Seems I touched a nerve; Speeder.

This "ignorant crap" as you've labled it, is from my observations of the actions of liberals.

My grade schooling was had a good share of liberalism. A few teachers even threw out population numbers and projections in an effort to scare students about population growth.

I also worked for a "world health" NGO (read: immersed in liberalism). THAT was an eye opener!

Other observations;
Up here in the NW I've seen greenpeace activists try to kill indians because the indians were hunting a whale.

I've seen the aftermath of liberals spiking trees, so that when the logs are processed at the lumber mill, the carbide saw blade expoldes like a grenade with enough shrapnel to kill any workers near by.

Granted, these are the extreme left, and there are more moderate liberals whom just want more free stuff; BUT, I stand by my observation that many (not all) liberals have a latent desire
to have "not so many people".

"my courage up against yours " peh-lease. Is your Dad stronger than mine, too?

Yes we ALL know they have 2


"""you might feel your on the right.. but your really on the LEFT! it's pretty obvious"""

Im on neither side thanks.


Its pretty obvious your one to jump on ones **** just because of their opinion. I never said "THIS is what we NEED to be doing. Thats cool, your loss.

And do me a favor, quit talking to me as if I am ignorant to this issue please. I was just expressing an opinion. Dont try to analize my political postion, because you cant.

Just some food for your Thought..

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act


United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.


Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Now, just imagine if we inforced this... Now tell me your not a Liberal..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Absolutely agree that Iraq in the '90s was trying to hide/ keep weapons, just differ in the interpretation of what they still possess. The most current assessment from inspectors on the ground this year is that his arsenal is seriously depleted, which of course would be good news for our forces when they go in. The guy, (Sadam), is a POS, but he is not a complete idiot when it comes to self-preservation, he has known for years that he is in our cross-hairs and it is logical that he does not want to disarm. I just differ w/ Bush & Co. that the inspections coupled w/ extreme pressure from our forces massing was doing the job w/ no young American blood spilling. It is not hard to form the opinion that Bush does not want inspections to continue because every report was reducing his argument for attacking NOW, why do that when we are giving his weapons stash an enema, albeit a slightly slower one.

I see this conflict as hugely political, rather than an immediate national security emergency that justifies a first strike war on a country that is not actively battling us, (or anyone else for that matter), AT THIS TIME. It is also a country, evil dictator and all, that was filled with U.N. inspectors getting what by all accounts was unfettered access to all sites in the country. A huge change from the '90s, when inspections were a joke, I'll admit.

I listen very carefully to what our leaders tell us, and question the info. It's my right and obligation as an American. Plenty of Bush's arguments for invading Iraq now do not pass the logic test, IMO. :cool:

"""Now tell me your not a Liberal.. ""

Ok, Im not.

Ok... DIPLAY YOUR FLAG.. MY FRIEND..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

"""Now, just imagine if we inforced this... """

Ya, half of America would be in prison.

Two things are apparent from the decade of inspections, and defectors;

1) Saddam has WMD

2) Saddam has made a Huge effort to hide, and keep hidden his WMD programs.

According to the link posted earlier jane fonda on snopes the Sedition Act has been overturned. I guess this means Targa Dude will just have to take things into his own hands and call all liberals morons. :)

Jurgen

And now SADDAM Gets to see and personaly experience..

MOAB!!!

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Of course he has WMD. I wonder why the inspectors arent.,.,.,.or didnt look into all of his hiddin tunnels and bunkers he has across that land. He has them, prob has more now.

I never post on this BBS, I just linger around here reading up on early 911's, but...

God Bless a Country were we can disagree at the top of our lungs. Reminds me of something I read once:

"I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat. "

"God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club. "

"Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus. "


P. J. O'Rourke

God bless the fighting forces of the United States of America!

Steve in Portland, OR

"I wonder why the inspectors arent.,.,.,.or didnt look into all of his hiddin tunnels and bunkers he has across that land."

