JUST SHARING AN EMAIL REC' this morning, July 23, 2008.
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person.
I just wanted to pass along
that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his
visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General.
As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent
that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures20playing basketball.
He again shunned the
opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States .
I just don't understand how anyone would want him to
be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is.
What you see in the news is
all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S.
Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
Don Herpen
herpen@comast.net
American by birth
MARINE
by the grace of God
Semper Fi
He was there an hour and you are cryin cause he didnt say Hi?
How many times did Bush come visit and say Hi to ya? And Oo yea. whens the last time Mccain droped by to show his support?
???
McCain's last visit was in March I believe, it was his eighth. Everytime, he has made time to speak with individual soldiers and shown great concern for both their welfare and their opinions. W also takes the time to meet with the soldiers when he is over there, and those occasions have been quite numerous. Obama is missing the point that any ground war is won by the privates and corporals in the field, not the generals in armored bunkers.
I'm not bashing Obama, the man has done great things and is an intelligent and compassionate legislator. He is not what I would consider Presidential material. McCain isn't either, bet he is much closer to my ideal.
Urban Legend -- FALSE (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/afghanistan.htm)
Here's the relevant part:
Comments: The above comments are not only "factually incorrect," but also "inappropriate" for uniformed Army personnel, according to a statement by Bagram Airfield spokesman Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green.
Barack Obama paid a visit to the Bagram air base on July 20, 2008, but neither went to the "Clamshell" nor played basketball, Nielson-Green told NY Daily News reporter James Meek in a story published July 24. He said Obama took time out to greet home-state troops, shaking hands with them and posing for pictures
News photos of the candidate's visits to Iraq and Afghanistan show that he interacted with rank-and-file American troops while in both countries.
Update:
Obama-Bashing G.I. Retracts Claim
NY Daily News "Mouth of the Potomac" blog, 25 July 2008
SO, now that you now it's a right-wing falsification, will you continue to spread it?
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 27, 2008, 05:45:46 PM
He was there an hour and you are cryin cause he didnt say Hi?
How many times did Bush come visit and say Hi to ya? And Oo yea. whens the last time Mccain droped by to show his support?
???
i believe he said this was an email he recieved? so anyway, what terry said. and i believ e bush HAS visited teh troops., presidents ARE after all their boss
and why did Obama NOT visit teh troops in hospital in germany?, i believe he said, it is inappropriate,, well maybe he had a point. i believe it IS inappropriate to visit wounded soldiers as part of a campaign. BUT he could have put the campaign aside and visited tehm. it is NEVER inappropriate to visit these people. NEVER., hell i will have a hard time in this vote, BUT i WILL vote. just dont know who ( yet)
Quote from: trumpetguy on July 27, 2008, 08:13:44 PM
Urban Legend -- FALSE (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/afghanistan.htm)
Here's the relevant part:
Comments: The above comments are not only "factually incorrect," but also "inappropriate" for uniformed Army personnel, according to a statement by Bagram Airfield spokesman Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green.
Barack Obama paid a visit to the Bagram air base on July 20, 2008, but neither went to the "Clamshell" nor played basketball, Nielson-Green told NY Daily News reporter James Meek in a story published July 24. He said Obama took time out to greet home-state troops, shaking hands with them and posing for pictures
News photos of the candidate's visits to Iraq and Afghanistan show that he interacted with rank-and-file American troops while in both countries.
Update:
Obama-Bashing G.I. Retracts Claim
NY Daily News "Mouth of the Potomac" blog, 25 July 2008
SO, now that you now it's a right-wing falsification, will you continue to spread it?
well did he visit teh troops at teh hospital in germany?, and do you have a link to what obama did on this trip, from a neutral source? ( neitehr left, nor right? )
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 27, 2008, 08:17:35 PMwell did he visit teh troops at teh hospital in germany?, and do you have a link to what obama did on this trip, from a neutral source? ( neitehr left, nor right? )
Here's what I have found on the internet (article by Greg Sargent):
A Pentagon spokesperson confirms to me that because of longstanding Department of Defense regulations, Pentagon officials told Obama aides that he couldn't visit the base with campaign staff. This left Obama with little choice but to cancel the trip, since the plan to visit with campaign aides had been in the works for weeks.
The Obama campaign yesterday announced that it had decided to cancel the visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, saying that it would be "inappropriate" to make such a visit as part of a campaign trip.
The McCain camp has nonetheless been using Obama's canceled trip to insinuate that he's anti-troops. "Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."
But it turns out that the Pentagon did in fact tell Obama that in this case, it was not only "inappropriate," but against DOD rules, for him to conduct the visit with campaign staff.
"We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff."
After being told this, the Obama campaign announced yesterday that it had decided it was "inappropriate" to make the visit as part of a campaign trip.
It's unclear how Obama could have made the visit at all, given the Pentagon's directives. No Senate staff was on the trip, and the Obama camp says they received the Pentagon's directives on Wednesday, after they were already abroad.-------------------------------------
Emphasis added by me in the last paragraph.
Now, someone please tell me how repeatedly voting to extend troop presence in Iraq, as McCain has done, is PRO-troop. How is it PRO-troop to try to block an improved GI Bill benefits and then to brag that you helped pass the bill (as McCain did)?
Obama (correctly) opposed the Iraq invasion from the start. He supports getting our troops out as fast as reasonably possible, a position which McCain is now apparently flip-flopping over to hold as well.
And PLEASE tell me how someone who
jokes about bombing Iran is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? Even if you agree with the need to attack another country, that is certainly not a joking matter, ever.
right , what im saying is that part i understand. BUT obama could have left his campaign staff elsewhere, per the pentagons directives, and went in onhis own dime. to do the visit. in other words, he could have suspended the capaign trip/funds, and done it himself. im jsut wondering why he didnt. he could have. jus tNOT part of a campaign trip. that would have pissed me off. using the wounded soldiers as a campaign prop. which i do respect obama for doing that. but like i said. he still could have visited them personally, that in itself is one thing, among a few oterhs i find fault with him on. another thing. that free concert thing tha t preceeded his speech. whas/is there any truth, that i heard that one of the bands played the soviet national anthem, during it?
What this all boils down to is:
A well seasoned legislator with a very honorable military service record vs. an incredibly young junior senator with no real experience past chairing the sub-committee on 'European affairs'
Or.......
