PDA

View Full Version : I have issues



RBA
08-18-2005, 09:39 PM
Today while driving home from work I heard about another 4 American military troops killed in Iraq. I couldn't take it anymore, so I screamed at the top of my lungs,
"*** DAMN IT!!!" I was hoping someone was listening, but nobody was. I just kept screaming "*** DAMN IT!!! and other expletives hoping someone was listening, but nobody was or seemed to care. My car windows were closed, so that maybe why nobody was listening or gave a rat's ass. So it may very well be my fault people are dying. For what? It might be, because I shoud be out of the car, on top of the car, and screaming at the top of my lungs, "what the HELL IS GOING ON!" But would anyone care? I'm ashamed, I don't have the guts to speak out other than in the safety of my own car. I'll just keep on hearing the slaughter of men, women, children by what are called insurgents and in some cases collatorial caustaulities from our own military. There once was a President that said, "I hear you, we hear you, the whole world hears you!" in one of the greast moments in American History. But now it seems like the American People and that President have become deaf. Deaf to the dying and deaf to my screams. Maybe I shoudl scream louder? And in a place where someone might hear me rather than the screaming I do in the safety of my own car I drive with the windows rolled up. I'm a *** DAMN Chicken!

pedro
08-18-2005, 10:04 PM
It's truly sad that so many young people have died in order to fullfill the Presidents political agenda. This war has not made America or the world safer and it has not, as of yet, made Iraq a better place for Iraqi's. I hope I'm wrong and some day we will look back and say it was all worth it, but I doubt it.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 10:24 PM
I hope I'm wrong and some day we will look back and say it was all worth it, but I doubt it.

It's past the point of the ends justifying the means (not that there's ever any justification for dying for a lie); all you can hope for at this point is the quickest exit.

MWM
08-18-2005, 11:02 PM
My brother's best friend, and someone I got to know really well, is heading over to Iraq in a couple of weeks. It's definitely frightening.

pedro
08-18-2005, 11:03 PM
My brother's best friend, and someone I got to know really well, is heading over to Iraq in a couple of weeks. It's definitely frightening.

I hope he's OK. One of my best friends is in the guard and hasn't got the call yet. I hope every day that he doesn't.

GullyFoyle
08-18-2005, 11:14 PM
My brother is in the Marines and flew in the war when it started... he is home safe and sound now, and I wish the same for all your friends and everyone else over there...

I think everyone in the country wishes our guys/gals the best even if it might not always seem like it.

LvJ
08-18-2005, 11:28 PM
That's cute.

Anyways, I'm hoping for an 11x and option 40 contract. Hope I get it. :D

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 11:31 PM
That's cute.

Anyways, I'm hoping for an 11x and option 40 contract. Hope I get it. :D

What's cute?

I mean, besides glibness.

pedro
08-18-2005, 11:34 PM
That's cute.

Anyways, I'm hoping for an 11x and option 40 contract. Hope I get it. :D

I wish you luck dude.

and I sincerely hope you think it was worth it when you're done.

LvJ
08-18-2005, 11:35 PM
I wish you luck dude. Thank yah.

LvJ
08-18-2005, 11:36 PM
What's cute?

I mean, besides glibness. Your story. Don't worry though, I done that when I broke up with my girlfriend. So, it's okay. ;)

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 11:37 PM
Your story. Don't worry though, I done that when I broke up with my girlfriend. So, it's okay. ;)

My story?

LvJ
08-18-2005, 11:38 PM
My story? Well, his story.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 11:43 PM
Well, his story.

Hey. I give you credit: you're putting your money where your mouth is. More than I can say for the sons and daughters of this country's wealthy. They got better things to do I guess.

If you're interested, Bob Herbert has an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about re-instituting the draft to put a quicker end to this war.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 11:45 PM
I'll save you the travel costs; gas is expensive:

Blood Runs Red, Not Blue
By BOB HERBERT

You have to wonder whether reality ever comes knocking on George W. Bush's door. If it did, would the president with the unsettling demeanor of a boy king even bother to answer? Mr. Bush is the commander in chief who launched a savage war in Iraq and now spends his days happily riding his bicycle in Texas.

This is eerie. Scary. Surreal.

The war is going badly and lives have been lost by the thousands, but there is no real sense, either at the highest levels of government or in the nation at large, that anything momentous is at stake. The announcement on Sunday that five more American soldiers had been blown to eternity by roadside bombs was treated by the press as a yawner. It got very little attention.

You can turn on the television any evening and tune in to the bizarre extended coverage of the search for Natalee Holloway, the Alabama teenager who disappeared in Aruba in May. But we hear very little about the men and women who have given up their lives in Iraq, or are living with horrific injuries suffered in that conflict.

If only the war were more entertaining. Less of a downer. Perhaps then we could meet the people who are suffering and dying in it.

For all the talk of supporting the troops, they are a low priority for most Americans. If the nation really cared, the president would not be frolicking at his ranch for the entire month of August. He'd be back in Washington burning the midnight oil, trying to figure out how to get the troops out of the terrible fix he put them in.

Instead, Mr. Bush is bicycling as soldiers and marines are dying. Dozens have been killed since he went off on his vacation.

As for the rest of the nation, it's not doing much for the troops, either. There was a time, long ago, when war required sacrifices that were shared by most of the population. That's over.

I was in Jacksonville, Fla., a few days ago and watched in amusement as a young woman emerged from a restaurant into 95-degree heat and gleefully exclaimed, "All right, let's go shopping!" The war was the furthest thing from her mind.

For the most part, the only people sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families, and very few of them are coming from the privileged economic classes. That's why it's so easy to keep the troops out of sight and out of mind. And it's why, in the third year of a war started by the richest nation on earth, we still get stories like the one in Sunday's Times that began:

"For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents."

Scandalous incompetence? Appalling indifference? Try both. Who cares? This is a war fought mostly by other people's children. The loudest of the hawks are the least likely to send their sons or daughters off to Iraq.

The president has never been clear about why we're in Iraq. There's no plan, no strategy. In one of the many tragic echoes of Vietnam, U.S. troops have been fighting hellacious battles to seize areas controlled by insurgents, only to retreat and allow the insurgents to return.

If Mr. Bush were willing to do something he has refused to do so far - speak plainly and honestly to the American people about this war - he might be able to explain why U.S. troops should continue with an effort that is, in large part at least, benefiting Iraqi factions that are murderous, corrupt and terminally hostile to women. If by some chance he could make that case, the next appropriate step would be to ask all Americans to do their part for the war effort.

College kids in the U.S. are playing video games and looking forward to frat parties while their less fortunate peers are rattling around like moving targets in Baghdad and Mosul, trying to dodge improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades.

There is something very, very wrong with this picture.

If the war in Iraq is worth fighting - if it's a noble venture, as the hawks insist it is - then it's worth fighting with the children of the privileged classes. They should be added to the combat mix. If it's not worth their blood, then we should bring the other troops home.

If Mr. Bush's war in Iraq is worth dying for, then the children of the privileged should be doing some of the dying.

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

LvJ
08-18-2005, 11:54 PM
Hey. I give you credit: you're putting your money where your mouth is. More than I can say for the sons and daughters of this country's wealthy. They got better things to do I guess.

If you're interested, Bob Herbert has an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about re-instituting the draft to put a quicker end to this war. Well, I'm not a believer of one supporting a war demands that person to enlist. That's why we do have such a great Military, and why it is indeed voluntary. You know what you are getting into when you sign the dotted line. If one chooses to ignore the risks and wears the green shaded glasses, then - that is his own problem, not the Military's.

We disagree on the war, so we obviously won't see eye to eye here.

I don't read Herbert, nor do I have much interest in doing so; however, a draft is completely unnesscary, IMO,.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2005, 11:56 PM
Well, I'm not a believer of one supporting a war demands that person to enlist. That's why we do have such a great Military, and why it is indeed voluntary. You know what you are getting into when you sign the dotted line. If one chooses to ignore the risks and wears the green shaded glasses, then - that is his own problem, not the Military's.

We disagree on the war, so we obviously won't see eye to eye here.

I don't read Herbert, nor do I have much interest in doing so; however, a draft is completely unnesscary, IMO,.

Yeah. I don't understand why this war hasn't saved me more at the pump, either.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 12:00 AM
Well, I'm not a believer of one supporting a war demands that person to enlist. That's why we do have such a great Military, and why it is indeed voluntary. You know what you are getting into when you sign the dotted line. If one chooses to ignore the risks and wears the green shaded glasses, then - that is his own problem, not the Military's.

We disagree on the war, so we obviously won't see eye to eye here.

I don't read Herbert, nor do I have much interest in doing so; however, a draft is completely unnesscary, IMO,.

What happens when the U.S. runs out of troops--and no one new enlists?

I mean, real enemies exist and threaten our country and our allies (Iran and North Korea).

George Foster
08-19-2005, 12:47 AM
Yeah. I don't understand why this war hasn't saved me more at the pump, either.

The reason it has not saved you money at the pump is that we don't have an oil shortage...we have a refinery shortage. The enviromental wacko's have not allowed a oil refinery to be built in the US since 1980. There are millions of gallons of oil waiting to be processed into gasoline.

Second, President Bush or the US is not profiting at all form Iraqy oil. Any oil being sold goes back to Iraq and it's people, unlike what the left wing hacks are saying.

We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld. This is not a war with a draft this is a voluntary Army. No one wants to leave home and fight for their Country, but that is what they signed up for and are paid to do. I applaud them for that. Do I agree with everything that has happened in Iraq?..no! But this is war! It is happening in real time. People forget about all of the mistakes that happened on D-Day, but in the end it was successful. We defeated Germany.

What people need to realize is that people are going to die to terrorism until we defeat it. The decision that the President had to make is do we fight them on the streets of middle America, or do we take the fight to them in the Middle East..either way people are going to die...I think he has made the right decision. Over 2/3's of the people killed in Iraq by our soldiers are not Iraq's but punks from Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Don't believe all the negitive stuff on the liberal anti-war news stations. Ask soldiers who are back from the war if we are making a difference. The vast majority of them will say YES! That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush. This speaks volumns. If they support Bush and they are in danger because of his decisions.....maybe we should support him to?

Our society is now a "microwave" society. Most everyone wants instant gratification. This is going to take time and yes lives, just like World War II.
We have lost aprox. 1,700 soldiers in Iraq since March of 2003. We averaged over 200 lives a day in WWII. The fact is , that generation was a lot tougher than our "air-conditioning" generation ever thought about being. That generation understood that their very exsistance depended upon us defeating Germany and Japan. Our very exsistance depends upon us defeating terrorism. Maybe we need another 9-11 to refocus everybody. God I hope not. There is a price to pay for our freedom that we all take for granted. What price are we willing to pay? I don't want to live in a country like Israel were there are armed gunman outside every Pizza Hut and metal detectors. It's bad enough at the airports already, we don't need that everywhere, but that is the America that we will have if we cave-in to terror.
Sorry I don't have a spell-check

westofyou
08-19-2005, 12:48 AM
Hacks and wackos... now that's some good discourse.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 12:59 AM
The reason it has not saved you money at the pump is that we don't have an oil shortage...we have a refinery shortage. The enviromental wacko's have not allowed a oil refinery to be built in the US since 1980. There are millions of gallons of oil waiting to be processed into gasoline.

Second, President Bush or the US is not profiting at all form Iraqy oil. Any oil being sold goes back to Iraq and it's people, unlike what the left wing hacks are saying.

We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld. This is not a war with a draft this is a voluntary Army. No one wants to leave home and fight for their Country, but that is what they signed up for and are paid to do. I applaud them for that. Do I agree with everything that has happened in Iraq?..no! But this is war! It is happening in real time. People forget about all of the mistakes that happened on D-Day, but in the end it was successful. We defeated Germany.

What people need to realize is that people are going to die to terrorism until we defeat it. The decision that the President had to make is do we fight them on the streets of middle America, or do we take the fight to them in the Middle East..either way people are going to die...I think he has made the right decision. Over 2/3's of the people killed in Iraq by our soldiers are not Iraq's but punks from Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Don't believe all the negitive stuff on the liberal anti-war news stations. Ask soldiers who are back from the war if we are making a difference. The vast majority of them will say YES! That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush. This speaks volumns. If they support Bush and they are in danger because of his decisions.....maybe we should support him to?

Our society is now a "microwave" society. Most everyone wants instant gratification. This is going to take time and yes lives, just like World War II.
We have lost aprox. 1,700 soldiers in Iraq since March of 2003. We averaged over 200 lives a day in WWII. The fact is , that generation was a lot tougher than our "air-conditioning" generation ever thought about being. That generation understood that their very exsistance depended upon us defeating Germany and Japan. Our very exsistance depends upon us defeating terrorism. Maybe we need another 9-11 to refocus everybody. God I hope not. There is a price to pay for our freedom that we all take for granted. What price are we willing to pay? I don't want to live in a country like Israel were there are armed gunman outside every Pizza Hut and metal detectors. It's bad enough at the airports already, we don't need that everywhere, but that is the America that we will have if we cave-in to terror.
Sorry I don't have a spell-check

I don't have spell-check either.

George Foster
08-19-2005, 01:06 AM
Hacks and wackos... now that's some good discourse.

