Who is George Bush?

[wcucj]

will not retreat from trying to spread democracy through the Middle East. - G-Dubya.

Who in the hell does he think he is? How is it any of his f**king business if the Middle East has a democracy? What if China felt that our democracy was wrong and decided they would invade us because communism is better? Notice he said middle east. You know what that means? Watch out Iran, your next. George Bush is going to make me leave this country and never come back just because he is so repressive. Hell, we might as well be a communist country. He has put restrictions and taken our personal liberties away to a point of repression that this country has never seen since the before the Revolutionary War. This man is a joke.

If someone can give me one good reason why we should spread democracy over there and take away their way of life then I would like to hear it. Otherwise this post is for viewing pleasure only. Because they might get us is not a good enough reason to convince me. Remember this is not to disarm anyone, but change THEIR way of government. This man is nuts. He has this country brainwashed in believing the only way to deal with our problems is to blow them up. At what point can we say our war is won. Are all the terrorists going to come out with a white flag and surrender. I doubt it. How can we fight an enemy we cant find (Osama)? The insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists, they are people opposed to what the U.S. is doing and are standing up for the same thing we stood up for 225 years ago, their own way. It is really pathetic to think that people can follow a man that has no justification for his war, has no justification for being there, has no justification to change a country because he saw fit to do it.

[jnhdrac]

I have gotten a kick out of people threatening to leave this country because they do not like George Bush. The last time I checked, the airlines are in business and you can buy a ticket today.

As far as spreading democracy, I am all for it. When was the last time the United States was attacked by a another democracy. Economic hope and democracy are the 2 greatest forces on this planet. Without democracy, there can be no economic hope. People want to believe that their children will have more than they did, and that is not possible without democracy. Even the Chinese are coming around, slowly.

As far as justification for war in Iraq, I put forth the following:
1. Hussein said he would allow UN weapons inspectors to inspect the WMD sights. He never did.
2. He sent an assasination team to kill a former US President. I do not care what country tries it, and who the former President is, if you try to assasinate a former president, we go to war.
3. He was harboring Al Qaeda members.

As far as Osama, you ask how we can fight an enemy we can not find? I believe that is the nature of war. If the enemy hides, you look for him. Are you suggesting that we give up looking for Osama? Do we just forget what he has done in the past and forgive him? I think not.

[wannabeacop]

I'm probably only posting one reply because I can see that this is going to be a conversation thats probably not worth having in that your comments tend to indicate that your views are somewhat short sighted and not very well thought through.

That being said... Democracy in the Middle East is a good thing because democracy's in general tend to even the playing field for all people in a country and allow all people to have a voice. What you had in Iraq was a dictatorship that was seeking to retain control of a country through violence, torture, murder, and in general genocide against those that weren't members of the Baathist (sp?) Party. This meant that the minorty Baathist's were subjugating the majority of the population. If you seek to argue this point you obviously weren't watching the news in the late 80's through the 90's. The insurgents that you liken to the Revolutionary war fighters are not seeking the same thing that Americans were back then. They are seeking to return the country to the status quo and are not concerned for the safety of others or their freedom. There is also no proof that these people are Iraqis but it is rather likely that they are foreign nationals who are Jihadists and seeking to destabilize American and Iraqi interests in the country. These is the standard MO for the region. (btw insurgents, a word you used for them, indicates someone who has entered a country not someone from that country) All this being said its was a generally well known fact that Saddam was an enemy to our country and that he had WMD's as late as the late 90's and therefore it was a good fight to make even if you don't take into account the issue of freedom and liberty for foreign peoples being as important as freedom and liberty for americans. To use the argument that America has found no WMD's and therefore had no mandate for war is reverse logic and what would typically be referred to as monday morning quarterbacking.

[heineken]

Let's define INSURGENT for you because you seem to like to make definitions to support your own narrow minded view. First, let's review your creative definition..



(btw insurgents, a word you used for them, indicates someone who has entered a country not someone from that country)

Ok, now let's look at the real definition..

in

[keith758]

I have to ask: What liberties have been taken away from you?How are you repressed? Why don't you just come out and say it: You're ****ed because the citizen's of the U.S. were smart enough not to elect Kerry. Deal with it.

[wcucj]

I just wrote this to be funny. I love listening to all your right wing nut jobs of answers. Its what keeps me going during the day.
Its funny to think that we are a country that allows us to speak our mind, yet if we disagree with someone we are automatically wrong.
Please give me more. I love reading your posts. I believe that I have already changed my mind and love George. He is my hero. Thanks everyone for the enlightment. I can go about my days and not think about those thousands of civilian casualties that our great, mighty and all powerful commander in chief has caused. I guess since it is war, we can justify killing those people.
Again thank you for your humorous, funny, histerical, wet my britches posts. Good Day!

