OMG!!! Enough is enough

[beazalbob69]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2962128
I know the people I work with did it because they have a level of pride in their country and believe in something.
These people that did the job, for whatever reasons they did it, deserve my and your respect. If you don't like the war, criticize the leaders, not the troops.
If you have pride in your country that means you go and fight in Iraq? Why Iraq? What makes Iraq so vastly different than any number of other horrible places run by people that makes Hussien look like a nice guy. I will tell you. Its not freedom for Iraq its the desires of one person and other like minded people that he surrounded himself with.
I do respect our soldiers and I feel bad for any soldier that is or was involved in Iraq. How many soldiers are fighting a war they dont want to fight? Trying to change people that will not be changed?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by beazalbob69
http:///forum/post/2962167
I do respect our soldiers and I feel bad for any soldier that is or was involved in Iraq. How many soldiers are fighting a war they dont want to fight? Trying to change people that will not be changed?
I doubt you would find very many people who go to war for fun.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by beazalbob69
http:///forum/post/2962167
If you have pride in your country that means you go and fight in Iraq? Why Iraq?
People express themselves in different ways. Comon... don't generalize.
What makes Iraq so vastly different than any number of other horrible places run by people that makes Hussien look like a nice guy. I will tell you. Its not freedom for Iraq its the desires of one person and other like minded people that he surrounded himself with.
You are stating opinion, not fact.
I do respect our soldiers and I feel bad for any soldier that is or was involved in Iraq.
Don't (feel bad).
Many if not most of those soldiers do not want pity. They ask for nothing more than respect.
How many soldiers are fighting a war they dont want to fight? Trying to change people that will not be changed?
Maybe some are, but none of these soldiers were drafted. They all joined the armed forces by choice. They shouldn't be anyones "cause."

 

[beazalbob69]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2962236
I doubt you would find very many people who go to war for fun.
Where did I say they go to war for fun? I bet there are many soldiers over there that would not be fighting GWB's war if they had a choice and for the people that willingly went over there to fight a useless war well I dont know about people like that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by beazalbob69
http:///forum/post/2962310
Where did I say they go to war for fun? I bet there are many soldiers over there that would not be fighting GWB's war if they had a choice and for the people that willingly went over there to fight a useless war well I dont know about people like that.
you're missing a key point, these soldiers are volunteers unlike the LBJ's Vietnam war...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2961842
Wow Journey I had no idea that you know that there were going to be more attacks. Last I heard you can't prove a negative. Lets all give the previous administration a great big pat on the back for avoiding that giant comet that didn't hit earth while he was in office.

Everyone is talking about "winning" the war. But I thought we had won? what several years ago. President Bush told me so.

No more attacks planned? You might want to try informing yourself before making foolish statements.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2961842
Wow Journey I had no idea that you know that there were going to be more attacks. Last I heard you can't prove a negative. Lets all give the previous administration a great big pat on the back for avoiding that giant comet that didn't hit earth while he was in office.

Everyone is talking about "winning" the war. But I thought we had won? what several years ago. President Bush told me so.

Great point. Why did we attack Japan in WW2? I bet after Pearl Harbor, Midway and the Philippines they would have stopped, right?
Why did we land in Normandy June 6th, 1944? I bet the Germans were done occupying France, right?
Based on your logic, how would a war ever be waged? After all, you couldn't "prove" the enemy was still going to attack you until they actually were shooting, right?
There have been over 20 attacks on the homeland foiled after 9-11 (that are public knowledge). I'd say preventing them is a success.

 

[reefraff]

