Our nation pitched in once before...

drhunter1

Senior Member
I am so conservative that I am somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan but I think one of the difficulties of this situation is that we are told this is going to be a long protracted battle--and I believe that--but we are not, as was pointed out by others, being called to sacrifice or contribute other than our taxes to fund it. Our youth are volunteering to serve in the Armed Forces and for that I am more grateful that mere words can attest. However, our service members and their loved ones are the only ones who are sacrificing for you and I. In my opinion, as far as a lot of Americans are concerned, this is just a messy situation that has increased the price of gas and if it goes away so gas can be $1.50 a gallon, all the better.

It is hard to garner the nation's support when no one but our Armed Forces and their families are the ones who are suffering the sacrificing. (And I am no way advocating a return to the draft at this time because I saw first hand that debacle.)

My attitude about my security within my country's borders has been forever altered by 9/11 but realistically my day-to-day goings on haven't changed. Except that every night I pray for the safety of those young men and women who have volunteered to go in harm's way on my behalf.

Day-to-day, my government has not asked me to cut my gas consumption. Day-to-day, my government has not asked me to conserve electricity. Day-to-day, my government has not asked me to participate by my sacrifice in any way whatsoever. The Army is scrambling to meet enlistment quotas as it closes out its recruiting year, yet the Commander in Chief has not asked for America's youth to volunteer.

I don't know what it will take. But this is got Armageddon written all over it if we don't unite to destroy this evil that masquerades as religious faith.

Maybe Schwartzkof should be recalled to active duty and given the assignment to write the "How to Combat Islamic Terrorism" Op Order.
I agree. We aren't being asked to sacrifice anything. Our brave men and women in Uniform go over their and face the enemy and we get to go play golf on Saturday, church on Sunday, work our jobs througout the week, and get on line to banter around thoughts and opinions. Our lives are relatively unchanged while we sleep in peace at night.

How wonderful is that? I don't neccessarily see that as a bad thing if you have the right perspective. To me that is just one more indication of how enormously GREAT America is.. I defy anyone to name a country that has a standard of living as high as America's, can fight a war against an unbelievably evil enemy, with and all volunteer force I might add, and allow it's citizens to continue it's day to day activites without having to give it a thought.l

Whats even more amazing is that our Millitary does all of this with a national capitol filled with traitors(Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Dick Durban, John McCain, Arlen Spector etc) bumbling idiots (Robert Byrd, Tedd Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Johnny Issacson, Saxby Chambliss) and a variety of other characters who do not have this countries best interest at heart, just their own interests.

If we could ever get rid of cancer, well that would be something to behold.


God Bless America, and God Bless the United States Military
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
We all saw how the country came together after 9-11. Then Bush told us Bin Laden had been marginalized to the point that Bush didn't think about him anymore and we had to invade Iraq. Bush had to sell the country on that, and most of us now recognize that we were sold a bill of goods.

All this to say, when this country is faced with a grave threat the people will rally to the cause. I dare say most of the country would approve now of pulling out of Iraq and concentrating on destroying Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. You know, the original purpose for going to war.
Linwood, You can blame Bush for that if you want to. To me that just makes you look like a troll. Just saying something to illicit a respnse. But your cohorts in the democrat party, were privy to the same intellegence reports that the president was. He didnt have to sell anything.

If your trying to make the case that Bush had an alterier motive for going to war other than protecting this country ( remember the UN resolutions on WMD's- and yes there were WMD;s in Iraq), then your just a conspiracy nutball. The UN wasn't going to enforce that resolution and I would love to see all of these armchair quarterbacks be placed in his shoes at the time act as president.

And another thing Linwood, Don't comment on this stuff like you care about the well being of the Untied States. It rings hollow because no one believes it.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
We all saw how the country came together after 9-11. Then Bush told us Bin Laden had been marginalized to the point that Bush didn't think about him anymore and we had to invade Iraq. Bush had to sell the country on that, and most of us now recognize that we were sold a bill of goods.

