-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Howard Dean - Reloaded
- Thread starter BigWorm
- Start date
- Status
To tell you guys the truth, Dean isn't the one I'm worried about. I'm concerned that Kerry might win the run against Bush and could quiet possibly get the White House (Clinton once did). Which scares me because of his anti-war personality. Don't get me wrong, not wanting war is fine but the U.S. getting pushed around by other countries simply because they know that now they can mess with a weaker president is a scary thought in itself. I think also a left wing-Democratic president has an agenda to reduce military size and thus leave alot of people like me, trying to get in, hanging on a limb. Just my opinion.
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Hold on a sec. Remember that Kerry did vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq (he now regrets that vote, citing Bush's overstatements of Iraq WMD, etc.).
Anti-war personality? This is a guy who protested the Vietnam war, but served his country when it was his time. Anti-war...no, maybe he's just in favor of seeing as few bullet-ridden corpses as possible...now if you had said Kerry is "anti-unjustified-reckless-revenge wars," then you'd be right on.
Wait, you'd rather serve in the military under an arrogant, inept man who needlessly and unnecessarily risks your life just so he won't look like a weenie? I'm confused.
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
Anti-war personality? This is a guy who protested the Vietnam war, but served his country when it was his time. Anti-war...no, maybe he's just in favor of seeing as few bullet-ridden corpses as possible...now if you had said Kerry is "anti-unjustified-reckless-revenge wars," then you'd be right on.
Wait, you'd rather serve in the military under an arrogant, inept man who needlessly and unnecessarily risks your life just so he won't look like a weenie? I'm confused.
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
cricechex
Active Member
"But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me."
I had to say something. I couldn't resist! "anti-unjustified-reckless-revenge wars," I know for a fact that this crap is being instilled in this "boy" in school from all the liberal "college edumacated" teachers. How is that for an education? It almost just isn't worth the time to mention all of the reason's to remove SadamNsAin from power. From the holocaust like killing of the kurds to the chemical weapons he used on Iran, let alone the fear by which he ruled his people with beatings, interrogations, and lies. ( My favorite was when he was saying that the Iraq was winning the war as we were entering Baghdad airport! LOL.) I am proud to have a leader that would not go back on his word. Remember, President Bush gave Saddam a choice, either allow for detailed inspections or we would remove him from power. The rest is history.
You say you are a future SNA. Well you better hope that the anti-(guns, freedom, war) tree huggers that you vote for don’t take office because you’ll be pushing carts at Walmart and flying your F/A 18 on FS 2004 for the rest of your life all the while wandering why your peace loving president doesn’t let you fly around million dollar jets with flowers dropping out the (bomb) bays.
My statement is not ment to bash Democrats, just the people that look for reasons to hate a president that is trying to bring the hitlers of this world to justice just because he is Republican. War isn’t always the best way to resolve problems, but it was in this case the only way! Presidents have played patty cake with Saddam for years, not anymore.
I had to say something. I couldn't resist! "anti-unjustified-reckless-revenge wars," I know for a fact that this crap is being instilled in this "boy" in school from all the liberal "college edumacated" teachers. How is that for an education? It almost just isn't worth the time to mention all of the reason's to remove SadamNsAin from power. From the holocaust like killing of the kurds to the chemical weapons he used on Iran, let alone the fear by which he ruled his people with beatings, interrogations, and lies. ( My favorite was when he was saying that the Iraq was winning the war as we were entering Baghdad airport! LOL.) I am proud to have a leader that would not go back on his word. Remember, President Bush gave Saddam a choice, either allow for detailed inspections or we would remove him from power. The rest is history.
You say you are a future SNA. Well you better hope that the anti-(guns, freedom, war) tree huggers that you vote for don’t take office because you’ll be pushing carts at Walmart and flying your F/A 18 on FS 2004 for the rest of your life all the while wandering why your peace loving president doesn’t let you fly around million dollar jets with flowers dropping out the (bomb) bays.
