DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 242, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/26/2005 07:27:41 PM · #201


Message edited by author 2005-08-26 19:46:19.
 08/26/2005 07:29:58 PM · #202
Originally posted by DanSig:
the USA is my neighbour and with one of the biggest and most powerful armies in the world, and you have a terrorist madman running the show, I'd rather have a nutter like Saddam as my neighbour, at least he didn't have nukes, and since he lost the war against Iran and Kuveit he hasn't invaded any country and hasn't been a threat to any country exept his own, and that was his buisness not Bush's, so if we would make a list of nations that has started the most wars in the past 100 years, then USA would be at the top of the list... and they havn't won any war yet ;) why don't you quit, your army sucks, you couldn't hit a cow even if you were holding it's tail, and I really hope Bush does something even dummer than he's done sofar, I hope he goes to war agains North korea, because they won't fight the war in Korea, they will bring the war to USA, so you people can see what you are doing to other countries, and no excuses, YOU are responsible, YOU voted for that idiot and YOU can have him removed from office !


Thanks for one of the most entertaining posts of all time!
 08/26/2005 07:39:52 PM · #203
Originally posted by bcoble:
1961 Pres. Kennedy Cuba??? Dont you remember?


As a great admirer of Kennedy I do not wish to denigrate his achievements but I do no think that standing his ground when the USSR planned to place missiles on his doorstep, to be the same as invading another country to "help" its citizens. If I really thought the reason behind the invasion if Iraq was for humanitarian purposes I would not be commenting in this thread.
P
 08/26/2005 09:58:07 PM · #204
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by DanSig:
the USA is my neighbour and with one of the biggest and most powerful armies in the world, and you have a terrorist madman running the show, I'd rather have a nutter like Saddam as my neighbour, at least he didn't have nukes, and since he lost the war against Iran and Kuveit he hasn't invaded any country and hasn't been a threat to any country exept his own, and that was his buisness not Bush's, so if we would make a list of nations that has started the most wars in the past 100 years, then USA would be at the top of the list... and they havn't won any war yet ;) why don't you quit, your army sucks, you couldn't hit a cow even if you were holding it's tail, and I really hope Bush does something even dummer than he's done sofar, I hope he goes to war agains North korea, because they won't fight the war in Korea, they will bring the war to USA, so you people can see what you are doing to other countries, and no excuses, YOU are responsible, YOU voted for that idiot and YOU can have him removed from office !


Thanks for one of the most entertaining posts of all time!


This comment is amazing. I guess its too cold there and the brain cells do not work well? Read your history books and stop listening to your friends. Before you speak, carefully review all the facts then I will accept your statement.

Do you know what it is like to be unable to be free. Be suppressed from voiceing your opinion. Affraid that if you speak against the government you may be jailed and tortured. Amagin your girl friend or wife would be considered a second class citizen. The father could kill the daughter and there be no consequences. Just think you could be walking thru Bagdad and take photos and possible you could be arrested.
How would you feel if your government killed 10's of thousands of your fellow citizens with WMD's. Buried thousands of fellow citizens in unmarked graves.

Regardless of the reason for us going to iraq. The end results will be positive. Those people will be free to live the life they want and not the way Saddam wanted.

Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.

The US does a lot of stupid things, however you should never say you would prefer Saddam as a neighbor. That just shows me how ignorant you really are.

If some country decided to invade Iceland. (no clue why) I quarantee you we would be there to protect you. There would be lots of countries there to protect your country.
 08/26/2005 10:22:56 PM · #205
Originally posted by bcoble:


Regardless of the reason for us going to iraq. The end results will be positive. Those people will be free to live the life they want and not the way Saddam wanted.

This is debatable. Probably they'll have a "better life" than under Saddam, sure, but the average citizen has a hard time "living the life he wants" in a lot of Middle-Eastern countries. Western democracy is not likely to thrive in Iraq regardless of what we do.

Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.

I'd love to see one if youc an link us.

The US does a lot of stupid things, however you should never say you would prefer Saddam as a neighbor. That just shows me how ignorant you really are.

I think he's saying, in a deliberately hyperbolic way, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." I don't think calling him "ignorant" is a reasonable response.

If some country decided to invade Iceland. (no clue why) I quarantee you we would be there to protect you. There would be lots of countries there to protect your country.