"hacks" do not let the truth get in the way of their hatred toward Bush. They say we are over there for oil even though they know it is not true, but they know it sound's really good.

And yes "wacko's" is a term used for those who are extream in their beliefs even though they are not based on sound principle. We need oil refinery's, or gas will continue to go up in price due to China's increased demand. If gas goes up in price to much it will cripple our country and our economy. Our elected leaders should "nut -up" and ease these crazy laws that restrict building of new refinery's.

Sorry no spell check

westofyou
08-19-2005, 01:30 AM
We need oil refinery's,

And more Applebees too.


===============================
United States Refineries
===============================

Alabama

* Tuscaloosa Refinery (Hunt Refining), Tuscaloosa, Alabama
* Saraland Refinery (Shell), Saraland, Alabama
* Mobile Refinery (Trigeant), Mobile, Alabama

Alaska

* Kenai Refinery (Tesoro), Kenai, Alaska
* Kuparuk Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Kuparuk, Alaska
* North Pole Refinery (Flint Hills Resources), North Pole, Alaska
* North Pole Refinery (Petro Star), North Pole, Alaska
* Prudhoe Bay Refinery (BP), Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
* Valdez Refinery (Petro Star), Valdez, Alaska


Arkansas

* El Dorado Refinery (Lion Oil), El Dorado, Arkansas
* Smackover Refinery (Cross Oil), Smackover, Arkansas


California

* Bakersfield Refinery (Big West), Bakersfield, California, 66,000 barrels per day
* Bakersfield Refinery (Kern Oil), Bakersfield, California, 25,000 bpd
* Bakersfield Refinery (San Joaquin Refining Company), Bakersfield, California, 24,300 bpd
* Benicia Refinery (Valero), Benicia, California, 144,000 bpd
* Carson Refinery (BP), Carson, California, 260,000 bpd
* El Segundo Refinery (Chevron), El Segundo, California, 260,000 bpd
* Golden Eagle Refinery (Tesoro), near Martinez, California, 166,000 bpd
* Long Beach Refinery (Edgington Oil Company), Long Beach, California, 26,000 bpd
* Martinez Refinery (Shell Oil), Martinez, California, 154,900 bpd
* Oxnard Refinery (Tenby Inc), Oxnard, California, 2,800 bpd
* Paramount Refinery (Paramount Petroleum), Paramount, California, 50,000 bpd
* Richmond Refinery (Chevron), Richmond, California, 242,901 bpd
* Rodeo San Francisco Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Rodeo, California, 73,200 bpd
* Santa Maria Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Santa Maria, California, 41,800 bpd
* Santa Maria Refinery (Greka Energy), Santa Maria, California, 9,500 bpd
* South Gate Refinery (Lunday Thagard), South Gate, California, 8,500 bpd
* Torrance Refinery (ExxonMobil), Torrance, California, 149,000 bpd
* Wilmington Asphalt Refinery (Valero), Wilmington, California, 5,900 bpd
* Wilmington Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Wilmington, California, 133,100 bpd
* Wilmington Refinery (Shell Oil), Wilmington, California, 98,500 bpd
* Wilmington Refinery (Valero), Wilmington, California, 149,000 bpd

Colorado

* Commerce City Refinery (Suncor), Commerce City, Colorado

Delaware

* Delaware City Refinery (Premcor), Delaware City, Delaware

Georgia

* Savannah Refinery (Citgo), Savannah, Georgia (Asphalt Refinery)
* Douglasville Refinery (Young Refining), Douglasville, Georgia
Hawaii

* Kapolei Refinery (Tesoro), Ewa Beach, Hawaii
* Hawaii Refinery (Chevron), Honolulu, Hawaii

Illinois

* Lemont Refinery (Citgo), Lemont, Illinois
* Joliet Refinery (ExxonMobil), Joliet, Illinois
* Hartford Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Hartford, Illinois (Currently being integrated with Wood River)
* Robinson Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), Robinson, Illinois
* Wood River Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Roxana, Illinois

Indiana

* Whiting Refinery (BP), Whiting, Indiana
* Mount Vernon Refinery (Countrymark Co-op), Mount Vernon, Indiana

Kansas

* Coffeyville Refinery (Farmland Industries), Coffeyville, Kansas
* El Dorado Refinery (Frontier Oil), El Dorado, Kansas
* McPherson Refinery (NCRA), McPherson, Kansas

Kentucky

* Catlettsburg Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), Catlettsburg, Kentucky
* Somerset Refinery, Somerset, Kentucky

Louisiana

* Baton Rouge Refinery (ExxonMobil), Baton Rouge, Louisiana
* Belle Chasse Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Belle Chasse, Louisiana
* Chalmette Refinery (ExxonMobil), Chalmette, Louisiana
* Convent Refinery (Motiva Enterprises), Convent, Louisiana
* Cotton Valley Refinery (Calumet Lubricants), Cotton Valley, Louisiana
* Garyville Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), near Garyville, Louisiana
* Krotz Springs Refinery (Valero), Krotz Springs, Louisiana
* Lake Charles Refinery (Citgo), Lake Charles, Louisiana
* Lake Charles Refinery (Calcasieu Refining), Lake Charles, Louisiana
* Meraux Refinery (Murphy Oil), Meraux, Louisiana
* Norco Refinery (Motiva Enterprises), Norco, Louisiana
* Port Allen Refinery (Placid Refining), Port Allen, Louisiana
* Princeton Refinery (Calumet Lubricants), Princeton, Louisiana
* Shreveport Refinery (Calumet Lubricants), Shreveport, Louisiana
* St. Charles Refinery (Valero), Norco, Louisiana
* Westlake Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Westlake, Louisiana

Michigan

* Detroit Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), Detroit, Michigan

Minnesota

* Pine Bend Refinery (Flint Hills Resources), Rosemount, Minnesota
* St. Paul Park Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), St. Paul Park, Minnesota


Mississippi

* Lumberton Refinery (Hunt Southland Refining), Lumberton, Mississippi
* Pascagoula Refinery (Chevron), Pascagoula, Mississippi
* Vicksburg Refinery (Ergon), Vicksburg, Mississippi
* Rogerslacy Refinery (Hunt Southland Refining), Sandersville, Mississippi

Montana

* Billings Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Billings, Montana
* Billings Refinery (ExxonMobil), Billings, Montana
* Great Falls Refinery (Holly Corporation via Montana Refining), Great Falls, Montana
* Laurel Refinery (Cenex), Laurel, Montana

Nevada

* Eagle Springs Refinery (Foreland Refining), Eagle Springs, Nevada

New Jersey

* Bayway Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Linden, New Jersey
* Eagle Point Refinery (Sunoco), Westville, New Jersey
* Paulsboro Refinery (Valero), Paulsboro, New Jersey
* Perth Amboy Refinery (Chevron), Perth Amboy, New Jersey

New Mexico

* Artesia Refinery (Holly Corporation via Navajo Refining), Artesia, New Mexico
* Bloomfield Refinery (Giant Industries), Bloomfield, New Mexico
* Gallup Refinery (Giant Industries), Gallup, New Mexico
* Lovington Refinery (Holly Corporation), Lovington, New Mexico

North Dakota

* Mandan Refinery (Tesoro), Mandan, North Dakota

Ohio

* Canton Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), Canton, Ohio
* Lima Refinery (Premcor), Lima, Ohio
* Toledo Refinery (BP), Toledo, Ohio
* Toledo Refinery (Sunoco), Toledo, Ohio

Oklahoma

* Ardmore Refinery (Valero), Ardmore, Oklahoma
* Ponca City Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Ponca City, Oklahoma
* Tulsa Refinery (Sinclair Oil), Tulsa, Oklahoma
* Tulsa Refinery (Sunoco), Tulsa, Oklahoma
* Wynnewood Refinery, Wynnewood, Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

* Bradford Refinery (American Refining Group), Bradford, Pennsylvania
* Marcus Hook Refinery (Sunoco), Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania
* Philadelphia Refinery (Sunoco), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
* Trainer Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Trainer, Pennsylvania
* United Refining Company, Warren, Pennsylvania
* Wamsutta Oil Refinery (historical), McClintocksville, Pennsylvania

Tennessee

* Memphis Refinery (Premcor), Memphis, Tennessee

Texas

* Baytown Refinery (ExxonMobil), Baytown, Texas
* Big Spring Refinery (Alon USA), Big Spring, Texas
* Beaumont Refinery (ExxonMobil), Beaumont, Texas
* Borger Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Borger, Texas
* Corpus Christi Complex (Flint Hills Resources), Corpus Christi, Texas
* Corpus Christi Refinery (Citgo), Corpus Christi, Texas
* Corpus Christi Refinery (Valero), Corpus Christi, Texas
* Deer Park Refinery (Shell Oil), Deer Park, Texas
* El Paso Refinery (Sunoco), El Paso, Texas
* Houston Refinery (Citgo), Houston, Texas
* Houston Refinery (Valero), Houston, Texas
* McKee Refinery (Valero), Sunray, Texas
* Pasadena Refinery (Crown Central Petroleum), Pasadena, Texas
* Port Arthur Refinery (Atofina Petrochemicals), Port Arthur, Texas
* Port Arthur Refinery (Motiva Enterprises), Port Arthur, Texas
* Port Arthur Refinery (Premcor), Port Arthur, Texas
* San Antonio Refinery (Age Refining), San Antonio, Texas
* Sweeny Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Sweeny, Texas
* Texas City Refinery (BP), Texas City, Texas
* Texas City Refinery (Marathon Ashland Petroleum), Texas City, Texas
* Texas City Refinery (Valero), Texas City, Texas
* Three Rivers Refinery (Valero), Three Rivers, Texas
* Tyler Refinery (Crown Central Petroleum), Tyler, Texas

Utah

* North Salt Lake Refinery (Big West Oil), North Salt Lake, Utah
* Salt Lake City Refinery (Chevron), Salt Lake City, Utah
* Salt Lake City Refinery (Tesoro), Salt Lake City, Utah
* Woods Cross Refinery (Holly Corporation), Woods Cross, Utah
* Woods Cross Refinery (Silver Eagle Refining), Woods Cross, Utah

Virginia

* Yorktown Refinery (Giant Industries), Yorktown, Virginia

Washington

* Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), Anacortes, Washington
* Ferndale Refinery (BP), Ferndale, Washington
* Ferndale Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Ferndale, Washington
* Tacoma Refinery (U.S. Oil and Refining), Tacoma, Washington

West Virginia

* Newell Refinery (Ergon), Newell, West Virginia

Wisconsin

* Superior Refinery (Murphy Oil), Superior, Wisconsin

Wyoming

* Cheyenne Refinery (Frontier Oil), Cheyenne, Wyoming
* Evanston Refinery (Silver Eagle Refining), Evanston, Wyoming
* Evansville Refinery (Little America Refining), Evansville, Wyoming
* Newcastle Refinery (Wyoming Refining), Newcastle, Wyoming
* Sinclair Refinery (Sinclair Oil), Sinclair, Wyoming

George Foster
08-19-2005, 01:45 AM
Still we have not built a new refinery since 1980. These are all old and break down continually. It is talked about daily on CNBC. I am impressed with your research I'll give you rep points. Our oil consumption has gone up just a little since 1980, good or bad. Most homes in 1980 still owned just one car. Now there are 2 or 3 cars in everyone's driveway

cincinnati chili
08-19-2005, 01:49 AM
Still we have not built a new refinery since 1980. These are all old and break down continually. It is talked about daily on CNBC. I am impressed with your research I'll give you rep points. Our oil consumption has gone up just a little since 1980, good or bad. Most homes in 1980 still owned just one car. Now there are 2 or 3 cars in everyone's driveway

I will give you rep points for being a good sport and giving rep points to WOY, even though you disagree with him ( ;) - funny how this works).

Respectfully though, I'm not an expert on the Alaska Wilderness and other targeted drilling spots. But perhaps the answer isn't to build more refineries, but to go back to 1-2 cars per driveway instead of 3... or perhaps not drive low-gas-mpg vehicles unless you need to tow a boat, use a truck for your job, etc.

RBA
08-19-2005, 01:55 AM
The reason it has not saved you money at the pump is that we don't have an oil shortage...we have a refinery shortage. The enviromental wacko's have not allowed a oil refinery to be built in the US since 1980. There are millions of gallons of oil waiting to be processed into gasoline.

How does that explain the small refineries being closed down? Answer: The big oil companies pushed them out.



Second, President Bush or the US is not profiting at all form Iraqy oil. Any oil being sold goes back to Iraq and it's people, unlike what the left wing hacks are saying.


The problem is that the oil pipelines keep getting blown up. And wasn't the oil suppose to fund this war with the American people paying very little?



We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld.

So the tubes in London are also "overthere"?


This is not a war with a draft this is a voluntary Army. No one wants to leave home and fight for their Country, but that is what they signed up for and are paid to do.

How exactly is it "fight for their country" when Iraq posed no threat to the US? When are you going, you do belive in it, don't you? Are would you rather have other people's children do the fighting for you?



I applaud them for that. Do I agree with everything that has happened in Iraq?..no! But this is war! It is happening in real time. People forget about all of the mistakes that happened on D-Day, but in the end it was successful. We defeated Germany.