A man who started with all the opportunities in the world, took a path of honor and had his whole world yanked out from underneath him for YEARS vs. A man that has had everything from the very beginning served to him on a silver platter
Obama doesn't know what it means to really fight for something you really want and need, he couldn't.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 27, 2008, 09:06:12 PM
right , what im saying is that part i understand. BUT obama could have left his campaign staff elsewhere, per the pentagons directives, and went in onhis own dime. to do the visit. in other words, he could have suspended the capaign trip/funds, and done it himself. im jsut wondering why he didnt. he could have. jus tNOT part of a campaign trip. that would have pissed me off. using the wounded soldiers as a campaign prop. which i do respect obama for doing that. but like i said. he still could have visited them personally, that in itself is one thing, among a few oterhs i find fault with him on. another thing. that free concert thing tha t preceeded his speech. whas/is there any truth, that i heard that one of the bands played the soviet national anthem, during it?
The Decemberists is a local Oregon rock band that opened for an Obama rally in PORTLAND, Oregon, not Berlin. They SOMETMES play a russian-language recording of the Soviet national anthem to open their shows. It was not played at the Obama rally. So no, there's no truth to what you heard.
You conservatives need to learn to use Al Gore's internets and the Google. :flipoff: :laugh: :flipoff:
And no one has bothered to answer my questions.
McCain's "honorable service record" is of value to you, but Kerry's wasn't? Just checking...
Who said anything about Kerry? I don't recall him being in the running this go around.
To me, the race boils down to this:
Someone who "gets it" vs. someone who doesn't. McCain seems to think that the way out of the colossal mistakes of the last seven years is a continuation of the same policies. To me, he doesn't get it.
Obama, even though he lacks the experience of a man in his seventies, gets it. Look where "experience" in the form of duck Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld got us. I'll pass on that, thanks.
Quote from: trumpetguy on July 27, 2008, 09:23:52 PM
To me, the race boils down to this:
Someone who "gets it" vs. someone who doesn't. McCain seems to think that the way out of the colossal mistakes of the last seven years is a continuation of the same policies. To me, he doesn't get it.
Obama, even though he lacks the experience of a man in his seventies, gets it. Look where "experience" in the form of duck Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld got us. I'll pass on that, thanks.
or look at experience in the form of bill clinton as well. as long as obama didnt continue on clintons legacy. then id consider that. ( if he had some experience in power of some sort. hes applying for teh hardest job in the world what has he done that qualifies him for it?( obama), on the same token, and to be fair, so is mccain. what has he done that qualifies him for it? the portland rally info http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight/2008/05/20/free-concert-popular-band-preceded-obama-s-big-rally
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/08f103f55116ea55/a3983cde5481e58c?lnk=raot this thread is interesting lol, lets hope that gstwin does not degenerate into teh name calling that went on there :laugh:
I don't get to vote in the US elections so I won't comment on them but it seems to me that when politicians, particularly those with aspirations, go abroad, meet foriegn leaders and there own countrymen and women serving in hostile places there will always be an element of "Damned if they do - damned if they don't" about who they see and what gets left out of what must be tight timetables.
I suppose, on balance, it is best that they go, having said that I thought the public love-in with Nicholas Sarkozy was a bit odd.......
Quote from: trumpetguy on July 27, 2008, 08:57:55 PM
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 27, 2008, 08:17:35 PMwell did he visit teh troops at teh hospital in germany?, and do you have a link to what obama did on this trip, from a neutral source? ( neitehr left, nor right? )
Now, someone please tell me how repeatedly voting to extend troop presence in Iraq, as McCain has done, is PRO-troop. How is it PRO-troop to try to block an improved GI Bill benefits and then to brag that you helped pass the bill (as McCain did)?
Obama (correctly) opposed the Iraq invasion from the start. He supports getting our troops out as fast as reasonably possible, a position which McCain is now apparently flip-flopping over to hold as well.
And PLEASE tell me how someone who jokes about bombing Iran is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? Even if you agree with the need to attack another country, that is certainly not a joking matter, ever.
obama opposed it. "correctly as you said, and there is no correct nor incorrect in this its just opinion. anyhoo obama opposed it, while most in congress, including liberals, signed for it.
hell obama has no idea whats going on. not many do. hell i support gettign them out. but not willy nilly fast. nor with a "PUBLISHED " timetable. timetables only inform our enemies. and the iraqi's enemies.
alright and who joked about bombing iran? hell obama talked about invading pakistan? same principle?, anyhoo back on topic. who talked about bombing iran. and post links with everythign in context not jsut the parts that agree with your position. , and btw its Mccain, not Mcsame, just liek its Obama not Osama. mmmkay :cheers: flame on . anyhoo id liek to read the article ( IN FULL) ) preferrably from a neutral source if at all possible :thumb:
frigin officers always crying about something ;)
I have way too many thoughts on this subject to even begin to express any of them. Besides, they would probably only piss you all off. I will say this. I have always believed, and will always continue to believe that in order to be a good commander in chief, one should have served in the military. Would you put a car salesman in charge of a f%$king nuclear reactor that sits in your back yard just because he believes in change? Just because someone believes in "change" doesn't make him the best man.
When you are a politician, EVERYTHING is a photo-op.
I live in south Florida. I forget which hurricane it was, but Dubya came to town in the aftermath, with Air Force One full of photographers, so he could get in a few clicks handing out bags of ice for the press. Uh, yeah, thanks Sparky.
As one of the local radio hosts pointed out, it would have been INFINITELY more helpful to us if they had filled Air Force One with ice instead of photographers. :thumb:
Quote from: lewismug on July 28, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
I have way too many thoughts on this subject to even begin to express any of them. Besides, they would probably only piss you all off. I will say this. I have always believed, and will always continue to believe that in order to be a good commander in chief, one should have served in the military. Would you put a car salesman in charge of a f%$king nuclear reactor that sits in your back yard just because he believes in change? Just because someone believes in "change" doesn't make him the best man.
listen, I'm undecided but.... obama = car salesman? really? is that what you're saying here? I think he got a step or two beyond that when he got voted into the federal senate.... just saying.
I'll grant he has no experience and I love how he brags about being against the war from the start (too bad he wasn't even qualified to vote on it at the time **cough** state senate, really easy to take a stand when you can't go back and actually have to make a vote on it).
our other choice rants about finance reform etc. but has a longer lobbyist guest list than practically anyone. he's been in bed with the biggest pac reps for his whole career.
its a dork and a turd sandwich choice all over again folks. abstain in 08! that'll teach em a lesson. imagine if no one voted. not one person, because the choices sucked so much we couldn't stomach it. that would be awesome.... the end of the world.... but awesome.
