[george68]

Hey Rob,
>
> Two big topics of discussion here:
>
> 1.) Michael Moore is a moron, okay. His movie is
> obviously one sided, I never said that it was "fair
> and balanced". Maybe it IS a piece of anti
> GW-propaganda, but fine, good, maybe it'll convince
> people not to vote for GW.

I can see that, but honestly it seems like you're
sorta going down the 'typical college liberal/hippie'
path, which I don't want to see you follow. You're
smarter than that John, and I know you don't want to
be as one sided as Moore is. Moore is responsible for
brainwashing a large portion of our society into
thinking all this **** is actually true. Like that
stupid 'bowling for columbine' movie. Oh, sure, he
had some people in it who were pro-gun rights....
rednecks and inbred retards. All he is doing is
pushing his agenda, and honestly, his agenda scares me
MORE than GW's. More on that later.

It just seems
> ri-****ing-diculous that the Vice President is the
> former CEO of Halliburton, which is currently
> handling
> all the oil in Iraq,

Dude. It's politics. Do you think that any of our
recent 'big wigs' have not been related to companies,
ceo's and that none of them do a shitload of things
under the table?!?! ALL OF THEM ARE LIKE THIS.
Which is why I'm stressing to you, who keeps bitching
about Bush, that Kerry is not good either. If you
vote for Kerry PURELY BECAUSE you do not like Bush,
you are perpetuating the ****ing PROBLEM in this
country. It's like this ridiculous ad campaign:

http://www.anybodybutbush.info/

This is ****ing STUPID. Use your head... do you
honestly think that anyone in the world is a better
choice than Bush!??! No! There are people MUCH
worse than him! I will openly admit that it ****ing
irritates the living **** out of me how 'born again
christian' he is, and how 'raw texas loneranger' he
seems..... I'll get into that in a bit more
later.


while GW throws our millitary
> around like pieces on a Risk board, so now we're
> stuck
> policing this country which we, for the first time
> in
> decades, INVADED with NO legitimate cause other than
> having more control over the gas supply for our
> retarded nation of H2-driving,

Stop right ****ing there.

[george68]

Stop right ****ing there. Okay, this is what really
frustrates me. You claim that we have 'no reason' to
be there. I think we DO have a reason to be there...
and I'll explain my reasoning. Backtrack to the end
of the gulf war. Iraq surrenders, and agrees to
comply with policies set by the United Nations.
Everything seems like it's going to be okay. But
what? Saddam immeadiately ignores all the
regulations and policies he JUST AGREED TO FOLLOW.
Sure, he was basically forced to agree to them
(spiritual gun to the head, yeah), but the point is
this ****ing lunatic didn't learn ANYTHING and just
went back to being his 'normal' tyrannical position!
Years pass. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF HIM.
Do you know how many people have died because of this
****ing psycho?! He assumed the presidency of iraq in
79. In 80, he went to war with Iran to gain control
of more oil (please note that he was not planning on
handing over the government of iran back to the people
after the war, he wanted the oil for his OWN
resources). He sent tons of divisions in against
Iran, completely unorganized, effectively sentancing
thousands of his own people to death. In 1982, after
one of his bigger offensives failed, he executed,
repeat: EXECUTED over 300 of his senior officers for
not being competent. After eight years of combat,
and well over one-hundred thousand soldiers dead,
repeat, over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND- DEAD, he finally
agreed to a truce with Iran.

Truce generally means peace correct? In 1988 and
89, he accused Kurdish villages of 'aiding' iran, and
ordered them to be sprayed with chemical weapons.
Another five thousand people, murdered. Not soldiers,
not revolutionaries, but men, women, children.
****ing poisoned by gas. Dead. Entire ****ing
family lines, wiped off the face of the earth because
he 'thought' they were aiding Iran.

Here's some more for you, read the whole article,
PLEASE.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/...l-621193.shtml

400,000 people. Look at that number John. Four.
Hundred. Thousand. DEAD. Murdered. Killed.
Gone.

