hehe... Pmartin, you sure are a funny one!!

So theres what, 20k people injured as collateral damage... which basically means accidentally in the intent to harm the enemy...

Now you look at the people that Saddam was killing... on purpose... cold blooded... or the prisoners his son would shoot to free up prison space....

Personally, if I lived under a dictator like Saddam (thank God I dont), I wouldn't mind having a bomb dropped on me if it was to help take out a military target as well.... I have a few lines I thought about adding to back that up, but I'll wait.

Curtis

BigBadBVD's-

...so you are saying basically that innocent Iraqi families should be grateful their loved are dead....right?

...because they are free from the binds of an evil dictator?

I hope Bushy comes with that argument during his campaign for reelection...

Skywalker, calling the kettle black huh? LOL. Your a joke..

As far as face to face.... Are your panties in a bunch??? Are you displaying your hypocritical tendencies? If you are threatening me my email is on my profile maybe you would like to clarify what you are saying???

It's pretty darn obvious that in this "discussion" forum that there really isn't any discussing going on... Nobody here will agree on anything and don't have to, kind of the point.. People want to start putting up threats and beating their chest behind their keyboard does not accomplish a whole lot. It does prove what kind of person they really are though. Let's not go to war..Peace this and peace that... But, If you disagree with what I say I had better not see you on the street anywhere, better watch your back... I have met many people on this board out fishing and everyone I met seem to be real nice people. Those aren't the one's I have a problem with. There could and I am sure are a lot of psycho's out there that can turn up anywhere at any time. I take my family out fishing quit a lot with me and I don't want one of these people showing up doing who knows what while my daughter and wife are with me. Just because we have different points of view doesn't mean I want to hunt you down and beat my point of view into you. The way I see it is that if some nut case is willing to post threatening comments on a web site where everyone can see it what is that person willing to do when he doesn't put stuff up like that?

So, I will agree to disagree with some of you on this board. I don't hate you for it, heck if we all agreed on everything it sure would be a pretty boring place??

And Sky, I have a lot of friends and family that are liberal leaning people with some of your same views. I can sit face to face with them and hash this out all night with them over a couple of cold one's.... Not a real big deal...Called debating. I don't need to jump up and hit my sister or father-in-law over the head with a bat to get my point across. Maybe you do??

I am done with this thread and will not post any more on it. It was fun, got a little heated but most kept there wits about them.

Tight line's and good luck to all that will be out bangin' those Ho's this weekend.

Rob

Actually PMartian, I think what he posted was more of a question than a threat. IMO..

We lost 3,000 to collateral damage from bin Laden. He feels he's at war with Westerners so, in his mind, it was justified. However, we do not see it this way. We've gone to war with two countries over his collateral damage.

Why should the Iraqis feel any different?

Something that I keep wondering is why didn't the oppressed Iraqis leave? I can't find anything claiming the borders were closed. I haven't read accounts of mass numbers of refugees claiming political asylum. Not like North Korea, or China, or Cuba.

Another thing I question is the living conditions that have been reported by some as being so poor. I can't remember any video news coverage that depicted Iraqis wearing rags or living in mud huts. They all looked rather well dressed and well nourished.

So why didn't they leave if it was so oppressive?

I'm not defending Saddam or his actions in any way. I agree the world is better off with one less dictator.

What I'm pointing out is the rubbish of a "humanitarian" rationale for war the carbal is using now. Relatively speaking, a humanitarian issue did not exist there. Not compared to other parts of Africa.

Exactly, Rob...........I don't think we only have room for just one opinion, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that not everyone shares their opinion.

We could all stand being a little more tolerant of differing opinions, though.

To me, part of the fun of occasionally posting on political discussions is to see different points of view.

P-Martin, while I don't always agree with your posts, I know that we'll get the conservative point of view from you and look forward to your views on posts like this, especially given your service to your country in the previous Gulf War.

I just want to make it clear that PMartian is not the only person here that servied his country.

Pmartin, you have email.

Don't worry, it's not loaded.

Absolutely amazing. One liar can't keep up with what the other is lieing.

Cheney
Rumsfeld

It is damnably insulting that the administration holds the American people in such contempt.

Here's another bombshell:

Saudi/Hamas link

We're fighting the wrong people.

Sky, check your mail..

Alright boys and girls - straight from the horse's mouth (or maybe the tail end ):

NOW what reason do the local neocons have for invading? No weapons, no threat, no connection...

GoHarley, What is interesting is what that sentence doesn't say which is how the f**k did most Americans get that idea? Well, we know that it was the Administration in the buildup to war. What also surprises me is that none of the folks who argue the other side quite vigorously (PMartin and BBVD immediately come to mind - but there are others) have chosen to respond to my post from yesterday. I'm pretty certain that it is not the case that I made my arguement so convincing that everyone now agrees with me I do however think the underlying question is very valid. And that question is: Is removing a head of state as the only reason for going to war a valid use of a Nation's Armed Forces? The ramifications of such a policy are huge and with this admission today and the slim possibility of WMD's being found, I think this is the only reason left. What am I missing?