[heineken]

Congratulations.. You have officially redefined the term "jackass"

[Delta784]

Q: Who is George Bush?

A: He's the guy that just whooped John Kerry's *** in the Presidential election.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

[Bodie]

W is OUR President and the country needs to unite now and stop all the political mumbo jumbo so we can accomplish something. Kerry and Edwards are gone HISTORY so we have to work with what we have the next 4 years.

Bush the favorite of most officers around here (OHIO)

[Josey Wales]

wcucj,

There is no doubt that you are a seminar poster. God knows, this place had more than a few during the election season. You, like the others, are completely unable to support your comments intellectually. Liberalism is based wholly on emotionalism.

Please allow my suggesting you read, "The Closing of the American Mind." Bloom, and Ivy League professor, is exceptional at exposing fallacies supporting stupid beliefs.



Take care,

JW

[markheel]

I know your main point was spreading democracy, but those who makes similar points often also point to the fact that no WMDs were found so we should have never gone.

Saddam did have WMDs and the proof is the bodies of his victims. At some point durign the game he played with the UN he did hide, sell, or destroy them.

I don't care so much if they are a democracy or not, but if we know a Gov't has that kind of weapon and likes to bluster about using them on us we might as well try to help the peopel after we take that Gov't out.

Another thing I've heard over the last year is how gas prices would change after the election because W was manipulatign oil prices to help his friends....A rediculous idea.

Oil is down $2/barrel as of this morning.

[wannabeacop]

Ok Heiny I got a laugh out of your post in response to me. Several points I just want to make.

First, I support the war in Irag... wholeheartedly. It would seem that you didn't pick this up in my post and I'm not sure why. I thought I made it pretty clear but I guess not. Maybe you could point out to me what it was in my post that made you believe that I thought someone who gased his own people should stay in power or that the war over there was wrong.

Second, I think you need to work on the anger issues man. You obviously got really worked up about this and here I thought we were just having a conversation. I guess that was my mistake again could you please raise my 'educational level' on this.

[benchmademan]

Originally posted by Delta784
Q: Who is George Bush?

A: He's the guy that just whooped John Kerry's *** in the Presidential election.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

yeah. he whooped ***! 49 to 48. that's practically a shutout. go W!

[benchmademan]

and just for kicks....

it's wrong to impose democracy on the world. it's wrong for us to think we know what's best for the world.

answer this if you can....

why did the terrorist attack the US?

[RabbitMPD]

Was Saddam a threat? Lets see what the democrats had to say:

--------------------

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

--------------------

But of course it's only evil republican Bush that believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. :rolleyes:

[benchmademan]

recognizing a threat is one thing. it's taking APPROPRIATE action that's important.

[Josey Wales]

benchmademan,

I wholeheartedly agree with you...it is appropriate action that is necessary. Bill Clinton took inappropriate action when dealing with bin Laden; appeasement only served to embolden him. bin Laden continued his terrorism by flying airplanes into icons of liberty.

There is no doubt that Saddam had/was trying to acquire WMD. There is no doubt that had bin Laden had a nuke, he'd of used it in the USA. The appropriate response was to be proactive. To be reactive to the detonation of a nuke in the USA just won't cut it. Therefore, we had/have to seek out those who desire to harm us and kill them first! This is the sad reality of terrorist politics!

Saddam was afforded numerous opportunities to comply with UN resolutions: he chose poorly!

The message to the world under President Bush is clear: screw with us and you're gonna die!!! I like that message;).



Stay safe,

JW

[Dave2886]

Originally posted by benchmademan
and just for kicks....

it's wrong to impose democracy on the world. it's wrong for us to think we know what's best for the world.

answer this if you can....

why did the terrorist attack the US? Who cares why? If you're walking down the street, and a guy walks up to you and punches you in the nose, are you going to ask him why? I'm not, I'm going to kick his *** into a bloody pulp, no questions asked. As far as us imposing democracy on the world, as far as I can tell, Iraq isn't exactly the whole world. When's the last time we invaded China?

[SW4747]

http://hannity.com/img/usa_election_map.jpg

[iamadorable]

I like Dave's response. As for the guy/gal that started this thread....if you want responses you like, go over to ********.net...they are a bunch of fools that think they know how to run the world too.

We all had a vote and we made a choice, if you don't like it, leave.

yeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh BUSH

[Migraman]

Quote:George Bush is going to make me leave this country and never come back just because he is so repressive.
______________________________________

Make sure on your way out you fill out the expatriation paperwork. Might as well go all the way and relinquish your citizenship. Where are you going to go? If you would like a suggestion I would be more than happy to help you out.
______________________________________

Quote:Hell, we might as well be a communist country. He has put restrictions and taken our personal liberties away to a point of repression that this country has never seen since the before the Revolutionary War.
______________________________________

Exactly what liberties have we lost? Please be a little more specific than "the patriot act".

