PDA

View Full Version : Should we stay or should we go?



nAz
12-12-2005, 10:37 AM
OK I know this War was a mistake and i truly believe that we were miss led into it for what ever reasons. for a long time i thought that we had to stay like most here say "to finish the job" we don't want Iraq to fall into a bloody civil war and then have the world rightly so blame America for it, but lately it has occurred to me that stay or go now a bloody civil war will happen. it may be best to get out in the next 6 months or so maybe pull out of the major cities and establish bases where we can act as a back up for what ever official leaders we put in place. the reason i think we should get out is that American presence there or anywhere in the Middle East only stirs up people that think were there to steal their oil or currupt their morals. remember they also see us as pro Israeli and that only makes thing worse for us.
I say pullout as fast as we can let a military dictator take over that will most likely be friendly towards us since we can supply him with weapons he needs and play him against Iran.... hey that sounds like Reagan old policies.

nAz
12-12-2005, 10:39 AM
BTW please state your reasons for staying or going without all the BS /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
12-12-2005, 10:48 AM
I believe we should stay as long as needed for whatever reasons, whether you think they are BS or not.

eg8r

Deeman3
12-12-2005, 11:51 AM
I believe the middle east will be beeter off if a democracy or at least a representative form of government is established and given a chance to grow.

Deeman

supergreenman
12-12-2005, 12:00 PM
The US should get out of Iraq because:
-nobody elected them world police
-Iraq was a sovergn nation the US had no right to interfere
-US soldiers are the prefered targets of any extremist group and should make themselves less visible(by going home to the people that love them)
-US soldiers are the prefered targets of the people who are fighting to end an occupation(by US soldiers) of thier country.
-You can't afford the war, Bushes mastercard is going to start comming up declined soon, it's only a matter of time before the people lending the US money decide that the US is beyond the ability to ever repay it's debts.
-people are getting killed

I'm sure there's many more reasons the US should leave Iraq, but after 3 years of thinking of them they've all melded to gether and made my mind mush.

James

Gayle in MD
12-12-2005, 01:25 PM
I agree with everything you said, and to add a few more reasons, unless we leave, Iraqis will never have any peace of any kind.

Since going over there had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, no WMD's, no connection to bL, Saddam was basically in a box, contained by sanctions, what sense does it make to continue on a path which had no logical purpose at the outset. You can't say it was because people were being killed, that's happening in many countries. You can't say that we should stay because they have nuclear weapons, they don't, didn't, and more than a few other countries do, which we haven't occupied...What is the reason then, other than to save face for bad decisions? Our boys and girls should die so that Bush won't look so bad after everything comes to light about the mess he made?

We need to bring our kids home. Let the Iraqis fight it out, that's what will have to happen regardless anyway. Redeploy to the outskirts, help them in emergencies, but get out of Iraq. While we are strung out in Iraq, bL is probably working on nuclear weapons. Does anybody remember bin Laden????

Gayle in Md. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, and expect a different result.

Gayle in Md.

Stretch
12-12-2005, 02:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I agree with everything you said, and to add a few more reasons, unless we leave, Iraqis will never have any peace of any kind.

Since going over there had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, no WMD's, no connection to bL, Saddam was basically in a box, contained by sanctions, what sense does it make outset. You can't say it was because people were being killed, that's happening in many countries. You can't say that we should stay because they have nuclear weapons, they don't, didn't, and more than a few other countries do, which we haven't occupied...What is the reason then, other than to save face for bad decisions? Our boys and girls should die so that Bush won't look so bad after everything comes to light about the mess he made?to continue on a path which had no logical purpose at the

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> We need to bring our kids home. Let the Iraqis fight it out, that's what will have to happen regardless anyway. Redeploy to the outskirts, help them in emergencies, but get out of Iraq. While we are strung out in Iraq, bL is probably working on nuclear weapons. Does anybody remember bin Laden???? [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Sure Bush has a plan to find Bin Laden. He's sending in DOG the bounty hunter. St.

nAz
12-12-2005, 10:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> I believe the middle east will be beeter off if a democracy or at least a representative form of government is established and given a chance to grow.

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

I agree but i do not see it coming about while our troops are in their presence. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif


wow i so many views but so few votes... must be a touchy subject huh?

Rich R.
12-13-2005, 04:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> wow i so many views but so few votes... must be a touchy subject huh?
<hr /></blockquote>
nAz, you needed a third option, to get more votes. I would vote for, "We should have never gone!"

Now that we are there, it is a lot more complicated. We can't leave until a new government is in place and able to protect itself and the people. I hope this happens as soon as possible, so our troops can come home.

pooltchr
12-13-2005, 06:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> wow i so many views but so few votes... must be a touchy subject huh?
<hr /></blockquote>
Now that we are there, it is a lot more complicated. We can't leave until a new government is in place and able to protect itself and the people. I hope this happens as soon as possible, so our troops can come home. <hr /></blockquote>

TAP TAP TAP!

DickLeonard
12-13-2005, 06:50 AM
Deeman most of Iraq favors an alliance with Iran, the US started funneling money into the group that was pro US thereby buying the election. So what we have there is what we have here a Crooked Democracy.

If Saddam Hussein is guilty of Killing Innocent people George Bush is guilty of the same crime. When we are Bombing Cities and innocent people are killed that is all right because we are Liberators who weren't asked to Liberate. Our thinking is Screwed Up.####

Chopstick
12-13-2005, 07:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman most of Iraq favors an alliance with Iran, the US started funneling money into the group that was pro US thereby buying the election. So what we have there is what we have here a Crooked Democracy.

If Saddam Hussein is guilty of Killing Innocent people George Bush is guilty of the same crime. When we are Bombing Cities and innocent people are killed that is all right because we are Liberators who weren't asked to Liberate. Our thinking is Screwed Up.#### <hr /></blockquote>

According to that logic everyone involved with WWII is a war criminal.

Gayle in MD
12-13-2005, 08:59 AM
Interesting comment, that is precisely what Robert McNamara
said in the documentary, The Fog Of War..."If it happened today, we'd all be prosecuted as war criminals." This he said after acknowledging that our retaliation on Japan was Overkill.....not comparable to the extent of Japans attack at Pearle Harbor....

One of his warnings, given in hindsight, War should always be a last resort, and retaliation response comparable to the original attack. They killed less than on 9/11, we incinerated half their country....what is it about war that causes men to get lost in a fog of faulty reasoning.... Perhaps that is why it should always be a last resort...that is the question we should be asking ourselves about Iraq. Our occupation was far from a last resort, it was an all out media campaign, launched by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Card, Powell, Rumsfeld, Matlin,....and a few others, who each played a role, along with their right wing press insiders, in taking this country to war on false information.

They put out false information, using reporters, such as Judith Miller, then they went out and quoted the information after the reporters they gave it to put it in print, first week of September 02. Then the following week, Septenber 8... Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and General Meyers were all on sunday morning talk shows, feeding the public lie about aluminum tubes, smoking guns, and mushroom clouds, this after they had been told by the CIA and the AEIA that the tubes were not suitable for Nuclear WMD's, that there was no proven connection between bL and Sh. That there was no purchase of Yellow Cake in Niger and warned the President and Vice President not to use such info. They all now deny having said half the things they said. Fortunately we have the video tapes, proving blatant lies. Blatant lyers, then for one month all we heard about were mushroom clouds and WMD's and how alQeada and Saddam were one in the same, linked together...all this later proven to be untrue, and proven that they KNEW it was untrue....

Then their answer to the world about the lies is, well, the whole world thought he had them, DUH, yes, the world thought so because YOU AND YOURS lied to the world, and told us there were, and that SH and bL were linked...


How much more corrupt can you get...there weren't any alQaeda in Iraq until Bush occupied Iraq....they lied and said there was a link, now they have created the very lie that they warned us about...

The way that this administration used the right wing press to feed out faulty information in order to launch this war, and certainly the launch was NOT a last resort, is IMO, the greatest assault on Americans in history. They have killed over 2,120 of our troops, in a war which could have been avoided, and which they created with lies, knowingly lying to us and the world. Bush should be impeached. This is the worst abuse of power in our history...it was a carefully planned group formed by the president of the united States, and sent out to the public for the sole purpose and effort to create a false scenario for going to war, with a country from which not one single person had ever been connected to a terror attack, and they launched it as an attack on TERROR !

We all know that the majority of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Hmmmmm,

Now, we are in a trick bag, that Bush and Company put us in...we should be asking how we got into this mess, as much as how long do we stay....Naturally, the right doesn't wish to look back, and those who do are called communists, what a JOKE!

Gayle in Md

DickLeonard
12-13-2005, 11:08 AM
Chopstick Japan attacked Pearl Harbor did we provoke them I am getting fuzzy on events that happened 65 years ago. Germany attacked our Merchant Marines with supplies to France and England bringing us into that war. Both Germany and Japan treated their prisonors horribly like we are now doing with Iraqi/terrorists prisoners.

As for dropping the Atom Bombs on Japan I remember reading how Truman agonized whether to give the order. Japan refused to surrender even tho they were told of the power of the US's new weapon.

