Election Decided by 'Skins Game

[mr_gyptian]

...
You can't be seriously implying that Al Qaeda & Iraq are trying to take over the world. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. They're not trying to take over shit except for the hearts & minds of who they percieve are their enemies. What's the last country to be invaded by Al Qaeda? Yeah...

And what are you talking about "given the chance"? We went through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. We beat them down in record time during the first gulf war when they actually did invade Kuwait. That pretty much put their aspirations of any type of conquest in perspective - the perspective of 'not gonna happen'. Iraq trying to take over the world would be like the Michigan militia trying to take over America. There's no fucking way it would happen.

That is the opposite of what I was saying. What I was saying or implying is that the only person that did not know what Hitler/Tojo were trying to accomplish was Neville Chamberlain.

When Bush said he was against nation building there was a threat out there a big threat. But he was not sitting on the sidelines of WWII saying he would not send troops or nation build.

FNG, what is this "First Gulf War" shit. There was no peace treaty. There was a cease-fire. The cease-fire was in place to insure Saddam disarmed completely and totally. He did not. He was not able to prove he had(or for some reason would not). We went through 16 resolutions via the UN trying to get him to do so. Made Regime change our national policy in 1998. Then we get smacked in the nose. 3000 people die. We take out Al Qaeda(loosely translated "The Base").

At this point is blatantly obvious that the status quo in the Middle East will not abide. By law Iraq has violated UN resolution upon resolution. We are guaranteed winning militarily there. Thus providing the best avenue through which to build a democracy. We as you said beat the Iraqi regulars quickly. The post war peace keeping/nation building has been a roller coaster. There has been amazing progress made, but quite a few mistakes made along the way. Some of the mistakes avoidable, some not. but this expectation of perfection is ridiculous.

There is no hand book on how to do this at all. Each situation is different from ones in the past and on top of that is changing from day to day. I am disappointed at some of the mistakes that have been made. But "more boots on the ground" is not the simple answer to any of them. It could have helped, but the evidence that it would have is far from empirical. Sealing off the borders? How? erect a fence? Additionally, these terrorists aren't sneaking across a border to bomb a discoteque. they have made quite a few headlines for killing troops and innocents alike. However, they are dying in much greater numbers than they can fill. Zarqawi said just two weekends ago that he cannot continue fighting based upon his own "re-enlistment" numbers. he is losing.

Freedom will take hold, just like it is in Afghanistan. Neither place is perfect. There are still extremists in both places. Hell, almost 220 years down the line one of our very own extremists blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building. You cannot ever get rid of them. some times they don't act alone. sometimes they have their own political parties. KKK ring a bell?

I do think Bush will win a Tuesday from today. If John Kerry does, I don't see the world changing at all. He'll find out the same things Bush has, or that he should have known in the first place if he'd ever bothered to attend his Senate Inteligence Committee meetings. But as history suggests, no matter how badly a President fucks something up. Whether you're Jimmy Carter letting hostages be kidnapped or kissing Brezhnev on his way in to Afghanistan. Or you're Tricky Dick Nixon, trying to fix gas prices or trying to employ a B.S. "Peace with Honor" strategy. We somehow find a way to plow through whatever gets in our way.

This next weeks gonna be fun, regardless. I can't wait to see what will hit the fan.

[FNG]

Yeah, kinda like Bush saying he was against nation building during his presidential campaign. Oh yeah except Al Qaeda was not attempting to take over the world. Neither was Iraq. That is, until they were given the chance.

FNG, what is this "First Gulf War" shit. There was no peace treaty. There was a cease-fire. The cease-fire was in place to insure Saddam disarmed completely and totally. He did not. He was not able to prove he had(or for some reason would not). We went through 16 resolutions via the UN trying to get him to do so. Made Regime change our national policy in 1998. Then we get smacked in the nose. 3000 people die. We take out Al Qaeda(loosely translated "The Base").

What are you trying to say here? I made no mention of a peace treaty or a cease-fire. I was simply illustrating that Iraq was not a threat. I think we're on the same page there, but I don't understand what you mean by, "That is, until they [Iraq & Al Qaeda?] were given the chance."

Going back to something you & 13 were talking about, Pearl Harbor's relevence to our enterance into WWII is in no way comperable to 9/11's relevence to our enterance into Iraq. Japan clearly attacked us at Pearl Harbor. They declared war on us as did Germany. Iraq did none of those things. George W. Bush's personal suspicion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 is the closest parrallel that can be drawn between Iraq & 9/11.