Except, of course, we aren't protecting Iraq from an invader; for better or for ill, we ARE the invader and a LOT of us don't like being in that position.

 08/26/2005 10:28:23 PM · #206
'Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.'

Meaning North Korea. The South is doing fine.
 08/26/2005 10:30:08 PM · #207
Originally posted by gibun:
'Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.'

Meaning North Korea. The South is doing fine.


I think the idea is that the south will be lit up and the north will be dark?

R.
 08/26/2005 10:38:12 PM · #208
When I started this tread it was not, never, intended to become what it is now. I'm sorry. All it meant to do was to highlight that history will always repeat itself, no matter where and no matter when. It truely affects me in a very bad way to see the divide between fellow men, even more where the fellow men are from one nation and one country. It is tragic to see debate made way for insults and instead of tolorance and mutual respect we attack and insult.

And finally, why are we not out there being constructive, why so destructive? Just think how many great pics we have missed whilst busy with a war of words!
 08/26/2005 10:39:59 PM · #209
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by gibun:
'Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.'

Meaning North Korea. The South is doing fine.


I think the idea is that the south will be lit up and the north will be dark?

R.


Robt the North became sooooo dark in the past 10 years that it must be seen to be believed. Can't find my pic/link now, sorry. Perhaps one can google it?
 08/26/2005 10:43:34 PM · #210
Originally posted by gibun:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by gibun:
'Have you ever seen a nighttime satilite photo of Korea? Maybe you should and you will learn.'

Meaning North Korea. The South is doing fine.


I think the idea is that the south will be lit up and the north will be dark?

R.


Robt the North became sooooo dark in the past 10 years that it must be seen to be believed. Can't find my pic/link now, sorry. Perhaps one can google it?


I think this is what you refer to:
//www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm
 08/26/2005 10:43:55 PM · #211
q

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 22:45:25.
 08/26/2005 10:46:14 PM · #212
That IS amazing, thanks.

R.
 08/26/2005 10:48:13 PM · #213
Originally posted by greatandsmall:

So, basically people like me were told "Sit down, and shut up". Now we're being told "Do something about it, or shut up." That's like being chained up and witnessing an arsonist burn down a house; and then being told by the police "You should have tried to stop him/her."


Originally posted by RonB:


Originally posted by greatandsmall:
So my idea of a solution would be for the leadership to genuinely address the country and take accountability by saying "We were dishonest, we screwed up, and we're very sorry.


Liberals are really focused on getting the people they hate to admit that they screwed up, aren't they. Forget the problem at hand. Instead let's instead focus on investigating who knew what, and when did they know it. Your house is on fire and instead of concentrating on putting the darned fire out, you'd rather spend your time figuring out how it started, and then demanding that your wife apologize for putting that candle on the dining room table. Only THEN can you focus on the fire itself.


OK, I've since covered the fact that I am not a "Liberal" by your definition. So let's move on to your response to my analogy.

I didn't say anything about my wife putting a candle on the dining room table. (Which wouldn't be legal in this country, since I am a woman.)

My analogy referred to the frustration of being unable to stop an arsonist and then being held accountable for a fire that I did not set. It sounds as though you are trying to minimize the importance of the decision to go to war. And yes, a new house will be built (hopefully nicer than the old one) but that doesn't justify arson.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 22:50:09.
 08/27/2005 03:51:15 AM · #214
Originally posted by bcoble:


The US does a lot of stupid things, however you should never say you would prefer Saddam as a neighbor. That just shows me how ignorant you really are.

If some country decided to invade Iceland. (no clue why) I quarantee you we would be there to protect you. There would be lots of countries there to protect your country.


Actually Iceland has only been free since 1944, before that we were ruled by the King of Denmark, during WW2 we were invaded by Britain and later the USA, so the USA has invaded Iceland too, but we did the smart thing at the time, Iceland was a very poor country so we just let the US invade, rented them a piece of land so they could build a airport, they also wanted to build radar stations around the country, so we let them, but to be able to do that they had to build a road surrounding the country, we let the USA build the entire highway system, international airports and lots of other stuff during WW2 and in the years after, but we also managed to keep the US troops behind a fence so they wouldn't affect our way of living more than neccecary, but even with this "friendly" invasion from the USA, your soldiers kept raping the Icelandic girls, so there is a lot of people here with a US father that is unknown.