All this to say, when this country is faced with a grave threat the people will rally to the cause. I dare say most of the country would approve now of pulling out of Iraq and concentrating on destroying Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. You know, the original purpose for going to war.
The People's perception of a grave threat, as indicated by your second assumption in the highlighted paragraph, is what worries me when preceded by your conclusion in the first.

Dare say the majority of the People wanted to overthrow Saddam and establish a democratic ally in Iraq. This is indicated because even the poll driven Democrats, including Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and on and on, voted for it.

Their defense, now that the war and Bush are unpopular, the President lied. They will not admit they did not vote on the President's word, they voted their conscience as dictated by the Polls. Now they won't accept responsibility for their votes, just point fingers.

Your First Paragraph just proves the validity of my argument of the second and is supported by the 14% approval rating given Congress in the POLLS.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
The People's perception of a grave threat, as indicated by your second assumption in the highlighted paragraph, is what worries me when preceded by your conclusion in the first.

Dare say the majority of the People wanted to overthrow Saddam and establish a democratic ally in Iraq. This is indicated because even the poll driven Democrats, including Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and on and on, voted for it.

Their defense, now that the war and Bush are unpopular, the President lied. They will not admit they did not vote on the President's word, they voted their conscience as dictated by the Polls. Now they won't accept responsibility for their votes, just point fingers.

Your First Paragraph just proves the validity of my argument of the second and is supported by the 14% approval rating given Congress in the POLLS.
For some reason this post just made it click for me Jimbo.

Liberals are not independent thinkers, I knew that, but for some strange reason, it wasn't until I read this series of banter that it clicked for me.

They are incapable of venturing outside of the collective ideas of a group controlled thought process. Sort of like the Borg on Star Trek.

They are completely incapable of an independent "rational" (key word) thought and are forever enslaved to the ideas, sentiments and thoughts of a directive layed out by a Socialist type organization.
Another collective of those afraid of independent capitalist.

View attachment 78602
 
Last edited:

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
For some reason this post just made it click for me Jimbo.

Liberals are not independent thinkers, I knew that, but for some strange reason, it wasn't until I read this series of banter that it clicked for me.

They are incapable of venturing outside of the collective ideas of a group controlled thought process. Sort of like the Borg on Star Trek.

They are completely incapable of an independent "rational" (key word) thought and are forever enslaved to the ideas, sentiments and thoughts of a directive layed out by a Socialist type organization.
Another collective of those afraid of independent capitalist.

View attachment 78602
I think you had an inkling all along. :biggrin2:
 
The People's perception of a grave threat, as indicated by your second assumption in the highlighted paragraph, is what worries me when preceded by your conclusion in the first.

Dare say the majority of the People wanted to overthrow Saddam and establish a democratic ally in Iraq. This is indicated because even the poll driven Democrats, including Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and on and on, voted for it.

Their defense, now that the war and Bush are unpopular, the President lied. They will not admit they did not vote on the President's word, they voted their conscience as dictated by the Polls. Now they won't accept responsibility for their votes, just point fingers.

Your First Paragraph just proves the validity of my argument of the second and is supported by the 14% approval rating given Congress in the POLLS.
Bush did lie, Jimbo. Aluminum tubes, no doubt about the intel, etc. As for the Democratic votes, can you back up your claim that their vote was based on polling? Besides, at this point, I'm not at all concerned with why Democrats voted the way they did. The important thing is that most of them agree with the American people that we need to find a way out.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Bush did lie, Jimbo. Aluminum tubes, no doubt about the intel, etc. As for the Democratic votes, can you back up your claim that their vote was based on polling? Besides, at this point, I'm not at all concerned with why Democrats voted the way they did. The important thing is that most of them agree with the American people that we need to find a way out.
Can You prove President Bush lied? He gave the information provided to him by our Intelligence Agencies,
the British Intell and the IAEA. He may have received bad intell, but no lie.

As for the Dems and polls what do you call it? A pattern of actions leading to a logical conclusion. It is like Senator Clinton's war vote. She claimed she would not apologize for it because it was the right thing to do at the time.

However now she says if you will let her vote again she will vote against the war.

What changed her stance? The information has been the same for years, what has changed? Ooohooh, the POLLS.