______________________________________

Quote:If someone can give me one good reason why we should spread democracy over there and take away their way of life then I would like to hear it.
_______________________________________

Maybe it has something to do with radical islam trying to spread itself around the globe and take away the lives, not the way of life, THE LIVES of anyone who does not agree with them. Yes, that means you too.
________________________________________

Quote: It is really pathetic to think that people can follow a man that has no justification for his war, has no justification for being there, has no justification to change a country because he saw fit to do it.
________________________________________

Possibly. But not as pathetic as anyone audacious enough to think they know even an iota of the inforamtion that a president and his staff are priivy to and think they are qualified to know what is or isn't justified.
________________________________________

Quote:I love listening to all your right wing nut jobs of answers.
________________________________________

First off, take a class on grammar smart guy.
Why is it that most of you left wing nut jobs can't answer a question with any degree of intelligence? Ranting and raving about topics you obviously know nothing about only makes you look stupid.
________________________________________

Quote: why did the terrorist attack the US?
________________________________________

Good question. Why is it that, with the exception of Ireland, every conflict currently being waged on this planet involves Muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others and killing those who don't go along?

[Delta784]

Originally posted by benchmademan
yeah. he whooped ***! 49 to 48. that's practically a shutout. go W!

Try 52 to 47, and they're not done yet.

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Originally posted by wcucj
I just wrote this to be funny. I love listening to all your right wing nut jobs of answers. Its what keeps me going during the day.
Its funny to think that we are a country that allows us to speak our mind, yet if we disagree with someone we are automatically wrong.
Please give me more. I love reading your posts. I believe that I have already changed my mind and love George. He is my hero. Thanks everyone for the enlightment. I can go about my days and not think about those thousands of civilian casualties that our great, mighty and all powerful commander in chief has caused. I guess since it is war, we can justify killing those people.
Again thank you for your humorous, funny, histerical, wet my britches posts. Good Day!

wcucj,

Welcome back knucklehead, I mean str8flush.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Dave2886
If you're walking down the street, and a guy walks up to you and punches you in the nose, are you going to ask him why? I'm not, I'm going to kick his *** into a bloody pulp, no questions asked.

lets take it a step further. lets say this same incident happens to you on 4 different occasions. wouldnt you ask yourself why it keeps happening?

over the past decade, i can think of 4 attacks against america. i suspect that the motive for the attacks are born from muslims angry over the US's undying support of isreal.

if i kept getting punched in the nose for supporting a country that i had no business of supporting in the first place, i would re-evaluate my position.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Bart
if i kept getting punched in the nose for supporting a country that i had no business of supporting in the first place, i would re-evaluate my position.

Why do you think we have no business supporting Israel?

On a political note, every time I got punched in the nose, I'd respond by beating the ever-loving crap out of my opponent with an aluminum baseball bat. The nose-punching would stop, very quickly.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Migraman
Quote: why did the terrorist attack the US?
________________________________________

Good question. Why is it that, with the exception of Ireland, every conflict currently being waged on this planet involves Muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others and killing those who don't go along? [/B]

how do you figure every conflict on this planet involves muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others? the conflict in the west bank has to do with isreali occupation of palestinian land. the conflict in kuwait had to do with a criminal attempting to steal oil. the conflict with osama is a product of anger over the isreal/palestine crap and the US's support of the jews.

muslims dont care if our women wear burkas or not. from what i gather, they want us to stay out of the business between them and isreal.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Delta784
Why do you think we have no business supporting Israel?


simply put, the US shouldve kept its nose where it belongs.

On a political note, every time I got punched in the nose, I'd respond by beating the ever-loving crap out of my opponent with an aluminum baseball bat. The nose-punching would stop, very quickly.

sure. i dont doubt it would stop for the time being. but who's to say it wont happen again? its kind of like being a victim of a burglary, even if the suspect is caught, we still evaluate the situation to learn why it happened and how we can prevent the crime from happening again.

[fahrenheit]

wcucj, if you can't see that democracy offers a significantly higher standard of living for the a people oppressed under a brutal, totatiltarian dictatorship, then you are blind. You complain that you are losing liberties to a government that is becoming, in the vernacular of the left-wing nutjob, fascist. How would you feel if you lost ALL your liberty, including the one to make posts like this? Now, considering that, I challenge you to explain to me how that form of government is morally defensible.

[fahrenheit]

Bart, I'd like you to explain to me how exactly Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land, considering that the land was given to Israel over 50 years ago by the United Nations and that the land given to Palestine in that arrangement was only taken in a DEFENSIVE war. International law clearly states that countries may take land in defensive wars and maintain it as long as a threat exists. A threat clearly exists from the Palestinians. Israel has made it clear that their goal is NOT to destroy the Palestinians. The PLO has made it clear that their goal IS to destroy the Jews. How can you show any sort of moral equivelancy?