Finally weighing the number of Americans that would die if we attacked mainland Japan or the number of Japanese that would die with the bomb Truman chose the bomb.####

Deeman3
12-13-2005, 12:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Chopstick Japan attacked Pearl Harbor did we provoke them I am getting fuzzy on events that happened 65 years ago. <font color="blue"> We did not provoke them unless you consider not letting them have free access to oil as provocation. Unlike Gayle's memory of the war against Japan, not only did the naval soldiers at Pearl die but thousands of other Americans in the Pacific war. Of course, if we had done nothing except kill 2000 Japanese and left it at simple revenge, the Japanese would have ruled the world, along with Germany and Gayle's point of view would not be allowed now. As well, the Japanese killed millions in China, Asia and the Pacific in their expansionist war. The people of Japan, I have lived there off and on for many of my 53 years, were not ever going to surrender in a home ground war, the bomb, besides saving countless (500,000) American lives saved many Japanese as well. Gayle says we destroyed half the country. Of course, she read this somewhere! In fact, we attacked two relatively small cities, I've been to both of them. The damage while significant was limited to a few miles surroounding the cities. If we have been in a vengence mode, we would have hit Tokyo and Yokomaha and the death toll would have been in the millions. </font color> Germany attacked our Merchant Marines with supplies to France and England bringing us into that war. <font color="blue"> There is a lot of evidence that the German's never really hit our merchant ships but the Roosevelt used a couple of incidents to join the war as we were even more isolationist then than now. </font color> Both Germany and Japan treated their prisonors horribly like we are now doing with Iraqi/terrorists prisoners. <font color="blue"> No, while we have had a few isolated incidents involving about 50 prisoners, the Japanese and Germans systematically tortured our troops. The Germans murdered about 6,000,000 Europeans, Jews, Homsexuals, criples, leftists. The Japanese slaughtered hundred's thousands of Chinese (Rape of Nanking). Your comparison of the U.S. Soldiers to the Japanese and Germans is, at best, pathetic hatred toward your own country without merit and a comparison only an unreasonable mind would make. </font color>

As for dropping the Atom Bombs on Japan I remember reading how Truman agonized whether to give the order. Japan refused to surrender even tho they were told of the power of the US's new weapon. <font color="blue"> This is true. </font color>

Finally weighing the number of Americans that would die if we attacked mainland Japan or the number of Japanese that would die with the bomb Truman chose the bomb.#### <font color="blue"> Also true. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
12-13-2005, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> When we are Bombing Cities and innocent people are killed that is all right because we are Liberators who weren't asked to Liberate. Our thinking is Screwed Up.#### <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">This is the part I was referring to. In WWII, if we wanted to take out a factory, we sent hundred of bombers packed with all they could carry and blasted half the city off the map hoping to hit that one factory. That's bombing cities and civilians. Today it's one plane, one bomb, one factory, boom. Somebody happens to be walking by and gets hit with a rock flying off the building and you guys holler we're bombing civilians. It just ain't that way. Compared to what was common practice in WWII we are saints.

Just for the record the fire bombimg raids we conducted back then killed far more people in one night that the Atom bomb ever did. </font color>

Gayle in MD
12-13-2005, 04:03 PM
You really do surprise me. You really are way way off on your estimates of how many people were killed by the bomb....

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-13-2005, 04:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You really do surprise me. You really are way way off on your estimates of how many people were killed by the bomb....

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

O.K. Just where did I estimate how many were killed by the bomb? (There were in fact two (2) plus many conventional bombs that were used to destroy strategic factories.) I believe you were the one who said we destroyed half the country. What book did that come from? My only estimate was the 500,000 many military leaders thought was a minimum of U.S. casualties that would have occured if we had done a land invasion of Japan. The Japanese deathes, in that case, would have been many times that. </font color>

Deeman
didn't respond to the other comments did she?

Gayle in MD
12-13-2005, 04:35 PM
There were huge areas of Japan that were incinerated. I will dig up the information of the comps to comparable U.S. Cities. This was addressed also in the For Of War documentary, but I have also a number of books on this subject, with photos, and documented measurments. We'll get back to this at a later date.

Invade Japan! Who would have ever been dumb enough to consider that???? I'm sure you realize there were more bombs dropped than just the big one.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-13-2005, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There were huge areas of Japan that were incinerated. I will dig up the information of the comps to comparable U.S. Cities. This was addressed also in the For Of War documentary, but I have also a number of books on this subject, with photos, and documented measurments. We'll get back to this at a later date.

Invade Japan! Who would have ever been dumb enough to consider that???? I'm sure you realize there were more bombs dropped than just the big one. <font color="blue"> Gayle,

You didn't read your books too well. There were two atomic bombs dropped, not "The Big One." Yes, there were hundreds of thousands of pounds of conventional bombs dropped with some loss of life but nothing approaching your half the country destroyed statement. As well, there were many who considered invading Japan but luckily the development of the atomic bomb helped prevent that. There were actually standing military plans in case the atom bomb did not work. Are you sure you read those books? Would you have preferred we just sent in weapons inspectors after WWII?</font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
12-14-2005, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Invade Japan! Who would have ever been dumb enough to consider that???? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Check your books and see if one of them contains a map. Okinawa is IN Japan.</font color>

Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing. Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered. The Japanese lost 7,830 aircraft and 16 combat ships. US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army.

American losses at Okinawa were so heavy as to illicite Congressional calls for an investigation into the conduct of the military commanders. <font color="blue">Sound familiar? </font color> Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later.


<font color="blue">The fire bombing you are referring to was the brain child of General Curtis LeMay. LeMay realized that a substantial protion of Japanese war materials were being made in peoples homes. He also realized that their homes were made of wood and paper. So, he ordered low level fire boming raids against the civilian population. It was said that a section of Tokoyo was turned into a wall of fire 12 miles long and 2 miles deep. Thes raids were carried out against a number of Japanese cities. Civilian casualties are estimated at 300,000 and up. The thing about the atomic bombs is that the Japanese didn't know we only had two. We could have had 20,000 for all they knew.

The point I was making to #### earlier is that in WWII civilian populations were deliberately targeted back then. That is no longer the case today. We use precision munitions in an effort to miss civilians. </font color>

Gayle in MD
12-14-2005, 09:33 AM
50% to 90 % of the people were killed in 67 Japanese Cities, civilians, men women and children. This was before nuclear Bombs were dropped.

Tokyo, 50 square miles were burned, fire bombed to the ground....other "Wooden cities" include, shown in proportion to the area of US cities,...

Nagaoka 64.9 size of Madison, Hatachi 72% destroyed, size of Little Rock, Omita, 35.7%, size of Miami, Wakayama 50%-Salt Lake City, Kawasaki, 35.2%-Portland, Okayama, 68.9%-Long Beach, Yawata 21.2%-San Antonio, Amagasaki, 18.9%-Jacksonville, Sasebo, 41.4%-Nashville, Moji, 23.3-spokane, Miyakonojo, 26.5% Greensboro, Nobeoka 25.2%-Augusta, Miyazaki 26.1%-Davenport,Hobj, 20.7% Utica, Saga 44.2%-Waterloo, Imabri 63.9 %-Stockton, Maisuyama 64%-Duluth, Oita 28.2%-Saint Joseph, Hiratsuka 48.4%-Battle Creek, Tokuyama 48.3%-Butte, Yokkaichi 33.6%-Charlotte,Ujiymada 41.3%-Columbus, Ogaky 39.5%-Corpus Christi, Yokohama 58%-Cleveland,Tokyo 51%-New York, Toyama 99%-Chattanooga, Nagoya 40%-Los Angeles, Osaka 35%-Chicago, Nishinomiya 11.9%-Cambridge, Shimonoseki 37.6-San Diego, Kure 41.9% Toledo, Kolie 55.7-Baltimore, Gifu 63.6% Des Moines, Fukui 86% Evansville, Tokushima 85.2-Ft Worth, Hachioji 65%-Galveston, Kumamoto 31.2-Grand Rapids, Isezaki 56.7-Soux Falls, Takamatsu 67.5%-Knoxville, Akashi 50.2% Lexington, Fukuyama 80.9%-Macon, Aomori 30.2-Montgomery, Okazaki 32.2-Lincoln, Saizuoka 66.1%-Oaklahoma City, Himeji 49.9%-Peoria,
Fukuoka 24.1%-Rochester, Kochai 55.2%-Sacramento. shimizu 42.1%-San Jose, Omura 33.1%-Santefe, Chibi 41%-Savannah, Naozi 69%-Boston,

This does not include all the cities, filled with civilians, which were fire bombed. If this wasn't a Jehad, I don't know what is. I think your statement of "Just a few small cities" is a bit off. WE DID attack Tokyo, with fire bombs. What history books do YOU read????

General LeMay, who orchestrated these fire bomb attacks, later said, we would be prosecuted as War Criminals if we did this today.

Gayle in Md....

Gayle in MD
12-14-2005, 10:31 AM
Thanks, we were passing in Cyberspace, lol. Your point to XXXX is well taken, and is the same thing I was referring to, left an s off the word bomb-s...anyway, my point, to Deeman, we killed 100,000 civilians in Tokyo, which is roughly the size of New York, in one day. 50 square miles were incinerated, and my follow up post shows the comparisons to American cities. Deman stated, If we wanted to do some serious damage, we would have bomed Tokyo, then some statement about just a couple small cities being devastated. My point in posting about this in the first place is that there was no thought of proportionality involved in what we did to Japan. Proportionality, in McNamara's words, should be a guideline in War. My follow up post shows how many Japanese cities were really bombed, and the percentage of area which was incinerated by the fire bombs used on paper-wooden cities, this before we ever dropped the big bombs.....and as you say, no consideration for the number of women and children burnt to death. Also...there were the after effects, deformed children, terribly injured civilians. War is dumb...if we can 't negotiate settlements to our issues in the world, we're doomed. The numbers of Nuclear weapons are great, and one person, just one, can launch a nuclear attack that would echo around the world, and destroy it.

