| Author | Message | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2003 |
And it's okay for the PRESIDENT to have sex with a 21 year old that was not his wife and then LIE over and over about it? You bet. Nobodys business. Claiming anything else is nothing but instrumentalized hypocrisy. Best, | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 484 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson.. are you really that silly? Gee.. all Clinton did was LIE??? And it's okay for the PRESIDENT to have sex with a 21 year old that was not his wife and then LIE over and over about it? THE President is a leader.. he needs to be morally on center. Not a sexual deviant. Like any leader he has NO private life. We pay him to be an example. GW, so far has not done anything to tarnish his image. Gee.. so ten thousand of the enemy are dead. Wonderful... perhaps,with god's help, we can find and kill the rest of them before they strike again. Rememer also that YOur hero was busy screwing a child while giving away secrets to China that put ALL of the free world in danger for the next several decades. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2003 |
Well. Better to have pretty much anybody in the White House than W. Bush. The "scandal" which laid Bill Clinton low centered around his lying under oath about sex, private business of his, and the ensuing impeachment pretty much made the US the target of much well deserved ridicule all over the world. The scandal which took down Richard Nixon was certainly more profound, as he was accused of misusing the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents while paying off people to lie about his actions. Lying under oath and misusing the intelligence community are both serious transgressions, to be sure. The matter of Iraq's alleged weapons program, or, more aptly, Iraqs Weapons of Mass Disappearance, however, leaves both of these in deep shade. Dubya and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, (George Orwell, anyone ?) and then used that fiction based on nothing but lies and deception to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people, a war based on deceit that has evolved into utter chaos totally mocking any remaining "superpower" phantasies harbored by the warmongers currently in office, has turned the USA into a laughing stock amongst first world counries and into a hated pariah nation among third world countries, and costs huge amounts of money that this nation simply cannot afford. Not to mention the valiant efforts by this administration to turn the USA into a totalitarian regime, where judicial due process and civil liberties are fast fading into no more than fond memories. Latter-day justifications about 'liberating' the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world, but where the latter has massively back fired on a scale unimaginable a mere 12 months ago, do not obscure the fact that Bush and his henchmen lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. Dubya & Co didn't make America safer, they did everything they could to make it a more dangerous place to live while simultaneously reducing Americans civil liberties. Dubya needs to go, and go fast.     | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 303 Registered: 4-2001 |
William. I like to think we just are not that kind of a country (for better or worse, I hope better) We could have kept Germany, Japan, Italy etc under our thumb after WW2 and milked them but we rebuilt them. After Saudia Arabia grabed all the oil infrastructure we thought we owned, we could have flattend them but we didn't and sent money to buy it. Colin Powell said it best, (Paraphrase) we sent our sons and daughter overseas many times in the cause of freedom not conquest or explotation and all we ask was for some ground to bury our dead. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2978 Registered: 2-2001 |
I cant blame bush for wanting to stabilize the middle east oil supply to fuel the US economy or securing Afghanistan so the US can access the Russian oil supplies via a pipeline through Afghanistan. But I know JFK would have told NASA to start mining asteroids so the US would have a really secure future and we could blow off the middle east & access an infinite supply of raw materials & energy. JFK was The Man | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 302 Registered: 4-2001 |
Art. I really am amazed that you think we went into Iraq so we could grab their oil. If we wanted to grab oil we could have left our 500000 troops in Kuwait after Gulf War 1 and grabbed all the oil in Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. We could even do it today. We could grab all the oil in the world if we really wanted to. Do you have any credible evidence or documentation at all or is this just your anti Bush stuff. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2975 Registered: 2-2001 |
