Please don't vote for McCain

reefraff

Active Member
You guys are starting to sound almost as bad as them. Don't stoop to their level. I know you're just clowning but you know that isn't allowed in the PC world.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2469812
You're right, McCain will not leave this war. If we are to believe him, this war will continue for the next 100 years.
Wow journey, your staunch conservativism (or should I say blind conservativism) is pretty surprising. You demean any effort to end the war by concluding that it is "cut and running". You talk about appointing judges who will uphold the constitution when your hero, Bush, has made a concerted effort to appoint judge's who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. The reality is that, if you were having this conversation 50 years ago, you'd be discussing the need to overturn Brown v. Board of Education and upholding the fallacy of "separate but equal" philosophy.
Your argument is full of unsupported conclusions. (1) To my knowledge Obama has not raised any proposed extreme health care reform like Hillary, (2) SOCIAL PROGRAMS DO NOT EQUAL SOCIALISM. There is a big difference if you can see past your party line.
You now blame the war on Saddam (not terrorism as was your previous arguments). However, Saddam was captured in the first year of the war.
What is false about my concerns about the economy? Are you so biased that you don't see the conditions of employment, the US dollar and the $250 per month that every family is required to donate to the war effort?
As to your comment about my desire to have a republican or democrat president, you clearly have so much blind faith in Bush that anyone who challenges him must be a democrat, or a socialist. I'm telling you that you would have loved the 50's... you'd probably have a front row seat to the McCarthy hearings. Not that it matters, but just so you know, my opinions on various issues extends through the spectrum of conservative to liberal. I am smart enough that I don't need to label myself "democrat" or "republican" and support candidates accordingly. I have voted both ways. However I disagree vehemently with the mistakes of our current president and I also disagree with McCain's philosophies. So, if it is easier to call me a democrat or communist, than to open your mind to criticism of "your party leaders" then go ahead. That's ok with me.

The silly idea that a dummycrat is going to get us out of iraq is simply foolish. You're telling me that Hussein Obama is going to leave, or Hillary Clinton. Can you imagine the republican hay day when they say, the democrats lost the war in Iraq after Bush was winning.
You blind liberalism, supporting socialist idealogy of the democrat party ignores the last 70 years of democrat principles and policies FAILING. Lets look at two of the most liberal areas in the United States, Michigan, and Louisiana, here liberal policies have run for decades unchecked. And by your own admission Michigan is in a recession. Louisiana espcially New Orleans was a cesspool of crime and poverty. My friends from LA brag about their politicians corruption!
How long will be waste money on the "War on Poverty" and other failed social programs. And now we have 2 democrat candidates, who have no experience running anything much less a country. They both advotate "universal" healthcare. Clintons, is pure socialism, Obama's is so full of holes it won't work unless he totally socialises it.
And don't get me started on what I think about McCain. Or Bush and the "freeze". I'm going to have to make enough money to buy my own island and not pay any taxes, because if I don't I'm going to be paying 70% taxes and watching the "poor" of america buy a bigscreen with my money.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470631
Mustard gas is not a WMD? Only Nukes are classified as WMD's? Mustard gas has nothing to do with National Security?
Ok... let's take these one at a time. Please read and look this up for yourself Rylan. You've had this explained before.
first off, the UN considers Mustard Gas a WMD, even if you don't. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...q.inspections/
And from the UN itself: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/...-munitions.pdf
It's estimated over 90,000 soldiers alone died to Mustard Gas spread by Artillery Shells during WW1.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/...-munitions.pdf (same link as above. Discusses both Mustard and Sarin gasses)
How about Sarin Gas? Remember in 1995 a few cultists in the Tokyo sub ways released a few hundred grams of poorly manufactored (not weaponized) and impure Sarin. 12 died, over 5,000 were injured.
Want to continue arguing either of these aren't WMD's? Chemical and Biological weapons, in addition to Nuclear weapons, can be classified as WMD's.
Moving on; the fact that both Sarin and Mustard Gas were found (an terrorists have attempted to use) in Iraq since we toppled Saddam proves two things. First, that the inspection teams of the UN failed. They clearly missed some WMD's. Second, the fact taht terrorists have tried to use the WMD's in Iraq shows it is a potential National Security Risk. If they will use the WMD's against our troops they will use them against our civilians.
A WMD is also a grenade or an aresol can that can be sprayed, a mine, etc, etc....acording to definition.
But in the true since of mass destruction these things in my opinion are not unless they are distributed on a large scale. As far as the 5000 injured how many of those were trampled or injured by something other than the gas? Probably most. When WMD's were brought up in Iraq it spoke specifically to nukes... not gas. You are making this argument so you can feel like we did the right thing... but Saddam did not have the capablity to attack anyone outside of his borders with any type of WMD. The gas would have effective in an enclosed area, but in an outside area it would only impact those in that immediate area and the gas would quickly disapate.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2471057
Most of that is no big deal but the non negotiable committment to the mother continent crap is troubling.
If you read further they have programs that provide aid to Africa such as sending food and supplies. This is no different that the commercials or aids programs you see on tv
 

