Mediocrity at its best

For the Love of God

from JoeUser Forums


So I wake up, with a steaming cup of joe, and I check my blog site, and voila! I'm being hammered by most everyone who commented on one of my articles. It's not that I'm being slammed, it's just that most of the people slamming me have their facts wrong they end up sounding like someone who's on the who's who of mental illness. Once again let me state for the record that these are SOLEY my opinions, and based on that others are encouraged to comment. It's pretty much a free forum, it can get crazy, and resort to name calling, but that goes with it when politics are involved. For the record, I have not been offended, and I hope that I have not offended anyone...If I have, tough! To be offended by a faceless entity, you shouldn't even be on the computer. Anyways enough of the preamble...lets get to it.

Like I always do when I wake up, I turned on the news...GUESS what? Two more American soldiers died in Iraq. Does anyone care anymore, or have we become so numb to the killing. Do you think that Bush stays up at night taking the responsibility? Well he dosen't, he sleeps soundly knowing his two daughters are safe and sound with their Secret Service Escorts. Why does it always have to be the pauper's children used as pawns in a game of world-wide chess.

Bush claims to be a Christian, but Christianity is a man-made religion and anything man-made has its faults. Does a Christian knowingly send people to their deaths, does a Christian double-talk, does a Christian confer with his team first then God? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Bush isn't a Christian, that's not for me to do, but do we see any fruits of the spirit? I would hope that Bush has one guilty bone in his body, and that this "THING" in Iraq comes to an end sometime soon.

In my humble opinion I really do not think that this nation can take too much more of this. Just yesterday I saw on the news that some more soldiers were going to be deployed to Iraq. What's up with that? Did the United States hand over power? Why are we still in Iraq? Is it because Bush is such a darn nice guy? Oh I get it, Bush cares sooooo much for the Iraqi people that the United States is going to squat in Iraq for a little bit longer, how many U.S. troops will die before we pull out of Iraq for good?

Yeah, some of you think this is just the ramblings of a delusional man, or someone who needs some Prozac. I'm telling you people, things are going to get worse and worse...soon the United State won't be able to lie about it anymore...the truth is that the United States is having a HARD TIME in Iraq and the rebel clerics and their followers are giving the United States a run for their money.

No matter how this Iraq thing pans out, no matter what happens, the fact still remains the U.S. soldiers that were killed today along with the other 999, won't be coming back anytime soon, that's over 1000 families devastated...What are our fellow Americans dying for? I doubt that Bush even knows now, it's all about saving face, refusing to admit he made a mistake thinking the people in Iraq would let the Americans walk into their cities, and let them do as they pleased.

Where are the "Weapons of Mass Destruction?". I think that's what the American people are still waiting for...oh that's right there were none! That was the whole premise of going into Iraq, because the evidence now points out that Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 hijackings. So much for doing the right thing, regarding the welfare of individual lives, instead of pulling out of Iraq the U.S. is deploying more troops to the area.

As I wrap things up today I want you guys to hug those you love, and feel lucky that your loved ones are still with you, and that they weren't killed in a roadside bomb, or hit by a stray bullet; and lay dying in some foreign land. When you do hug that loved one, remember there are families that can't do that anymore.

The Bush War Machine continues to roll, and the death toll rises.
politics
21,350 views 63 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another great article! If Europe looked at the US and decided we were cheated and hoodwinked by our leader and became very worried that he would run the US for yet another four years, and they decided that we had tortured and killed enough people and that we are, in fact, a danger to the world, and they marched over here to take him out of power and give us our freedom, do we think we would fight them?

I love your ending.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that in order to win the war on terror we have to change the tyranical governments in the Middle East.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I won't try to convince you to change your opinion. There are a lot of people that feel the same way as you and I can't say I blame you with the way the media has portrayed the whole situation. But the fact is a lot of people still support Bush and his stance on the War in Iraq (for good reason), and I am one of those people.

There is an interview with 4-star General Tommy Franks, who lead the first attacks on Iraq, that has some very good points to counter what people opposed to the war are saying. The full interview can be found here: Link

Some of the highlights:

"ROBERTSON: What about the whole thing about chemical warfare? You were warned, I believe by (Hosni) Mubarak and King Hussein, that Saddam Hussein was definitely going to use weapons of mass destruction. At least chemical or biological against your troops.