My personal feeling, is that this is no time for leaders who do not view war as a last resort, and exhaust every possible option in order to negotiate solutions, and avoid war. This is ONE reason why I am against Bush, just one. Why couldn't he wait for the inspectors to finish their jobs? There are other way which we could have ousted Saddam. Saddam shouldn't have been our major issue at that time anyway. We should have finished what we set out to do in Afghanistan, and gottem BL, instead we got sidetracked by Bush and friends.

Gayle in Md.....

Deeman3
12-14-2005, 12:11 PM
Gayle,

What you listed were a few cities, not half the country. Yes, a lot of wooden buildings were destroyed. The loss of life may have bene as high as 250,000 but that's certainly not half of Japan. What would you have expected? A country bombed us before declaring war, killed millions of people in Asia, caused the daeth of thousands of our troops and you're getting a bleeding heart over a very small portion of their population being killed? Nothing anyone ever does, in your mind, justifies American defending itself or even ending a war quickly to save our own soldiers.

I was worried a few weeks ago as I thought the right might be in some trouble in the 2008 elections. However, the further left you drift, the more out of line your arguments become. You'll still be putting this line out when you next claim your election was stolen. I have news for you, the election may have been stolen but it was by the left from the moderate democrats, having little to do with the right. It's gonna happen again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman

Gayle in MD
12-14-2005, 01:28 PM
You Call that a list of "A FEW" LOL.... define for me please, your interpretation of how many "A FEW" is....whatever you say, Deeman. I'm sure your estimates of what was proportional retaliation would be much more accurate than Robert McNamara's.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-14-2005, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> proportional retaliation /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>
What the heck is proportional retaliation? A country attacks us unprovoked, destroys virtually the entire Pacific Fleet, and commits to destroying our country. They kicked a big dog, and the teeth came out. You don't try to fight a Balanced War. If you go to war, you damn well better be prepared to give it everything you got to win! It was true then, it was true in Viet Nam (which we didn't do, and lost.) It's true today. If you hold back in war, do you think your enemy is going to do the same? If you are in a war, you better be in it 100% or you will get your ass kicked. Sorry that isn't the politically correct attitude, but it is reality.
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-14-2005, 07:38 PM
It is the reality of neocons. It is not, nor will it ever be my reality, nor is it the reality of Robert McNamara. As I stated before, incinerating 100,000 civilians in one day, not to mention all the other cities which were fire bombed, would today be prosecuted as having committed war crimes. It was overkill, IMO, but as I have always said, as long as we are in a war, and bombs are dropping, the neocons are in their glory.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-15-2005, 07:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> It is the reality of neocons. It is not, nor will it ever be my reality, nor is it the reality of Robert McNamara. As I stated before, incinerating 100,000 civilians in one day, not to mention all the other cities which were fire bombed, would today be prosecuted as having committed war crimes. <font color="blue"> Only in the People's Republic of Gayle</font color> It was overkill, IMO, but as I have always said, as long as we are in a war, and bombs are dropping, the neocons are in their glory. <font color="blue">Note how your response to an enemy that attacked us unprovoked put the U.S. in your eyes, in the wrong again. It's almost funny that the only country you cite as being candidates for war crimes trials is ours. Under your misguided guidelines, every war ever fought would have the winning side prosecuted for war crimes but you only cite America. How does it feel to hate your own country so much?

I know there are many out there who disagre with the war in Iraq. They like you, have that right. However, you only want to criticise our country and no one else unless they stand up for us. As I said, this will serve us all well in the next election as you drag your party further left, but it certainly is frightening that someone who hates all we stand for as much as you would represent almost half the people in this country. </font color>


Deeman
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-15-2005, 07:21 AM
Your post to me is very unfair. Just because I don't include in this particular post any glorification for our country, doesn't mean that I hate my country. What I hate is what I see this President, and his corrupt party, doing to the ideals which I love about my country. What is scarry to me, is seeing the denial power of the right wing supporters, such as yourself, who refuse to open your eyes to the unamerican activities of the Bush administration.

To me, it is frightening that someone who denies what we stand for as much as you, would represent half the people in this country. We don't launch wars using fabricated intelligence in order to change their form of government just because at some undertermined time in the future they MIGHT become a threat. Also, we don't parise and respect presidents who continue to stand before us and lie over and over again. I am sick and tired of people like you calling those of us who are not happy with the methods used by this administration suggesting that we are communists, hate America, and do not love our country. No country is perfect, not even ours. If you can't discuss an issue of what is and isn't appropriate action for our country to take, it is those of you who then call any form of scrutiny, hatred of our country, unpatriotic, and communistic, who put our American ideals at risk. WE ARE A REPUBLIC, but WE ARE ALSO A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC....unfortunately the right doesn't understand that.

Gayle in Md. wonders if Deeman thinks the Robert McNamara hates America....

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-15-2005, 07:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> It is the reality of neocons. It is not, nor will it ever be my reality, nor is it the reality of Robert McNamara. <hr /></blockquote>

Here is my reality. In a war, one side is going to lose. If my country is in a war, I would rather we win. Whatever it takes!!! Don't pull any punches, because the other side sure as hell won't!
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-15-2005, 07:52 AM
Here is my reality, If we are in a war, we still have an obligation to conduct ourselves with honor, integrity, and according to the accepted rules of war, such as, avoid killing civilians.

Just as we should not be justifying torture, in this war today, as so many of you do, or justifying pre-emptive attacks upon countries which have not attacked us, or justifying the president knowingly giving false testimony to build a case for war. My concerns come from my love for this country, and that we continue to strive to adhere to the principles of Democracy, and not surrender to the democratic abuse of presidential corruption of power.

Gayle in Md. There was no connection between Saddam and bL. Iraq, is NOT a war on terror. There were not wmd's in Iraq. No purchase of Yellow Cake. No alQaeda in Iraq for medical treatment. There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, there was no immediate threat, no impending mushroom clouds, and no truth to the presidents statements before our Congress, Senate, and the American people. THAT scares me!

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
12-15-2005, 08:12 AM
Chopstick there is an interesting thing that happens after wars. The losers are tried for War Crimes while the Victors are the Judge and Jury.####

Deeman3
12-15-2005, 08:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Your post to me is very unfair. Just because I don't include in this particular post any glorification for our country, doesn't mean that I hate my country. <font color="blue"> Gayle, I don't think most democrats hate America, it just always sounds like you do, critiquing anything that we have ever done. </font color> What I hate is what I see this President, and his corrupt party, doing to the ideals which I love about my country. <font color="blue"> While all governments are corrupt, we just disagree on how corrupt this one is in comparison to any other. </font color> What is scarry to me, is seeing the denial power of the right wing supporters, such as yourself, who refuse to open your eyes to the unamerican activities of the Bush administration. <font color="blue"> Again, you see this as unamerican, i see most of it as normal politics.</font color>

To me, it is frightening that someone who denies what we stand for as much as you, would represent half the people in this country. We don't launch wars using fabricated intelligence in order to change their form of government just because at some undertermined time in the future they MIGHT become a threat. <font color="blue"> Yesx, Gayle, we do. This has been done in the past and will be inthe furure. If you think all past wars were cleaner than this one, you have not been paying attention. </font color> Also, we don't parise and respect presidents who continue to stand before us and lie over and over again. <font color="blue"> This is your opinion, not a fact. If they, indeed, were doing everything you say, they'd be in jail and out of office. Like past administrations, the ones who may be guilty of things are being investigated. However, one American right is the presumption of innocence which you won't give them.</font color> I am sick and tired of people like you calling those of us who are not happy with the methods used by this administration suggesting that we are communists, hate America, and do not love our country. <font color="blue"> I never suggested people who disagree are communists, show me where I did!!!! I do think you, not all critics, hate America. It just comes through all your posts. </font color> No country is perfect, not even ours. If you can't discuss an issue of what is and isn't appropriate action for our country to take, it is those of you who then call any form of scrutiny, hatred of our country, unpatriotic, and communistic, who put our American ideals at risk. <font color="blue"> While our country is not perfect, we don't put it's ideas at risk by debate. If we did, this country would have sunk long ago. </font color> WE ARE A REPUBLIC, but WE ARE ALSO A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC....unfortunately the right doesn't understand that. <font color="blue"> I understand we are a republic but not particularly a democratic republic. We elect representatives who vote for us. A democracy is where you vote for each decision, like the Roman senate, where all citizens had a vote. </font color>

Gayle in Md. wonders if Deeman thinks the Robert McNamara hates America.... <font color="blue"> No, but I don't think because you pulled up an old quote by him, you characterize his whole career and nature. I don't happen to agree with everything he ever did but overall think he was an effective leader and statesman. I don't beleive he would have posted against everything positive or negative America was involved in and even don't beleive he would spew hate against GWB.</font color>

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
12-15-2005, 11:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Chopstick there is an interesting thing that happens after wars. The losers are tried for War Crimes while the Victors are the Judge and Jury.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Ain't that the truth. But in the case of Germany and Japan they had it coming plus some. They really went over the line.

I'm sure all people want to be proud of their country and position themselves as the good guys. America has literally saved the world more than once. I just don't see how we come out being the bad guys.

Gayle in MD
12-15-2005, 06:46 PM
Excuse me, did I understand you to say...while our country is not perfect, we don't put it's ideas at risk by debate???? Did you mean to say ideals? Are you saying that to debate our actions, is to put our country at risk. If so, that is an insane, illogical opinion.