So let's go back to the end of the gulf war- He
agrees to policies set by the UN... not the 'oil
greedy united states', not someone who has an agenda,
the United Nations. He ignores them. For years,
the UN sends him empty threats. Nothing
materializes. Sure, a few inspectors, whatever. So
then 9/11. War on terror. Sure. Fine. Get Osama.
Everyone can agree to that (except maybe for Michael
Moore, who's been quoted as calling the United States
a 'terrorist nation', and basically saying we deserved
what happened on Sept 11th. Do I agree that the US
does some bad things? Yes. But I have a serious
problem with people attacking citizens. The general
populace usually has almost no say in what their
country does (patriot act?), it'd be liking napalming
Iraqi villages to fight Saddam! So anyway, for
years, the U.N. has done 'jack ****' towards Iraq,
with the exception of empty threats. Who do you
consider the most powerful nation in the world? Which
nation tends to be the 'peacekeeper', and offers aid
to starving nations, and comes to everyone's rescue?
The USA. So for YEARS, nothing has been done about
this ****ing mass murdered.

That ****er is responsible for over a half of million
people DEAD. Uday and his other dumb**** son would
drive around in Military vehicles, point to a girl on
the street, and then their bodyguards would kidnap the
girl off the street in broad daylight, drive them
home, rape them, and ****ing kill them. They were
lucky if they were released alive.

I do not know how Iraq is directly connected to the Al
Queda, but honestly, I don't give a flying ****. GW
took advantage of the war on terror, and turned it
against Iraq.

GOOD.

America should be praised for taking him out of power.
Iraq is still in turmoil, but it's nothing like what
it was, and NOTHING like what Michael ****ing Moore
made it out to be. Here's a quote from an iraqi
about Fahrenheight 9/11, followed by a link:

"Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion and
in his weltanschauung, it�s a place filled with
nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed
Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape,
murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the
citizens in these scenes.
Excuse me is this my Baghdad you talk about ,that
Baghdad I live in for more than 20 year ,with all what
we lived through ,how could we be happy and smiling
,and we got people bored to death ,under ground ,live
,because ,I cant give you a cause ,maybe you can ,you
seems to know more than us ,how? we can be Happy ,and
I got friends executed ,I got bothers in jail ,how? We
can be happy, and we got nothing to eat, how? we can
be happy ,and we got nothing to live for, Iraq was
ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its
population into fearful exile, maybe you have the
answers? "

Read this if you have the time, it's also interesting
to hear an iraqi perspective:

http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/ar...18450965633448

So please John.... please.... don't ****ing tell
me we had 'no reason' to go into Iraq. I can think
of at least 500,000 dead reasons we should have gone
in a long time ago, since it's quite apparent the
United Nations is content to sit around and 'debate'
while people are being slaughtered. Speaking of
which, rent "Black Hawk Down". Yes, it's a shiny
polished Bruckheimer movie, but I think you'll have a
bit more respect for what the milary does and what it
stands for other than taking nude pictures of
prisoners.



white, middle-class,
> christians who sit glued to the TV, being scared
> into
> trusting our government because the terror alert
> just
> got raised to orange, whatever the **** that means,
> by
> Fox news, which might as well be state-run media
> because GW's freakin' COUSIN owns that ****, while
> CNN
> and every other news channel are little more than
> parrots repeating the same unmitigated barrage of
> scare-you-TV when, who knows if they're actually
> reporting the truth or not?

First off, Fox is pretty much the only station that's
remotely consevative. The rest are pretty far left.
So why is it a big deal if there's one station
happens to slant things in his direction? It's quite
obviously out-numbered, so I don't see what the big
deal is. I also despise the typical ignorant
SUV-driving american who's scared to death of leaving
the country, and I also get really f*cking annoyed at
Christians spout off about their hypocritical 'religon
of peace', but honestly, I'm not going to rag on them
for it. I think that part of the problem with the
entire middle east (and world) is that people cannot
respect each other's views on religon/sprituality.
I vehemently disagree with so many things about
Christianity, you know that. I have proofs, reasons,
and pretty much indisputable facts that go against the
very things that Christians believe in.... but you
know something? I don't bother much anymore. And
they bother me a lot less. Why?

