I'd pick screwing the intern any day.... >:-) (-:<

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

I'd pick screwing the intern any day.... >:-) (-:<

Republican or Vulcan family values?

---

Account frozen...

I'd pick screwing the intern any day.... >:-) (-:<

Republican or Vulcan family values?

Yes.... >;-) (-;<

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Maybe if Clinton had done his job instead of getting them
We would not be in the mess we are in....

You should ask, why didn't Bush's daddy do his job...?
We had Saddam by the balls with the world cheering us on...
and now?

You know the answer to that as well as anyone. We were called off by our "allies" in the area who thought Saddam the butcher was better than a democratic Arab government in the Middle East. It was a huge mistake, which we justified by putting in place an "ironclad" ceasefire agreement that would allow us to control Saddam's military aspirations. That ceasefire was routinely violated during the Clinton years, and the lack of response emboldened Saddam and all anti-West (anti-American) factions in the region.

I'm surprised you don't remember your own history . . . actually, no, I'm not surprised. You and the Bush bashers remember what you want, and forget what is inconvienient. Now, go ahead and tell me I'm spinning history, but even today, in this war, the Democratic leadership and Democratic leaning media talking-heads complain and whine about the US enforcing what the UN and many European "allies" had blocked for more than a decade--sanctions for violations by Saddam of his post-Gulf War obligations.

Maybe if Clinton had done his job instead of getting them
We would not be in the mess we are in....

You should ask, why didn't Bush's daddy do his job...?
We had Saddam by the balls with the world cheering us on...
and now?

You know the answer to that as well as anyone. We were called off by our "allies" in the area who thought Saddam the butcher was better than a democratic Arab government in the Middle East. It was a huge mistake, which we justified by putting in place an "ironclad" ceasefire agreement that would allow us to control Saddam's military aspirations. That ceasefire was routinely violated during the Clinton years, and the lack of response emboldened Saddam and all anti-West (anti-American) factions in the region.

I'm surprised you don't remember your own history . . . actually, no, I'm not surprised. You and the Bush bashers remember what you want, and forget what is inconvienient. Now, go ahead and tell me I'm spinning history, but even today, in this war, the Democratic leadership and Democratic leaning media talking-heads complain and whine about the US enforcing what the UN and many European "allies" had blocked for more than a decade--sanctions for violations by Saddam of his post-Gulf War obligations.

Since when has the US listened to its' allies. George H. Bush gave the order to cease hostilities. I thought the buck stopped at the presidents desk.

The cease fire situation was inherited by Clinton from the Bush administration. However, Clinton decided not to attack a country which hadn't attacked the US, at least not without provocation. To do so would have made us wage a war of aggression, which if you remember, we hanged alot of Nazi's for the same thing.

GW bush however. lied his ass off with fake justifications to invade Iraq. It is you who are conviently spinning facts, to justify the current morass we now find ourselves.

As far as sanctions are concerned, US companies were just a active skirting sanctions as were the Europeans.

The latest montra of the right wing is to call all media sources "liberals" who in any way, manner, shape or form report on anything which is disagreeable to the right wing conservatives.

I suggest you go and have a talk with some of our men and women of the armed forces which has been done duty in Iraq. I personally have spoken to several dozen US Marines, as well as others, which have returned from Iraq. What they are reporting, and what you are being lead to believe by the media are two differnet things.

It amazes me that US citizens who were force fed garbage by the government during the Viet Nam war, are now sucking up on the same garbage without question. When are you going to learn that you are being sucessfully propagandized, and the thought of such realization must be terrifying to you.

You've been had but just can't see or don't want to see it.

P.S. I'm neither a liberal or conservative, I'm the true "silent majority," i.e. a moderate. I vote for the candidate and not the party, which means I've voted for Republicans, as well as, Democrats and Independants.

I am not alone.

The Republican controlled Congress is not faring any better.

And then there's Iraq.

---

Account frozen...

Oops, double post error!

---

Account frozen...

It amazes me that US citizens who were force fed garbage by the government during the Viet Nam war, are now sucking up on the same garbage without question. When are you going to learn that you are being sucessfully propagandized, and the thought of such realization must be terrifying to you.

You've been had but just can't see or don't want to see it.

