PDA

View Full Version : Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi



Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 05:16 AM
Arlen Specter has announced that the president has not been forthcoming regarding his warrentless wire taps, in the interest of Congressional Oversight. He also stated that the issue of the president using the language granted to him to use force against terrorists, does not give him the right to wire tap Americans without the required court proceedures. WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HIDING?

Last night I watched a "Thirty Years Later" documentary on the Watergate/Nixon Constitutional Crises. The similarity to the Bush administration's behavior, their use of National Security in the wake of the 9/11 attack as a means for operating outside the law of the land, the skewing and bastardizing of our Constitution gaurantees, and Bill Of Rights, the suspect intentions of a White House cloaked in secrecy, and their contempt and hatred of the function of a free press here in America, as evidenced by their intentional planting of phoney press in the White House Press Room, and paying off journalists to write phoney positive information, along with their attempts to ruin and punish those who speak out against the administration's false statements, and illegal practices, (Reference Bush's present request for severe legal action against any leakers, regardless of the integrity involveed) ALL striking reminders of the same ideology which brought our country to the Constitutional Crises we faced in the Watergate Scandal.

I found it interesting that Erlichman used the same excuses the I often read right here on this forum for the law breaking and abuse of power of the Bush Administration, the references to other administration's similar abuses as a righteous excuse to obstruct justice, and dismantle our democratic principles.

Oh, for a country lawyer like Sam Ervin, in the portals of our Nation's Congress and Senate, to stand against partisanship, corruption, and the destruction of the democratic and legal processes which make our country great.
Have we NO men of integrity on the hill other than John Murtha? Are we frought with whimp-like Americans, who would give away their constitutional gaurantees in the name of terrorist fears, and partisan ideology? What EVER happened to...."WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR, BUT FEAR, ITSELF."

If we want to preserve our way of life, here in America, and maintain our standing in the world, our self-respect as a Nation, and preserve our liberties, our committment to the high intentions of a nation bound to the preservation of human rights, it is long past the time when we as Americans must acknowledge this corrupt admistration, their assault against our democracy, and abandon partisan thinking and divisiveness, or we will never manage to preserve our cherished way of life. A cry for impeachment MUST ring out, if we are to survive this assault against us. Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-28-2006, 06:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?

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

<font color="blue"> Gayle,

While conceding that most ofus would like more honesty overall in government, I feel most Americans would not be comfortable with alternatives to Bush on the Iran situation. Yes, he only has a 33% approval factor, common during most unpopular wars. However, I just can't see most Americans supporting any of the alternatives. We are lucky that we don't have a Kerry in office now as he would still be pandering to the UN over Iraq. Now that Iran is a threat, would we really want a democrat, like Hillary who would simply watch the poles for public and war policy?

I admit, it would still be easier for Bush to roll over and play dead but he still has the responsibility of protecting our country as his prime focus. He has done this even if many of us think he has spent too much money and been too slow to agressively go after the a quicker victory. However, with the few exceptions of Murtha and a few others who would have cut and run, most democrats are still only complaining and offering no solutions other than get out. The Iranians know they will have no problem developing weapons if the democrats are elected and they may just wait us out until a democrat is in office so they can do whatever they want. They do fear Bush as he has proven he is willing to go against public opinion and even his own party. While you see any unpopularity as proof a president should be impeached, some of us see it as not such a bad thing.

Running public policy on the heels of popularity surveys is not what all of us want. If this was indeed a democracy, that would be acceptable. Of course, bold leadership is not always popular. Winston Churchill was very unpopular and was not even re-elected after the war. His numbers were worse than Bush now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that history remembers him differently than the war weary English did at the time.

I believe that Bush will pay a price for some of his policy and certainly for his not toeing the pacifist line. However, give it a few years and I'll bet he is remembered better than those who now bite and yap at his heels.


Deeman</font color>

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 07:25 AM
While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful?

Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO.

In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence?

Gayle in Md.

nAz
04-28-2006, 07:39 AM
Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore?

Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad?

BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure.

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 08:03 AM
Hi Naz,
I don't think we would have ever gone into Iraq with either Gore, or Kerry. I also think that most people now agree that going into Iraq was a mistake which will go down as the worst policy decision in history. This seems to be agreed upon by hawks and doves alike, and also now even by former Bush supporters, and many of the early Neocons, who are now writing articles and books critical of Bush for going in, and even more critical of policy after the occupation. Even career neocon journalists, say we can never outlast this insurgency, and that this war is unwinnable militarily, as many Generals agree. It's hard to imagine anyone could have done any worse! I think John Kerry would have don a great job. When you listen to him speak now, and think of what he said back then, he was right on the money. Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong time...how prophetic.

Many write that our ocupation has been an invitation to Iran to step up their nuclear program, and beleive that this problem would have been years up the road, if not for the fact that Iran knows that our forces are stretched, and Americans no longer trust the administration.

Also, it is hard for them to sell the idea that Bush is committed to protecting Americans, given his record on Border Control, Open Ports, Katrina, the discredited, dysfunctional state of FEMA, and swarms of illegals coming in, from who knows where.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-28-2006, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful? <font color="blue"> Gayle, The way you frame a question, it can't be answered as you add parts that while holding a grain of truth, may not be entirely true. Occupations have worked in the past. How many years? We are still in Germany and Japan and we lost many more lives in those conflicts. If we have a small presence for 10 years, it would still be worth it. </font color>

Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO. <font color="blue"> I did not see the Kennedy interview but I have seen hundreds of his inteviews. What does he say now that might influence us? </font color>

In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence? <font color="blue"> Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals? I don't discount their opinion but there are many more who have and do support the administration. I, too, think Rumsfield is arrogant and needs to be replaced. This does not mean he did not contribute but has not been able to garner support outside the military. </font color>

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

Deeman3
04-28-2006, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. <font color="blue"> Like Gayle, I don't beleive he would have gone to war with Iraq, nor do I beleive he would have ever defended this country regardless of the threat. Yes, you can say, "We'll until we proved what individual Muslim, was responsible for the attacks, we should not react." I think no reaction would have just opened us up to more attacks on our own soil. </font color> the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore? <font color="blue"> Yes, as bad as some of his budget management skills have been and despite the fact he may have stepped over the line on occasion, I would still much prefer him to Kerry. He may or may not be regarded well in history. I don't care as much about that as I do that he stood up for us when others wanted to capitulate, revote in the UN, get countries with out and out dirty hands in the "food for oil" to go along. Well, he didn't just sit there and let the world laugh at us one more time. He did something. He did not forget 9/11 in a few weeks as his predesessors have in the past. </font color>

Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad? <font color="blue"> No, we all know he would not have screwed up, he would have done absolutely nothing, business as usual. At least the Iranians know this president will do something. This makes for a different negoiating stance, no matter what the French might say. Arabs only react o strength, never to kissing up by the west.</font color>

BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I disagree so we'll have to wait a few decades... </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 08:24 AM
Quote Gayle in MD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful? Gayle, The way you frame a question, it can't be answered as you add parts that while holding a grain of truth, may not be entirely true. Occupations have worked in the past. Really, when were they successful, not counting the times when we went in invited to aid our allies, of course. How many years? We are still in Germany and Japan and we lost many more lives in those conflicts. One wouldn't think this would count, since the fighting ended in both those countries ong ago, and I believe we have already been fighting in Iraq longer than either of those countries. If we have a small presence for 10 years, it would still be worth it. How so? What advantages or rewards would you expect to reap? Also, wondering, again, how many lives do you think you would be willing to lose for the sake of Iraqi style democracy?

Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO. I did not see the Kennedy interview but I have seen hundreds of his inteviews. What does he say now that might influence us? I think you could find the interview on the Meet The Press web site, if you're interested. It's a bit involved to go into here.

In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence? Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals? Three of these, maybe four, were on the ground in Iraq, and dealing with Rumsfeld. The thousands of other retirees would not be privy to present policy in Iraq. all who have spoken are Generals familiar with our present circumstances, recent retirees, so, do you think bush is remiss in keeping rumsfeld? I don't discount their opinion but there are many more who have and do support the administration. I, too, think Rumsfield is arrogant and needs to be replaced. This does not mean he did not contribute but has not been able to garner support outside the military. Then you think Rumsfeld is, and has, done a good Job?

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
04-28-2006, 08:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals?<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rumsfeld:</font><hr>"But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round,"<hr /></blockquote>

If we have "thousands and thousands" of admirals and generals who have knowledge of Iraq and are in a postion to be able to speak up, it seems we already have a merry-go-round in the armed forces. This statement seems incredibly disingenuous

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 08:56 AM
Quote nAz:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. Like Gayle, I don't beleive he would have gone to war with Iraq, nor do I beleive he would have ever defended this country regardless of the threat. Now please don't be offended, but didn't Kerry defend this country before? I think John Kerry would hav stayed focussed on bin Laden, and alQaeda, and that is what he has been saying all along. Do you think that total focuss on those who in fact attacked us would have been a failed policy? Yes, you can say, "We'll until we proved what individual Muslim, was responsible for the attacks, we should not react." Does this mean that ANY individual Muslim will do? I though we already knew which individual Muslim was responsible. I think no reaction would have just opened us up to more attacks on our own soil. the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore? Yes, as bad as some of his budget management skills have been disasterous, might be more accurate? and despite the fact he may have stepped over the line on occasion, Just the Constitution, FISA, Felonious statements to congress and the Senate, and Outing Valarie, a WMMD operative during wartime. This is a bit more serious than an occasional little step over the line, don't you think? I would still much prefer him to Kerry. He may or may not be regarded well in history. I don't care as much about that as I do that he stood up for us when others wanted to capitulate, revote in the UN, get countries with out and out dirty hands in the "food for oil" to go along. Well, he didn't just sit there and let the world laugh at us one more time. He did something. He did not forget 9/11 in a few weeks as his predesessors have in the past. If you are interested, Richard Clarke's Book, tells a very different story about Clinton's policies regarding terrorists, and all that we were doing to get good intel, which was all thrown out by the Bush Administration, BTW. I hardly think it is a fair assessment, given that we (Clinton) had bin Laden, but he was too close to the Arab Princes from Dubai, remember, the ones Bush wanted the port deal with.

Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad? No, we all know he would not have screwed up, he would have done absolutely nothing, business as usual. At least the Iranians know this president will do something. I wonder if they think....We'll attack the U.S., then they'll bomb Lybia, they never go after their attackers, just the countries with NO WMD's. This makes for a different negoiating stance, no matter what the French might say. Arabs only react o strength, never to kissing up by the west. Given the condition of our equipment, and our army, which is said to be broken, and American's disillusionment with Bush's incompetent policies in Iraq, aka Rumsfeld, how strong do you think they view us at the present time? Consider, for a moment, that we had gotten bin Laden by now, and built up our economic circumstances, instead of three trillion dollars in debt to China, not to mention our National deficit, and built up our armed forces instead, might they be taking us much more serious right now?

BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree so we'll have to wait a few decades... I seriously hope you are right on this one. Something tells me we won't have to wait that long. This summer may just tell the tale, unfortunately, according to bin Laden's recent threats. If and when he does attack us again, wonder what your opinion of bush's policy would be then, still a positive grade?

Gayle in Md....BTW, how many more troops did you say we should be willing to sacrifice for Iraqi style democracy?

Qtec
04-28-2006, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?

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

<font color="blue"> Gayle,

While conceding that most ofus would like more honesty overall in government, I feel most Americans would not be comfortable with alternatives to Bush on the Iran situation. Yes, he only has a 33% approval factor, common during most unpopular wars. However, I just can't see most Americans supporting any of the alternatives. We are lucky that we don't have a Kerry in office now as he would still be pandering to the UN over Iraq. Now that Iran is a threat, would we really want a democrat, like Hillary who would simply watch the poles for public and war policy? <font color="red"> Is Iran a threat to the USA ???? How come you see Iran as a threat but you cant seem to realise that to a lot of countries in the world, including Iran sees the USA as the greatest threat- and with good reason.
Are they more of a threat than the USSR were? What ever happened to nuclear deterent? Arent Atomic bombs primarily defensive weapons ? WHY SHOULD THE USA BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 6000 NUKES [ AND DEVELOPING MORE ALL THE TIME] BUT IRAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE 1! [ not shouting Q] </font color>

I admit, it would still be easier for Bush to roll over and play dead but he still has the responsibility of protecting our country as his prime focus. He has done this even if many of us think he has spent too much money and been too slow to agressively go after the a quicker victory. However, with the few exceptions of Murtha and a few others who would have cut and run, most democrats are still only complaining and offering no solutions other than get out. The Iranians know they will have no problem developing weapons if the democrats are elected and they may just wait us out until a democrat is in office so they can do whatever they want. They do fear Bush as he has proven he is willing to go against public opinion and even his own party. While you see any unpopularity as proof a president should be impeached, some of us see it as not such a bad thing.

Running public policy on the heels of popularity surveys is not what all of us want. If this was indeed a democracy, that would be acceptable. Of course, bold leadership is not always popular. Winston Churchill was very unpopular and was not even re-elected after the war. His numbers were worse than Bush now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that history remembers him differently than the war weary English did at the time.

I believe that Bush will pay a price for some of his policy and certainly for his not toeing the pacifist line. However, give it a few years and I'll bet he is remembered better than those who now bite and yap at his heels.


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


To understand the problem and solve it, you also have to look at it from the Iranian side.
Iraq was NEVER a threat and Iran is also not a threat- not nuclear anyway. Once Iran has a bomb, the US cant bully them any more. Thats what GW and Co are worried about.
The only ones who should be worried is the Israeli's, bit guess what- they also have nukes! I dont hear anyone who claims to support 'no nukes in the ME' ever mentioning that little fact.

Q...gotta go-to be continued. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Lester
04-28-2006, 09:41 AM
QTEC wrote:
Iraq was NEVER a threat and Iran is also not a threat- not nuclear anyway. Once Iran has a bomb, the US cant bully them any more. Thats what GW and Co are worried about.
%%%%%%%%%

Well nobody's a threat to you "a pansy from the Netherlands". We bailed your worthless butts out in WWII, and never got so much as a thankyou. If it wasn't for the USA you would be "goose-stepping" now.

Lester
04-28-2006, 09:45 AM
Gayle wrote:

While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful?

Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO.

In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence?

Gayle in Md.

%%%%%%%%

Do you even SHOOT POOL? If so, when do you find the time?

What is your take on the Pro Pool Players?