I beg to differ with you. George Bush lied to the world. I won't waste my time posting the actual statements, rice, Cheney, and Bush have made...their lies have been documented, in many ways, by many people, in print and on film, and only those who hate Democrats, and hated Clinton, are so partisan that they would rather defend the abuse of power by this administration than acknowledge all the documented lies. There were a slew of lies in his recent speeches. Many prominent Senators and Congressmen have stopped just short of calling him a liar, they prefer to say miscategorize, and mis-statements, but all that really means, is he lies. I suppose you think Murthat hates America also.

No, this has not been done in the past. What war are you referring to. Nothing is comparable to what Bush has done, nothing, and no war.

You are insulting me, grossly. I will never debate with you again. I love my country, and I hate what George Bush is doing to it. In the future, please refrain from posting to me...I would appreciate it. I have nothing more to say to you, ever.

eg8r
12-16-2005, 05:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
WE ARE A REPUBLIC, but WE ARE ALSO A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC....unfortunately the right doesn't understand that.
<hr /></blockquote> This is absolutely hilarious. Let me remind you of the real history on this board, since you are taking this opportunity to continue your revisionist thinking...All the libs and far left (especially you Gayle) always say we are a democracy. NEVER NEVER NEVER do you ever mention a Republic. It happens to be that ONLY those of us who rebut your rants mention this is not a democracy but instead it is a Republic. Do not try to twist this around like you have with the rest of your jumbled ideas. If things were left up to you and your idea that this is a democracy, Gore would have been the President, of which we would have had more terrorism on US soil. Thank GOD this is not a democracy.

Also, I don't remember anyone calling you a Commie, but I still believe you are a little Marxist at heart. Let all those in the top income bracket grab their wallets because you are coming after them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
12-16-2005, 06:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Here is my reality, If we are in a war, we still have an obligation to conduct ourselves with honor, integrity, and according to the accepted rules of war, such as, avoid killing civilians. <hr /></blockquote>

We should keep this in mind when we decide who we go to war with....only go to war against those who argre to play fair!
You keep quoting the number of Americans killed in the war...I don't care if they are civilian or military, we need to use WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY AND AVAILABLE to protect EVERY American life. Rules are for games. War is not a game!
Steve

Deeman3
12-16-2005, 07:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Excuse me, did I understand you to say...while our country is not perfect, we don't put it's ideas at risk by debate???? Did you mean to say ideals? Are you saying that to debate our actions, is to put our country at risk. If so, that is an insane, illogical opinion. <font color="blue"> I said what I said. We do not put our ideas nor our ideals at risk with debate. Our country is much too strong to crumble just because some of us disagree. </font color>

I beg to differ with you. George Bush lied to the world. I won't waste my time posting the actual statements, rice, Cheney, and Bush have made...their lies have been documented, in many ways, by many people, in print and on film, and only those who hate Democrats, and hated Clinton, are so partisan that they would rather defend the abuse of power by this administration than acknowledge all the documented lies. There were a slew of lies in his recent speeches. Many prominent Senators and Congressmen have stopped just short of calling him a liar, they prefer to say miscategorize, and mis-statements, but all that really means, is he lies. I suppose you think Murthat <font color="blue">Never heard of Murthat. </font color> hates America also.

No, this has not been done in the past. What war are you referring to. Nothing is comparable to what Bush has done, nothing, and no war. <font color="blue"> Gee, you are so niave you believe that every other war was just, that all reasons for going to those wars were legitimate. That Bush, in this war, is worse than Hitler, who gassed millions, than Stalin, who murdered millions, than the Romans who raped, murdered and killed everyone in thier paths. Gayle, you are one mislead puppy. </font color>

You are insulting me, grossly. I will never debate with you again. I love my country, and I hate what George Bush is doing to it. In the future, please refrain from posting to me...I would appreciate it. I have nothing more to say to you, ever. <font color="blue"> Wow, now I'm hurt. Sorry, you don't have to respond but most of us don't live by Gayle's rules of who can post to whom. I agree, It's pretty useless to argue with you. Your mind is closed, except to Micheal Moore and and few others.


Deeman
Gayle has cut me off.....was it something I said? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif



<hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
12-16-2005, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Here is my reality, If we are in a war, we still have an obligation to conduct ourselves with honor, integrity, and according to the accepted rules of war, such as, avoid killing civilians. <hr /></blockquote>

We should keep this in mind when we decide who we go to war with....only go to war against those who argre to play fair!
You keep quoting the number of Americans killed in the war...I don't care if they are civilian or military, we need to use WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY AND AVAILABLE to protect EVERY American life. Rules are for games. War is not a game!
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">In the end there is only one Rule of War. Destroy the enemy. The enemy is commonly regarded as a military organization. This is not necessarily true in all cases. The most humane act that can occur in war is to end it as quickly as possible by fulfilling rule number one.

</font color>

Gayle in MD
12-16-2005, 09:26 AM
Protecting every American life is precisely what I am concernd with. Deeman defends killing all the civilians and bombings in Japan with his statement that I am against doing what is necessary to end a war sooner, and save American lives. This is certainly his own position regarding Iraq. Those of us who see the incompetence of this administration, going in without enough troops to do the job, provide stability after the occupation, which increased the insurgency, lengthened the war, and caused more devastation, and destruction in the long run, would like to see George Bush be specific regarding his often repeated dictation of Stay The Course, at a time when many experts advise that staying in Iraq is a path which will cause many many more deaths for Americans, and Iraqis in the long run, and only prolong the fighting and destruction for all involved. The refusal of this administration to incorporate the opinions of others, other than their small neocon select little group, has led to the kaos and instability which we now have in Iraq. The MO of this administration is....after exhausting all possibilities of doing the wrong thing, they finally have to do the right thing, but in a way which denies the complete role which they played in the incompetence and uglyness in the first place.

For example, using torture, blocking the 9/11 investigation, refusing to address their own devastating mistakes, for years, going to war with faulty intelligence, screwing up FEMA, falling asleep at the wheel during a National Emergency situation in New Orleans, launching a slander attack against John Murtha, a decorated war veteran, repsected by all on the hill, and the greatest ally to our troops, and then quickly backing off, realizing that polls were already low enough, and thier usual character assination policy, wouldn't work this time, Outing a covert CIA agent during war time, as punishment for the exposure of some of their pre-war lies to Americans by her husband, and then failing to oust the perpetrators of treason, as promised, "If anyone in this administration is involved, they will be fired," the list is too long to to complete in this post, but I would venture to say, that the recent public acknowledgments of mistakes, when finally the president came out of his ivory tower and admitted reluctantly that he had made mistakes, would never have happened had he not realized that even his own base, had tired of his misleading statements and refusal to answer for atleast SOME of his incompetencem and define, which he still has not done, specifically, what contingencies must be met in order to bring our troops home. At a time when Generals, Congressmen, Senators, come forth, to state that our troops are being used as targets, and Iraqis want us out, Bush continues to call for the impossible, peace in a country which is at generations old odds with one another.

When we have a Vice President, fighting with a United States Senator who is a former POW, who was tortured in war, go up on the Hill to fight for covert use of torture, and promote a hazy description of torture, under covert secret circumstances, while at the same time Condoleeza Rice is traveling around the world telling other countries that the United States does not support torture, some of us see the condradiction.

When we have a president who doesn't turn the television on to check out for himself the results of an impending possible category four or five hurricane to an area of our country which is under sea level in the first place, and allows the disgraceful incompetence which we witnessed in New Orleans, and then doesn't even bother to get out of his jet to put his delicate, high brow feet on the ground, or take the situation into his own hands in a timely fashion, and perform the duties which he had the power to take charge of, because he is too busy attending fund raising activities for his party, some of us see the gross lack of actual concern for Americans.

If you are going to fix intelligence in a push to start a war, the least you can do is not fall asleep at the wheel. If you are going to lump our Federal Emergency Management Agency in with a newly formed Homeland Security agency, and totally change national security standards of action, and the line of leadership in a crises, the least you can do is to check back into the matter to see if your new changes have been effective, so that the country, at a time of great risk, will not be at greater risk do to the changes you make, rather than posing for Photo Ops, donning your construction man outfit, and patting the idiot in charge whom YOU appointed on the back, touting his "Fine Job"....Some Americans see this as nothing more than another Playhouse 90 BS denial of the truth about who is at fault.

If you are going to start a war with people which have never attacked us, and who pose no immediate threat, you should atleast see to it that our young troops are not flown home in cargo holds. That they are given National Reverence when their young bodies are flown into Deleware, rather than having the base in lock down, in order to continue a Madison Avenue like control over what Americans can witness, even if it does mean that our deceased men and women are not given any National Honor publicly....but rather secreted back on our shores, like soiled cargo, in order to maintain the control of public opinion in the interest of the party.

If a country like Saudi Arabia has citizens which comprise the majority of the 9/11 attackers, and the family of the leader of an attack on our soil, bin Laden, is in the country, you don't rush to secure their safe departure out of the country. You take them into lock down, and interrogate them. Some Americans see the questionable loyalty of a president who would do such a thing, and then pose for the cameras holding hands with the Prince to show your loyalty to him and by proxy to his citizens who flew two jets into the World Trade Towers.

People from the right crusified Bill Clinton, spent a fortune investigating him, and degrade former presidents of the other party here on this forum to this day, and I say turn about is fair play, given the gross destruction resulting from the policies of George Bush. Clinton is slandered on here regularly, along with President Carter, John F. Kennedy, and even Roosevelt, by the right, and Clinton for having sex between consenting adults, while none of Bush's questionable leadership abilities, or failures, are allowed, and if you dare to scrutinize, you then you must hate America. Bill Clinton would have been in New Orleans so fast, and with such commanding ability to cut through the bs, and take action, I gaurentee we would never have suffered through the humiliation of having the world see our illprepared state, and Castro coming out to offer aid to Americans on rooftops begging for food and water.