I was hoping Obama would stab the left in the back and govern from the middle. Unfortunately that is not to be. Liberal policies have been demonstrated to be a failure and Obama's presidency will be no different unless he changes direction.
When did the economy really start moving in the 90's? It was in 1995, AFTER THE REPUBLICANS TOOK OVER CONGRESS. The Republicans came in and pushed Clinton into a more conservative direction.
When did the current economic downturn start? AFTER THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER CONGRESS IN 2007. Right around July of 07 is when things began to turn, what did Reid and Pelosi try to do to stop it? Not a damned thing!
That doesn't mean the Republicans didn't have a hand in this, they caused this mess by spending more foolishly than the Democrats had when they were running the show. They also had a chance to correct the banking mess when surprisingly enough the Bush administration determined there was a risk back in 2004 but they allowed Barny Frank and Chris Dodd to block the reforms. Neither party hgas room to be pointing fingers here.
So now we have Obama giving the car companies money in one hand and in the other taking it away by appointing an extremist to the EPA who plans on creating such stringent emission regulations the increased costs will kill auto sales even more.
On top of that we get the housing bailout to help out people who are behind on their house payments, about 90% of which made their own bed by being greedy or stupid.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by beazalbob69
http:///forum/post/2962110
And I am truly sorry if I offend anyone by this next comment but..
Most of the people I know who go into the military do it because they dont have any better options or for the sign on bonus or to prove that they are true Men or Women. They dont do it to help some poor Iraqi on the other side of the planet. I guess that leads back to my 1st point.

Hold on, while I go throw myself down a flight of steps. I Figure I should do something equally retarded as what you just said.
You mean to tell me the Coast Guard isn't recruiting, the local law enforcement is at capacity, Fire Fighters aren't Highering and the Post office isn't looking for carriers and clerks? Give me a break.
75% of the individuals that join the military come from a middle to upper middle class family. Yeah, they don't have any options at all being that poor. You can look this statistic up as well.
To even further prove how badly thought out that statement is, here is a list of very well to do people that joined the military since 2001.
John McCain's son
Pat Tillman
Joe Biden's son
Joe Wilson's son
Todd Akin's son
Jim Webb's son
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Step Son and daughter in law
Kit Bond's son
Dunkan Hunter's son
Not to mention the 4400 hundred people each year that attend west point (not exactly a place to go because your choices are limited).
This is just a few off the top of my head.
Not to mention the career military personnel that join up for 20 years nearing close to 1 million people. I guess they just wanted the bonus or figured shooting people and getting shot at was a much cooler job than any other potential career.
Thanks for playing
Now, tell him what he has won Bob.................
Well, our quoted poster will have the wonderful experience of removing his foot from his mouth.............................
Now I would buy that for a dollar.............

 

[wattsupdoc]

Time and time again I hear it..."there were no weapons of mass destrruction". If anyone would take an intelligent look at what was going on at the time.m It becomes clear that the reason to go was a credibility thing. Saddam taunted us for years. The UN wasnt doing a thing, most agree they are just a big joke. We gave Saddam an ultimatum, he ignored it we had no choice but to back up what we said. Now why is it that noone wants to acknowledge that Saddam had missiles modified to reach further than he was sanctioned, had capabilities to create anthrax, mustard gas etc. I mean how long do you think it would take to mix up a batch? What about the convoys seen leaving Iraq? What about the fact thgat there stiull may be a stash of it buried in the dessert somewhere and 40 years from now someone will accidently dig it up. The point I'm trying to make is there are tons of valid reasons why we should have gone in there. Everyone wants to use the lame excuse of "there were no WMD". Sorry, but it's pretty lame.
I admit, mission complete sounded pretty good. However it only took me about a day to realize it was my own ignorance that made me think the war was won. All I had to do was talk to a vet. Mission complete is completly different from ending the war. My bad...
My nephew had plenty choices. He had a pretty good job as an electricians apprentice.

I tried to talk him out of it. He said he wanted to "fight for our country". I have to admit, that commanded a lot of respect from me.

My niece has options, I tried to talk her in to the Navy or something else. She said it was her honer to fight for my freedom. I find it repulsive for ignorant opinions to be imposed on these young hereos who do this for me and for YOU whether you like it or not. Is the war in Iraq the place to be fighting the watr on Terror? Didnt you see the murial of Saddam in front of the burning towers? Or reflection in his glasses? Whatever it was. Tell me again Saddam didnt have a part in that. Even though you may say, he may not have. That will never convince me of it. Besides he definetly relished the idea. I say kill anybody who enjoyed it myself.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2961581
See any more terrorist attacks on the homeland after 9-11?
You're welcome...
I love it when the only claim to fame for Bush is the same repeated line from journey, "Any more terrorist attacks...". It's called the Homeland Security Act. After 9/11, that would've been passed no matter who the president was.

