[quote]djoh615893 wrote:
Take the incident in Russia where the children were slaughtered. It’s spreading, and it’s still in our own country right now. [/quote]
Maybe God bless all thoese people and their relatives RIP.
You really have hit the nail on the head:
“It’s spreading, and it’s still in our own country right now.”
IN
It is an internal problem and thus the only solution will be an internal one. Not an external one like invading “rougue states”.
[quote]shamr0ck wrote:
right or wrong. i don’t know. but i have to admit, i respect lumpy for having the guts to say what’s on his mind and taking the consequences.
.02[/quote]
No Shamrock, LUMPY is a potty-mouthed coward hiding behind a computer screen. He is not taking part in the thread he started. He will not answer those that have answered him.
Lumpy makes a good point, especially if you subtract the politics from the issue.
There are some on here who voice their opinions and they back them up with actions. Whether or not I agree with the opinions, I certainly respect them for converting their words into actions.
As much as I would like the US to keep it’s fingers out of the international pie with respect to promoting its “own interests” as alluded to above, I want the good guys to win and come back home safe and sound.
So, where does that leave the very vocal people who don’t have the will or ability to stand up for their beliefs? I don’t know. Maybe their contribution is simply cheerleading? Maybe their words are a lot stronger than their feelings?
Take away the politics and it is something worth considering…
YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!
Somebody else gets it! If wartime service was all that mattered in an election, Clinton never would have gotten into office! I believed Bush Sr served (please correct me if I am wrong) and Dole cant hide his injuries from his service. Yet, a draft dodger got their vote… So, by action - which we all know speak louder than words- they are all saying that military service is not the most important matter. If it was, they would have HAD to vote for Bush Sr and Dole.
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!
Somebody else gets it! If wartime service was all that mattered in an election, Clinton never would have gotten into office! I believed Bush Sr served (please correct me if I am wrong) and Dole cant hide his injuries from his service. Yet, a draft dodger got their vote… So, by action - which we all know speak louder than words- they are all saying that military service is not the most important matter. If it was, they would have HAD to vote for Bush Sr and Dole. [/quote]
Terrible logic.
Kerry didn’t make his service an issue in this campaign – Bush and the “not-related-to-the-campaign” Swift Boaters did.
Service is noble, but not necessary.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
DA MAN wrote:
YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!
Somebody else gets it! If wartime service was all that mattered in an election, Clinton never would have gotten into office! I believed Bush Sr served (please correct me if I am wrong) and Dole cant hide his injuries from his service. Yet, a draft dodger got their vote… So, by action - which we all know speak louder than words- they are all saying that military service is not the most important matter. If it was, they would have HAD to vote for Bush Sr and Dole.
Terrible logic.
Kerry didn’t make his service an issue in this campaign – Bush and the “not-related-to-the-campaign” Swift Boaters did.
Service is noble, but not necessary.
[/quote]
Flawless logic.
Kerry DID make his service an issue. A MAJOR issue. Is he still doing the salute and “Reporting for Duty” thing? He speaks endlessly about his service. He did make it an issue.
And the 529 shot there- dont forget the
“not-related-to-the-campaign” moveoners and media funders.
And if service is “noble but not necessary” then why the big hubbub about Bush and his National Gaurd duty and records?
RSU,
“I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty…”
He didn’t even mention Vietnam once in his convention speech.
I haven’t heard him mention it on the stump either.
Keep up the excellent posts!!!
JeffR
By reading all the posts I think it’s agreed everyone supports the troops but not everyone supports the war. Even quite a few soldiers themselves in Iraq don’t support the war and mostly because a lot of them see the war as something far different from what we are being told here at home.
A large number of people who do support the war, do so because they believe that the USA is there under the greatest of intentions, to rid the world of “evil” and “liberate” a country so their people can be free and happy. Of course people who don’t agree are told they’re unpatriotic and support terrorism, etc. Well, I do have a few quotes for them:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy.
-Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.
-Adolf Hitler
I would suggest everyone who cares about the US or the WORLD for that matter, do some research on the group “Project for a New American Century” to have a true understanding of what is happening in the Middle East. Download the PDF report from their web site called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”
This is an outline for US global dominance and permanant military presence (ie; perpetual war) and was drafted one year before 9-11.
“the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.”
So you can talk about “should we be in Iraq or not” all you want but the truth is we’re there to stay…and next is Iran and after that North Korea. (just like it says) Just to make another point, this group IS the Bush administration…including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
It even states in this report that support for the plan by the public and our allies, for war and occupation in the Middle East, is very unlikely barring some major event like “a new Pearl Harbor”.
As luck would have it, exactly one year later, terrorists with box cutters successfully hijacked four passenger jets and flew unabated for almost two hours without a single fighter jet intercept and completed their mission, with one jet flying straight into the most technologically advanced military headquarters in the world.
Then we spent a WHOOPING $15 million (2 years later) to investigate the worst criminal act ever committed on American soil. ($70 million to see if Clinton really got a blow job…and $25 million for someone, in a third world country, telling us where Saddam was hidden) BTW, that $15 mil was originally only $3 mil until the 911 commission requested more. So what does that really say…
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Terrible logic.