[george68]

Organized religon is the 'easy way out' in life.
Many people choose their organized religon of choice,
and whenever they have a difficult question, their
religon answers it. It also (generally) reinforces
positive morals and characteristics, that MAKE SENSE.
Yes, I hate it when Bush talks about his Christian
god, etc... but at the same time, I do not hate the
fact that he is Christian. If you take today's
'watered down' christianity, it is essentially good.
Sure, look closer, and it's hypocritical, ludicrous,
and obviously produced by man... but essentially, it
has good traits. It tells people to be kind to each
other, to respect each other, bla bla bla all that
sunday school crap you've heard before. John, I
consider you an 'old school' type of person. You like
jazz, blues, you like suits, you believe in treating
women correctly, you believe in being a good 'moral'
person and you'd never steal or screw anybody over.
You're old school. And dammit, in today's world of
****ing gangster rap videos, materialistic driven
professionals, 'save the algea' tree huggers, it's
almost relief to find someone who still waves an old
school flag. I disagree with a LOT of what bush says
and does, but I think his character is a lot more
intact than someone like the wishy washy 'both sides
of the issue' Kerry, or the Clinton. I'm not saying
I support him, but I find that what HE stands for,
classic american ideals that you see in all the old
movies, a LOT BETTER CHOICE than the politically
correct, reverse-racist, welfare for everyone, steal
from the rich, give to the poor, a govnerment program
for every ****ing issue on the planet, tax everybody
dry view of the extreme left.


I'm sick of this texas
> christian fundamentalist redneck having control of
> the
> world's largest superpower so he can disgrace the
> name
> of our millitary while fueling the discord in the
> middle east and making the muslim fundamentalists
> hate
> our nation and target our nation even more.

News flash: Muslim fundamentalists have always hated
our nation, long before we were even alive. Al Queda
attacked the USA 'THREE TIMES" while Clinton was in
office. They bombed a US Embassy, they attempted to
blow up the WTC with a van filled with explosives, and
they sent a boat filled with explosives against the
USS Cole while it was in port. What did Clinton do
about it? Nothing.


He
> actually called this convenient, never-ending so
> called war on terror a "crusade" before the white
> house ventriloquists realized never to let GW on TV
> without a teleprompter feeding him every word while
> he
> stares blankly at the camera like the puppet he is.

Again, the religon thing. Yes, I don't like
Christianity spewing from his every speech... but
honestly, if it's a choice between a bunch of ****ing
lunatics with pipe bombs that believe blowing up a
building filled with thousands of civilians (of all
races and beliefs) will help their cause all the while
screaming 'yi-yi-yi-yi-yi'!

VS

Average american christian

I think I'd rather be with the christian. Do you
think that you could rationalize or discuss anything
with these fundamentalists? No-way. They'd ****ing
chop off your head with a big sword on TV before they
listened to you. They are the enemies of reason and
logic John. They have no real plan, other than to
destroy America. They will ****ing kill you purely
because you were born here, no judge, no jury.

> Maybe Kerry/Edwards might as well tattoo "PUPPET B"
> on
> their foreheards, but at least the hand reaching up
> their asses to move their mouthes isn't a three
> letter
> word starting with O and ending with IL.

Enough with this. Please explain why you think oil
was the reason for going into Iraq. Let's back
track: how much was gas at the pump BEFORE 9/11.
And today? Gee, it's more expensive. By quite a huge
margin. If you think that we're in their for oil, I
have a feeling you've had the wool pulled over your
eyes by idiots like M. Moore. Are we stealing the
oil? Is oil cheaper? No. The oil is owned by the
nation of Iraq, and instead of it feeding a raping
murdering tyrant, it's now goign to fuel one of the
first democracies in the middle east (excluding
israel).

Until we
> have a president who realizes that the way to defeat
> muslim fundamentalism isn't by shooting at it like a
> bunch of pickup-truck driving hillbillies, we're
> only
> going to stir up more bad blood.

So how exactly DO you beat a muslim fundamentalist?
Seems to me you cannot possibly argue or reason with
one, and if you get close enough they'll just slit
your ****ing throat for not agreeing with them. In
fact, they'll do more than that. They'll organize
people to murder thousands of people, cold blooded,
because they're different than themselves. So how
are you going to stop them? How is Kerry going to
stop them? I haven't heard any gems from him on how
to stop these religous lunatics.