No, I'm not saying Obama is a car salesman, I'm making the point that I think Obama has about as much experience in running the United States, as a car salesman would have at running a nuclear facility. It shouldn't even be a contest, but these idiots that want to vote for Obama just because he is black are going to f%$k this country up. Clinton was the best thing this country has had in a long time; who cares that he screwed around on his wife. The man was a great president. Even the die-hard republicans admit it. I'm not a republican, and I'm not a democrat. I am for whatever makes the most sense. There is some kind of romance with black elected officials. It's like the entire country thinks that getting a black man into the white house is more important than if he can do the f%$king job well enough to be there. Blacks think that if they have a "person of color" in charge, that they'll be taken care of by their brother/sister. You see how far that got the poor black of Ray Nagin's "Chocolate City". He really cared for them, didn't he. It's a good thing he used all of those buses to help them out instead of letting them flood and then bitching all over the news pretending like it's the white man's fault! You give me a presidential nominee that actually makes sense and has better ideas than either of the two (presumptive) nominees, and I wouldn't give a piss what color his/her skin is. I would vote for that person.
Got off on a little rant there, but hey, it'll be alright.
Here's a nice little read if you have the time. This gentleman puts it a little more eloquently than I could ever possibly put it. http://www.blackcommentator.com/159/159_cover_black_mayors.html (http://www.blackcommentator.com/159/159_cover_black_mayors.html)
im not a registered voter so have no real say in anything but IMHO all the cands are idiots and the vote should be thrown out and we need new cands.
Yeah, we screwed ourselves on this one. One side we got a man that uses "Hope" and "Change," when he has 0 experience in how to do so. Reminds me of class presidents in high school who said the same things, but once elected they realized just like everyone else that none of those things are possible to do or possible to do while maintaining their careers (not that he actualy knows how he is planning on changing anything. Frik, he said he would get together the Chief Joints of Staff and tell them to "End the war," like its a button and since those people can't do anything anyways, it makes none sense.)
On the other hand we have another Democrat that was afraid to run against Obama and Hilary so he jumped ship for the Republicans. He is the essence of a politician:double-minded, back-talking, and flip-flopping.
IMHO, I'm gonna go with McCain. He may be REALLY OLD and boarderline insane, but I don't think he will do too much to screw things up before we can get someone in their who has a clue. This as opposed to Obama who may just jack up our country so bad cause he has no idea what he is doing that we may never be able to come back. BUT I could be wrong. Its a cluster F either way. I also prefer a military man.
Oh, and btw, I am so tired of hearing about the whole Iraq war thing with Bush, Obama, and McCain. When the towers fell, every single one of you (except you pinko commi bastards) wanted revenge. The only person who held their resolve long enough to do it was Bush. Just long enough for the rest of us to figure out revenge meant people would die for it. The men and woman of our brilliant and wonderful miliatry (no joking. I truly believe they are the best this world has and ever will see) are behind it. My brother in law ran three tours and wants to go back. I respect him more than any other human I know next to WW2/Nam vets. If he says its worth it...DAMIT! Its worth it.
Quote from: patrickpruett on July 28, 2008, 07:02:29 PM
Oh, and btw, I am so tired of hearing about the whole Iraq war thing with Bush, Obama, and McCain. When the towers fell, every single one of you (except you pinko commi bastards) wanted revenge. The only person who held their resolve long enough to do it was Bush. Just long enough for the rest of us to figure out revenge meant people would die for it. The men and woman of our brilliant and wonderful miliatry (no joking. I truly believe they are the best this world has and ever will see) are behind it. My brother in law ran three tours and wants to go back. I respect him more than any other human I know next to WW2/Nam vets. If he says its worth it...DAMIT! Its worth it.
I'm no pinko commie bastard and I have a stepson who is a decorated marine (two tours in Iraq). I opposed the war from the beginning and didn't believe the lies. I was right.
I'm tired of people mistakenly trying to link Iraq to 9/11. Even Bush, who has lied so often that he has forgotten what the truth is, denies a link to 9/11. Nothing in Iraq was worth the loss of ONE American soldier, much less over 4,000 dead and 25K maimed for life. If you think it was such a great idea, why aren't YOU over there?
Iraq had and has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has, however, been very profitable for certain well-connected international corporations, who have done sorry work with no oversight for premium pay. Mission Accomplished.
Anyone who votes for McCain votes for a third term of Bush. Enough said.
Quote from: mach1 on July 28, 2008, 05:55:04 PM
im not a registered voter so have no real say in anything but IMHO all the cands are idiots and the vote should be thrown out and we need new cands.
That's rich. Like it takes SO long to fill out a registration. If you don't vote, how can you even complain about the candidates (who were chosen during primaries)?
IMHO, everyone has a moral obligation to participate in the democracy. I haven't missed an election since 1976 (first one after I turned 18!).
the way I look at it the men and women over seas are keeping us safe. The Iraq people are pissed we are over their, yes? well maybe not all but some, do they have terrorists yeah. if we up and leave whats keeping them from trying to screw up our home after we did theirs. thats just me send them home and we may get a few surprises to follow. from what I recall we are over their to help them become a voting place and not dictatorship. am I right or wrong. the only people who comp[lain about the war are hippie bastard, or pansies. why am I not over their? cause I was denied acceptance due to health issues if not I would fighting to keep your ass safe.
I didnt register cause I dont care I have my president and no man controls this country or world. So as long as I do my job thats all that matters. you can vote all you want but it makes no difference on who THEY choose to be president your vote doesnt mean shaZam! its all about who will look the best.
TG, first things first, would you do me a small personal favor and be sure to capitalize Marine, Soldier, Airman, and Seaman.
Next, I don't support what is going on currently in Iraq, but I don't see Obama's ideas as a viable option. His timetables are ridiculously short-sighted. There is after-effect to worry about. I honestly think it would be better to carry on our course for another 4 years and hope for a revolutionary candidate next go around. War has been around since the dawn of sociable man and will be until dusk casts it's withering shadows on what we call humanity. It is a facet of the human nature that will not be changed. Until then, I'm getting ready for round II.
Hey TG, what about teh i belive it was called yellow cake? basically low grade nuclear waste? would that qualify as a wmd, if put into a container, and exploded? it was removed from Iraq, and sent to canada for something , i bring this up cause many say NO wmd's were ever found, i spose i could blame Clinton for 9/11 because wasnt he offered Bin Laden by sudan, and he turned it down?. but then again, we could have had a 9/11 without binladen, but then again maybe not :dunno_white:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 28, 2008, 08:59:34 PM
Hey TG, what about teh i belive it was called yellow cake? basically low grade nuclear waste? would that qualify as a wmd, if put into a container, and exploded? it was removed from Iraq, and sent to canada for something , i bring this up cause many say NO wmd's were ever found, i spose i could blame Clinton for 9/11 because wasnt he offered Bin Laden by sudan, and he turned it down?. but then again, we could have had a 9/11 without binladen, but then again maybe not :dunno_white:
The yellowcake that was sent to Canada earlier this summer was sealed before the current invasion/occupation. We knew exactly where it was, and its location and condition had been verified by the UN team that was in Iraq (and which had told us there were no WMDs). Interesting that we now found it necessary to remove it.