Yeah, Vietnam really screwed you up. Well, I was there, and back here and though that war was fought for all the wrong reasons, and not well justified, Iraq is not the same situation. And for your information, Germany did not attack the US, yet we went to war against them as well as the Japanese due to mutual defense agreements. The Iraqis did not attack us, but they did attack Kuwait and threatened our interests in the region, so the WWII situation may be different, but not that much. Anyway, If you are trying to say you are NOT liberal, or a Bush basher, then explain why you have posted such inflamatory pictures (photoshopped or not) and messages against the administration while refusing to consider any opposing point of view? Maybe it's you who have been "had".

Also, you've not answered my earlier question about who you think can do better.

And for your information, Germany did not attack the US, yet we went to war against them as well as the Japanese due to mutual defense agreements.

We did nothing of the sort. Japan attacked the US on the 7th of December, 1941, and we subquently declared war on them. Germany declared war on the United States on the 9th of December, and not the other way around. Germany, however, had made an unprovoked on Poland in September, 1939. For that they were made to pay, just like we attacked Iraq wihtout real provocation. Hitler used a trumped up bogas attack by Poland on a radio station in Germany, Bush used WMD's. What mutual defense agreements are you referring to?

The Iraqis did not attack us, but they did attack Kuwait and threatened our interests in the region, so the WWII situation may be different, but not that much.

Yes, they did in the Gulf War, but what has that got to do with 2002. I agree with you about our interests, yes it is spelt O-I-L. I have no problem with the US defending Kuwait (which is undemocratic), but I do have a problem with GH Bush not finishing the job. We don't worry now what other countries think, why didn't we do the same back then and thereby possibly avoiding the current situation.

Anyway, If you are trying to say you are NOT liberal, or a Bush basher, then explain why you have posted such inflamatory pictures (photoshopped or not) and messages against the administration while refusing to consider any opposing point of view?

Because Bush is a lair. BTW, I was for Clinton's being punished, not for the sloppy blowjob, but for fragrantly lying to a Grand Jury. He violated his oath of office.

As far as Bush's fighting terrorism, now we have thousands of battle trained terrorists we'll have to deal with in the future. Osama's laughing his head off; GWB has been his best recruiter.

---

Account frozen...

.....

...

Also, you've not answered my earlier question about who you think can do better.

My husband.

-Mrs. anon

A couple points to clarify the issues surrounding Iraq.

In 2002, Iraq was in violation of its cease-fire agreement. Period. It was spinning every clause of agreement as a delaying tactic, but there is no question that Iraq failed to fulfill its end. This means that from an international law point of view, an invasion at any time was justified. There did not need to be any other reason to invade. On the practical matter of should we have invaded at that particular time, reasonable people can disagree.

There is a difference between being wrong and being a liar. Saddam's Iraq was good at one aspect of warfare: counterintelligence. Iran had a few human intelligence operatives in Iraq, but no other agency on the planet had any significant human intelligence assets in the country. Intelligence agencies around the world took what Iran said with a grain of salt, but since Iran's information about a WMD program was plausible given Iraq's behavior and what could be gleaned from electronic snooping, the concensus opinion was that Iraq was playing a shellgame with the UN inspectors, moving the elements of weapons programs to avoid detection. It is undisputed that Iraq posessed WMDs in the past, because it had used them. The Gulf War cease-fire agreement required that Iraq destroy all of its WMDs in a verifiable manner, which it failed to do. The WMDs might have been destroyed secretly so that Iraq could still hold the threat over its neighbors, or it might be in underground bunkers somewhere. The US intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had or was making WMDs. So did the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Egyptians, etc. Most agencies have covered their butts by saying that reports only spoke in possibilities and probabilities and qualifications, but that is true of any intelligence report.

Iraq sponsored terrorism. Blatantly. Its diplomats hand-delivered checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Thus, any argument that Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is false on its face. Iraq was most likely not involved in the September 11 attacks, because the Baath Party and al Qaeda may both hate the US but they had no love for each other, either. The Baath Party had no ideological reason to impede al Qaeda and may have offered indirect aid on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rationale. It is known that wanted terrorists passed through Iraq without being arrested, although it remains to be proved that this rises to the level of active participation.

