It's war time...

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Quote:

Liberals are into open boarders.....

Then we could also bring up the fact that they are against arming marshalls in the planes

Oh are they?

im sure that "liberals" are according to Micheal Savage.

Response:

Yes they are. I guarantee you it isn't the conservatives that are for open boarders. So who does that leave. Moderates? a few. Liberals? Yes.

If you took a poll for liberals and then a poll of conservatives you would find most liberals for open boarders. You would find most liberals against having marshalls in the sky.

Liberals thoughts:

Everyone deserve a chance in america right? Besides the work that immigrants do in america benefits america.

marshalls on the planes. It dangerous to have this. they might shoot a hole in the plane or they may kill someone that is innocent. It's dangerous have a gun on the plane period.

Conservative thoughts:

We should allow immigration but not open boarders. The people should be tested for diseases. Background checks should be done. The people should have to pass the citizenship test.

Marshalls should be on the planes. They will not use the gun unless they absolutely must. If it is a life and death situation it will be used.

The strange thing is what is considered conservative isn't really that conservative at all. There has been a liberal movement that has shifted the ideologies of the country leftward making those that are not that conservative appear to be quite conservative.

I consider myself conservative by todays standards and I actually liked the things that I heard Pat Bucanan say. Now being conservative I'm supposed to support white male candidates according to my political science books. Pat's running mate was a black woman Ezola Foster. Another person that would have made a very hones president is Allen Keyes. Some would consider Allen Keyes whitewashed. THis is funny he speaks truth and is honest yet this honesty and truth makes him whitewashed. Hmmmmm.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Quote:

And according to John Judge- " Conservatives" are out to make America into a police state perpetuating the

eventual ruin of America!

Response:

I wouldn't say that. Conservatives tend to be against having video cameras on every corner in america. It also depends on what you mean by a police state. If you mean watching over the country all the time, then we have been in a police state for many years now. We have people every second of everyday ready to release a nuke and we have people every second of every day watching the airways for incoming objects. We have police officers all around us and we have the government listening for key words in telephone calls and on the internet to detect terrorists. None of this is new. We could always remove all of this suff. Allow plenty of drugs into the country, illegals, disease, crime, allow everything to run free. This would work perfectly, in a perfect world.

Remember everyone Peace!!!

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

My thoughts on this liberal quote.

Why allow someone to take my eye realizing that their punishment will be lesser than what they have taken from me.

I got a new quote.

" An eye for a life leaves us with a whole world of people that are honest and can still see out of their other eye"

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

In a STRANGE turn of events which flies in the face of Savant and the it's only about oil crowd the US wants to pump oil OUT OF IRAQ TO LOWER THE WORLD PRICE.

Russia in order to KEEP prices high and protect their market insists on UN inspectors coming into Iraq to verify that Iraq is free of WMD's before sanctions can be lifted.

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW In a STRANGE turn of events which flies in the face of Savant and the it's only about oil crowd the US wants to pump oil OUT OF IRAQ TO LOWER THE WORLD PRICE.

 

Russia in order to KEEP prices high and protect their market insists on UN inspectors coming into Iraq to verify that Iraq is free of WMD's before sanctions can be lifted.

 

PEACE

This is because when the price setting by the oil companies is stopped then they will have to compete to get business. THe only reason oil prices are high is because the oil companies create artificial shortages, which is illegal in the U.S. but not internationally.

Someone saying it is for the oil would say, see I told you it was for oil, now prices will be lowered. Just what the U.S. wanted to do. It was for oil.

In economics collusion increases profits, but is also one of the less efficient forms of competition. Competition, would be better for the environment and would cause oil companies to minimize the amount of waisted oil when drilling, because the more efficient they are (the less waist, creating cleaner environment) the cheaper they can sell their oil product at, creating an advantage and more sales over their competition.

If Iraq breaks away from OPEC it could create huge profits initially until other companies increase their supply. THen it would start to even out. Then the situation that I listed above about efficiency would come into play.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

I agree. My point was the argument earlier was that the US wanted to keep Iraqi oil ib the ground because they had so much of it.

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW I agree. My point was the argument earlier was that the US wanted to keep Iraqi oil ib the ground because they had so much of it.

 

PEACE

I figured I'd just give another point of view from the other side.

 

[TheGrimReaperKD 10+ year member]

****, this thread is still going, heh

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

yea this thread is a ****ing beast...

still havent found any WOMD or chemical weapons, im sure to LWW's dismay...

-nate

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Not dismayed at all. A lot of stuff is out for testing. There is way too much stuff which you would only need if you had WMD's around.