FRANKS: No doubt about it. I have told a lot of people in this country that I think maybe no one was more surprised than I was that we didn't have those weapons used against our troops in the very early days of this war in Iraq. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that to have not acted after 9-11 ... I am sitting in Washington D.C. this morning, a couple of miles from the Pentagon and I remember what that looked like September 2001. At the time when we were having our troopers fly in the no fly-zones over Iraq every day, and we'd been doing that for 10 years, and then all of this intelligence information that was coming in, as well as these hits on state and other leaders in the Middle East, telling us that there is no doubt that Saddam has these weapons. Pat, I don't think there is any way in the world that my country could have stood by and not taken action.

ROBERTSON: You said in your book, it is like having a pistol disassembled with boxes of cartridges on the table. They just haven’t been put together yet. Have you found all of the elements and what did you find in terms of WMD?

FRANKS: The way I describe it to my friends is, I remember when I was in high school, I learned about the periodic tables. We learned about hydrogen and oxygen, and if you put that stuff together as H2O, you get water. In Iraq, we didn't find any H2O, but we found an awful lot of H, and we found an awful lot of O. Some reporter in New York asked me a couple of days ago, well now, General, isn't it true since we didn't find the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it proves that we failed and made a bad decision when we went into Iraq? I looked at him, and said, Well, do you think it would have been better for us to just sit back and wait for him to put that stuff together and use it against us? "
------------------------------------------------------------------

"ROBERTSON: Last question: What about our commander-in-chief? Did he do a good job, in your opinion, or has he done a good job?

FRANKS: He has been a great leader for this country. I made a comment shortly after I retired, that I believe that in the future, people will look back on George W. Bush and reflect that he has been a hero of his time. I am obviously a fan. "
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
WiseFawn,


In regards to your question: Yes, I think the bulk of the American people would fight, even those who do not like Bush. It's one thing for the people of America to take power from their elected leader. But, it's another thing when another country does it: ala our troops in Iraq. See other countries really have no business in countries but their own, it's unfortunate that America loves to intervene everywhere, but here at home. I remember when Yugoslavia was going through their civil war, America stood on the sidelines until almost half a million people were killed because of their religion. Then they made a show with only a handful of troops to try to stop Slobadan M.'s onslaught.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine,

I think that in order to win the war on terror we have to change the tyranical governments in the Middle East


What a pleasure, and again the pleasure is all mine. Once again the only terror is the United States playing the cop role in the Middle East. This is not a modern day Germany with a charismatic leader like Hitler, who is practicing genocide. These are people who are rooted in a single belief, with a few bad apples who hate America. Big deal, every country in the world hates America. Who said it was our duty to change governments? What if someone wanted to change our government? How would you feel if the Chinese came over here and did just that? Don't think they could do it? They have a standing army of over one million troops, that's not counting reserves...if they wanted to, they could do it. How come we never sent a force over there when human rights violations were taking place, China has one of the worst governments in the world, but the U.S. just sat back and watched, because if the U.S. were to intervene; they'd be in a world of hurt. The United States picks it's battles carefully, and usually picks those they think they can win. Once again who made America the Judge, jury, and executioner?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tyveil,

FRANKS: No doubt about it. I have told a lot of people in this country that I think maybe no one was more surprised than I was that we didn't have those weapons used against our troops in the very early days of this war in Iraq. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that to have not acted after 9-11 ... I am sitting in Washington D.C. this morning, a couple of miles from the Pentagon and I remember what that looked like September 2001. At the time when we were having our troopers fly in the no fly-zones over Iraq every day, and we'd been doing that for 10 years, and then all of this intelligence information that was coming in, as well as these hits on state and other leaders in the Middle East, telling us that there is no doubt that Saddam has these weapons. Pat, I don't think there is any way in the world that my country could have stood by and not taken action.


First off, at no point is there difinitive proof that Iraq had any WMD. Second, it's already been confirmed Iraq played no part in the 9/11 attacks. The United States was lied to, and Tommy Franks bless his soul, is not going to bad mouth the president...because of this made up war, he gets to write a best selling book. At least someone is profiting from all the American deaths.

FRANKS: The way I describe it to my friends is, I remember when I was in high school, I learned about the periodic tables. We learned about hydrogen and oxygen, and if you put that stuff together as H2O, you get water. In Iraq, we didn't find any H2O, but we found an awful lot of H, and we found an awful lot of O. Some reporter in New York asked me a couple of days ago, well now, General, isn't it true since we didn't find the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it proves that we failed and made a bad decision when we went into Iraq? I looked at him, and said, Well, do you think it would have been better for us to just sit back and wait for him to put that stuff together and use it against us? "


Now he's justifying going into Iraq. If the readers out there can't see that, then this nation is in trouble. The chemicals he's talking about can be found in any science classroom at any college. Hell yes! They made a bad decision, though Franks says it was not...Mr Franks, tell that to the families who lost loved ones, and no WMD were found. Once again a bunch of double talk, and rationalizing.