From a moral/philosophhical perspective, in order to support the Palestinian position that they are rising against a military occupation, one must make the following moral agreements:

One must agree that women and children on buses are legitimate military targets.

One must agree that there is a moral equivelance between targeted attacks on militants and the women and children mentioned above.

One must agree that the Jews should be pushed into the sea.

One must agree that hiding behind unarmed children and "holy" sites is a legitimate military tactic.

One must agree that only complete victory over Israel is acceptable, no compromise may be allowed.

If you are unable to agree with these statements, it is philosophically impossible to agree with the Palestinian argument.

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Originally posted by Bart
how do you figure every conflict on this planet involves muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others? the conflict in the west bank has to do with isreali occupation of palestinian land. the conflict in kuwait had to do with a criminal attempting to steal oil. the conflict with osama is a product of anger over the isreal/palestine crap and the US's support of the jews.

Bart,

Did you think about your question prior to your response to same?

"the conflict in the west bank has to do with isreali occupation of palestinian land." (Muslim v. Jew)

Very simplistic observation, Bart, but to Jewish settlers it would appear Palestinians want Jews out of what BOTH believe to be their homes.

"the conflict with osama is a product of anger over the isreal/palestine crap and the US's support of the jews" (Muslim v. Jew & US)

Your grasp of English spoken by Al-Jazeera TV commentators is embarassing me. Do you truly belive this?

"the conflict in kuwait had to do with a criminal attempting to steal oil" (Muslim v. other Muslim)

Another interesting concept, Bart. But which one do you subscribe to? Kuwaiti slant drilling into soveriegn Iraqi soil, or the the repatriation of Iraqi oil by "liberating Muslim forces". Better yet, the criminal Americans stealing Arab oil?

Come on Bart, tell me that I just misunderstood your post.

Bubba

[Bart]

Originally posted by JERSEY BUBBA
Come on Bart, tell me that I just misunderstood your post.

Bubba

you misunderstood my post. read it again. maybe a couple of times if you need to. my point is that the muslims arent attempting to make the rest of the world muslim. the jews and the muslims are fighting over land. the muslims are fighting the US because of the support for jews. yes muslims are involved in most conflicts but theyre not involved because they seek world domination.

[Bart]

Originally posted by fahrenheit
One must agree that women and children on buses are legitimate military targets.

One must agree that there is a moral equivelance between targeted attacks on militants and the women and children mentioned above.

One must agree that the Jews should be pushed into the sea.

One must agree that hiding behind unarmed children and "holy" sites is a legitimate military tactic.

One must agree that only complete victory over Israel is acceptable, no compromise may be allowed.

If you are unable to agree with these statements, it is philosophically impossible to agree with the Palestinian argument.

i dont agree with the statements you made. however, i can still suppoort the palestinian position. i can understand their cause but that doesnt mean i condone their means to further their cause.

[fahrenheit]

Ah, but you see, the root of the Palestinian position is that the Jewish presence in the Middle East must be destroyed. Therefore, in order to support them, one must logically also support the above statements.

As I wrote in another thread, the root of the Israeli position is simply a wish to EXIST. Israel has made lasting, real, heartfelt attempts to come to an agreement with the Palestinians so that both can share the land. Israel has even ceded control of the Jews' holiest site, the Temple Mount, where Jews who choose to visit are humiliated and NOT ALLOWED TO PRAY OR ACT AS IF THEY ARE PRAYING. Tell me, what concessions have the terrorists made? "We'll stop the killing for a month or two?"

[Migraman]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bart
how do you figure every conflict on this planet involves muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others? the conflict in the west bank has to do with isreali occupation of palestinian land. the conflict in kuwait had to do with a criminal attempting to steal oil. the conflict with osama is a product of anger over the isreal/palestine crap and the US's support of the jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always a pleasure Bart, I hope you fared well through the hurricanes.

To answer your question, when 19 of the 22 current conflicts in the world involve muslims I tend to think there might be a trend.

Country and Main religious groups involved

1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan.

2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims

3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians

4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims

5. East Timor Christians & Muslims

6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims

7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims

8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims

9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.

10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims

11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians

12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims

13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims

14. Philippines Christians & Muslims

15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.

16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics

17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils (a mainly Hindu 18% minority) are involved in a war of independence snce 1983 with the rest of the country (70% Buddhist).

18. Uganda Animists, Christians,& Muslims

19. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims

20. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)

21. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict

22. Northern Ireland: Protestants & Catholics

As far as the Israeli-Palestinian thing that is a can of worms I'd rather not open right now.

You are correct about the conflict in Kuwait but to the best of my knowledge it ended 13 years ago. At least thats when I was told it was over and sent home.

