robot who never questions a thing the government is doing is what makes you a solid citizen?
Granted, I do not think the group’s means were the way to go but I certainly don't feel they were anti-American. I guess the people at the University of Chicago, which is one of the finest academic institutes in the world think enough of Ayers to employ him.
I'm no expert on the group and its history but didn't Clinton pardon some of the members of the group? I'm sorry, but I can't blame Obama for allowing a very distinguished professor to host an event for him. Again, I think you guys are grasping at straws.
Would you care to explain McCain's role in the Keeting Five and the Savings and Loan crisis? Keep grasping, you guys have a poor candidate and come general I think gramps is going to get rolled.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580677
So being a radical anti war activist means you hate the US? Wasn't the group anti-war and racism? I guess some people would have you believe that being a mindless robot who never questions a thing the government is doing is what makes you a solid citizen?
Granted, I do not think the group’s means were the way to go but I certainly don't feel they were anti-American. I guess the people at the University of Chicago, which is one of the finest academic institutes in the world think enough of Ayers to employ him.
I'm no expert on the group and its history but didn't Clinton pardon some of the members of the group? I'm sorry, but I can't blame Obama for allowing a very distinguished professor to host an event for him. Again, I think you guys are grasping at straws.
Would you care to explain McCain's role in the Keeting Five and the Savings and Loan crisis? Keep grasping, you guys have a poor candidate and come general I think gramps is going to get rolled.
The Keating 5 thing has already been exposed for what it was, political games by the Democraps. Their own lead investigator said it.
So according to your rational on Obo's chums if there are enough fools in this country that he does get elected it is cool for those of us who oppose his marxist views to go around blowing stuff up?
And the fact Clinton pardoned members of the Weather underground just shows what a load of crap makes up the democrat party these days. The ones he pardoned had at least renounced their actions rather than lament the fact they hadn't carried out more bombings like Obo's chum did.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580677
So being a radical anti war activist means you hate the US? Wasn't the group anti-war and racism? I guess some people would have you believe that being a mindless robot who never questions a thing the government is doing is what makes you a solid citizen?
Granted, I do not think the group’s means were the way to go but I certainly don't feel they were anti-American. I guess the people at the University of Chicago, which is one of the finest academic institutes in the world think enough of Ayers to employ him.
I'm no expert on the group and its history but didn't Clinton pardon some of the members of the group? I'm sorry, but I can't blame Obama for allowing a very distinguished professor to host an event for him. Again, I think you guys are grasping at straws.
Would you care to explain McCain's role in the Keeting Five and the Savings and Loan crisis? Keep grasping, you guys have a poor candidate and come general I think gramps is going to get rolled.
There is a difference between protesting and blowing up the Pentagon. Ayers even wanted more destruction and death. He said it himself. I am a more distingushed professor than him ( Medical School faculty). While Ayers was trying to blow up Americans, McCain was "tied up". When Ayers renounces his actions, says he was wrong, and says he is sorry, maybe I will gain some respect for him. As of last year, that ain't happening, and now it is too late.
McCain was the token republican so they didn't have all democrats ( Glenn was also innocent)
Would YOU care to explain Ted Kennedy's role in a woman's death?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2580696
There is a difference between protesting and blowing up the Pentagon. Ayers even wanted more destruction and death. He said it himself. I am a more distingushed professor than him ( Medical School faculty). While Ayers was trying to blow up Americans, McCain was "tied up". When Ayers renounces his actions, says he was wrong, and says he is sorry, maybe I will gain some respect for him. As of last year, that ain't happening, and now it is too late.
McCain was the token republican so they didn't have all democrats ( Glenn was also innocent)
Would YOU care to explain Ted Kennedy's role in a woman's death?

I'm not sure if he will ever say sorry for his actions so don't hold your breath on it. You are part of the faculty at what school? I highly doubt the school is more distinguished then University of Chicago but your degree certainly carries more weight.
Kennedy, I could care less about him...where did that come from? Outside of JKF, I'm not a big fan of the Kennedy clan.
Oscar, I have no doubt that you're a bright guy and I gotta ask you this. Do you think McCain is a good candidate and a good representation of the GOP come the general election?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2579738
This is not a direct link or any link... A post was on the page that spoke about Hamas' point of view. You speak as if Wright somehow at the very least speaks with Hamas officials... is spreading propoganda... is contributing funds to them...etc... a simple article is not enough...and besides the whole world doesn't want a continuation of Bush policy.
The link was posted previously several pages ago. Since you are too lazy to do the research here it is yet again.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/T...lumn072207.jpg
Here is the atucal US indictment against Marzook...the author of the Hamas manifesto printed in the church bulletin.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw....rzk804sind.pdf
Thanks once again for proving my point....prinitng the manifesto in a church bulletin would fit the definition of spreading Hamas propaganda.
NObama is a national disgrace to belong to a church that prints terrorist propoganda on the pastor's page in the official church bulletin and authored by an indicted terrorist.
Where did Wright go with his buddy Louie in the past?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2579662
Keep pushing the fear/hate angle, that's all you rightwingers seem to have these days.
The hate angle is pushed by Nobama, his friends, his uncle Rev, his wife and his associations. The terrorist theat to destroy us in quite real....they are on record...just ask Israel if they mean what they say.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2579728
Obama is a Senator... not the Chicago PD.. not the Mayor... These are te people who have to deal with this problem. This is a gang problem... there are gangs in every major city and homicides is one of the problems that come from increased gang activity. Why are you even comparing the two? Remember the cereal killer and crime wave that took place in Phoenix a year or two ago? When innocent people were being targeted at bus stops and shot. Did people say where is that war veteran John McCain? Maybe he can solve this problem... That's not his job..You have no idea of what you are talking about.. Your comments are completely irrational.
He is a leader in the community. You are the one claiming his will bring the volence to an end on an international level. I simply am pointing out that recently...he has not done a thing in his own backyard.
You painted him as the champion for ending violence....I simply pointed to reality.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2579728
Obama is a Senator... not the Chicago PD.. not the Mayor... These are te people who have to deal with this problem. This is a gang problem... there are gangs in every major city and homicides is one of the problems that come from increased gang activity. Why are you even comparing the two? Remember the cereal killer and crime wave that took place in Phoenix a year or two ago? When innocent people were being targeted at bus stops and shot. Did people say where is that war veteran John McCain? Maybe he can solve this problem... That's not his job..You have no idea of what you are talking about.. Your comments are completely irrational.
Also, thanks again for proving yet another point....with your post you support my postion..NObama has no expereince fighting local crime...zero military experience...what chance does he have against international terrorist networks?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2579734
How many attacks on US soil before the war began? In the last 10 years? In the last 20 years?
Actually, there was another when Bill was the prez against the WTC's...he treated that as a criminal act as opposed to an international terrorist act. If he reacted with strength perhaps the WTC's would still be standing and many US lives saved. We'll never know. But we do know a nothing reaction did lead to another attack and massive loss of life.
Once again you prove my point with your own words.