Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

[Deeman3]

<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]

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]

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]

[ 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?



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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