[Blurred]

http://www.soulskier.com/kerry_wafflehouse.jpg

[trainnvain]

^^^Blurred's commercial break when he runs out of spew material.^^^

[DaveTV]

Freedom will take hold, just like it is in Afghanistan.

http://www.arcticchat.com/forums/html/emoticons/eek.gifhttp://www.arcticchat.com/forums/htm.../slaphappy.gif

[trainnvain]

http://www.arcticchat.com/forums/html/emoticons/eek.gifhttp://www.arcticchat.com/forums/htm.../slaphappy.gif

Wrong language. Not emoticon, you need to be fluent in brickwall.

[Blurred]

^^^Blurred's commercial break when he runs out of spew material.^^^

I'm a heretic attacking the infidels. I have a tough job and I must rest every now and then.

[trainnvain]

Pshww... ya don't have the gumption to take a heretic(al?) stance. Not you.

[Blurred]

Pshww... ya don't have the gumption to take a heretic(al?) stance. Not you.

A heretic is controversial, I think i fit the bill. [/schooling]

[13]

Cool SI Article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

[Telekóptero]

Your safety is more important before all of the other issues in this election, and Rove knows that.

ahem.

A pussy in the White House could possibly get you killed.

If you're to step that low, (what are we in fourth grade here?)you should ask who's the pussy, B. Who served? Who didn't? Who was the cheerleader?
Just taking it to you on your own turf, man.

[Blurred]

ahem.


If you're to step that low, (what are we in fourth grade here?)you should ask who's the pussy, B. Who served? Who didn't? Who was the cheerleader?
Just taking it to you on your own turf, man.

Your pacifism will get you killed. The terrorists don't think like you.

[Lone Star]

Your pacifism will get you killed. The terrorists don't think like you.

Your dickheadedness will get you killed. The laid back badass skiers don't think like you, beeotch.

[Blurred]

Your dickheadedness will get you killed. The laid back badass skiers don't think like you, beeotch.

Me riding in your truck this weekend will get me killed.

[Lone Star]

Me riding in your truck this weekend will get me killed.

hahahaha, you mean, you don't think Texans know how to drive on snow? hogwash!!

[Blurred]

hahahaha, you mean, you don't think Texans know how to drive on snow? hogwash!!

Not just that, but I've ridden with you and it's a miracle you still have your license.

[Lone Star]

Not just that, but I've ridden with you and it's a miracle you still have your license.

if you hadn't noticed during peak vacation times in Summit County, the standards in TX aren't exactly high!!

[Blurred]

if you hadn't noticed during peak vacation times in Summit County, the standards in TX aren't exactly high!!

Shit, we were on dry roads. About a month and a half ago, remember? Maybe you were just really drunk that morning....

[FNG]

Your pacifism will get you killed. The terrorists don't think like you.

Interesting story of pacifism not getting people killed:

After the facist government in Spain fell, all of the administrations until the previous one took a policy of appeasement, neutrality, and pacifism. They had few problems with terrorism. Then the previous administration gets elected and sides with the U.S. on it's war against Iraq, and takes a hardline stance on terrorism. Al Qaeda bombs busses killing hundreds. The Spaniards vote in a new government body that returns to its previous passive position on terrorism.

I don't think the terrorists will stop attacking the US, but that just goes to show you that pacifism can actually keep you safe. Some people say that the best way to stay safe is to not make any enemies.

[Blurred]

Interesting story of pacifism not getting people killed:

After the facist government in Spain fell, all of the administrations until the previous one took a policy of appeasement, neutrality, and pacifism. They had few problems with terrorism. Then the previous administration gets elected and sides with the U.S. on it's war against Iraq, and takes a hardline stance on terrorism. Al Qaeda bombs busses killing hundreds. The Spaniards vote in a new government body that returns to its previous passive position on terrorism.

I don't think the terrorists will stop attacking the US, but that just goes to show you that pacifism can actually keep you safe. Some people say that the best way to stay safe is to not make any enemies.

Terrorism=control through fear. It's obviously working on you.

[FNG]

Obviously.

[Telekóptero]

If you're to step that low, (what are we in fourth grade here?)you should ask who's the pussy, B. Who served? Who didn't? Who was the cheerleader?
Just taking it to you on your own turf, man.

Your pacifism will get you killed. The terrorists don't think like you.

interesting. no relevant response to directly address the questions. [/schooling]

[Blurred]

interesting. no relevant response to directly address the questions. [/schooling]

Do I have to play your childish game and answer the questions you already have? Realize he served 30 years ago. I know you and the rest of the left enjoy rolling around on this subject, but give me a break. Here's what your "hero" did in Vietnam.