1journeyman

Active Member
I swear Rylan, has anyone shown you how to use a search engine like Google? It is so very simple in this day and age to check your information before posting it.

Originally Posted by rylan
A WMD is also a grenade or an aresol can that can be sprayed, a mine, etc, etc....acording to definition...
Wrong
.
A grenade or a mine is not a WMD as it does not do damage in a wide area nor does it have lingering effects. Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material.. Did you read the links I provided previously? The UN classifies Mustard Gas and Sarin as WMDs. They found and secured both types of shells in Iraq for removal.
Originally Posted by rylan
.. But in the true since of mass destruction these things in my opinion are not unless they are distributed on a large scale. As far as the 5000 injured how many of those were trampled or injured by something other than the gas? Probably most...
Incorrect assumption
. Please read this link for a detailed explanation of the casualties in Tokyo related to the Sarin gas attack Here.
As you can clearly read (if you dare) injuries were not from stampeding commuters.
Originally Posted by rylan

When WMD's were brought up in Iraq it spoke specifically to nukes... not gas..
Wrong
.
Nukes were not the only thing brought up regarding Iraq. In fact, that's flat out goofy to even say. No one thought Iraq had any nuclear weapons. We thought he had started back up his program. The WMD's that we specifically looked for were Biological and Chemical weapons (Mustard Gas and Sarin, for example...).
Resolution 687 of the UN regarding Iraq says, in part "Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons
and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons
... Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,
UN Resolution 1441 states, in part :"The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material..."
Originally Posted by rylan
You are making this argument so you can feel like we did the right thing... but Saddam did not have the capablity to attack anyone outside of his borders with any type of WMD...
Wrong
(noticing a trend here?)
"The Scud is derived from the World War II-era German V-2 rocket. Unlike the FROG series of unguided missiles, the SCUDs have movable fins. Warheads
can be HE, chemical
, or nuclear, and the missile, launched vertically from a small platform..." http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-11.htm and for a better explanation of Saddam's missile program http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/o...tion/19208.pdf
Remember Saddam launched HE Scuds into Israel during the invasion.
Originally Posted by rylan

.... The gas would have effective in an enclosed area, but in an outside area it would only impact those in that immediate area and the gas would quickly disapate
Wrong
.
Glad you weren't a Commanding Officer in a battle where gas was actually used. Your false perception of Mustard Gas would have gotten everyone under your command killed.
Gas, such as Mustard Gas, does not dissipate quickly. It is heavier than air and stays toxic for hours. Many accounts of WW1 tell of soldiers dying after the dove into a foxhole for cover and encountered pockets of Mustard Gas fired hours earlier.
Read about the attack on Halabja
http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html where Saddam used Mustard Gas. I swear Rylan, look at the pictures of the dead men, women and children lying in the streets and then freakin tell me Mustard Gas quickly dissipates, is not a WMD, and these villagers were probably injured from trampling each other
.
Being uneducated is dangerous Rylan, but apathy and deliberate ignorance are inexcusable.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2471596
I'm glad we're on the same side of the fence.