The polls show a different veiw from the electorate, the polls show disaprove of the Congress. What Shall she do?
She's a Democrat, cave to the polls.

So my proof is circumstancial, cases have been won on less.
Care to take a poll?
 
Can You prove President Bush lied? He gave the information provided to him by our Intelligence Agencies,
the British Intell and the IAEA. He may have received bad intell, but no lie.

As for the Dems and polls what do you call it? A pattern of actions leading to a logical conclusion. It is like Senator Clinton's war vote. She claimed she would not apologize for it because it was the right thing to do at the time.

However now she says if you will let her vote again she will vote against the war.

What changed her stance? The information has been the same for years, what has changed? Ooohooh, the POLLS.

The polls show a different veiw from the electorate, the polls show disaprove of the Congress. What Shall she do?
She's a Democrat, cave to the polls.

So my proof is circumstancial, cases have been won on less.
Care to take a poll?
What has changed? It is now evident that Saddam had no WMD. It is now evident that Bush had no plan to secure the country after the invasion. It is now evident that the advice given Bush that he shouldn't invade was correct. It is now evident that we have installed a government in Iraq that is ideologically aligned with Iran. It is now evident that we are stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with no good options left.

Most people, including many who supported the war, have come to see the invasion of Iraq as a disaster. We need to be wondering why Bush and some members in Congress would do it all again, not why people who voted for it say now they wouldn't vote that way again.

Again, the big lie was that Bush stated there was no doubt about the intel. This has been shown to be false. Do a little research.
 
What has changed? It is now evident that Saddam had no WMD. It is now evident that Bush had no plan to secure the country after the invasion. It is now evident that the advice given Bush that he shouldn't invade was correct. It is now evident that we have installed a government in Iraq that is ideologically aligned with Iran. It is now evident that we are stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with no good options left.

Most people, including many who supported the war, have come to see the invasion of Iraq as a disaster. We need to be wondering why Bush and some members in Congress would do it all again, not why people who voted for it say now they wouldn't vote that way again.

Again, the big lie was that Bush stated there was no doubt about the intel. This has been shown to be false. Do a little research.
Lord have mercy! That's a mouthful of "Bull mute", even for you.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo4116
Can You prove President Bush lied? He gave the information provided to him by our Intelligence Agencies,
the British Intell and the IAEA. He may have received bad intell, but no lie.

As for the Dems and polls what do you call it? A pattern of actions leading to a logical conclusion. It is like Senator Clinton's war vote. She claimed she would not apologize for it because it was the right thing to do at the time.

However now she says if you will let her vote again she will vote against the war.

What changed her stance? The information has been the same for years, what has changed? Ooohooh, the POLLS.

The polls show a different veiw from the electorate, the polls show disaprove of the Congress. What Shall she do?
She's a Democrat, cave to the polls.

So my proof is circumstancial, cases have been won on less.
Care to take a poll?
__________________________________
Linwood,
Your comments and my responses in blue.

What has changed? It is now evident that Saddam had no WMD.

Okay, granted we did not find the WMDs that were expected but we know he had chemical and biologicals and had used chemicals, but Ms. Clinton has known this for at least 3 years like the rest of us, but she did not apologize for her vote and only recently wants to repent through another vote as the polls suggest a need to do so to capture the anti-war vote.

It is now evident that Bush had no plan to secure the country after the invasion.

No, it is now evident that "war is idiotidiotidiotidiot" and the best laid plans are just that. They are not an architect's blueprints to be followed within tolerances. War has stradegies and battleplans and contingencies. These are developed by Generals not Presidents.

It is now evident that the advice given Bush that he shouldn't invade was correct.

I would think that the President was offered different opinions and he made a decision, that is what Presidents do. However I am for full disclosure, I did not support the invasion of Iraq, but that is another story.


It is now evident that we have installed a government in Iraq that is ideologically aligned with Iran.

The Government was elected by the Iraqis and I do not think they are aligned with Iran as Iran is supporting the insurgency trying to overthrow the Government.

It is now evident that we are stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with no good options left.

