NOSValves Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 HDBRbuilder, I agree completely. I stated earlier in this thread this was not appropriate and tried to ignore it for day's I just couldn't believe most of what was being said so here I am ! Its a little to late now anyway its beyond turning back just like the War. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Well, Mdeneen...I whole-heartedly disagree with your desire to continue on this political/ideological rant in this thread just as much as I would disagree with the following being done: You sitting by the bedside of a loved one in the intensive care unit of a hospital right after an automobile accident...while somebody stands there beside you ranting about how "if he/she had been paying attention, then he/she wouldn't have been in the car accident to begin with...etc...etc." Just look at yourself!! You outta be ashamed!!...along with all the other posters who have grabbed up this thread as a soapbox to express their political/ideological views!!! And I, for one, am NOT a member of EITHER dominant political party...or any other, for that matter!! I am an independent voter who sees a bunch folks arguing about things in the wrong damned place. Like I said...if you folks want to argue your political/ideological views...it isn't hard to start another thread JUST FOR THAT!! IMHO this particular thread isn't the one for that!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Mdeneen.....Come on now "Parrot Limbaugh lines," I haven't listened to Rush since the earlier nineties. Also I only mentioned Clinton once in my entire post, although I'll be the first to admit it was difficult to limit him to one line.. I know all about the budget cuts and somewhat agree with you on the overall caring and attention given to the space program by the last three administrations. My point was the human error was the primary cause of this failure. I think it was disrespectful for you to say that my comments were somewhat fabricated plagiarism. I know what I believe in and I believe in it strongly. It just happens to be that at the end of the day when you line up my thoughts and values on politics I tend to lean on the RIGHT side of things. I've read all your posts on this thread and you have brought up some valid points and I agree that this entire thread is HEALTHY! However, that said, I disagree with most of what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 mdeneen, You are confusing the developing of a nuclear bomb from scratch, from Einstein's ideas to actual realization--you are confusing this with copying someone else's plan. This is easier than reverse engineering, even. Anyway, no one figures Saddam is going to fly a plane to the US and drop a nuclear bomb on New York or Washington. The concern is that he and fellow terrorists will detonate a dirty bomb, and render the area around detonation uninhabitable for a long time and cause many deaths from radiation and cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whell Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Enjoying it (the debate, that is)? Yep, I'd have to agree. This thread has had more action here than most I've seen in quite a while. Lets all keep it in the realm of respectful discourse, as most have, and let the debate continue. However, your earlier comment about Iraq not having WOMD since they do not, in your opinion, posess the scientific capability, Saddam would disagree with you. He admitted to having such weapons already, though he also stated that they were destroyed. Previous UN weapons inspections have confirmed that Iraw previously had such weapons, and the means to develop and potentially deploy them. If you believe the defected Iraqi scientist who has made the news recently, Iraq continues to posess these weapons, but as moved storage and development facilites underground. The weight of the evidence is, fo me, too much to ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I think there is no denying that Sadam does in fact have WOMD. Hasn't it been reliably reported that Saddam himself states that if attacked he will use them. Isn't this proof enough ? MDeneen, So rather then be on the offensive and attack these problems at there source while also doing whatever possible at home to protect are nation. You would rather just let all these countries that promote terrorism , Harbor terrorist and produce these weapons run wild and just take a defensive posture and hope for the best ? Also in turn lose many of are freedoms and rights in the process. Sound a little chicken to me and also a very dangerous under taking. To allow the rest of the world to do as it pleases and just tighten up are borders and allow total control over to Home land sercurity , CIA and FBI wouldn't allow freedom to flourish now would it ! To stop terrorism at home while allowing the rest of the world to do as it wants would only be safe if the entire country was placed in a police state. Close are border completely and Isolate. Wasn't this something similar to what was happening just before WW II without the Police state ??? Isolation is not the answer ! Craig 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Mark, You slid right past my point here. I'm not saying Bush or anyone else has said he will use WOMD if a attacked. I'm saying it has been reported that Saddam himself say's he will use them. Now how can he use something he say's he doesn't have ?? He has them by his own admission !! You keep bringing up nuclear weapons ! Nuclear weapons really isn't the point here. Look at Anthrax for a example.. Look at what it did after 9/11 with just a few letters !! He has admitting having major quantities of this and other easily delivered chemical weapons. This weapons can easily be delivered by terrorists in very rudimentary fashions and be very effective and killing many people and disrupting are way of life ! Right now with the things they have at there disposal now !! In fact I heard many reports pointing out that the Anthrax that was used after 9/11 could of only been supplied by a very few places and yup ! Iraq was one of them !! WOMD come in many ways not just High tech Nuclear !! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 MD,find another hobby,the same old line is gettin' oooooold.I do however support your right to free speech/type.I do however think you have given many speeches,at least here.I can also say you talk/type lots without saying anything, except more of the liberal text you all read from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 We haven't heard much from ole Muammar Qadhafi lately, wonder why that is. Would any form of what Mobile calls "delicacy and insight" policies solved this problem? NO! But a trembling of the earth below his feet sure in the heck brought a conclusion to that dilemma rapidly. Delicacy and Clintons fear of pissing of Yelstin is what got the U.S. in the situation there now in with North Korea. By the way people, don't forget that our pilots had to actually fly around France, not entering there air space, on that mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Mark, So what your telling me is you actually believe that Saddam has no Chemical weapons at all. You actually believe this ?? He is basically full of hot air and we should just pull away from this and do nothing at all ?? Pull in all are forces in the Area and post them on are borders shut it all down start searching door to door for Asama where evr he may be and also throughout are country for terrorist ?? What is it exactly if you were President you would do about all this ? I hear a bunch of criticism and no true solutions ! This all just sounds like the straight Democratic line to me criticism but offer no true solutions. I would much rather have a goverment that does something right or wrong then nothing at all ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pland Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Mike, Here's the problem as I see it .Hussein is a true despot,absolutely in the same vane as Hitler.Your argument that Hitler was different because of the efficacy of German technology and genius(and the gravity of its subsequent threat) is pointless sophistry.Hussein exhibits the same meglomania and willingness to kill minority ethnic groups in order to polarize a core of practical support .This is fact,not hyperbolised conjecture.Hitler did exactly the same thing at the absolute ebb of German national power. Hussein is unique in current history because of his ruthlessness,coupled with his control of the vast oil reserves of Iraq.The genesis of 30+ years of Muslim extremist teachings castigating Israel and by extension,the U.S., creates an active and severe threat to us which will grow (unfortunately)in direct proportion to a lack of terminal response on our part.It is impossible to contain an active dynamic of this nature by thinking,agonizing,etc.,with no conclusion and subsequent application of force to eliminate the threat.Making the assumption that we can contain Hussein(through "thoughtful" inactivity) while he creates the vast wealth to buy the technical produce of France,or other nuclear "Ladies of the evening"is painfully naive. Best, Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pland Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Mike, Here's the problem as I see it .Hussein is a true despot,absolutely in the same vane as Hitler.Your argument that Hitler was different because of the efficacy of German technology and genius(and the gravity of its subsequent threat) is pointless sophistry.Hussein exhibits the same meglomania and willingness to kill minority ethnic groups in order to polarize a core of practical support .This is fact,not hyperbolised conjecture.Hitler did exactly the same thing at the absolute ebb of German national power. Hussein is unique in current history because of his ruthlessness,coupled with his control of the vast oil reserves of Iraq.The genesis of 30+ years of Muslim extremist teachings castigating Israel and by extension,the U.S., creates an active and severe threat to us which will grow (unfortunately)in direct proportion to a lack of terminal response on our part.It is impossible to contain an active dynamic of this nature by thinking,agonizing,etc.,with no conclusion and subsequent application of force to eliminate the threat.Making the assumption that we can contain Hussein(through "thoughtful" inactivity) while he creates the vast wealth to buy the technical produce of France,or other nuclear "Ladies of the evening"is painfully naive. Best, Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Holy Freedom of Speech! I have not been here a couple days, and this thread really has kept going! Let me react to a few things: Just think of us anti-war folks as "anti-mass death" folks. Before people start sacrificing their lives -- I think we really need some evidence that Hussein is planning to turn the world upside down. Sorry Dean...these are more accurately the "anti learn from the past if we don't want to face reality" folks. This is not much different from Mr. Chamberlain waving around