Ya right.
Look up the definition of WMD and weapons classified as WMD's.
2nd, weren't we looking for anthrax and nukes.... I think so... and not gas. In other posts you have said Iraq was buying or trying to by nuclear material from Africa, France, Russia...etc... So were we looking for gas or looking for nuclear material? Also, the gas they did find... how old was it... wasn't it left overs from Gulf War?
 

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471616
Ya right.
Look up the definition of WMD and weapons classified as WMD's.....
I did look it up
. How about you look it up!!! I POSTED A DEFINITION FROM THE US ARMIES WEBPAGE
.
"Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material

I POSTED THE MULTIPLE UN RESOLUTIONS SHOWING WE WERE ALSO LOOKING FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS. (687 and 1441, among many others...)
Amazing...
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2471596
I'm glad we're on the same side of the fence.

On the day of the attack ambulances transported 688 patients, and nearly five thousand people reached hospitals by other means. Hospitals saw 5,510 patients, seventeen of whom were deemed critical, thirty-seven severe, and 984 moderately ill with vision problems. Most of those reporting to hospitals were the "worried well," who had to be distinguished from those that were ill. [1]
By mid-afternoon, the mildly affected victims had recovered from vision problems and were released from hospital. Most of the remaining patients were well enough to go home the following day, and within a week only a few critical patients remained in hospital. The death toll on the day of the attack was eight, and it eventually rose to twelve
So lets see... with a little quick math.... 1st enclosed area as I stated... and a little over a thousand were medically ill and the other 4,500 people were not really ill and were released...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2471596
I'm glad we're on the same side of the fence.

Thanks man. I appreciate the compliments for some of you guys.
I have a lot of friends that I disagree with on various topics. I love to discuss and disagree. To argue and debate.
The difficulty with some of the posters here is that they absolutely refuse to learn for themselves. I can post a thousand links and a million words proving beyond a shadow of a doubt a point and they will simply say something like "ya right..."
My only consolation is the fact that they support the other party. If we were on the same side I'd be terrified and have to re-evaluate my life.
Rylan's above post is a classic. He says regarding WMD's "look up the definition of WMD" While ignoring the fact that I did look it up; and furthermore I even posted it, along with reference as to where I got it.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471640
On the day of the attack ambulances transported 688 patients, and nearly five thousand people reached hospitals by other means. Hospitals saw 5,510 patients, seventeen of whom were deemed critical, thirty-seven severe, and 984 moderately ill with vision problems. Most of those reporting to hospitals were the "worried well," who had to be distinguished from those that were ill. [1]
By mid-afternoon, the mildly affected victims had recovered from vision problems and were released from hospital. Most of the remaining patients were well enough to go home the following day, and within a week only a few critical patients remained in hospital. The death toll on the day of the attack was eight, and it eventually rose to twelve
So lets see... with a little quick math.... 1st enclosed area as I stated... and a little over a thousand were medically ill and the other 4,500 people were not really ill and were released...
Ok, at least you actually read one of the links. NOW, keep reading. We can actually have a meaninglful debate.
*Look at the timeline for the Sarin attack I linked too. You'll see the attack took place for a long period of time. It was not instant.
*No significat injuries were reported from stampeding crowds (as you claimed)
*Not all of the injuries were from an enclosed area. Doctors and hospital personal treating victims also became victims. People were injured in the trains and on the platforms. Furthermore, look at the pics of the Kurds in Iraq killed by Mustard Gas.
* Over a thousand medically ill, from a few hundred grams of poorly manufactored toxin.... A toxin classified by the UN as a WMD.
Seriously Rylan, WMD's were first used in WW1. Do you think they fought all of their battles from inside buildings? Is that how over 90,000 soldiers were killed? WW1 was fought in the trenches, where heavier than air gasses could wreak havoc. Please don't keep trying to argue the "enclosed" bit. Historically it's just not accurate.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
lol, so now gassing someone isn't so bad, as long as it is outside....
I wonder how the kurds feel about this?
btw I hate McCain, I hate that my party nominated someone who seems more interesting in making democrats happy, then his own party.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Ok Journey lets talk about this and let me ask you some questions.
You say we went to Iraq for biological weapons and nuclear... correct?
What did we find? And if we did find chemical weapons how old was it?
Last question, I remember reports about mobile labs... did we find any?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2471665
lol, so now gassing someone isn't so bad, as long as it is outside....
I wonder how the kurds feel about this?
btw I hate McCain, I hate that my party nominated someone who seems more interesting in making democrats happy, then his own party.
Agreed. I wasn't even going to vote for him until I talked to some buddies in Iraq. They reminded me to swallow my pride, grit my teeth, and vote for what is best for them over there.
 

