Finally back!

[plywoody]

Re: Finally back!

Most of what I predicted was wrong? Really?<br />What was that?<br /><br />I predicted a short war. It was.<br /><br />I stated that Saddam was no threat to any of his neighbor countries. From the defense he put up, how can you possibly say he was an "imminent threat"<br /><br /> Actually, I did think that he probably had some WMD, but there were no ties to 9/11, and no nuclear program. I guess I was wrong on the WMD part. Although I take from your argument that the fact that we cannot find them is proof that they had them. Interesting logic.<br /><br />Or they were so clever at hiding them that we can't find them. All from a regime that hid a billion dollars in cash in the walls of a building that we found right away. Seems they were only selectively clever, I guess.<br /><br />But the fundamental reasons for this war have so far proven to be false. the only conclusion to be drawn from this is either our intelligence gathering is terribly flawed, or they simply lied. Which is it?<br /><br />And now we want to castigate those countries that did not join us in this fight against things that did not exist. Awesome arrogance is a dangerous coupled with incredible incompetence.<br /><br />And I predicted a fierce tribal stuggle for leadership of Iraq, and we just had a million Shiites on a religious march shouting down to America. With Rumsfeld announcing we will not allow a Islamic governmet in Iraq...<br /><br />And it is one thing to decide not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD. It is quite another to organize a campaign with media outlets and one thing or another to attempt to destroy them. And yes, you probably have a right to do it in this country. That does not change the fact that it is dispicable, and anti-American.<br /><br />But the situation in Iraq ain't over yet, even if Fox News quits reporting about it, I am afraid.<br /><br />And how long is this president going to be able to blame the former administration for the economy, I wonder? Forever? <br /><br />Whatever happened to that personal responsibility that you folks trumpet so much.

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: Finally back!

Plywood, how come u are switching boats in mid<br />stream. You had earlier indicated any military <br />strike or War in Iraq would result in an escalated<br />conflict in the middle east. And that you had <br />fortified your basement to counter any immanent<br />homeland security problem.The relationship<br />between Iraq and their sponsorship of terrorism<br />is as plain and evident as the nose on your face.<br />Iraq's people need the order of law enforced<br />even if they are Muslim , Christian or Alien.<br />The fundamental reason for the war is not lost.<br />It is the same today as it was before the war.You<br />may chose to see it it clearly, or possibly you <br />may not be able to see clearly, and others may <br />have to interpret for you.

 

[LadyFish]

Re: Finally back!

I have a question for Plywoody:<br /><br />Why didn't Saddam, if he DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction, fully cooperate and demonstrate he didn't have them? He had it in his power to do so, as is revealed by the scraps that soldiers and Iraqis and journalists have gathered from the voluminous records his murderous regime maintained. And that is what the treaty ending the first Gulf War required.<br /><br />Why did he play games - bury trucks in the desert that had all the appearance of being mobile weapons labs, have his military officers move material out the back door of facilities as United Nations inspectors came in the front, have his scientists demand meetings with inspectors tape recorded, rebuild facilities that previously had been used for building chemical weapons, import banned piping material that might be converted to making bombs, have missiles that exceeded their legal range, have drones capable of delivering chemical weapons, have shell casings and missiles capable of doing the same, have manuals and equipment for his troops to fight in a chemical or biological hazard environment, have vaccines for troops to counter a chemical weapon attack, have his scientists take their papers on even legal research home so inspectors might not question it?

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

I can answer that one, Ladyfish. Dubya made it very clear, for a very long time, he was going to invade Iraq. With aggressive neighbors, Saddam wasn't about to reveal his total weakness to the world. He had too many enemies to take that chance.<br />Plywoody wasn't saying Saddam was OK, and he hasn't been changing his argument. What he's been trying to point out is this administration has been playing games with the truth to achieve their ends without public input. The writing was on the wall when Cheney set national energy policy with big energy companies behind closed doors, and it continues with the shifting rationales for invading Iraq. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't think we're going to find weapons of mass destruction, and I'm pretty convinced the administration doesn't expect to find them either.<br />There is absolutely nothing unAmerican about questioning the words and actions of our public servants. It would be unAmerican not to. Welcome back Plywoody. You're an important voice on this forum.