Certainly the yellowcake could have been used in a dirty bomb if it had fallen into the wrong hands. However, Saddam's iron fist had effectively kept terrorists OUT of Iraq. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we de-stabilized it. There were no daily bombings either. It's interesting that in order to prevent violence in Iraq we have turned (via the much-touted surge) to more of a police state in Iraq -- the very kind of government we overturned.
I think it's funny to call out Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden. Was he supposed to see into the future and take him out before 9/11? OTOH, Bush had the opportunity at Tora Bora (AFTER 9/11), but we really needed to invade Iraq for some reason. Now he's Osama Bin Forgotten.
Terry, of course I will capitalize Marine, etc. It was a fast-typing oversight on my part. In the second paragraph, I was using "soldier" generically, not to mean a member of the U.S. Army, so non-capitalized is correct there.
As much as I hate Bush and the other neocon chickenhawks who got us into this mess, I have nothing but respect for the people who are putting their lives on the line every day on his orders. THEY are the real heroes.
"Generation Kill" on HBO is about my stepson's unit. He is Jason Lilley, his real name is in the cast list in the credits, and he even took the picture of Evan Wright that appeared on the jacket of the original book. He was allowed to audition for his part, but he didn't get it. Only one guy in the unit was allowed to play himself. After a year out, Jason is now back in the USMC, training for an even more elite unit (he was in recon). He will probably be deployed again in less than a year.
I am leaving tomorrow morning for Colorado so I won't be able to discuss for a few days. Unfortunately, not on the GS. My in-laws rented a cabin to celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary, and we're joining them for the remainder of the week. It should be cooler than Oklahoma -- hell is probably cooler than Oklahoma right now!
Quote from: trumpetguy on July 28, 2008, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 28, 2008, 08:59:34 PM
Hey TG, what about teh i belive it was called yellow cake? basically low grade nuclear waste? would that qualify as a wmd, if put into a container, and exploded? it was removed from Iraq, and sent to canada for something , i bring this up cause many say NO wmd's were ever found, i spose i could blame Clinton for 9/11 because wasnt he offered Bin Laden by sudan, and he turned it down?. but then again, we could have had a 9/11 without binladen, but then again maybe not :dunno_white:
The yellowcake that was sent to Canada earlier this summer was sealed before the current invasion/occupation. We knew exactly where it was, and its location and condition had been verified by the UN team that was in Iraq (and which had told us there were no WMDs). Interesting that we now found it necessary to remove it.
Certainly the yellowcake could have been used in a dirty bomb if it had fallen into the wrong hands. However, Saddam's iron fist had effectively kept terrorists OUT of Iraq. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we de-stabilized it. There were no daily bombings either. It's interesting that in order to prevent violence in Iraq we have turned (via the much-touted surge) to more of a police state in Iraq -- the very kind of government we overturned.
I think it's funny to call out Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden. Was he supposed to see into the future and take him out before 9/11? OTOH, Bush had the opportunity at Tora Bora (AFTER 9/11), but we really needed to invade Iraq for some reason. Now he's Osama Bin Forgotten.
Terry, of course I will capitalize Marine, etc. It was a fast-typing oversight on my part. In the second paragraph, I was using "soldier" generically, not to mean a member of the U.S. Army, so non-capitalized is correct there.
As much as I hate Bush and the other neocon chickenhawks who got us into this mess, I have nothing but respect for the people who are putting their lives on the line every day on his orders. THEY are the real heroes.
"Generation Kill" on HBO is about my stepson's unit. He is Jason Lilley, his real name is in the cast list in the credits, and he even took the picture of Evan Wright that appeared on the jacket of the original book. He was allowed to audition for his part, but he didn't get it. Only one guy in the unit was allowed to play himself. After a year out, Jason is now back in the USMC, training for an even more elite unit (he was in recon). He will probably be deployed again in less than a year.
I am leaving tomorrow morning for Colorado so I won't be able to discuss for a few days. Unfortunately, not on the GS. My in-laws rented a cabin to celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary, and we're joining them for the remainder of the week. It should be cooler than Oklahoma -- hell is probably cooler than Oklahoma right now!
fair enough, got a link to the yellowcake info? you seem to know all about it. so im assuming you got teh info fropmm a reputable source?, and clinto had the reason to get osama, remember the cole, khobar, llets see, what about all of teh otehr things attributed to him during clintons stay in teh whitehouse?, so he had a reason to have him,, its not like osama was innocent or had done nothging during that tiemframe.
in closing, some liberals see NO FAULT in Obama, and some conservatives see no fault in Mccain. me OTOH find fault in both no matter who wins, this will be a close election. and will still be going on after january, with countless recounts, accusations of fraud, etc from the loser. whomever the loser may be. and one final thing. why is it, Obama wants michigan and florida counted, when the DNC stripped them of tehir delegates.and didnt he agree to this, BUT now he wants it?
Obama is ten times more charismatic than McCain.
There is another story about McCain on a base visit which I won't go into here.
I have a hell of a lot more faith in Obama and I think 4 years of McCain plus the last 8 years of Bush would continue a downward and disastrous trend for this country... especially foreign policy, education, spending, environment, and... o yea... everything...
cool
What qualifies Obama for teh job? what has he done? what has he accomplised? what has he done in an executive role?, him and Mccain are vying for the hardest job in the world. a job i would NOT want, ill give em both props for that :bowdown:
Charismatic? That's a great criteria for determining a President's qualifications. They say Ted Bundy was very charismatic, Charlie Manson too.
to no ones surprise i support and will vote for obama. nothing against mccain other than he is a bush lover and prolly is going to die of skin cancer. the guy is just too old for the office. before anyone goes off on me, i am a cancer survivor(so far) and did 20 years + in the military and retired as a lieutenant commander so i have done more than my share. we need a change from the current administration. our debt is crazy and all that money is going to private contractors, bush cronies, to fund the war in iraq. iraq is bullshit...illegal, is not saving us from anything and as terry mentioned had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq is all about neo con doctrine to overthrow a hostile oil rich country and make it American friendly. well that worked out well so far. as for Afghanistan, where i served twice and was wounded, it is pretty much a quagmire now and we are just repeating the mistakes of the soviets. Pakistan is the new laos/cambodia hiding bin laden and serving as a safe haven for terrorists. i was one of the first into Afghanistan and i do mean the first...there was us and cia and that was it. so i know what i am talking about. obama, if elected, is going to inherit one hell of a mess. mccain, if elected, is going to keep us diggin deeper and deeper in the mess and debt.