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471667
Ok Journey lets talk about this and let me ask you some questions.
You say we went to Iraq for biological weapons and nuclear... correct?
What did we find? And if we did find chemical weapons how old was it?
Last question, I remember reports about mobile labs... did we find any?
Syria won't let us in...peacefully.
Oh, I better spell that one out. There are sattelite photos and first hand (drivers) reports of truckloads of "unknown substance" leaving Iraq into Syria in the months leading up to Dessert Storm. Convoys with military escort. I'm pretty sure it wasn't diapers and baby formula.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471667
Ok Journey lets talk about this and let me ask you some questions.
You say we went to Iraq for biological weapons and nuclear... correct?
What did we find? And if we did find chemical weapons how old was it?
Last question, I remember reports about mobile labs... did we find any?
Rylan, I will be more than happy to answer these questions, provided this begins a tradition of give and take on your part. You acknowledge and respond to my points and I will do the same to yours. I will be happy to begin.
No, I do not say that. I say we went to war in Iraq because Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions, failed to cooperate with inspectors, continued to fire at allied planes enforcing the No Fly Zone, supported terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and refused to back down after given 6 months to fully comply with the threat of military intervention (UN Resolution 1441 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress).
The above points negate much of where you are going with the remaining two questions but I will answer as best I can.
We found Sarin and Mustard Gas. Left over from the first Gulf War. This proves two things actually. The first (and the point you are driving at) is that Saddam had not restarted his weapons program. Second, (and the point you and others fail to admit too) the presence of the weapons proves that the UN Inspection teams had been outmatched by Saddam. The fact that the inspectors had not found the old chemical weapons proves Saddam was not in compliance and that the teams were not going to be able to prevent Saddam from aquiring more WMD.
To the best of my knowledge we did not find any mobile labs.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
You know, I am sure if the FBI gave John Gotti 6 months warning of their investigation and arrest of him he would have been able to remove the evidence as well..........just my thought.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2471684
Rylan, I will be more than happy to answer these questions, provided this begins a tradition of give and take on your part. You acknowledge and respond to my points and I will do the same to yours. I will be happy to begin.
No, I do not say that. I say we went to war in Iraq because Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions, failed to cooperate with inspectors, continued to fire at allied planes enforcing the No Fly Zone, supported terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and refused to back down after given 6 months to fully comply with the threat of military intervention (UN Resolution 1441 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress).
The above points negate much of where you are going with the remaining two questions but I will answer as best I can.
We found Sarin and Mustard Gas. Left over from the first Gulf War. This proves two things actually. The first (and the point you are driving at) is that Saddam had not restarted his weapons program. Second, (and the point you and others fail to admit too) the presence of the weapons proves that the UN Inspection teams had been outmatched by Saddam. The fact that the inspectors had not found the old chemical weapons proves Saddam was not in compliance and that the teams were not going to be able to prevent Saddam from aquiring more WMD.
To the best of my knowledge we did not find any mobile labs.
Ok - Well why didn't we let the UN finish the job?
2nd there are other countries such as Libiya that supports Hamas and Hezbollah more than Iraq does or ever did, in fact this is their base location. - To further my point, its said that Iraq has had no credible link to al Qaeda which was something they tried to make us believe.
Third. Ok we did find gas left over... what it proves is that Iraq didn't or that we didn't destroy all the weapons we were supposed to in 1998. However, these biological weapons at this point were no longer harmful substances because the shelf life had expired years ealier. So I will acknowledge we did find some materials, however these things did not pose a risk.
We went to war because they said Iraq posted an immenant threat... which was not the case.. Our reason for war was political.
 
Top