Iraq painted a big bull's eye on itself for four reasons: it overtly put itself on the "wrong" side of the War on Terror, it gave a justification for war by failing to meet its cease-fire agreement, its regime was extremely unpopular with everyone on Earth except a few unscrupulous businessmen, and it borders almost every country that the US wants to influence away from supporting al Qaeda (Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria). A credible capability to insert covert operatives thru Iraq would give the US considerable leverage: "arrest or at least muzzle X... or we'll do it for you without regard for your internal politics." A few hundred tank barrels pointing in their direction wouldn't hurt, either.

Several elements of the war itself were mis-handled. The Army painted itself into a corner by insisting that heavy elements be in place before an invasion. If they were needed, the Army didn't move them fast enough; if they weren't needed, the long deployment time gave Iraq just that much longer to prepare. The US's intelligence about loyalty to Saddam was intentionally distorted by Iran. Iran wanted Saddam gone, but wanted the US bogged down in a protracted insurgency (to avoid the leverage mentioned above). The White House and senior leadership in the Pentagon were guilty of post-war planning while wearing rose colored glasses. When the reality of an insurgency appeared, the US leadership was slow to adapt.

Things go wrong in wars. If one side is so overwhelming in its execution that all of the plans go off without a hitch, it's not called a war it's called a massacre. It is inevitable that there will be mistakes; the important thing is to correct for them either through contingency planning or by making sure that the same mistakes don't happen again (or preferably both).

There is a decidedly anti-US spin on virtually every news story coming out of Iraq. A major part of this is the preference for bad news because it makes for more compelling news. Another part is an attempt to paint the US administration in as poor a light as possible. At every milestone, opposition party members and the press go out of their way to say that "well, that's nice but it's this NEXT thing that's important." Except that when the next milestone happens, the important thing is suddenly the next milestone after that. Compare the comments about the October 15 elections before the elections happened and after they happened.

Rhetoric has gotten irresponsible in many cases. The president's supporters tend to label any opposition as unpatriotic while many in the opposition make comparrisons with some of the most inhuman regimes in history. Dissent is not only permitted in the United States, it is enshrined in the Constitution. If someone doesn't agree with your favorite politician, get over it. On the other hand, the president was elected according to that same Constitution and anyone who disagrees should have the decency to offer a realistic alternative rather than simply throw around epithets.

The United States is engaged in World War III. The US has enemies that are trying to harm it, and no amount of conciliation will "buy them off." The enemy has spent years planning its war, training footsoldiers and planting them around the world. The United States is rarely of one mind on how to conduct a war, but the citizenry is usually aware when the country is fighting one. The Bush Administration has done a remarkably poor job of explaining the facts of the war to the American people. Ideally, the president would list which nations and groups are acting against us and rally public support. The problem appears to be a peactime approach to international diplomacy... don't call the problem child an enemy, just pressure him behind the scenes until he buckles. This works in peacetime but it is not appropriate for a war that engages hundreds of thousands of troops in combat roles.

The US/UK/Australia axis is winning for the moment, but has not won. There has not been another September 11 scale attack, and it is not from a lack of trying. Al Qaeda has been disrupted, but it is designed to recover from disruptions. In order to win, the Western allies need to remain relentless as the enemy disperses and becomes less effective until it is finally rendered incapable of reforming. As time goes on, this will look more and more excessive relative to the visible threat. Al Qaeda is facing a crisis of credibility if it can't demonstrate that it survived the West's asault, since recruitment depends on a plausible chance of winning. There might be a whole lot of disaffected youths out there who hate the US, but their effectiveness is virtually nil if they aren't organized. Al Qaeda's goal was to overthrow at least one moderate Islamic government to establish a caliphate, which hasn't happened. In fact, the closest thing to a caliphate that existed prior to the September 11 attacks, the Taliban regime, has fallen.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

.....

...

Also, you've not answered my earlier question about who you think can do better.

My husband.

-Mrs. anon

Ahem, we weren't talking about that, ma'am, though I'm sure he does just fine.

There is a difference between being wrong and being a liar.

I stand my ground, Bush is a liar. From the moment the Supreme Court made him president, his lodestone was to reverse his daddies booboo. All the available info was twisted in one direction only. That is lying with the intent to deceive, just ask Colin Powell; the honorable man was dupted.