My statement is not ment to bash Democrats, just the people that look for reasons to hate a president that is trying to bring the hitlers of this world to justice just because he is Republican. War isn’t always the best way to resolve problems, but it was in this case the only way! Presidents have played patty cake with Saddam for years, not anymore.
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
sheesh, this is like explaining crayons to preschoolers...
Yes, without a doubt the world and the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam around (even Kerry agrees with that). But thats not what I take issue at. The fact is that Bush's main justification for going to war was the WMD. Everything was based off of that (Powell's speech to the UN, etc.) and now, coming up on a year after invasion, there simply aren't any WMD to be found. Focus now, because here's the hard part: WMD was the justification for war, no WMD means no justification.
Ok, now for the rebuttal to the personal attacks, which you guys are strangely adept at: I don't want a "tree-hugging" hippie as our next president (Living in CA, gets me uncomfortably close to them!) but what's wrong with a person who calmly examines all the evidence with the aim of maintaining world peace and prosperiety, versus a person who's only out for corporate gain and personal vendetta leading our country? "Anyone But Bush 2004" is a common slogan around my parts.
The last thing we need right now is either a total hippie or a total cowboy. Trouble is, we've got a cowboy already!
Lets see what else, someone called me a 'boy,' which I am, hey you got one thing right!
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
...oh yeah, don't bring my future career into this with your 'you say you're a future SNA,' bull****
Yes, without a doubt the world and the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam around (even Kerry agrees with that). But thats not what I take issue at. The fact is that Bush's main justification for going to war was the WMD. Everything was based off of that (Powell's speech to the UN, etc.) and now, coming up on a year after invasion, there simply aren't any WMD to be found. Focus now, because here's the hard part: WMD was the justification for war, no WMD means no justification.
Ok, now for the rebuttal to the personal attacks, which you guys are strangely adept at: I don't want a "tree-hugging" hippie as our next president (Living in CA, gets me uncomfortably close to them!) but what's wrong with a person who calmly examines all the evidence with the aim of maintaining world peace and prosperiety, versus a person who's only out for corporate gain and personal vendetta leading our country? "Anyone But Bush 2004" is a common slogan around my parts.
The last thing we need right now is either a total hippie or a total cowboy. Trouble is, we've got a cowboy already!
Lets see what else, someone called me a 'boy,' which I am, hey you got one thing right!
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
...oh yeah, don't bring my future career into this with your 'you say you're a future SNA,' bull****
cricechex
Active Member
They had the weapons ten years ago. You really think they got rid of them? Then why didn’t they cooperate? Also, there were several times that Iraq violated the No Fly Zone, even shooting at our planes. All this wouldn’t cause some of the Senators and Congressmen to want to put their foot down on Saddam, so Bush had to. Get off the speech. You don’t know what information was given to the Pres to make the decision, you never will. Fact of the matter is that we couldn’t make a concrete conclusion to WMD because Saddam wasn’t cooperating.
"corporate gain and personal vendetta"
No legitimate evidence to your leftist remark of him seeking corporate gain. This "personal vendetta” is other words known as "love of country" and the preservation of a free world. If a Demo had taken us to war, you wouldn't have a thing to say. Case closed.
By the way, hows Wal-Mart treating you?
"corporate gain and personal vendetta"
No legitimate evidence to your leftist remark of him seeking corporate gain. This "personal vendetta” is other words known as "love of country" and the preservation of a free world. If a Demo had taken us to war, you wouldn't have a thing to say. Case closed.
By the way, hows Wal-Mart treating you?