Yes, we defeated Germany because Germany and Japan posed a threat to the "free world" at the time. What threat did Iraq pose to the US and it's allies?



What people need to realize is that people are going to die to terrorism until we defeat it. The decision that the President had to make is do we fight them on the streets of middle America, or do we take the fight to them in the Middle East..either way people are going to die...I think he has made the right decision. Over 2/3's of the people killed in Iraq by our soldiers are not Iraq's but punks from Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

And you get this 2/3's number from where? Where's the other 1/3 come from?


Don't believe all the negitive stuff on the liberal anti-war news stations

What liberal anti-war news stations? What satellite company or cable company are these stations on. I can't seem to find it on Directv. I'll be most interested in a channel like that.


.
Ask soldiers who are back from the war if we are making a difference. The vast majority of them will say YES! That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush.

Again, where do you come up with your facts and figures? 80 percent? That's impressive, if it were true.



This speaks volumns. If they support Bush and they are in danger because of his decisions.....maybe we should support him to?


huh?



Our society is now a "microwave" society. Most everyone wants instant gratification. This is going to take time and yes lives, just like World War II.
We have lost aprox. 1,700 soldiers in Iraq since March of 2003. We averaged over 200 lives a day in WWII. The fact is , that generation was a lot tougher than our "air-conditioning" generation ever thought about being. That generation understood that their very exsistance depended upon us defeating Germany and Japan.


Yes, as I said before Japan and Germany were both threats to the United States and its allies.


Our very exsistance depends upon us defeating terrorism. Maybe we need another 9-11 to refocus everybody.

You seem to be confusing 9/11 with the Iraq War. Maybe if you watch one of those "liberal" tv stations you might learn none of the hi-jackers were from Iraq and most of them were Saudis.


God I hope not. There is a price to pay for our freedom that we all take for granted. What price are we willing to pay?

How about your daughter, your son, your wife? Have you and them joined the war effort?


I don't want to live in a country like Israel were there are armed gunman outside every Pizza Hut and metal detectors. It's bad enough at the airports already, we don't need that everywhere, but that is the America that we will have if we cave-in to terror.


Sorry I don't have a spell-check

George Foster
08-19-2005, 01:56 AM
How can I give rep points when WOY does not have the icon to give reps points too?

RBA
08-19-2005, 02:01 AM
How can I give rep points when WOY does not have the icon to give reps points too?

You have to be a member of the "Old Red Guard" to give rep points. You might make it someday.

Mutaman
08-19-2005, 02:12 AM
Iraq really represents proof of the absolute bankruptcy of the right
wing. They controlled the presidency, the congress and the courts. As a
result of 9/11, they controlled public opinion
and had carte blache to take any action they desired. So what did they
do? Against all common sense, they invaded Iraq. They can't blame the
Democrats, they can't blame the press, they can't blame the gays,
people of color, or the atheists. They had all the power and they
really screwed it up. And as each day passes, the extent of that screwup
becomes clearer.

Caveat Emperor
08-19-2005, 02:39 AM
The reason it has not saved you money at the pump is that we don't have an oil shortage...we have a refinery shortage. The enviromental wacko's have not allowed a oil refinery to be built in the US since 1980. There are millions of gallons of oil waiting to be processed into gasoline.

We don't have an oil shortage or a refinery shortage; we have expensive oil due to high worldwide demand from not only the United States, but the developing nations like China and India, which are starting to become largescale consumers of oil as their economies move towards the first world.


Second, President Bush or the US is not profiting at all form Iraqy oil. Any oil being sold goes back to Iraq and it's people, unlike what the left wing hacks are saying.

The issue isn't "profit" on oil, the issue is production. Iraq sits on top of the 3rd largest proven oil reserve in the world (behind only Saudi Arabia and Canada) at an estimated 115 billion barrels, with some estimates being as high as 250 billion barrels. However, the country isn't coming anywhere close to meeting it's potential sustained production ability, due to insurgent attacks and sabotage on the oil infastructure. These attacks (caused by the inability of the United States to control the area) have cost Iraq billions of dollars (and millions of barrels) in lost production. Every barrel of oil that the insurgents prevent being exported from Iraq lowers world supply all the more and keeps prices high.

Further, the current political climate of the middle east (including Iraq) is keeping the price of oil artificially high due to the constant threat that exists in the area. A stable middle east would bring about lower prices due to the decreased risk of a massive production stoppage that would result from any largescale destabilization of production and export of oil that would be the result of a terrorist attack or US invasion of another part of the area.

So, yeah... :clap: the U.S. isn't directly profiteering on the backs of the Iraqi people...but we're not helping ourselves out at the pump by destabilizing the region that has direct control over the lives of every American through their oil production.


We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld.

The fallacy of logic here is that the number of terrorists in the world remains constant. Terrorists (unlike oil) are not a finite resource; more terrorists can spring up when things call them to action...like, say, invading a country in their home areas. How many more terrorists have we created by throwing our weight around in Iraq like we have some god-given right to march across the Earth and spread our way of life?

You'll find that you create a lot more enemies when you give them even more reason to hate you.


This is not a war with a draft this is a voluntary Army. No one wants to leave home and fight for their Country, but that is what they signed up for and are paid to do. I applaud them for that.

They don't want your applause, they want your support.

And I don't mean your support as in the $1 yellow flag sticker on the back of people's cars, or lots of empty and hollow "Thank Yous" that get thrown around at servicemen and women. I mean real, financial and logistical support.

If you really support this war, and you really care about what happens to our troops...then you're right, it's a voluntary army and you are under no obligation to go fight. But, surely you wouldn't be opposed to a tax hike so that we can outfit our army with the top-of-the-line and state-of-the-art tools (like body armor, armored humvees, better weapons and equipment, etc.) to enable them to protect their lives and complete their mission successfully...right? Surely you wouldn't mind going without a few of the luxuries you currently enjoy so that we can offer better pay to our soldiers to entice more young men and women to put on the uniform and reinforce our ranks overseas?

Not only would you not mind...you would demand it, wouldn't you?

...why is it I heare tons of people yelling for everyone to support our troops and support this war, but I see the same people yelling for tax cuts, social security privitization, and lots of other things that personally benefit them but do nothing to save the lives of our men and women overseas?


Do I agree with everything that has happened in Iraq?..no! But this is war! It is happening in real time. People forget about all of the mistakes that happened on D-Day, but in the end it was successful. We defeated Germany.

We were successful in World War II because we turned the might of the United States towards an enemy...people of all ages and races were called to serve their country and did so honorably. Those who weren't fighting were working in factories turning out the machines of war needed to fight this conflict. Those who weren't working were "going without" to make sure that everyone who was fighting could do so in the best possible conditions that could be managed.

I think we'd have more success in Iraq if everyone behaved the same way now.


What people need to realize is that people are going to die to terrorism until we defeat it.

Terrorism is an idea. The idea is to utilize methods of warfare and conflict that strike directly at the heart of one's enemy at a time and place of your choosing with the goal of inflicting fear and panic.

You cannot defeat "Terrorism" any more than you can declare a war on "Guerillia Warfare" and defeat that. There will always be terrorism, it is just a question of what levels we are prepared to tolerate.

Incidentally, what does this have to do with Iraq? The notion of Iraq-sponsered terrorism has been almost thoroughly debunked.


The decision that the President had to make is do we fight them on the streets of middle America, or do we take the fight to them in the Middle East..either way people are going to die...I think he has made the right decision. Over 2/3's of the people killed in Iraq by our soldiers are not Iraq's but punks from Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The fallacy is in assuming that the only way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists when you find them. That's kind of like saying the best way to stop a roach infestation is to kill roaches when you see them.


Don't believe all the negitive stuff on the liberal anti-war news stations. Ask soldiers who are back from the war if we are making a difference. The vast majority of them will say YES! That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush. This speaks volumns. If they support Bush and they are in danger because of his decisions.....maybe we should support him to?

Or it could mean that the vast majority of the people who enter the army are predisposed to have a conservative value-set and hold conservative beliefs, thus making them more likely to support a conservative president...

It could also mean that a lot of them have risked their lives in Iraq, seen close friends killed or injured, and desperately want to believe they were not doing this for nothing...in order to put a helmet on, pick a gun up, and head into 100+ weather while fending your life, you'd better be saying something to yourself other than "I'm not even supposed to be here today."

Or yes, it could mean that they support the war and support the war effort...who knows, I cannot say.

What I can say is that saying people should support the President merely because a lot of other people think he's doing a good job isn't a convincing argument, from where I sit. I think the President is doing a horrid job and has likely done irreperable harm to our reputation as a nation on the international stage, and our economy here on the home front.


Our society is now a "microwave" society. Most everyone wants instant gratification. This is going to take time and yes lives, just like World War II.

Instant Gratification that the President so wonderfully provided when he declared "Mission Accomplished" some 1,000 deaths ago.


We have lost aprox. 1,700 soldiers in Iraq since March of 2003. We averaged over 200 lives a day in WWII. The fact is , that generation was a lot tougher than our "air-conditioning" generation ever thought about being. That generation understood that their very exsistance depended upon us defeating Germany and Japan. Our very exsistance depends upon us defeating terrorism.

That generation was a lot more willing to shoulder the burden of responsibility for a cause they believed so heavily in. And, as I stated above, it was done in ways beyond just putting on a uniform.


Maybe we need another 9-11 to refocus everybody. God I hope not. There is a price to pay for our freedom that we all take for granted. What price are we willing to pay? I don't want to live in a country like Israel were there are armed gunman outside every Pizza Hut and metal detectors. It's bad enough at the airports already, we don't need that everywhere, but that is the America that we will have if we cave-in to terror.

I'm struggling to understand how this has anything to do with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq has never once attacked our nation. There were no Iraqis (to the best of my knowledge) involved in any major American terrorist attacks. In fact, there wasn't much terrorism going in Iraq at all when Saddam was in control.

We destablized the region and created more terrorism when we marched in and took the palce over. We gave wings to the argument that America is a country only interested in controlling the Muslim world. The argument is bunk, we all know that...but to the would-be-terrorists of the world, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

If you really want to get technical, this country caved to terror when it refused to hold Saudi Arabia even remotely responsible for the actions of it's citizens on 9-11 and for not being more helpful in tracking down Osama Bin Laden (hey Bush, remember him?) and his cohorts. It's amazing that we can be so adamant about spreading democracy in the Middle East, yet do business with a nation as backwards as them...

(Note, this post is not intended as a personal attack on anyone...just me venting my feelings on the war)

Mutaman
08-19-2005, 03:15 AM
That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush.

I have been trying to find the military vote in the 2004 election for a long time and have been unable to locate it. Where did you find this figure?

pedro
08-19-2005, 03:27 AM
We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld. .....



and we are creating the largest terrorist training ground in history.




What people need to realize is that people are going to die to terrorism until we defeat it. The decision that the President had to make is do we fight them on the streets of middle America, or do we take the fight to them in the Middle East..either way people are going to die...I think he has made the right decision. Over 2/3's of the people killed in Iraq by our soldiers are not Iraq's but punks from Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

As Caveat said, this war is causing more terrorists to join the cause every day.

The idea that we are safer because of this war is absolutely ridiculous. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Trying to tie the war in Iraq to the fight against terrorism is ludicrous.

pedro
08-19-2005, 03:31 AM
BTW GF, I haven't read anywhere in this thread where anyone has claimed that we are in Iraq because of oil. Maybe your talking about some other hacks?

savafan
08-19-2005, 03:47 AM
Yes, we defeated Germany because Germany and Japan posed a threat to the "free world" at the time. What threat did Iraq pose to the US and it's allies?






One man couldn't remove Saddam Hussein from power. His son set out to prove that he could. I've always felt that's what this was about, and knew it would happen when we elected him to his first term.

Blimpie
08-19-2005, 10:49 AM
We don't have an oil shortage or a refinery shortage; we have expensive oil due to high worldwide demand from not only the United States, but the developing nations like China and India, which are starting to become largescale consumers of oil as their economies move towards the first world.Bingo. Caveat, you beat me to it. These two countries are just now expanding their infrastructures equal to levels that we have been enjoying in this country since the 1950's. Bridges, highways, buildings--things that we take for granted--were never there in those countries either because they had no resources or because their governments failed to make them priorities.

I work in an industry that is greatly influenced by the recent fluctuation in steel prices. The last 2-3 years have been brutal for us because of the demand that is originating from China, and to a lesser extent, India. "Buy American" clauses in my company's contracts force me to buy domestic steel exclusively; however, these same steel companies are free to sell to the highest bidder regardless of their country of origin. Right now, these developing countries are not only over-paying for steel, but for all commodities including crude oil. In China, transportation conditions have improved almost overnight. Thus, people have been purchasing automobiles at staggering levels in countries that, historically, have been very dependent on other modes of transportation (bicycles, scooters, trains, etc...)

Really it just boils down to supply and demand. Strictly a numbers thing. China and India make up approximately 40% of the world population. When that amount of dollars begin to flow, some companies just can't keep their greed in check. As always, markets will adjust back to normal given the proper amount of time. We are simply an impatient society that consists of people who lack a greater understanding of world--not national--economics. I just get tired of hearing that the global price of crude oil will go down as soon as Americans get rid of one of our SUV's. Hogwash.