Because the inspectors wanted to get out alive.

targa dude, you crack me up. the most conservative members of the supreme court would never read that stautory section as applying to anything said here.

racea911, i don't think liberals or conservatives in the US would give you much argument about the WMD issue. the fact remains that iraq is in material breach of a number of UN resolutions; even liberals understand that (and so do the french). isn't the question really whether it's in our best national interest for the US to take preventive (not preemptive) military action w/o UN approval? forget the peripheries, many to the right and left of center find it hard to say yes.

believe it or not, there are well known conservatives who question current US policy (brent scowcroft for one stressed the importance of obtaining multilateral support before taking action). even the US state department has serious questions regarding bush's goals to use the war to foster democracy in the middle east.

rolf, what are you talking about!? of course santa exists. moreover, he takes clear action against the naughty. they don't get gifts.

but seriously, that's a great quote. ;-)

refreshingly clear thinking, targa87.

though, scowcrofts' concerns are about image. The miltary action is about defense.

Clearly, a preventative military action can be said to be something new for this country. Though, this is a new time.

and yeah, Rolf, that's a great quote.

Didn't Speeder just say that the UN weapons inspectors had unfettered access to all sites within the country. Doesn't seem to me that unfettered access and the continual complaints Hans Blix reported on Iraqi interference and non-compliance are one and the same. Some say liberals don't doubt that there were material breeches, while the next liberal says that the UN inspectors had unfettered access.

oops

racea911

1441 called for unfettered access. initially, this was not the case. over time, blix cited improvements, but he never said that iraq was in full compliance.

where's the debate?

racea911,

i'm saddened that the senate minority leader failed so miserably to make his point...

as far as i'm concerned the democratic party has plenty to atone for too. they authorized the use of force, after all.

I FOUND SANTA.,..,HE DOES EXSIST!!!!

http://www.allfunnypictures.com/images/potd/santa.jpg

Yes, Hans Blix did find violations, but they were not along the order of chemical weapons stashes, more like small missiles that exceeded the 150kilometer(? is this correct), range. Is/was Iraq playing games and trying to keep some weapons? Of course. They have Iran as a next door neighbor, just for openers, the middle east is not the most touchy-feely place to be arm-less. Do I sympathise with the bastard? Hell no! Just explaining the dynamic in terms other than presented by our leaders, that he plans on attacking us. That would always be suicidal, he is way too much into self-preservation for that.

I am certainly not claiming that the inspectors had completed their job and looked inside of every cave in Iraq, but they were also not complaining of lack of access to a significant degree. There is a difference between non-compliance and restricting access of inspectors. Even with the resolutions, Sadam was allowed to possess certain weapons, so demanding that he "completely disarm" is a little bit disingenious in the spin war. Non-compliance can of course include anything, from relatively minor to extremely serious. Thus far, inspectors had only found the former.

And make no mistake about it, there has been a major PR/spin war already being waged for public opinion by our leaders. Hell, I thought that they were losing it based on what the inspectors were finding, but shows what I know about public opinion. BTW, I follow the news pretty addictively, and I have yet to hear even one of the loudest peaceniks defend Sadam Hussein. He is impossible to support, we just disagree on what is the wisest way to contain/deal w/ him, all angles considered. The middle east is a nightmare place to be involved in conflicts, in fact it is one of the best arguments that the isolationist crowd has. If we could somehow become less dependant on foreign oil, we could get out of there and let them kill each other if they want. We would not be the evil satan U.S.A. any more, no reason for terrrorism against us because we mostly ignore them. Maybe just send them some aid. (A hell of a lot cheaper than having our forces there). Hey, it works in Africa, (staying out of their nightmare conflicts for the most part). :cool:

I dont have much to offer to this. I am with the U.S.A. on all things as far as the outside world is concerned, I have no choice nor would I want one.

Liberals and conservatives, I believe we all have a bit of both in us. It only depends on the issue at hand. Thats what makes us Americans.

Regardless of anyones opinions, we are going on a ride, and your not driving. The goverment is.

This is were freedom and independence becomes cloudy. I support our soldiers and would be willing to die for our country. I hope the goverment knows for sure what the outcome will be.