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
<The case isn't closed when a retarded chimpanzee with down syndrome 'closes' the book>
It's not a matter of them 'having the weapons ten years ago,' they never had them in the first place! There are reports on CNN this very day stating that Saddam's top scientists allowed him to approve wildly impossible weapons projects knowing full well that there was no way to produce on those claims. Sure, they had some mustard gas they used in the '80s, but absolutely nothing on the scale of what Bush stated about their puported nuclear weapons programs (SOU, 2003)
If you turn on the TV real quick, you can probably catch the soundbite of David Kay (former US Weapons Inspector in Iraq) stating as clear as day that, (as far as he's seen) that "If there weren’t stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production."
Tom Brokaw asks, "And no scientist who testified to that."
Kay: "No scientist, no documentation nor physical evidence of the production plants."
Here's the link so you can read it for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/
Ooh, this one's juicy, you state:
But shouldn't we know? Come on, this is fundamental, this is what our country stands on, the fact that we're a representative democracy. You'd like us to put utter blind faith and trust into a 'leader' who doesn't feel like he owes his 280 million countrymen an explaination for a war? That's called a dictatorship, exactly what the puported 'war on terror' is all about! Come on, you're being just ridiculous!
Lets see, what else?
One word: Halliburton. HALL-ie-BUR-tun!
Or try this one, only three letters!: Oil.
Dude, Wall-Mart wishes I'd work for them. Target all the way!
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
It's not a matter of them 'having the weapons ten years ago,' they never had them in the first place! There are reports on CNN this very day stating that Saddam's top scientists allowed him to approve wildly impossible weapons projects knowing full well that there was no way to produce on those claims. Sure, they had some mustard gas they used in the '80s, but absolutely nothing on the scale of what Bush stated about their puported nuclear weapons programs (SOU, 2003)
If you turn on the TV real quick, you can probably catch the soundbite of David Kay (former US Weapons Inspector in Iraq) stating as clear as day that, (as far as he's seen) that "If there weren’t stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production."
Tom Brokaw asks, "And no scientist who testified to that."
Kay: "No scientist, no documentation nor physical evidence of the production plants."
Here's the link so you can read it for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/
Ooh, this one's juicy, you state:
But shouldn't we know? Come on, this is fundamental, this is what our country stands on, the fact that we're a representative democracy. You'd like us to put utter blind faith and trust into a 'leader' who doesn't feel like he owes his 280 million countrymen an explaination for a war? That's called a dictatorship, exactly what the puported 'war on terror' is all about! Come on, you're being just ridiculous!
Lets see, what else?
One word: Halliburton. HALL-ie-BUR-tun!
Or try this one, only three letters!: Oil.
Dude, Wall-Mart wishes I'd work for them. Target all the way!
But I'm just a high school student, so don't go all ape on me.
Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics - Even if you win, you are still retarded (I saw that on a poster the other day - thought it was pretty funny - especially now since I am about to join in)
Akamifeldman, I'd first like to point out CNN doesn't have the greatest track record reporting on Iraq - since they admitted to not reporting Saddam's atrocities until Saddam was out of power. That is beside my point, though.
First, WMD. Why does everyone focus on this and not the FACT that Saddam thumbed his nose at UN resolutions for over a decade? That is like your mother saying to you not to sneak cookies from the cookie jar or you'll get spanked. You do it once - she watches you do it - and she threatens you with a spanking. You do it another time - she watches you do it again - and she threatens you with a spanking if you do it again. You do it a third time - same response from your mother as the first two times. Now - when she threatens to spank you if you take another cookie after the third time - do you think it has any meaning to you? Hell no - you are going to take a cookie whenever you damn well please. Same with Saddam - he's been "taking cookies" whenever he wants without any fear of punishment.
Does this make the U.N. weak? I would think so - no one has enforced their policies. Does this make the U.S. weak - hell, yeah - because they are right there with the U.N.
Enter the "Cowboy" as you so eloquently called our Commander-in-Chief. (Are you French or German by any chance? They are usually the ones that use that term). If a cowboy is one that actually enforces the policies of a multi-national organization - and doesn't back down because it isn't popular - but stands his ground because it is right - then I'll proudly serve for any cowboy. Have you ever stopped to realize Bush is called a cowboy because he actually stands for something and doesn't *****foot around like some of our brethren across the Atlantic?