I continue to reserve my opinion on this because I don't have all the facts. This is not a dodge it is a fact, we only know what the media and the Military want us to know. The military hands are somewhat tied and the media only reports statistics for the most part which neither are enough info for me to make a pronoucement as definite as yours.

Most people, including many who supported the war, have come to see the invasion of Iraq as a disaster.

Nobody wants the war to drag on, and the answer you get to that question is always going to be an honest" NO, I don't think the war is going well". We elect Presidents to be leaders, when we disagree with their leadership we get to express that every four years. Korea was a civil war, a police action, a disaster, but we still have troops there. I am for pulling them out are you?

We need to be wondering why Bush and some members in Congress would do it all again, not why people who voted for it say now they wouldn't vote that way again.

Here again we disagree. People that voted for the war and continue to defend their decision are not playing politics. They have made a hard decision the war is now a fight we must win. People who are changing their votes are, in my opinion, giving in to the enemy in order to preserve political capital.

Again, the big lie was that Bush stated there was no doubt about the intel. This has been shown to be false. Do a little research.

Hear again, you point to some definitive proof of the President and his staff being guilty of misrepresenting the facts. I am not privy to all the facts, but members of Congress were and the pertinent committees backed the decisions with full access to the Intell on a bi-partisan basis.
If I am wrong on this please provide me with your info to differ.
__________________

Okay, you dodged a the first direct question. Can you prove the President Lied?
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
What has changed? It is now evident that Saddam had no WMD. It is now evident that Bush had no plan to secure the country after the invasion. It is now evident that the advice given Bush that he shouldn't invade was correct. It is now evident that we have installed a government in Iraq that is ideologically aligned with Iran. It is now evident that we are stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with no good options left.

Most people, including many who supported the war, have come to see the invasion of Iraq as a disaster. We need to be wondering why Bush and some members in Congress would do it all again, not why people who voted for it say now they wouldn't vote that way again.

Again, the big lie was that Bush stated there was no doubt about the intel. This has been shown to be false. Do a little research.

Then why did he use it on his own people?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo4116
Can You prove President Bush lied? He gave the information provided to him by our Intelligence Agencies,
the British Intell and the IAEA. He may have received bad intell, but no lie.

As for the Dems and polls what do you call it? A pattern of actions leading to a logical conclusion. It is like Senator Clinton's war vote. She claimed she would not apologize for it because it was the right thing to do at the time.

However now she says if you will let her vote again she will vote against the war.

What changed her stance? The information has been the same for years, what has changed? Ooohooh, the POLLS.

The polls show a different veiw from the electorate, the polls show disaprove of the Congress. What Shall she do?
She's a Democrat, cave to the polls.

So my proof is circumstancial, cases have been won on less.
Care to take a poll?
__________________________________
Linwood,
Your comments and my responses in blue.

What has changed? It is now evident that Saddam had no WMD.

Okay, granted we did not find the WMDs that were expected but we know he had chemical and biologicals and had used chemicals, but Ms. Clinton has known this for at least 3 years like the rest of us, but she did not apologize for her vote and only recently wants to repent through another vote as the polls suggest a need to do so to capture the anti-war vote.

It is now evident that Bush had no plan to secure the country after the invasion.

No, it is now evident that "war is idiotidiotidiotidiot" and the best laid plans are just that. They are not an architect's blueprints to be followed within tolerances. War has stradegies and battleplans and contingencies. These are developed by Generals not Presidents.

It is now evident that the advice given Bush that he shouldn't invade was correct.

I would think that the President was offered different opinions and he made a decision, that is what Presidents do. However I am for full disclosure, I did not support the invasion of Iraq, but that is another story.


It is now evident that we have installed a government in Iraq that is ideologically aligned with Iran.

The Government was elected by the Iraqis and I do not think they are aligned with Iran as Iran is supporting the insurgency trying to overthrow the Government.

It is now evident that we are stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with no good options left.

I continue to reserve my opinion on this because I don't have all the facts. This is not a dodge it is a fact, we only know what the media and the Military want us to know. The military hands are somewhat tied and the media only reports statistics for the most part which neither are enough info for me to make a pronoucement as definite as yours.