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water! Ya'll will will construct an entire matrix alternative reality based on your distrust of the President. There really is a danger that the President is confronting. It's real, and they know now that were going to fight em.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Finally back!

All I can say is that if you are a true AMERICAN, you stand behind your commander in chief, right or wrong.<br /><br />You don't go to another country and bad mouth the President or the Administration.<br /><br />The dipsy chips were wrong when they said it and now must lay in the bed they have made.<br /><br />If you don't like our country, then move.<br /><br />Maybe France and you can eat cheese and wave the white flag with Chiraq.

 

[DJ]

Re: Finally back!

I believe the reason that the liberals do not trust our current administration is because we've just gone through one that NO ONE could trust. A bona fide, caught in the act, dis barred, impeached, liar and cheat.<br /><br />The last administration left a trail of bodies and indictments.<br /><br />You might be able to tell that I had no love for the last president, however I did back his decisions-especially the military ones. It's just to bad he didn't back his own decisions. His loathing of the military got some people killed that shouldn't have been sent where they were.<br /><br />The reason that Cheney meet with oil industry exec's. is because they know what the (*&^ they are talking about. Would we feel better if he had meet with PETA, Greenpeace and Hillary? Remember it was her that tried to hijack 1/7 of the entire US economy with her bogus health plan. All behind closed doors to boot. The ideas that came out of that little planning session were nothing short of chilling.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Finally back!

hello plywoody<br /><br />i'm staying out of this one. i only post because its becoming very critical of many things. i don't like criticism. call it whatever you want. i may/may not join in on other topics that lead to this kind of banter. to me, debating means trying to learn from each other, not simply brandishing your own hardheaded ideal beliefs... nuff sed<br /><br />otherwise, i think sharing ideas is a good thing.<br /><br />may god bless you

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

I for one am not mad at Plywoody, and am trying to hit hard on the points. If you all are worn out from this , I can get back to setting the timing on the V4. Gotta laugh at yourselves sometimes, we're getting all worked up at a COMPUTER SCREEN.

 

[plywoody]

Re: Finally back!

Thanks, Blacksmoke. It is nice to see someone else on this board that thinks objectively.<br /><br />As far as supporting our commander in chief right or wrong, I find that an absolutely amazing statement that I could not possibly fathom. Ever.<br /><br />I did not support President Johnson when he chose to escalate the war in Viet Nam. I did not support Nixon when he furthered that mistake with even more mistakes, and I absolutely did not support him when he attempted to corrupt the election process with Watergate.<br /><br />I was not overly impressed with Carter, nor with Reagan, but they both inherited a country in difficult times economically, with stagnant growth and double digit interest rates. Reagan did some good things and some bad things, and I am kind of ambivalent toward him. I don't like much of what he did, but I understand why he did it.<br /><br />I thought George HW Bush was an ok President, and I supported the initial war on Iraq, and I think he truly tried to do the right things.<br /><br />I really think that Clinton could have been the greatest president since FDR, and in a lot of ways, he was. I am amazed that you would suggest that a president be held above criticism, when your hero Rush Limbaugh would open each and every program with "America held hostage-day number such and such in the Clinton presidency"<br /><br />But economically, Clinton and his team were geniuses--he promoted world trade, a tax rate that brought us back to a surplus budget, and a military that was dramatically technologically advanced, with not as much dependence on expensive troops and such...<br /><br />And all the while dealing with a group concentrating on digging up, and making up where they could not find it, any amount of dirt they possibly could with a seemingly unlimited budget..<br /><br />What I will never understand from Clinton, with all of this unrelenting vicous attacks by his sworn enemies, that he would take up with Monica. Now I frankly don't really care what kind of sex life he, or anyone else except perhaps myself, has, but in his position, I just felt that this was, from an otherwise brilliant man, incredibly stupid.<br /><br />The notion, however, now after all these unrelenting attacks waged against Clinton, which I am sure were supported by you, that somehow our president now should be above criticism I just find absolutely amazing and not a little hypocritical.<br /><br />And I find that George W's is a government by cliche and special interest groups with lots of available campaign money, with which they are getting handsomely repaid as we watch.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Finally back!