FRANKS: He has been a great leader for this country. I made a comment shortly after I retired, that I believe that in the future, people will look back on George W. Bush and reflect that he has been a hero of his time. I am obviously a fan


Of course Franks is a fan, not only does he have a best selling book, but Franks is also Marketable- Speeches, lectures, interviews, he's got a cush job as an advisor. He owes all his success to Mr. Bush. Let's see no WMD were found, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Osama Bin Laden got away- remember the Bin Laden's are close friends of the Bush's, and over 1000 American soldiers have been killed. Bush, it's time someone told you to take a big fat flying leap off of a steep pier. Can anyone justify our role in Iraq, not rationalize, JUSTIFY?

As for Bush being a HERO, why not make Hitler, Stalin, Edi Amin, Noriega, Arafat hero's also. Why stop with one MORON, let's include them all.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Michael,

Excellent article. I will warn you, however, that there are many here who take the position that this war had nothing to do with WMD, and that's just a liberal lie (I'm not a liberal, and it seems to me that was said; but since I can't quote the exact moment it was said, I refrain from commenting).

As to offending, I am going to make a quick mention that the people I have seen offended (not me; though we disagree, I enjoy the intellectualism of your posts in general), have been offended by the name calling that goes beyond the objective in your posts. Write your way, but in replies on other people's threads, you may want to keep the arguments to the subject at hand and not make it personal (anyway, just a little constructive criticism there).
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon MacLeish,

As to offending, I am going to make a quick mention that the people I have seen offended (not me; though we disagree, I enjoy the intellectualism of your posts in general), have been offended by the name calling that goes beyond the objective in your posts. Write your way, but in replies on other people's threads, you may want to keep the arguments to the subject at hand and not make it personal (anyway, just a little constructive criticism there).


I hear what you are saying loud and clear, and I appreciate that. I really do. In reference to the name calling...I've never made any of my replies personal. As for the name calling, I believe I lack a little Tact, therefore...I will keep that in mind when I respond to comments...though I have never resorted to using derogatory words, or profanity...I do understand what you are trying to convey. I believe people will get mad without the name calling though, so I just speed the process up--Just kidding, just a little levity there. Believe it or not, I enjoy when people comment, that's why I make it a point to respond to each. Thank your for your comments, they are most welcome anytime.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You guys can rest easy regarding our elections, there will be European observers to monitor our elections. Link

The stricly legal question to what "right" we had to go into Iraq was UN resolution 678.

Who said it was our duty to change governments?


FDR. Link

What if someone wanted to change our government?


Good luck. The US has one of the oldest active governments. There have been other countries who wanted to change our government, and they haven't succeeded. I think the US has moral superiority to dictatorships. Do you?

The Chinese are not currently a serious conventional threat to the US mainland. In order for their army to invade they would have to get across the Pacific Ocean, which would be tricky considering our naval dominance.

What is wrong with picking our battles?
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Michael I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

1. If we don't stay in Iraq now then we leave ourselves open to repeat the past. During the 70's the U.S. supported the Afghanistan fighters against the USSR. After the USSR pulled out we left that country out to dry. If we had spent a little time helping them, then the terror camps and radicals would not have helped bring down the towers. How ever we got into the war, if we cut and run like you subject, we are just asking to repeat our mistakes.

2. The WMD was never the reason why we went into Iraq. We went into Iraq because Sadam did not live up to his end of a peace treaty. We beat him fairly during the first war in 91 and he signed a piece of paper saying that he would show the world that he had gotten rid of the WMDs. He never did.

It would be like the guy next door beating his wife and kids every day. Then one day he beats your dog. You decided to kick his ass. When you finished, you had him sign a promise not to beat anybody any more. Two days later he beats his kids right in front of you and then flips you off. Your telling me that you would not have the right to kick his ass again?

What use is a peace treaty if no one follows it. Hitler broke every treaty that he signed. The world would be allot different if someone would have had kicked his ass when broke his treaties.

3. Last time I checked military service was "VOLUNTARY". A fact that Michael Moore seems to gloss over. Parents don't enlist their sons or daughters in the military. It is the individual choice to volunteer, know one put a gun to their head and force them to sign. I've been in service for over 17 years and have noticed that most people that enlist DO NOT come from the lower classes of society as Moore claims. The next time you watch that movie of half truths and incomplete interviews you will hear him say "that only one member of congress has an enlisted son or daughter presently in the military". Over 15 others have had children serve as enlisted in the past and another 36 presently have children that are officers presently in service. I guess that having your children serving, as officers don't count to Mister Moore.