Let us assume that everything you say is correct, just for arguements sake. The way the Commander-in-Chief has handled the Iraqi situation after the Iraqi's surrendered is nothing short of criminal in its' negligence and complete lack of planning and forsight. And to add insult to injury, I now wish that I had the foresight to take all my assests and invest them into Vice President Chenney's company, Halibarton. My retirement would go from comfortable to lavish.

---

Account frozen...

First, read Octagon's excellent discussion of Iraq and the failings by both the dissenters and the Bush administration. I have been saying this for months on these boards (look at my posts to Zippy), but not nearly as well as Octagon has done here.

And for your information, Germany did not attack the US, yet we went to war against them as well as the Japanese due to mutual defense agreements.

We did nothing of the sort. Japan attacked the US on the 7th of December, 1941, and we subsequently declared war on them. Germany declared war on the United States on the 9th of December, and not the other way around. Germany, however, had made an unprovoked on Poland in September, 1939. For that they were made to pay, just like we attacked Iraq without real provocation. Hitler used a trumped up bogas attack by Poland on a radio station in Germany, Bush used WMD's. What mutual defense agreements are you referring to?

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer: We declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us because of their mutual defense agreement with Japan, and then we declared war on Germany. We did not declare war on Germany to avenge Poland. However, as "Germany . . . had made an unprovoked on Poland in September, 1939", for which they were made to pay, that seems the same as Saddam having made an unprovoked on Kuwait, for which the US and allies made Saddam pay. The present Iraq war is enforcement of the Gulf War cease fire agreement that Saddam had violated for more than a decade. After 9/11 we could no longer allow his violations to continue, especially his violations of provisions designed to allow verification of his dismantling of his WMD programs.

The Iraqis did not attack us, but they did attack Kuwait and threatened our interests in the region, so the WWII situation may be different, but not that much.

Yes, they did in the Gulf War, but what has that got to do with 2002. I agree with you about our interests, yes it is spelt O-I-L. I have no problem with the US defending Kuwait (which is undemocratic), but I do have a problem with GH Bush not finishing the job. We don't worry now what other countries think, why didn't we do the same back then and thereby possibly avoiding the current situation.

What has this got to do with 2002? Everything--see Octagon's post. As for starting a war for O-I-L, perhaps you have not seen gas prices in the last three years . . . how did we steal oil from Iraq and/or Kuwait? Please explain why this free O-I-L is not being made available to us?

Anyway, If you are trying to say you are NOT liberal, or a Bush basher, then explain why you have posted such inflammatory pictures (photoshopped or not) and messages against the administration while refusing to consider any opposing point of view?

Because Bush is a lair. BTW, I was for Clinton's being punished, not for the sloppy blowjob, but for fragrantly lying to a Grand Jury. He violated his oath of office.

As far as Bush's fighting terrorism, now we have thousands of battle trained terrorists we'll have to deal with in the future. Osama's laughing his head off; GWB has been his best recruiter.

A liar is one who purposely misstates the truth, but Bush was simply wrong, at least about the extent of WMD. On the other hand, Clinton is indeed a liar. He knew the truth and lied to the American people ("I did not have sex with that woman") and the Grand Jury. As for "thousands of battle trained terrorists", well they are being trained in guerrilla warfare more than for covert terrorist activities in the US. I believe that there were many, many volunteers for al Qaida before Iraq, but if that organization is crippled, it will be harder for them to be effective. Also, a stable, democratic government in Iraq may, in a generation, may show those mostly young men who hate the West that there is an alternative way to create a better life for themselves and their families, than attacks on Americans.

What has this got to do with 2002? Everything--see Octagon's post. As for starting a war for O-I-L, perhaps you have not seen gas prices in the last three years . . . how did we steal oil from Iraq and/or Kuwait? Please explain why this free O-I-L is not being made available to us?

Pure avarice on the producers part. Have you noticed the profits of the oil companies. The multinationals think George is the best thing since Calvin Coolige.