Deeman3
04-28-2006, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Is Iran a threat to the USA ???? <font color="green"> Could be if they get atomic bombs.</font color> How come you see Iran as a threat but you cant seem to realise that to a lot of countries in the world, including Iran sees the USA as the greatest threat- and with good reason. <font color="green"> and why should the U.S. think this is a bad thing? </font color>
Are they more of a threat than the USSR were? <font color="green"> Yes &amp; No, they are less stable then the USSR was and have indicated they would use weapons on the U.S. and Israel. </font color> What ever happened to nuclear deterent? <font color="green"> We hve that but why let the club get bigger? </font color> Arent Atomic bombs primarily defensive weapons ? <font color="green"> Not if it drops on your house! </font color> WHY SHOULD THE USA BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 6000 NUKES [ AND DEVELOPING MORE ALL THE TIME] BUT IRAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE 1! <font color="green"> Because, we are responsible adults? because we will use them only as a last resort. Because we are the biggest kid on the block. Becuase the first real sign of your country getting overun, again, you guys will be crying like little girls for the U.S to bail your tree hugging butts out of a jam.</font color> [ not shouting Q] </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>


To understand the problem and solve it, you also have to look at it from the Iranian side. <font color="green"> Why, pray tell? </font color>
Iraq was NEVER a threat and Iran is also not a threat- not nuclear anyway. <font color="green"> Not to you, but to Israel. Will you help protect them? Like mayeb Anne Frank felt protected in Holland. </font color> Once Iran has a bomb, the US cant bully them any more. <font color="green"> That is just plain silly, remember U.S 6000 bombs Iran 1. </font color> Thats what GW and Co are worried about. <font color="green"> Yeah, sure. You have said it. Bush is worried about oil and you should be as well. </font color>
The only ones who should be worried is the Israeli's, bit guess what- they also have nukes! I dont hear anyone who claims to support 'no nukes in the ME' ever mentioning that little fact. <font color="green"> Yes, we have mentioned that Israel has nukes. They are our friends, we support our friends. They have never attacked another country except in self defense. Their having them, on balance, is a good thing. The middle east knows what the Israelis will do to protect themselves. </font color>

Q...gotta go-to be continued. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="green"> Don't forget the toilet paper. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Deeman

Lester
04-28-2006, 01:33 PM
I don't think he uses toilet paper Deeman. I think he posts it here! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
04-28-2006, 02:07 PM
Diplomacy !!! Lots of folks think just because GWB calls hisself the War President....that's his first plan in dealing with these infidels. Don't forget though, he's a Yale alum, and a bonehead (or is that bonesman)
GW knows that to be remembered in history as a great leader, he has to be willing to negotiate first, before an attack.....but these are hard people to deal with.
Some secret tapes surfaced recently....I have the only copy though, to date....and under the threat of punishing the people that "leak" info...I am releasing them here.
When he found out some years ago, that Iran was developing nuclear capability....he tried to reason with them, and only then threatened to attack Iraq, if they didn't capitulate. They said..."you mean if we don't abandon our atomic research....you'll bomb our neighboring country that we have been at war with all these years???" " That's kerrect said ole GWB, we got us a saying here, you can't tug on superman's cape, you can't spit in the wind....." They interrupted, and asked if the bombing would be on Fox news, so they could watch it, and be intimidated"
Well sir, that didn't scare em for some reason, and now when GWB threatened them directly....they asked" where you gonna get the troops from, you already got yerself two wars going on now?" But he said "I'm the President, and I still got me some friends in the Texas National Guard, an...."
I'll release more top secret info, as it becomes available...

Lester
04-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Naz wrote:
Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq.

%%%%%%%%

Not so Naz. Iraq was the logical target because.

1. They already had a history of ruthlessness when Saddam used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds. B.T.W - Nerve Gas is WMDs.

2. Saddam had a standing agreement that he paid the families of suicide bombers, thus providing an incentive for poor palestinians to financially help their families.

3. Saddam had already tried to invade Kuwait, and ignored a UN order to cease and desist.

4. Saddam threw out UN inspectors looking for WMD's and only let them back in on threat of war.

5. Iran was without a leader, and didn't pose an immediate threat until "whatshisname" was elected.

We might not like how Iraq has become, but make no mistake, it was the RIGHT decision. It was a volcano due to erupt.

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 04:17 PM
What a nasty post. Just what we need here, another insulting poster. And YOU call ME a lunatic? HA HA HA...the rest of us were having a civil discussion, until you came along. Those who attack the messenger, usually do so because they can't refute the message.

It isn't fair at all for you to say such things to Q. He has just as much right to his opinion as you have. Who do you think you are, anyway? His points are very true. Looking at the issues from both sides of the coin is what intelligent people endeavor to do, guess that would never occur to you.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-28-2006, 04:40 PM
Not so Naz. Iraq was the logical target because.

1. They already had a history of ruthlessness when Saddam used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds. B.T.W - Nerve Gas is WMDs. So, it's OK if the U.S. uses WMD's in the Gulf WAR, and in Vietnam, but we're not capable of ruthlessness? Name a country that has spoiled and contaminated as much land as the United States.

2. Saddam had a standing agreement that he paid the families of suicide bombers, thus providing an incentive for poor palestinians to financially help their families. What does that have to do with us?

3. Saddam had already tried to invade Kuwait, and ignored a UN order to cease and desist. What does that have to do with alQAaeda, 9/11, our present circumstances? One could build a case such as yours against many many countries.

4. Saddam threw out UN inspectors looking for WMD's and only let them back in on threat of war. They were in there though, and reporting that nothing was there, just as most of our own intelligence said, Bush would have gone regardless of WMD's, and did go in regardless, while lying to us in order to do so.

5. Iran was without a leader, and didn't pose an immediate threat until "whatshisname" was elected. Not true.

We might not like how Iraq has become, but make no mistake, it was the RIGHT decision. It was a volcano due to erupt.

Grossly untrue. We are no safer now than before we went to Iraq, Terrorist attacks have greatly increased around the world, Iraq is in a civli war, and has become a desirable training area for terrorists. The vast majority of career Generals agree that this war is unwinnable militarily. Saddam was a despot, but there would have been absolutely no terrorist there as long as he was there. All intel suggested that we had Saddam in a box, and that he was not a threat to us in any way. It was NOT the right decision. Not by a long stretch. We are not as safe here in this country as we would have been without invading Iraq. We are in fact MORE likely to be unprepared, and unable to respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. Our occupation has been proven to be the rallying point for alQaeda, and other Islamist groups to enlist more into their cause.


BTW, do you watch Fox News? Just wondering....

Sid_Vicious
04-28-2006, 05:00 PM
"Iraq is in a civli war, and has become a desirable training area for terrorists."

An analyst on NPR said it better. "By our presence there, Iraq is now a collection ground for terrorist, plus they now, by our presence, have a cause." This event of the Chimp is so F'd up it ain't funny. A closed mind by those here to the obvious is un-American in so many ways. Self-dumbed down to the max..sid

Deeman3
04-28-2006, 05:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> "Iraq is in a civli war, and has become a desirable training area for terrorists." <font color="blue"> good, we have alocation on most of them then. </font color>

An analyst on NPR said it better. "By our presence there, Iraq is now a collection ground for terrorist, plus they now, by our presence, have a cause." This event of the Chimp is so F'd up it ain't funny. A closed mind by those here to the obvious is un-American in so many ways. Self-dumbed down to the max..sid <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I'd rather have them hacking around in Iraq then coming across the border with you Mexcian friends any day. </font color>


Deeman

Lester
04-28-2006, 05:19 PM
Gayle wrote:

What a nasty post. Just what we need here, another insulting poster. And YOU call ME a lunatic? HA HA HA...the rest of us were having a civil discussion, until you came along. Those who attack the messenger, usually do so because they can't refute the message. <font color="blue"> Or get a word in edgewise with the poster. You seem to be the only one having a civil discussion, everyone else is a jerk if they don't agree with you.</font color>

It isn't fair at all for you to say such things to Q. He has just as much right to his opinion as you have. <font color="blue"> And he should keep his opinion about my country to himself. </font color> Who do you think you are, anyway? <font color="blue"> Members of my family liberated his sorry a** from Nazi domination, because it was the right thing to do, that's who I am! No doubt you would have dissaproved of that as well!!!</font color> His points are very true. Looking at the issues from both sides of the coin is what intelligent people endeavor to do, guess that would never occur to you. <font color="blue"> Then why don't you?

