Republican Candidates

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
That isn't technically true, at least with russia.
Sorry, I am assuming he means the former Soviet Union...
Any name calling pm me with the post number... I was editing as this thread went along, but I know I missed some.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Sorry, I am assuming he means the former Soviet Union...
Any name calling pm me with the post number... I was editing as this thread went along, but I know I missed some.
lol, don't worry about it, at least with me.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
You are putting words in my mouth... STOP!!!

No one is putting words in your mouth. Case in point you said you could show me 10 reports to contradict the report about the ongoing search and translation of the documents on Sadaams WMDS. Yet you have not done that. You are worthless to debate with as you bring no substance to your stance. My 3rd grade step daughter could debate politics and back up her stance better than you....
where is the link?!!?!?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Proving once again the republican Party should be dismantled & its members & followers. Shipped to Russia or China. Where a true Republic form of government exits.
This thread is a sad representation of our American people.
***********

No, what is sad is you don't even realize the U.S. form of government is a representative republic. So no need to ship us anywhere. We live in a republic.
where is the link!?!?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
So let's stick to the facts.
How much oil is Iraq exporting right now?
A better question is if "the US is holding back Iraqi oil supplies to drive up the price", Instead of "we invaded Iraq to take their oil" as originally claimed, why is it the the price of oil didnt start going up until AFTER Iraq oil exports were resumed a couple of years after the invasion had haulted it completely?

 

[rylan1]

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
- This article states that he wanted to rebuild a WMD program... but that at the time of invasion.. He did not have WMD's.
So my question is .... What real evidence did we have to support WMD's. I think that we knew that Hussein didn't have WMD's... And the reason why he didn't deny it is because he wanted essentially "bluff" Iran so that they wouldn't invade Iraq. This article aslo states that Hussein didn't think the U.S would invade Iraq and at most they may get bombed...
In my opinion a stable and military sufficient Iraq leads to a more stablized Middle East.. So I think that this war has done more damage than good in the long term.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
- This article states that he wanted to rebuild a WMD program... but that at the time of invasion.. He did not have WMD's.
So my question is .... What real evidence did we have to support WMD's. I think that we knew that Hussein didn't have WMD's... And the reason why he didn't deny it is because he wanted essentially "bluff" Iran so that they wouldn't invade Iraq. This article aslo states that Hussein didn't think the U.S would invade Iraq and at most they may get bombed...
I don't know, other than our country, britain, egypt, isreal, France, Russia and I think Germany's intel services were indicated that he had wmds too.
An interesting point to ponder, Do you think that think that had a previous administration set the presedent of pre-emptive attack on deemed threats that Sadaam would have played his little game as asserted in the refered article?

 

[stdreb27]

I should be a college poly sci professor, I can come up with some dang interesting position paper assignments.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I don't know, other than our country, britain, egypt, isreal, France, Russia and I think Germany's intel services were indicated that he had wmds too.
An interesting point to ponder, Do you think that think that had a previous administration set the presedent of pre-emptive attack on deemed threats that Sadaam would have played his little game as asserted in the refered article?

I think he wanted WMD's ... I don't disagree with that... I however think our intel (given that it is the best in the world) knew he didn't have them. I think this war was a orchestrated because of 911 and America's anger toward the Middle East.. I think that Hussein was more of a target of convience than a target that was a threat to the U.S.
I think by going into Iraq... we strengthend Iran... who is a much more of a serious threat than Iraq was, or could have been in the next 15 years.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think he wanted WMD's ... I don't disagree with that... I however think our intel (given that it is the best in the world) knew he didn't have them. I think this war was a orchestrated because of 911 and America's anger toward the Middle East.. I think that Hussein was more of a target of convience than a target that was a threat to the U.S.
I think by going into Iraq... we strengthend Iran... who is a much more of a serious threat than Iraq was, or could have been in the next 15 years.
So you think that the CIA or Bush was lying, to assuage some political/social anger towards the sand people?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
So you think that the CIA or Bush was lying, to assuage some political/social anger towards the sand people?
I wouldn't say it that way, but yes.
I think that the administration lied, to get support for this war. I don't know what their intentions were. They may have been simply so that we could provide an atmosphere to fight terror on their soil. I think that our 'thrist' for oil may have also played a role in the decision. I don't think the admin anticipated the outcome or where we find ourselves today.
As I was stating above, the intentions may have been good; however, I think that the actions taken were not good and were against our principles, which turn out to negatively affect the outcome.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
.... What real evidence did we have to support WMD's. I think that we knew that Hussein didn't have WMD's... .
The same evidence that convinced Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt, etc. that he had WMDs...
To say our Intel agencies knew he didn't have them implies the rest of the world's Intel Agencies are either vastly inferior to our own, or that they lied too.
Neither one is a workable hypothesis.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I wouldn't say it that way, but yes.
I thought I was cynical.