A liar is one who purposely misstates the truth, but Bush was simply wrong, at least about the extent of WMD. On the other hand, Clinton is indeed a liar. He knew the truth and lied to the American people ("I did not have sex with that woman") and the Grand Jury. As for "thousands of battle trained terrorists", well they are being trained in guerrilla warfare more than for covert terrorist activities in the US. I believe that there were many, many volunteers for al Qaida before Iraq, but if that organization is crippled, it will be harder for them to be effective. Also, a stable, democratic government in Iraq may, in a generation, may show those mostly young men who hate the West that there is an alternative way to create a better life for themselves and their families, than attacks on Americans.

You obviously don't understand the mind set over there. I lived in the middle east for three years. They will never have what we call democracy. They will never have stablity trying to deal with three distinct factions: the Sunni's, the Shia, and the Kurds. They have too many blood debts to collect, and will not stop until one of them becomes the master overlord over the country. My money is on the Shia with the backing of Iran. They will turn the country into a Theocracy after much bloodshed and reprisals. Unfortunately, our troops are the only thing stopping this. We are in a damned if you do, and damned if you don't situation to be paid for with the lives and bodies of American military men and women.

---

Account frozen...

There is a difference between being wrong and being a liar.

I stand my ground, Bush is a liar. From the moment the Supreme Court made him president, his lodestone was to reverse his daddies booboo. All the available info was twisted in one direction only. That is lying.

You have chosen to interpret Bush's actions as twisting the information in one direction. Give me an example of when the president purposely misstated a fact that he knew to be otherwise. WMD? No, every government thought Saddam had WMD. Attrocities by Saddam against his own people and in use of poison gas the Iraq/Iran war? Come on! Twisted is such a vague word.

You have shown your bias with your statement, "From the moment the Supreme Court made him president . . ." That's the real reason you hate Bush, because you didn't like the way the 2000 elections turned out. Well, get over it. First, Bush won in 2004. Second, the US Supreme court simply stopped the Florida Supreme court from making Gore president, and allowed Florida to count thier votes according to the statutes on the books. But, this is a digression from the discussion on the War on Terror. You seem completely closed to another view of the war, and it appears that the reason is your abiding dislike of the president.

Hey, almost 60% of Americans now dislike Bush. I guess that puts me into the majority. If the elections were held today, he would be out of office. His pandering to the ultra-religious right is the main reason I can't stand his guts.

One of today's CNN articles.

---

Account frozen...

Tom, please check your gmail! :-)

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Hey, almost 60% of Americans now dislike Bush. I guess that puts me into the majority. If the elections were held today, he would be out of office.

First, the election is not being held today. Elections in the US are held on a regular schedule, and it is not unusual for a sitting president's poll numbers to be low in "lulls between elections." This is because the government is governing rather than campaigning. Meanwhile, those opposition members who aren't in office (the press, the radical fringe groups, etc.) have nothing better to do than continue attacking. There are other election systems out there that allow for "snap" elections. The US government would be even less capable of action than it is now if the US had such a provision. Note the paralysis of Germany.

Second, a popularity rating of 40% is one of the higher low-points of any president. Two presidents never got lower than this: Eisenhower and Kennedy. This is not to say that 40% is a comfortable place to be, but it is not catastrophic in historical terms.

(edit for grammar)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Hey, almost 60% of Americans now dislike Bush. I guess that puts me into the majority. If the elections were held today, he would be out of office.

One of today's CNN articles.

I'm not surprised at that figure. But the majority of Americans also supported slavery in the 17th century, so being in the majority does not make one right. And your link to CNN is telling, since they (like ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC and most mainstream media) have done their level best to paint Bush in a bad light. The Bush administration has done a very poor job of keeping their position before the American people.

I don't care that you dislike Bush. But it weakens your argument when you disregard any other view simply, it appears, because you dislike him. Any rational person reading your position, e.g. that Bush is a liar, can see that you have no evidence of that, simply personal ill feelings. On the other hand, I have tried to say that Bush and his administration have made mistakes; I don't ignore or discount those mistakes. But I try to base my argument on the history we all know happened, not on personal feelings toward the man.

This can go on and on. Suffice to say neither of us is going to change. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. Time and history will tell. As an aside to that: Years ago, after China started to open up to the west, a French journalist asked Chairman Mao what he thought of the French Revolution. Mao answered, "it's too early to tell."

---

Account frozen...