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) 

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?

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 ) 

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 ) 

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  , 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  , 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.   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   

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.