that's cool. i can understand your feelings with it. good post thanx<br /><br />i think we have as strong of a "group" in white house as clinton had, though. they just don't come across as 'touchy-feely'. very different for sure. a very refreshing change for me, and i like it. could it be done better? probably. but i think they're doing what's needed right now.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Finally back!

plywoody wrote:<br />"I stated that Saddam was no threat to any of his neighbor countries. From the defense he put up, how can you possibly say he was an "imminent threat"<br /><br />Twice in the last 15 years he's invaded his nieghbors. He was an imminent threat to them. He was an imminent threat to Israel when he launch scuds on them 10 years ago. He was an imminent threat to government he overthrough. He was an imminent threat to his own dissenting family. He was an imminent threat to his own people. He was an imminent threat to anyone he chose to be! At any time he could have chosen to be an imminent threat to US.<br /><br />"Although I take from your argument that the fact that we cannot find them is proof that they had them."<br /><br />No! It's the fact he has had them. He's used them on his nieghbors and his own people....remember?<br />It's the fact that he's failed to prove to anyone that he's destroyed them. It's the fact that we've only started to discover them.<br /><br />"But the fundamental reasons for this war have so far proven to be false. the only conclusion to be drawn from this is either our intelligence gathering is terribly flawed, or they simply lied. Which is it?"<br /><br />Not so fast plywoody. The world doesn't run at your speed. Your too quick to judgement.<br /><br />"And now we want to castigate those countries that did not join us in this fight against things that did not exist."<br /><br />I don't think this is happening. Do we have issues with countries that didn't live up to UN mandated sanctions since the gulf war. Sure, if the sanctions were enforced, it's likely we wouldn't have to do this war at all.<br /><br />"And I predicted a fierce tribal stuggle for leadership of Iraq, and we just had a million Shiites on a religious march shouting down to America. With Rumsfeld announcing we will not allow a Islamic governmet in Iraq."<br /><br />A million? <br />I heard Rumsfeld say that we wouldn't allow radical or extremist Islamics to be the government. He also said that the government would have to represent all factions and people of Iraq.<br />Here's what confuses me plywoody.<br />We kicked a bad evil person out of power when no one else would. We did this with unpresidented skill to save innocent life. We have a proven track record of helping countries we liberate. The governments that we helped set up after past wars are elected by all religions and all the people of that country. This would include minority religions, minority peoples. This even includes female citizens of those countries. <br />Why, oh why do you have a problem with this?<br /><br />Two thousand or a million! of those that were be chanting down with America isn't representative of the majority or minority in that country. You didn't see a single Kurd, Christian, Hebrew, Atheist, Black, Asian or Female face in the crowd!<br /><br />"And it is one thing to decide not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD. It is quite another to organize a campaign with media outlets and one thing or another to attempt to destroy them. And yes, you probably have a right to do it in this country. That does not change the fact that it is dispicable, and anti-American."<br /><br />This simply isn't true. People felt that what the Dixie Chicks did was dispicable and anti American, thats all.<br /><br />"And how long is this president going to be able to blame the former administration for the economy, I wonder? Forever?"<br /><br />What are you talking about? Who the heck would blame anyone for the economy we had during the last adminisration? I've never heard this administration blame the past one for the economy that we had before 9/11. <br />Mandatory minimum wages, retro-active taxes and a socialist form of government aren't part of this current administrations plan, that's all..... <br /><br />"Whatever happened to that personal responsibility that you folks trumpet so much."<br /><br />This is pretty left field here. <br />Lets try to stay focused.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Finally back!