4. The average enlistment contracts for a soldier serving in the military is two to four years. That means almost all of us personnel in service since 9/11 have enlisted or reenlisted voluntarily. We go where we are told to go and fight who we are told to fight. If you don't think that Iraq is the right place to fight, then let me ask you one thing: has there been an attack inside the U.S. since 9/11? No, because we are fighting them in they’re back yard. During my eight months in Iraq, 3/4 of all dead or captured that I seen was NOT Iraqi, but foreign fighters that came there to die for Allah. I would rather have them dieing there for Allah then here attacking my wife and home. Again, those 999 soldiers that have died are “VOLUNTEERS”.

You may vote what ever way you wish to this election, that is your right. But just remember, do you want to go back to fighting terror using a law enforcement agencies (which can not arrest anybody outside the US) or finish them off and bring democracy to other countries in the process. For some reason the Democratic party don't want to let others vote for who leads them.

That's my two cents
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine,

You guys can rest easy regarding our elections, there will be European observers to monitor our elections. Link

Right, like that really helped when the ballots were messed up in Florida. No matter if God himself were to monitor our elections, it still really wouldn't make a difference. I really can't rest easy knowing that Bush will probably get the nod again.

The stricly legal question to what "right" we had to go into Iraq was UN resolution 678


Too bad, the United States went in there WITHOUT the support of the U.N. What right do other countries have meddling in other peoples affairs? None whatsoever. Unless there is a bonafide threat to the world. Iraq is no threat to the world, just to their own people and us, because we're there.

Good luck. The US has one of the oldest active governments. There have been other countries who wanted to change our
government, and they haven't succeeded. I think the US has moral superiority to dictatorships. Do you?


I can't believe you put "Moral" and "U.S." in the same sentence. Regardless of what I think, the morals of the United States is suspect at best.

What is wrong with picking our battles?


Well when you pick battles, you choose the ones that look appealing. Not the ones that need to be fought. The United States was no where to be seen in the Ivory Coast, Yugoslavia--when the ethnic cleansing was going on, the U.S. let Tibet go to the Chinese. Where there is something to be gained monitarily the U.S. is there, if there is nothing to be gained--the U.S. is no where to be seen. If Kuwait did not produce oil, Kuwait would now be a part of Iraq.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee1776,

1. If we don't stay in Iraq now then we leave ourselves open to repeat the past. During the 70's the U.S. supported the Afghanistan fighters against the USSR. After the USSR pulled out we left that country out to dry. If we had spent a little time helping them, then the terror camps and radicals would not have helped bring down the towers. How ever we got into the war, if we cut and run like you subject, we are just asking to repeat our mistakes.


I think you're off base, it's not that we left them out to dry. The CIA trained the Afghan guerillas--they may have done too good of a job. See what we forget is that in half of the conflicts the U.S. is in, at one time or another we've given them support only to have it come flying back in our faces. Example Afganistan, we trained their fighter who in part trained others...and so on. No only can they fight us face to face, but they now know tactics, and worst of all we gave them weapons and money--all of these things have come back to haunt us. The Terror camps are a product of our advisors going over there and training them in the art of Assasination, demolitions, covert ops...we trained the very people who flew planes into our buildings. Talk about repeating mistakes, we also put the Shah of Iran into power--gee could the United States be more helpful?

The WMD was never the reason why we went into Iraq. We went into Iraq because Sadam did not live up to his end of a peace treaty. We beat him fairly during the first war in 91 and he signed a piece of paper saying that he would show the world that he had gotten rid of the WMDs. He never did.


That's because he never had any...if you don't have it then you can't produce something you don't have. Besides if the U.S. would have taken him out of power the first time, American soldiers wouldn't be getting killed today. We used WMD as the catalyst to go back into Iraq...remember opec had jacked up oil prices right before the U.S. went into Iraq again.[

quote]It would be like the guy next door beating his wife and kids every day. Then one day he beats your dog. You decided to kick his ass. When you finished, you had him sign a promise not to beat anybody any more. Two days later he beats his kids right in front of you and then flips you off. Your telling me that you would not have the right to kick his ass again?

First off, your metaphor is in poor taste. No one, I repeat NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to kick anybody's butt, unless their life is in direct danger. Second, you call the cops. Your example is not even close to what went on in Iraq. It was not simple as that, there were so many political factors that went into the invasion of Iraq, it would take years to sort out and find the truth, but they all have one common denomonator: OIL.