Thats your opinion, and ill respect it :thumb:, Iraq was voted into being by most in congress, including clinton, and Obama when did he get into congress?, can anyone tell me that, anyhoo Take care :thumb:
"However, Saddam's iron fist had effectively kept terrorists OUT of Iraq. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we de-stabilized it. "
Are you nuts? :cookoo:
Alright, back on topic..... Obama has flip-flopped on EVERY major stance he has taken since the beginning of the election. "Yes we can." EXCEPT.....We can't drill, no to coal, no new nuclear....the list goes on and on. And for anyone who wants to say that Bush has had eight years to do something about the energy crisis: The Dems have been in control of Congress, and have not allowed any Republican bills dealing with energy to pass. Hell, Nancy Pelosi or however in the f%$k you spell her name won't even allow a vote on anything that even remotely relates to energy! WTF is this? A f%$king communist regime? They're not allowing votes to protect Obama. If they allow a vote, and he votes against something that would help the country, it would make news. And the Dems can't have any kind of negativity about Obama. f%$k the country. They don't give a shaZam! that we are paying almost $5.00 a gallon in some places. The dems will see the severity of their non-action when November comes I think. I just don't see how anyone in their right mind could vote for Obama. The only reason I can think of that someone would vote for him is because he is black, and I've already stated my dislike for that lack of an excuse. Sorry to any of you who are voting for him, but the way I was raised, and the morals I have, I would never vote for him. Oh, and why in the hell do you think he canceled the trip to visit the wounded troops. The way I see it, he simply wanted to visit them as a photo-op. Once he realized he wouldn't be allowed any cameras or his campaign staff to guide him on the best way to talk to a wounded Soldier, he said f%$k it. He doesn't care about the Soldiers. If he truly cared, he would've said "Well, I really want to go and see them, so you guys wait out here for a little while while I go do what's right." How anyone could vote for a man to be in charge of the country and the military that doesn't even care to see the wounded soldiers who are protecting his crazy ass since it won't benefit him any is beyond me. Hell, he's so stupid that he doesn't realize that if he would've gone ahead and visited with them, it would have probably helped him tremendously even though cameras wouldn't have been there. Word gets around. The tide is turning.
Quote from: b_long_1 on July 30, 2008, 08:22:02 AM
"However, Saddam's iron fist had effectively kept terrorists OUT of Iraq. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we de-stabilized it. "
Are you nuts? :cookoo:
well, how do we know there was no al-quaeda in iraq, before us? yeah saddam had a VERY tight cork on it. teh coalition was teh corkscrew which removed it. and yeah everyting came out. whos to say it wasnt lurking under the shadows there?, no one knows. with certainty . sure they know with opinion, but not certainty :thumb:
I have said it once and ill say it again put osama------I mean obama in the white house I dont see him living out his first term. his life will be threatened for being what he is and what he does.so thats fine he wont last long enough to screw this place to shaZam!.
Secret service visit in 5.... 4.... 3.....2.... :laugh: :laugh:
if obama won what a change it would be for the country. it would be so refreshing , no bush, no clinton....no "old boy" network. i do think mccain would do a much better job than bush/cheney but it would not be the significant change we need in this country. somehow i just don't see this country electing a black man with a "muslim" sounding name. but if we did it would renew my faith in the American citizen...which i am. it definitely will be interesting.
TBH frankie, i dont think obama has the first idea how to run this place with its massive clusterfuck goin on, id support him if he had some experience, but being pres. i think there really shouldnt be any " on the job training" if he doesnt make it this time, then have him stay in the senate, get some more experience, and try again anew in '12. TBH i could care less about his name btw there will always be a bush at teh white house
( inside the circles and elsewhere in the landscaping) (http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2/yamahonkawazuki/bushes.jpg)
Quote from: b_long_1 on July 30, 2008, 08:22:02 AM
"However, Saddam's iron fist had effectively kept terrorists OUT of Iraq. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we de-stabilized it. "
Are you nuts? :cookoo:
No, just right. Do some research.
TG got any links to your side of teh story? from a neutral source? aka not a right or left leaning source? ( i am genuine in that question btw ) :cheers:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 03, 2008, 12:00:47 PM
TG got any links to your side of teh story? from a neutral source? aka not a right or left leaning source? ( i am genuine in that question btw ) :cheers:
Try wikipedia or "the Google". Took me about 3 seconds to verify that one.
And as you're doing internet research and posting on websites like this one, remember that McCain admitted last month that he had NEVER been online and doesn't use email. And he wants to be President in 2009? And Obama "isn't ready"? Right...
The evidence leans towards Saddam being a supporter of Al-Q, but onder the condition they stayed the f%$k out of his way. He was aware of how dangerous they were/are and wasn't willing to open himself up to the possibility of being overthrown by them.
Quoting directly from the wikipedia article on Al Qaeda:
"During the Gulf War, the organization's interests became split between outrage at the intervention of the United Nations in the region and hatred of Saddam Hussein's secular government.
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission[135] and the Pentagon;[136] despite these conclusions, Vice President duck Cheney has continued to publicly assert an Iraqi–al-Qaeda link.[137] Recently, the US has acknowledged that the role of al-Qaeda in post-invasion violence in Iraq was overstated.[138] The US also claimed that al-Qaeda was in contact with the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam from its inception in 1999; however, Ansar al-Islam's founder, Mullah Krekar, has staunchly denied any such link.[139]"
Doesn't sound like Saddam supported them -- they wanted to kick him out of Kuwait AND he had a secular government.
Follow the money trail, Al Quaeda used Iraq for money transfers to support terrorism, his countries assistance in laundering money and providing banking services to terrorist organizations were what kept him from having terrorism issues with militant muslim groups. Officially Iraq may have been secular but tell me this what percentage of their population under Saddam's regime were jewish, christian, buddhist etc?
"Following his disastrous defeat in Kuwait, Saddam Hussein, seeking to shore up his support, gave his regime a more Islamic complexion. The Abu Nawas restaurants went dry. Police patrolled the public parks in search of illicit drinkers. An Iraqi who drank had to do so at home and Muslims were banned from selling alcohol, leaving the trade to Christians.