B.T.W. You never answered my question to you.

Do you even SHOOT POOL? If so, when do you find the time?

And who are your favorite male pool shooters?</font color>

Gayle in Md.

Lester
04-28-2006, 05:53 PM
Gayle wrote:

1. They already had a history of ruthlessness when Saddam used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds. B.T.W - Nerve Gas is WMDs. So, it's OK if the U.S. uses WMD's in the Gulf WAR, and in Vietnam, but we're not capable of ruthlessness? Name a country that has spoiled and contaminated as much land as the United States. <font color="blue"> Then why are you still here????? </font color>

2. Saddam had a standing agreement that he paid the families of suicide bombers, thus providing an incentive for poor palestinians to financially help their families. What does that have to do with us? <font color="blue"> Because it didn't matter where they blew themselves up, their family got the equivalent of hitting the lotto. HERE was next. </font color>

3. Saddam had already tried to invade Kuwait, and ignored a UN order to cease and desist. What does that have to do with alQAaeda, 9/11, our present circumstances? One could build a case such as yours against many many countries. <font color="blue"> I'm building it against a fanatical tyrant that shows a history of violence and a ruthless disregard for human life to achieve domination in the region. </font color>

4. Saddam threw out UN inspectors looking for WMD's and only let them back in on threat of war. They were in there though, and reporting that nothing was there, just as most of our own intelligence said, Bush would have gone regardless of WMD's, and did go in regardless, while lying to us in order to do so. <font color="blue"> Yeah, they were in there and only allowed to inspect what Saddam wanted. When they started doing surprise inspections is when they got tossed out. Bush went in because it had to be done. WMD or not. </font color>

5. Iran was without a leader, and didn't pose an immediate threat until "whatshisname" was elected. Not true. <font color="blue"> Really...I don't remember any "sword rattling", and anti Israeli rhetoric before Dasmanjhadi was elected. </font color>

We might not like how Iraq has become, but make no mistake, it was the RIGHT decision. It was a volcano due to erupt.

Grossly untrue. We are no safer now than before we went to Iraq, Terrorist attacks have greatly increased around the world, Iraq is in a civli war, and has become a desirable training area for terrorists. <font color="blue"> They are welcome to come train in Iraq and meet Allah like the rest of those that have twisted the teachings of Muhammed to fit their own agenda. </font color> The vast majority of career Generals agree that this war is unwinnable militarily. <font color="blue"> We are not there to win a war (that would be easy), we are there to help a country start a government and become a stable part of the region. </font color> Saddam was a despot, but there would have been absolutely no terrorist there as long as he was there. <font color="blue"> Saddam WAS a terrorist, to everyone he ruled or came in contact with. </font color> All intel suggested that we had Saddam in a box, and that he was not a threat to us in any way. <font color="blue">He wasn't "in a box" when he invaded Kuwait. </font color> It was NOT the right decision. Not by a long stretch. We are not as safe here in this country as we would have been without invading Iraq. We are in fact MORE likely to be unprepared, and unable to respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. Our occupation has been proven to be the rallying point for alQaeda, and other Islamist groups to enlist more into their cause. <font color="blue">Your diatribe had annoyed me, but now it just drones on and on. The only way terrorism succeeds is if you allow it to go unanswered. We are answering it on their soil not ours. For your information, it might be better if we never catch up to Bin Laden as he would be a martyr for decades if we do. You speak of our countries vulnerability of terrorist attack, and you haven't a clue what you're saying. There are none so blind as those that will not see. You can live in your safe home, and tend your garden, and voice your opinions on the internet with conviction. And you have no clue as to how this freedom came to be. Freedom is not free, it's fought for every day. Do you want to fight for it here or over there? </font color>


BTW, do you watch Fox News? Just wondering.... <font color="blue"> I watch whatever I want. </font color>

Qtec
04-28-2006, 07:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well nobody's a threat to you "a pansy from the Netherlands". We bailed your worthless butts out in WWII, and never got so much as a thankyou. If it wasn't for the USA you would be "goose-stepping" now.
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">As opposed to 'Bush-stepping'? LOL </font color>

What does WW2 have to do with Iran?

Did you know that the US supported Saddam when he attacked Iran? Even when he was dropping 1000,s of WMDs on iranian soil he recieved a vist from Rummy?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

You can never have trust if one side uses double standards.

NPT treaty.
[ QUOTE ]
At the same time, the United States has not complied with some of its own NPT-created obligations. For example, in 1995 the United States won the agreement of the non-nuclear-weapon NPT states-parties to extend the NPT indefinitely by promising to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty was duly negotiated and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, but the Senate failed to ratify it in 1999. The Bush administration now opposes the CTBT, and the Senate is unlikely to consider it again, at least before the next election. That reflects a broader tendency by this Bush administration to downgrade treaties and regimes and to upgrade unilateral efforts, such as the pre-emptive use of force against Iraq, to enforce compliance with nonproliferation.

In addition, the Bush administration has undertaken efforts to create new types of nuclear weapons that might well require new testing.[4] Thus, while pushing other countries to reject the acquisition of nuclear weapons for their defense, the United States seems to be relying ever more heavily on nuclear weapons for its own defense. This double standard constitutes another threat to the NPT regime. <hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
04-28-2006, 07:59 PM
To understand the problem and solve it, you also have to look at it from the Iranian side. <font color="blue"> Why, pray tell? </font color>

One word, chess!

Years ago the Russians told the US that the Islamic jihad that they were fighting in Afgahnistan were the REAL threat. What did the US do? A lack of foresight caused them to help the Islamics, the Taliban took over and the rest is history.
If the US had taken the Iranians side when Saddam attacked them, Iran would be a friendly nation and Iraq would have been releived of Saddam long ago.
We, the West, imposed the Shah on the Iranians and backed Saddam in an illegal war. Dont THEY have the right to defend themselves?

Q

Gayle in MD
04-29-2006, 05:07 AM
Lester:Or get a word in edgewise with the poster. You seem to be the only one having a civil discussion, everyone else is a jerk if they don't agree with you. Hey, let's get this straight from the start, you insulted me because you didn't like my opinion, remember, that's why I called you a jerk. Now you're doing the same thing to Q., The purpose of conversation, is not agreement. I prefer a good debate, without the insults, though that becomes more difficult here as time goes by. You're new here, right? Is this how you always behave when you enter a new neighborhood?

Lester:And he should keep his opinion about my country to himself

Oh, so now that gives you the right to dictate to Q. what he is allowed to say for the rest of his life, how very neighborly of you. Do continue to show us how fair minded you are, taking the credit for what your family members have done in the past, please explain how you justify that thinking? Q. doesn't owe you a damn thing.

Oh I see, so we have another post police here since your arrival? Q isn't a country, FYI, he's a person, with every right to speak his mind, just as I am, you are the one who insults those with differing opinions, that's why I called you a jerk in the first place.

Lester:Then why don't you? Precisely what I am doing, reading problem?

B.T.W. You never answered my question to you. It wasn't pertinent to the subject being discussed.