We all have much at risk!

So I for one will keep the faith!

Great post Brian and very true.

Great post Denis, although I don't agree with you at all.

A 993 ride:
Kids: Dad, can we stop at McDonalds for some fries?
Dad: No
Kids: Dad, can we stop at McDonalds for some fries?
Dad: No!... . Im driving strrraight through.
. . . .
Kids: Dad, can we stop . . .johny has that same look as when he's gunna hurl.
Dad: . . .? Brian, what do you do? You're driving . . .do you listen to those pesky backseat drivers?

I'm just saying, I'm glad Saddam is not my driver. . . .he would turn around and shoot anyone not with his plan. (even his son-inlaw)

our driver is determined to drive "straight through," but he is a bit more concerned with his passengers needs.

Here is my take. The liberals don't want war because they know the US will go in and win and Bush will come out with a favorable opinion. The liberals don't want the tax cuts either because that would improve the economy and make Bush look good. Don't forget whats happening in 2004. They make Bush look bad, and it gives them a leg up in the presidential race. Also look for the class warfare talk to heat up more and the talk about the "HUGE" defecit which in terms of percentages is one of the lowest in decades, but your average government educated person can't understand economics and percentages.

The isolationist approach would be difficult in that the US would be faulted (demonized) for being rich, and not helping.
"Aid" would be seen as helping the potential enemy of another. Propoganda would read "US helps strengthen enemy."

The isolationist approach will work when the US is an impoverished country. Maybe then the liberals will be guilt free.

Island -

With all the respect I have for you, sometimes I think you behave in a way to only incite bad behavior.

Dont you think we all have thought this through?

Do you realize at this point we are powerless?

The only thing we have left at this point is our opinions!

Regardless of our intelligence we can only sit and watch despite any opposition!

Our fellow americans are armed and ready.

It is us against them, bar none.

Oh yea, I always stop at Ronnie's steak house! And so should you.;)

Seems like the mood has become one of acceptance/resignation, regardless which side of the political fence we come down on.

Next question: Which producer/director will have the first movie version in the box office? Say, with an opening date of July 4....

Ed

Sounds about right!

Sorry Brian; I didn't mean to imply you wouldn't stop at Ronnie's steak house for your kids.

I'm just saying; while yes, things are going forward, our driver isn't the type of guy to completly ingnore his passengers (so to speak)

edit: . . . inciting bad behavior!? . . ..YOU are asking!? :p

Oh yeah! We are very lucky to see U.S. going into dubious wars, bypassing U.N. being led into it by notoriously untalented son of ex. president that won less than 50% votes. Hell yeah, we've never been luckier...f****g great!

Yes, 9/11 sucks but Iraq has less conections to Al Quaida than Saudi Arabia, which is "friendly nation" in that way that they aren't interested in building oil cartels. Sadam is a bad man and should be removed, but people doesnt seem to realize that you cannot wage war on terorrism by bypassing U.N. and bombing nations as geographical entities as way of miss-guided retaliation and calming in-house hawks.

Wars are bad, costly and people die. This one won't solve terrorist problem. Actually, i'm afraid it will just consolidate arab nations even further into supporting terrorists... it will probably quench thirst for revenge after 9/11 but i believe it will create heaps of other problems in long term.

Well, now it's already started...just get it done swiftly, pull back those, get rid of that moron in the White House.

Go ahead and complain, Goran. When you really need help, we'll be there...always have, always will.

The United States is like a Porsche, because everyone knows you're top dog. :)

Jürgen

Yeah, it's amazing how a guy in Sweden has it all figured out.:rolleyes:

Yeah, you are right, GW won with less than half the vote. Here is a breakdown of the counties in the United States that GW won in the 2000 election. GW votes are in red, Gore's counties won are in blue.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...map-poster.gif

Well thanx for all help.

Hmm... that sort of non-critical "we're top dog, we can do what we please" ranting often causes trouble beacuse it p****s off people, and such people are less inclined to co-operate.