 

[ironeagle2006]

I live in IL aka OBAMALAND IF YOU WANT TO FREAKING SEE WHAT HIS PRESIDENCY IS GOING TO BE LIKE JUST LOOK AT THE FORMER GPVERNOR ROD BALGOLEVICH'S TERMS. BTE OLD ROD AND OBAMA SHRED THE SAME MONEY MAN TONY REZKO AND MY AUNT A CLERK IN CHITOWN IS HEARING FROM PEOPLE THERE THAT BOTH ARE WANTING TO SING AFTER ALL THE INDICMENTS ARE OUT ON WHAT THEY KNOW ON OBAMA.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2962587
I love it when the only claim to fame for Bush is the same repeated line from journey, "Any more terrorist attacks...". It's called the Homeland Security Act. After 9/11, that would've been passed no matter who the president was.
Now wait... someone just a few posts ago was arguing we couldn't prove terrorists were going to attack us again, but yet you can say the Homeland Security Act would have passed? That's a stretch...
Just look at the fight Democrats made over FISA. Look at the Intel we received from detainees in Gitmo that President Obama is getting rid of. Look at how our Intel Agencies were beefed up after the beating they took during the Clinton years.

 

[keish24]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2962587
I love it when the only claim to fame for Bush is the same repeated line from journey, "Any more terrorist attacks...". It's called the Homeland Security Act. After 9/11, that would've been passed no matter who the president was.
this is interesting considering the wtc was attacked when clinton was in office and yet no Homeland Security Act was instated then. as a matter of fact all of the following attacks SCSI brought up earlier took place while clinton was in office:
February 1993 - World Trade Center I
April 1995 - Oklahoma City
Aug 1998 - US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Oct 2000 - USS Cole - Yes it counts.
and yet.....no homeland secutity act was instated.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2962637
Now wait... someone just a few posts ago was arguing we couldn't prove terrorists were going to attack us again, but yet you can say the Homeland Security Act would have passed? That's a stretch...
Just look at the fight Democrats made over FISA. Look at the Intel we received from detainees in Gitmo that President Obama is getting rid of. Look at how our Intel Agencies were beefed up after the beating they took during the Clinton years.
Not sure what you're trying to express here. Of course it would've passed, regardless of who was in office. 9/11 just validated the known vulnerabilities this country has known about for decades regarding how easy it was (and still is) for terrorists to commit unspeakable acts within our borders. Us being in Iraq and Afghanistan just deterred and slowed down their cause a little bit. However, staying there and saying that it will end terrorism is a farce. It's the increased security measures and policies of the Homeland Security Act that have made it harder for terrorists to commit yet another 9/11.
If the Homeland Security Act would've been implemented after the first WTC bombing, there's a good chance 9/11 would've never occurred. To that same extent, Sadaam may still be with us, because the desire to jump on him and Iraq wouldn't have been as great.

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/2962598
I live in IL aka OBAMALAND IF YOU WANT TO FREAKING SEE WHAT HIS PRESIDENCY IS GOING TO BE LIKE JUST LOOK AT THE FORMER GPVERNOR ROD BALGOLEVICH'S TERMS. BTE OLD ROD AND OBAMA SHRED THE SAME MONEY MAN TONY REZKO AND MY AUNT A CLERK IN CHITOWN IS HEARING FROM PEOPLE THERE THAT BOTH ARE WANTING TO SING AFTER ALL THE INDICMENTS ARE OUT ON WHAT THEY KNOW ON OBAMA.
UMMM OK. The National Republican party vetted him for how long. Not to mention all of the federal agencies. I'm sure making every attempt to get at his character.
So Blago is going to bring him down? Now there's some character. Great witness. Very believable.......