No one wants to recall the pictures of Rumsfeld, Bush SR. and Cheney, shaking hands with Saddam, or remember that the gas he used to kill off his citizens, was provided to him by republicans, or recall for a moment that over thirty years ago, we knew that fossil fuel was one of the biggest problems of our future, and that while Democrats called out for money to research and install safer, more environmentally friendly sources for energy, republicans blocked those efforts, and instead made a fortune on Oil, and jumped into bed with the despots which we created, and supported, and brought into power, those same despots which we struggle to contain to this day.

The deaths of our troops, in more ways than one, have been the end in a long process of the results of the Bush, Cheney Billions, the Reagon pllicies, and an Oil Dynasty in our government which chips away at the fiber of our constitutional rights, misleads the American Public with Madison Avenue tactics and semantics, and displays gross incompetence, and those who speak out against their unscrupulous behaviour are called America haters.....who equate freedom of speech, and debate on national issues with anti American activities...the epitomy of ignorance and hypocracy.

When National Magazines depict the president encased in a bubble during war time, some of us realize, that George Bush had an agenda of distorting the presidency into a dictatorship with no accountability, impenitrable to other more knowledgable points of view, vacant of any input from the other party, and totally partisan, and hiring new public relations experts may bump up his numbers for a short time, but the devastion caused by his administration will continue to wag it's head, and he will not escape his failures as long as he adheres to his dishonest tactics, and refuses to look at the war and the mess he alone created, without his unrealistic rose colored glasses, and the fellow citizens, families and loved ones of our fallen and maimed heros will demand accountability from him for his misguided mission impossible.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-16-2005, 10:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Here is my reality, If we are in a war, we still have an obligation to conduct ourselves with honor, integrity, and according to the accepted rules of war, such as, avoid killing civilians. <hr /></blockquote>

We should keep this in mind when we decide who we go to war with....only go to war against those who argre to play fair!
You keep quoting the number of Americans killed in the war...I don't care if they are civilian or military, we need to use WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY AND AVAILABLE to protect EVERY American life. Rules are for games. War is not a game!
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">In the end there is only one Rule of War. Destroy the enemy. The enemy is commonly regarded as a military organization. This is not necessarily true in all cases. The most humane act that can occur in war is to end it as quickly as possible by fulfilling rule number one.

</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="purple">Both you right wing radicals obviously did not get the note that war now has to be PC. How dare you insinuate we would enter a war with the intention to win. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Needless to say, I agree with both of you but won't do as the other side does, launch into a repetition of old claims against GWB instead of answering the questions that are being debated. </font color>

Deeman

supergreenman
12-16-2005, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <font color="purple">Both you right wing radicals obviously did not get the note that war now has to be PC. How dare you insinuate we would enter a war with the intention to win. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Needless to say, I agree with both of you but won't do as the other side does, launch into a repetition of old claims against GWB instead of answering the questions that are being debated. </font color>

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

OMG the US went into Iraq to win?????????? why didn't they send enough troops, or plan for the occupation.

eg8r
12-16-2005, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> You are insulting me, grossly. I will never debate with you again. I love my country, and I hate what George Bush is doing to it. In the future, please refrain from posting to me...I would appreciate it. I have nothing more to say to you, ever. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote deeman:</font><hr> Wow, now I'm hurt. Sorry, you don't have to respond but most of us don't live by Gayle's rules of who can post to whom. I agree, It's pretty useless to argue with you. Your mind is closed, except to Micheal Moore and and few others <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, at this rate, Gayle will only be talking to those who share her same opinion. No other point of view is allowed. If she is demeaning someone that is OK, however her skin is not so thick and would rather not "debate" with you.

eg8r

Chopstick
12-16-2005, 10:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote supergreenman:</font><hr>
OMG the US went into Iraq to win?????????? why didn't they send enough troops, or plan for the occupation.

<hr /></blockquote>

And Saddam's military machine is doing exacty what right now? I suppose you also have a better idea of how to organize the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq.

Chopstick
12-16-2005, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

<font color="purple">....the questions that are being debated. </font color>

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

There's no debate going on here. Debate indicates discourse. That's not happening. Just cut and pastes of the same old stuff. The last debate that happened on this board was between Ross and HighSea. I sure miss those guys.

Tell you what. I'll switch sides just to even things up. I've got some friends up North who are liberals. I'll send them an email and ask them how to be a Democrat.

Gayle in MD
12-16-2005, 11:40 AM
Exactly what Saddams military machine is doing...they are killing our troops, some with weapons which our commanders sent them home with. Saddams military machine is a great part of the insurgancy, along with the Bathests, and a very small percentage of militant muslims from outside the country.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-16-2005, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> You are insulting me, grossly. I will never debate with you again. I love my country, and I hate what George Bush is doing to it. In the future, please refrain from posting to me...I would appreciate it. I have nothing more to say to you, ever. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote deeman:</font><hr> Wow, now I'm hurt. Sorry, you don't have to respond but most of us don't live by Gayle's rules of who can post to whom. I agree, It's pretty useless to argue with you. Your mind is closed, except to Micheal Moore and and few others <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, at this rate, Gayle will only be talking to those who share her same opinion. No other point of view is allowed. If she is demeaning someone that is OK, however her skin is not so thick and would rather not "debate" with you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Ed,

You noticed that too, huh? Get her out where she can only post repeats of her 10,000th Bush Bashing and she won't talk. Debate is o.k. from her as long as it's her point of view. Anything counter to her is mindless following of thr right. We can se t up a debate between the left and far left and maybe that would be fair. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in MD
12-16-2005, 02:19 PM
I can debate till the cows come in, but I don't put up with people like you saying that I hate America, and that is something you would never say to a man, because he would track you down and knock your teeth down your throat. You don't mind debates, only debates from strong female voices, which disagree with you. I know a misogynist when I see one. You hate women, not all women just women with the gaul and guts to disagree with your pompus been around the world and talked to everybody in it twice version of the facts...fine, I don't debate with people who insult me, and nitpick over typos and broad terms, such as our democracy, which we have regardless of your uneducated opinion of what this country stands for. I am sure both you and Ed will continue your tirade against me, you won't manage to stop me from writing what I think about George Bush, so if you insist on reading my posts, fine, just don't expect me to respond to people like you and Ed who say grossly offensive things to me, as you have done on here for the last five years. You don't believe in free speech. I don't say personally degrading things to you, I state my opinions, you make personal attacks. Whatever blows you socks off, little man, I don't enjoy debating with you, therefore, I won't. You don't have a pain in the neck, you are a pain in the neck

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
12-16-2005, 02:35 PM
Don't forget about those storage pods with the explosives. Our own soldiers stood around in plain daylight while theives with trucks pulled up and hauled it all away. Ain't no tellin' how many lives will be consumed before all that is used up. Damn sorry mess from day one...sid

supergreenman
12-16-2005, 02:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr>
And Saddam's military machine is doing exacty what right now? I suppose you also have a better idea of how to organize the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. <hr /></blockquote>

Saddams military machine is digging holes and planting stuff. Mostly roadside bombs.

I don't need to plan for an occupation, I don't intend on occupying Iraq. My government didn't capitulate and join the coalition of the willing(ly stupid).

We were(are) under the impression that the weapons inspecters were doing thier job and deplomacy still had a place in the world.

wolfdancer
12-16-2005, 02:53 PM
Gayle, I was a little surprised, and very disappointed when Deeman implied that you hated America....very unlike him.
I think these debates/discussions here, sometimes bring out the worst in people and things are written without much thought.
We're all a little edgy when we feel we are correct in our views, and are challenged by the other side.
There wouldn't be much debate over this war, this course of action......if it was proven that there were WMD's in Iraq......or if Saddam had been behind 9/11.
Oddly enough the man who was picked to find the truth for the Admin, after failing to do so, has been under personal attack, and his wife exposed as a CIA operative.
WMD's are hardly mentioned now, nor is Bin Laden.....but I keep hearing Saddam and 9/11 mentioned in the same sentence....
I think reasonable men would pose the question "what is the real truth here?"

Deeman3
12-16-2005, 03:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I can debate till the cows come in, but I don't put up with people like you saying that I hate America, and that is something you would never say to a man, because he would track you down and knock your teeth down your throat. You don't mind debates, only debates from strong female voices, which disagree with you. I know a misogynist when I see one. You hate women, not all women just women with the gaul and guts to disagree with your pompus been around the world and talked to everybody in it twice version of the facts...fine, I don't debate with people who insult me, and nitpick over typos and broad terms, such as our democracy, which we have regardless of your uneducated opinion of what this country stands for. I am sure both you and Ed will continue your tirade against me, you won't manage to stop me from writing what I think about George Bush, so if you insist on reading my posts, fine, just don't expect me to respond to people like you and Ed who say grossly offensive things to me, as you have done on here for the last five years. You don't believe in free speech. I don't say personally degrading things to you, I state my opinions, you make personal attacks. Whatever blows you socks off, little man, I don't enjoy debating with you, therefore, I won't. You don't have a pain in the neck, you are a pain in the neck

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,

I won't debate you anymore as well. You don't want debate. You want to be heard. That's o.k. just don't pretend you are open to debate.

I have plenty of typos myself. I don't remember being critical of any of those you may have made.

I don't fear women. I don't fear strong women. I thought I had paid you the compliment in these years of not easing off debate because you are a woman. Maybe I was wrong.