"
More here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/alcohol-returns-to-baghdad-862969.html
Saddam may have claimed a secular government but less than 2% of the population was christian with well over 90% being one muslim sect or another.
His secularism was only to attract the Arab worlds people who were seeking a little more liberal position or getaway from their strict lives in other countries.
His reign was an abomination filled with atrocities. The man was a monster and we left the population at his mercy after Gulf War 1 when so many of them rose up to support what we were doing, George Senior was a coward and his son has rectified the mistake of his father. I disagree with him on many things but freeing Iraq and assisting them in establishing a free and open government was the right thing to do. I also applaud him for allowing the omnibus "assualt weapons" ban enacted during the Clinton years sunset. One of Obama's first actions will be the attempted disarming of the US civiliian population and the castration of our armed forces. McCain is not much better on the subject of gun control but I believe he would be much better in terms of border defense and understanding the needs of our nation as a whole and not attemping to mold us into his image of a utopian society divided along an elitist politcal correctness social divide.
Quote from: bettingpython on August 03, 2008, 07:16:49 PM
One of Obama's first actions will be the attempted disarming of the US civilian population and the castration of our armed forces.
BP, that is not in Obama's platform. Even if it were (and he doesn't feel that way), it would still have to pass Congress, which is owned by the NRA. It will never happen, and I am happy it won't. But it is an example of the rumor and misinformation campaign spread by the NRA. They already own the Supreme Court and Congress, why do they whine so much? Reasonable restrictions aren't so bad. We all agree on the ban on fully automatic weapons and hand grenades.
We spend WAY too much on alleged defense. I would love to see my tax money spent on helping Americans and on finding a way out of our energy mess. As it is, we spend more on alleged defense than the next five largest country's defense budgets combined (or something close to that -- I don't have the exact numbers handy).
I say alleged defense because much of what we are doing is
not defending our country. Pre-emptive invasions and occupations are not defense, even if they are very profitable for Halliburton, etc. What we have done in Iraq, even if Saddam was a tyrant (and I agree that he was) has ensured generations of future terrorists who will hate us. It has not made us safer. AND, worst of all, it wasn't worth one American soldier's life, much less 4000+ and climbing.
The world is full of tyrants, and we cannot be the world's policemen. When there is genocide, the UN should step in with UN troops, not us by ourselves. Otherwise, people can do like we did 230 years ago and stage a revolution if they need to throw off a tyrannical government. But it is not our job to decide for another country what form of government they should have.
I can find no evidence that Al Qaeda laundered money through Saddam's regime. Al Qaeda hated Saddam because he would not impose Islamic law.
I respect the opinions of those with whom I disagree, but I'd rather debate real issues than rumor and misinformation.
Quote from: trumpetguy on August 03, 2008, 05:26:34 PM
Quoting directly from the wikipedia article on Al Qaeda:
"During the Gulf War, the organization's interests became split between outrage at the intervention of the United Nations in the region and hatred of Saddam Hussein's secular government.
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission[135] and the Pentagon;[136] despite these conclusions, Vice President duck Cheney has continued to publicly assert an Iraqi–al-Qaeda link.[137] Recently, the US has acknowledged that the role of al-Qaeda in post-invasion violence in Iraq was overstated.[138] The US also claimed that al-Qaeda was in contact with the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam from its inception in 1999; however, Ansar al-Islam's founder, Mullah Krekar, has staunchly denied any such link.[139]"
Doesn't sound like Saddam supported them -- they wanted to kick him out of Kuwait AND he had a secular government.
well i dont support wikipedia on this, mainly because it can be edited at will BY ANYONE :thumb:, got a link to a neutral source?, you are the one making the pro obama claims, you can provide the links , as i would expect if i made an anti obama claim, i would be expected to provide proof, such as obamas ties with ayres, whom he claimed his children and ayres children attended the same school, how is that, ayres children are grown, whereas obamas are not http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/20/politics/politico/main4029480.shtml
I do not agree with the ban on class 3 weapons and other destructive devices.
I don't give a rats ass if my neighbor owns a howitzer as long as he doesn't point it at my house.
The Anti gun coalitions funding Obama will use him to push through new gun control acts.
Hide and watch. He is a poorly quallified puppet being used by special interests groups to gain additional power in washington. The guy's a hollow shell and will not be good for this country.
Again TG you and I do not see eye to eye. Bush has been absolutely horrible where domestic energy and border security is concerned, he isn't much of a diplomat but he has been straight forward and tried to do the right thing for our nation.
Personally I wish for another president with the strength and integrity of Ronald Reagen, I guarentee you it's not Obama I see Barrack as being a flop something along the lines of the Carter administration, weren't those such great times with rising unemployment inflation and interest rates soaring out of control? McCain is the lesser of 2 evils unfortunately. I trust him to botch the job slightly less than Obama but I believe we still may exist in some not too much further diminished status than what we are now. I say this in jest but under Obama we'll need to learn french and Spanish, if our neighbors threatened us he'd just hand the key's over.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 03, 2008, 09:23:37 PM
well i dont support wikipedia on this, mainly because it can be edited at will BY ANYONE :thumb:, got a link to a neutral source?
Wikipedia can indeed be edited by anyone at any time. However, the entire section I quoted is footnoted. Check those sources. If you have ever tried to edit Wikipedia (and I have) you'll be challenged almost immediately if you post falsehoods on anything current. Even if you edit, you'll be asked to provide sources.
Quote from: bettingpython on August 03, 2008, 09:36:07 PM
I do not agree with the ban on class 3 weapons and other destructive devices.
I don't give a rats ass if my neighbor owns a howitzer as long as he doesn't point it at my house.
I have had some crazy neighbors. What if they were cleaning their howitzer and it went off? It has to be pointed at SOMEBODY'S house!
Quote from: bettingpython on August 03, 2008, 09:36:07 PM
The Anti gun coalitions funding Obama will use him to push through new gun control acts.
Again I'm calling BS on this one. Cannot and never will happen.
Quote from: bettingpython on August 03, 2008, 09:36:07 PMAgain TG you and I do not see eye to eye. Bush has been absolutely horrible where domestic energy and border security is concerned, he isn't much of a diplomat but he has been straight forward and tried to do the right thing for our nation.
And again I disagree. Bush cares only for his and his family's wealthy associates. While the Iraq war has been a disaster for most Americans, especially those who have lost family members, it has been a gold mine for the wealthy buds of the Bush and Cheney families. As you said, follow the money. And it's left quite a trail...
But thanks for the respectful dialogue and debate! That is what can make our country into the great place it once was. :thumb: I'll ride with you anytime, BP. Anytime it's not 106F!
