Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

[Qtec]

<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. [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Lester]

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]

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]

<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. [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] <font color="green"> Don't forget the toilet paper. [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Deeman

[Lester]

I don't think he uses toilet paper Deeman. I think he posts it here! [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[wolfdancer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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