The only comment I made was that you continue to sound like you hate America. That's what you sound like to me. I may be wrong. It's just that almost all of your posts are filled with hatred against our president. It is fine to disagree and even to hate the man but surely it is strange to express hate about all his people, unless they make a statement deriding him after they leave. Ms. Rice, Donald Rumsfield, anyone who is in the administration gets blasted by you. So, if saying that I think you seem to hate America it is because you sound that way to me. Soldiers are torturers, you say. Yes, a few did these things which none of us like but the vast majority have served well and are proud of what they have accomplished.

You say I have been everywhere and done everything. Not by a long shot but I have shared some of my thoughts which have been formed by where I lived and what I did. You say you have inside information in the beltway. I never doubt or say bad things about that experience you have. However, just because you are a strong woman, maybe because of it. I expected you to be able to discuss these things without a lot of hurt feelings. Again, I may have been in error.

You say I don't want debate. I want to degrade you. If you get that from our posts, I feel you are being much too sensitive. However, I won't ever say anything in answer to your past again. That way, you can have a more unopposed viewpoint that you won't have to defend. I had made assumptions you were about open discussion.

If you beleive I won't tell a man he hates America, you are wrong. I have done so and will anytime I beleive it to be true. Yes, he may bash my teeth in. However, I am usually the easiest person to find wherever I live. If anyone wants to bash me, they will be able to locate me. I think Q hates America. I know he won't come all the ay over here to bash my head in but as soon as we find another person who I feel hates America I'll point him out and you can sick him on me.

Lastly, If I have hurt your feelings, I do apologise. I am sincere in this. I enjoy discussions on things of interest but never, ever want to hurt anyone. That's not my purpose in life. I have two strong daughters who I disagree with even more strongly than I do with you at times. However, we don't take debate as personal and both could well personally attack me with justification on many fronts. You never know when you say things on the internet, how stable a person may be or the difficulties they may be having. I don't ever want to add to someone's hurt feelings or in any way upset them, beyond a normal argument. Despite our differences, I wish you the best and will always defend your right to speak, even when we disagree.

Yes, I am a pain in the neck. However, this won't be news to many here.

God Bless You.


Deeman

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 09:04 AM
Nice Try Deeman, but an unapposed position is not, nor has it ever been, what I seek. To damand a fair debate which does not insult my values, or question my love for my country, is a reasonable expectation, and should not indicate to you, or any fair minded person, who can take responsibility for his own actions, that I am overly sensitive. There is no American who loves their country who would not be offended by someone who suggested that they hate Anerica. That was a gross insult, as far as I am concerned, and follows the same illogical reasoning which Ed once used when his own emotions got cranked reading my opinions, that I hate the President. You can take the low road, just as you have done in this post, with more insulting language, in your equally insulting insinuation that emotional instability is the core of our communication difficulties, rather than admitting that my opinions enrage You to respond in insulting terms, but it still comes back to how you handle opposition from me, not the reverse. It is presumptuious, to say the least, for you to presume that either Q or I hate America. As I have stated many times, hate is not a part of my life. And also, any person living in the world today has a right to their opinion. If people in other countries do not approve of some of the actions taken by our country wish to voice their opinions, they have that right, and should not be slandered for doing so. The world is a smaller place than it once was, and the actions of one country may very well affect the stability of another.

I am not your daughter, and probably older than you, but for you to suggest I am unbalanced because I refuse to allow you to say that I hate my country, is nothing more than a cop out for your own poor behavior. When you address someone as comrad , the implication does not escape me, and I find that to be equally insulting. While the pupose of conversation is not agreement, it shouldn't be an effort to insult either.

I have never said anything on this board to suggest that I am an insider in Washington, although living outside the Beltway affords me the advantage to witness some of the disgusting behavior of the republican administration, first hand, such as watching them stonewall the families of 9/11, for example, or to speak with our troops, or attend book tour type luncheons, but I do not insult people who did not approve of Clinton, or Kennedy, or Carter by saying that they hate America. If, in a debate, you cannot factor in that the issue being discussed at any given time may be critical of our government's position without assumming that those who disagree with policy hate America, I question your ability to think fairly when digesting opposing opinions, as your arrival at that conclusion is surely faulty, and perhaps simplistic.

As a member of the right, and a grown man, one would think that you would realize that half of the people in this country do not approve of George Bush, nor do they trust him, or any of those around him who assisted him in calculating and circulating false information to support his misguided foriegn policies, which he, and they, knew to be questionable, at the least.

To suggest that I cannot stand on my principles and convictions without agreement, is, IMO, a far cry from who I am, and a failure on your own part to appraise your own posting style. By your standards, every pundit, every commedian, every critic of this administration, hates America....this, ofcourse, is not reality.

While my posts which address my admiration for our troops, and love of my country, apparently have never caught your attention, I assure you, nothing could please me more than to see our attempts in Iraq succeed, as quickly as possible, and to have our troops back home, and if that occurs, I will give George Bush the approval which he would deserve, but that will not erase my belief that he lied to us, fixed intelligence, blamed others for the confusion, and has never owned up to the fact that he committed a felony, along with those in his cabinet who assisted him in those treasonist acts. I am not of the opinion that there is never a time for war, only that it should be a last resort, and managed in a way which seeks to avoid the loss of innocent lives, and entered into with the honesty, integrity, responsibility and the preparation which is necessary in order to save lives, IOW, handled effectivly and responsibily. There are always opportunities to take the high road in life, regardless of what goals or predicaments in which one may find oneself involved, and surely, there are always unforseen circumstances, but war is not a circumstance which should be defended when the reason is cloudy, not justifiable, or intentionally manufactured with Madison Avenue-like tactics. The tendency of the right to say, Oh well, he (Saddam) was a bad man, we needed to get rid of him anyway, completely overlooks the issue of presidential reaponsibility for finding and giving accurate intelligence. I do not think this administration did that, and to allow such behavior to go unexamined, or sluffed off as par for the course , is not in the best interest of our country, but is instead dangerous and irresponsible, and perhaps worst of all, apathetic.

A president must win my respect, and particularly when I do not believe he Won the office of the presidency. This president was appointed by the Supreme Court, and won re-election by launching a war, dishonestly, and using fear tactics to insure his re-election. I find that to be repulsive, and an affront to my personal standards for appropriate conduct of a president. I will speak against that action regardless of how things turn out in Iraq. A success on one venue, does not wipe out treason in another. It is my belief that those who find his behavior satisfactory suffer from an apathetic view of what this country should stand for and demand. If you cannot read the opinions of others without making insulting assumptions about their loyalty to their country, or accusing them of communists leanings, or hatred of their country, then I submit to you that You become far too emotional over political discussions, and should reconsider reading my opinions.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 09:10 AM
I haven't forgotten that, Martin, nor have I forgotten that many Generals warned this administration that they were going in without enough troops, and that kaos would likely follow, but ofcourse, Bush and friends knew it all, and not only didn't listen, but ousted those who did not support their policy. Another failure in his handling of the Iraq war.

Gayle

Deeman3
12-17-2005, 09:19 AM
Whatever you say, Gayle. I promised not to debate you so I won't.

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 09:24 AM
Yeah, right, a convenient time to back off....

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 09:29 AM
Oh well, let's just forget nuclear disarmmament then, and throw out the "Rules of Engagement" and the Geneva Convention, and just become our enemy, what good is civilized behavior anyway......

Gayle in Md....

Deeman3
12-17-2005, 09:35 AM
Gayle,
Otherwise, I might cry at the insensitve things you have said to me.

All I know is you call everyone I respect vile names, then when anyone wants to tell you how they perceive you, you load up on your own personal attacks then closet yourself as strong woman who would beat me up if you were a man! You have a double standard and we just can't debate without your feelings getting hurt and then calling me a woman hater. This may work as a debate strategy for you but it's just not easy to argue points when you constantly pull the "I've been wronged" card to cover up for lack of new debate material.

I'm sure your a nice person but you need to just admit that you want only debate on your terms.


Deeman

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 09:46 AM
Tap Tap Tap, there are many Americans who appreciate the urgent need for diplomacy in a world which is filled with nuclear weapons. The goal should be to settle our differences at the conference table, through correspondence, and communication, between reasonable leaders who share a goal of avoiding war. This was achieved by President Kennedy at a time when we were a breath away from nuclear disaster, and with a man so unreasonable that he had taken his shoe off to bang the table during a debate, Kruschev, but republicans mischaracterize the events which led to settling that dispute, in spite of the accounts given by those who were present at the time, such as Robert McNamara.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 10:54 AM
Well I'm disappointed also. I don't expect him, or the others on here to agree with my views, I just don't like to catch myself stooping to their methods when I post. I try to overlook much of what is aimed at me personally, without responding to every single attack, or to their attempts to dictate what others are allowed to write, but their continuing use of the word hate, is affecting my ability to rise above their tactics. I surely don't aim to incite unnpleasant responses, only to state my personal thoughts, and while I am very strong in my convictions, I don't think I start off with petty, sarcastic personal accusations aimed at the posters, although lately I catch myself sliding down to a level which is beneath my own rules for debating issues. This was never my posting style on this forum, and I am not proud that my own rules of debate have suffered of late. When someone calls me down suggesting that I have offended them personally, I apologize, sincerely, and without further critisism. That is all that I can do. When people set out to argue over such things as whether democratic principles are included in our constitution and our government, one begins to question whether they have any desire for genuine discourse. Democracy, for example, describes many principles, beyond a singular particular point such as how a country votes. To reduce a debate down to literal definitions is IMO, petty, and ineffective, and stands in the way of interesting discourse. Squabbling over typos and spelling erros is not my idea of interesting conversation, is small minded, and petty. I see plenty of spelling errors on here, and typos, and misuse of certain words, but I usually can get the drift of the poster without reducing the discourse to disagreements over definitions and spelling, lol.