Iceland has been to war with Britain 3 times since the WW2, we won them all, and even though we had a fully functional US airforce here we didn't get any help fighting the Brits, we would probably have lost if the USA would have helped ;)
 08/27/2005 06:43:47 AM · #215
Interesting info about Iceland,

Post-WWII Iceland

Iceland had prospered during the course of the war, amassing considerable currency reserves in foreign banks. The government, led by an unlikely three-party majority cabinet made up of conservatives (Sjálfstæðisflokkur), social democrats (Alþýðuflokkur) and socialists (Sósíalistaflokkur), decided to put the funds into a general renovation of the fishing fleet, the building of fish processing facilities, and a general modernization of agriculture. These actions were aimed at keeping Icelanders' standard of living as high as it had become during the prosperous war years.

The government's fiscal policies were strictly Keynesian, and their aim was to create the necessary industrial infrastructure for a prosperous industrialized country. It was considered essential to keep unemployment down to an absolute minimum and to protect the export industry, i.e. the fishing industry, by manipulation of the currency and other means. Due to the country's dependence both on unreliable fish catches and on a foreign demand for fish products, Iceland's economy remained very unstable well into the 90s, when the country's economy was greatly diversified.

In October 1946, the Icelandic and U.S. governments agreed to terminate U.S. responsibility for the defense of Iceland, but the United States retained certain rights at Keflavík, such as the right to re-establish a military presence there, should war threaten.

Amidst domestic controversy and riots in front of the house of parliament, Iceland became a charter member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on March 30, 1949, with the reservation that it would never take part in offensive action against another nation. After the outbreak of hostilities in Korea in 1950, and pursuant to the request of NATO military authorities, the United States and Alþingi agreed that the United States should again take responsibility for Iceland's defense. This agreement, signed on May 5, 1951, is the authority for the controversial U.S. military presence in Iceland, which remains there in a somewhat diminished form today.

Iceland is the only NATO country with no proper military force of its own. It does maintain a police force including a special weapons unit, a coast guard with a small fleet of lightly armed ships and has deployed squadrons of armed peace-keepers wearing military uniforms to Bosnia and Afghanistan.

Iceland has provided support to peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan running the airports in both territories' respective capitals. In October 2004 three Icelanders were injured in a suicide bomb attack in Kabul. The incident led to tough questioning of the group's commander Colonel Halli Sigurdsson focusing on his conduct (the incident apparently occurred while he was on a shopping expedition in an off-limits area) and his exact status: the opposition has accused the government of creating an army by stealth. Icelandic peacekeepers were pictured heavily armed in national papers alongside captions such as "If this is not a soldier then what is?"

Military branches: no regular armed forces; Police, Icelandic Coast Guard; note - Iceland's defense is provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavík

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 06:55:50.
 08/27/2005 07:25:27 AM · #216
i
Originally posted by bcoble:
Interesting info about Iceland,

Even More interesting to note is the difference between the Icelandic native first hand view and the version available to the west in our history books. How will the history books we write on the Iraq war reflect the Iraqi view? for that matter, how far do the Governmental and newspaper reports we read now reflect the Iraqi view? How many of them are written by the ''victors"?
08/27/2005 07:35:00 AM · #217
I believe it's time for us Americans(term used loosely-no offense to US neighbors) to get off our ego-trip and realize we're not 'all that and a bag of chips'...God knows,we've had our own share of genocide and terrorism WITHIN our borders..Any Native Americans care to offer their view of American History??
 08/27/2005 09:45:44 AM · #218
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by bcoble:


The US does a lot of stupid things, however you should never say you would prefer Saddam as a neighbor. That just shows me how ignorant you really are.

If some country decided to invade Iceland. (no clue why) I quarantee you we would be there to protect you. There would be lots of countries there to protect your country.


Actually Iceland has only been free since 1944, before that we were ruled by the King of Denmark, during WW2 we were invaded by Britain and later the USA, so the USA has invaded Iceland too, but we did the smart thing at the time, Iceland was a very poor country so we just let the US invade, rented them a piece of land so they could build a airport, they also wanted to build radar stations around the country, so we let them, but to be able to do that they had to build a road surrounding the country, we let the USA build the entire highway system, international airports and lots of other stuff during WW2 and in the years after, but we also managed to keep the US troops behind a fence so they wouldn't affect our way of living more than neccecary, but even with this "friendly" invasion from the USA, your soldiers kept raping the Icelandic girls, so there is a lot of people here with a US father that is unknown.