 

[reefraff]

Bushes biggest fault was allowing congress to spend too much money. Now Obama is trying to do a better job of messing up than Bush did.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2962649
Not sure what you're trying to express here. Of course it would've passed, regardless of who was in office. 9/11 just validated the known vulnerabilities this country has known about for decades regarding how easy it was (and still is) for terrorists to commit unspeakable acts within our borders. Us being in Iraq and Afghanistan just deterred and slowed down their cause a little bit. However, staying there and saying that it will end terrorism is a farce. It's the increased security measures and policies of the Homeland Security Act that have made it harder for terrorists to commit yet another 9/11.
I love how some here bring facts without bringing all the facts.
The bill was written by the members of the council for foreign relations. These members were placed on the panel by Clinton and Newt Gingrich. The homeland security act was ready to go in 2000. However Clinton did not ask for it to be signed into law. Why? Because the "potential" infringements on the 1st and 4 th amendments.
Bush and his administration (many of whom served on the previous council were going to do this before 9/11 and were putting pieces in place.
Bush, asked for the bill and signed it, regardless of implications or if it would be "popular". In fact much of what Bush has done, has been done with the intent and purpose of keeping American's safe, regardless if it was "popular". Had he cared about popularity more than what he thought was best to keep this country safe, he could have done nothing but lob a few Patriots into Afghanistan. After all, the country was fine when Clinton did this.
And even after 9/11 many here, especially you bionicarm have complained about the "potential" infringements of said bills, from the homeland security to the patriot act (which go hand in hand). Yet now you say any President would have signed the bill.....If it was so well needed then why all the complaining about them? No, Clinton had the chance to push it through, even after so many previous attacks, a couple on our own soil but he did not.
Bush may have done things wrong, but you can not take away the fact there have been no attacks within our country since 9/11. Let's see how long the streak lasts when our current President starts cutting back on our defense to help pay for this wonderful stimulus package.
Stimulus does you no good if you are dead................

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2962718
I love how some here bring facts without bringing all the facts.
The bill was written by the members of the council for foreign relations. These members were placed on the panel by Clinton and Newt Gingrich. The homeland security act was ready to go in 2000. However Clinton did not ask for it to be signed into law. Why? Because the "potential" infringements on the 1st and 4 th amendments.
Bush and his administration (many of whom served on the previous council were going to do this before 9/11 and were putting pieces in place.
Bush, asked for the bill and signed it, regardless of implications or if it would be "popular". In fact much of what Bush has done, has been done with the intent and purpose of keeping American's safe, regardless if it was "popular". Had he cared about popularity more than what he thought was best to keep this country safe, he could have done nothing but lob a few Patriots into Afghanistan. After all, the country was fine when Clinton did this.
And even after 9/11 many here, especially you bionicarm have complained about the "potential" infringements of said bills, from the homeland security to the patriot act (which go hand in hand). Yet now you say any President would have signed the bill.....If it was so well needed then why all the complaining about them? No, Clinton had the chance to push it through, even after so many previous attacks, a couple on our own soil but he did not.
Bush may have done things wrong, but you can not take away the fact there have been no attacks within our country since 9/11. Let's see how long the streak lasts when our current President starts cutting back on our defense to help pay for this wonderful stimulus package.
Stimulus does you no good if you are dead................
You keep attributing Bush as the reason we've had no attacks, but again, it was the enactment of the Homeland Security Act that's kept the terrorist at bay. Bush had his hands in developing this Act, but he wasn't 'The Great Savior' against terrorism you seem to want to annoint him with. Mr. Historian can relish us with the how/when/why the Act happened when it did. If Bush was so intent with "keeping America safe", then by that logic, he should've never let 9/11 happen. He had over a year to make the changes, but didn't do it. Bush's War isn't the prime reason we haven't had attacks on US soil. It's the extreme measures put into place with the HSA that have done that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2962750
You keep attributing Bush as the reason we've had no attacks, but again, it was the enactment of the Homeland Security Act that's kept the terrorist at bay. Bush had his hands in developing this Act, but he wasn't 'The Great Savior' against terrorism you seem to want to annoint him with. Mr. Historian can relish us with the how/when/why the Act happened when it did. If Bush was so intent with "keeping America safe", then by that logic, he should've never let 9/11 happen. He had over a year to make the changes, but didn't do it. Bush's War isn't the prime reason we haven't had attacks on US soil. It's the extreme measures put into place with the HSA that have done that.

you can't say one good thing about Bush EVER can you. Weakly link Bush to economic failures today. But one of his biggest successes. Ah didn't do much...