Reasonable men are posing those questions, and investigations are on-going. The recent exposure of the President's secret signed permissions for spying on Americans without the use of a search warrant, or the permissions of a judge, will go one step further in exposing other illegal and corrupt activities of this administration, and IMO, recharge the determination to re-examine the information which was fed to us and the world. We are heading right back to "What did the President know, and when did he know it" times. We are not stupid people. We can see with our own eyes when the president makes such statements as, "I think he is innocent," about Tom Delay, and BTW, during an investigation, then comes back out a few hours later and says, "What I meant was innocent until proven guilty" GIVE ME A BREAK! I saw both statemtents live, and that was not the way he said it. He flat out said, "He is innocent." Just like he said anyone "Involved" in leaking the identity of Valarie Plame would be fired! And just like Cheney said, there was "No Doubt" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and later denied saying it. Do they think we are THAT stupid???

This administration has skirted thinly along the line of illegality throughout their tenure, from the election, the war, the dirty tricks, the outing of Valarie Plame, the misuse of the media, the fixing of intelligence, the list is too long to state. Our representatives will not continue to bow down to the King and his Court, and every American who loves this country should hope for complete investigations of their questionable activities. Yes, I have already made up my mind, but only after extensive reading and research, an activity which is regularly made fun of by the righties on here, which shows you where they're coming from. And, they misconstrue information on a regular basis, often using the same methods as the Bush administration uses, lol.

Some people can see through brick walls, while some can't see what is right under their nose, but the good thing is, that the truth usually has a way of waggling out into the daylight, and that is just what I hope happens in this country. And I will always say that the abuse of power in this administration is precisely what will be their downfall. When you think what the Republican Party did to Bill Clinton's administration, and all the outrage over a blow job, between consenting adults, you have to laugh at the free pass the right is willing to give Bush and the republicans in the midst of questionable election practices, bald faced lies on national television, charges of taking bribes, using propaganda to promote a war, outing CIA covert agents, depriving the minority party of their right to subpoena information in investigations, blocking investigations into terror attacks, jeeze, you'd have to be stupid not to be questioning this bunch!!!

Patience my friend, the truth will out!

Gayle in Md....and thanks for your support...Gayle loves Wolfdancer, Martin, Dick, and all the other ccbers, even the lefties.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 01:23 PM
Think what you like, but here again, you twist my words, and meanings. I have never suggested that all our troops practice torture, for example, as you said in your other post, to the contrary, I have posted here before that the underlings take the blame, and the higher ups, who give the orders, get off the hook.

I never said I would punch you out if I were a man, violence is not acceptable in my world, just as hate is not acceptable.

As for Vile Names, come on, I believe that Bush and company are liars, how do you wish me to put it for your delicate nature....you don't understand my wry sense of humor, fine, you could hear any descriptive word I use here in acceptable political satire, in many news columns, on many comedy shows, none of my adjectives are original, well, maybe a few, but not all...I'm not that clever. My descriptions are no worse or better than those used by you and the other republicans on here when you go after Clinton, Kennedy, Carter, or democrats in general. You were insulting after the very first post I made expressing my disgust with Bush, called me a wannabe elitist, among other things, so don't pull that innocent act with me. I have not made any practice of whining over your attacks, until you said that I hated America. THAT, I won't stand for.

You come out to complain that you don't like the words I use to describe Bush, and his co-hearts, and then accuse ME of being the one who only wants to debate on my terms, Hah, that's a joke. If you admire and respect President Bush, fine, that's your perrogative, but insluting me for my feelings about him is a different thing entirely. People who go into politics are villified by many, that's life, just don't think it is appropriate to insult others because you don't share their views, that would be someone who only wants to post on their own terms...

I post what I think, and I think Bush is a crook and a liar, along with Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, and that the Republicans in office are smug, crooked, self involved pigs, by and large. That's what I see, so that's what I write, and I watch them nearly every day, and I see how they operate, and what they are doing to this country, and you're damn right I'm mad about it, because I have never witnessed such gross abuse of power, and greed and corruption in my lifetime. If you think that gives you a right to say that I hate my country, I can't stop you, but I don't have to sit still for it.

I don't know if you're a nice person or not, I don't know you, but I do know that I write my views, they irritate you, and you follow up with personal attacks, which by and large, I have no problem with, and can give back just as good as I get, but when you get on here and accuse me of hating my country, you have gone too far. And I won't stand for it.

Vile names, AH ha ha ha...Little Bushy and the Bushyites??? Resmuglicans.....the chimp, the idiot, I don't consider those vile names....in fact, those cleaned up versions of what I usually call him in the privacy of my home, LOL. Better keep your TV off friend, we don't want you throwing up or anything.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-17-2005, 01:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Think what you like, but here again, you twist my words, and meanings. I have never suggested that all our troops practice torture, for example, as you said in your other post, to the contrary, I have posted here before that the underlings take the blame, and the higher ups, who give the orders, get off the hook.

I never said I would punch you out if I were a man, violence is not acceptable in my world, just as hate is not acceptable. <font color="blue"> "I can debate till the cows come in, but I don't put up with people like you saying that I hate America, and that is something you would never say to a man, because he would track you down and knock your teeth down your throat." Violence is not acceptable in your world? Did someone steal your computer and post this? </font color>

As for Vile Names, come on, I believe that Bush and company are liars, how do you wish me to put it for your delicate nature....you don't understand my wry sense of humor, fine, you could hear any descriptive word I use here in acceptable political satire, in many news columns, on many comedy shows, none of my adjectives are original, well, maybe a few, but not all...I'm not that clever. <font color="blue"> No, just hiding any derogatory remarks behind your wry sense of humor. </font color> My descriptions are no worse or better than those used by you and the other republicans on here when you go after Clinton, Kennedy, Carter, or democrats in general. <font color="blue"> I just don't remember ranting for hours calling these guys names... </font color> You were insulting after the very first post I made expressing my disgust with Bush, called me a wannabe elitist <font color="blue"> and.... </font color> , among other things, so don't pull that innocent act with me. I have not made any practice of whining over your attacks, until you said that I hated America. THAT, I won't stand for. <font color="blue"> Then stop this non-violently by knocking my teeth down my throat. LOL </font color>

You come out to complain that you don't like the words I use to describe Bush, and his co-hearts, and then accuse ME of being the one who only wants to debate on my terms, Hah, that's a joke. If you admire and respect President Bush, fine, that's your perrogative, but insluting me for my feelings about him is a different thing entirely. People who go into politics are villified by many, that's life, just don't think it is appropriate to insult others because you don't share their views, that would be someone who only wants to post on their own terms...

I post what I think, and I think Bush is a crook and a liar, along with Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, and that the Republicans in office are smug, crooked, self involved pigs, by and large. That's what I see, so that's what I write, and I watch them nearly every day, and I see how they operate, and what they are doing to this country, and you're damn right I'm mad about it, because I have never witnessed such gross abuse of power, and greed and corruption in my lifetime. <font color="blue"> I have to settle for watching them on TV like most other Americans. I don't have acces to their offices. </font color> If you think that gives you a right to say that I hate my country, I can't stop you, but I don't have to sit still for it. <font color="blue">Yes, I think that gives me the right to say that I believe you hate this country. </font color>

I don't know if you're a nice person or not, I don't know you, but I do know that I write my views, they irritate you, and you follow up with personal attacks, which by and large, I have no problem with, and can give back just as good as I get, but when you get on here and accuse me of hating my country, you have gone too far. And I won't stand for it. <font color="blue"> Gayle, I have to say, you are one of a kind; non-violent et al.</font color>

Vile names, AH ha ha ha...Little Bushy and the Bushyites??? Resmuglicans.....the chimp, the idiot, I don't consider those vile names....in fact, those cleaned up versions of what I usually call him in the privacy of my home, LOL. <font color="blue"> I believe that. Gayle, if I were to state, in the abstract, that Senator Clinton was a prostitute, based on the opinion of several right wing kooks, would it not irritate you after hearing it the 100th time with only right wing gossip and opinion polls to back it up? Is this just parody and levity or would it be an onslaught of character asasination for mere political gain? While noone with good sense would listen to this, hopes that enough repeating would change the facts would seem foolish but might be the right's only effective way of fighting back if they could not provide a plan of their own. </font color>

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
12-17-2005, 02:15 PM
nAz, we helped the Iragi's in their war against Iran, we helped Afghanistan in their war against Russia...and for that we got.....Now, once again we are "helping" Irag, against Iraq. It's Orwell's continuous wars, with changing alliances, come to fruition.
And it's not that what you read is necessarily true.....it's what you believe to be true in what you read.
Take this little, not well known attack on a U.S Navy ship, by our staunch friends, the Israelis, during the six day war
Here are two different reports......that I chose one from Pravda, out of many like it....is just to give the extremists a little ammo, in case they respond.

web page (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html)
or
web page (http://english.pravda.ru/letters/2002/06/29/31437.html)
You can find news reports and diametric contradictions today,about everything concerning GWB, and the war
For the record....nobody on the USS Liberty was ever allowed to give their account at the time.
There were stories of the crew and pilots waving to each other on the initial flybys.....and we did have an American flag, American markings on the ship.....
I choose to believe the Israelis attacked deliberately, and that our government covered up that attack.
I also choose to believe that this war might not have taken place at this time, if anybody, Republican or Democrat, anybody beside GWB had been elected President.