Art the locals may have plenty of $ but the Chinese Communists during the Vietnam war had metric tons of $, the backing of Russia, and the worlds largest army. There is no comparison between the Red Army of the Vietnam era & some guerillas in Iraq. You can throw in all the govts of the Middle east & they still dont equal CHina let alone China + Russia | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 483 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.. this is not Viet Nam. The towel heads do not have the might of the Communist's behind them and are already running out of steam. A few random attacks that have lessening returns in terms of value. A population that is slowly seeing the light of not being under Saddam's rule is deciding we are not so bad after all. The main problems now are internal fights for power and the US will see that the correct person is put into place. Geesh.... you prob loved the movie "Bowling for Columbine". | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2543 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: The insurgents in Iraq are supported by the population in the area. They have plenty of money, and their kids are volunteering to help them with the war. While not governments have provided them direct aid, I suspect the Syrians and the Iranians will help them before this is over. Art | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 303 Registered: 5-2002 |
Although I can't say I agree 100% with what is going on in Iraq a the moment, I find it hard to believe that Bush will continue to deny what is actually happening in Iraq with an upcoming election. I am hoping (for more, obviously, than just wanting him to be reelected), that he will properly address the situation and do what he needs to do so that the situation is under control, and that our men are safe. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2974 Registered: 2-2001 |
Biggest difference between Vietnam & Iraq apart from the Jungle V desert of course is that the Vietcong had China backing them up. I have heard that there were many Chinese & maybe even russians fighting in Nam against the US. Iraq has no China to turn to. Hell nobody liked Saddam, not the Saudis, the Kuwaitis & especially not the Iranians. So the US can invade & kick butt freely in the middle east. I see a very large & long US military presence in the region, Maybe we can get the Saudi Royals to stop being so two faced as well | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1472 Registered: 5-2002 |
The only reason we "lost" the Vietnam war was due to the politicians in Washington running the war instead of the Generals. We had the technology, but LBJ and Nixon wanted to fight a nice war, and not get everybody in the region all fired up. LBJ and Tricky were more interested in what the rest of the world "thought" about us than they were worried about the lives of our soldiers. So they just funneled more fresh ground troops into Viet Nam at the same rate that they were being killed off. I remember reading about an interview that Barry Goldwater gave about his presidential campaign in 1964. He said that if he had been elected, he would have turned North Vietnam into a swamp. Barry was an Air Force General, and along with his buddy Curtis Lemay, they knew how to fight a war: You fight it to WIN with everything that you have available in order to minimize loses to your troops. Fortunately, LBJ and Tricky's line of politically correct thinking was NOT around on August 6th, 1945. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2542 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: The problem is that he hasn't secured the oil. What he has done is to put our young men into a war zone, where the people who lives where they are don't want them there. Given the middle eastern mentality, and the history of their previous occupations, this doesn't look too good. A lot of comment has been made about our technology, and its clearly superior. What hasn't been said is that in certain areas of the world, they believe that the human spirit is superior to technology. They have apparently forgotten Viet Nam where the US military won every battle, every skirmish, every encounter with the North, yet ultimately lost the war. These people are smart, and they are apparently more than willing to fight for what they believe is right. That means, to someone like me, whose been there, that this occupation isn't going to be a freeby. I would bet that by this time next year, with the election process heating up, that our death will be in the order of 3, 4, 5 per day, not the 1 or 2 per week that we've been seeing. At that level, this exploit will be the number one topic on the political agenda. The true question is what will our population's attitude be then: stay or leave. My personal opiniion is that sooner or later we're going to forced out of there, and there will be no return for our escapade, other than a bad one. Hopefully, this won't turn us into a 3rd rate country, who owes everyone money. By the way, Churchill couldn't have done a thing about Hitler in 36, 37. Britian has reduced it armenent to the extent that it couldn't have given Germany a fight if it had wanted to. Germany would have won the war, hadn't Hitler gotten greedy and stupid in 41 and attacked Russia. Art | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2970 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm not sure about Iraq, but if the the british PM before Churchill had put his foot down against Hitler perhaps that could have saved us from fighting WW2. I think the whole world especially Iraq is better off without Saddam. The US has become an Imperial power on Earth . DC has decided to take out Saddam & secure the middle east oil supply. This is 100% in the best interest of the US & europe & Japan for that matter. The US economy MUST have oil, whether from the middle east or Russia or the North Sea or Alaska, wherever. I cant fault Bush for securing the nations future energy needs even though I dont agree with him on a whole list of stuff | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2540 Registered: 6-2001 |