Kerry didn’t make his service an issue in this campaign – Bush and the “not-related-to-the-campaign” Swift Boaters did.
Service is noble, but not necessary.
[/quote]
Then why, oh why, did Clinton advise Kerry to drop the vietnam hero rant and focus on the domestic issues?
Why, before he uttered a single word, did Kerry throw up his limp-wristed french-like salute at the beginning of his his convention speech?
Gimmee a break.
So, if this was drafted 1 year before 9-11-2001, that would mean that Clinton was still in office, wouldnt it? I thought that he was a grand man in the field of foreign relations. Is all the hooplah about Clinton and his great foreign relations bunk or is this report bunk?
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Terrible logic.
Kerry didn’t make his service an issue in this campaign – Bush and the “not-related-to-the-campaign” Swift Boaters did.
Service is noble, but not necessary.
[/quote]
And its official. You ARE the dumbest man alive. Let me grab my ankles while you try and tell me Kerry didnt make his convention about his service, and it was all because of Veterans. Hold on, let me just get the KY.
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
So, if this was drafted 1 year before 9-11-2001, that would mean that Clinton was still in office, wouldnt it? I thought that he was a grand man in the field of foreign relations. Is all the hooplah about Clinton and his great foreign relations bunk or is this report bunk?[/quote]
I posted this on another thread, but it seems pertinent here as well – it’s not a rah-rah Bush article, but it’s a fair rendition of the facts – as for the author’s opinions, judge for yourself:
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
So, if this was drafted 1 year before 9-11-2001, that would mean that Clinton was still in office, wouldnt it? I thought that he was a grand man in the field of foreign relations. Is all the hooplah about Clinton and his great foreign relations bunk or is this report bunk?[/quote]
You are correct, Clinton was still in office but this group, founded in 1997, had tried unsuccessfully to get Clinton and Congress to invade Iraq well before 9-11.
If you read BostonBarrister’s link, it does sound rather neutral but it is missing THE main ingredient in this mess, and that is ISRAEL.
Our foreign policy toward the Middle East is DIRECTLY influenced by Israel and PNAC is the conduit. This group is at the center of the spy scandal now being investigated in Washington.
The following is a quote from the NY Times just today:
“Behind the scenes, however, the case has reignited a furious and long-running debate about the close
relationship between AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying
organization, and a conservative group of Republican civilian officials at the defense department, who are in charge of the office that employs Lawrence A. Franklin, the Pentagon analyst. Their hard-line policy views on Iraq, Iran and the rest of the Middle East have been controversial and influential within the Bush administration.”
This is the group that fabricated the intelligence that got us into Iraq, BTW. This “civilian” group got us into a war when every military strategist said we were not prepared to go in and Iraq constituted no immediate threat.
If you think this is an isolated case, I encourage everyone to do a Google search on “Israeli spies” for a whole new perspective on what’s been going on right under our noses and what is finally starting to dribble out into the mainstream media. You might start to see 9-11 in a different light…
Hi i am from the uk hence the name. And eventually after uni i want to join the forces, now the war in iraq i don’t support it hence why i didn’t put my pen down and sign up(thats quite funny), because i just believed it was going to be a short victoriuos war like the falklains was suppose to be.(to get Bush and Blair elected again).
now as to the orginal comment made by lumpy, plumby or rudolf the rednose idiot. i think everyone has a different take on things but i believe people should enlist if they believe in the cause, willing to die for the man/woman next to you or see them die. now if you aren’t willing to do this, then don’t enlist because all you’ll do is endanger the live of someone else. so instead of people putting up or shutting up then i think you should shut up and let people have their opinions. thank god you aren’t running a country limpy.
Justthe Facts -
Which is worse - the Trilateral Commission, or Project for a New American Century?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Justthe Facts -
Which is worse - the Trilateral Commission, or Project for a New American Century?[/quote]
Neither bode well for us, but the Trilateral Commission has been around since 73 and is a much more diverse group. I’m not sure one is worse than the other since one controls all the money in the world and the other controls the most powerful military in the world.
The worst part about PNAC though is that this small group is in DIRECT control of our government right at this very moment and they leave no doubt to their intentions. This is not a group that seeks peace what-so-ever.
Unfortunately you can’t even debate this as “conspiracy theory”…Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Perle, Jeb Bush, Elliot Abrahms…their names are all attached right to this group.
Good background info:
http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/1.html
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Justthe Facts -
Which is worse - the Trilateral Commission, or Project for a New American Century?[/quote]
The Illuminati!!!
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Justthe Facts -
Which is worse - the Trilateral Commission, or Project for a New American Century?
Neither bode well for us, but the Trilateral Commission has been around since 73 and is a much more diverse group. I’m not sure one is worse than the other since one controls all the money in the world and the other controls the most powerful military in the world.
The worst part about PNAC though is that this small group is in DIRECT control of our government right at this very moment and they leave no doubt to their intentions. This is not a group that seeks peace what-so-ever.
Unfortunately you can’t even debate this as “conspiracy theory”…Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Perle, Jeb Bush, Elliot Abrahms…their names are all attached right to this group.