a piece of paper that "Herr Hitler" signed promising peace to a crowd of cheering fools. Like they wanted to believe an evil liar then, you want to believe today's evil liar. This lesson is there. Either learn from it now, or let your wants prevail and learn the rest of the lesson later. If it starts, you won't hear any "protesting" from me. The time for that is now. After -- we all need to get on board. Dean, this is a respectable position. Somehow, I don't believe you will have many others of the anti war demonstrators with you on that. I would really like to be wrong about this. Rowoo---Then accept my apology for lumping you into the TalkRadio crowd. Mark, this seems to be a repeating theme from you. Are you trying to delegitimize our positions because maybe we listen to talk radio? Where do you get your untainted news from? I would put up some talk radio shows against the rest of the mass media as being much more reliable with facts. This is an easy argument! Bring it on if you wish! Let's see, they use CBA to roll back environmental protections, they use CBA to roll back school lunches, to eliminate Medicare benefits, Medicaid benefits, AIDS reearch, and on and on. Huh? Mark, where do you get this from, Phil Donahugh(sp?)? Eliminate school lunch? I thought that was dealt with a long time ago. Not spending more every year on social programs equals cuts to the liberal tax & spend crowd. But to the rest of the world, a cut is a cut. Didn't President Bush just agree to spend a ton of money on aids? Edster...you summed it up quite nicely and factually. Please continue to contribute your clear thinking on this... Conservatives have resisted female and ***** suffrage, better conditions and pay for workers, have favored prohibition and racial segregation--- TBrennan...you have totally missed the fact that LBJ depended on the vote from the right to deliver Civil Rights, while people like Al Gore's daddy and the rest of most southern Democrats voted against. And I suppose the "war on poverty" was a smashing success! Liberals are just better at propaganda. I much prefer the free flying comments of those who are using their own thoughts here than those who jump in and "parrot" all the Limbaugh lines - you can tell when every line begins with "Clinton" There you go again, Mark! Have you ever pondered Limbaugh's popularity might be due to the fact that he echoes our sentiments, rather than what you would like to believe, that we "parrot" him? Perhaps you are the one who should have an original thought on this matter. Someone here suggested dissenters have no "alternative plans" to the Iraq war. BULLCRAP. Alternatives? How much time do you have? 1. Securing shipping ports and airports and key infrastructure. Not even being attempted. No money allocated. 2. Reigning in the INS and correcting the ridiculous and unconscienable holes in our VISA and travel systems. Not even being attempted. No money allocated. 3. Equipping properly first responders. Not even being attempted. No money allocated. Thank God! We agree!!! I was beginning to worry about you, Mark! I would only replace the word "alternative" with "in addition to". Andy, I have a lot of respect for people like you, who have served their country. I almost deleted my responses here, but ultimately, I gotta (gulp!) agree with Mark on this. We do need to voice opinions...perhaps this thread is not the ultimate place, but it did take on a life of its own. Forgive me for my part. Let me once again, say thanks and offer my prayers to the speedy return of each of our troops. We lived through the Cold War, didn't we? We took the threat of MASSIVE nuclear war from USSR and successfully DEFENDED ourselves from this. We won, they lost. We needed no preemption against them. We focused on how to offset them, jump ahead of them, defend against them, and made deals with them. This was accomplished through Democratic and Republican administrations. You don't deal with a country which has WOMD (Korea) in the same manner you would with one which is persuing them (Iraq). BTW, you're just gonna hate this, but we won only because of President Reagan and his courage to call the Evil Empire by its rightful name and deal from strength. Had Mr. Carter stayed in office... A few posts back during the Hussein = Hitler nonsense, I tried to point to Germany's incredible and truly world-class science and engineering. They WERE a threat because they did have the world's greatest minds at work. They DID invent the V2 rocket, the buzz bomb, the Panzer, the Messershmidt and on and on. We beat them on Manhatten Project by maybe months. Those were some worldclass butt-kicking serious scientists with honest-to-goodness capability. You aren't going to compare that to bumbling around the desert on flatbeds trying to beg, borrow or steal aluminum rods and scouring the earth for cast-away WWII eastern european machine tools are you? Don't you think that as rich as they are, and with willing countries (say, France, etc.) they cannot acquire what they want but cannot produce themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Andy---And you ignore the fact that after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed the majority of Conservative Southern Democrats, unwilling to any longer belong to an anti-racist political party, turned their coats and became Republicans. I never met a Conservative who fought for Civil Rights or was a Freedom Rider, have you? Comparisons between Hitler and Saddam are silly. Hitler commanded a highly populated, technically advanced and warlike nation. By the