Saddam's poor judgement led him to think that he could crush a few missiles and the Allies would pack up and go home like what happened when Billy Jeff caved in 98. Failing that he thought that we would stop short of Baghdad when the body count started rising like what happened under George I. Those experiences gave him reason to believe that an absolute worst case scenario would be to bury the stuff in the desert and the Americans would stop short of regime change, root around for a few weeks, and then go home like we had twice before. If that failed the attempt would be to make an urban Viet Nam out of Baghdad and sue for peace still remaining in power.

What he never thought would happen is what happened...an American President who could walk the walk as well as talk the talk. IOW we targeter Saddamite Hussinsein and killed him. With the govt beheaded the army wouldn't fight and the regime collapsed under it's own dead weight.

Now civil order needs to be restored. Lights, water, and hospitals need to be brought back online. There is plenty of time to search the rest of this stuff out. I do trust our intelligence services. Too much stuff and too many people have been found where we said they would be to date.

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

i agree but i think that saddam is still alive...that video showing qusay in it along with him makes me think this, but hey i might be wrong. but the government/military is still beheaded with him living in secrecy b/c he cant do much from an underground bunker. its a tough situation.

-nate

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

On this AM's news an Iraqi scientist has come forth and told where some chemicals were buried, where others were destroyed at to evade being found, and how plants and facilities were being sterilized.

IMHO it's a good thing that the swamp of terrorism is slowly being drained. Syria is actually starting to shape up fearing that they might be...next.

Sadly over the yrs we have come to be viewed by the tinhorns of the world as a paper tiger and some have perceived that along with the fall of the USSR as an open season invitation.

It seems that about once each generation we have to go through something like this as each new generation perceives the world as now being different because of new technologies...but sadly human nature has hardly changed in several millenia.

PEACE

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

An article I took out of the Calgary Sun.

http://www.shinrahq.no-ip.com/newsclip.jpg

Very interesting

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

OK, so you found another article by an ediroial writer who uses his "opinion" of what is and isn't evidence and his "opinion"of whether to believe the US or Saddam and then parrots the Iraqi line, closing it out with the obligatory "this doesn't mean I miss Saddam" which is a dodge to hide a blatant anti American point of view.

Pap from the left is a penny a googleplex. The evidence of everything Bush II stated is overwhelming in depth. Let your writer take his foolish anti American sentiment and theories and apply the same standards which he demands for acceptable proof...IE any proof that doesn't back the dogma doesn't count...and see how quickly the BS disintegrates.

Just a thought. If America is the "evil empire" some have stated and we have actually started a war based on falsified data and this proof has been found then why:

1-Is it not all over the news for public perusal?

2-How do these people escape the govt?

3-Why haven't the Bush II neo gestapo stormtroopers executed or at least arrested them?

The reason is because ALL they have is fear of "the man" to throw out with poison invective.

PEACE

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

It was just an article, showing another point of view.

and you are really one to talk about "if the proof doesn't back my side its false". You don't believe anything that doesn't support your side.

Don't complain about us using liberal "pap" until you stop with the conservative "pap"

You can't accept any evidence/statements that are detrimental to your position.

Is the article single sided? YES.

Is the article from a source more informed than anyone on this board? YES

Because the article is Single sided does that make it wrong? NO

Does it make it correct? NO

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Is the article single sided? YES.-Agreed.

Is the article from a source more informed than anyone on this board? YES-IMHO not even close. Several people here have spent more time researching this issue.

Because the article is Single sided does that make it wrong? NO-Agreed.

Does it make it correct? NO-Agreed.

My point is that the writer offers nothing in the way of evidence other than opinion. Yes I believe the evidence is quite ****ing. Why ? Because I see evidence that leads me to that conclusion.

You make an assumption that this is the conclusion I wish to come to. It isn't. I wish nobody on Earth had this stuff. Sadly I can't have that wish. Being unable to have it I wish that every lunatic with them is disarmed of them.

I wish nobody on Earth had to live in a dictatorship. Sadly I can't have that wish. Being unable to have it I wish that every Dictator is removed from power.

I am especially cynical of these types in the media right now after CNN has been found out. If you haven't heard they covered up for Saddam on many issues and regurgitated his puke as if it were something they had went out and found to be true. Inreality it was crap and they knew it. In return they had access to the inner Iraqi regime for a news source and prime Baghdad digs to report from. The fact that thousands of innocents died that might not have meant nothing to them. At the same time they would belittle the Bush administration as "war mongers".

Now back to reality a "war monger" is one who loves war and those who cause it to happen, like Saddam and his minions.

A "peace monger" is one who STOPS those who live to make war, like the US and her Allies.

"The modern world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the few evil people, because of the many good people who are too nice to stop the evil people." -Albert Einstein-

PEACE