NO WMD's? Guess again,,,,

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by LuvRPgrl, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +512
    It's not a political reality. It's regular reality. Nothing is accomplished in a state of constant bickering.
    SO I guess there are two sides.
    You're not fiscally conservative if you want socialized medicine.

    No republican thinking is monarchical. THe president IS The head of the military and IS sworn to protect the nation. He's performing his job. Who's out of control is the congress who wants to institute oligarchy.

    The main difference between conservatives and libs revolves around this question: What should we be responsible for ourselves, and what should governent do for us? You are a communist. I don't know why you get on here and lie.
     
  2. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    True.
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +424
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28794

    I heard him, too. We saw this crap happening, but never followed up on it. Right now, the U.S. is negotiating with Syrian officials about this allegation. I think it'll pretty much go over like this, "If you have them and hand them over now...all of them...we won't take any action against you over the whole thing, but if you have them and tell us you don't, you'd better learn to duck and cover, got it?"
     
  4. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    in favor of universal health insurance provided by gov't. I think with proper controls, the private sector could do a better job. See, I am fiscally conservative. I also favor tax reform to simplify the code (though I do not favor flattening the tax code) and free an army of accountants to find real work. And I favor the line-item veto, and an end to the practice of adding earmarks to large bills that do not show up in the language of the bill itself, the favored mode of larding the budget.

    My point about two "sides" was that, yes, there are two political parties, but that people are more complicated than that. A gun-loving pro-lifer may vote Democratic because he wants stronger environmental protections (he's spent some time in woods and rivers, and wants them protected better). Every person has his hot-button issues, and has to choose which counts the most. The reason the parties are so evenly balanced is that they naturally co-opt as many smaller constituencies as they can. If they fall in the polls, they have to widen their appeal to some in the opposing camp. Hence Hillary supporting Iraq.

    Mariner.
     
  5. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Here is where we may differ, Mariner. We have allowed, even begged the private sector to enjoin Americn objectives to provide adequate heathcare and the so-called markets have at least resisted and at most refused to heed the requests by the population and the government. I could go on and on.

    Who gives a damn about poor people? India has it's untouchables, Asia has it's coochies, and America has it's n-----s. Racial, ethnic, economic? Even sexual? Personal discrimination is a complete sin. JESUS was aware of all that and preached against it. I consistently remember, He who is without sin cast the first stone, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and turn the other cheek. I can mention a few other admonitions against WAR. Let your conscience be your guide.


    Psychoblues
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +512
    But we don't live in a theocracy. THis country was not intended to operate strictly along christian principles. Socialism is not an american objective.
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,755
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,786
    It's only a lose-lose situation to you and your fellow, partisan hacks.

    Whether or not this guy's story is true is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam possessed WMDs, he USED WMDs ... Hell, the CIA even showed him how to refine his damned mustard gas.

    Let's try to remember WHO the bad guy is here. Saddam was a genocidal maniac along with being a complete sociopath. While in power he invaded two sovereign nations bordering Iraq because he wanted their oil. He mass-murdered his own people using CHEMICAL WEAPONS simply for their ethnicity.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, y'all libs'd have us believe it's a CAT.
     
  8. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +424
    Duck, cat, oh well. I'll shoot it anyway. I'm allergic to cats.
     
  9. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

    Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

    Mariner.
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,555
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,420
    I disagree---If it is found that the WMDs existed but the intelligence couldn't keep up with them, the dems would crap in thier pants about how much crow they would have to eat. Bush has only said the intelligence was wrong. That's easy to recover from if you can present the world with a stockpile of WMDs.
     

Share This Page