Last time I checked military service was "VOLUNTARY". A fact that Michael Moore seems to gloss over. Parents don't enlist their sons or daughters in the military. It is the individual choice to volunteer, know one put a gun to their head and force them to sign. I've been in service for over 17 years and have noticed that most people that enlist DO NOT come from the lower classes of society as Moore claims. The next time you watch that movie of half truths and incomplete interviews you will hear him say "that only one member of congress has an enlisted son or daughter presently in the military". Over 15 others have had children serve as enlisted in the past and another 36 presently have children that are officers presently in service. I guess that having your children serving, as officers don't count to Mister Moore.


Bull, I really do not know where you are getting your facts, but NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS ONE SINGLE CHILD IN IRAQ. That was confirmed by Time magazine, and Time is full of propaganda. Heck our current president was AWOL, when he was ordered to report for duty. The truth really hurts to some people, because when they are exposed to the bright shining lie...they must make excuses and point the finger eleswhere: Michael Moore.

The average enlistment contracts for a soldier serving in the military is two to four years. That means almost all of us personnel in service since 9/11 have enlisted or reenlisted voluntarily. We go where we are told to go and fight who we are told to fight. If you don't think that Iraq is the right place to fight, then let me ask you one thing: has there been an attack inside the U.S. since 9/11? No, because we are fighting them in they’re back yard. During my eight months in Iraq, 3/4 of all dead or captured that I seen was NOT Iraqi, but foreign fighters that came there to die for Allah. I would rather have them dieing there for Allah then here attacking my wife and home. Again, those 999 soldiers that have died are “VOLUNTEERS”.

So I'm still waiting for you to re-inlist, what are you waiting for? Come on, do it for your country and wife and kids, what are you waiting for...it seems you from the way you talk you like death, well come on, show you're true colors of being an American, kill somemore "Foreigners". Volunteers or not, that's not the problem, the problem is with our leaders. How would you like it if I had the power to reactivate you...huh? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tell you what, how would your wife have taken it if you were killed in Iraq and I said, well he VOLUNTEERED...but don't worry another VOLUNTEER took his place.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Was the US justified in bombing Iraq in 1998? What right did we have to refute Iraq's claims to Kuwait in 1991? Who gave us the authority to bomb Yugoslavia? What right do we have to sanction Sudan? Who said we can tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nuclear weapons? Who gives us the authority to tell Israel and Palestine they have to make peace? What right do we have to tell China they can't invade Taiwan?
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top


The CIA trained the Afghan guerillas--they may have done too good of a job. See what we forget is that in half of the conflicts the U.S. is in, at one time or another we've given them support only to have it come flying back in our faces.


Thanks, you helped make my piont. When we had finished teaching them to fight we sould have showed them how to govern.

That's because he never had any...if you don't have it then you can't produce something you don't have.


I think 5,000 dead Kurds is proof, or was that just a mass suicide? Anyways after the first war, Iraq turned over documentations showing tons to chemicals. The UN inspectors never received evidence that he destroyed all the chemicals he did admit to, let alone all that he didn't admit to. So where are they? Remember how long it took for us to find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

First off, your metaphor is in poor taste. No one, I repeat NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to kick anybody's butt, unless their life is in direct danger. Second, you call the cops.


Hummmm? Call the cops? Ooohhh you mean the UN. If we had to wait for them then Saddam would still be there and the UN would still be getting kick backs in the Oil for Food program.

So your saying (using my poor taste of a metaphor) that if you called the cops 14 times and they warned the guy next door to stop beating your dog and he still continues (while giving you the bird) you would do nothing? Boy, next he will start beating your wife too.

NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS ONE SINGLE CHILD IN IRAQ


Hay, please don't miss quote me. There may not be any serving in Iraq at this time. Micheal Moore said "presently serving in the military". Ya, I also went to the movie. I just payed for Schrek and went into his movie.

Heck our current president was AWOL, when he was ordered to report for duty.


All records show that he was payed for attending drill. Do you exspect your school from 30 years ago to keep hand writen records of your attendence? Can you tell me every persons name and if they attended every class you were in your senior year? The longest document maintained in a unit is their 201 file, pay (LES Leave and Earning Statements) and medical exams that shows he was there. Everything else is destroyed after two years. Next time it is required to have a person show up for drill and get a photo with the latest newspaper tell me and I'll get my readness NCO to buy a stack each month, then maintain them for 40 years.