I honestly believe that if we were to sever all ties with Israel today it wouldn't make a difference in regards to terrorism. These nut jobs are going to hate us no matter what. Actually I think it probably has more to do with our immoral, pornographic culture that is a direct affront to their believes. They see us as evil and are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. I think that is more accurately where their hatred lies, our support of Israel just adds fuel to the fire.

[benchmademan]

Originally posted by Migraman
quote:
I honestly believe that if we were to sever all ties with Israel today it wouldn't make a difference in regards to terrorism. These nut jobs are going to hate us no matter what. Actually I think it probably has more to do with our immoral, pornographic culture that is a direct affront to their believes. They see us as evil and are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. I think that is more accurately where their hatred lies, our support of Israel just adds fuel to the fire.

at the core of it, those are the same beliefs that lead to us getting involved in Iraq.

[Migraman]

Quote: at the core of it, those are the same beliefs that lead to us getting involved in Iraq.
__________________________________

Benchmademan, I'm not sure I follow, please elaborate.

[retired]

Originally posted by Migraman
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I honestly believe that if we were to sever all ties with Israel today it wouldn't make a difference in regards to terrorism. These nut jobs are going to hate us no matter what. Actually I think it probably has more to do with our immoral, pornographic culture that is a direct affront to their believes. They see us as evil and are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. I think that is more accurately where their hatred lies, our support of Israel just adds fuel to the fire.


I personally believe that the countries of the Mideast hate us because of our meedling and interference in the governments of their countries. Just MHO.

[That Guy]

Originally posted by Bart
simply put, the US shouldve kept its nose where it belongs.

I agree with this statement. A great philosophy that America understands is GREEN.
I'm all for helping countries that can't help themselves, but do it for the right reasons, not for greed.


Originally posted by Retired
I personally believe that the countries of the Mideast hate us because of our meedling and interference in the governments of their countries. Just MHO.

Another true statement. Spreading democracy with a bomb is just as bad as spreading Islam with a RPG.

TGY

[Dave2886]

Originally posted by Bart
i dont agree with the statements you made. however, i can still suppoort the palestinian position. i can understand their cause but that doesnt mean i condone their means to further their cause. How can you support people who murder innocent children and non-combatants, targeting them purposely? If the American Indians started suicide bombing grade school buses and movie theatres because "The Great Satan" killed their ancestors and took their land, would you support their cause too?

To be honest, I admit there is a legitimate issue between Israel and Palestine, but when one side resorts to terrorist tactics, targeting innocent non-combatants, that's where I say any righteousness they had is gone.

[Dave2886]

double post

[Dave2886]

Originally posted by Bart
lets take it a step further. lets say this same incident happens to you on 4 different occasions. wouldnt you ask yourself why it keeps happening?

over the past decade, i can think of 4 attacks against america. i suspect that the motive for the attacks are born from muslims angry over the US's undying support of isreal.

if i kept getting punched in the nose for supporting a country that i had no business of supporting in the first place, i would re-evaluate my position. I bet you were a Kerry vote...

Okay, lets go with this. Say the guy who attacks you tells you he's attacking you because you're wearing your T-shirt that says "I'm against Gay Marriage." Are you going to change your position and support gay marriage just because some lunatic doesn't like your beliefs? Since when do other groups dictate who we support? Since when does another group's opposition of who the US supports justify a terrorist attack on our country? There IS no justifiable excuse for the attacks on our country. There are motives, but since when do we say that a criminal's motive justifies his crime? What kind of message would that send if we caved in to the wants and desires of a bunch of sub-human terrorists and withdrew our support from Israel?

In the end, it doesn't matter why we are attacked, it only matters what we do about it.

By the way, since you say we have no business supporting one of our allies, what IS your criteria for lending our support to another country?

[Bart]

Originally posted by Dave2886
How can you support people who murder innocent children and non-combatants, targeting them purposely? If the American Indians started suicide bombing grade school buses and movie theatres because "The Great Satan" killed their ancestors and took their land, would you support their cause too?


like i said, i agree with the cause but i dont agree with their means of getting their message out. its kind of like race riots. i understand the anger but i dont support the way they channel the anger.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Migraman
Always a pleasure Bart, I hope you fared well through the hurricanes.

aside from losing alot of sleep, i got through unscathed. thanks for the kind thoughts.

I think that is more accurately where their hatred lies, our support of Israel just adds fuel to the fire.

IMO, isreal is where the fire started.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Dave2886
By the way, since you say we have no business supporting one of our allies, what IS your criteria for lending our support to another country?

you support your allies when their fighting a just cause. the invasion of afghanistan was a just cause. protecting kuwait in gulf war 1 was a just cause. siding with israel over a land dispute isnt a just cause.