Guys, the rest of the report most likely reads like the one I read, which speaks of the admins. adherence to the belief that Saddam has direct ties to Al Quaeda (i.e., funding their activities, I presume), but no direct responsiblity for the 9/11 attacks themselves.

I find that distinction a little weak (purposely understated), but it's apparently enough rationalization for them to feel like they're off the hook.

goharley, how could you possibly call 9/11 collateral damage? You said yourself, Bin Ladin declared war on Westerners. He targets American specifically. He killed 3000 Americans.

Bush targeted Saddam Houssein specifically, not Iraq.

Eddie - your posts have hurt the liberals side of this arguement so much you might as well just not post anymore; you are only bringing ridicule to yourself and your allies.
Hey look, I just made a stupid, completely unbased and unsupported remark! Now I can be one of the guys, eh? And I used big words to sound educated... wow.

You may want to read the whole article... the actual facts for your arguments. Here\'s what President Bush was saying.

Curtis

P.S. Looking forward to the response to this one.

I think so many people believe that Iraq was involved because of the superb speech writers in the Bush cabal. I don't remember exactly who, but a noted psychologist pointed out that the words Iraq and 9/11 were used in the same sentences and paragraphs enough times to lead one to believe the context meant they were related. The Bush propoganda machine would make even Joseph Goebbles proud.

After that, I believe what Hermann Goerring said about scaring people into believing they were in danger, and vilifying anyone anti-war comes into play.

As far as using the Armed Forces to remove the head of state, I believe what Bush did was criminal. I believe he should be impeached, and if found guilty he should resign.

Why did we go in the first place? I read the Project for the New American Century and believe the answers are in there. It's more than just coincedence that the authors of that paper are now imployed in the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

I believe the goal is to dominate and colonize the Middle East by first conquering the easiest and most vulnerable country with oil - Iraq. From there it's easy to force our influence on the rest of the Arab countries.

Well, I kind of mis-spoke. I personally don't see it as collateral damage, but bin Laden does. He isn't attacking Americans, per se; he is attacking Americanism and Western ideology. That's why he chose the targets he did. If it was simply a matter of American body count he could have chosen far worse targets. Disney World at spring break for instance.

His targets were political. He was making a statement and 3000 people died in the process. In his mind that's simply collateral damage.

In your referenced article, that part about Cheney on "Meet the Press" describes where the administration believes the connection between Iraq and al Queda exists. You'll notice it also says that most in the intelligence community doubt that belief.

From everything I've read is that bin Laden hates Saddam because of his secular ways. Bin Laden is an extreme fundamentalist and Saddam only invokes religion when it benefits his cause.

If Bush was truly concerned with attacking those responsible for providing aid to terrorists we would be invading Saudi Arabia right now. We already have documentation of the Saudi royal family giving money to bin Laden, and today we learn they're supporting Hamas as well.

Curtis, if you believe that Pres. Bush "targeted Saddam Houssein specifically, not Iraq", can you see the dilemna that presents? I can not think of any war the US has been involved with that had that basis. And that is my problem with what this represents. If the US can go after the head of a sovereign state with no threat of danger from that sovereign state and no evidence of acts of war from that sovereign state against us, can't you see how we have legitimized that action for any other country - possibly against the US itself? The old saw that all is fair in love and war is not true. The leaders have always protected themselves personally against the ravages of war. What would stop N. Korea from saying that Bush is a devil and try to assasinate him with their military? This, I think, was the root of the United Nations reluctance to support the President's actions. There are rules in war - assasination by military falls outside the rules.

In regards to the President's statement today, so there is a connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda but no Iraq involvement in 9/11? Now there's a surprise. Osama Bin Laden's family, being one of the biggest Construction Companies in the Middle East. I expect that we could find a connection betwwen Al Quaeda and:

Saudi Arabian leaders
Pakistani leaders
Iranian leaders
Syrian leaders
Yemeni leaders
German leaders
Spanish leaders
and even the United States leaders

What in the world does a "connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda" mean? What was the quality of that connection, where are the facts of the depth of the connection? When will we get these answers? Personally, I have serious doubts about the credibility of this President and his Administration. I've seen lots of Presidents lie, this is not news. I have never seen a President's lies have the kind of costs that this one has incurred.

Earlier in this thread the question of one's patriotism came up. I recently ran across this and thought it relevant:

hehe

I read that quote in 9th grade and I do love it. Theodore Roosevelt was a REAL mountain man!

Curtis

P.S. Hitting the touttle this saturday, any recent reports?