Iceland has been to war with Britain 3 times since the WW2, we won them all, and even though we had a fully functional US airforce here we didn't get any help fighting the Brits, we would probably have lost if the USA would have helped ;)


I sure wish I could get a hold of some of that stuff you've been smoking...........
 08/27/2005 10:42:01 AM · #219
At the time George W. Bush started the war in March of 2003, Sadaam Hussein and Iraq were a threat to nobody. Their army had been decimated from the Gulf War of 1991 and their stock piles of WMDs had been destroyed. Not even Iraq's neighboring states were worried about attacks from Hussein and he wasn't supporting any kind of terrorist activity with Al Qaeda. This is an absurd concept that the Bush administration had us believe in March of 2003, but could not have been farther from the truth. Hussein, the secularist, and Al Qaeda, the fundamentalists, just don't mix. In fact, they fight each other, and I would bet that many of the people that Hussein put to death were fundamentalist (not that I agree with this).

Al Qaeda is a much bigger force in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, so why have we not invaded the Saudis? We do not get much in the way of oil from them, and, the Saudi royal family are also extreme human rights abusers of their own people, especially women! There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia and the people have no rights to change their leaders. Saudi security forces arrest people arbitrarily and detain them incommunicado, without access to legal council and with closed trials. So why is the Bush administration not condemning the saudis?

Instead of continuing the fight in Afghanistan before the job was done getting Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda, Bush decides to change course and shift the military machine to Iraq, and did so by lying to the American public and Congress. This shift in policy by Bush decreased national security here at home and abroad, not increased it. There are more terrorists now than there were in 2003 and the US is has lost respect from much of the global community.

Just yesterday I saw on the news that more than 100,000 people were demostrating and marching in the streets of Bagdad, carry banners that stated for the US to get out of Iraq, and carrying pictures of Sadaam Hussin. Can you explain that?

Originally posted by bcoble:

Why would you want to impreach the President for responding to intel provided by several governments, several agencys, the UN ect? You believe he just made it all up. UN resolutions mean nothing, sat photo's mean nothing. Intel from Germany, England ect means nothing. He has the guts to respond to these reports and you whine about it. The Congress approved of what was needed. Why not recommend to impeach every congressman and senator involved. I would go over to Euroup and address the different agencies involved for providing inadequate info on this subject.

Just my thought

Then while you at it tell the people of Iraq you wish Saddam was still there and they do not deserve freedom! Let them die!
08/27/2005 11:51:19 AM · #220
Originally posted by DanSig:
Actually Iceland has only been free since 1944, before that we were ruled by the King of Denmark, during WW2 we were invaded by Britain and later the USA, so the USA has invaded Iceland too, but we did the smart thing at the time, Iceland was a very poor country so we just let the US invade, rented them a piece of land so they could build a airport, they also wanted to build radar stations around the country, so we let them, but to be able to do that they had to build a road surrounding the country, we let the USA build the entire highway system, international airports and lots of other stuff during WW2 and in the years after, but we also managed to keep the US troops behind a fence so they wouldn't affect our way of living more than neccecary, but even with this "friendly" invasion from the USA, your soldiers kept raping the Icelandic girls, so there is a lot of people here with a US father that is unknown.

Iceland has been to war with Britain 3 times since the WW2, we won them all, and even though we had a fully functional US airforce here we didn't get any help fighting the Brits, we would probably have lost if the USA would have helped ;)


I wouldn't call the Cod Wars actual wars. When you over fished the waters you had, rather then come up with other options to make some cash you claimed more waters so you could over fish them too and would not let anyone else fish in them. You defended these new boundaries before anyone recognized them, so technically it was illegal. You did this three times since WW2 and it pissed Britain off each time. A few shots were fired and a few boats were rammed the third time you did this. Not three wars by my definition.

And, when Britain invaded you during ww2, you rolled over and welcomed them because you had no means of defending yourself. You were actually happy it was Britain and not Hitler. Your president told you to welcome them as guests.

And, the US occupied you legally based on treaties and agreements. No invasion.