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2005, 11:02 AM
We are more safe with this war in Iraq. terrorist are going to Iraq to fight us rather than fighting us at the Mall of America or Disneyworld.

This is a fallacious argument that has been used by conservatives since the war began.

"Terrorists" aren't going to go toe-to-toe with the world's most powerful military force. Terrorists attack civilians and try to generate fear.

The war in Iraq is being fought by warlords, thugs, and "freedom fighters," not terrorists. If they ever figure out how futile it is to fight against an organized, well-equipped, well-trained army, they will probably decide to *become* terrorists.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 11:09 AM
BTW GF, I haven't read anywhere in this thread where anyone has claimed that we are in Iraq because of oil. Maybe your talking about some other hacks?I'll step forward and make that assumption. After all, we already went to war with Iraq once over the stuff.

Oil may not have been the sole determining factor, but I think it's foolish to think Bush thought of Iraq's oilk as a nice bonus after we invaded and controlled the country.

MWM
08-19-2005, 11:59 AM
The term whackos has been used on this site to describe just about every political ideology there is.

westofyou
08-19-2005, 12:03 PM
The term whackos has been used on this site to describe just about every political ideology there is.

Baseball too, you crackpot.

pedro
08-19-2005, 01:07 PM
I'll step forward and make that assumption. After all, we already went to war with Iraq once over the stuff.

Oil may not have been the sole determining factor, but I think it's foolish to think Bush thought of Iraq's oilk as a nice bonus after we invaded and controlled the country.

I don't think it had anything to do with oil. I think it was all about ego and legacy. Unfortunately I don't think it's creating the type of legacy Bush wanted.

MWM
08-19-2005, 01:11 PM
I don't think it had anything to do with oil. I think it was all about ego and legacy. Unfortunately I don't think it's creating the type of legacy Bush wanted.

I agree completely. It took me a while to get to that belief, but that's the conclusion I've come to.

ochre
08-19-2005, 01:14 PM
It was because Hussein tried to muder/assassinate H.W.

pedro
08-19-2005, 01:15 PM
I agree completely. It took me a while to get to that belief, but that's the conclusion I've come to.

It's not like they did this because they're evil either. I believe they honestly thought they could remake the middle east in their image and make the world a better place for it. I just happen to think that it was an incredibly misguided and dangerous thing to do and I don't see anything happening in Iraq to make me change my mind. I wish I was wrong.

ochre
08-19-2005, 01:18 PM
It's not like they did this because they're evil either. I believe they honestly thought they could remake the middle east in their image and make the world a better place for it. I just happen to think that it was an incredibly misguided and dangerous thing to do and I don't see anything happening in Iraq to make me change my mind. I wish I was wrong.
From what I have seen and read, that's exactly how the Wolfowitz' of the world see their role(s) in modern society.

pedro
08-19-2005, 01:20 PM
It was because Hussein tried to muder/assassinate H.W.

Well, I do believe that's part of W's motivation but it'd be hard to get everyone else to go along for the ride soley based on that.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 01:50 PM
I don't think it had anything to do with oil. I think it was all about ego and legacy. Unfortunately I don't think it's creating the type of legacy Bush wanted.I think that's part of it, but there's simply no way to ignore than closer-than-kin relationships this administration has with the oil companies.

I believe ego and legacy played a part of it as well, but I also firmly believe that an ability to put a U.S.-friendly government in place in a nation with the world's third highest oil reserves was simply too big of a carrot to dangle in front of W.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 01:55 PM
It's not like they did this because they're evil either. I believe they honestly thought they could remake the middle east in their image and make the world a better place for it. I just happen to think that it was an incredibly misguided and dangerous thing to do and I don't see anything happening in Iraq to make me change my mind. I wish I was wrong.
It is this arrogance that is so unbelieveably galling--that we have a place in the world to make it a better place in an image we define, and in any way that we see fit. We try to impose American Style democracy on nations regardless of whether they want it or not, our foreign policy is driven primarily on self-interest and (when it suits us) that of our allies. We'll invade a nation when it's convenient for us and our economic interests, or helps feed the ego of a President, but we'll turn the other way when the nation is a starved, third-world oil depleted African nation.

This isn't solely a condemnation of Republicans, either. Bill Clinton's policy was largely based on the same ideals. It's an ideaology rampant through the entire U.S. government.

Blimpie
08-19-2005, 01:56 PM
...I also firmly believe that an ability to put a U.S.-friendly government in place in a nation with the world's third highest oil reserves was simply too big of a carrot to dangle in front of W.Hey, I thought that we already had that in Saudia Ara...uhm. Never mind. ;)

MWM
08-19-2005, 02:23 PM
It's not like they did this because they're evil either. I believe they honestly thought they could remake the middle east in their image and make the world a better place for it. I just happen to think that it was an incredibly misguided and dangerous thing to do and I don't see anything happening in Iraq to make me change my mind. I wish I was wrong.

That's how I feel as well. Personally, I was opposed to the war long before the first bomb was dropped and I even believed we'd find huge caches of WMD. I just didn't see it as a real threat to us at all and so I thought we should stay out (same reason why I was opposed to our actions in Kosovo). But I understood the opposing viewpoint and saw some of the merits in what they were saying. Then I bought into the "faulty intelligence" argument, which I still think has some level of validity.

But now I've come to believe that President Bush was determined to find a reason to "liberate" Iraq while he was President one way or another. 9-11 gave him a story to sell, even though no connection existed. I think he probably saw things how he wanted to see them and at some level really believed he was doing what was right. But he was all too willing to go to war without thinking it all the way through, IMO. I wonder if he would have been so willing had he actually ever seen a real battlefield himself. I think that really matters. He seemed so cavalier about Iraq. It never seemed to be the last resort for him. I said it before the war started and it didn't take long to realize it was true, but I believe the Iraq war will go down as one of the biggest blunders in our nation's history. Maybe I'm just too stubborn, but I still don't see how we can leave at this point. An equally significant blunder, IMO, is going to war without committing everything possible to win. I think that's what has happened here. We're just spread too thin over there and our forces have not been given the resources to complete the task they were asked to complete. If you're going to go to war, go all-in. We didn't do that and it's costing us big time.

ochre
08-19-2005, 02:38 PM
Well, I do believe that's part of W's motivation but it'd be hard to get everyone else to go along for the ride soley based on that.
oh, I know that seems a bit tenuous. That's where the wolfowitz "democratization" crew fits in.

pedro
08-19-2005, 02:51 PM
this was on cnn.com today

link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html)

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

Friday, August 19, 2005; Posted: 1:04 p.m. EDT (17:04 GMT)

Programming Note: "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown" airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET on CNN.

(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program, which airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET, pieces together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 14, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

oneupper
08-19-2005, 03:42 PM
It is this arrogance that is so unbelieveably galling--that we have a place in the world to make it a better place in an image we define, and in any way that we see fit. We try to impose American Style democracy on nations regardless of whether they want it or not, our foreign policy is driven primarily on self-interest and (when it suits us) that of our allies. We'll invade a nation when it's convenient for us and our economic interests, or helps feed the ego of a President, but we'll turn the other way when the nation is a starved, third-world oil depleted African nation.


I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment. However, collateral good has been known to come from arrogant (or egotistical) endeavors.

In the XIX century, abolitionist movements were not entirely unselfish. Those who had abolished slavery found themselves in "unfair economic competition" with countries who still permitted it. Those movements were guided by greed as much as compassion.

Also, Western "values" and government imposed on the losers of WWII (Germany and Japan) seem to have been -in retrospect- positives.

As for imposing Democracy, it is certainly a fast-track method of what "should" or "could" be a gradual (and inevitable) process. We cannot know if undemocratic nations "want" it or not, since their will is not allowed to come forth. If 50 people have to elect a leader, the guy with the gun wins every time.

That said, a democracy "given" is probably not as cherished as one that has been "won". Still, it can be a collateral "good".

Just my two bits. Doesn't mean I'm in favor (or against) the war in Iraq.
At this point, I really don't know.

Jaycint
08-19-2005, 04:09 PM
We'll invade a nation when it's convenient for us and our economic interests, or helps feed the ego of a President, but we'll turn the other way when the nation is a starved, third-world oil depleted African nation.



I wonder how many kids we could feed in Niger right now with say 1/100th of the money we have used playing in the desert?

What's galling to me is all of the different uses we could have put this war's money to. People starving in Africa, people starving in America, inner city schools crumbling.

Oh, that and the fact that maybe I wouldn't have to take out a small loan to fill my gas tank up.

Caveat Emperor
08-19-2005, 04:28 PM
It's not like they did this because they're evil either. I believe they honestly thought they could remake the middle east in their image and make the world a better place for it. I just happen to think that it was an incredibly misguided and dangerous thing to do and I don't see anything happening in Iraq to make me change my mind. I wish I was wrong.

But, like so many misguided people in life...they make the fundamental mistake of thinking that everyone else in the world thinks like them. In every piece of rhetoric that has come from the mouth of George W. Bush, it has been readily apparent that he simply does not understand or comprehend (or chooses to be willfully ignorant) that there could ever be a dissenting voice or another way to go about things. They cannot fathom a group of people who would rather not be free...or who were indifferent to the idea of freedom in the first place. Or, for that matter, a group of people who prefer the structures of an opressive religious regime to a democracy in which every man is free to choose his own way of life.

Democracy cannot be forced upon people or given to them...democracy must be the result of the people uniting, standing tall, and demanding nothing less than their freedom. It must be won at a price, be it through acts of civil disobediance like the ones in India or through bloody conflict as in France and America. Either way, the people must emerge through the end of the struggle with an appreciation for what their efforts have wrought, for that appreciation is what leads to a true understanding of the cost and need for freedom.

Iraq was not ready for freedom, and to force it upon them can only result in collapse and a return back to the way things used to be: internal conflict and civil war leading to a strongman returning to take power. Someday they will be ready to be free. The people of Iraq will decide the time and the hour of that day, and the rebellion and suffering/effort/bloodshed that ensues will be the soil in which a firm, real democracy can take root.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 04:35 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment. However, collateral good has been known to come from arrogant (or egotistical) endeavors.Oh, it absolutely has...I wouldn't disagree with that at all. It's that we (America in general, not necessarily individuals here) view ourselves as these morally superior people--the proverbial beacon on a hill. And it's led to this mentality that if someone disagrees with our policies, the problem is with THEM, and not US. It's why we think the terrorists hate freedom, it's why everyone was so up-in-arms about the French, it's why war dissenters are labeled as unpatriotic...WE'RE right, and if you're not with us, well screw you.

And as much as it can lead to collateral good, it also oftentimes leads to collateral BAD...the current Iraq war, or Nicauragua in the 1980s, for example.

ochre
08-19-2005, 04:36 PM
Project for a New American Century

Wolfowitz however could not remain completely out of politics for long and in 1997 he became one of the charter members, alongside Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle and others, of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded this neo-conservative think-tank with the stated aim of "American global leadership" through military strength. In 1998 Wolfowitz was one of the signatories of the PNAC open letter to President Bill Clinton that was highly critical of his continued policy of containing Iraq. The PNAC advocated preemptive U.S. military intervention against Iraq and other "potential aggressor states" to "protect our vital interests in the Gulf". In 2000 the PNAC produced its magnum opus the 90-page report on Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century that advocated the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad. The Clinton administration however remained unmoved and pressed on with containment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

registerthis
08-19-2005, 04:37 PM
Iraq was not ready for freedom, and to force it upon them can only result in collapse and a return back to the way things used to be: internal conflict and civil war leading to a strongman returning to take power. Someday they will be ready to be free. The people of Iraq will decide the time and the hour of that day, and the rebellion and suffering/effort/bloodshed that ensues will be the soil in which a firm, real democracy can take root.Absolutely.

And it has cost us nearly 1,900 American lives, and God-knows-how-many Iraqi civilian lives to learn this lesson...shoot, some people STILL haven't learned it.

Rojo
08-19-2005, 05:19 PM
I think the decision to go to war was a kind of "perfect storm" for Bush. There are basically three strains that have come together for the GOP in the Bush Administration: neocons, crony capitalists and fundamentalists.

The neocons were, of course, the primary movers behind the war. The Office of Special Plans, the Pentagon agency that distorted intelligence to make the case for war, was rife with them. The Neocons plans for using power to achieve American and Isreali geopolitical goals was remarkably transparent. The American Enterprise Institute, The Project for a New American Century, American-Israeli Political Action Committe provide the intellectual infrastructure. Some prominent names include Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and the sinister Michael Ledeen.

The crony capitalists were just intersted in making money. And the Bush family, Cheney, Frank Carlucci and just about anyone associated with the Carlysle Group, Haliburton, KBR or Blackwater stood to make a lot of money from any kind of war.

Lastly, many fundamentalists have made the preservation of the state of Israel a keystone of their vision of biblical prophecy. Sometimes this even includes a "greater Israel". And, it should be said, that many fundamentalists relished a religious war with Islam.

