I hate to bring war/politics up on the board.....- Page 4

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 7:49pm

Yes. I've been hoping that the capture of Saddam would mean that I could take the duct tape off my window. I guess I have to wait a little bit longer. Bush just needs to come out and say Saddam's threat was grossly exaggerated. At least he would be honest.

On the other hand, Bush changes his mind and does something GOOD. This is a complete 180 on his previous position on the weltands. Hopefully this is a sign of things to common. But given his horrendous trakc record on the environment I'm not too hopeful.
Bush moves to save the wetlands.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 8:50pm

Next year will be a lot of fun . Catching Saddam is going to have a snowball effect. My feeling is old Uncle Osama has been with his 72 virgins for sometime

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:05pm

I am agog at the fact that the fact that Osama bin Laden actually considers Saddam an infidel. Good ole Saddam made Iraq a secular state instead of a fanatical Muslim State as good ole OBL would like. Bin Laden was also pissed that Saddam's invading Kuwait brought all those American troops into the area. So not only were these two men not working together, they HATED each other. In fact, a British intellegence report leaked to the BBC also reported Osama and Saddam had no connection. It concluded that bin Laden's aims were in ideological conflict with present day Iraq. You can bet bin Laden wasn't too happy about the killing of the Shiites either.
Another interesting take on the capture of Saddam

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:15pm

Mr. Roxy...I'm not sure what you're implying with your snowball effect. That Saddam's capture has somehow caused bin Laden's death?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:20pm

Let's consider Osama. By many accounts, he has kidney failure and is on dialysis. That requires a ton of supplies and a fairly clean environment to avoid infection. Plus, the guy is statuesque...something like 6'5". Where the hell is he? I suppose that he could have had a transplant (I'm guessing that there is no shortage of volunteer organ donors....hell, if guys are willing to fly planes into buildings for the cause, just donating a kidney to Osama has to be a piece of cake), but that also requires fairly sophisticated medications that are not widely available. Or maybe Mr. Roxy is right...the man is gone and just his legend lives on. I'm not sure what to think.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:24pm

Maybe he's in a hole with his dialysis machine and Saddam's WMD's.

"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003


Rumsfeld and his old friend Saddam

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:35pm

"Coaliton of the willing" not doing much for women in Iraq

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 8:26am

Bush changes his tune on Weapons of Mass Destruction

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 8:31am

Hmmmm....the Iraqi people don't seem too pleased with the US even after the capture of Saddam.
Iraqi's frustrated with US occupation

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 8:33am

Faces of the fallen

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/21/03 at 9:55pm

Mambo, I do agree with you. I don't mind contrary opinions at all. ErikJ is certainly entitled. The rest of us do benefit from the contradicting opinions to stimualte our thinking. The poor guy however sounds like he lives hyperventaling. He should calm down, or maybe engaged himself in a another board that's more politically focused. He might be happier. Who knows?

Bulldog.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 4:37pm

So I thought this was kinda funny. Go to google.com and type miserable failure in the search box. Then click on the "I'm feeling lucky button". It's fun to do with weapons of mass destruction too!
google

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 5:25pm

Today the Washington Post reported that the White House is deleting content on government websites if any of its own previous statements have since been proven to be untrue. Ah, great country, The Soviet Union. I mean, America! ("White House Web Scrubbing", Washington Post, 12/18/2003)

You should see the lifesaving prevention information the Bush administration has demanded be removed from
the Centers for Disease Control website. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't!

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 5:32pm

Maybe I should just stop reading the news like President Bush and rely on my advisors to feed me the "real news" everyday. They could tell me everything was OK and I could sleep better at night. Here's word that the independent commission appointed by President Bush has found that the tragic events of 9/11 could have been stopped. I'm sure both the Clinton and Bush administrations will be implicated (especially since the White House has already admitted that George was told of an impending attacking involving Jets used as missles.) My question is...if there was obviously enough information in the Administrations hands to prevent 9/11...then why in heck do we need The Patriot Act??