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 03:26 PM
More totally unfounded accusations. My statement refers to the fact that violence is how MEN settle insults.

I'm not hiding anything, I listed my own often used adjectives, you just don't like them.

"Ranting for hours" come on now Deeman, are you trying to dictate to me how long I can rant? LMAO...nobody forces you to read my posts, be a big boy now, and read at your own risk.

I'd much rather kick your ass on the pool table, than damage my pretty little hands on your clinched jaw, LOL.

You have the right to say anything you wish, you just don't think that I have the same rights, obviously, which is why you insult me. Have at it, just don't expect friendship from me, after you insult me. I insult your views perhaps, because I don't respect this current party of republicans, or this administration, but I don't say you hate America because you don't respect the same politicians that I respect. The problems that I have at the present, are not with my country, they are all due to Bush's policies, which I believe to be unamerican. Torture, spying on Americans, revealing CIA operatives, lying to the American people, all treasonist acts. And also, I don't have to sit in his office to hear him lie, I can witness it with my own two eyes, live on television, just like I can with Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld. It isn't my fault that you are determined to soak up all their lies as truth.

Now this last paragraph is really funny because I called Hilliary Clinton a prostitute myself, just last week, when she didn't have the backbone to support John Murtha's heroic stand against the outrageous unrealistic war policies of George Bush. Every General has stated that this war can not be won militarily. Our people over there are like the little ducks in the carnival, floating along till they are picked off. And your president doesn't listen to anyone, he is a dictator, who refused to give others in government any input. And, his appointees, are ineffective, and please tell me who could have been more ineffective than Donald Rumsfeld, or Mr Brown???????????????????????????????????????????

The right wing called Hilliary Clinton much worse things than a Prostitute, they called her everything from a lesbian to a murderer, although she never actually killed anyone, unlike smile-nod Laura.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-17-2005, 05:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> damand a fair debate which does not insult my values,Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes you get what you give. You have insulted my values on many occasion.
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 03:13 AM
And, you have written things I do not agree with, that doesn't insult my values, though, my values belong to me. You can't insult values. You can insult people when you assume that you know everything about them well enough to presume the nature of their lives, what they do with their time, how they arrive at their philosophies, what they hold dear to their hearts. I have seen you do this more than once. You only seem able to view a person through one lense, without considering all the other things that comprize each and every one of us. If someone has a different point of view, then they are your enemy, in your craw, a thorn in your side. You don't seem to realize that my values are just as important to me, as your values are to you, and that one doesn't cancel out the other, you can still have yours, without my agreement.

When I said that Deeman insulted my values, I said that because he said that I hate America. It wasn't a question of differing philosophies, it was a statement, beginning with the word YOU, that makes it a personal judgment on his part, which is his right, to judge me that is, but I don't have to go along with it. I owe it to him as a friend, to say, hold it, you are slandering me, and you are wrong. I love my country, and hate is not allowed in my world, and it isn't. You guys seem to find it daunting to deal with my opinions. You feel justified in taking pot shots at me personally, because I don't like your president, and don't speak of him with any respect, because I don't have any respect for him. That is my right as an American, to say what I think, how I say it. You are welcomed to disagree, but if my thoughts infuriate you, then I suggest you don't read my posts. The minute you use the word, YOU, the debate becomes a personal one, and words should be chosen carefully.


Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 04:11 AM
Deeman, I am sorry for coming down on you so hard. I really am, but when you said that I hate my country, I was extremely offended, angrier than I have ever been on this board.

You guys on here take pot shots at me all the time, and that's ok, I can handle that, but I have a real problem with anyone saying that I hate my country. I think it would serve each of us on here well to remember that we really know very little about one another, and while we ALL have our opinions, it's a bit silly to be angry because someone else's opinion is different than yours. You can say all kinds of critisisms regarding my posting style, but I think you should consider, that I am a whole person, not just a political opinion.

While I know we will never agree about George Bush, and that I have called him names on here, and will probably do so in the future, I am not responsible for the fact that you guys who are so supportive of Bush, and sensitive about your loyalty to him, you can't handle my calling him a name. That is your own responsibility, not mine. You took things to a different level, IMO, when you said that I hate my country. To me, that was an outrageous statement for you to make. Just because I have compassion for all people in all countries who have been under attack, and been iniahilated, doesn't mean that I hate my country. And just because one makes a judgement about what is right and reasonable, and what is not, does not necessarily mean that they have hate in their hearts.

I know that you and the others here will NEVER admit to this, but I think it is all of you who take political discussions too seriously. You certainly don't take into account that anyone who goes into public life, like the president, is going to have to take everything that comes along with that, some of which is critisism, and name calling and being the brint of jokes. I think George will survive it, lol.

You just can't expect me to post like some sweet little old lady who couldn't say [censored] if she had a mouthful! That's not who I am, I am more of a roudy old opinionated broad, who has paid enough dues in life to feel justified in calling Old George an idiot! LOL...let's all just realize that what makes this country great is that we have the right to voice our opinions, and while I realize that many men have fought and died in order for us to have that right, it doesn't necessarily follow that I owe anyone blind devotion, faith, or unquestionable approval for every act committed in every war, because I don't, and can't approve of much of what our country, and other countries do to others. I don't know if I am a pacifist, because backed in a corner, with my safety or life at risk, or that of any innocent person in my rhelm, Believe me, I could easily pull out my thirty-eight, and blow away any criminal who tried to hurt me or any other innocent person. But that doesn't meant that I endorse all inhumane acts, I don't. To me, and in our previous discussion, for a country to intentionally fire bomb civilian areas, maybe not half the country, but civilian areas, in general, is wrong. I don't know enough about that war to know how much Truamn struggled to find another way to settle it, so I won't speak to that, but in my heart, I always believe that there is a better way than war. That is a function of who I am, and what I believe in.

My Dad worked for the Army Map Service. He was stationed in the Phillippines. He brought home many many graphic books on the war. Picture after picture of men, women and children, blown to bits, legs here, arms there, burned bodies. I used to look at them when I was a kid, and naturally, I was horrified by what I saw.

I was a war baby, born in 45, and didn't see my Dad until I was over a year old, 11 months I think. He enlisted, with a wife and one child, my older sister, who was four, and a trip home from boot camp was my beginning, LOL. I only saw him cry a few times in his life. When his Mom died, when his son died, and when he opened the box filled with his lost war medals and ribbons, which I replaced for him, and surprised him with one Christmas. I'm really glad I did that. They now rest in my dining room, on the table by his picture, in his Navy Uniform. And believe me when I say that I love this country, and hold our troops in the highest esteem. We are not so far apart in our patriotism as you think.

Love,
Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-18-2005, 08:21 AM
Gayle,

I apologise for saying you hate America. You have every right to express your beliefs and, believe it or not, I don't want to shut you up. We are all Americans and there is plenty of room for all our opinions.


Deeman

Sid_Vicious
12-18-2005, 08:22 AM
I'll be personally dissapointed if Dee reads all of what you wrote in this reflection of your life, and doesn't find one tad bit of respect for you as the person whom you are. Being a right or left based American...anyone with any compassion should at least respect that you Gayle are definitely a red blooded American in all respects. I only saw my father cry twice in my life. Thank you for the flash back.

Sincerely,
Martin

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 11:38 AM
Well thank you Martin. You are a dear friend, and your words are much appreciated.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 11:51 AM
No problem, Dee....it's the format, writing about volital issues, with folks for whom you have no other context, and have never even met, can easily lead to misunderstandings.
I'll try to drop the names...have done that lately, dropped the names, on advice from one of my good friends here, but nobody noticed, LOL.

Gayle in Md.....

SnakebyteXX
12-18-2005, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> We are not so far apart in our patriotism as you think.

Love,
Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

Right, Left, or in the Middle - we are ALL Americans. (With the exception of a couple of pretty cool Canucks and one off the wall dude from Holland...)

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/1059/wethepeople3hm.jpg

eg8r
12-18-2005, 05:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am sure both you and Ed will continue your tirade against me, you won't manage to stop me from writing what I think about George Bush, so if you insist on reading my posts, fine, just don't expect me to respond to people like you and Ed who say grossly offensive things to me, as you have done on here for the last five years. You don't believe in free speech. <hr /></blockquote> What I don't believe in is your lies. Take the quote above, I have never tried to restrain your right to free speech. Never. As a matter of fact, it is good to see you continue your insanity (you know the definition). It is good to see the level of desperation you are in, that way we can get a good idea of the state of the extreme far left. I really don't think you have a chance at really winning any election, because you spend the following fours years trying to tell the right they are stupid and you try and convince the world of an election that was stolen. Instead of using those powerful minds of yours to make a change you waste the oppotunity to bad mouth everyone that has walked all over you politically. You have lost nearly every single election in the last 16 years. Don't you think it is time to accept that fact that you don't know what you are talking about and regroup?

I have always allowed you to say whatever you want, no matter how wrong it is. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif I just comment on what you post. For some reason your brain is keeping you from understand such a simple situation. Because I say you are wrong, lying, being truthful, honest, hypocritical, etc is not limiting your right to free speech. Now is the time for you to settle down and quit taking things personally. I don't expect you to take any advice because you think you are the only one here that is allowed to say anything. It is BS and you know it. You think it is ok to call Bush and everyone else names but you don't like it when we point it out? Does that mean you are a hypocrite? YUP, and it is not all that bad to point it out, it keeps you grounded. However, by mentioning it does not limit your right to free speech unless you feel convicted enough by it that you choose not to continue.

eg8r