So, the cronies provide the money, the fundamentalists provide the voters and the neocons provide the intellectual patina to sway opinion leaders.

oneupper
08-19-2005, 05:48 PM
Oh, it absolutely has...I wouldn't disagree with that at all. It's that we (America in general, not necessarily individuals here) view ourselves as these morally superior people--the proverbial beacon on a hill.

Yes, unfortunately this arrogance is leading to a drop in American leadership in the world. If (big if, sometimes) US values = freedom, freedom's stock is down and dropping.


And as much as it can lead to collateral good, it also oftentimes leads to collateral BAD...the current Iraq war, or Nicauragua in the 1980s, for example.

I'd say the jury is still out on those two. Way too early to tell in Iraq (in a historical sense). Nicaragua seems to be slipping back into Sandinista control, which IMO is a tragedy.

We couldn't know what might have happened in Central America had the sandinistas not been held in check. Hard to say that Nicaragua is in worse shape today due to US intervention in the '80s.

Just realized this is my 1,000 post. Didn't plan on using it on politics.

(GO REDS)

pedro
08-19-2005, 06:18 PM
I'd say the jury is still out on those two. Way too early to tell in Iraq (in a historical sense). Nicaragua seems to be slipping back into Sandinista control, which IMO is a tragedy.

We couldn't know what might have happened in Central America had the sandinistas not been held in check. Hard to say that Nicaragua is in worse shape today due to US intervention in the '80s.


(GO REDS)

I wholeheartedly disagree. The US screwed Nicaragua over for years and then as soon as they kicked our buddies the Somazas out of power, we decided to start an illegal war to oust the Sandinistas, who were actually trying to help the people of Nicaragua. Not one of the shining moments in US history IMO.

Yes, it is true that Daniel Ortega, is a Marxist, but not all Sandinistas were.

It's easy to simplify this into a cold war POV, but is retrospect, of course the Sandistas turned to the USSR for help, the US was backing their enemies.

If you want to learn more about the Sandinistas and what they were really up to, check out the wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista#Sandinista_rule_.281979.E2.80.931990.29

BTW- the Sandinistas peacefully handed over power when they were voted out of office in 1990. More than I can say for their predicessors.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 06:22 PM
Yes, unfortunately this arrogance is leading to a drop in American leadership in the world. If (big if, sometimes) US values = freedom, freedom's stock is down and dropping.True "freedom" is another, often overlooked, casualty of our foreign policy.


I'd say the jury is still out on those two. Way too early to tell in Iraq (in a historical sense). Nicaragua seems to be slipping back into Sandinista control, which IMO is a tragedy.

We couldn't know what might have happened in Central America had the sandinistas not been held in check. Hard to say that Nicaragua is in worse shape today due to US intervention in the '80s.
I wouldn't hesitate at all to say that, actually. Many Americans don't understand the full story of our intervention in that country--they believe, mistakenly, that it was a mere extension of the Cold War. However, the atrocities committed by U.S.-supported troops in Nicaragua during the mid-80s were so severe that the World Court found against the U.S. for war crimes in a matter brought forth by nicaragua. Only America's refusal to accept the authority of the World Court prevented us from being bound to the payment of reparations which the Court recommended. If you're interested, I would suggest reading "Contra-Terror in Nicaragua" by Reed Brody. It's merely a collection of documented atrocities Mr. Brody collected while on a fact-finding mission to nicaragua during 1984-85, and it's very eye-opening in its candor.




Just realized this is my 1,000 post. Didn't plan on using it on politics.

(GO REDS)
Congratulations! :beerme:

Mutaman
08-19-2005, 07:08 PM
Don't believe all the negitive stuff on the liberal anti-war news stations That is why over 80% of the active military voted for Bush.


Still waiting for some verication for this statement.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 12:06 AM
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
By FRANK RICH

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam résumés: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

The backdrops against which Ms. Sheehan stands - both that of Mr. Bush's what-me-worry vacation and that of Iraq itself - are perfectly synergistic with her message of unequal sacrifice and fruitless carnage. Her point would endure even if the messenger were shot by a gun-waving Crawford hothead or she never returned to Texas from her ailing mother's bedside or the president folded the media circus by actually meeting with her.

The public knows that what matters this time is Casey Sheehan's story, not the mother who symbolizes it. Cindy Sheehan's bashers, you'll notice, almost never tell her son's story. They are afraid to go there because this young man's life and death encapsulate not just the noble intentions of those who went to fight this war but also the hubris, incompetence and recklessness of those who gave the marching orders.

Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of "major combat operations" from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

According to the account of the battle by John F. Burns in The Times, the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn't stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of "the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force" abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations "almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control."

Yet in the month before Casey Sheehan's death, Mr. Rumsfeld typically went out of his way to inflate the size and prowess of these Iraqi security forces, claiming in successive interviews that there were "over 200,000 Iraqis that have been trained and equipped" and that they were "out on the front line taking the brunt of the violence." We'll have to wait for historians to tell us whether this and all the other Rumsfeld propaganda came about because he was lied to by subordinates or lying to himself or lying to us or some combination thereof.

As The Times reported last month, even now, more than a year later, a declassified Pentagon assessment puts the total count of Iraqi troops and police officers at 171,500, with only "a small number" able to fight insurgents without American assistance. As for Moktada al-Sadr, he remains as much a player as ever in the new "democratic" Iraq. He controls one of the larger blocs in the National Assembly. His loyalists may have been responsible for last month's apparently vengeful murder of Steven Vincent, the American freelance journalist who wrote in The Times that Mr. Sadr's followers had infiltrated Basra's politics and police force.

Casey Sheehan's death in Iraq could not be more representative of the war's mismanagement and failure, but it is hardly singular. Another mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s "well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist."

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. "We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son," Ms. Zappala wrote. (Perhaps so: surely it was a joke that one of the emissaries Mr. Bush sent to Cindy Sheehan in Crawford was Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser who took responsibility for allowing the 16 errant words about doomsday uranium into the president's prewar State of the Union speech.)

Mr. Bush's stand-up shtick for the Beltway press corps wasn't some aberration; it was part of the White House's political plan for keeping the home front cool. America was to yuk it up, party on and spend its tax cuts heedlessly while the sacrifice of an inadequately manned all-volunteer army in Iraq was kept out of most Americans' sight and minds. This is why the Pentagon issued a directive at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom forbidding news coverage of "deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases. It's why Mr. Bush, unlike Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, has not attended funeral services for the military dead. It's why January's presidential inauguration, though nominally dedicated to the troops, was a gilded $40 million jamboree at which the word Iraq was banished from the Inaugural Address.

THIS summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.

RBA
08-21-2005, 12:59 PM
More reporting from the "liberal" anti-war media???????? This is their take on Pro-Bush/Pro-War Crusaders. Notice how they label them "PATRIOTIC" as oppose to the other Anti-War camp. You can only surmise that if you are Anti-War, you must not be patriotic.

I'm sure everyone has read Orwell here.




Patriotic Camp Counters Peace Mom Protest


By ANGELA K. BROWN
http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceAP.gif Updated: 8:51 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

CRAWFORD, Texas - A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.

The camp is named "Fort Qualls," in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall.


''If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that,'' said the soldier's father, Gary Qualls, a friend of the local business owner who started the pro-Bush camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.
Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.
Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.
Cindy Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, died last year in Iraq, started the anti-war demonstration along the roadside on Aug. 6. ''Camp Casey'' has since grown to about 100 core participants, and hundreds more from across the nation have visited.
Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. Her mother has some paralysis but is in good spirits, and if she improves, Sheehan may return to Texas in a few days, some demonstrators said.
In her absence, the rest of the group will keep camping out for the unlikely chance to question the president about the war that has claimed the lives of about 1,850 U.S. soldiers.
Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan but won't change his schedule to meet with her. She and other families met with Bush about two months after Casey Sheehan died, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.
Large counter-protests were held in a ditch near Sheehan's site a week after she arrived, and since then, a few Bush supporters have stood in the sun holding signs for several hours each day.
Bill Johnson, a local gift shop owner who created ''Fort Qualls,'' said he wanted to offer a larger, more convenient place for Bush supporters to gather.
He and others at ''Fort Qualls'' have asked for a debate with those at the Crawford Peace House, which is helping Sheehan.
It's unclear if that will happen. But a member of Gold Star Families for Peace, co-founded by Sheehan and comprised of relatives of fallen soldiers, said her group would not participate.
''We're asking for a meeting with the president, period,'' said Michelle DeFord, whose 37-year-old son, Sgt. David W. Johnson, was in the Army National Guard from Oregon when he was killed in Iraq last fall. ''We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view.''
© 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9029854

pedro
08-21-2005, 01:45 PM
The assumption that a person is more patriotic because they are in favor of the Iraq war really pisses me off.

Caveat Emperor
08-21-2005, 06:37 PM
The assumption that a person is more patriotic because they are in favor of the Iraq war really pisses me off.

Or, as a related note, that someone is "More Patriotic" because he or she supports the President in whatever decisions are made.

The love that people have for George W. Bush truly preplexes me...I never saw Democrats going to the wood like this for Clinton.

pedro
08-21-2005, 06:46 PM
Or, as a related note, that someone is "More Patriotic" because he or she supports the President in whatever decisions are made.

The love that people have for George W. Bush truly preplexes me...I never saw Democrats going to the wood like this for Clinton.

except for Monica. ;)

Sorry, even I couldn't resist that.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 06:46 PM
The love that people have for George W. Bush truly preplexes me...I never saw Democrats going to the wood like this for Clinton.

There is one key reason for this. But if I write it I'll get kicked off the board again. :)

Jaycint
08-21-2005, 06:58 PM
There is one key reason for this. But if I write it I'll get kicked off the board again. :)

Thanks for saving me a couple points on my blood pressure FCB. You are a true humanitarian. ;)

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 07:09 PM
Thanks for saving me a couple points on my blood pressure FCB. You are a true humanitarian. ;)

For someone who claims to be adamantly independent of the Republicans, you sure get riled whenever they're attacked. ;)

Jaycint
08-21-2005, 07:12 PM
For someone who claims to be adamantly independent of the Republicans, you sure get riled whenever they're attacked. ;)

I figured the attack wouldn't have been so much against Repubs as it would have been against white males. We are evil incarnate ya know. ;)

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 07:14 PM
I figured the attack wouldn't have been so much against Repubs as it would have been against white males. We are the evil incarnate ya know. ;) No trust me, I would have lumped in ALL Republicans, men, women, black, Asian, white.

Jaycint
08-21-2005, 07:22 PM
No trust me, I would have lumped in ALL Republicans, men, women, black, Asian, white.

Although we rarely ever fall on the same page in regards to issues on this side of the board I just wanna say that I respect the fact that you stand firm in your positions and beliefs. Not a lot of waffling when it comes to FCB. :thumbup:

For the record I consider myself a Libertarian. I probably lean a little right on economics issues and I am absolutely positive I lean way further to the left than you could ever imagine when it comes to social issues.

I am no fan of the current administration. Next election, since a Libertarian candidate stand as much chance as an ice cube in hell of getting elected, I will choose the candidate that I feel falls the closest to my views when I cast my vote. If they are a Democrat cool, if they are a Republican cool.

WVRedsFan
08-21-2005, 09:44 PM
Speaking of being more patriotic because you support the actions of the President, I heard the end of a conversation today that I found most interesting.

As everyone knows, the US is prevalent with cars plastered with yellow ribbons and "support our troops" stickers. I don't have one on mine because I don't put any kind of bumper sticker or magnetic sign on my Acura. I just don't.

This morning I was pulled to church where the topic of the sermon was patriotism for some reason and what this country should mean to Christians. It was the usual Rah-Rah about supporting the boys over there (which I totally agree with) and our government leaders who had the wisdom granted by God to know what they are doing (Bush is a Christian, you know). After about the first five minutes, I started not listening and leafing through the hymnal to entertain me until I could get out of there.

But, what happened after church was amazing. Two older gentlemen got into an argument in the parking lot about one of them still having a Kerry sticker on his car. The Bush supporter criticized the other guy for not being "patriotic" like the pastor said he should be. It got sort of heated at that point and the Bush guy made a statement I thought was interesting.

"You know those people over there are evil and not Christians, it's our duty to show them the right way--the way of Christ so they can save themselves from Hell."

Methinks there may be a lot more to this than I first thought. Not only are we righting terrorism, we are fighting folks who worship different from us. Interesting.

George Foster
08-22-2005, 01:41 AM
Still waiting for some verication for this statement.

Polls taken after the election by CNN, Newsweek, and CBS all had the same numbers. 70-80% of active military and their families, voted for Bush. My point being if THEY, being the ones put in danger by Bush are supporting him, why should we not support him as well. They know more about what is going on In Iraq than the news media...right?

All most people know about the war is what they see on TV. If all we saw was the positive stuff, support for the war would be a 65 %-70%.

Sadly, all we see are the negitive stuff, thus support for the war is at 35%-40%. Most people don't take the time to do a little research on their own, and watch and read different news sources.

When was the last time you saw a postive story on the nightly news, or New York Times? My point exactly.

The power of the media is huge. They control what we know and don't know. They control what we see and don't see. They control weather or not it is on the top fold of the newspaper or buried on page 17. That is power. Thank goodness for the Web.

