Obama supporters. I have one question

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2496654
I am debating the AQ issue. I am not saying they aren't there NOW but for people to elude to that we are safer from AQ because they are NOW there is completely wrong.
Why don't you actually read my comments
You know..I am forgeting the house of Reps did not vote on the terrorist surv. bill. So, as we sit today we are probably not as safe...thanks to barry (voted agains it) and his liberal buddies in the House.
But, the surge era in Iraq shows promise for victory. Please site your sources for attacks here on american soil post 9/11?
We can be victorious is the broad war on terror...but not if the cut and runners, moveon.orgers,dailykosers, and the rest of the far left have their way and we surrender.
I've already posted comments from terrorists leaders if we surrender in Iraq. No thanks to that option...but you are free to support the surrender.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2496689
Good, I think you answered my question. You don't believe the AQ attack on 9/11 and not having another attach on our homeland from AQ is only because we are in the Iraq war. Again I would like to give credit to our Military and Homeland security credit for that because of the Afganistan war. The world is a better place without Saddam. This is the the question I was asking based on your post. PERIOD
We will remaind in the Middle East and in Iraq, forever. We have a vested interest in it - OIL until we get off oil we need to be there.
WAR ON TERROR>>>>>>INCLUDES IT ALL
 

scubadoo

Active Member
I'll post this yet again regarding WMD in Iraq....Loftus Report
There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.
Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector’s list. The tape explicitly discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.
When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified translator to present Saddam’s nuclear tapes to the public, and then invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.
At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the translation and analysis.
At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear production plants in Iraq in 2002.
Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last. These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons. The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate information on the atom bomb that the translators’ public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.
If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them? Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam’s underground nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years. Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the day the war began.
Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the war: the discovery of Saddam’s secret nuclear program, even in hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the previous use of force.
Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
"Going all the way back to Sun Tzu's "The Ancient Art of War",
Yes, but Tzu wrote that to WIN, not pull out.
As to my quote, that is the 18922 platform of the German National Socialist Party ( Natzi to those of you from Rio Linda). In put from Hitler and other "great minds" in the Socialist party. That Platform is basically what the L wing Democrats are trying to sell. They use the same tactics ( class warefare and envy).
So.... yes, today's L wing democrat ( both Clinton and Obama) have quite a bit in common with the 1920-1945 National Socialists.
Oh, and by the way ( WARNIG FACT COMING LIBERALS STOP READING). Nazi's were SOCIALISTS, so to call a conservative, Constitutionalist or Libertarian a "Natzi, only shows your ignorance.
By the way girls, Mrs. Obama ( in a speech in Ohio) wants you to go into the "helping" fields, not the high paying professions, those are only for the elite liberals, not the "working person".
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2496689
Good, I think you answered my question. You don't believe the AQ attack on 9/11 and not having another attach on our homeland from AQ is only because we are in the Iraq war. Again I would like to give credit to our Military and Homeland security credit for that because of the Afganistan war. The world is a better place without Saddam. This is the the question I was asking based on your post. PERIOD
We will remaind in the Middle East and in Iraq, forever. We have a vested interest in it - OIL until we get off oil we need to be there.
I agree with much of this.
My point is, Al Qaeda is NOW in Iraq.
In my opinion, Al Qaeda leadership bailed out of Afghanistan fairly early on. They realized the Taliban was a lost cause, and they were surprised with our attack to begin with.
As others have already pointed out, there is numerous antedotal evidence that Al Qaeda leaders fled to Iraq before we went in. While there was no "operational" connection between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, some of them were already there.
My point is, Al Qaeda can only be in so many places at once. Right now they are focusing on Iraq. Their manpower, leadership, financial resources, recruiting, and planning are all tied up into that battlefield.
Our Homeland Intelligence is doing a great job, but I think there is more to it than just that.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don't talk about Afghanistan enough. We've got two wars. We've got to end one, we've got to win the other. Hillary Clinton
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2496805
We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don't talk about Afghanistan enough. We've got two wars. We've got to end one, we've got to win the other.
Hillary Clinton
END=SURRENDER...We can win in Iraq...but the liberals cannot say that as they have spent a few years screaming a different mantra.
CHANGE YOU CAN RUN FROM
 

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2496805
We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don't talk about Afghanistan enough. We've got two wars. We've got to end one, we've got to win the other.
Hillary Clinton
She talks about the conflicts like she has cable and satellite... hmmm, which should I cut off?
 

zman1

Active Member
The conservative Old Order Amish feel the Mennonites are to liberal and both feel Rush Limbaugh is too for left for their views from their reading in the paper...
Here is a true
conservative's view on Big Government...
The Old Order Amish use horses for farming and transportation, dress in a traditional manner, and forbid electricity or telephones in the home. Church members do not join the military, apply for Social Security benefits, take out insurance or accept any form of financial assistance from the government.
 

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2496835
The conservative Old Order Amish feel the Mennonites are to liberal and both feel Rush Limbaugh is too for left for their views from their reading in the paper...
.....
The Old Order Amish use horses for farming and transportation, dress in a traditional manner, and forbid electricity or telephones in the home. ....
And, without electricity and radios, exactly how have the Amish been listening to Rush? I'd SERIOUSLY doubt they are buying "English" newspapers and magazines, either...
 

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2496835
The conservative Old Order Amish feel the Mennonites are to liberal and both feel Rush Limbaugh is too for left for their views from their reading in the paper...
Here is a true
conservative's view on Big Government...
The Old Order Amish use horses for farming and transportation, dress in a traditional manner, and forbid electricity or telephones in the home. Church members do not join the military, apply for Social Security benefits, take out insurance or accept any form of financial assistance from the government.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything...
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2497405
I fail to see what that has to do with anything...
Satire of varying degrees of conservatives -
Hasn't McCain been called too liberal by all the R wing talk show hosts. They would be considered too liberal by others was the point...
 

zman1

Active Member
McCain's voting record on the Bush tax cuts were against it twice. I believe he said in effect, it isn't the appropriate thing to do during the time of war. Which is what I like about McCain not afraid to stand his ground on his beliefs.
However, now he is for making them permanent to pander to the r-wing to get elected. This is what I don't like and can I trust him to truly stand on his beliefs if he's modifying them to get elected.
Trent Lott was on Hannity & Colmes and was stumbling all over positive things to say until Hannity put words in his mouth. So is voting for a lesser of two evils the appropriate thing to do or stand your ground and abstain, if McCain's voting record doesn't truly represent your views.
 

bdhutier

Member
I'd think you'd be obligated to vote for whoever you believe best suits your interests, UNLESS there is an issue you just can not compromise. For me, this would be abortion. Once my "must haves" boxes are checked, then I go with whoever represents my ideals the most.
I mean, the only way you could have the perfect candidate for you is to run yourself! A certain level of compromise is inherent.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2497747
.... So is voting for a lesser of two evils the appropriate thing to do or stand your ground and abstain, if McCain's voting record doesn't truly represent your views.
Of course "voting for the lesser of two evils" is the appropriate thing to do.
It took me a while to come to that conclusion, but imho, the damage that would be done to our Democracy under Obama or Clinton needs to be voted against. No matter what.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by bdhutier
http:///forum/post/2497768
Once my "must haves" boxes are checked, then I go with whoever represents my ideals the most.
Now I agree with your assessment, which is how I look at it. That is only, if my "Must Have" boxes were there before the candidate announced running. The ones that appear or disappear during the campaign I discount and view those as "say what ever and do what ever it takes". Which is not a good thing and are marks against the canidates for me.
The definition of a pessimist is:
An optimist with experience
 
Top