Could have foiled 9/11, Kean says

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 6:12pm

Doubt very seriously Saddam is gonna talk . If he is going to be executed anyway, why would he do it ? If he knew he might be spared execution, he might open up. Despite his bravado & his love of killing others, he is like most terrorist leaders. Ready, willing & able to send brain washed zombies & innocent civilians to their death but not ready to go out himself in a blaze of glory.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 6:49pm

Please note that Roxy doesn't reply. He pontificates. He doesn't respond, he makes statements and walks away from them.

"Despite his bravado & his love of killing others, he is like most ... leaders. Ready, willing & able to send brain washed zombies & innocent ... to their death but not ready to go out himself in a blaze of glory."

Drop two words from his statement and you've got George W Bush.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 6:52pm

Wow...they should post that up on The George W. bio on whitehouse.gov.

But I don't see why you wouldn't think Saddam would want to talk Mr. Roxy. It wouldn't be an act of courage on his part. Especially if he thinks he's going to be sent to his death. What would the man like more than a chance to embarass the West one last time?

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/18/03 at 10:53pm

Well...it looks like the Fed courts don't agree with Bush's policy of locking people up indefinately (without a lawyer) either. The administration is starting to get challanged.
courts challange bush

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 6:23am

To Erik

People have a short memory. We are in a war, like it or not. Like Bush or not, we have not been hit since 9/11. Imagine we in the US living like they have to in Israel with the threat of daily attacks.

Believe it or not, we were lucky on 9/11. It could have been so much worse. Next time, it will be much worse. We can debate many issues but this one is life & death.

I cringe at the thought of Howard Dean ( who with his ranting & raving & screaming looks like Hitler) as predident. It is bad enough he will tax us to death & stop what recovery is dead in its tracks but will undo what progress we have mad against the war on terror. If this man ( or any of the 9 who scream I hate Bush but give no alternative plans ) get in & start dismantling what has been done we will definitely get hit again.

I will now expect brickbats to be hurled at me but I do not care

[son_of_a_gunn_25]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 7:25am

Well here is my two cents. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two main views here. While Bush has done some stupid things let's not forget that the patriot act was passed almost unanimously by congress, I believe only one person abstained from voting(Correct me if I'm wrong.) So we have 534 other people to blame on that issue too.(I hope I got that number right) Of course argue they had to go along with it because Bush had a stranglehold on public opinion and it would have killed their chances for reelection, or you could say all the Congess men and women who passed it made a mistake in not reviewing more before passing. But I do agree that the oil thing is fishy, the problem is we really don't get all the info on what is really going on. So take that and make whatever you want of it.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 7:53am

Mr. Roxy...

You keep making the same arguement over and over. The problem is, it isn't an arguement at all.
"We haven't been hit since 9/11?" And? Who's watch did 9/11 happen under? And how does Iraq have anything to do with this? How did preventing Iraq stop another terrorist attack?
Again, it's not been shown that there was information predicting the 9/11 attacks before they happened. So then, why the need for The Patriot Act?
You have said that my hatred of Bush clouds my judgement. To me it seems to be the opposite. Your love of him does not allow you to see what a mess he's made of the country.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 12:15pm

Man, ya gotta love that Roxy went directly to The Hitler Analogy when talking about Howard Dean and did not pass Go and did not collect $200. I mean, Dean MUST be good if he causes such apoplexy among the people who need to see the world in black and white, devoid of shades of gray.

For instance, in the flush of just having been hit by terrorist attacks, a draconian law was passed (that really won't protect anybody from terrorism), it was called the Patriot Act (so that anybody who disagreed with it could be called un-patriotic). It's time to rethink it, and realize that what seemed like a good idea at the time, isn't.

It is absolutely foolish to think that whatever has happened in Iraq has somehow made people in the US safer from terrorist attacks. How Roxy makes that syllogistic leap is anybody's guess.