If there were cases of US soldiers rapping your women, that is horrible and the guilty men should rot in jail. That is not acceptable behaivior in the US.
 08/27/2005 07:34:18 PM · #221
Originally posted by louddog:
If there were cases of US soldiers rapping your women, that is horrible and the guilty men should rot in jail. That is not acceptable behaivior in the US.


Actually that seems to be acceptable behavior amongst US soldier, there is a law that applies to soldiers in a foreign land set by the UN or NATO where soldiers can be prosecuted for crimes they commit, when these laws were set the USA wanted their soldiers to be excluded, WHY so they could keep on raping and killing without any chance of being prosecuted for their actions ? US soldiers rape and kill innocent women and children everywhere they go, they did it in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and now Iraq, and I'm probably forgetting some countries, they kill innocent people.. the excuse "he looked like an Iraqi" does NOT work in Iraq, everyone looks like an Iraqi ;) and so the US soldiers just kill anyone they want.

I know the news shown in USA about Iraq are ALL in favour of the USA, and the Iraqi's are terrosrist and generally bad people, but the news I see, the US troops are the BAD people and the Iraqi's are just trying to defend their country against rapist and murderer from USA who invaded their country agains the ruling of NATO and UN !

and for the US Goverment to be against laws that make their soldiers responsible for their actions seem rather weird, like the US goverment wants their soldiers to go around raping, robbing and killing innocent people without any chance of being held accountable for their actions.

looks like the US goverment can't control their soldiers.. what kind of an army do you have ? irresponsible teenagers with guns ;)
 08/28/2005 02:25:19 PM · #222
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:

So, basically people like me were told "Sit down, and shut up". Now we're being told "Do something about it, or shut up." That's like being chained up and witnessing an arsonist burn down a house; and then being told by the police "You should have tried to stop him/her."


Originally posted by RonB:


Originally posted by greatandsmall:
So my idea of a solution would be for the leadership to genuinely address the country and take accountability by saying "We were dishonest, we screwed up, and we're very sorry.


Liberals are really focused on getting the people they hate to admit that they screwed up, aren't they. Forget the problem at hand. Instead let's instead focus on investigating who knew what, and when did they know it. Your house is on fire and instead of concentrating on putting the darned fire out, you'd rather spend your time figuring out how it started, and then demanding that your wife apologize for putting that candle on the dining room table. Only THEN can you focus on the fire itself.


OK, I've since covered the fact that I am not a "Liberal" by your definition. So let's move on to your response to my analogy.

I didn't say anything about my wife putting a candle on the dining room table. (Which wouldn't be legal in this country, since I am a woman.)

My analogy referred to the frustration of being unable to stop an arsonist and then being held accountable for a fire that I did not set. It sounds as though you are trying to minimize the importance of the decision to go to war. And yes, a new house will be built (hopefully nicer than the old one) but that doesn't justify arson.

Sorry for the late reply, but my wife & I were away for the weekend.
I'm sorry if you thought that my reference to a fire was in any way to your mention of arson - it wasn't meant to be. Nor was it meant as anything personal - my comments were directed toward liberals in general ( though certainly not ALL liberals ). It's just that a fire is the best analogy that I could think of. Think of the situation in Iraq as the fire, since it's already a fact. Given that analogy, it seems that many liberals want to find out who started it, why they started it, and have them investigated, tried, and convicted MORE than they want to eliminate the fire.
I am not trying to minimize the decision, but don't you think it's more important to address the current situation than to focus on the events and reasoning that are, by now, history? AFTER we solve the problem, THEN we can concentrate on what led us to this point.
 08/28/2005 02:53:40 PM · #223
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by louddog:
If there were cases of US soldiers rapping your women, that is horrible and the guilty men should rot in jail. That is not acceptable behaivior in the US.


Actually that seems to be acceptable behavior amongst US soldier, there is a law that applies to soldiers in a foreign land set by the UN or NATO where soldiers can be prosecuted for crimes they commit, when these laws were set the USA wanted their soldiers to be excluded, WHY so they could keep on raping and killing without any chance of being prosecuted for their actions ? US soldiers rape and kill innocent women and children everywhere they go, they did it in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and now Iraq, and I'm probably forgetting some countries, they kill innocent people.. the excuse "he looked like an Iraqi" does NOT work in Iraq, everyone looks like an Iraqi ;) and so the US soldiers just kill anyone they want.