And if you want to throw mud, just ask John Kerry to show his COMPLETE medical records. It just strange that the military gave his campaign all his records and he will not release documentation on two of the three visites that got him his Purple Heartes. At least Bush has releast his.

So I'm still waiting for you to re-inlist, what are you waiting for?


I already have and my wife married me knowing full well what my life intells. She may not like that fact some times, but she married me just the same.

How would you like it if I had the power to reactivate you...huh?


OK, you do. Thats your vote. If you and your buddies get together and vote out Bush then reactivate me for some other mission then I'm the guy that will stand behind your choices.

Though you like to use the word "VOLUNTEER" as a bad thing. Its a commiment that I was willing to take. Would you have the same conviction if it was Kerry in office? By what I read, I think not. And if you think that Kerry is Anti-War, you didn't hear his speach at the national convention. It was one of the only platforms that he did state. (Yes, I watched that too).

Also one last thing; A bill was placed in cangress earlier this year reinstating the draft. It was just interesting to know that all three members that submitted it had a "D" next to their name. So now the Democratic party was to force people to die for whoever in office.

My two cents
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #12 By: MichaelProteus - 8/17/2004 11:24:11 AM

Bull, I really do not know where you are getting your facts, but NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS ONE SINGLE CHILD IN IRAQ. That was confirmed by Time magazine, and Time is full of propaganda. Heck our current president was AWOL, when he was ordered to report for duty. The truth really hurts to some people, because when they are exposed to the bright shining lie...they must make excuses and point the finger eleswhere: Michael Moore.


Already refuted above and in many other places (the comment about Bush being AWOL).

And that would be as opposed to our prior President (aka Bubba the Draft Dodger Codger?!)

Or as opposed to John -- I'm only here for the medals that I'll one day throw away -- Kerry?

And thanks for confirming that you get your "truths" from Michael Moore.

Be sure to check out Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, though it may cause you some heartburn....
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Interesting arguments. Right now a friend of mine is in Kuwait, ready to go into Iraq. IN his first two nights, his unit had to move three times due to attacks.

Anyway, I thought I'd just say some points.

1) The war was based an a false pretense.

2) In 2000, the administration said Sadam had no weapons, and was not a threat. In 2003, they reversed that stance. Talk about a flip-flop.

3) The rest of the world and Hans Blix and the UN inspectors kept telling the Bush administration to wait, to make sure that Sadam had weapons. Had Bush waited, he would have saved billions of dollars, and thousands of US and Iraqi lives.

4) Dick Clark kept telling the administration that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He was right, but the administration refused to listen. He also stated that the Bush team wanted justification to go to war with Iraq as soon as they entered office.

5) Finally, I'd like to make an analogy. In court, prosecturs first gather evidence, and from that evidence they make a case. Unfortunately, the administration did this backwards. They had a case, then had to find evidence to fit that case. Unfortunately, that evidence included missinformation, lies, and deception. And for that, 1,000 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqis are dead.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
2) In 2000, the administration said Sadam had no weapons, and was not a threat. In 2003, they reversed that stance. Talk about a flip-flop.


Please forward a refence for this opionon, because even Bill Clinton stated Saddam had the weapons and still does today. The last time I checked he was the administration in 2000.

3) The rest of the world and Hans Blix and the UN inspectors kept telling the Bush administration to wait, to make sure that Sadam had weapons. Had Bush waited, he would have saved billions of dollars, and thousands of US and Iraqi lives.


Do you accualy think Sadam if given another two months would have produced anymore evidence about WMD disposel that he had admitted to having after the last war? Not only have we not found WMD, but neither have we found evidence that he ever destroyed them. One does not simply destroy WMD without any records and if he did destroy them then why didn't he just ask the inspectors to observe? I know the next thing out of your mouth will be "Well we removed the inspectors". WRONG. check your news papers budy Saddam threw them out himself. Look how long it took to find out was happened to Jimmy Hoffa, and those guys didn't have a whole country under their fingers.

4) Dick Clark kept telling the administration that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He was right, but the administration refused to listen.


This is the same guy who sat as the Anti-terrorism Czar for over eight years and failed to stop any of the attacks. The one that he says he did was accualy stopped by a boarder guard that Miss Reno says was just good work by the guard on duty.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine,

Certainly not the people of America...
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Madine & Madine

We tried isolationism one time in the 1920s-30s. Look what it gave use over, 16 million dead in Europe alone.