Good background info:
http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/1.html
[/quote]
Sorry, but this is definitely a conspiracy theory – and the best kind of conspiracy theory too, as it takes some facts and then spins a nice tale around them. It would make for a mediocre Robert Ludlum or John LeClarre (sp?) novel (actually, the mediocre adjective attached in front of those names is redundant – sorry to any of their fans that take offense).
What are the claims? That the U.S. actually came up with various contingency plans for various scenarios in the Persian Gulf? Given the strategic and economic importance of that area, I hope we run all sorts of scenario plans – it would be foolish not to do so. The military and intelligence communities probably also have plans drawn up to counter Chinese agression toward Taiwan, to deal with North Korea bombing Japan, and a lot of other, less likely scenarios. As I said, I certainly hope they do, and as far as I know it’s standard practice.
Ditto with spying on allies – I would be completely unsurprised to learn that we had spies in Russia, France, Germany, and even Great Britain and Israel, and I’m not shocked to learn that they might try to gather intelligence on us.
As to people forming think tanks when out of governmental power, I am similarly unconcerned. Go run a check on what the former Clinton people are doing with their time off, and I would be that some of them are off in think tanks, writing policy papers. People who have invested the time to become experts in their fields and who wish to return to governmental service generally will work to sharpen their ideas and keep up-to-date their expertise while out of the government. Economists and tax folks go to think tanks and private businesses – I’m not at all shocked to think that foreign-policy folks would do the same.
Basically, if you apply Occam’s Razor to all of this, you would have simple explanations for all of these items that you want to fit together into a complex conspiracy (and yes, it is a conspiracy theory - what else would one call a theory about a bunch of people plotting (and succeeding, according to you) to control the world?).
The problems with believing in any secret cabal are many. First, you have to believe that all these guys with all their egos could get together and subordinate themselves to the general idea or cause. Given how we see political parties operate, I would question this assumption. Secondly, you have guys involved who have actively worked against each other and fought over how, when, and if certain actions should be taken – namely, Rumsfeld et al in the DoD and Powell et al in the State Dept. Thirdly, you would have to believe that only these weird internet groups have managed to put all of this “public information” that you reference together, when, if it were in fact true and provably true, all the major media would be jumping over themselves to break the story, bring down the hated Bush Administration and all his scary “neo-cons”, and prepare to polish their Pulitzer Prizes. Fourthly, the size of the group that would be necessary to administer such a scheme, from the top down to the bottom, would seem to make it highly suspect that any such enterprise could succeed without someone playing whistle blower or selling it out for profit – all those people, and each one with an ego, a mouth, and some of them with personal financial issues.
Bottom line, conspiracy theories such as this sound good (or at least mediocre) in spy novels, but real world circumstances suggest that, at best, such a conjecture is highly improbable, and more likely the fevered imaginations of the conspiracy minded.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sorry, but this is definitely a conspiracy theory – and the best kind of conspiracy theory too, as it takes some facts and then spins a nice tale around them. [/quote]
Ya think so?
Rainjack-
My friend, sorry it took so long to respond to your post where you called me a hypocrite or blowhard or whatever the hell it was. I will attempt to explain my position on this matter one last time and then I will concentrate on other more pressing matters like elk hunting, hiking, and some serious lifting!
I believe that Bush jr., Rove, Wolfewitz, Cheney, Perle, and others in the gang are the type that never had to get their hands dirty. They remind me of pampered mommas boys who have enjoyed the upper crust of life and when shit hit the fan ala Vietnam had the skids greased to save their asses while middle class and poor boys like me and you did the dirty work.
I realize Kerry came from the lap of luxury as well, but a fundamental difference is when he could have easily pulled a Bush, Cheney, or Clinton, with ease he went to the shit-storm and anyone who is going to voluntarily enter a combat zone whether its for four months or four years has my respect!
I remember reading a post of yours where you talked about scraping to get by and eating hamburger and potatoes because that was all you could afford for your family and I respect the hard times you made it through! You obviously have heart and backbone, but how on earth do you think a man like Bush can relate to you! He never once had to struggle for one iota of survival! It honestly blows my mind how someone like you can pledge allegiance to someone who views you as a pawn, a widget, an expendable cog.
You refer to him as a strong man who has guts and determination. To me it seems easy to send others to die when you avoided the same test of combat when it was provided to you! I would reserve my compliments of courage to a man who showed vision and restraint instead of quickly and foolishly sending my fellow brothers and sisters off to die!
If I fully believed the Iraq war was needed in defense of our country I would pledge undying support of our President to the point of re-enlisting and if need be offering my life in defense of my country, but the fact for me remains that the deaths of our fellow Americans is to appease the greed and hunger of those mentioned above that would never offer the same sacrifice. On this site we talk about T Men in my opinion the current administration doesn’t have a T Man among them! That is why I also become very heated in some of my responses! I see the same type of person those who talk of honor and bravery and toughness, but who have never done anything to actually leave their cushy existence and back it up with anything credible! I love my country and everything it offers me and that is why I feel an obligation when I feel lies and deceit are being perpetrated on a scale never seen before!