Taking a look at Mr. Kerry's much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry's recollection of their discussions:

"[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. 'We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,' the admiral said. 'Bud' Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage." And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer. It's a pity one cannot read his Purple Heart medical treatment reports which have been withheld from the public. The only person preventing their release is Mr. Kerry.

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt's problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces.
Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as "accidents of war. "And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post.


Being a cheerleader is much more admiral then what Kerry did.

You need to learn what side of the fence you're on A, in my book he's a total pussy.[/schooling]

[Blurred]

While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.
"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening.
Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy in Vietnam put civilians at such high risk.







After this, the fucker comes back and writes a book, with this picture on the cover....a bunch of scumbags mocking the famous imo jima picture with an upside down American flag....Future president of the USA? What a disgrace....


http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/06afc520.jpg

[mr_gyptian]

FNG, I wasn't clear. what I was saying is that in the Duelfer report, if it was read in completion. Not the NYTimes skimming. repeatedly stated that Saddam had the capability to have a CW program up in running within weeks of inspectors/sanctions leaving and lifted. It was no secret that Saddam wanted to dominate the Middle Eastern oil reserves. In his mind he was the next Saladdin.

LONG LIVE OIL

Thu Oct 14,12:05 AM ET

By William F. Buckley Jr.

Teresa Heinz Kerry's reference to "greed for oil" can be passed over, and is being passed over, as routine political hyperbole. But maybe the time has come to examine the words and their meaning. This is so because "oil" is widely used as the great engine of human avarice. In years -- and centuries -- gone by, the devil word was "gold." It was gold that brought out the reserves of evil in men. It ranked with and even exceeded love and sex. Oil could not, of course, go through hobgoblinization until its uses were discovered. But now it is used as the commonplace agent of evil.


William F. Buckley



What needs to be said about oil is that it IS worth fighting for. We would all agree that air and water are necessities. Without them life instantly ends. Without oil, life does not end, but life radically changes.


If one contemplates oil as simply an agent of energy, the idea becomes instantly clearer. Every advance by mankind against the material duress of life is most easily expressed in terms of energy spared. Electrical power is generated in part by coal, by running water and by nuclear energy. But much of it is created by oil and gas. What is it that a people are willing to fight for? The security of home and hearth come first, and that is achieved mostly by weaponry; but weapons that seek to have their effects beyond the range of a cartridge of gunpowder do so, on battleships and airplanes, by the propellant force of oil.


If you are willing to die in order to protect your local hospital, then you must be willing to die for oil, because without electricity, your hospital won't take you beyond a surgeon's scalpel, and a surgeon is helpless without illumination, which is provided (in many places) by oil.


To say that we must not fight for oil is utter cant. To fight for oil is to fight in order to maintain such sovereignty as we exercise over the natural world. Socialism plus electricity, Lenin said at the outset of the Soviet revolution, would usher in the ideal state. He was wrong about socialism but not about electricity. Electricity gives us whatever leverage we have over nature.


To flit on airily about an unwillingness to fight for oil suggests an indifference to the alleviation of poverty at the next level after bread and water. Throw in, perhaps, the wheel. That too is an indispensable scaffolding of human power over nature. But then comes all the power not generated by the muscles of human beings and beasts of burden.


Oddly, those who speak so lightly about oil are often the most reluctant to explore seriously alternatives to it. In the history of discovery, only one such has materialized, which is nuclear power. Although nuclear power proceeds inconspicuously to light most of the lamps in France and promises to do as much in China, a mix of superstition and Luddism stands in the way of developing the nuclear alternative here.


Meanwhile, we must get on with oil, and the reserves of it are diminishing, and such great storehouses of oil as exist are mostly in the Middle East. The idea that our effort in Iraq (news - web sites) is motivated by lust for its oil fields is easily dispelled by asking who is today profiting from such oil as is being produced in Iraq? The answer is: the Iraqis. The great need now is for increased security forces deployed to protect the oil from the nihilists and from those who reduce any consideration of oil to politics. What is achieved, that any sober judgment will approve of, by the destruction of oil fields, the kind of thing that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) tried to do in Kuwait in 1991?


It's unlikely, given the spook that now attaches to the mere mention of oil, that the presidential candidates will say wholesome things on the subject. But it would bring fresh air to international discourse if we heard from either or both that oil is a great natural bounty, and that we must encourage its production, guard against its despoliation, and honorably defend it as worth a total national commitment