Ask a soldier, the next time you see him back from Iraq if he thinks the news coverage is fair. Then thank him or her for their sacrifice.

I travel a lot. I make it a point to thank every military person I see in the airport. If I see them eating before their flight, I pick up their check. Not one has told me, what they are doing is wrong. They are proud, as I am of their noble work.

Are their some military out there that disagree with this...sure I'd say so, but I have not met them yet. I have spoke to aprox. 125-150 military personal since March of 03 who were going, coming back, or going again to Iraq. They all say the same thing...We are doing good work in Iraq.

Mutaman
08-22-2005, 03:47 AM
Polls taken after the election by CNN, Newsweek, and CBS all had the same numbers. 70-80% of active military and their families, voted for Bush. My point being if THEY, being the ones put in danger by Bush are supporting him, why should we not support him as well. They know more about what is going on In Iraq than the news media...right?


I don't call the statement "Polls taken after the election by CNN, Newsweek, and CBS" verication. If such polls exist it shouldn't be too hard for you to link one for me. Since I can't find any, I'm going to assume such polls don't exist and you're making statements which you can't prove.

Obviously the majority of the military supports the foreign policy of this administration. But as far as the argument that I should support this administration , its idiotic invasion of Iraq, and its incompetent handling thereof, because the military does--- No thanks.

And there are plenty of old soldiers who don't buy that arguement either- Republican Chuck Hagel for one.

RosieRed
08-22-2005, 04:20 AM
Are their some military out there that disagree with this...sure I'd say so, but I have not met them yet. I have spoke to aprox. 125-150 military personal since March of 03 who were going, coming back, or going again to Iraq. They all say the same thing...We are doing good work in Iraq.

It is entirely possible, IMO, that the soldiers can be doing good work while the Bush administration is not. The two are not exclusive.

Rojo
08-22-2005, 04:33 AM
"You know those people over there are evil and not Christians, it's our duty to show them the right way--the way of Christ so they can save themselves from Hell."

Methinks there may be a lot more to this than I first thought. Not only are we righting terrorism, we are fighting folks who worship different from us. Interesting.

Can I quote my own earlier post?


And, it should be said, that many fundamentalists relished a religious war with Islam.

Of course, nobody is going to come right out and say this -- to a pollster, to a reporter, maybe not even to their own neighbor. But, don't fool yourselves, there are Jihadists on both sides of this conflict.



Ask a soldier, the next time you see him back from Iraq if he thinks the news coverage is fair.

I'd ask the guy at my local bar, but I get the feeling he doesn't really care about the New York Times coverage. He was too busy telling me about the horse he saw galloping, on fire, screaming from pain, but was too battle-fatigued to care.

Or the buddy that was blown up by a land mine in front of him.

Or the sniper he recruited who pleaded with him not to go because his wife was a drug addict and he feared for his baby's safety. BTW, he did take the sniper,the mother did relapse and the baby did die.

You see, they've already called him back three times and he just doesn't give a damn about media coverage. He just wants to stay home.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 10:54 AM
I don't call the statement "Polls taken after the election by CNN, Newsweek, and CBS" verication. If such polls exist it shouldn't be too hard for you to link one for me. Since I can't find any, I'm going to assume such polls don't exist and you're making statements which you can't prove.

Obviously the majority of the military supports the foreign policy of this administration. But as far as the argument that I should support this administration , its idiotic invasion of Iraq, and its incompetent handling thereof, because the military does--- No thanks.

And there are plenty of old soldiers who don't buy that arguement either- Republican Chuck Hagel for one.In the interest of fairness, I did a quick Google search, and the first two results were articles from the Washington Post and USA Today that seem to indicate the military voting overwhelmingly in favor of Bush over Kerry. The USA Today article lists support for Bush over Kerry at 4 to 1 (80%) while the Post lists the disparity at 72%.

Links here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) and here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25656-2004Oct11.html).

RBA
08-22-2005, 11:30 AM
In the interest of fairness, I did a quick Google search, and the first two results were articles from the Washington Post and USA Today that seem to indicate the military voting overwhelmingly in favor of Bush over Kerry. The USA Today article lists support for Bush over Kerry at 4 to 1 (80%) while the Post lists the disparity at 72%.

Links here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) and here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25656-2004Oct11.html).


An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel



The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co.,


How many entry level servicemen subscribe to an Army Times Publication? My subscribtion cost me $52 dollars a year. Not too many entry level service members subscribe. It's more geared towards the "lifers" and retirees. Yes, I would say the poll is unscientific.



The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.


Look at the ranks of the service members dying in in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority are in the enlisted ranks and most of them in the lower to mid entry level ranks.

At least the USA Today admitted the poll was unscientific. Your Washington Post "editorial" left out some glaring facts about the survey.

I'm not going too far into this, but if you want to PM me, I will respond.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 11:35 AM
I'm not going too far into this, but if you want to PM me, I will respond.Wasn't really looking for a debate on this issue, merely pointing out that the argument that servicemembers went for Bush in large numbers wasn't without merit. I could be wrong, and wouldn't really be bothered if I was.

RBA
08-22-2005, 11:44 AM
Wasn't really looking for a debate on this issue, merely pointing out that the argument that servicemembers went for Bush in large numbers wasn't without merit. I could be wrong, and wouldn't really be bothered if I was.

I agree that the majority of millitary votes went to Bush. But I don't think it is anywhere near 80 percent. I would guess in the 60 to 66 percent range.

George Foster
08-22-2005, 12:13 PM
I don't call the statement "Polls taken after the election by CNN, Newsweek, and CBS" verication. If such polls exist it shouldn't be too hard for you to link one for me. Since I can't find any, I'm going to assume such polls don't exist and you're making statements which you can't prove.

Obviously the majority of the military supports the foreign policy of this administration. But as far as the argument that I should support this administration , its idiotic invasion of Iraq, and its incompetent handling thereof, because the military does--- No thanks.

And there are plenty of old soldiers who don't buy that arguement either- Republican Chuck Hagel for one.


Ah, this took all of 5 seconds to find on google.

www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm.

You are the kind of person that would Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It says in this article they support Bush 4 to 1 that's 80% if you have problems with math. You do believe USA Today don't you? I'll except your apology for "making up" polls any time you fell comfortable doing so.

I searched "2004 presidential military polls"

And when it comes to supporting the war or not, I'll trust the opinions of the ones over there. Chuck Hagel is not a Republican, he's a "Hagelcrat"

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2005, 12:47 PM
You are the kind of person that would Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It says in this article they support Bush 4 to 1 that's 80% if you have problems with math. You do believe USA Today don't you? I'll except your apology for "making up" polls any time you fell comfortable doing so.

Didn't you read the multiple caveats in the USA Today article -- the ones RBA pointed out in his post on the previous page? Can you address them?

RBA
08-22-2005, 12:51 PM
Ah, this took all of 5 seconds to find on google.

www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm).

You are the kind of person that would Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It says in this article they support Bush 4 to 1 that's 80% if you have problems with math. You do believe USA Today don't you? I'll except your apology for "making up" polls any time you fell comfortable doing so.

I searched "2004 presidential military polls"

And when it comes to supporting the war or not, I'll trust the opinions of the ones over there. Chuck Hagel is not a Republican, he's a "Hagelcrat"

What FACTS? DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? WHAT DOES UNSCIENTIFIC MEAN TO YOU? You are the one not letting facts get in a way of a good story. NO APOLOGY IS NEEDED.

Paul Hackett was "overthere"? Do you believe his opinions?

Blimpie
08-22-2005, 12:57 PM
Didn't you read the multiple caveats in the USA Today article -- the ones RBA pointed out in his post on the previous page? Can you address them?I will preface my comments here by saying that I have no opinion one way or the other about this particular poll....

However, within ANY given statistical poll, there will always be inherent biases beneath the methodology. It's really just a matter of how much "margin for error" is too much for a given person to lose sleep over.

George Foster
08-22-2005, 01:06 PM
What FACTS? DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? WHAT DOES UNSCIENTIFIC MEAN TO YOU? You are the one not letting facts get in a way of a good story. NO APOLOGY IS NEEDED.

Paul Hackett was "overthere"? Do you believe his opinions?


So I guess this pole is 20-30% off right? Do you think USA Today would have published it , if they thought it was not a pretty good poll.

If you know anything about scienctific polls it would be almost impossible to have one when polling the military. This does not mean your poll is not accurate. If you poll 500 people at random, your poll numbers are not going to be that far off. Again curtain people will NEVER admit when they might be wrong on a specific topic even when presented with facts that state the oppisite of their position.

I was told I made up polls, that they can't be found on the web, and in 5 seconds I found a poll by USA Today/CNN, and now this poll is not good enough, please!

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2005, 01:36 PM
However, within ANY given statistical poll, there will always be inherent biases beneath the methodology. It's really just a matter of how much "margin for error" is too much for a given person to lose sleep over.


Sure. But as RBA pointed out, the inherent biases in this poll are indeed something a reasonable person should question.

RBA
08-22-2005, 01:38 PM
I will preface my comments here by saying that I have no opinion one way or the other about this particular poll....

However, within ANY given statistical poll, there will always be inherent biases beneath the methodology. It's really just a matter of how much "margin for error" is too much for a given person to lose sleep over.

Yes, in this poll the margin of error would be very high in my opinion. This was not a poll of the overall military. It was a poll of subsribers to Army Times Publishing Magazines. A demographic that skew towards older, Senior Enlisted, Officers, and retirees.

Mr. George Foster doesn't address this. He has a hard time understanding it for some reason.

Falls City Beer
08-22-2005, 01:53 PM
I'm just going to throw out one word: sheep.

Blimpie
08-22-2005, 02:02 PM
Yes, in this poll the margin of error would be very high in my opinion. This was not a poll of the overall military. It was a poll of subsribers to Army Times Publishing Magazines. A demographic that skew towards older, Senior Enlisted, Officers, and retirees.

Mr. George Foster doesn't address this. He has a hard time understanding it for some reason.Agreed. I would like to clarify, once again, that I have no opinion about this particular poll whatsoever.

It's just that having worked as a research analyst in a previous life, I have designed many surveys and their methodologies. My only point is that, sometimes, people have a tendency to attack survey methodologies as a response to not liking the results that said research generated. As an example, I once had a person attack my research findings that were garnered from a telephone opinion poll completed by 500 respondents across the nation. His agrument was that 2.4 % of the population do not have telephones; thus, the poll results were not representative of the "entire population." :bang:

dsmith421
08-22-2005, 02:04 PM
This site:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

states that Bush outpolled Kerry by 57-41 among voters who 'had served in the military', which would obviously include vets as well as current servicemen. That number constituted 18% of respondents.

I'm still not quite sure why this has any relevance to, well, anything.

RBA
08-22-2005, 02:25 PM
This site:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

states that Bush outpolled Kerry by 57-41 among voters who 'had served in the military', which would obviously include vets as well as current servicemen. That number constituted 18% of respondents.

I'm still not quite sure why this has any relevance to, well, anything.

Probably not much revelance. But some have said that we should listen to the people who served overthere over people who have not. And than they bring out a flawed survey saying 80 percent voted for President Bush.

Mutaman
08-22-2005, 02:45 PM
I was told I made up polls, that they can't be found on the web, and in 5 seconds I found a poll by USA Today/CNN, and now this poll is not good enough, please!

Not true. I said you made a statement and failed to back it up with hard empirical facts.

Cedric
08-22-2005, 10:59 PM
Anyone that supports terrorism and terrorists at the scale Hussein did has to be taken out. War is the worst thing in the world, I have family members in Iraq and I hate it. But I know we live in a pc world, I know we want all the answers and the public feels they should know every detail of why we need to defend ourselves. I support anything we have to do to take care of all terrorists. I see people saying that 2000 lives is too much and this and that. I respect that and I think any life being lost is a disgrace, but to use that number and say that's a #1 fact for the war being wrong is just insane. Sometimes in life you have to give up yourself for the future. I'm amazed that some on here think the only reason Hussein was a threat was because of wmd. Why does immediate threat matter? After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.

It's a war on the Muslim religion and that's a shame. Surely there are plenty of Muslims that aren't violent, but it's their fault that they have let their religion become state controlled and become increasingly led by radicals. Where and when do we face facts that something must be done about the increasing fanaticism in the Muslim world? Do we just avoid it because we want to sound non discriminatory? I tell you that I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.

pedro
08-22-2005, 11:20 PM
Anyone that supports terrorism and terrorists at the scale Hussein did has to be taken out. War is the worst thing in the world, I have family members in Iraq and I hate it. But I know we live in a pc world, I know we want all the answers and the public feels they should know every detail of why we need to defend ourselves. I support anything we have to do to take care of all terrorists. I see people saying that 2000 lives is too much and this and that. I respect that and I think any life being lost is a disgrace, but to use that number and say that's a #1 fact for the war being wrong is just insane. Sometimes in life you have to give up yourself for the future. I'm amazed that some on here think the only reason Hussein was a threat was because of wmd. Why does immediate threat matter? After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.

It's a war on the Muslim religion and that's a shame. Surely there are plenty of Muslims that aren't violent, but it's their fault that they have let their religion become state controlled and become increasingly led by radicals. Where and when do we face facts that something must be done about the increasing fanaticism in the Muslim world? Do we just avoid it because we want to sound non discriminatory? I tell you that I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.