[george68]

It's sure not
> going
> to be GW who makes this enlightened switch in
> viewpoint, and I'd bet another 9/11 that a third
> party
> candidate isn't going to win the next election, so
> my
> vote goes to Kerry. Yeah, that's right, but at
> least
> I know I'm voting for Puppet B, because he's the
> only
> actually possible improvement from what we have now,

How? Our last 'liberal' president did jack ****
while our country was attacked three times. While the
U.N. was sitting around with all their thumbs
collectively up their asses, Clinton did nothing to
stop the atrocities going on in Iraq. If you have
a bunch of people who aren't going to listen to you,
and are willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill
you, do you want a redneck with a shotgun protecting
you, or a white collared CEO armed with politically
correct 'feel good' policies? I fail to see how
Kerry would be any better at defusing the fanatics in
the middle east, but maybe I missed some great idea he
had. Care to enlighten me?

> maybe he'll realize that until we stop
> fundamentalism
> at its roots,

HOW?!?!?!??!

(personally I think converting a nation that's been
raped and murdered for the last 20 years into a
peaceful succesful nation of democracy seems like a
good idea)

there will always be an army of
> brainwashed islamic millitants who've had 15 years
> of
> religious schooling without a single math or science
> class ever. Woohoo, go Kerry/Edwards!!! Move it
> with
> your mind, oh yeah! No more "axis-of-evil" no more
> alleged "weapons-of-mass-destruction" no more dreck
> for fox news to shovel down the throats of an
> all-too
> willing population. Spare me this "fair and
> balanced"
> ********!

Like Michael Moore's fair and balanced documentaries?

>
> > The truth is, NEITHER SIDE IS GOOD. Lately I've
> > noticed you've been saying things about how evil
> > Bush
> > is, etc. Fine. But realize the left is JUST as
> > evil/wrong.
> -Yes, they both suck, but if the left ISN'T
> christian-fundamentalist, that's an improvement.

In that specific area, yes, I would agree the general
lack of religon of the left is a good thing. As for
the reverse discrimination, steal from the rich and
give to the poor, politically-correct don't do
anything or you'll offend someone stance, I'd say
that's not an improvement at all. And BOTH sides want
to reduce our freedoms to 'improve our safety'. You
cannot win if you play the game by the 2 party rules.


> The
> war we're fighting is really against extremism...
> fundamentalism. And if GW gets re-elected, then we
> still have a christian fundamentalist fighting
> against
> muslim fundamentalism using the world's largest
> millitary against them, with little more brains or
> reverence than a 7-year old playing with cheap green
> plastic army tanks against the tan colored ones.

Dude. Look at what you just said. You said the GW
is a fundamentalist. Okay. I agree. Then you
mention Muslim Fundamentalists. Alright, they're
both fundamentalists, they both belive in their
respective religons.... but there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE
gigantic ****ign difference between our president
(complete with checks and balances and rules and laws
and free-press and etc etc etc) and a bunch of 'yi yi
yi yi yi yi yi' extremists who want to kill you
because you happen to have been born in a different
part of the world!!! Saddam freaking killed
thousands of people! Osama killed thousands more
just because we didn't think like he did!!!

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Using your comparison
techniques, I could say that a paper airplane is the
same as a 747! The fact that you're even comparing
the two is completely ridiculous John! Think about
it! Who would you rather be stuck in a room with?!?!
Bush or Osama?!?!?! ****ing christ man! You're
sounding as nutty as Moore himself!
>
> > The two parties are part of the same
> > machine, the same system that keeps things from
> > changing. They're different sides on the same
> cage
> > that keeps this country from being what it was
> > designed to be.
> -I agree. But like you said, everything each party
> does is a mirror opposite of what the other one is
> doing. Right now the republicans have a stupid,
> religious fanatic in office. I really want to elect
> the opposite of that.

Kerry is not the opposite of Bush. He's catholic,
he's pro-life, and he is religous. Not as much,
true, but he is not an opposite. Vote Third Party.
Help throw a wrench in the machine. Voting for
either is perpetuating the stupidity.

[gerbnl]

****!

just ****!