I went on a ride with a troop who will be sent over seas within the next 6 months. H esaid flatout and most troops agree, we already are over their and spent all that time and lost all those people why just give up and let those people die for nothing we should continue to fight and take over the oil sources and make out gas cheaper, at least we fought for something and those people who already died diead for something. thats coming from someone who already spent time in iraq and will be sent back soon. so like he said we pull out and our fallen troops died for nothing, does anyone care about that?
what the hell, err why not for a while we were accused by the liberals, err some of tehm, for going to iraq for the oil. so why not at this point lol. again TG got any neutral links, you made the argument, you can post the links, if i make an argument eithr pro or against obama/mccain, i do the same :thumb:
I can't understand "why going to war over oil" has such negative connotations, as if we were going to war over something trivial. Can you imagine if we were suddenly cut off from oil, or limited to only what we can produce on our own? At this point everyone in this country depends on oil as much as we depend on water, or food, or air. We are just getting a taste of what it would be like, by paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.
I believe we should be putting every resource available into alternative energy solutions, but at this moment in time, we need oil. Without oil, our economy, our civilization would come crashing down.
No oil means no food in the stores, no way for most of us to get to work, no job to go to if we could get there.
Quote from: pkhoff on August 04, 2008, 05:51:32 AM
I can't understand "why going to war over oil" has such negative connotations, as if we were going to war over something trivial. Can you imagine if we were suddenly cut off from oil, or limited to only what we can produce on our own? At this point everyone in this country depends on oil as much as we depend on water, or food, or air. We are just getting a taste of what it would be like, by paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.
I believe we should be putting every resource available into alternative energy solutions, but at this moment in time, we need oil. Without oil, our economy, our civilization would come crashing down.
No oil means no food in the stores, no way for most of us to get to work, no job to go to if we could get there.
And here my friends we have a classic example of the perfect candidate for the bush administration. I want. I get attitude.
So my friend are you saying that because you don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline you are simply going to kill civilians, destroy peoples homes, their lives, blue on blue kill british troops. So you can fill your car up for cheap??? My god its a f%$king good job i don't live by you because you deserve one hell of a slapping.
Its people like you that give America a bad name in the world. You have it in your head that you can storm accross the world taking what you want to make your own pidly life better. I think even American troops would want to pay you a visit. Loosing their lives just because you think it is good for their lives to be put on the line to satisfy yourself.
I think you are beginning to see my point. Going to war over oil has HUGE negative connotations. This is a world economy. Its not like theres no oil out there for you. Its just you have to pay for it. Like the country which is farming it is having to pay for that. You buy it off them. You dont just go in and take it and destroy everything on the way.
Again like i said, its people like you that make America look like a bully in this world. Even if Bush did go to war for oil which is highly likely, you shouldn't support him in doing it.
You are not going to starve, you are not guna run out of special 'filter water' and yes you will be able to get to work and have a job there. It will all just cost abit more. As the worlds supply of oil goes down, demand will increase. Same for everyone - your no different. Infact you pay about half the price that we do over here in Europe for the benefits oil brings us. So go away and rethink what you just said.
Can i please just come and stangle you?
Quote from: Kasumi on August 04, 2008, 06:12:42 AM
So my friend are you saying that because you don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline you are simply going to kill civilians, destroy peoples homes, their lives, blue on blue kill british troops. So you can fill your car up for cheap???
Hmmm, kinda like how Britain has persecuted entire races and creeds and religions throughout history for it's own gain???
I'm not agreeing with him, just pointing a pattern of human nature. Those with the biggest bombs/sticks/knives get what they want, it's been that way for thousands of years, who are we to change that. Certainly merry ol Britain wasn't keen on change when America decided it would be a land free of religious persecution and unjust taxation. Now if we could just remind everyone here that this nation only exists because people wanted to be free to practice their own religion without persecution. Use google earth and zoom way the hell out, you can just barely make out the shape of the hand basket..............
Quote from: mach1 on August 03, 2008, 10:51:21 PM
I went on a ride with a troop who will be sent over seas within the next 6 months. H esaid flatout and most troops agree, we already are over their and spent all that time and lost all those people why just give up and let those people die for nothing we should continue to fight and take over the oil sources and make out gas cheaper, at least we fought for something and those people who already died diead for something. thats coming from someone who already spent time in iraq and will be sent back soon. so like he said we pull out and our fallen troops died for nothing, does anyone care about that?
This argument is faulty on many levels.
First, NO ONE, not even the crazy neocons in the Cheney administration, are suggesting we take over the wells. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Those crazies even argued that the Iraqi oil would pay for their own reconstruction (hasn't happened that way, just like many of the lies they told). In reality, they knew that destabilizing the region would result in higher oil prices, and they hoped we would control the wells to have a piece of the profits for their cronies.
Second, your "troop" friend should describe the kind of victory that would allow us to pull out and not have the fallen "die for nothing" (your term). We toppled Saddam, we saved the world from the (nonexistent) WMDs, we gave them a constitution and an election. "Mission Accompished" was over five years ago (longer than WW II). What's left for us to see happen? We are now
occupying Iraq -- not something which most of our troops are trained for. They don't want us there, so it is time to leave. There is no victory in an occupation, which is just what the neocons and their war profiteer buddies want -- perma-war. It's the perfect storm -- a profitable war which can never end.
And people like you fall for it. :dunno_white:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 03, 2008, 09:23:37 PM
well i dont support wikipedia on this, mainly because it can be edited at will BY ANYONE :thumb:, got a link to a neutral source?, you are the one making the pro obama claims
These are not Pro-Obama claims. It's about whether Al Qaeda existed in Irag before we "liberated" them. The sources are there in the Wiki article. If you need me to hold your hand and link them here, ask McCain.
:nono: Oh, that's right, he's computer illiterate. In 2008.
And I'm saying, regardless of Wiki, everything I've seen has shown a 'grudging friendship' between the two. Neither wanted to be openly viewed as helping the other but they both were of use to the other. There's a reason Al Q wanted to overthrow Saddam, but never did.
Quote from: spc on August 04, 2008, 07:00:15 AM
And I'm saying, regardless of Wiki, everything I've seen has shown a 'grudging friendship' between the two. Neither wanted to be openly viewed as helping the other but they both were of use to the other. There's a reason Al Q wanted to overthrow Saddam, but never did.
Could be a grudging friendship, since they're both Sunni. And Saddam kept down a Shia majority.