Most people, including many who supported the war, have come to see the invasion of Iraq as a disaster.

Nobody wants the war to drag on, and the answer you get to that question is always going to be an honest" NO, I don't think the war is going well". We elect Presidents to be leaders, when we disagree with their leadership we get to express that every four years. Korea was a civil war, a police action, a disaster, but we still have troops there. I am for pulling them out are you?

We need to be wondering why Bush and some members in Congress would do it all again, not why people who voted for it say now they wouldn't vote that way again.

Here again we disagree. People that voted for the war and continue to defend their decision are not playing politics. They have made a hard decision the war is now a fight we must win. People who are changing their votes are, in my opinion, giving in to the enemy in order to preserve political capital.

Again, the big lie was that Bush stated there was no doubt about the intel. This has been shown to be false. Do a little research.

Hear again, you point to some definitive proof of the President and his staff being guilty of misrepresenting the facts. I am not privy to all the facts, but members of Congress were and the pertinent committees backed the decisions with full access to the Intell on a bi-partisan basis.
If I am wrong on this please provide me with your info to differ.
__________________

Okay, you dodged a the first direct question. Can you prove the President Lied?

I have documented the big lie on this board and I refuse to play this silly game of having to repeat the facts every few months just because someone here doesn't want to accpet them. If you are truly interested, "google" is your friend. Read about the aluminum tubes and what was known about them even as the administration was touting them as proof of Saddam's nuclear program. Read about the 2002 NIE and all the caveats that were ignored even as the admininstration told us there 'was no doubt" about the inelligence. Do some research into Powell's presentation at the UN.

The facts are out there, Jimbo, and I have posted much of it here. Of course no one here wants to believe it so they don't, and I stronlgy suspect that you don't want the truth either. Maybe you can prove me wrong.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
I have documented the big lie on this board and I refuse to play this silly game of having to repeat the facts every few months just because someone here doesn't want to accpet them. If you are truly interested, "google" is your friend. Read about the aluminum tubes and what was known about them even as the administration was touting them as proof of Saddam's nuclear program. Read about the 2002 NIE and all the caveats that were ignored even as the admininstration told us there 'was no doubt" about the inelligence. Do some research into Powell's presentation at the UN.

The facts are out there, Jimbo, and I have posted much of it here. Of course no one here wants to believe it so they don't, and I stronlgy suspect that you don't want the truth either. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

zzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzz

zzzzzzz

zzzzz

wha..........huh.......did someone say something different??

Oh, I didn't think so.

:yawn:
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
I have never heard a liberal give an adequate response to the fact that he had used them on his own people. Clearly this shows a willingness to obtain, produce, and use WMD's.

Why won't the liberals take that one on?
 
I have never heard a liberal give an adequate response to the fact that he had used them on his own people. Clearly this shows a willingness to obtain, produce, and use WMD's.

Why won't the liberals take that one on?
It't too stupid to take on. If you saw me driving a red corvette 10 years ago is that proof that I own a red corvette and/or have the desire to own one today?
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
It't too stupid to take on. If you saw me driving a red corvette 10 years ago is that proof that I own a red corvette and/or have the desire to own one today?
Now that is a pretty weak analogy, If I saw you shoot a man 10 years ago with a .38 special, does that mean you are going to shoot someone today with a .38 special? No, but if I hear about you tying to purchase a .44 mag, I am going to be suspicious and overly cautious when approaching you.
 
Now that is a pretty weak analogy, If I saw you shoot a man 10 years ago with a .38 special, does that mean you are going to shoot someone today with a .38 special? No, but if I hear about you tying to purchase a .44 mag, I am going to be suspicious and overly cautious when approaching you.


But if I let you search me for a .44, would you stop mid-search and declare that I do have a .44 even though the search to that point hadn't found one?
 
6

60Grit

Guest
It't too stupid to take on. If you saw me driving a red corvette 10 years ago is that proof that I own a red corvette and/or have the desire to own one today?
Would that be the same crime as driving a red pickup truck in a campaign???
 
Top