And Rox, you sensitive friggin creampuff, discussing the simplistic little notions you publish here is not throwing bricks at you, you poor innocent victim type, it's discussing how senseless and almost entirely fact-free your posts are. You just publish what your sense of things are, without anything at all to back it up. You think the US hasn't been hit again because of the conflict in Iraq? Just step back from that for a minute and think!

Is this the kind of America you want to live in? This just in from US News & World Report:


"Keeping Secrets: The Bush administration is doing the public's business out of the public eye. Here's how--and why"

By Christopher H. Schmitt and Edward T. Pound


"Democracies die behind closed doors."
--U.S. APPEALS COURT JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH

...

"For the past three years, the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters."

...

Does this not bother people?

Link

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 12:41pm

well, i for one am happy that the bush administration has pushed for such secrecy. i was getting tired of debating every single executive order and line item in every bill. finally i can concentrate on what's really important like where to find a good pair of tanker boots besides american cavalry.

for the record, however, i categorically disagree with both namo and erik on nearly every point they make with certain exceptions that i reserve the right to note when and if necessary. but i do respect the passion and energy with which they defend their position. i can't get myself up to their level, partly because the information i need to refute their chrages has been classified, but that's neither here nor there. besides, i'm having too much fun watching the democratic candidates struggle to see which one can hurl the most abuse at each other.

seriously, do you guys worry that the viciousness of this primary season gives fodder to the republican party for ther re-election campaign? that's an honest question as i see a fragmenting of the party going on where there's a divide between the traditional wing and terry mcauliffe as opposed to the dean faction with its energy and anger. do you see them being easily able to reconcile their differences and throw their weight behind one candidate?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 1:31pm

As my favorite band The Clash once sang, "Anger can be power if you know that you can use it."

Papa, I love you and would make out with you. I'd even put on the Kiehl's lip balm instead of the Bert's Bees.

Anyhoo, the thing I have noticed about every Republican in my life (some of my best siblings are Republican), is that they actually gravitate toward this more paternalistic approach that is echoed in what you wrote. "I don't really need or want to know what the government is doing, as long as everything is taken care of and I can focus on my own life, which will never be affected in a negative way by the things I don't care to know about since I am a supporter of the administration and they would never hurt one of their own. I'm on the winning team. We're Number 1! Woo!"

As for the viciousness, tis hardly a Democrat-only problem. Rove and Rumsfeld and Cheney are frightening in their viciousness. The talk radio hosts who froth at the mouth over Dean are doing the dirty work, so Bush can appear not-vicious, which is something he will, of course, become near the end of the campaign. He'll of course excuse this by paraphrasing Flip Wilson, "The Demos made me do it, hunny!"

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/19/03 at 2:13pm

namo, you brute! i will not even consider a tongue lashing unless you promise to wear root beer float flavored lipsmackers. i just loves my bonne bell.

i will not defend my fellow republicans for their paternalism, nor could i even though my heart belongs to daddy. however, i do find myself in the minority quite often since i do like to look into facts and positions. i generally agree with them when i do find them, but i still like to look.

do you appreciate the irony in your position though, namo? here are the republicans, the bastions of small government and no safety nets being the folks who trust government to do what's best. on the other hand, the lions of social justice and the proponents of a safety net large enough to catch all the remaining blue whales in the sea, the democrats, lately don't trust the government to do anything. i'm not saying that there's anything wrong with any of that, just that it sometimes makes me go all twitchy.

with regard to the republicans eating their young with wild abandon, this is nothing new, but then the public image of rummy and rove is generally accepted as being somewhat less compassionate than atilla the hun and markedly more warm and fuzzy than paulie the wolf. but then again, they're not running for anything. personally, the only one of the nine that i like, and i'm being objective here, is edwards. although i thought i would have to pay money to see rev. al and carole on the stage with the others this late in the game.