Anyone else ever think we could do a better job?

Page 6 of 7 [ 110 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

WatcherAzazel
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 53

14 Sep 2007, 9:52 am

Johnnie wrote:

Quote:

If a congressman proposed a bill requiring us to pull out of Iraq, and immediately begin funneling all the hundreds of millions of dollars we've spent there into making harzardous jobs like truck driving and construction work safer, would you support it?

your liberal mentality is showing, your solution is automaticely government money is needed to address a problem.

It's certainly useful. Regardless, though, you're trying to use one inequity to justify another. And, BTW, how would YOU improve truck safety?

Quote:

You are dilusional to think that everyone who sat in white house stratagy meetings was just a yes man and other options weren't thrown on the table and debated.

Given the utter stupidity of this war, I guess I'll just stick with delusional, because that's what I think.

Quote:

you lost me, if they weren't in power before and came to power, how did they have hands on experiance ?

Hitler was a war hero. The Germans were eager for a strong leader, who could build them up militarily.

Quote:

qualified to support their point of veiw. It's sort of like david Doke is qualified to support the veiws of the KKK and Al Sharpton is qualified to support the veiws of the NAACP, their veiws are totally biased in favor of their point of veiw and both all very knowledgable on the subject of race problems.

So, sources aren't able to have opinions? Does that mean that a doctor can't have an opinion of whether or not cyanide is bad for your health?

Quote:

so what you are saying is the paid gossip girls when not given total access to all the gossip about the war turned on bush and had a temper tantrum.

What I'm saying is that Bush, according to the constitution, has to answer to congress and the people. He therefore was mandated to give the press "total access" to all the information. He didn't, this was wrong.

Quote:

and how much that clinton did wasn't covered by the media, most of it. He is the moron who flooded the middle east with money leaving bush a mess to deel with.

I don't think we should give away so much foreign aide, but are you saying that if you give Arabs money they'll automatically use it for terrorism?

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

14 Sep 2007, 2:12 pm

Johnnie wrote:

it's still pointless for anyone to pretend they care about the people in the military when they don't give a crap about them the day before they join or the day after they are discharged.

Maybe. There are some people that are grandstanding on both sides of the issue that don't really care.

On the other hand, there are people on both sides who do care. Where I used to work, two of my coworkers were veterans. One supported the Iraq war, the other opposed it. Even the guy who supported it didn't like Rumsfeld for some reason.

My wife's former boss was active in the movement opposing the war. His son was active duty, and he didn't think that the policy objectives laid out by the administration justified sending Americans into harms way.

On 9-10, I admit I didn't care much for the city of New York - too noisy, crowded, not my kinda place. On 9-11, I was physically ill. And I supported the war in Afghanistan because it was directly tied to the attacks on New York and D.C. Going in to get Bin Laden and his band was justified. Really, I think the entire country was pretty united about that.

I think most Americans care to various degrees. Many support improving VA benefits (an institutional approach). Others take a personal approach and send packages to relatives or strangers serving in combat.

Johnnie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: green mountian state

17 Sep 2007, 2:01 pm

Quote:

My wife's former boss was active in the movement opposing the war. His son was active duty,

Make's one wonder how many people raising hell have kids in the milatary or of the age where they could be drafted ?

People join the military knowing the risk, nobody should whine if they have to leave camp. It's about equal to somebody taking a trucking job and whining they want the pay & benefits, but don't want to leave the safety of the terminal.

Greenspan has been running his mouth all over TV and admitted it's all about oil and if Saddam wasn't taken out sooner or later he would have drove the price of oil up well over $100 a barrel. Clinton and his stupid tax increase when he first got into office created the mess by making for a strong dollar and cheap oil which lead to people thinking the stuff was free and buying SUV's to commute 50 miles each way to their new 4,000 square foot home they built. Plus made chicom imports look like a bargain increasing the demand for oil in china.

Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

17 Sep 2007, 2:13 pm

WatcherAzazel wrote:

I mean, think about it: while we happily gloss over countless deaths that accomplish nothing, those deaths continue. Wouldn't things be better if we could just say "too many people have died for no reason. Their lives were wasted for nothing, and those who are responsible (ie Bush) should be held accountable. Now let's get the living out." I mean, if saying the soldiers died in vain could speed up the process of getting them out of Iraq enough to save even a single life, wouldn't it be worth disrespecting those that are already dead? I think they'd understand, and would simply be glad that other lives weren't wasted.

Or is believing that Aspies would allow for more openness just me being naive?

Those lives were not wasted WatcherAzazel, these wars make the World Bankers and arms manufacturers a lot of money, why do you think they start them in the first place?
They are so gratefull that you young people of America are eager and ready to sacrifice your lives to increase thier bank balances, as is Israel, by sacrificing your American lives it means that young Israelis dont have to risk thiers when you attack all thier enemies for them.

Soon you will have the oppurtunity to willingly fight another of Israels enemies for them, Iran.

Then again, you could vote for Ron Paul instead and give control of the American Government back to Americans.
Not that he will live long if he does get elected.

Johnnie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: green mountian state

18 Sep 2007, 12:44 pm

Nambo wrote:

WatcherAzazel wrote:

so what you are saying is $200 or more for oil would be no problem and crippling the nation isn't an issue as we supply the arabs massive amounts of money to build themselves into a world powerhouse while we pay through the butt for food and everything else and go broke.

Thank God george bush is president to save us from WW3 and millions dying and God bless all the real men willing to protect even the sorry azz liberals from harm by putting their own lives on the line

Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

18 Sep 2007, 1:00 pm

Johnnie wrote:

Nambo wrote:

WatcherAzazel wrote:

I had hoped my post was obviously sarcastic and against the like of Goerge Bush who uses American lives for his Satanic purposes, as for Goerge Bush saving you from WW3!!, George Bush is trying to start World War 3 ! !
Probably using Iran which he is determined to convince the West we should go to war with.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

18 Sep 2007, 1:21 pm

Johnnie wrote:

Quote:

My wife's former boss was active in the movement opposing the war. His son was active duty,

People join the military knowing the risk, nobody should whine if they have to leave camp. It's about equal to somebody taking a trucking job and whining they want the pay & benefits, but don't want to leave the safety of the terminal.

Actually, I don't think they are whining about risk or leaving a stateside base. People join the military to defend their country and Constitution, and might get demoralized when it become evident that the first three or four sets of reasons that they are told they are fighting for are shown to be lies. It wasn't a war of last resort, it wasn't a war to protect the US, it wasn't linked to 9-11, there were no WMDs, and the current General in charge (Petraeus) can't even say that it is making the US any safer.

The government does have a responsibility to the men and women that enlist. When it repeatedly lies, it can and should lose their confidence. The nation as a whole has lost confidence in the integrity of Bush and Cheney. Too many lies, too much bungling.

Johnnie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: green mountian state

19 Sep 2007, 5:52 am

Quote:

It wasn't a war of last resort,

so you think we should have waited until they built up a giant war machine like hitler did an attack us

Quote:

it wasn't a war to protect the US

so until somebody like saddam over runs most middle eastern countries and creates a giant empire and becomes a massive threat, we should just wait and than fight a massive war and somehow do it without oil

I fail to see the logic involved of waiting for them to get stronger when they have already declared war on the west.

MrMark
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Jul 2006
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,918
Location: Tallahassee, FL

19 Sep 2007, 6:27 am

Johnnie wrote:

Quote:

It wasn't a war of last resort,

so you think we should have waited until they built up a giant war machine like hitler did an attack us

Quote:

it wasn't a war to protect the US

When you say things like this, be sure to use question marks so that it's clear that you're asking if this is what the person thinks, as opposed to appearing to be putting words in their mouth.