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." General Sherman
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Michael,
Again with the unsupported facts.
1. General Tommy Franks was "made by this phony war".
Wrong as anyone who has ever served with Gen Franks knows, He is a success because of who and what he is. Thos of us who have met him would probably be inclined to deck you for making him out to be a political leech like wesley Clarke.
2. His best selling book and a cush job as an adviser;
Where and for whom? Cites please. Read the book and you might find out it is interesting and an enjoyable read.

I also loved the fact that we intervened in yugoslavia but too late. well, which do you prefer? non-intervention like Slick Willie in Rwanda,
or too late like Slick Willie in Yugo?
Or is it too scary to think that it may have been the right time to go to Iraq, WMD or not. (Which were found by the poles.)
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee1776,

I think 5,000 dead Kurds is proof, or was that just a mass suicide? Anyways after the first war, Iraq turned over documentations showing tons to chemicals. The UN inspectors never received evidence that he destroyed all the chemicals he did admit to, let alone all that he didn't admit to. So where are they? Remember how long it took for us to find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa


Ahem...Just when I thought this was going to be a quiet night....
Right, once again you state let's just say...so now you're even agreeing that IF, and that's a big if...if there were weapons of WMD it would take the U.S. "A long time" to find them, because our government can't even find a body. Bravo, now you're getting the picture. Unfortunately, though chemical weapons are not considered WMD, unless they are put on an ICBM (Intercontinental Balistic Misseil *Forgive the spelling*). Come on, this whole thing was a sham...the U.S. just needed an excuse to go into Iraq.



Hummmm? Call the cops? Ooohhh you mean the UN. If we had to wait for them then Saddam would still be there and the UN would still be getting kick backs in the Oil for Food program.

That's the last thing I would call the U.N., who cares if Saddam Hussein was still in power? How would that have affected YOU right NOW? It wouldn't have. I understand that something had to be done with Saddam, don't you think after a while, his own people would have gotten tired of his bull...maybe not now, but maybe later. I know you're going to skewer me for these comments but still, Saddam has never attacked U.S. soil. That's not to say he may not have tried later. I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no clear answer. I know that over 1000 American deaths is not one of the answers.

So your saying (using my poor taste of a metaphor) that if you called the cops 14 times and they warned the guy next door to stop beating your dog and he still continues (while giving you the bird) you would do nothing? Boy, next he will start beating your wife too.


First off, my dog would have tore this guy to shreds already. Some people call this a domestic problem, but if the police were like the U.N., guess what I'd handle it on my own. That's what I think eventually would have happened, the Iraqi citizens would have put an end to it sooner or later.

All records show that he was payed for attending drill. Do you exspect your school from 30 years ago to keep hand writen records of your attendence? Can you tell me every persons name and if they attended every class you were in your senior year? The longest document maintained in a unit is their 201 file, pay (LES Leave and Earning Statements) and medical exams that shows he was there. Everything else is destroyed after two years. Next time it is required to have a person show up for drill and get a photo with the latest newspaper tell me and I'll get my readness NCO to buy a stack each month, then maintain them for 40 years.

Uhh...he never showed up, and you can look that up in the New York Post archive. He was AWOL. See lets just muddy the water and soon the truth becomes so blurred, no one knows what they're talking about. Look this is the president, there are people who said he never showed up, you don't need records...but he still got paid, some government...Gee Bush Sr, had nothing to do with that huh? Just like the DWI Bush Jr got, but hey it's been expunged, who could do that...let's see could it be a governor?

And if you want to throw mud, just ask John Kerry to show his COMPLETE medical records. It just strange that the military gave his campaign all his records and he will not release documentation on two of the three visites that got him his Purple Heartes. At least Bush has releast his


At least Kerry was in ACTION, that is more than I can say for BUSH. And Kerry being young and stupid threw his medals away, gee a man who dosen't agree with the military, oh no...Hey I'm not too fond of Kerry, but at least he went overseas and followed orders, and didn't let his father wipe his nose up till he was 30.

quote]OK, you do. Thats your vote. If you and your buddies get together and vote out Bush then reactivate me for some other mission then I'm the guy that will stand behind your choices.

See, I'm not Bush, nor would I ever send anyone to their deaths in vain over something called Political Ambition.

Though you like to use the word "VOLUNTEER" as a bad thing. Its a commiment that I was willing to take. Would you have the same conviction if it was Kerry in office? By what I read, I think not. And if you think that Kerry is Anti-War, you didn't hear his speach at the national convention. It was one of the only platforms that he did state. (Yes, I watched that too).


Yeah, Yeah...yes we know you would jump off a bridge if you were ordered to, you're a good little soldier. Please read my other comments regarding Kerry.