Q:what the hell does muslim fanaticism have to do with the war in Iraq?

A: Absolutely nothing!

Q: What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

A: Absolutely nothing!

Q: What is the intellectual basis for the war in Iraq?

A: Absolutely nothing!

Falls City Beer
08-22-2005, 11:21 PM
Anyone that supports terrorism and terrorists at the scale Hussein did has to be taken out. War is the worst thing in the world, I have family members in Iraq and I hate it. But I know we live in a pc world, I know we want all the answers and the public feels they should know every detail of why we need to defend ourselves. I support anything we have to do to take care of all terrorists. I see people saying that 2000 lives is too much and this and that. I respect that and I think any life being lost is a disgrace, but to use that number and say that's a #1 fact for the war being wrong is just insane. Sometimes in life you have to give up yourself for the future. I'm amazed that some on here think the only reason Hussein was a threat was because of wmd. Why does immediate threat matter? After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.

It's a war on the Muslim religion and that's a shame. Surely there are plenty of Muslims that aren't violent, but it's their fault that they have let their religion become state controlled and become increasingly led by radicals. Where and when do we face facts that something must be done about the increasing fanaticism in the Muslim world? Do we just avoid it because we want to sound non discriminatory? I tell you that I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.

I don't even know where to begin with this argument.


I'm amazed that some on here think the only reason Hussein was a threat was because of wmd. Why does immediate threat matter? After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.

Several conservatives and the CIA (not exactly a liberal hotbed) have argued vehemently that this "war" with Iraq has widened the scope and recruitment of terrorism.

If this failure of a war hasn't reached your eyes, at least it's caught those of some conservatives who can no longer shut them to this disgrace.

westofyou
08-22-2005, 11:26 PM
I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.

And I won't let my mind be controlled by rich fat cats who line their pockets and extend their business interests while young men and woman die so that "think tank" theories can be tested with flesh and blood.

Cedric
08-22-2005, 11:32 PM
He needed to be taken out.

RBA
08-22-2005, 11:32 PM
Anyone that supports terrorism and terrorists at the scale Hussein did has to be taken out.

Didn't the US support Hussein in the 1970's and most of the 80's? Should the US take itself out? Who provided the WMD to gas the kurds?



War is the worst thing in the world, I have family members in Iraq and I hate it. But I know we live in a pc world, I know we want all the answers and the public feels they should know every detail of why we need to defend ourselves. I support anything we have to do to take care of all terrorists.

You do realize that the Saudi's support far more terrorist than Iraq has ever have? Do you support going into Saudi Arabia to take out the people funding the terrorist?



I see people saying that 2000 lives is too much and this and that. I respect that and I think any life being lost is a disgrace, but to use that number and say that's a #1 fact for the war being wrong is just insane. Sometimes in life you have to give up yourself for the future. I'm amazed that some on here think the only reason Hussein was a threat was because of wmd. Why does immediate threat matter? After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.


Any threat? Saddam's Air Force and Navy was non-existant, they had no WMD's and they had no capability to mount an attack on the US. Once again you are linking 9/11 to Iraq. Iraqis did not fly those planes in the world trade center, Suadi's did.



It's a war on the Muslim religion and that's a shame. Surely there are plenty of Muslims that aren't violent, but it's their fault that they have let their religion become state controlled and become increasingly led by radicals. Where and when do we face facts that something must be done about the increasing fanaticism in the Muslim world? Do we just avoid it because we want to sound non discriminatory? I tell you that I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.


Let's see. What were some of Bin Laden goals (Bin Laden is a Suadi)?

1. He wanted the United States bases out of the Islam/Saudi Holy Lands: Mission Accomplished.

2. He wanted Al Qaeda movement to spread.

Mission Accomplished
Al Qeada and it's affliate terrorist organizations have become greater in number than ever before.

3. He wanted the middle east to return to Fundamentalist Islam.

Mission Accomplished.
Saudi Arabia is becoming more Fundamenalist every day. Iraq constitution is pretty much going to based in Islamic Fundamentalist ideas. Women will become second class citizens once again.

Rojo
08-22-2005, 11:33 PM
Anyone that supports terrorism and terrorists at the scale Hussein did has to be taken out....After 9/11 any threat should warrant us not messing around.

Put simply, Saddam was not a threat. His WMD program was in tatters, his standing in the Muslim world was nil and he was hemmed in by the USAF. And in what ways did he support terrorism? I think I know your response, so think carefully before regurgitating lame talking points.


Where and when do we face facts that something must be done about the increasing fanaticism in the Muslim world?

Bombing babies ought to do it.


I tell you that I will not let my mind become controlled by the short sighted people around me that feel that anyone giving their life to this cause is unjust and a waste.

Speaking on behalf of the "short-sighted", I can say that mind-controlling you is out of the question. Somebody's beaten us to it. You may want to adjust the tin foil.

pedro
08-22-2005, 11:35 PM
He needed to be taken out.

that's absolutely moronic.

Cedric
08-22-2005, 11:38 PM
that's absolutely moronic.

I don't know why you had to post in this thread. We already knew that you think anyone that agreed with taking out Hussein is a moron.

Edit- Spelling.

Cedric
08-22-2005, 11:40 PM
Put simply, Saddam was not a threat. His WMD program was in tatters, his standing in the Muslim world was nil and he was hemmed in by the USAF. And in what ways did he support terrorism? I think I know your response, so think carefully before regurgitating lame talking points.



Bombing babies ought to do it.



Speaking on behalf of the "short-sighted", I can say that mind-controlling you is out of the question. Somebody's beaten us to it. You may want to adjust the tin foil.

It does seem shortsighted to me. Why take out anyone unless they are standing on your doorstep ready to kill you?

Cedric
08-22-2005, 11:44 PM
And I'm bowing out of this one early. I don't post on these threads much because I'm one against the heavy artillery. I don't articulate my points as clear as I do in person and I don't usually like getting into politics online. I apologize for starting, I just felt this thread needed something from the other side :)

Falls City Beer
08-22-2005, 11:45 PM
I don't know why you had to post in this thread. We already knew that you think anyone that agreed with taking out Hussein is a moron.

Edit- Spelling.

Let it be known that pedro did not call you a "moron," merely that your argument is moronic. There's a big difference, no matter how hard you try to martyr-twist it.

pedro
08-22-2005, 11:45 PM
It does seem shortsighted to me. Why take out anyone unless they are standing on your doorstep ready to kill you?

and exactly how was Hussein standing on our doorstep ready to take us out?

dude, you're just proving my point.

edit: I'm really not trying to be mean, but your logic leaves something to be desired IMO.

Jaycint
08-23-2005, 10:56 AM
And in what ways did he support terrorism? I think I know your response, so think carefully before regurgitating lame talking points.



Slow down.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm)

Fox (I know, I know, spare me) (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html)

Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041216-115729-9671r.htm)

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_saddam_letter)

That being said, I am in total agreement with most here that going into Iraq was a horrible mistake. They posed no threat to the U.S. Israel maybe, us, no way.

With all the money we already pump into Israel on a yearly basis I think they can handle their own defense.

Interestingly enough, if we were gonna go play soldier in the desert this place would have been much more deserving:

UPI article (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09042002-050314-4015r)

Rojo
08-23-2005, 01:25 PM
Yep, payments to suicide bombers is one of the talking points. The other two?

1. Long-forgotten terrorist Abu Nidal died in Bagdahd,

2. There was a terrorist training camp in Iraq (in the Kurdish-controlled area).

Jaycint
08-23-2005, 04:15 PM
Yep, payments to suicide bombers is one of the talking points. The other two?

1. Long-forgotten terrorist Abu Nidal died in Bagdahd,

2. There was a terrorist training camp in Iraq (in the Kurdish-controlled area).

I could care less if certain people with their own political agendas choose to call it a "lame talking point" or not. Is paying money to the families of suicide bombers not in some way contributing to or backing terrorism?

I could care less about Abu Nidal and the terrorist camp in Kurdish-controlled Iraq. I'm simply pointing out the inaccuracy of making the statement that Saddam didn't support terrorism. That's just false, period. He did. Through payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Are you contending that that did not happen?

Again, for the record, this isn't an endorsement on my part of a military campaign in Iraq, the U.S. had no reason to fear Saddam. Israel maybe, us not a chance.

George Foster
08-25-2005, 01:37 AM
and exactly how was Hussein standing on our doorstep ready to take us out?

dude, you're just proving my point.

edit: I'm really not trying to be mean, but your logic leaves something to be desired IMO.

No one here talks about the fact that Germany posed no threat to us, they did not attack us, but we did the right thing and entered WWII. Japan attacked us, not Germany.

Jordans, Great Britians, Egypt's and our own Intellegances told us that Iraq was trying to produce WMD's. Was this intellegance wrong, well we found no WMD's but after 9/11 could we take the chance? It was not all lies?!?! It was bad intellegance. Does the weather man get called a lier when he misses a forcast?

If I robbed banks for years, got cought, sent to prison and then placed on probation and did not show up to see my probation officer and you could not find me, what would common since tell you I was doing?

In the same reguard, Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors I believe in 1998, what would common since tell you he was doing again? We could no take the chance that he would develop a WMD and give it to a terrorist.

What would you think of Bush if he ignored the intellegance reports and God forbid a WMD was used at Disney? Bush was in a catch 22 situation.

The facts are Hussein is out of power, Iraq had a 65% voter turn out in the face of death threats to voters, they will pass a Constitution shortly, and little girls can go to school for the first time. Not to mention it will be the only democracy in the Middle East besides Israel.

We won't discuss how the corupt UN let down the world concerning the inspectors being kicked out. Did I spell Intellegance right?

Rojo
08-25-2005, 02:18 AM
I could care less if certain people with their own political agendas choose to call it a "lame talking point" or not. Is paying money to the families of suicide bombers not in some way contributing to or backing terrorism?

So we invaded Iraq because he paid suicide bombers? When I or you or any other sentient American hears the word "terrorism", we're thinking of the day those two towers collapsed. So saying Saddam had "ties to terrorism" when you mean he paid suicide bombers in Jerusalem is pretty damn disengenous. And its a pretty lame...talking...point.


No one here talks about the fact that Germany posed no threat to us, they did not attack us, but we did the right thing and entered WWII. Japan attacked us, not Germany.

The Nazis had only plundered most of Europe and the Japanese had only bombed Pearl Harbor. And, oh yeah, Germany and Japan declared war on us. Other than that, good analogy.

And there was no "bad intelligence". It was ginned up by the Office of Special Plans to fit the pre-9/11 agenda of attacking Iraq.

pedro
08-25-2005, 02:19 AM
No one here talks about the fact that Germany posed no threat to us, they did not attack us, but we did the right thing and entered WWII. Japan attacked us, not Germany.



You're trying to compare Iraq and Nazi Germany? That's laughable.

Germany was in the midst of conquering almost every country in Europe by the time the US joined WWII. You don't think that Germany posed a greater long term threat to the US than Iraq? Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This constant attempt to link the two together is beyond pathetic, it's an outright lie and it get's repeated by our President and his staff at every opportunity.

This war has not made the US a safer place. IMO it has created the largest terrorist training ground in history and done more to aid in the recroutment of new terrorists than it has to prevent terrorism. Futhermore, it is in the process of destroying the US military because of it's rampant abuse of the National Guard.

pedro
08-25-2005, 02:29 AM
The facts are Hussein is out of power, Iraq had a 65% voter turn out in the face of death threats to voters, they will pass a Constitution shortly, and little girls can go to school for the first time.



Um, sorry but women were allowed to go to school in Iraq while Hussein was in power. Perhaps you are getting Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up? That seems to be a common problem for supporters of the war in Iraq.

In fact, due to the Islamic theocracy that may be being created in Iraq many women in Iraq are worried they will have less rights under the new constitution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4715051.stm

George Foster
08-25-2005, 09:21 AM
You're trying to compare Iraq and Nazi Germany? That's laughable.

Germany was in the midst of conquering almost every country in Europe by the time the US joined WWII. You don't think that Germany posed a greater long term threat to the US than Iraq? Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This constant attempt to link the two together is beyond pathetic, it's an outright lie and it get's repeated by our President and his staff at every opportunity.

This war has not made the US a safer place. IMO it has created the largest terrorist training ground in history and done more to aid in the recroutment of new terrorists than it has to prevent terrorism. Futhermore, it is in the process of destroying the US military because of it's rampant abuse of the National Guard.

Partner, you are a walking, talking contradiction! One post you say, we should not attack anybody until they are at our door step, and another post, you defend going to war with Germany, when they were across the Atlantic ocean, (not our door step). Germany declaring war on us is not an excuse. By your reasoning, they were still not a threat until an attack was upon us. Again ,Japan attacked us not Germany. One post you say Germany posed a threat, so it was justifiable, and in another post you say we should only exercise our millitary power when "they are at our door step"...you can't have it both ways.

You have the advantage of hindsight when talking about WWII, it took a lot more balls to go to war with them without knowing the outcome.Back then you would be saying the same thing you are now. History proved the U.S. did the right thing then and history will prove we have done the right thing now. You and your buds will be proven wrong, thank goodness. The little girls going to school right now in Iraq are pretty thankful as well, for the U.S. being in Iraq. They now have a future, other than being the Hussien brothers sexual outlets.