Do you even SHOOT POOL? If so, when do you find the time?
Four hours every morning, I'm retired, and lovin' it.
And who are your favorite male pool shooters? A lot of my favorites are the GENTLEMEN who post on this board. Tony, from NY is my favorite Pro, good looking, great shooter, wonderful father, and a GENTLEMAN.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-29-2006, 05:30 AM
Deeman,Please explain how our war in Iraq, prevents bin Laden from terrorist attacks here? This theory has never made any sense to me. We have terrorist cells all over the world, as evidenced in the many attacks which are occuring, and the vast majority of fighting in Iraq, is with the Iraqi's. There are comparatively very few terrorists from outside of Iraq involved. Do you really thing that the war in Iraq, will prevent another twenty or so terrorists from entering our country through our open borders and attacking us here, once again? This thinking has never made any sense at all to me.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
04-29-2006, 06:21 AM
Gayle, thanks for the kind words but, as you may have noticed, Lester is a Rep Democrat- ie you are allowed to vote but if you vote against his Emperor/President, you must be a Commie-Pinko-tree-hugging retard.
If you dare to critisize the 'Leader' like the Dems do,then you are obviously an anti-US traitor who supports Al Q and you will burn in Hell. Its that simple.

In fact its just the usual Rep/GOP/ Neo-Con double-standard BS.
ie Its OK for the US to threaten, bomb and invade other countries who have never attacked them but no foriegner is allowed to comment on these actions because its not their buisness! I call this 'Twilight Zone Logic'. Its exactly this kind of attitude to Foriegn Policy thats causing most of the trouble around the world.
I believe that this admin wants war in Iran. Like the woman said, they ARE trying to force Armegeddon and 'The End Time'. The same forces that were behind the Iraq invasion have an interest in Iran.ie the USA, PNAC, the Christian Zionists, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the oil companies. Its going to happen.

Q

Sid_Vicious
04-29-2006, 06:26 AM
Yes I'd like to hear that explanation also. We right now have most likely as many as 20 million totally unknown illegals here in this country, above and beyond the 11 million you keep hearing about, and more came in as I typed this sentence. You Bush defenders REALLY wanna try and make everyone believe we are safer, especially since terrorism now has their cause exponentiated by the US's presense in the middle of the Muslim lands, for a self serving war, has only made it worse, made our country even more suceptable for an attack. The Chimp made things far worse and failed in his oath of office badly.

We ain't safer, just the contrary. Please do tell us how we are safer in your opinion...sid

pooltchr
04-29-2006, 07:25 AM
Sid,
There is no way to prove we are safer. Just as there is no way to prove we aren't. You are talking about what may or may not have happened because of something we may or may not have done. It's like trying to prove a negative...it just can't be done.

If we had tightened border security 5 years ago, could 9/11 still have happened? It might have, and then again perhaps not. We can never be totally secure. We can only do what we think is best, and live with the results.

Has the war in Iraq prevented any potential attacks against us? Nobody knows. We can only hope. If we arrest a rapist, hopefully we have prevented another potential crime. It doesn't mean we have stopped rape all together, but we took a step in the right direction.
If we take out a terrorist cell, it doesn't mean there isn't another one around that might attack us. But we eliminated one possibility. It's a never ending battle, and no matter how much we do, it still might not be enough. I'd rather do something than nothing.
Steve

DickLeonard
04-29-2006, 02:38 PM
Deeman I thought Jesus preached turning the other Cheek which George totally ignored. With this idiot he picks and chooses his commandments. Ignore 5,7,and 9. What ones does he follow? Please help me Gayle I can't find my Bible.####

pooltchr
04-29-2006, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman I thought Jesus preached turning the other Cheek which George totally ignored. With this idiot he picks and chooses his commandments. Ignore 5,7,and 9. What ones does he follow? Please help me Gayle I can't find my Bible.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Doubt if she can help. Based on some things she has written here, she may not even own one.
Steve

Drop1
04-29-2006, 06:17 PM
Lets write a new one,and this time have all twelve commandments. And put the "r" in celebate. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Lester
04-29-2006, 06:28 PM
Qtec wrote:
What does WW2 have to do with Iran?
<font color="blue">What do YOU have to do with Iran? </font color>
Did you know that the US supported Saddam when he attacked Iran? Even when he was dropping 1000,s of WMDs on iranian soil he recieved a vist from Rummy?
<font color="blue">Okay, then think of it as America is correcting a mistake it made back then by supporting Saddam!

You know, I used to play this game when I was a kid. It's called King of the Hill. One person gets on the hill and everybody else knocks him off. And then the next one is the King, and everybody tries to knock him off. But see, the Netherlands never becomes King of the Hill because they never try to help other people in the world.

If you have a problem with America trying to help people in need, wait until the Netherlands is invaded again. B.T.W - that's what WWII has to do with Iraq.

Did you "really" look at it from both sides? Or did you just "think" you did? </font color>

Drop1
04-29-2006, 06:48 PM
So little time,so many people in need. Gotta question for you Lester,what did you do during World War Two? I noticed your family saved some place from the Germans,did they have any help from the rest of the Country,or was it a solo fight,taking on the Germans. Were you ever in the Military,if so what branch,and what was your rank,when they threw your sorry a$$ out. Peace Bro.

Lester
04-29-2006, 07:30 PM
Gayle wrote:
Hey, let's get this straight from the start, you insulted me because you didn't like my opinion, remember, <font color="blue"> You're more than entitled to your opinion, the problem is the way you express it. Your idea of a debate is your view, and everyone else's is wrong. You don't like the President - WE GET IT! Your unrelenting posts on what he did and is doing wrong make you come across as a single minded fanatic.</font color> that's why I called you a jerk. Now you're doing the same thing to Q., The purpose of conversation, is not agreement. I prefer a good debate, without the insults, though that becomes more difficult here as time goes by. <font color="blue">See my explanation above for the reason it is becoming more difficult. </font color> You're new here, right? Is this how you always behave when you enter a new neighborhood? <font color="blue">I actually registered two days before you, so you're the "new kid on the block" lol </font color>

Lester:And he should keep his opinion about my country to himself

Oh, so now that gives you the right to dictate to Q. <font color="blue"> I don't dictate to Q, and I don't want him dictating to me about what my country should or should not do. I don't think he has the right to do that. </font color> what he is allowed to say for the rest of his life, how very neighborly of you. <font color="blue">How neighborly is it of him to criticize my country. </font color> Do continue to show us how fair minded you are, taking the credit for what your family members have done in the past, please explain how you justify that thinking? <font color="blue"> Okay, that's easy, you see back in WWII (that stands for WORLD War II) most of Europe was being invaded and occupied by this crazy German guy. While at the same time the Emporer of Japan was afraid the German guy was going to get to his country, so he joined him and started taking over his part of the pacific. America tried to stay out of it. See America thought we would mind our own business, those countries would work out their differences on their own.
Japan, however, figured they would take out our Navy so we COULDN'T fight. So they attacked our main naval base in Hawaii. America was forced to fight in the war. Every man enlisted, and every civilian joined the war effort, by working in factories. We fought on two fronts, Europe and the Pacific. We liberated each country in europe that was invaded and occupied by the germans, driving them out of each of the countries. At the same time we fought the Japanese in the pacific, and took back each of the islands they had invaded. Every country we liberated, we could have occupied and plundered their resources like the germans did (this is called the spoils of war), but instead, we financially helped these countries rebuild and get back on their feet.</font color> Q. doesn't owe you a damn thing. <font color="blue"> You're absolutely right, Q doesn't owe me a damned thing. But the world owes this country enough respect that they shouldn't forget what it did during the second world war. And see that we are trying to do the same for Iraq and the region that has been in such conflict for centuries. </font color>

Oh I see, so we have another post police here since your arrival? Q isn't a country, FYI, he's a person, with every right to speak his mind, <font color="blue"> Just as I do when he insults my country. </font color> just as I am, you are the one who insults those with differing opinions, that's why I called you a jerk in the first place. <font color="blue"> If you enjoy retirement like you say, then take a moment and reflect on those Americans that enabled it. Many Americans paid the ultimate price so you can sleep without fear each night. Q sleeps free as well, and he's free to voice his opinion as well. But I refuse to stand idly by while he criticizes a country that sacrificed so much for him to do so. </font color>

Lester:Then why don't you? Precisely what I am doing, reading problem? <font color="blue">Now who is insulting who? </font color>

B.T.W. You never answered my question to you. It wasn't pertinent to the subject being discussed.