late 1930s Germany WAS argueabley the most powerful nation in the world. Saddam commands a lightly populated nation with little power and technology, nor are the Arabs nearly as fierce and warlike a people as the Germans. Personally I'd cut a deal with Saddam and use him to cut at the power and influence of the Saudis. The Saudis and their fanatical Wahabiite notions are far more dangerous to Western values than are the secular notions and limited goals of Saddam. I'd make a client of him again. I don't think our policy here has much subtlety or long range thinking. I'd be thinking here like 15th Century Italians. Mdeneen makes an excellent point in asking why MAD, which worked with people like Stalin and Kruschev is now assumed to not work with Saddam. Fact is Saddam has been minding his own business since the Gulf War. That he has supressed rebellion and dissent within his own borders is none of our affair. Unable to defeat our true enemy, Bin Laden, the administration seeks to divert us by rigging a war against a famous "bad guy". And basically that's all the reason anyone can give for wanting this fight, that Saddam is a "bad guy". Pretty paltry reason for war. If we must have a war to divert the citizenry then I suggest we finish the unfinished business of the War of 1812 and invade Canada again. We got our asses roundly kicked the last time but I think we can whip the Brits and Canadians now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Don't you get it it's a revenge thing! I'm shocked Iraq's not a done deal by now and Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, North Korea or any other country thats deemed a threat isn't being pounded by now. The USA is gotta be the most reluctant empire in the history of the world. Thats what has to be remembered America is an empire. The decline of the American empire was advanced by the attacks of 09/11/01. So what to do, surely to do nothing would be perceived as weakness and would encourage further attacks. Thats just the way it is. Take on the Taliban, not a big enough statement. So Washington vacilates, tries to gain support of the rest of the world including enemies and looks foolish. America does have WOMD, why not pick a countries name out of the hat and unleash a WOMD. No significant American casualties would be incurred, it would make a statement and maybe America wouldn't suffer the same fate as the Romans, Spanish, French, British, Eygptian and Greek empires, to mention a few. The other choice is to be really nice to everybody, mend broken fences, apologize for blunders and the errors of our ways, but I don't think that'll work. Hey revenge may not be a bad thing, especially as I remember "the smell of souls" on 09/11/01. One thing thats been bothering me and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Colin Powell mention at the UN and show satellite photos of a terroist base in Northern Iraq with links to bin laden, why hasn't it been eliminated? That's my rant. Joe T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pland Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 TBrennan, The voting rights act of 1964 was not passed by a greater percentage of democrats,southern or otherwise than republicans.Nor did the majority of southern democrats switch parties.See Al Gore's father's voting record as an example. The deep south was almost exclusively Democrat,and had an abysmal record of voting for civil rights.The actual tally in the senate was 69% Democrats in favor,vs.82% republicans in favor.The house was 61% Democrats in favor vs.80% Republicans in favor.The 74 day Filibuster against the passage of the act was led by and was exclusively a product of the democratic party. Don't bull**** without checking the factsDitto your grasp of the pre and war time ascendency of Hitler. Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 mdeneen, Lets not forget about the real master propagandists like Begala, Carvelle and that crowd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Pat---The Republicans that voted for Civil Rights were temporarily taking a Liberal position. Conservatives take the right stand on an issue once in awhile, dragged kicking and scratching, in order to forestall revolution and anarchy. Note also there were Liberal Republicans like Javits and Rockefeller in those days, not any more. And by the 1968 election and Nixon's Southern Strategy most White Southern Democrats had made the transition to being Republicans, you know, like most White Southerners are today. What did I get wrong about Germany? Do you deny that in 1938 Germany was populous, technically advanced and warlike? One arguement against this war is that if the Germans don't want to fight it.....(credit to The Onion) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 A few thoughts... Read "The Death of Outrage" by Bill Bennett I shows how James Carvelle and others helped Clinton with obstuction of justice instead of protecting our borders. Getting Willies Willy wet was more important than defending our borders. That is why any president that took office after him would have to face the consequences of ineptitude. Uncivilized peoples of the world perceive us as weak. BUT; they perceive the French to be weaker. Just ask a French person that hates being a socialist. ----------------------------------- Evil exists and must be destroyed in its early stages of fruition. This is to minimize the suffering of the just. I think the Iraqi people have suffered enough. Hug an Iraqi Christian today! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.