[Troll]

We've been through the history many times in the political forum and I think we've arrived at one version of the facts that most of us agree on. This is the first time I've seen you in these parts, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's just say your version of history is a little wobbly!

Originally posted by george68:
Iraq surrenders, and agrees to
comply with policies set by the United Nations.
Everything seems like it's going to be okay. But
what? Saddam immeadiately ignores all the
regulations and policies he JUST AGREED TO FOLLOW.

Wrong. UN inspectors spent over 4 years in Iraq destroying WMD that Saddam had declared. Then the USA thought it would be a good idea to have their intelligence agents infiltrate the UN inspectors and use them as a cover to spy on Iraq. And the American spies weren't very good at their job so they got bust. Repeatedly. In one incident, they were caught red handed having installed the "Baghdad Black Box." On the back of the US espionnage, Saddam decided that cooperating fully with the inspectors wasn't a smart move. The UN complained to the US but what could they do? The inspectors got frustrated and decided to go home. In their report the American who headed the inspectors said that more than 95% of Iraq's WMD had been destroyed and that they suspected that more existed although they had no real proof that they did.

Originally posted by george68:
In 80, he went to war with Iran to gain control
of more oil (please note that he was not planning on
handing over the government of iran back to the people
after the war, he wanted the oil for his OWN
resources). He sent tons of divisions in against
Iran, completely unorganized, effectively sentancing
thousands of his own people to death. In 1982, after
one of his bigger offensives failed, he executed,
repeat: EXECUTED over 300 of his senior officers for
not being competent. After eight years of combat,
and well over one-hundred thousand soldiers dead,
repeat, over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND- DEAD, he finally
agreed to a truce with Iran.

These things almost certainly happened. The CIA thinks Hallabja was a badly aimed Iranian shell, but it's pretty irrelevant. Even if he didn't use chemical weapons on Kurds, he was reasonably efficient at killing them with conventional weapons. In that respect, Saddam had a lot in common with the US's ally, Turkey, which still has a penchant for committing genocide against Turks. Thing is, a lot of countries don't mind doing business with genocidal maniacs. The US has done lots of business with such people in the past: Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and many others. There are other national security and other considerations that have to be balanced.

You're probably aware of the fact that the Cold War was being fought during the 80's and that lots of bad people all over the war got money and guns from the USA and the USSR to fight their war for them. Even some reasonably nice people got money and guns to fight wars for those two powers. Saddam, like Osama, got HIS money from the United States. Iran was funded by the USSR. When Saddam wass murdering 400,000 people, gassing Kurds and killing Iranians, the USA was supporting him. They were giving him the guns and the gas, supplying him with satellite images of his Iranians and shaking his hand. If you're going to indict Saddam for those acts, then you might as well send the cops round to Donald Rumsfeld's place. The events that the USA approved of and sponsored in the 80's cannot be the same ones that justify the war in 2003? Those events, ghastly as they were, took place in a context that you cannot ignore.

The UN NEVER EVER proposed or sanctioned an invasion of Iraq for humanitarian purposes because no one cared about the humanitarian disaster and because there were much more serious humanitarian disasters happening all over the world. The USA never proposed such a resolution either. When the US invaded Iraq, Saddam was actually better behaved than he had ever been and was far better behaved than at least 10 other dictators around the world (none of whom have been invaded since). The reason the US invaded Iraq was not because Saddam Hussein was a monster. The reason it invaded was because Saddam was a monster who had WMD ... or so they thought. They thought Saddam was a bigger danger than Robert Mugabe because they thought he had dangerous weapons. They got it wrong and one would think that the buck stops somewhere. 10,000 innocent people died because of this mistake and in our shared Western culture, no matter how bad anyone else is, no matter how honest the mistake was, killing innocent people is no condoned. For that reason alone, Bush, like Blair should, at the very least, be voted out.

Originally posted by george68:
So please John.... please.... don't ****ing tell
me we had 'no reason' to go into Iraq. I can think
of at least 500,000 dead reasons we should have gone
in a long time ago, since it's quite apparent the
United Nations is content to sit around and 'debate'
while people are being slaughtered.

I agree with you on this point. I think that during the 80's and even during the early part of 2000 there were humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq. I would have liked to see the US invade Iraq during the early 80's when Saddam was being a complete bastard. Wouldn't happen though, because Saddam was "our bastard" at the time.

