Bottomfeeder 244 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I'm not confused one bit. Just sit back and listen to what a fire fight sounds like just one minute. It isn't very pretty, but I believe the conservatives need to hear it. Like I stated before, at heart I am a conservative and the conservative I like the most is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. And as veteran I support Ron Paul because I trust him not to lead us down the path of destruction. Kerry is from the same cut of cloth as Dubya, being he is a member of the "Skull and Bones," CFR and an elitist. We need a real man in the White House, a Gynecologist. http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I'm not confused one bit. Just sit back and listen to what a fire fight sounds like just one minute. It isn't very pretty, but I believe the conservatives need to hear it. Like I stated before, at heart I am a conservative and the conservative I like the most is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. And as veteran I support Ron Paul because I trust him not to lead us down the path of destruction. Kerry is from the same cut of cloth as Dubya, being he is a member of the "Skull and Bones," CFR and an elitist. We need a real man in the White House, a Gynecologist. http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf I'm not completely excited about Bush...but given my choices...I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted June 4, 2004 Author Share Posted June 4, 2004 I'm not confused one bit. Just sit back and listen to what a fire fight sounds like just one minute. It isn't very pretty, but I believe the conservatives need to hear it. Like I stated before, at heart I am a conservative and the conservative I like the most is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. And as veteran I support Ron Paul because I trust him not to lead us down the path of destruction. Kerry is from the same cut of cloth as Dubya, being he is a member of the "Skull and Bones," CFR and an elitist. We need a real man in the White House, a Gynecologist. http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf I'm not completely excited about Bush...but given my choices...I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Kerry. Then live with yourself and vote Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, write-in. I'm more to the left of center but this stuff has gone too far on both sides. So, I declare my committment to the Libertarian party and will write-in Congressman Ron Paul and be able to sleep at night knowing I voted for a real man, and not some puppet. Kerry is from the same cut as Bush, only the extreme is to the left, and I have no stomach for either of the two extremes. http://www.paul2004.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAG-91 1,483 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I wrote in someone in 2000 and I am likely to do the same thing again...Texas is hardly a battleground state, but I've never been concerned with the "you're throwing your vote away" comments in any event. You only throw it away if you don't use it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 If you still don't know why we (the US and approximately 30 allies) invaded Iraq, you simply do not want to know. You only have to look back 70 years, prior to WWII, to see the effects of appeasement on a ruthless dictator. War is NEVER a pretty sight, but it is the cost of freedom. If people of your ilk had been in charge in 1940, we would likely be speaking German today. Would you rather fight the battle against Saddam and his radical muslim allies in Bagdad or in Atlanta????? Appeasement significantly increases the likelyhood of the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 So you think the abuse, torture, and killing of innocent men, women, and children was stability and we made it unstable? I guess we just need to forget about our history as a nation and start appeasing to evil dictators from now on huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted July 30, 2006 Author Share Posted July 30, 2006 If you still don't know why we (the US and approximately 30 allies) invaded Iraq, you simply do not want to know. You only have to look back 70 years, prior to WWII, to see the effects of appeasement on a ruthless dictator. War is NEVER a pretty sight, but it is the cost of freedom. If people of your ilk had been in charge in 1940, we would likely be speaking German today. Would you rather fight the battle against Saddam and his radical muslim allies in Bagdad or in Atlanta????? Appeasement significantly increases the likelyhood of the latter. 72791[/snapback] I must disagree with you on that because, like Japan, we would have Nuked them if it came to it. Speaking German at 10,000°F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Why ? Because 10+ years of sanctions and U.N. resolutions had gotten us exactly no where, except the Food for Oil scandal. The problem of Saddam wasn't going to be solved this way, and many relief agencies were bitching and whining about how the children of Iraq were going w/ out proper food / medicine due to the U.N. Sanctions. And of course, it was the U.S., not Saddam who got the blame for all this. Never mind the fact that as soon as the U.N. scandal broke , and the real reasons WHY med supplies and food weren't making it to Iraq were known, did anyone give the U.S. a break? An apology? Hell no. Also, there was that flying mishap of 4 jet liners on a bright sunny day in Sept. Not that Saddam had any direct involvement w/ that, but it was clear that he might willingly give/sell some terrorist group the means of using nuke / chem/ bio weapons vs the U.S. Even the Russian intel admitted their sources indicated that is exactly what Saddam was considering, before the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Why ? Because 10+ years of sanctions and U.N. resolutions had gotten us exactly no where, except the Food for Oil scandal. 