RBA
08-25-2005, 09:35 AM
Partner, you are a walking, talking contradiction! One post you say, we should not attack anybody until they are at our door step, and another post, you defend going to war with Germany, when they were across the Atlantic ocean, (not our door step). Germany declaring war on us is not an excuse. By your reasoning, they were still not a threat until an attack was upon us. Again ,Japan attacked us not Germany. One post you say Germany posed a threat, so it was justifiable, and in another post you say we should only exercise our millitary power when "they are at our door step"...you can't have it both ways.

You have the advantage of hindsight when talking about WWII, it took a lot more balls to go to war with them without knowing the outcome.Back then you would be saying the same thing you are now. History proved the U.S. did the right thing then and history will prove we have done the right thing now. You and your buds will be proven wrong, thank goodness. The little girls going to school right now in Iraq are pretty thankful as well, for the U.S. being in Iraq. They now have a future, other than being the Hussien brothers sexual outlets.

You can't be serious. From reading your post, I have come to the conclusion that you are taking us for a ride. I'm sorry, but I see it no other way.

You do know that in some places in Iraq, they have gone back to their strict Islamic traditions? There have been serveral reports of women being beheaded for showing skin. Men have been beheaded for being "snitches". And DVD's are being made of these beheading and shown to kids. The DVD sare more popular than cartoons to some of these kids.

The little girls were going to school before the invasion, I think you are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan. That's if you are serious and not putting us on.

Jaycint
08-25-2005, 09:48 AM
So we invaded Iraq because he paid suicide bombers? When I or you or any other sentient American hears the word "terrorism", we're thinking of the day those two towers collapsed. So saying Saddam had "ties to terrorism" when you mean he paid suicide bombers in Jerusalem is pretty damn disengenous. And its a pretty lame...talking...point.



Dude, come down out of Lefty Attack Mode. Did I not spell it out clearly enough that I did not and do not support invading Iraq? Again, and I can't put it any more clearly than this so I won't try after this post: making the statement that Saddam did not support terrorism is false. I provided plenty of links to support the fact that he did indeed support terrorism. Note I didn't say terrorism against the U.S. I have never, and will never claim that he was funding or supporting terrorism against the U.S.

I have no idea the true reason we invaded Iraq, I know we shouldn't have though. It was a monumental mistake, whether based on false intelligence or done solely to line the pockets of wealthy Americans.

And how presumptuous to think you know what I am thinking of when I hear the word terrorism. That's a red herring of an argument if I've ever seen one anyway. The fact that 9/11 pops up in my head when I hear the word terrorism somehow negates the fact that Saddam supported terrorism against Israelis? Please...

You made a false statement (Saddam didn't support terrorism), I called you on it and now you attack me as being disengenuous as if I have some sort of agenda on here. If you are just looking to argue because I don't goose step to the Noam Chomski beat then I'll be more than happy to engage you via PM but don't try and twist it as if I somehow support the war in Iraq just because I'm not blind to the fact that Saddam supported terrorism.

RedsBaron
08-25-2005, 09:57 AM
I don't understand all this argument about the decision to go to war against Nazi Germany-what choice did America have but to go to war after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? ;) ("Animal House")

Johnny Footstool
08-25-2005, 10:26 AM
History proved the U.S. did the right thing then and history will prove we have done the right thing now.

The history written by the GOP will espouse the wonderful things GW Bush did and leave out the whole WMD lie, which incidentally was GW's primary excuse for invading Iraq. They've done a good job using jingoistic claptrap to rationalize the war, saying it's about "spreading liberty" because "those durn terrorists hate our freedom," but we all know WMDs were they're principle driver for the invasion. BTW - have they found them yet?

Objective history will judge things a little differently.

RBA
08-25-2005, 10:26 AM
I'm just wondering if a poster has returned from the dead. If anyone gets my drift.

Jaycint
08-25-2005, 10:37 AM
I'm just wondering if a poster has returned from the dead. If anyone gets my drift.

? :confused:

George Foster
08-25-2005, 11:13 AM
You can't be serious. From reading your post, I have come to the conclusion that you are taking us for a ride. I'm sorry, but I see it no other way.

You do know that in some places in Iraq, they have gone back to their strict Islamic traditions? There have been serveral reports of women being beheaded for showing skin. Men have been beheaded for being "snitches". And DVD's are being made of these beheading and shown to kids. The DVD sare more popular than cartoons to some of these kids.

The little girls were going to school before the invasion, I think you are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan. That's if you are serious and not putting us on.

1st you did not address any of my points, 2nd, girls were not allowed to go to school in the southern region of Iraq due to the more extream muslium practices.

Please give me a link to the news article that you read about the beheadings, I assume it's either CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, ABC,CBS, or NBC...right? These beheadings have not excactly made the nightly news, or the Drudge Report have they?

George Foster
08-25-2005, 11:17 AM
1st you did not address any of my points, 2nd, girls were not allowed to go to school in the southern region of Iraq due to the more extream muslium practices.

Please give me a link to the news article that you read about the beheadings, I assume it's either CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, ABC,CBS, or NBC...right? These beheadings have not excactly made the nightly news, or the Drudge Report have they?

Oh, could women vote when Hussien was in power? Just wondering. Hussien did get 99.9% of the vote during his last election. Some of the post I read in this thread would defend the fact that he was a democratic elected leader

registerthis
08-25-2005, 11:24 AM
Oh, could women vote when Hussien was in power? Just wondering. Yes, they could.

They could also work outside the home, run for political office, and attend schools and receive the same level of education as men. Women in Iraq under Hussein's rule were viewed as equals in society--an anomaly in the patriarchial and chauvinistic Middle East cultural climate.

George, your comments on this thread show an apparent lack of informed knowledge on this topic. I highly suggest you pursue some independent study on your own prior to spouting off uninformed opinions on such topics.

westofyou
08-25-2005, 11:29 AM
George, your comments on this thread show an apparent lack of informed knowledge on this topic.

Living in america......

registerthis
08-25-2005, 11:29 AM
1st you did not address any of my points, 2nd, girls were not allowed to go to school in the southern region of Iraq due to the more extream muslium practices.
I can find no independent verification of this statement, but if it were true, it would be only because that was a region in Iraq not under direct control by Saddam.

registerthis
08-25-2005, 11:30 AM
Living in america......Posting on this board...

Chip R
08-25-2005, 11:37 AM
I'm just wondering if a poster has returned from the dead. If anyone gets my drift.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/815381/craigno.JPG

MWM
08-25-2005, 11:47 AM
Adolf Hitler wrote a sequel to Mein Kampf that was never published and was found by American Soldiers at the end of the war. In the book he revealed his plans beyond his efforts in Europe and he realized even then that his ultimate enemy would be the US and that conquering Europe was necessary in order to be able to conquer America. He didn't think the great battle for world domination would take place until around 1980, but yes, Hitler had his eyes on the U.S. of A. all along and he had the means to accomplish his goal. Hussein's big plans included Kuwait.

pedro
08-25-2005, 12:56 PM
Partner, you are a walking, talking contradiction! One post you say, we should not attack anybody until they are at our door step, and another post, you defend going to war with Germany, when they were across the Atlantic ocean, (not our door step). Germany declaring war on us is not an excuse. By your reasoning, they were still not a threat until an attack was upon us. Again ,Japan attacked us not Germany. One post you say Germany posed a threat, so it was justifiable, and in another post you say we should only exercise our millitary power when "they are at our door step"...you can't have it both ways.



You are trying to compare a nation (Germany) who had invaded and conquered Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, Algeria, Tunisia, Morrocco, with one (Iraq) who may have had WMD.

And I never said we sould only attack other countries when they are "on our doorstep", I responded to Cedric's post

"Quote:Originally Posted by Cedric
It does seem shortsighted to me. Why take out anyone unless they are standing on your doorstep ready to kill you?"

by asking "and exactly how was Hussein standing on our doorstep ready to take us out?"

Rojo
08-25-2005, 01:42 PM
You made a false statement (Saddam didn't support terrorism), I called you on it and now you attack me as being disengenuous as if I have some sort of agenda on here.

First of all, you didn't call me on anything. I never made a false statement. Here's what I said:


And in what ways did he support terrorism? I think I know your response, so think carefully before regurgitating lame talking points.

That's a tacit acknowledgement that there are lame, yes, lame connections to terrorism. They're lame because they mislead. The American public wouldn't have never supported a war in Iraq because of suicide bombers in Jerusalem. So, there is absolutely zero value in bringing them up other than as an after-the-fact excuse.

Jaycint
08-25-2005, 02:46 PM
So, there is absolutely zero value in bringing them up other than as an after-the-fact excuse.

Well here's the whole thing, I (Jaycint) have never used it as any sort of justification or excuse for going into Iraq. There is no excuse for us being there in my opinion. If we wanted to whack a middle eastern dictatorship I could think of two right off the top of my head that are far more worthy.


Originally Posted by Rojo
And in what ways did he support terrorism? I think I know your response, so think carefully before regurgitating lame talking points.


That's a tacit acknowledgement that there are lame, yes, lame connections to terrorism.

Well I didn't see it as a tacit acknowledgment that there are connections to terrorism, although sometimes it's hard to tell on a message board. If that's how you meant it then we really are debating nothing.

Rojo
08-25-2005, 03:13 PM
Well here's the whole thing, I (Jaycint) have never used it as any sort of justification or excuse for going into Iraq.

I know you didn't.

Jaycint
08-25-2005, 04:11 PM
I know you didn't.

Rojo, I thought you were implying something that upon further clarification you obviously weren't. My apologies for the misread on my part. Case closed. :)

George Foster
08-26-2005, 01:13 AM
Yes, they could.

They could also work outside the home, run for political office, and attend schools and receive the same level of education as men. Women in Iraq under Hussein's rule were viewed as equals in society--an anomaly in the patriarchial and chauvinistic Middle East cultural climate.

George, your comments on this thread show an apparent lack of informed knowledge on this topic. I highly suggest you pursue some independent study on your own prior to spouting off uninformed opinions on such topics.

So you are seriously saying that Hussien was a democratic elected leader?
You are saying that women were elected? When? Where?

The "parliment" was a puppet of Hussein. He ruled Iraq, there was not a "government." If you disagreed with him he killed you, or worse, your children in front of you.

If women were "equal" in Hussein's eutpoia what was the punishment for his sons raping women at well?

Hussein was a dictator, killing anyone,anywere he wanted. This is the opinion of the civilized world. This is not subjective, this is a fact. Are you apart of the civilized world? We can disagree on the war but the facts I just mentioned are not in dispute.

Your telling me to pursue the truth? Please.

RedsBaron
08-26-2005, 07:52 AM
Women in Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the right to vote.......for Saddam. Or they could vote for someone else and be murdered, the same right to vote men had.

registerthis
08-26-2005, 10:42 AM
So you are seriously saying that Hussien was a democratic elected leader?
You are saying that women were elected? When? Where?
I must say, your comprehension skills in this thread are lacking, George. I never said that Hussein was democratically elected (he would tell you he was, his goons and thugs would tell you otherwise). I merely said that, when it came to voting rights, women had the same rights as men in the country. Go back and read it again, maybe a little more slowly this time around...see if you can understand the concept.


The "parliment" was a puppet of Hussein. He ruled Iraq, there was not a "government." If you disagreed with him he killed you, or worse, your children in front of you.I don't see anyone here disputing that.


If women were "equal" in Hussein's eutpoia what was the punishment for his sons raping women at well?The same punishment they received for killing men who disagreed with Hussein's government. And where on Earth are you getting this "Hussein's eutopia (sic)" nonsense? You're just making stuff up now to make up for the fact that you don't understand what you're talking about and can't be bothered to research any facts.


Hussein was a dictator, killing anyone,anywere he wanted. This is the opinion of the civilized world....and who is arguing this?
This is not subjective, this is a fact. Are you apart of the civilized world? We can disagree on the war but the facts I just mentioned are not in dispute. :laugh: No, they're not. But you're arguing two different things. I guess you don't really see that, but you are.

Here, because I play nice even with people arguing out of their...well, anyway...here is an article that may shed some light on this topic for you. It will make you happy to know that the article is quite vocal about Saddam being the brutal dictator which we all know to be true, but it also discusses the juxtaposition of that with the fact that his secular government had by far the most relaxed and liberal policies concerning women as any Arab government. Link to article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042903I.shtml)


Your telling me to pursue the truth? Please.No, I'm not even asking that much. Just base your argument in some form of reality, and perhaps run a spell check every once in awhile.

RBA
08-30-2005, 03:25 PM
Post deleted. Disputes about Rep points do not need to be posted in the forum. I'm taking it outside. RBA

WVRedsFan
08-30-2005, 03:44 PM
Thank you RedsRule2500 for docking me rep points for starting this thread. You have that right. :thumbup:

Pitiful. Opinions are something that should never enter into the rep points.

Weak... :thumbdown

Rojo
08-30-2005, 04:09 PM
I think the key point here is that a secular dictatorship may be replaced by a fundamentalist one. Those are really bad choices.