I know the news shown in USA about Iraq are ALL in favour of the USA, and the Iraqi's are terrosrist and generally bad people, but the news I see, the US troops are the BAD people and the Iraqi's are just trying to defend their country against rapist and murderer from USA who invaded their country agains the ruling of NATO and UN !

and for the US Goverment to be against laws that make their soldiers responsible for their actions seem rather weird, like the US goverment wants their soldiers to go around raping, robbing and killing innocent people without any chance of being held accountable for their actions.

looks like the US goverment can't control their soldiers.. what kind of an army do you have ? irresponsible teenagers with guns ;)

Proof, once again, that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
1) As a former member of the U.S. military, I assure you part of my indoctrination was that ANY country in which a U.S. Serviceman or woman serves has the right to detain, arrest, try, convict, and incarcerate any serviceman or woman who is accused of committing a crime as defined in that country's penal code, so long as such action is just and reasonable. And if THAT country finds a serviceman or woman guilty but does NOT impose harsh penalties, then the U.S. Code of Military Justice WILL. In other words, a serviceman or woman IS subject to double-indemnity even though non-military U.S. citizens are NOT. It may surprise you to know that military personnel are not even given this same level of legal redress as other U.S. citizens on foreign soil - they are held to a higher level of accountability. In MOST countries, military personnel are not permitted to wear their uniforms off-base, since it some countries MAY consider such action as an "act of war".
The reason that the Criminal Court of the U.N. was rejected by the U.S. is because it grants the U.N powers of arrest that are far too broad. It is NOT because of military personnel - rather it is because of "normal" citizens. According to the Criminal Court, if the U.S. signed on as a signatory, the U.N could arrest a "normal" citizen if he said something that caused "emotional distress" to a member of a minority group. In other words, if a U.S. citizen said bin-laden was a "terrorist", then bin-laden, as a member of a minority group ( Islamic fundamentalists ) could bring that citizen to be taken by force, flown to the Court in the Hague, and tried & convicted of a Crime - and incarcerated.
Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.
And, I hate to say it, but you are woefully ignorant of what is shown on the news in the U.S. The MAJORITY are AGAINST what is happening in Iraq. We almost NEVER get to see or hear anything more than a daily update of the actions of the "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" ( not "terrorists" ) and the new body count of U.S. servicemen killed or wounded in Iraq.
To paraphrase what someone else said earlier, I'd sure like to know what your smoking ( paraphrased, because unlike them, I sure as hell wouldn't smoke it - it obviously fries one's brain ).
 08/29/2005 02:37:17 PM · #224
Originally posted by RonB:
Think of the situation in Iraq as the fire, since it's already a fact. Given that analogy, it seems that many liberals want to find out who started it, why they started it, and have them investigated, tried, and convicted MORE than they want to eliminate the fire.
I am not trying to minimize the decision, but don't you think it's more important to address the current situation than to focus on the events and reasoning that are, by now, history? AFTER we solve the problem, THEN we can concentrate on what led us to this point.


I think it's just as important, at this point in time, to focus on the events (or should I say the people) that led us into this war as it is to focus on how to end the war. For one thing, it seems that a majority of the American people are finally beginning to realize that they were either duped, or that they sent the biggest group of incompetents this country has seen in a long time back to the White House for a second term. I don't know why it's taken so long for people to wake up, but they're waking up and asking the questions now, so now is the time to have the conversation.

Second, the history is not irrelevant to making a rational decision about what to do next. To borrow greatandsmall's analogy, once you become aware that there is an arsonist in your midst -- or worse, the arsonist is your head of state -- you might be wise to look with skepticism upon the arsonist's advice about how to put out the fire.

Third, there's that little matter of accountability. Your attitude, RonB, seems to be, yes, we made some "mistakes," but that's water under the bridge now, let's not bother with all that old boring stuff (which incidentally the administration denied and lied about while it was happening) because now we have a crisis to deal with. At the same time you belittle and insult those of us who would hold those responsible for this mess accountable, by using phrases like "same old" and characterizing our motives as vengeful, small and petty.