Do you even SHOOT POOL? If so, when do you find the time?
Four hours every morning, I'm retired, and lovin' it.
And who are your favorite male pool shooters? A lot of my favorites are the GENTLEMEN who post on this board. Tony, from NY is my favorite Pro, good looking, great shooter, wonderful father, and a GENTLEMAN. <font color="blue"> If you are referring to Tony Robles, he's one of my favorites as well. A solid shooter with an excellent stroke. See, we agree on something! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Gayle in Md.

Lester
04-29-2006, 07:45 PM
Drop1 wrote:
So little time,so many people in need. Gotta question for you Lester,what did you do during World War Two? I noticed your family saved some place from the Germans,did they have any help from the rest of the Country,or was it a solo fight,taking on the Germans. Were you ever in the Military,if so what branch,and what was your rank,when they threw your sorry a$$ out. Peace Bro.


%%%%%%%
lol Oh yeah, I was a "one man wrecking crew". ha ha I was too young for WWII, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!!! And it WAS rank when they threw my sorry a$$ out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Seriously, this is the greatest country on the planet, I just don't like to see people dis it. I know patriotism isn't "in", but we shouldn't forget. Peace 2U2

Lester
04-29-2006, 07:51 PM
Drop1 wrote:

Lets write a new one,and this time have all twelve commandments. And put the "r" in celebate.

%%%%%%%%%%

Okay, I know I'm gonna be sorry, but I gotta ask.

What are the other two commandments you want included?

Samson
04-29-2006, 07:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Arlen Specter has announced that the president has not been forthcoming regarding his warrentless wire taps, in the interest of Congressional Oversight.<hr /></blockquote>

Once again, Galye, I've read another blog you've cut and pasted (actually I only skimmed it over since most of these thins simply repeat the same message over and over):

"Bush is a LIER!!!" Blah, blah, blah, BLAH, Blah

Anyway, has it ever occured to anyone how Specter, or anyone else, would know whether or not wiretaps, particularly warrentless ones, were going on at all, much less whether they were happening with or without "congressional oversight?"

Drop1
04-29-2006, 08:27 PM
Still putting the pieces together,but one word is almost complete,and it looks like "Hold" aw here comes another word,and it looks like "fries" Yes "Thou shalt hold the fries" quote subject to error. Mt.Sinai was a pretty slippery place, not sure if its lies,or fries. I think the finger was cooling off.

Qtec
04-29-2006, 11:06 PM
Please show me where I was insulting!

Nobody has the right to 'dictate'to the US but the US the the right to dictate to everyone else? Is that your definition of the 'new world order' as foreseen by the neo-con/PNAC.

Talking about Pearl Harbour,
[ QUOTE ]
A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some opponents of the Bush administration have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks <hr /></blockquote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

Members of the PNAC .
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz]

The plan to attack Iraq was drawn up long before GW made it to the WH and it had NOTHING to do with 'helping'the Iraqis.

Q

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 04:33 AM
Sid,
There is no way to prove we are safer. Just as there is no way to prove we aren't.

Common sense reveals, atleast to people WHO CAN THINK, there has been little to no progress in thightening security measures here. Our open borders, alone, are an invitation. Our failure to secure Nuclear Power Plands, Shipping containers, Chemical Plants, which BTW seem to be suddenly blowing up suspiciously often of late. \
You are talking about what may or may not have happened because of something we may or may not have done. It's like trying to prove a negative...it just can't be done.

True, just ask Saddam. The point is, your King, and his followers expect the rest of us to believe this ridiculous premise that fighting people, on the other side of the world is making us safer, yet all evidence here points to total disregard by your KING to protect Americans. Most believe that it is only a matter of time before we are once again attacked here. BUSH HAS DESTROYED OUR FEDERAL EMERGENCY SYSTEM AT A TIME OF GREAT NATIONAL THREAT! What else do you need to know?

If we had tightened border security 5 years ago, could 9/11 still have happened? It might have, and then again perhaps not. We can never be totally secure. We can only do what we think is best, and live with the results.

Border security? Bush had the intelligence, It said, "bin Laden determined to attack inside United States" Other intelligence, which Rice wasn't interested in hearing about, now was Cheney, pointed to the use of planes, yet no emergency action was taken by this administration, such as, interagency pictured terrorist lists at our airports, and ports, and train stations, and Chemical Plants, EVEN NOW....We may not be able to insure complete safety here, but we sure as hell could cover our asses in the most important ways. 9/11 COULD have been prevented, had we elected an administration whose message to our intel had been other than...ALL WE"RE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT IS IRAQ.....

Has the war in Iraq prevented any potential attacks against us? Nobody knows. We can only hope. HOPE&lt; HOPE&lt; 70 troops died this month!!! YOU HOPE, for a logical reason for their deaths??? BRILLIANT! If we arrest a rapist, hopefully we have prevented another potential crime. It doesn't mean we have stopped rape all together, but we took a step in the right direction.
If we take out a terrorist cell, it doesn't mean there isn't another one around that might attack us. But we eliminated one possibility. It's a never ending battle, and no matter how much we do, it still might not be enough. I'd rather do something than nothing. That's good, as long as we're killing Iraqis, must be progress, huh? I hate to disappoint you, but this president is not focussed on terrorist cells. The focuss is on building democracy in Iraq, so that an elected liberator, can become a tyrant who kills his own people. HOW MANY MORE YOUNG AMERICAN TROOPS ARE YOU WILLING TO SACRIFICE TO ACHEIVE THAT???

Why won't any of you righties answer THAT question?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 04:49 AM
Dick,
I would settle for a President who simply abided by National, and international LAW!

Religious people think that unless you live in fear of the fires of hell, you own no spirituality. Similar thinking to right wing political non sensical theories such as, when attacked, just go off half cocked and start killing, kill anything that moves, just KILLKILLKILL, you may not kill your original attacker, BUT YOU'LL ATLEAST FEEL BETTER!

Also similar to thinking "If I use my brain to critique the actions of my country, or my President, I am a traitor! Hmmm, only the goose-step will suffice.

Bush is the worst kind of terrorist, he's a lying, deceitful terrorist, with more WMD's at his disposal than any other terrorist, and uses the same justification as his enemy, GOD IS ON HIS SIDE!