Read what i wrote once again. I'm not complaining just for fun...there are reasons and i think they are legitimate.


Cheers!

goran.......nevermind, i'm not even going to start in on your opinion, but you're from sweden right?

i'm an american.........always have been, always will be. we as americans sometimes overlook how good we have it, every once and a while we're reminded of the evil in the world. "i have no scuds...." saddam says yet he fires them at our guys.
the bastard is going down and we'll try to avoid hurting the innocents. the first wave started today at 9:11pm iraq time.......think it's a coincedence? we all know it's not.
the UN failed in my opinion, people are worried we're calling out the bad guys.......well we are, and that's our right as americans.
iraq may not be the main threat as far as terrorism goes but if you can buy the technology then you can use it, so were shutting down this part of the mall in some respect.

i have family in the 82nd and close friends who drive M1a's, they were also in the gulf in the previous attack, this time the job is going to get done properly.
protesters can do what they want.........remember this IS america.
opinions will be spoken, people will *****, the economy could get better or worse (i'm betting better), and people will die.......but when the job is done we will be able to KEEP being americans.
i have concerns for the unknown nuclear weapons, when we find out about them it'll be too late, but we are americans.....we will overcome.
godspeed to our guys/gals.......... those who oppose us will see how strong a technologically advanced voluntary military force can be.....period.

Geeze guys...has Saddam or George W. given any of us a ring to ask our opinion? For that matter, how about USA congressmen or senators? No calls to me that I can recall, other than a recorded message or 28, during election season....now that the war has started? All I see is mouthing off before cameras from our politicians. Bottom line, and a question for all...do you think allowing Saddam to remain in power will further the causes of peace and of the people of a nation deciding it's course? If you do, you have a legit cause to be against what's happening right now. If not? Well, keep mouthing off, but I choose not to read it.

Sadam is not THE problem, he is part of the problem. The remaining Arab states (in Bush's mind) might constitute the remaining problem.

As I've said on this thread and others, Iran most probably will be next. Saudi Arabia might follow. The hunt for Al Quaida (sp?) and its connection to WTC is a good positioning tool to initiate action in either Iran or Saudi Arabia. In fact, if I was asked on basis of Islamic fundamentalism who the U.S. should neutralize first - Iraq or S.A. - I would say S.A. because of their more conservative Islamic ties, control of oil and their financial potency to fund terrorism.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I raise it just for argument. One question: does it seem that N. Korea been eerily quiet since Bush announced his 48-hour count down?

As for the region at hand: I have a feeling because of this show of force in Iraq, a serious wake-up call has already come to the other Arab states. Iraq, with all their boisterous talk, has barely put up a fight. I would expect much of the same from Iran and S.A. I would also expect we could very invade them the same way we're invading Iraq because of the oil capacities and regional importance both these countries have.

Beepbeep: not to sound ingracious, but you do know that if there is a U.S.A. victory in this American-led battle with Iraq, it will insure Europe will continue to get her supply of oil, right?

Why should we care about what other nations think about us and our policies? Sometimes doing what is right is better than appeasing friends and doing nothing. It is obvious we have few friends anyway so does anything change just because we go at it alone? The UN debacle was instrumental in identifying who we could count on and who we couldn't. (BTW, more nations are supportng this coalition than the first Gulf War). Somebody always gets hurt when you confront reality and reality is that the US is a powerful nation that "CAN" shape the world. Is it imperialism, NO! Is it idealism, probably, but a hope for a democratic world sure beats the pants off a communist and socialist world. The world ought to be thankful that it isn't China or North Korea leading a "diplomatic solution". Wonder how they would treat the nations that they would conquer? Let's ask Tibet! When its all said and done, Iraq will be free and sovereign and the US will go home leaving billions in financial aide,and the world a little safer. No occupation, just freedom. And that is a good thing.

I wonder what would happen to those tiny little countries when we finally get smart and pull out our military presence. Why defend nations who aren't our friends to begin with. I'm sure France and Germany are going to find out soon!