Well, having been repeatedly lied to, and having been made the victims of an unrelenting propaganda campaign, and having been taken advantage of at a time of psychic vulnerability and weakness, and having been made accomplices to immoral and illegal acts, I think the people of this country are entitled to more than a blowoff from the likes of you and our current so-called leadership.
 08/29/2005 05:11:49 PM · #225
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Think of the situation in Iraq as the fire, since it's already a fact. Given that analogy, it seems that many liberals want to find out who started it, why they started it, and have them investigated, tried, and convicted MORE than they want to eliminate the fire.
I am not trying to minimize the decision, but don't you think it's more important to address the current situation than to focus on the events and reasoning that are, by now, history? AFTER we solve the problem, THEN we can concentrate on what led us to this point.


I think it's just as important, at this point in time, to focus on the events (or should I say the people) that led us into this war as it is to focus on how to end the war. For one thing, it seems that a majority of the American people are finally beginning to realize that they were either duped, or that they sent the biggest group of incompetents this country has seen in a long time back to the White House for a second term. I don't know why it's taken so long for people to wake up, but they're waking up and asking the questions now, so now is the time to have the conversation.

Second, the history is not irrelevant to making a rational decision about what to do next. To borrow greatandsmall's analogy, once you become aware that there is an arsonist in your midst -- or worse, the arsonist is your head of state -- you might be wise to look with skepticism upon the arsonist's advice about how to put out the fire.

Third, there's that little matter of accountability. Your attitude, RonB, seems to be, yes, we made some "mistakes," but that's water under the bridge now, let's not bother with all that old boring stuff (which incidentally the administration denied and lied about while it was happening) because now we have a crisis to deal with. At the same time you belittle and insult those of us who would hold those responsible for this mess accountable, by using phrases like "same old" and characterizing our motives as vengeful, small and petty.

Well, having been repeatedly lied to, and having been made the victims of an unrelenting propaganda campaign, and having been taken advantage of at a time of psychic vulnerability and weakness, and having been made accomplices to immoral and illegal acts, I think the people of this country are entitled to more than a blowoff from the likes of you and our current so-called leadership.

I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective ( particularly as concerns anti-terrorism ) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

Secondly, you SAY that the majority of the American people are finally beginning to realize that they were either duped or that they sent the biggest group of incompetents this country has seen in a long time back to the White House. Would you please provide a link or two outlining the scientific evidence to substantiate that claim? If not, I would be wise to look with skepticism upon the claimant's other claims and advice.

Thirdly, there IS that matter of accountability. Clinton lacked it, for sure. As does John Kerry who claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas, and Hillary Clinton who just "happened" to find all those "missing" documents in her office one day - AFTER the Grand Jury investigation was concluded. And let's not forget the classified documents that were "accidently" removed from the National Archives in Sandy Berger's socks. And, no, my attitude is NOT yes, we made some "mistakes". I don't believe that "we" did - "we" being those who believed Bush and his administration. I believe that he honestly believed that the intelligence information he was given was of sufficient gravity to propel us into the war in Iraq. I also believe that our elected Senators and Representatives, who are privy to the kinds of classified intelligence that "we", the common citizen, are NOT privy to, are better able to decide if the intelligence warrants granting approval to the President, AS THEY DID, to engage in military actions in Iraq. Please hold THEM accountable - even moreso than BUSH, since he is but ONE individual and COULD NOT have taken such action without their consent.

Fourthy, we do not have a crises to deal with, unless you mean Hurricane Katrina. The effort in Iraq is NOT a "crises", except as a cause celebre to the liberals. Furthermore, it is not a "mess", but I agree that you should hold those responsible for the problems in Iraq accountable - that would be the terrorists who daily do all they can to hinder progress, kill and maim the Iraqis who are trying to rebuilt their security forces, and attempt to terrorize and intimidate the people. Progress is occurring slowly because of their efforts, but it is occurring surely.

As to your charge that we have been victims of an unrelenting propaganda campaign, I must agree. But the propoganda is NOT from the administration - it is from those who oppose the US and what it stands for. This appears to include the majority of the American media. And yes, Judith, you HAVE been lied to - by Kennedy, Soros, Franken, Pelosi, and Moore to name just a few. It's just a shame that you don't realize it - yet.

(Edited 9/30 to restore proper spacing)

Message edited by author 2005-08-30 08:29:56.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 12:25:00 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 12:25:00 PM EDT.