The difference between Japan 1945 and Iraq today is manifold. Item one: Japan had armed its population, and based upon the earlier poriton of the war, inteneded to make this a fight to the death if we had to invade. Truman was faced with the issue of whether to invade, and lose possible 1,000,000 American Troops, or use the bomb. He made the choice to use the bomb. Now, there are certain revisionists who object to that. I have newspaper headlines which indicate that almost everyone in the US approved of that tactic. Iraq on the other hand posed no such threat, and no amount of BS can make them comparable. We went out of our way, with NO solid information the Iraq posed a serious threat to the USA, and attacked them. In this instance the revisionists are those who would attempt to justify this war of conquest. I've always said pay no attention to what someone says, watch what they do. In this instance, our first act was to secure the oil fields. It was clear to me that we intended to steal their oil, using the "reconstruciton" of Iraq as the vehicle to divert their oil into our pockets. Well, guess what, Saddam and followers figured that out, the first thing they've been doing is making sure that not a drop of that oil gets out of their borders. Look at the export figures, almost no oil is being sold, even though the produciton is about 75% of pre-war amounts. All of a sudden, we have a monetary problem about how we rebuild Iraq, and all those people that we insulted, said were irrelevant, or otherwise belittled now need to put up money, their kids lives, and help us with this problem. Guess what, we'll hear a lot of talk, but I suspect that the French, Germans, and the Russians aren't going to put their kids and money up over our folly. Most of the non-governmental agencies have pulled their people, citing the lack of safety, and the UN, despite their claim that they will continue, have withdrawn all or almost all of the foreign workers in Iraq. We've even asked the other Arab nations for help, and to a country, the've turned us down. We're stuck in a fight with lunatics. Remember Lebannon, well it looks to me that we've walked into our own little version of that, perhaps another Viet Nam, on perhaps a difference scale. The real issue is how do we get out of this mess. I suspect that with this current administration, we won't. It'll be just like Johnson's administration, unable to admit to a mistake. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: its time for a regime change here in 2004. Art | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2968 Registered: 2-2001 |
Back in 45 nobody really knew 100% what would happen when the A bombs were dropped on Japan. Even the scientists thought, they could both be duds or they could start a fire that would engulf the entire planet. I'm not in favor of using modern thinking back in 45. The whole world was different, The US learned to hate Japan after years of ferocious savage fighting & the US had no desire to lose 300,000 US soldiers by invading Japan. Yes the A bombs were horrible, but no less horrible than carpet bombing, its just that the A bomb achieved almost the same result as carpet bombing with far less effort. The Japanese Emperor had no idea how many A bombs we had after the 1st 2 were dropped (the answer is zero) so he wisely realized that it was time to end the horrible war | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 482 Registered: 5-2003 |
May I also point out that after dropping the Bombs Truman was elected president. Seems that most in this country agreed with his actions. I looked and could not find a single news item of the time that said he was wrong or a villian and a Killer. Americans know the difference between killing an enemy and murder. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 481 Registered: 5-2003 |
God bless you sunny. And Rich.. I seem to recall every history book I have ever read treating the dropping of the bombs as a necessary act to save the lives of our servicemen. Could I find a jap that hates us for it.. SURE... but guess what.. They sure work hard to get along with us. I am also sure that I can find pacifist rants that save the A bombs were a horror and a unforgiveable thing. I only wish that all of the doves on this board were left in a room with the families of 911 and WW2. Sometimes before you turn the other cheek you break your enemies jaw. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 842 Registered: 2-2003 |