But there was no active Al Qaeda cell before 2003, and there was NO connection to 9/11 with Iraq. We had no reason to go there other than the false reasons which were manufactured by the neocons, fed to Congress, and willingly spread by a compliant press.
Yes there were connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda used Iraqi state owned banks to launder money.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hosadw.htm
Quote from: bettingpython on August 04, 2008, 08:13:37 AM
Yes there were connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda used Iraqi state owned banks to launder money.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hosadw.htm
A May 2003
civil case using now discredited "evidence" and a Spring 2003 "we think Saddam supported Al Qaeda" quote? That's the evidence? Come on. That has not been proven and probably wasn't proven because it couldn't be. Don't you think Bush an Cheney and all their echo chamber would be abuzz with real evidence if it existed?
The alleged meeting in Prague discredited by the agent involved in Dec 2003:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE1D6153CF930A25751C1A9659C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE1D6153CF930A25751C1A9659C8B63)
Bush denying Iraq and 9/11 connection in September 2003:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html)
My statement that Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until 2003 (after we invaded) still stands. Saddam was trying to get money out of Iraq for his "retirement" in exile. I doubt that he would have been stupid enough to launder money for terrorists. Even if he did, they were not active in his country. With Al Qaeda's connections in UAE and other Arab countries, they didn't need Saddam's banks.
QuoteSo my friend are you saying that because you don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline you are simply going to kill civilians, destroy peoples homes, their lives, blue on blue kill british troops. So you can fill your car up for cheap??? My god its a f%$king good job i don't live by you because you deserve one hell of a slapping.
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, I am merely pointing out that of the many reasons/excuses given for going to war, securing oil is no less legitimate than many others.
Yes, it is a good f%$king job you don't live near me, in the U.S we are still allowed to defend ourselves against assault.
QuoteIts people like you that give America a bad name in the world. You have it in your head that you can storm accross the world taking what you want to make your own pidly life better. I think even American troops would want to pay you a visit. Loosing their lives just because you think it is good for their lives to be put on the line to satisfy yourself.
Again, I'm not advocating war for the purpose of taking oil, or any other reason for that matter. Though I do believe that in some cases war is a necessary evil. I am pointing out that when someone spits, "This war is all about oil", that person should try going without and then see how they feel about it.
QuoteI think you are beginning to see my point. Going to war over oil has HUGE negative connotations. This is a world economy. Its not like theres no oil out there for you. Its just you have to pay for it. Like the country which is farming it is having to pay for that. You buy it off them. You dont just go in and take it and destroy everything on the way.
Again, I said nothing about "just taking it". Going to war, period, has HUGE negative connotations.
QuoteYou are not going to starve, you are not guna run out of special 'filter water' and yes you will be able to get to work and have a job there. It will all just cost abit more. As the worlds supply of oil goes down, demand will increase. Same for everyone - your no different. Infact you pay about half the price that we do over here in Europe for the benefits oil brings us. So go away and rethink what you just said.
Yes, the supply will decrease, and the demand will increase, especially as China becomes more industrialized. I understand this, that's why I think alternative energy sources should be explored and expanded. One day there will be no more oil, or so little of it that the price will be so high that only the richest can afford it.
QuoteCan i please just come and stangle you?
I really wish you wouldn't, here in the U.S. we are not required to submit to robbers and thugs, and it likely wouldn't turn out well for you. OTOH, I'm not sure what "stangling" entails, I might like it. :wink:
OKay lets discuss some of Obama's campaign points direct from his website.
"Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice."
So your telling me that you support a cndidate who wants to fairly and eqitably let Arabs from suspect nations ithrough our borders? Manpower resources are limited and must be effectively targeted at the highest risk groups to attempt to catch potential terrorists seeking to enter our country. Otherwise we would need a huge expansion in federal law enforcement.
"Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance: Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment"
Yes theres a great Idea let's keep paying people who are unemployed, who pays for unemployment insurance? The employers? No the employed do, every matching dollar of unemployment insurance paid by your employer is a dollar not being paid to you. Let's invest in something more meaningful such as job retraining programs. Let's get the illegals out of the country so that they don't take jobs for substandard pay. Plumbing is a very unpleasent job, licensed plumbers make good money, why? because it compensates them to what is oftentimes a literally shi@@y job. Ditch diggers used to make a good wage until a crew of illegals could be hired to do it for less.
Ahh yes one of my favorite subjects. Labor, minimum wage and unionization having had a herd of strippers try to use collective bargaining on me when I ran a bar this is one of my pet peeves.
What does raising the mandated minimum wage do? Employers affected by this are usually highschool or entry level jobs, low pay is an incentive to do something more with your life. It was for me anyway. Suddenly McDonalds and other industries which were traditionally in this category focus on a lean manufacturing model to maximize production and minimize employee staff numbers thus lessening the financial burden on the corporation and increasing the number of welfare recipients getting unemployment, whisch is even lesss than minimum wage. Through a combination of education and hard work its been over 15 years since I made anywhere close to Minimum wage, if a highschool dropout like me can bust his ass and get to where I am there's lotsa people out their who can do it. shaZam! pay is it's own incentive instead he is saying it's okay not to hope dream be an individual and aspire to be more and pursue hapiness, we'll give you more money to stay where you are at.
You know maybe I should be pro Obama because I could easily have been replaced in almost every Job I have ever held if just a few more peopel would apply themselves. Never mind it's okay to live off the government handouts that way you don't compete with me in the job market.
Found it!!!
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Magazines for hundguns with capacities in excess of 10 rounds were banned under this act for all but LEO's,
And the Tiahart ammendment only forces non federal agencies to get their information from the federal government, it restricts gun trace information from frivilous uses and public release intentional or accidental to nefarious individuals.
This is the cry of the gun banning left, we support you but let's be reasonable. Soon reasonable will mean you can own an airsoft pistol only if it's registered federally.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/bettingpython/diy_obama_house.jpg)
YES WE CAN CONSUME LESS, LIVE ON LESS HAVE FEWER POSSESIONS AND LIVE IN SMALLER HOMES THAN OUR PARENTS GENERATION!!
:icon_rolleyes:
Do as I say not as I do I am better than you.
know what i might just stock up on clips higher than 10 rounds. cause if this goes through ( a hard thing to do, BUT possible.) those currently in possesion, usually are grandfathered in, and values would adjust accordingly, if he tries to take my guns away, he wont succeeed. they wont be found. ( except by me )
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
welcome to the internet
im writing in ron paul anyway.
i still wonder why he didnt visit teh military hospital in germany?, yeah he couldnt do it as a campaign visit, but hell he can use his own fundage, and go there himself. and leave the press behind. what gives with that?