_________________
"The cordial quality of pear or plum
Rises as gladly in the single tree
As in the whole orchards resonant with bees."
- Emerson

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

19 Sep 2007, 11:05 am

Johnnie wrote:

Quote:

It wasn't a war of last resort,

so you think we should have waited until they built up a giant war machine like hitler did an attack us

Quote:

it wasn't a war to protect the US

Well, saddam DID have ten years to build up his armed forces and weaponry between Gulf War 1 and 2, and they STILL got rolled up like a carpet. Adolf managed it in substantially less time, with many more restrictions. Saddam didnt have to train his pilots in "glider clubs" for a start. In fact his air force was pretty much intact if i recall rightly because it all buggered off and hid the first time.

There are far too many other warlike nations in the area for him to have ever built up an arabic third reich of his own. He would have stumbled and fallen at Iran, just as already happened. The man was a threat to his own people, but after kuwait, he was never militarily a threat to the whole middle east. He was also not the only oil producing nation in the area, so he never had the monopoly.

His empire building fell apart after Desert Storm.

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

Johnnie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: green mountian state

19 Sep 2007, 12:08 pm

Quote:

There are far too many other warlike nations in the area for him to have ever built up an arabic third reich of his own.

I doubt he was going to give up trying to expand his empire, he tried to take iran and than went after an easier target Kuwiat and we had to drive him out. The guy wasn't going to stop.

There has been a massive population explosion in the middle east and as oil money dries up there is going to be a lot of angry people the governments are no longer able to take care of and all hell will break loose if action isn't taken to control the fanatics.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070919/20070919005862.html?.v=1

Cheap power will happen and the price of oil will dive, the arabs will do anything to try and keep the price up as demand falls off.

Warren Buffet buying all sorts of rail stocks knows something is up and what is happening is the truck dependant USA transportation system is changing.

www.nitl.org
look at the list of members, it's the who's who of industry and they aren't a bunch of fools that are going to let this country go down the tubes. The falling dollar isn't an accident, Bush knows what he is doing driving down the value of the dollar. The NITL is the most powerful lobbying group in the country, they are the people who run America Inc. and don't want their kids dead or on their knee's praying to allah.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

19 Sep 2007, 12:29 pm

Johnnie wrote:

Quote:

It wasn't a war of last resort,

so you think we should have waited until they built up a giant war machine like hitler did an attack us

Quote:

it wasn't a war to protect the US

Comparisons of Saddam and Hitler are pretty weak. Mussolini makes a much better comparison - a tyrant, but one that really was not exceptional in the way that Hitler and his German precision machine was. The US had no problem in supporting Saddam when he attacked Iran or gassed Kurds. It was only when he got too greedy and took Kuwait that the west dumped him.

And you seem to be confusing Saddam (a secular strongman) with the fundamentalists that actually have declared war on the west. Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11, wasn't particularly anti-western but he did chafe at the box he was put in after the first gulf war. He was being managed, things were under control. His military was hollow and he wasn't a threat. The fundamentalists in Iraq were kept quiet, except for the northern no-fly zone, which Saddam didn't control.

Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

19 Sep 2007, 12:31 pm

Johnnie wrote:

I doubt he was going to give up trying to expand his empire, he tried to take iran and than went after an easier target Kuwiat and we had to drive him out. The guy wasn't going to stop.

.

I seem to remember something about Kuwait having been a part of Iraq untill the British had interfiered in the way they used to do.

In which case, can you blame him for trying to reclaim Kuwait/
Bit like Hitler reclaiming the parts of Germany that was given to Poland after the First World War, (though admittedly he failed to stop).

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

19 Sep 2007, 1:38 pm

No doubt, if he had stopped (and skipped the whole mass murder thing), history would have judged him differently.

Johnnie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: green mountian state

19 Sep 2007, 7:44 pm

Quote:

And you seem to be confusing Saddam (a secular strongman) with the fundamentalists that actually have declared war on the west.