Blaming the lack of action on the UN is hogwash since the UN is just a club. Your Racing Striped Car Club can't go and beat up the guys who are keying your cars can it? Only the MEMBERS of the club can do that. The members of the UN (and the USA is one of them) didn't do anything concrete about Iraq. Bush Snr had the opportunity and he thought it was not a good idea to take Saddam out.

Originally posted by george68:
Speaking of
which, rent "Black Hawk Down". Yes, it's a shiny
polished Bruckheimer movie, but I think you'll have a
bit more respect for what the milary does and what it
stands for other than taking nude pictures of
prisoners.

... other than raping men and women, torturing them to death, murdering them in cold blood. Don't try and play down what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo (not to mention Asia where little girls have been raped by US soldiers). These kinds of thing happen, I agree. There are scum in any organisation, but let's not pretend that it didn't happen. Sadistic psychopaths employed by the US Army have committed absolutely attrocious, ghastly, life-ruining acts.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by george68:
Kerry is not the opposite of Bush. He's catholic,
he's pro-life, and he is religous. Not as much,
true, but he is not an opposite. Vote Third Party.
Help throw a wrench in the machine. Voting for
either is perpetuating the stupidity.

I'll tell you, man, I really wish Dean had endorsed Nader, for precisely that reason. I doubt Nader would have won even with Dean's endorsement, but he would easily have gotten the 5% of the popular vote needed for federal matching funds in 2008. It's a short-term sacrifice, yes -Kerry couldn't win either, not without Dean's endorsement- but the ability to actually give a third party some real teeth is a long-term gain that would be more than worth it.

Before there can be any real change in the way this country is run, we've got to get off the two-party merry-go-round. Kerry is basically some kind of demented political love child of Clinton and Bush, inheriting many of the worst traits of both and few if any of the best traits of either one. People automatically assume this is better than Bush because he isn't Bush (pretty much the only thing you need to be better than him in the minds of many modern liberals), but I'm not so sure that's the case. Different, yes, but I doubt he's really any better. Too many similarities, not enough differences, and the few differences they have are in all the wrong places.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Before there can be any real change in the way this country is run, we've got to get off the two-party merry-go-round.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not just an American thing either. It seems to be an inherent flaw with the way democracy has been implemented in most countries in the world. Even in countries where they have compulsory voting, it seems to turn into a two horse contest. Not sure how you change this but I restricting funding, access to the media and developing electronic voter systems would be a good place to start.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
I agree wholeheartedly. It's not just an American thing either. It seems to be an inherent flaw with the way democracy has been implemented in most countries in the world. Even in countries where they have compulsory voting, it seems to turn into a two horse contest. Not sure how you change this but I restricting funding, access to the media and developing electronic voter systems would be a good place to start.

You can't restrict media access; freedom of the press and all that. Restricting funding has to be very carefully done, because of free speech. As for electronic voting systems, the concept is good but the world has yet to see a rock-solid, reliable and tamper-proof implementation.

[BlackGriffen]

Osama bin Laden wants you to vote for Bush because he would hate to lose al Qaeda's best recruiting tactic.

IOW, if you vote for Bush, the terrorists have won.</half sarcastic remarks>



Now, in all seriousness, the issue at hand. Voting to reelect Bush does nothing. Hell, it encourages future Presidents to be like him because he was "successful." Making him one term, however, discourages that. If Kerry has those bad qualities, too, then we should make him a one term President. The symbolic "head on a pike" of past politicians is the only thing future politicians understand. It's how the NRA became influential.

BlackGriffen

[george68]

Originally posted by Troll:
This is the first time I've seen you in these parts, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Considering I'm basically the primary reason this forum was created, I don't really care if you give me the benefit of the doubt or not.

I'll respond later.

- Rob

[olePigeon]

While you guys are squabling over Iraq and their "WMDs," thought you should know that North Korea has ICBMs capable of reaching U.S. soil... and they're pointed at us.

But I guess Iraq was more important. You know, with all those SCUD missiles.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
North Korea has ICBMs capable of reaching U.S. soil... and they're pointed at us.