[fahrenheit]

Bart, read the post on this page by ZalmanEmmes. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the conflict, and ZE said it much better than I could have:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25529&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Originally posted by Bart
you misunderstood my post. read it again. maybe a couple of times if you need to. my point is that the muslims arent attempting to make the rest of the world muslim. the jews and the muslims are fighting over land. the muslims are fighting the US because of the support for jews. yes muslims are involved in most conflicts but theyre not involved because they seek world domination.

Nope, still says the same thing.

Bart, are you familiar with the Third Jihad or the Great Caliphate?
Try that for a "read", brother.

Bubba

[Dave2886]

Originally posted by Bart
you support your allies when their fighting a just cause. the invasion of afghanistan was a just cause. protecting kuwait in gulf war 1 was a just cause. siding with israel over a land dispute isnt a just cause. So, according to you, we should just be fair-weather friends? When one of our allies gets in a situation that YOU don't think is a just cause, we should just cut all ties, because some animal somewhere might decide to attack us over it?

By the way, it's not like we're sending a bunch of troops over there, either. If someone can correct me, please do so, but the way I understand it we're pretty much only lending our political support, and maybe sharing some intel. I'd hardly say that's justification for these animals declaring a jihad on us.

And finally, if you would be so kind, please articulate why you are sypathetic to the palestinians vs. Israel.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Dave2886
So, according to you, we should just be fair-weather friends? When one of our allies gets in a situation that YOU don't think is a just cause, we should just cut all ties, because some animal somewhere might decide to attack us over it?

absolutely. lets say you and i are friends and i ask you to borrow some money. when you ask what i need the money for, i say i want to gamble at the dog track. you have every right to say no to me because gambling isnt exactly a good cause to borrow money for. but that wouldnt exactly make you a fair-weather friend.

that aside, our decision to support israel has nothing to do with whether we'll be attacked or not. it has to do with minding our own business.

And finally, if you would be so kind, please articulate why you are sypathetic to the palestinians vs. Israel.

im sympathetic to the palestinians because if our country were being occupied by outsiders, we'd hold a little resentment too.

colin powell presented a road map for peace which neither the jews nor the palestinians would compromise positions in order to accomplish the goal. if thats the attitude the 2 of them are going to take, i say we step aside and let them both kill each other off so we dont have to deal with them anymore.

[Bart]

Originally posted by JERSEY BUBBA
Nope, still says the same thing.


what is it exactly that you dont understand?

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Originally posted by Bart

"how do you figure every conflict on this planet involves muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others? the conflict in the west bank has to do with isreali occupation of palestinian land. the conflict in kuwait had to do with a criminal attempting to steal oil. the conflict with osama is a product of anger over the isreal/palestine crap and the US's support of the jews."

This has all been addressed. This is Holy War, pure and simple, as preached and documented by Islamic fundamentalists throughout the world. If you don't believe this, try "Third Jihad" or "Great Caliphate" in any search engine. And please, feel free to ignore any non-Muslim sites and go right for the source. It is very much a matter of imposing religious beliefs.

"muslims dont care if our women wear burkas or not. from what i gather, they want us to stay out of the business between them and isreal."

Spent much time in the Middle East, Bart? And I don't mean the Wendy's in Riyadh or the pubs in the UAE.

Bubba

[45acp]

Originally posted by wcucj
I just wrote this to be funny. I love listening to all your right wing nut jobs of answers. Its what keeps me going during the day.
Its funny to think that we are a country that allows us to speak our mind, yet if we disagree with someone we are automatically wrong.
Please give me more. I love reading your posts. I believe that I have already changed my mind and love George. He is my hero. Thanks everyone for the enlightment. I can go about my days and not think about those thousands of civilian casualties that our great, mighty and all powerful commander in chief has caused. I guess since it is war, we can justify killing those people.
Again thank you for your humorous, funny, histerical, wet my britches posts. Good Day!

wcu, you show a clear lack of respect for the people on this forum. You criticize us for feeling that you are wrong because we disagree with you yet you say that we are "nutjobs" because you disagree with us. As usual the silver spoon up your *** has given you the impression that your uneducated opinion is somehow more valid than everyone elses. You are not the only liberal on this forum, just the only one that can't be polite to everyone else. Notice that Bart, retired and others are not afraid to share their opinions yet they refrain from posting things just to p*ss other people off. The same goes for the conservatives here. If you really want to become a LEO (I still doubt this) and plan on getting any career/hiring advice from the people here, than you may want to show some respect.

[heineken]

Originally posted by wannabeacop
Ok Heiny I got a laugh out of your post in response to me. Several points I just want to make.

First, I support the war in Irag... wholeheartedly. It would seem that you didn't pick this up in my post and I'm not sure why. I thought I made it pretty clear but I guess not. Maybe you could point out to me what it was in my post that made you believe that I thought someone who gased his own people should stay in power or that the war over there was wrong.