Oil - why do all the protesters always bring this up - to show their stupidity? Lets look at why France did not really want to go in and enforce the resolutions produced by a body they are a part of - Hmmmmm - because they had oil contracts with Iraq and were owed billions? That would seem like a pretty good reason to me. Take a look at the position of the countries that don't support us - and then try to figure out why - it isn't because they are peace loving and we are cowboys.
Now - a lesson in government (you might not have had that class in high school yet). The United States of America is not a representative democracy - it is a Republic. A democracy is mob rule (each person represents one vote - think Athens, Greece) A republic takes into account that the majority might not always be right (For example - Hispanics make up a minority - but they are still represented in the government - because they are usually in pockets of population centers around the country - Electoral college, districts for Representatives, and the Senate all work to ensure representation for everyone - not the best example, but I'm trying to condense). It was representatives elected by the people that voted to give Bush the power to attack Iraq. (Most people forget that.)
You are just a high school student, so I won't go "ape" on you. But, please, do not post stupid general statements you read in NewsWeek from the day before - we can all read ourselves. Some advice - think things through (from both sides' perspectives) before you open your pie hole. Look at why people/government do things.
Akamifeldman, I'd first like to point out CNN doesn't have the greatest track record reporting on Iraq - since they admitted to not reporting Saddam's atrocities until Saddam was out of power. That is beside my point, though.
First, WMD. Why does everyone focus on this and not the FACT that Saddam thumbed his nose at UN resolutions for over a decade? That is like your mother saying to you not to sneak cookies from the cookie jar or you'll get spanked. You do it once - she watches you do it - and she threatens you with a spanking. You do it another time - she watches you do it again - and she threatens you with a spanking if you do it again. You do it a third time - same response from your mother as the first two times. Now - when she threatens to spank you if you take another cookie after the third time - do you think it has any meaning to you? Hell no - you are going to take a cookie whenever you damn well please. Same with Saddam - he's been "taking cookies" whenever he wants without any fear of punishment.
Does this make the U.N. weak? I would think so - no one has enforced their policies. Does this make the U.S. weak - hell, yeah - because they are right there with the U.N.
Enter the "Cowboy" as you so eloquently called our Commander-in-Chief. (Are you French or German by any chance? They are usually the ones that use that term). If a cowboy is one that actually enforces the policies of a multi-national organization - and doesn't back down because it isn't popular - but stands his ground because it is right - then I'll proudly serve for any cowboy. Have you ever stopped to realize Bush is called a cowboy because he actually stands for something and doesn't *****foot around like some of our brethren across the Atlantic?
Oil - why do all the protesters always bring this up - to show their stupidity? Lets look at why France did not really want to go in and enforce the resolutions produced by a body they are a part of - Hmmmmm - because they had oil contracts with Iraq and were owed billions? That would seem like a pretty good reason to me. Take a look at the position of the countries that don't support us - and then try to figure out why - it isn't because they are peace loving and we are cowboys.
Now - a lesson in government (you might not have had that class in high school yet). The United States of America is not a representative democracy - it is a Republic. A democracy is mob rule (each person represents one vote - think Athens, Greece) A republic takes into account that the majority might not always be right (For example - Hispanics make up a minority - but they are still represented in the government - because they are usually in pockets of population centers around the country - Electoral college, districts for Representatives, and the Senate all work to ensure representation for everyone - not the best example, but I'm trying to condense). It was representatives elected by the people that voted to give Bush the power to attack Iraq. (Most people forget that.)
You are just a high school student, so I won't go "ape" on you. But, please, do not post stupid general statements you read in NewsWeek from the day before - we can all read ourselves. Some advice - think things through (from both sides' perspectives) before you open your pie hole. Look at why people/government do things.
- Status