More specifically, pointed at me.

[Spliffdaddy]

So what does Iceland plan to do about it?

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
While you guys are squabling over Iraq and their "WMDs," thought you should know that North Korea has ICBMs capable of reaching U.S. soil... and they're pointed at us.

But I guess Iraq was more important. You know, with all those SCUD missiles.

SCUD hits Israel. Nuke from Israel hits Iraq. All hell breaks loose.

North Korea is a non issue because they've got China on their back. And China wants to be on our friends (READ: Trading partners).

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Before there can be any real change in the way this country is run, we've got to get off the two-party merry-go-round.

The framers of the US Constitution sought through various constitutional arrangements, such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and a indirect election of the president by an electoral college, as a way to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions. It wasn't until the early 1800's that political parties really began organizing on a national basis. They did so as the requirements to vote became fewer, leading to a larger electorate, and thus a way of mobilizing the masses was required, or so someone thought. That, I don't think, was something the founding fathers had foreseen as being required, nor would have approved of anyways.

Without going into a long history lesson and a lot of details, the idea shouldn't be about creating more national political parties as some would suggest. It should be more about removing the [R], [D], [I], or whatever behind any politician's name who serves in the nation's capital. Political party affiliation is OK for state and local legislators, but not for national legislators as it leads to national power struggles. I think that is more along the lines as to what the founding fathers had in mind for us.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
SCUD hits Israel. Nuke from Israel hits Iraq. All hell breaks loose.

I believe he was being sarcastic.

Iraq had no SCUD missiles when it was invaded last year.

The handful of missiles it fired that were reported as SCUDs in the initial frenzy turned out to be short-range missiles compliant with the UN limitations.

-s*

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
SCUD hits Israel. Nuke from Israel hits Iraq. All hell breaks loose.

Iraq wouldn't attack Israel in the first place. And even if they did, Israel doesn't have launch capabilities. If Israel loaded them into planes (Israel doesn't have stealth bombers) the Iraqis could shoot them down relatively easily. Iraqis even managed to cut down a few of our F-117As. And assuming Israel actually did drop a nuke on Iraq, all hell wouldn't break loose because Iraq can't retaliate and the U.S. wouldn't nuke Israel.

North Korea is a non issue because they've got China on their back. And China wants to be on our friends (READ: Trading partners).

That's a stupid reason. North Korea knows that if they launch a nuke at us they can expect immediate retaliation. We have subs over there, we can reach North Korea in literally minutes. Wether or not it's us or China makes no difference to North Korea.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The hypocrisy of the left is boundless.

I can just see it now. The left rants and raves today about North Korea having WMDs, and the need to attack them, just like it once ranted and raved about Iraq.

Now just imagine that Bush were to ACTUALLY take ACTION against NK and not just jaw-flap like a Democrat about it.

Instantly we'd see the entire left scurrying like rats away from their previous phony 'tough-talk' about taking on NK, and donning the peacenik cheap sheep suit again:

�WAHHHHHHH!!!!! NK doesn�t have WMDs! Bush lied!�

�WMDs�? WHAT WMDs??�

�Bush should have asked the UN!�

"B-but France doesn't like it!"

�Awww who cares about North Korea anyway?! They�re no threat to us or anyone else! Just a tiny little harmless nation! Why don�t you attack China (or insert whatever changed-goal post here)!?!! THAT�S the real threat�!!!�

�We might have said they needed to be stopped, but that doesn�t mean ACTUALLY DO IT! C�mon! It was just TALKING POINTS and a false goal post to trash talk the Iraq war!�

�Wahhhh! We had them contained behind the 38th parallel and everything was WONDERFUL! But Bush just wanted to start a war�!�

�We never said attack North Korea! Warmonger!�

�Boo hoo! X number of people have died because Bush wanted to attack North Korea! (Ignoring x number of people who die every day there at the hands of a repressive regime)�

�Oh boo hoo! North Koreans are worse off now that they�re liberated than before! It�s all Bush�s fault! It�s a quagmire! We should have negotiated!�

�Bring back Kim Jong il! At least in his system of routine torture, pillage, starvation and death the North Koreans had STABILITY!�

Sheesh. We all know that the above is EXACLY what would happen. Get off the constant Democrat tactic of changing the goal posts.