Also one last thing; A bill was placed in cangress earlier this year reinstating the draft. It was just interesting to know that all three members that submitted it had a "D" next to their name. So now the Democratic party was to force people to die for whoever in office.

Right, but it really dosen't matter now, Bush got the blood-bath rolling...do not blame the democrats who want to finish what Bush cannot handle. There are only so many troops to go around, you can thank Bush for starting this thing in Iraq. Did it ever occur to you that I may not be Republican or Democrat? And no the Democrats aren't forcing anyone to die...Bush beat them to it, I mean Bush Sr.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terpfan1980,

The only thing that gives me heartburn is reading your diatribe, basically a litany of nothing. Of course they're going to argue Bush was never AWOL, what is he supposed to do, admit it? I think you don't like Mr. Moore because he's been able to expose some of the things the government would like to push under the rug. Whether I get my truths from Michael Moore is my business, but isn't that like getting your truths from the government then, if all of us are lying?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
SSG Geezer,

1. General Tommy Franks was "made by this phony war".Wrong as anyone who has ever served with Gen Franks knows, He is a success because of who and what he is. Thos of us who have met him would probably be inclined to deck you for making him out to be a political leech like wesley Clarke


Those of us who know people who died under this man, would probably want to deck you and him. Success for who he is? He's Bush's little pawn...What's he doing with the money from his book? Is he sending it to the families that have lost loved ones in Iraq, oh yea the 100$ extra a month in hazard pay they got before they died was enough. Look in the mirror, if you should be hitting anyone it should be yourself, for getting conned, I'd bet you never even met the man.

His best selling book and a cush job as an adviser; Where and for whom? Cites please. Read the book and you might find out it is interesting and an enjoyable read.


Really you didn't hear, but seeing your such good friends with the man maybe you should ask him yourself. He's given speeches at Yale, Dartmouth, etc. But being good buddies with him you already know that.

Or is it too scary to think that it may have been the right time to go to Iraq, WMD or not. (Which were found by the poles.)


Please cite. Okay lets justify somemore shall we? It was not the right time, when is it right to lose American troops, when the American people were in no danger. Hell, the American people are in more danger from Phillip Morris, The Coors company, Jack in the Box...etc. Sorry, NO WMD WERE FOUND BY THE POLES.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes they were, and Chemical weapons, even in a mortar are considered WMDs. The poles did find a number but it recieved little play.
If you listen to Gen Franks you will see he is very literate, unlike GW, so speaking gigs are not a "bad" thing.
has he joined the board of LTV Vought or a major defense contractor yet? If so I will be dissappointed in his judgement.
Read the book and you might find a sincere man who felt it every time a servicemember lost their life in OEF and OIF.
Why are you so bitter towards anyone in the military? AS an enlisted man I see a lot of things in the officers corps
that makes me angry or disgusted. Tommy franks is one who does not do either. He treats everyone he meets with respect,
whether a janitor, senator, or King. That is why he is able to lead.
On the chemical thing:
Spend some time in MOPP 4 and tell me you don't hate the idea of Chemical and BIO warfare agents. They are terror weapons
and if deployed against civilians it would not be pretty. Remember Americans love recriminations. I did not say I was his "Buddy" just knew him in Second Infantry Division when my platoon supplied his Crew. he was a pleasant guy to everyone but didn't take a line of B.S. He's an admirable guy even if you personally hate him.
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #22 By: MichaelProteus - 8/17/2004 9:13:59 PM
Terpfan1980,

The only thing that gives me heartburn is reading your diatribe, basically a litany of nothing. Of course they're going to argue Bush was never AWOL, what is he supposed to do, admit it? I think you don't like Mr. Moore because he's been able to expose some of the things the government would like to push under the rug. Whether I get my truths from Michael Moore is my business, but isn't that like getting your truths from the government then, if all of us are lying?


I don't like Michael Moore because he has proven time and again that he will edit the truth so it fits his hypothesis, even if the facts don't support it.

He is in the business of entertainment, and he wants to earn money. If he can do it by inflaming the left at the same time, it's very convenient for him, but not a necessity since he has made enough of a name for himself that he earns money on name alone.

Moore is at his best at his local Golden Corral or Old Country Buffet line. Personally I hope he winds up clogging all of his arteries and living off public assistance after his destined massive heart attack.


I'd ask you to explain your comments about lying and facts, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't make sense. You're upset that Bush isn't quite the deserter you thought he was all while Kerry is being attacked for being a hot-dogging medal chasing Vietnam vet that has tried to run his election based almost entirely on his record as a hero that was so proud of his medals that he threw them (or some likeness to them) away.