You argue morality and war when the two are not to be combined, period. Agree with it or don't. It was a good TACTICAL decision to drop the 2 A-bombs to bring the war to a HALT on the Pacific front. The moralists, environmentalists, pacifists are pointing the finger shame on us, we did a horrible thing, blah blah blah. Some of us in uniform (past, present) call it a decisive victory. The U.S. proved it has the "stones" or a big pair of solid brass ones to do it once, you better believe we will do it again if it becomes necessary. How did we get to be the most powerful nation in the present day? Because we're capitalistic and aggressive. If you hate America because of that, move to France. Sunny | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2950 Registered: 2-2001 |
History of course is written by the conquerors. If Hitler had won Londoners might have been speaking with a german accent today. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2949 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm not sure that Iraq was no threat to the US, Saddam was certifiable & he was working on obtaining nukes at some point, maybe before the 1st Gulf War. If Saddam had taken over the entire middle east he could have held the US hostage with a wrold oil monopoly & that would have been a nightmare. Then again the Saudi Royals seem to be a very clear threat to the US cus they fund terrorist camps yet DC hasnt done anything to them, curious | ||
| rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 577 Registered: 10-2001 |
uh...history does most certainly NOT think it was ok to do. you seem to think it was ok, but that's not surprising. Poll the population at large and you'll find a much different view than yours. and remember when you said it is defense to launch an attack when you feel you may be attacked in the future? well, that is the Japanese explanation for bombing pearl harbor. were they justified in that attack? of course not and neither is the u.s. in totally destroying Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 298 Registered: 5-2002 |
Senseless killing is of course wrong, but if civilians must die to further the protection of our country, and the world, then so be it. I believe that it is the president's obligation to protect this country. That means that he must be willing to go to any and all means necessary in order to do so. Someone in office who is not willing to do this, scares me. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 480 Registered: 5-2003 |
Bruce.. I am not going to fall for the "Hitler" bait. But I will ask... was it okay to drop 2 atomic bombs on 2 medium sized towns to end a war? History seems to think so.If we accept that then we must also accept that it is okay to kill any new enemy to end the "war" on terrorism. After watching muslim people cheering in the streets on 911 and then reading that only body parts were recovered from the Towers I can sleep just fine with the idea of the middle east glowing in the dark for several thousand years. I will ask you... why do you always come back to Hitler and the nazis? Saddam and several other world leaders have killed thousands for lesser reasons then Hitler. In south Africa warlords torture and starve tens of thousands to death each year. In many of the former Soviet Bloc countries age old feuds have come back bringing Genocide with them. And in the middle east just yesterday a bomb went off over a battle for goverment control in Iraq. Hitler was an amateur compared to some of these animals. He may have handled his "problems" differently but Adolf has nothing on Saddam and more recent madmen. | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 2750 Registered: 4-2002 |
HEY JEFFREY 1 QUESTION..DO YOU LIKE HITLER ANS WAS IT OK TO KILL ALL THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE??? | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 479 Registered: 5-2003 |
Wm... I respect your views but add.... all of these other "human beings" in other countries have killed countless innocent Americans. And in Samolia they not only killed and starved their own they attacked and killed American soldiers that were only there to protect food shipments. Do people such as this deserve anything other then extermination? Does any group or race of people that plan the deaths of americans deserve a decent life? HELL no. It is not a dream of domination... but sometimes the only way to control a nations saftey is to control your enemies. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2946 Registered: 2-2001 |
Jeffrey, people in other countries are also human beings & deserve just as much respect & compassion as Americans. It is in part the fault of the developed world which forgot about & ignored the suffering of the people of Afghanistan & Africa that has made those places Meccas for terrorist pirates & now they are making us pay for it. The Saudis & Muslims also caused this but regardless the whole world is a mess cus everybody goes around thinking of themselves first instead of seeing humanity as one. I am not interested in living the good life at the expense of the rest of the world or allowing the US to dominate & pillage the rest of the wrold. Hitler wanted to dominate & pillage, I know the US is better than that. As Albert Einstein said," One cannot work simultaneously for war and peace" | ||