[george68]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Snip

I want to buy you a beer.

- Rob

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sheesh. We all know that the above is EXACLY what would happen. Get off the constant Democrat tactic of changing the goal posts.

I'm not a liberal or a Democrat. I'm also not single minded by establishing goal posts in the middle of the mine field, then telling kids it's recess.

[coolmacdude]

I think both parties need to undergo major reform.

That said, the party that comes out and gives us the straight dope on various goings on that are important to me will get my vote for many years.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The hypocrisy of people is boundless.

Fixed.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I believe he was being sarcastic.

Iraq had no SCUD missiles when it was invaded last year.

The handful of missiles it fired that were reported as SCUDs in the initial frenzy turned out to be short-range missiles compliant with the UN limitations.

-s*

If he was being sarcastic, I didn't pick up on it.

Correct, we haven't found any SCUDs since the invasion, but there's a lot of time in between the invasion and the last Gulf War that he could have done it.

I'd like to see some documentation on this.

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Iraq wouldn't attack Israel in the first place. And even if they did, Israel doesn't have launch capabilities. If Israel loaded them into planes (Israel doesn't have stealth bombers) the Iraqis could shoot them down relatively easily. Iraqis even managed to cut down a few of our F-117As. And assuming Israel actually did drop a nuke on Iraq, all hell wouldn't break loose because Iraq can't retaliate and the U.S. wouldn't nuke Israel.

I do believe Iraq DID send a few SCUDs to Israel. That's why Bush Sr gave the Israeli's quite a few Raytheon produced Patriot missile batteries to knock them out in mid flight.

Israel doesn't have launch capability, but they have jets, pilots, and nukes ready to be deployed in an hour's notice, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

And to suppose that the Iraqi's had the military intelligence to be able to thwart a nuclear attack is just plain stupid.

Oh, and if ANY nuke gets detonated in the Middle East from a western power, you can expect there to be some major chaos to insue. Mark my words RIGHT now.

[Saad]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Iraq wouldn't attack Israel in the first place. And even if they did, Israel doesn't have launch capabilities. If Israel loaded them into planes (Israel doesn't have stealth bombers) the Iraqis could shoot them down relatively easily. Iraqis even managed to cut down a few of our F-117As. And assuming Israel actually did drop a nuke on Iraq, all hell wouldn't break loose because Iraq can't retaliate and the U.S. wouldn't nuke Israel.

I would imagine that Israel would be very hesitant to use nuclear weapons, as they deny claims that have such weapons.

[Saad]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
While you guys are squabling over Iraq and their "WMDs," thought you should know that North Korea has ICBMs capable of reaching U.S. soil... and they're pointed at us.

But I guess Iraq was more important. You know, with all those SCUD missiles.

Korea has actually tested missiles capable of reaching Japan, by firing missiles over Japan. North Korea seems far larger a threat than Iraq.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Saad:
I would imagine that Israel would be very hesitant to use nuclear weapons, as they deny claims that have such weapons.

They have them. Their finger has been on the button quite a long time.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Saad:
I would imagine that Israel would be very hesitant to use nuclear weapons, as they deny claims that have such weapons.

No doubt, but it's hard to say you don't have nukes when you're testing them. Can't miss a 5 mile high mushroom cloud.

Originally posted by Saad:
Korea has actually tested missiles capable of reaching Japan, by firing missiles over Japan. North Korea seems far larger a threat than Iraq.

Bingo.

[george68]

Originally posted by Saad:
I would imagine that Israel would be very hesitant to use nuclear weapons, as they deny claims that have such weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Anyway, this wasn't the point. The point is that BOTH parties are f*cking stupid, and if you HONESTLY believe EITHER is going to change your life drastically, you've been brainwashed.

- Rob

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Saad:
Korea has actually tested missiles capable of reaching Japan, by firing missiles over Japan. North Korea seems far larger a threat than Iraq.

To Japan, yes.

EDIT: If Japan wants to take the lead here in removing the threat NK poses to them through a preemptive strike, liberating the NK people from tyranny, and seeing NK will have free and open elections, then I have no doubt that we would be among the "Coalition of the willing".