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 05:04 AM
I totally agree. I am appalled that we have so called Christians in this country, Bush being one of them, who find killing the only reasonable course of action to take when ideologies collide, and actually refuse discussion, preferring the use of bombs, while supporting the lowest, inhumane action imaginable, TORTURE! Talk about becomming your enemy! It is nauseating to hear this same inhumane neocon/christian self-proclaimed patriot preach about the bible, one of the oldest anti-feminist documents in existence, a study in contradiction, which matches its non-thinking proponents, and bares little resemblence to spiritual beauty.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
04-30-2006, 05:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Sid,
<font color="red"> Please not who this post was directed to. I figured with Sid, I might get an intelligent response. Your reply brings nothing new, no indication of any individual thought, or anything of substance to the conversation........as usual. </font color>

[b]Border security? Bush had the intelligence, <font color="red"> The previous administration had the same intelligence and several years to do something about it. This administration had 8 months. You seem to think that all the evils of the world only came about during the Bush administration. The problems we face have been building for years. To try and put all the blame on one president is, should I say the word(?), Lunacy! </font color>

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

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 05:53 AM
Your support of a President who practices pre-emptive attacks, against a country which represented no threat to our country, and had never set foot or bombs on our soil, against international law, and under false pretenses, hardly protrays any ability on your part to understand the differences between what we have created, I'll say that again, WHAT WE HAVE CREATED, in the Middle East, and what WWI or WWII was about. There is no comparison, none.

When it comes to single minded fanatics, I'm wondering why you're so fond of George Bush?

FYI, as long as George Bush continues to kill, lie to the world, and totally F-up my country, I will continue to be a single minded fanatic! The question is, are we going to be single minded fanatics about the truth, peace, reasonable policy, and the preservation of mankind, or are we going to continue to behave in ways which invite more killing, more torture, more lies, more pointless horror? Going into countries and killing civilians, innocent people, for the sake of propping up yet another pre-tyrant, liberator, and without exhausting all diplomacy, and without heeding the advice of experts, operating in secret, and against the humane principles of mankind, is an act of deceitful agression. Once George Bush changed his War Song over from WMD's to spreading democracy with bombs and torture, he became a dictator as ill and vicious as any other tyrant, fanatic we have seen before him. People must evolve intellectually toward democracy fully enough to be willing to fight and die to build it for themselves. You can't force feed it to them, and there are thousands and thousands in Iraq willing to die to prevent it. We need a president who can lead, this country, and other nations. One who can walk the walk. One who knows how to use diplomacy, and understands the threat of WMD's, not one who resorts to them himself. It isn't George Bush.

As for Q., you are the last person who should preach of the value of going into Iraq, for the latest reason stated by this administration, the principoles of democracy, since you think that Q. has no right to have an opinion. What the United States does, effects the whole world. There are still deformed people walking this world with birth defects, and cancer, and other diseases, due to biological weapons, atomic radiation, agent orange, you name it, the United States has used it, yet we tell the world that we are the true agents of protection for mankind? That doesn't fly. Nor does it fly that George Bush went into Iraq, for the benefit of Iraqi's.

I'll ask you the same question I am asking every other supported or Bush Iraq policy, how many more Americans are you willing to sacrifice so that Iraqi's can vote a new future tyrant into office democratically?


Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 06:25 AM
I'm here for the same reasons that you are here, I love my country, that's why I continue to speak out against George Bush, and his militarily unwinnable war.

Because it didn't matter where they blew themselves up, their family got the equivalent of hitting the lotto. HERE was next.
So you have inside information regarding Iraq's military policies? Then you know more than the CIA knew, because they said he was NO THREAT to us. However, their intelligence has NEVER posed bin Laden as NO THREAT to us. So, on whom should we focuss?


I'm building it against a fanatical tyrant that shows a history of violence and a ruthless disregard for human life to achieve domination in the region.
You just described George Bush.

As I recall, the inspectors were asking for three more months, Bush told them to get out, in spite of the fact that he had read intelligence in the interum which suggested no WMD's, which he hid from the world.


The rest of your post is so full of false statements, I can only answer this way. Those who attacked us had no connection to Iraq, that is accepted truth at this time. Fighting a War for the sake of Iraqi democracy, can only lead to putting a new liberator in place, who will become a tyrant in the future. The region is frought with religious fanatics, more blood thirsty than the religious fanatics we have right here, so please explain to me why bombs are the answer. Communication, compassion, diplomacy, negotiation, in the interest of world peace, would seem a course worth persuing, since the present policy can only lead to further a greater possibility of the world leaders blowing up all of us, and bringing on the beloved armegedden of the religious fanatics of the world, the true danger to mankind, both here, and accross the oceans.

KUWAIT...how long ago was THAT! It wasn't until after Kuwait that we got Saddam into the box, FYI, and those experts in the CIA knew that he wanted Iran to think he had WMD's. You just want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Saddam was not an immediate threat. All you righties ignore that proven fact.

Do you want to fight for it here, or over there?

This is a false premise, IMO, since we are not fighting for OUR freedom in Iraq. We already have freedom, atleast for now, although Bush chips away at it daily, and Iraqis have proven reluctant to fight for their own freedom, wither that, or Rumsfeld is impotent in running our policy in a way which would hasten training of Iraqis, you can't have it both ways, one of these two statements, must be true. Which do you believe?

Do tell, what price have YOU paid for freedom?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 06:33 AM
Do you think Iraq was the location of the greatest attack on humanity in the world? If that were true, Bush would have my support. There is a genocide under way, but you won't hear much about it on FOX News, and it isn't happening in Iraq. Thousands and thousands are being raped and killed. How can you justify Iraq with an arguement for helping people? Our military priorities are absurd, IMO, we should be in Africa if our goal is to save those in need.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 06:54 AM
9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush threw out all the intelligence afforded to him by those experts on Saddam and bin Laden, who were still around from Clinton's administration after Bush got in there. Bush and Cheney have been quoted...

"Don't tell me about all the other countries around the world that are threats, I only want to hear about Iraq."
Dick Cheney, just after the Supreme Court placement of George Bush, and the throwing out of the votes of Americans.


I must remind you, you're opinion of me, or my posts, is not only no deterrent to future posts on my part, but an example of how you complain over and over about them, the same old tirade, and add no substance to the conversation, as usual.

Again, I will ask you, how many more Americans are you willing to send to their deaths, so that Iraqi's may vote a new future tyrant into office? So far, not one of you righties have been willing to answer this question. Interesting display of avoidence tactics coming from breats beating warriors, wouldn't you think?
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2006, 07:04 AM
Do you even watch the news? You obviously don't know who Arlen Specter is. Bush has already admitted to the world that he is using warrantless wire taps, without the proper permission from the FISA Court, you've hear of that, right. Arlen Specter is on the Senate Investigating/oversight committee, and chairs many of the hearings, you HAVE heard of the Senate, I presume.

FYI, not only do I not read blogs, but I have NEVER cut and pasted a blog here or anywhere else, nor do I practice plagerism of any kind. If I reproduce someone else's writing, you'll know it, as I will indicate it. And BTW, and before I go...

BUSH IS A LIAR!

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
04-30-2006, 08:00 AM
Gayle,
It is a FACT, not an opinion, a FACT, that Saddam had WMD's and showed the world he would use them. Whether he had them at the time we invaded Iraq may never be known. But any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that if he had them in the past and used them (FACT), in all likelihood, he could and would use them again. He had to be stopped. You and I may not like the war, but one of us understands that is was necessary....NOT GOOD, BUT NECESSARY.

You keep asking your question how many of our military are we willing to sacrafice. I will give you the answer. One is too many, but whatever number it takes to get the job done and get out is the ultimate answer.
When I went into the service, I took an oath to defend our country against ALL enemy's, both foreign and domestic. I don't think they have changed the oath, so anyone in the military is there willingly. Nobody forces anyone to enlist, there is no draft. The freedoms we have came at a price. People have been paying for it with their lives for over 200 years. It is unfortunate, but necessary. When groups of people have decided they are willing to give up their lives to bring our country down, I am thankful every day that we have groups of people who are willing to fight and die to keep America free.