| Peter Cyr (Pete04222)
Junior Member Username: Pete04222 Post Number: 77 Registered: 6-2002 |
http://www.miniclip.com/hillary.htm | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 478 Registered: 5-2003 |
I really don't understand why all to confusion. What sane person would have trouble understanding the concept of military action against an enemy? They attack us... we kill them. We are the strongest nation in the world. What the Russians were unable to do in 7 years we did in 5 weeks in Afganistan. We have the ability and therfore the right to destroy any nation that poses a threat to us. Billy boy, his dyke wife Hillary or even the tree hugging moron Gore could not manage to win simple actions against poorly equipied Africans thugs. WHY?.... because instead of letting us shoot to kill our soldiers were ordered to retreat or avoid returning fire. Read the book "One shot, One Kill". The chapters on the middle east and south africa will scare you. A real leader would wiped out the leaders and put acceptible goverment in place. Not Billy... he was too afraid of looking like a bully... what a •••••. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 477 Registered: 5-2003 |
Hubert.. he also was anti military and cost us hundreds of lives by his "pragmatic" INACTION. 911 was a direct result of his not killing the enemy when he was given the chance.He was a liar and a pervert. The president needs to be able to defend his country at any cost... Me... I'd rather have a president like Regan that was willing to send the carriers and planes in at the first sign of trouble with orders to shoot to kill. | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Junior Member Username: Wax Post Number: 209 Registered: 7-2003 |
He also traded US military secrets to China for donations. Sure, many of the donations got returned, but as for the secrets... they're pointed at the US in the form of accurate, long-range nuclear warheads. Bill Clinton committed treason and Janet Reno shut down the Chinagate investigation to make sure he wouldn't be impeached for that. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895263335/002-6954904-2256845 I've got the updated version. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1326 Registered: 1-2002 |
I'd vote for a Bill Clinton again. In a heartbeat. The guy had a sound mind, and an ear to the ground when it came to enacting pragmatic efforts to keep this country moving forward, neutrally(even if he was looking up a skirt while keeping his ear to the ground.) | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 476 Registered: 5-2003 |
Wm.. we disagree on so many levels. War is a necessary evil. Killing for one's country is NOT murder. Killing an enemy is an act of defense even if that enemy has not attacked you as yet but has shown a certain intent to. You comment that until certain changes take place the world where, as you put it, "If we want the whole world to be a decent place where everybody treats everyone else with respect we have to take a proactive stance.".. WHO cares if the the whole world is a decent place? I sure don't.. and nor does any of the major companies that make a fortune off of cheap labor. All I care about is my country... if ten million south africans starve because they can't attain a stable goverment so be it. Why should I sholder the cost and risk of their problems unless they are a sattelite nation of the US? If they would agree to our rules and methods and fly under our flag thats fine.America comes first. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2943 Registered: 2-2001 |
I agree about not letting your guard down & the world can be a very dangerous place. I still think we have a Whole Lot of room for improvement on the conditions in which most of the world lives & the difference in affluence between the rich countries & the poor countries opens the door to things like the Talivan, AlKaida, & other pirates & scummbags | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 291 Registered: 4-2001 |
"Lou, Gwen Dyer wrote a great book on the history of war titled WAR. He states that in prehistoric times war was a game between 2 clans. The first clan who killed 1 player on the other side won, then the "War" would be over & the winners would have a party & the losers would go lick their wounds. I guess I have to go read the book to understand how he knows all of this from pre historic times. An interesting conjecture. Perhaps thats where the "champian" concept came from. "Of course there is a way out of War but all the worlds govt have to agree on it" I thought we tried this, its called the UN. Shows how much good that was. I fear war is basic to human nature and people or nations think it works and they are justified. In many cases it does work (our revolution) or fails because of stupidity or over reach like Hitler maybe could have won WW2 if he didn't attack Russia and open up 2 fronts. An interesting discussion but in the end don't let your guard down or allow ourselves to become weak especially in this crazy world where a few terrorists with suitcase A bombs or quarts of plaque could do us some serious serious harm. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 295 Registered: 5-2002 |