plywoody wrote;<br />"Thanks, Blacksmoke. It is nice to see someone else on this board that thinks objectively."<br /><br />Objective thinking means to agree with you?<br />That would mean you're "oxymoronically objective" then? <br /><br />"As far as supporting our commander in chief right or wrong, I find that an absolutely amazing statement that I could not possibly fathom."<br /><br />We'll agree here. He's the commander in chief of the military. To me he's an elected official that works for me. The people are his commander in chief.<br /><br /> "Clinton and his team were geniuses"<br /><br />The legacy that your beloved Clinton left is exactly what you hate so much in the political backlash of the last presidential election. And in the most recent election. And very possibly in the next! Your beloved Clinton has proven to have done the liberal cause much damage. <br />He, his wife aren't even done yet! <br />Go Clinton! Yeah!<br /><br />"The notion, however, now after all these unrelenting attacks waged against Clinton, which I am sure were supported by you, that somehow our president now should be above criticism I just find absolutely amazing and not a little hypocritical."<br /><br />It's not hypocritical. It's just that the vast majority approve of the war in Iraq. The vast majority approve of Bush's job performance. The vast majority believe he has strong convictions and can be trusted with the country.<br />Clinton did nothing meaningful against the same enemies that attacked US during this administration. And the vast majority shudder to think what Clinton/Gore would be doing now since 9/11, if still in office.<br /><br />This is all simple really. It isn't that some aren't being objective, or reasonable, or not trumpeting responsability, or are being despicable and UnAmerican. It's simply that your view is a minority view. Here on this forum and abroad. <br />And your extremely guilty of calling the kettle black.<br /><br />Sincerely enjoyed this. Equally sincere in telling you that your views are respected by me.<br />Although I admit, I'll always hold your support for a liar , cheat, and sneak (Clinton) and your predominently cynical views suspect.

 

[rudeafrican]

Re: Finally back!

Hi skinnywater,<br /><br />As an outsider, allow me to point out an inacuracy in you train of thought:<br /><br />----------------------------------------------<br /><br />"It's simply that your view is a minority view. Here on this forum and abroad. <br />And your extremely guilty of calling the kettle black."<br /> -----------------------------------------------<br />I have recently returned from an extensive business trip abroad and believe me, where-ever I went the sentiment is very much against the war. It used to be very supportive but now that no weapons of mass destruction has been found and the rebuilding of Iraq contracts are all going to government buddies, people are sitting back and are thinking that maybe GW was too hasty to go to war and maybe he had other motives.

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

Spinner, You've got it mixed up. If you're a true American, you exercise your privalege of free speech and engage in this democracy. If you're in the military, you "stand behind your commander in chief, right or wrong." If you don't like our country, you speak up so maybe things will change for the better.<br /><br />djohns19, Letting oil execs direct national energy policy is akin to letting foxes guard the hen house.<br /><br />skinnywater, We haven't "just begun" to find WMDs. We just haven't found any. The point is not that Iraq had them 10 years ago, the point is it didn't appear to have had them when Dubya and Powell argued it did as justification for a military invasion.<br /><br />Well, While Dubya's war on terrorism was busy "ridding" Iraq of WMDs that didn't exist, Al Quaida was busy exacting revenge with conventional explosives. Go figure.

 

[DJ]

Re: Finally back!

Plywoody,<br /><br />If Clintons tax increase (the largest is US history) was so great, how come it's not still working?? Don't tell me the $600.00 I got back last year cancelled it. <br />Remember Reagan! He decreased taxes and revenues tripled. Just too bad the Dem's spent it faster than they took it in.<br /><br />The bubble burst when everyone figured out that the dot.com's were not making any money, never would, nor had any plans to make any. Of course, that fuzzy economic thinking fit right in with that administration-you know, baffle em' with BS.<br /><br />Blacksmoke,<br /><br />Hillary is a an expert on health care? I'd use the fox in hen house cliche but with her, it doesn't work.

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

Oh, come on, djohns19, is that all you've got?

 

[DJ]

Re: Finally back!

Don't need any more than the truth.

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: Finally back!

Djohns19, Its kinda like tunnel vision, your <br />flogging a dead horse!

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

I thought up an anology to run by Plywoody and Blacksmoke. You are on a roof top with a swat team sniper and your family is being held hostage by a gunman. You don't know if the gun is really loaded, but another of his gang recently killed a family. You think he is in the gang but this perp denies it to the hostage negotiator. The sniper has a clear shot and you get to make the call. Do you take the shot or hope the negotiator can solve this problem and save this wretch's life at the risk of your family. After all, we can't prove he is in the gang and the gun might not be loaded.