May I ask what sacrafice you are willing to personally make to do the same thing?

Steve

Lester
04-30-2006, 08:20 AM
Gayle of MD wrote:

KUWAIT...how long ago was THAT! It wasn't until after Kuwait that we got Saddam into the box, FYI, and those experts in the CIA knew that he wanted Iran to think he had WMD's. You just want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Saddam was not an immediate threat. All you righties ignore that proven fact. <font color="blue"> America tried to "forget" WWI, and stay out of what became WWII too. You can work yourself into a frenzy on this board with your anti-Bush postings daily if you want. But I am through listening to them. </font color>

Do you want to fight for it here, or over there?

This is a false premise, IMO, since we are not fighting for OUR freedom in Iraq. We already have freedom, atleast for now, although Bush chips away at it daily, and Iraqis have proven reluctant to fight for their own freedom, wither that, or Rumsfeld is impotent in running our policy in a way which would hasten training of Iraqis, you can't have it both ways, one of these two statements, must be true. Which do you believe? <font color="blue"> The premise appears false to you because you are too blind to see that the freedom you now enjoy was paid for with American's lives. Maybe if you had been in NY on 9/11 you would have a better idea of what a war at home would be like. I guess they didn't show the twin towers being hit by jet liners, or the people jumping to their death on the Disney channel. The sacrifice we make in Iraq will stabilize the region and save many more lives in the long run. You mention christians, and if you are one, then read your bible. The apocalypse starts in this region because of an ongoing conflict that dates back to biblical times. </font color>

Do tell, what price have YOU paid for freedom?
<font color="blue"> I served my country proudly. Thankyou. I lost many friends and can't stand idly by while you denigrate their memory. B.T.W. I'm not a Bush supporter. I don't like many of the things he has done or the way he has done them, I'm just tired of hearing you bitch about him. </font color>

Lester
04-30-2006, 08:24 AM
Gayle of MD wrote:

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush threw out all the intelligence afforded to him by those experts on Saddam and bin Laden, who were still around from Clinton's administration after Bush got in there. Bush and Cheney have been quoted...

"Don't tell me about all the other countries around the world that are threats, I only want to hear about Iraq."
Dick Cheney, just after the Supreme Court placement of George Bush, and the throwing out of the votes of Americans.


I must remind you, you're opinion of me, or my posts, is not only no deterrent to future posts on my part, but an example of how you complain over and over about them, the same old tirade, and add no substance to the conversation, as usual.

Again, I will ask you, how many more Americans are you willing to send to their deaths, so that Iraqi's may vote a new future tyrant into office? So far, not one of you righties have been willing to answer this question. Interesting display of avoidence tactics coming from breats beating warriors, wouldn't you think?
Gayle in Md.

%%%%%%%%%

<font color="blue"> Do us and yourself a favor Gayle, and "double-up" on your meds. </font color>

hondo
04-30-2006, 03:35 PM
I honestly believe tha if the dems had been in
office these last 2 terms we wouldn't be at war
with Iraq and could afford to go after Iran, the real
threat, and that most Americans would support this
action.

hondo
04-30-2006, 03:53 PM
Oh! Lord! George, pooltcher, &amp; the Christians-1,
Gayle &amp; the Dems-0. Let's keep occupying Iraq, " with
God on our side." When I get to Heaven if I see any
oil or pharmaceutical execs, GW, LBJ, Nixon, or the
Religious Right up there, I'l have to wonder if I
made a wrong turn somewhere.

Doubt if she can help. Based on some things she has written here, she may not even own one.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
04-30-2006, 04:01 PM
Well, we had him figured right, Drop1. An arm chair
general. Lester 's one oe of these patriots that
says America's a free country and if you disagree
with that we ought to throw your a$$ out.


%%%%%%%
lol Oh yeah, I was a "one man wrecking crew". ha ha I was too young for WWII, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!!! And it WAS rank when they threw my sorry a$$ out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Seriously, this is the greatest country on the planet, I just don't like to see people dis it. I know patriotism isn't "in", but we shouldn't forget. Peace 2U2 <hr /></blockquote>

Lester
05-01-2006, 07:17 AM
Hondo wrote:
Well, we had him figured right, Drop1. An arm chair
general. Lester 's one oe of these patriots that
says America's a free country and if you disagree
with that we ought to throw your a$$ out.
%%%%%%%%%%

Oh come on Hondo. You've got to come with better bait than that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
05-01-2006, 08:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gayle,
It is a FACT, not an opinion, a FACT, that Saddam had WMD's and showed the world he would use them. <font color="blue"> He HAD chemical weapons and used them in the Iran war- almost 20 years ago. A FACT that was not really reported in the US press because at the time the US was HELPING Saddam. </font color> Whether he had them at the time we invaded Iraq may never be known. <font color="blue"> I have news for you. Saddam had NO WMDs. They were all destroyed in 91. Three different searches by the US plus those of Blix, etc NEVER found anything.</font color> But any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that if he had them in the past and used them (FACT), in all likelihood, he could and would use them again. <font color="blue"> If this is true, why didnt he use them in the Gulf War/Kuwait? Why didnt he use them when the US attacked 3 years ago? </font color> He had to be stopped. You and I may not like the war, but one of us understands that is was necessary....NOT GOOD, BUT NECESSARY.
<hr /></blockquote>

Saddam was confined to a the third of Iraq he still controled. Iraq was falling apart thru the sanctions. He was not a threat to the US.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-01-2006, 09:35 AM
Steve,
Obviously, and unfortunately, we'll never agree on the Bush policies. Suffice to say, my reading has lead me to an understanding of the connection between this war, Bush, Saudi Arabia, American Oil profits, dormant Iraqi Oil Refineries, and exhorbitant corporate profits. A study of Bush's campaign contributions, tells the true story. Follow the money.

As for what I do for my country, twist this though you may, I was not raised that one should advertise one's good deeds, but that to do so, cancels them.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2006, 09:52 AM
Oh, so are you saying that you have served in combat? When and where? Let's have your troop number.

Do you think I have never lost anyone in a war?

How many Americans are you willing to see dead and maimed for the Iraqis?

What PROOF do you have that Saddam had WMD's?

Who is profiting most from the war?

Who will be the likely planner and leader of the next attack here?

Did you think occupying Vietnam was a sensible decision?

How many United States citizens are you willing to see dead and maimed for the sake of Iraq?



Gayle in Md.

Also, the date on my sign up was years after I originally signed up. We old timers here had to rejoin when Billiards Digest switched to this format.

pooltchr
05-01-2006, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As for what I do for my country, twist this though you may, I was not raised that one should advertise one's good deeds, but that to do so, cancels them.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Gayle,
I didn't ask what you do, I asked what you would be willing to sacrafice for your country...two different questions.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-01-2006, 10:45 AM
Gee, that's a question chock full of possibilities, Steve, particularly because I don't view Iraq as a legitimate war, and would not be willing to make any sacrifices in terms of this particular war, so if support and contributions for our troops doesn't count....I don't know how to answer the question. We'd have to use some context for the question, I guess...I think we would all be willing to die for our loved ones, for their safety, and for freedom, don't you? I also think I, and most Americans, would make any sacrifices we could for the sake of our troops, and their optimum safety. If you'd like to give me a scenario of some kind, I'll try to give you an honest answer. I have lost friends in this war, AND on 9/11, but I don't like seeing any sacrifice from Americans connected to Iraq, nor do I agree that this war is, or was, necessary, as you know.

Gayle in Md.