I agree with Will somewhat... Space program, Stop terrorism, EDUCATION! (and NOT by throwing money at it), Cut taxes I am also though, not afraid of war when necessary. Additionally, I would want to "clean up" in a sense, the government. There is a lot of waste right now, and the beaurocracy isn't exactly the most efficient thing in the world. There is too much opportunity for money to be lost throughout the whole process. I think that if we were to make the whole system more efficient, there would suddenly be a few more dollars to throw around on something important. | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Intermediate Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 1847 Registered: 12-2002 |
ahh once my fake ID gets here (I need about 15 more years on my age) I think I will officially run for President. Think about a mass Fchat meeting on the white house lawn. I will fly everybody in on Air Force One...literally. Ill be flying it myself   | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2939 Registered: 2-2001 |
Sorry that 01, not 91 | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2938 Registered: 2-2001 |
Now on the topic of defensive wars like the 1 that the Camel humpers launched against the US back in 91. Well I Cant say that I am against rounding them all up but the civilized world must accept part of the blame for ignoring a large part of the world like Afghanistan, the middle east, & AFrica & allowing perhaps billions of people to live in such an awful state under corrupt tyrants & pirates. If we want the whole world to be a decent place where everybody treats everyone else with respect we have to take a proactive stance. It seems that the new stomping ground for terrorits & pirates will be Africa. Well the civilized world can allow that continent to descend further into chaos and we will pay the price or we can all give our fellow humans a hand getting out of their dilema | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2937 Registered: 2-2001 |
Lou, Gwen Dyer wrote a great book on the history of war titled WAR. He states that in prehistoric times war was a game between 2 clans. The first clan who killed 1 player on the other side won, then the "War" would be over & the winners would have a party & the losers would go lick their wounds. Not until the rise of agriculture did war become more serious cus then real estate became worth something for planting on & this was the begining of slavery also as rogue clans would steal land & enslave the people to produce for them Then of course came the Egyptians who made an artform of war & later the Romans who were Really friggin serious about war!!! Now of course you have the Military Industrial Complexes who make huge profits from selling war machines so the govt , lobbyists, & politicians all want war cus war means jobs etc & its a vicious cycle of death, violence, & profit. Pretty nasty stuff. Of course there is a way out of War but all the worlds govt have to agree on it, all the Cos making huge profits would have to build something else, the labor force would have to find something else to do, so its pretty complicated. There are models of nonviolence like the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. They were all attacked violently but they all refused to play the game and have all created a great impact on the world & shown that there is a better way. | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 290 Registered: 4-2001 |
But seriously, your not against defensive wars, are you? | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 289 Registered: 4-2001 |
Your right, It may be stupid but it sure is popular. This planet has been at war somewhere for all is recored history. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2932 Registered: 2-2001 |
I dont see a whole big difference between murder & killing. Same thing. If you kill another human being cus your dictator tells you have to kill American infidels, how is that different from murder ? The dictator or President merely has legal authority. He has no moral authority to make 1 human kill another War is stupid | ||
| Craig (Beachbum)
Junior Member Username: Beachbum Post Number: 185 Registered: 9-2002 |
actually the correct translation is "thou shall not murder" sorry to break the news to you pacifist but its still the law of the jungle out there | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2927 Registered: 2-2001 |
I would never want to be Pres, too much pressure, too much press breathing down your back following your every step & word & action. Also I dont think you can be Pres of the US without being directly responsible for the killing of some people, innocent or not. Definately not the karma I want. Reagans record in Central America was atrocious. tens of thousands of innocents died cus of Reagans policies then | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 664 Registered: 1-2003 |
I think his arguement was why do some of those commands apply and others don't? It's mostly a matter of conveniece. I actually thought none of them applied because there had been a revision to that book that rev'd them all away. | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 287 Registered: 4-2001 |