Second, I think you need to work on the anger issues man. You obviously got really worked up about this and here I thought we were just having a conversation. I guess that was my mistake again could you please raise my 'educational level' on this.

I would love to help EDUCATE you WANNABE..

The first part of this post was for you. Due to your lack of knowledge with the use of the word INSURGENT, I felt I would help you out. The second half was for the NUT JOB who started this post.

As far as anger management, thanks for the advice. Maybe you should heed the advice of reading a dictionary. On top of the dictionary, maybe you should brush up on your comprehension as well. I know you're wondering why I didn't pick up on your post that you support the war in Iraq. This is because I wasn't responding to you!! I know its hard doing multiple things at once, but i know if you try really hard you can do it!

[wannabeacop]

Sigh...

See this is the reason why I don't like officer.com's forum anymore. I used to come here quite a bit to get information on the profession that I plan to get into soon but I have found that lately there has been a pattern with posters. Maybe its been going on for a long time and I just haven't noticed. It seems that people feel its appropriate to treat others with disrespect online simply because its online and you have no face time. I'm speaking not only of Heiny but a number of people on these message boards that feel its ok to ridicule people for asking commonly asked questions and who, in general, seem unable to have a civil conversation with another person about real issues without reverting to personal attacks and insulting the other persons intelligence. I for one don't relish these types of conversations and find that they are unproductive in that they don't enlighten me about anything and don't stretch anyone involved to think about anything other than how to get back at the other person. This in my opinion is unfortunate and I certainly hope that the people who are doing these actions are not in LE because it would quite possibly affect the level of respect I have for the profession. I know that the people I am speaking of are a minority but it can't be attributed to trolls only. In any case I will be bowing out of this conversation and more than likely any others in the future. I make this decision because I find that I am no longer gaining any useful information from my conversations or from the reading that I am doing on these forums. Heiny don't feel the need to respond to this posting I more then likely won't read it.

[heineken]

Wannabe,

Prior to accusing other people on this board of actions you allege you disprove of, I'd take a second look at your own actions. Those actions that you elude to being displeased with are actions you yourself are perpetrating on this site. While you in your point of view may not see that, the perception of your actions are what is the most important aspect. I feel you were being very condescending in your post. Hence why I responded with some sarcasm right back at you. If you can't handle playing with the big boys, go back to your sandbox.

[fahrenheit]

Bart, the Israelis were hesitant to submit to the "road map" because those things required by the Palestinians were not true, substantial steps while those required by the Israelis were virtually irrevocable, major moves. Even in light of that, the Israelis did eventually agree (at least in theory) to abide by that peace plan... something the Palestinians did not do.

[artmarks]

Republicans or Democrats, who cares. Who was the best one for the job?

As reasonable and intelligent people shouldn't we have weighed the merits of both candidates and their proposed plans?

I asked a die-hard Democrat friend why Kerry, and he said cause bush's record is a list of failure with no definitive positives and anyone has to be able to do better, so I don't care who you vote for but let bush's record stand for itself. Vote bush to repeat all the errors of the last four years.

Based on that, I asked a republican friend what bush has done in the last four years that was an undeniable positive for the country. He said he was tough on the war on terror and brought dignity back to the white house. Needless to say neither of those points can be termed undeniably positive, both are Highly debatable and subjective.

Bush won, I accept that. Can anyone help me sleep nights that this vote was based on more than feeling, and give a rational mind the factual truth of what Bush did in his first four years that was positive (other than surviving 9/11 with the country in one piece) that his other friend couldn't?

I'm open and willing to listen, I just couldn't find anyone or anything in the debates to answer that question for me to my satisfaction.

(If I've missed something already said in this thread when skimming all three pages, I'm sorry, just point me in the right direction.)

[artmarks]

Oh, and on the point of the "War in Iraq".

As a posting on a LAW Enforcement site, how can we justify to International Law our invasion of Iraq as being no less unlawful than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that Bush, Sr., stopped? Since no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, our reason was pulled out from beneath us. We can't just pull out, but we can't really justify our actions on the world stage, can we? I think we have egg on our face in the view of the other world governments, but does anyone know if we're now open to prosecution under international law?

[45acp]

Originally posted by artmarks
Oh, and on the point of the "War in Iraq".

As a posting on a LAW Enforcement site, how can we justify to International Law our invasion of Iraq as being no less unlawful than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that Bush, Sr., stopped? Since no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, our reason was pulled out from beneath us. We can't just pull out, but we can't really justify our actions on the world stage, can we? I think we have egg on our face in the view of the other world governments, but does anyone know if we're now open to prosecution under international law?

Iraq was in violation of all of their terms of surrender to the 1991 coalition. Not only was it lawful to go to war with Iraq, but a strong arguement can be made that we had an obligation to do so. Not that I don't see the other side of the issue, I just don't buy the "international law" arguement.