253528[/snapback] And as this war is now certain to surpass the length of WWII, where has that gotten us? And how are you guys so oblivious to all the scandals related to the "reconstruction of Iraq?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted July 30, 2006 Author Share Posted July 30, 2006 Why ? Because 10+ years of sanctions and U.N. resolutions had gotten us exactly no where, except the Food for Oil scandal. The problem of Saddam wasn't going to be solved this way, and many relief agencies were bitching and whining about how the children of Iraq were going w/ out proper food / medicine due to the U.N. Sanctions. And of course, it was the U.S., not Saddam who got the blame for all this. Never mind the fact that as soon as the U.N. scandal broke , and the real reasons WHY med supplies and food weren't making it to Iraq were known, did anyone give the U.S. a break? An apology? Hell no. Also, there was that flying mishap of 4 jet liners on a bright sunny day in Sept. Not that Saddam had any direct involvement w/ that, but it was clear that he might willingly give/sell some terrorist group the means of using nuke / chem/ bio weapons vs the U.S. Even the Russian intel admitted their sources indicated that is exactly what Saddam was considering, before the war. 253528[/snapback] If we stop enabling the UN and participate in the sanctions it might work. The people will one day get a belly full and rebel like in North Korea. LOL! I say evict the UN and stop making payments to their communist cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Why ? Because 10+ years of sanctions and U.N. resolutions had gotten us exactly no where, except the Food for Oil scandal. The problem of Saddam wasn't going to be solved this way, and many relief agencies were bitching and whining about how the children of Iraq were going w/ out proper food / medicine due to the U.N. Sanctions. And of course, it was the U.S., not Saddam who got the blame for all this. Never mind the fact that as soon as the U.N. scandal broke , and the real reasons WHY med supplies and food weren't making it to Iraq were known, did anyone give the U.S. a break? An apology? Hell no. Also, there was that flying mishap of 4 jet liners on a bright sunny day in Sept. Not that Saddam had any direct involvement w/ that, but it was clear that he might willingly give/sell some terrorist group the means of using nuke / chem/ bio weapons vs the U.S. Even the Russian intel admitted their sources indicated that is exactly what Saddam was considering, before the war. 253528[/snapback] If we stop enabling the UN and participate in the sanctions it might work. The people will one day get a belly full and rebel like in North Korea. LOL! I say evict the UN and stop making payments to their communist cause. 253550[/snapback] You and your damn librul pinko ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 And as this war is now certain to surpass the length of WWII, where has that gotten us? And how are you guys so oblivious to all the scandals related to the "reconstruction of Iraq?" Surpass the length of WW2, w/ 1/1000th the casualties ? Umm...sure, what ever. Not certain what your point is. Scandals related to the reconstruction? They pale in comparison to the food for oil scandal of the U.N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I say evict the UN and stop making payments to their communist cause. I second that motion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 And as this war is now certain to surpass the length of WWII, where has that gotten us? And how are you guys so oblivious to all the scandals related to the "reconstruction of Iraq?" Surpass the length of WW2, w/ 1/1000th the casualties ? Umm...sure, what ever. Not certain what your point is. Scandals related to the reconstruction? They pale in comparison to the food for oil scandal of the U.N. 253670[/snapback] My point is that you clearly don't know what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 I smell a foul odor coming from the White House. I really wanted to support Bush, but now it is painfully obvious the man has no business as president. Not that Kerry or Gore would have done better, it's just frustrating to see failure after failure in an endless conflict outside of the US. The argument that Bush is the only president to do something about Isalmo-Fascism is really losing ground. I'm going to read the US Constitution again. I believe there is no mention of a war president in the constitution. "This moment of conflict in the Middle East is painful and tragic," Bush said in his radio address Saturday. "Yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region. Transforming countries that have suffered decades of tyranny and violence is difficult, and it will take time to achieve. But the consequences will be profound for our country and the world."Haass, the former Bush aide who leads the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's public optimism. "An opportunity?" Haass said with an incredulous tone. "Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14110834/ Viguerie, who aided Reagan’s election but later became critical of some of his policies, today sees a landscape where Republicans run using a mantle of traditional values but carry the banner of conservatism only as far as it takes them to get elected. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Exclusiv...ut_at_0728.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.