I think every president since George Washington either directly or indirectly cause innocent or not so innocent people to die. I don't think any President likes it but it comes with the job unfortunately. Its a tough, nasty world and **** happens. The commandment "do not kill" is obviously not absolute (e.g. reactive or preventive defence) and I don't think you would want a President who thought it was and acted like it was. You can agrue about the merits of a particular action but to comdemn Presidents who causes a death would cover them all which doesn't make sense. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2535 Registered: 6-2001 |
Lou: While Reagan did quite a few good things, remember how many people he helped kill in Latin America: Chile, Central America all had revolutions which the USA sponsored, innocents, priests, children killed with weapons we provided, despite congress making it illegal. There is a little more to morality than sex. I do recall the 10 commands with a provision "Do not kill." Perhaps you have forgotten that admonishion? Art | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 949 Registered: 9-2002 |
Will, arent we all? The last thing we need is a Chinese citizen on Mars. (nothing against Chinese...for the sake of national pride.) | ||
| Nick Coutts (Kickus)
New member Username: Kickus Post Number: 16 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art, I agree that the economy was vastly improved, and our perception was much better, one could make a convincing arguement that we are now cleaning up the mess that Clinton made behind the scenes. You're probably also forgetting how we sent troops into Bosnia and Yugoslavia under Clinton, which I find to be little different than the battles we're fighting today. I would say that our perception has changed negatively in the international community because Bush has not allowed countries to get away with as much as Clinton did. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2920 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm sure if Ahnold was born in the US he would be Pres I'm looking for a candidate who is serious about a Real space program, stopping terrorists, weaning the US off of oil & really wants to boost education and of course CUT TAXES | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6012 Registered: 8-2002 |
William, "pay you"...? No, no, no... i would need to make a "donation" or other such "contribution" to your cause (and have some ridiculous $10,000 breakfast fundraiser) so i could explain my stance on "the issues" to you, thus securing your vote, because you're all for what i'm about... That's how politics are... ...but yeah, essentially, i'd be paying you for your vote. | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 787 Registered: 6-2002 |
I liked Clinton, give him all the Interns he can handle. The only thing Clingon did wrong was get caught... obeying his publicist... Best! Ben. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 838 Registered: 2-2003 |
I guess there's a big difference between attacking a country or being at war in another country. When your in uniform, there is no moral or any other difference. Its the same damn thing. Neither of the last two Presidents were squeaky clean, don't any of you dare hide under a cover of how well you or your particular social class lived under Clinton. It was bad then and its bad now. Sunny P.S. someone mention McCain? boy was that the better choice right from the beginning, now look at the mess | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2915 Registered: 2-2001 |
DES how much would you pay me for my vote ? | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 286 Registered: 4-2001 |
Many did live well during the 90's bubble but I also saw the White House slimed and fouled by a lying rapist/predator who dishonored the office. Reagon respected the presidency so much he wouldn't enter the oval office without his jacket on vs Bubba drooping his pants for a BJ. Clinton had no shame because you have to have a sense of honor to have shame. So we had a good run during the 90's at the price of a deeply diminished presidency. I guess most consider that OK but I wonder. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2527 Registered: 6-2001 |
You guys may think the choices are bad, but remember how well we lived under the Clintons. Other than the noise from the conservatives, life wasn't so bad: people were making money, instead of attacking everyone, they tried to work things out. Not a bad deal. A definite change from the bully on the block. Art | ||
| smartarse (Smartarse)
New member Username: Smartarse Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2003 |
What ticket would that be DES? A speeding ticket? You have to be 35y.o. so it will be another decade before we see DES for PREZ | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 5979 Registered: 8-2002 |
William, if i was on the ticket, would you vote for me...? | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2912 Registered: 2-2001 |