[heineken]

Bush won, I accept that. Can anyone help me sleep nights that this vote was based on more than feeling, and give a rational mind the factual truth of what Bush did in his first four years that was positive (other than surviving 9/11 with the country in one piece) that his other friend couldn't?

Well that feeling is what makes people decide one way or another. Its unfortunate but many people in this country don't vote based on facts but on feeling. Just as you mentioned you Kerry buddy said vote for Kerry cause Bush is wrong. The reason no one TRUSTED Kerry to do the job, is because of his credibility. He totally blew it in the beginning of his campaign. He stated that we had done it alone, yet back when the Persian Gulf was occurring, he voted AGAINST us going into Kuwait to stop Sadaam, even with the biggest coalition ever! So what does that say about him? Then he claims that our troops currently aren't armed and its Bush's fault for sending our troops into battle, yet Kerry voted against the 87 billiion dollar budget to get the troops more gear. How is that again? He only says what people want him to say. He has no definitive position. He is a classic politician who only says what he thinks will get him ahead. Bush may not be the most intelligent person in the world, but at least he makes decisions and sticks by them.



As a posting on a LAW Enforcement site, how can we justify to International Law our invasion of Iraq as being no less unlawful than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that Bush, Sr., stopped? Since no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, our reason was pulled out from beneath us.

How can we justify it? Well bascially we had numerous surveillance photos that were used as well as other sources. As was mentioned earlier just his actions were very suspicious. Not letting inspectors into sites when they arrived or not cooperating fully. Everyone saw the same information and voted in favor of the invasion. Now because no major weapons have been found the Democrats take the convenient position that Bush lied. He didn't lie! Should we wait til something bad happens like it did back in 1941 before we start to act? We cannot be a reactive force in the world. We have to be proactive. We have many enemy's being the worlds sole superpower. I have no problem with the fact that we went into Iraq! Can anyone honestly say that they want Sadaam back in power. If you think its good he isn't in power, then you should support the reason we are there. We aren't intentionally killing innocent civilians. These are people that are setting off car bombs daily and killing our troops. You can look at this in a law enforcement analogy. If you obtained a search warrant based of surveillance footage and other information and had a warrant in hand to raid a house, but once you go there you found no drugs. However, the residents of that house opened fire on you. Do you think you'd leave and say sorry about this there is no drugs here we were wrong? Or would you stay there, get back-up and take the subjects out? Of course they'd go down. That's what we're doing here. We're taking these people down. I believe if we were going to be prosecuted internationally for this it would have already occurred.

[Josey Wales]

artmarks,

Ah, but another seminar poster, convinced of resting upon a moral high ground while proceeding without rational basis.

We do not have to justify **** to no one. As our Founding Fathers intended, we are a SOVEREIGN nation. Saddam violated UN resolution. Nothing else was needed for our response. Even that disgusting dirtbag of a president, Bubba Clinton, recognized such justification; however, his motives for invasion were vastly different from those of our noble president!

Take care,

JW

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Originally posted by Josey Wales
Bubba Clinton

Aw hell, there it is again. As the eldest son of proud southern Republicans, it burns my *** that Clinton caught the nickname that my mother gave me at birth. Can't he just be "Slick Willie"?

The Other Bubba

[Josey Wales]

artmarks,

After re-reading your post, it is just plainly stupid. If anyone were to prosecute us, it would have been for Bubba Clinton's Bosnia fiasco. But the bottom line is that we are a sovereign nation, and as such well kick the **** out of any other nation/terrorist cell that threatens us. And I'd be all for foreclosing on the UN's NY headquarters and kicking that terrorist-sympathetic organization out. Let it relocate to, oh, I don't know; how 'bout some genocide-committing disgusting excuse of a county in Asia or Africa??? It is so damned concerned about making the US vulnerable to any decapitating group deemed oppressed, yet it has been able to do zippo in African countries and even Iraq where that type of behavior is condoned.

Thank God morons thinking we're under the jurisdiction of a world court are in a very small minority; however, they are stupid nonetheless! OUR FOUNDING FATHERS NEVER INTENDED THIS NATION TO BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANY CONTROLLING BODY!!! READ PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS FOR OBJECTIVE PROOF:mad:

Critical thinking skills should not be minimized!

Now with the right Court, we'll undo the genocide that is occurring every day in the US; a killing so pervasive it makes Hitler look like a choir boy! Maybe your world court ought to prosecute us for aiding and abetting the wanton murder of God's most innocent victims, no? Or does killing terrorists offend you more than fetal violence...you know, sucking babies out of their wombs and sucking brains out of full-term babies' heads???

I'm tellin' ya, the older I get the more I believe liberalism is symptomatic of mental illness!


JW