Clearly he didn't expect the local violence, as shown by that silly "mission acomplished speech" nor expected to fight the Iranians in Iraq. Nor the deep seated fear of the the Iraqis. Nor the sharp partisan opposition from political leaders in this country.
I personally subscribe your frame of thought, for the simple fact that there were plenty of other very persuasive arguments for the invasion of Iraq without having to fabricate anything.

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
Romney wants a powerful federal government. I believe he's going to be a status quo person. The status quo is leading the U.S. down the path of debt and spending. I don't want to go any further down that path.

You must be joking. When he was governor of MA he straightened out this liberal spendthrift land and balanced the budget and brought new industry into the state.
He is the only candidate that has a clue how to build value in an economy through developing commerce and not by leveraging fiscal and monetary easing which is the primary reason for a weak dollar against most other currencies. In the time he was governor, he created so much economic growth momentum in the state, and the current governor has not had to do anything except claim them as his own work.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dingo0722
You must be joking. When he was governor of MA he straightened out this liberal spendthrift land and balanced the budget and brought new industry into the state.
He is the only candidate that has a clue how to build value in an economy through developing commerce and not by leveraging fiscal and monetary easing which is the primary reason for a weak dollar against most other currencies. In the time he was governor, he created so much economic growth momentum in the state, and the current governor has not had to do anything except claim them as his own work.
You want to know something funny His dad is named George W Romney. I'm smelling another conspiracy theory.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dingo0722
You must be joking. When he was governor of MA he straightened out this liberal spendthrift land and balanced the budget and brought new industry into the state.
He is the only candidate that has a clue how to build value in an economy through developing commerce and not by leveraging fiscal and monetary easing which is the primary reason for a weak dollar against most other currencies. In the time he was governor, he created so much economic growth momentum in the state, and the current governor has not had to do anything except claim them as his own work.
I'm sorry, but his economic numbers of his state aren't "great" they are probably statistically the same as national numbers. Which are fine, but are in no way an indicator of his economic genius.
Then you have his whole government mandated healthcare system he implemented in Mass.

 

[dingo0722]

People can bash W all they want, but there is 1 thing that nobody can deny has done VERY well with him in office, historic economic growth. Under Bush, there has been 54 months on consistant economic growth. Thats a record.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The same evidence that convinced Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt, etc. that he had WMDs...
To say our Intel agencies knew he didn't have them implies the rest of the world's Intel Agencies are either vastly inferior to our own, or that they lied too.
Neither one is a workable hypothesis.

Well there is a clear contradiction to this with France and the other countries not willing to send troops in, and wanting to let UN handle. I think if there was clear evidence they would have no problem with supporting us. We are being told the these agencies found evidence. My question is could this be part of a lie or misrepresentation of the actual facts?
I think its very nieve to believe everything that our agenices CIA and etc tell us because of there interests not to dismeninate the information they posses to public in "the interest of National Security"
So do you think that our Gov't is not capable of misleading the public and don't do this from time to time?
We went into this war thinking that Iraq supported the 911 attacks.

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I'm sorry, but his economic numbers of his state aren't "great" they are probably statistically the same as national numbers. Which are fine, but are in no way an indicator of his economic genius.
Then you have his whole government mandated healthcare system he implemented in Mass.

Considering that MA is a high-tech state that it was in a downward spiral because there were no incentive programs to attract industry and during his time in office all that changed. That is huge. Being that Mass is a high-tech state, the industries here are capital intensive. These types of business take time to take root then grow. So even if he matched the economic growth of the US or other states, that is impressive.
Let me ask you a question, do you have car insurance, are you required to have it? Why should health care be any different? An uninsured person walks into a hospital and can get healthcare then bail out on the bill. Who covers the cost, the people that are paying for healthcare? His program is very innovative and I am sure will require some refinement, but other states are going to follow suit.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by dingo0722
People can bash W all they want, but there is 1 thing that nobody can deny has done VERY well with him in office, historic economic growth. Under Bush, there has been 54 months on consistant economic growth. Thats a record.
And we find ourselves in the current position that we are in today. There have been 3 periods during the Admin that had economic downturns. It also looks to be a record period of corportate corruption and scandal.
We are on the verge of a Recession... with some places already experiencing a recession. But I bet you won't contribute that to the Bush Admin will you. If you want to count all the "records" that you mentioned, you must also include what is happening today!