God save us, where do they get all these retarded candidates from ? Arent there any reasonable leaders left in the US? Bush wants the US to take over the world & the Clintons want to tax the rich & give everything away. Sheesh. I think I'll vote Hef for Pres in 04 | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2470 Registered: 10-2002 |
Art Thanks. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2504 Registered: 6-2001 |
James: The 25th amendment reads as follows: Amendment XXII Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. A careful reading of this could very well mean that Bill could be elected as VP, and should something happen to Hilary, he could become President again. I'm sure legal scholars would fight over this, but a strict intreptation of the language should allow this. Art | ||
| Dan (Bobafett)
Intermediate Member Username: Bobafett Post Number: 1217 Registered: 9-2002 |
Sunny - that was a hysterical movie! --Dan | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2503 Registered: 6-2001 |
I would love to see a Hilary/Bill platform. I don't think that Bill is eligible however. Having said that, after dinner, and a little wine, I'll look up the appropriate amendment tomorrow and see if I'm right. having said that, Hilary will run, and will get the nomination, if Bush is vulnerable. In my humble opinion, he's toast. The Iraq deal is just starting to boil, the economy isn't really turning around, so I suspect he's toast, which in my humble opinion is as it should be, he's been a terrible president, based upon my lousy 60 years of existance. Before you conservatives start bashing, I'd have voted for McCain had he been the nominee, because of his honesty. Bush got the position on the ticket because his daddy made sure it happened. If someone looks at his resume, it is fraught with failures. Despite our opinions, that wasn't a good sign for his presidency, and it turned out that way. Bill Clinton had it right: If you want to live as a republican, vote democratic. However, given the deep hole that Bush and his idiots friends have put us in, I'm not sure that anyone can help us. We've got a huge deficit that we're not going to fix for at least 10 years, and that means higher interest rates, lower growth. Couple that with anger from the rest of the world over Bush's my way or the highway attitude, and I don't see much help coming our way. Hopefully I'm wrong. However, I got a little cash, and high interest rates can't hurt. For those of you who voted for him (Bush) and are still in debt): enjoy. Art | ||
| rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 571 Registered: 10-2001 |
i'm not a "dem" but maybe because they believe there are more important things to worry about than what the leader of the free world does with his penis? and perhaps they remember how much better their lives were '92-2000 since then? clinton could become a career vice president, ha! this time around and then again when hilary runs, ha! (i'm not saying i'd like to see this happen). | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 475 Registered: 5-2003 |
ROFL.. the dems are shot for at least another 4 and bill would NEVER gert another shot... Gore even said that. Why do the dems have such a love affair with such a loser and pervert? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 660 Registered: 1-2003 |
Interesting idea. I think if Dean ran with him as VP he might stand a chance. That would be pretty crazy; if it's legal. | ||
| Marvin Balagot (Mdb69)
Junior Member Username: Mdb69 Post Number: 123 Registered: 4-2002 |
Hmm, I don't think it would skip Bill if Hillary was "offed". Isn't it that he couldn't be elected for a 3rd term? Doesnt say anything about taking over midterm I think. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2461 Registered: 10-2002 |
Randall I believe he could. He couldn't become pres. It would skip over him to the Sec. of State but I think he could run for VP. (Art?) | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 659 Registered: 1-2003 |
James- Could Clinton be VP? Or with his past would it not be allowed? | ||
| Gabe V (Racerxgto)
Junior Member Username: Racerxgto Post Number: 99 Registered: 4-2003 |
The world has already seen what Peronism does to a country, do we really need another dose? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 658 Registered: 1-2003 |
I won't vote for a woman. I'd hate being at war for one week a month.... | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 836 Registered: 2-2003 |
I'll go with Richard Pryor on this, "None of the Above!" err rather, below.. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2458 Registered: 10-2002 |
Dean will get the pres. nom and his VP choice will be Bill Clinton. The dem's will win. Bill will be styling and Hill will be out in the cold. It's a done deal. | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 285 Registered: 4-2001 |
The press is reporting the Clinton mafia is debating an 04 run for Hillary and are leaning towards it. What do you think? Does she stand a chance? Remember 40+% of dems (or repubs) would vote for a chimp if nominated and the remainder is turnout driven where the dems have a lot more muscle and passion and hatred towards Bush. I think she would be tough competition especially with someone like Graham as VP to hopefully lock Florida. |