06-22-2005, 09:56 AM | #351 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
|
I must have been part of that 20-30% who didn't think he was connected - directly, anyway. Oh sure, he may have given some money to some kind of terrorist organization that gave money to so-and-so that paid for one of the hijackers plane tickets.
Really, I thought this was a war more about the intelligence we and every other nation had at the time about WMDs and the fact that he had been giving the world the finger for over 10 years. His terrorist support was just icing on the cake.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! She loves you, yeah! how do you know? how do you know? |
06-22-2005, 10:42 AM | #352 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
OK I'll type slowly maybe that will help.
I'm saying that the administration proclaimed that Saddam had past and current ties to terror organizations, including Al Qaeda. I don't believe it is difficult to prove that those ties existed. I'm also saying that the administration actively proclaimed that Saddam, given his ties to terror organizations, might someday ally with a terror organization to attack the United States. It just seems easier to believe that the dots the administration connected between Saddam and Terrorism show the future potential threat which the admin talked about, rather than the Saddam was behind 9/11 conclusion that people are drawing. Regarding the 70%-80% of people believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11...I don't buy it. I believe it is most likely the result of either bad polling practices/interpretation or a poll designed to generate that result. Perhaps it was done by the University of Maryland(I think it was University of Maryland in any case) group that posted absurd numbers about Bush supporters believing ridiculous notions in the run up to the election. Edit: Oh I also agree exactly with what CraigSca said above. The invasion of Iraq wasn't packaged and sold as part of the war on Terror until after the invasion when the resistance reared its ugly head. Now if we were to be discussing the legitimacy of that proclamation by the administration, then I suspect there would be some common ground. Last edited by Glengoyne : 06-22-2005 at 10:46 AM. |
06-22-2005, 10:58 AM | #353 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2005, 11:10 AM | #354 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Bullshit. Quote:
Source (The White House) |
||
06-22-2005, 11:12 AM | #355 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Washington Post, actually. But I assume you won't believe any poll not commissioned by Fox News, right? |
|
06-22-2005, 11:18 AM | #356 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
Here is a write-up of the Maryland study. By the way, a simple check on the web confirms these statistics in other polls taken at the time. xwww.pipa.org/OnlineReports/ Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf You may want to get your facts straight. That study shows that 20% of Bush supporters believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 (vs. 8% of Kerry supporters). However, it showed that 75% of Bush supporters thought that either they were directly involved OR gave substantial aid and support to Al Quada (to allow them to carry out the attacks). What I find funny is that AFTER the 9/11 commission published their report (which stated that there were no material links between Iraq and Al Quada), 56% of Bush supporters thought that the report said there were! |
|
06-22-2005, 11:20 AM | #357 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Looking back at the archives of this board (which unfortunately do not extend to 2002 and 2001), I found some interesting quotes from early 2003 (right around the time hostilities began) about Iraq and this thread seemed as good as any to post them. I left out the overtly racist posts that really were prominent during that time, but I thought these quotes represent something of a time capsule:
detroit fan said: "The US gov will show us the smoking gun when the time is right. You don't think that Saddam has not been supporting al Qaeda? This man is Hitler reborn." In response to my statement that Iraq was far from the worst human rights offender, rkmsuf said: "I don't believe the core of the issues revolve around human rights issues." In the same thread rkmsuf said: "We've spent the better part of 10 yrs trying to diplomatically solve the issue of Iraq and terrorism...it got us the rubble of the Twin Towers..." Tarkus said: "Finally, if you think this movement [the invasion] against Iraq is solely motivated by Saddam I believe that's a mistake. This movement against Iraq is about 9/11." Tarkus said: "No, the answer is because Iraq has and is developing weapons of mass destruction that they will one day either threaten us with or give to those that will. It's not about human rights violations within a particular country at this point." jamesUMD said: "We have established that some of the 9/11 highjackers met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in the months leading up to the event. I think what we do know in conjunction with what the Intelligence community knows, we have the proof. " Dutch said: "What have they been doing since 1991? Who's keeping pressure on Saddam? You? No. How about, me? I've spent already 3 years of my life in this part of the world "keeping the pressure" on him. The status quo got us Al Qaeda. Somethings got to give. When he makes his nuke, he's not going to check in with the U.S. Army before he exports it to Al Qaeda." ACStrider said: " Like I said, the administration has information which suggests that Iraq has supported Al-Quaieda...doesn't necessarily equate them, but according to the Bush doctrine, those who support terrorists are just as guilty as those who are." Fido said: "Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?" mrskippy (I know, he is too easy to pick on, but I couldn't resist) said: "It is believed that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have a strong relationship. Some believe Iraq may have supplied bin Laden with materials for 9/11 and the anthrax attacks." jamesUMD said: "The easy assumption would be that Bush's advisors are equally as inept as some would assume George Bush to be. I really do not think this is the case. We may joke about the government, and how illogical or stupid they are, but I think that they have a much better, and informed understanding of the situation than we could ever have. There is a reason that our forefathers chose a representative democracy. Everyone can have an opinion on every subject regardless of their knowledge of that subject. I would rather have a group of informed decision-makers map out the best course of action, over the mass opinion of the uninformed any day." Arles said: "Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties. So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers." Strangely, a year later he said: "I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic. Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war." Arles said: "If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?" Arles said: "As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that." Arles said: " We attack Iraq because we believe their government allows terrorist training camps, supplies arms and other actions that are national security matters." CamEdwards said: "Are there other countries with worse human rights abuses? Yes, and we deal with them in other ways. This, bottom line, is not a war of liberation. It's a great side effect, but that's not why we're there." stkelly52 said: "Whatever evidence that the US has, it must be VERY convincing. THe US high ups don't seem to have a doubt in their minds. I am certain that what ever he says will have the rest of the UN quite certain as well." Dutch said: "The only way this [Powell's speech before the UN] is "unmoving" is to assume that Powell is part of an vast network of lies and conspiracy that stretch far and wide and Hussein is America's 'patsy'. Or it's the simple, cruel, truth." Tarkus said: "I do find it interesting that many of the anti-war posters here have not been heard from lately. Maybe they just got tired of getting shouted down because there are more pro-war folks. Or maybe there are other more obvious reasons. Any way you look at this war it's a good thing.... I don't think there's a chance the Iraqi people as a whole won't be jubilant that the coalition forces have ousted Saddam." sabotai, using his crystal ball, said: "I think we should go to war with Iraq. I think we should have awhile ago. But to be honest, I'm not sure is Bush's reasons for going to war are honest. IOW, I think he's using this whole weapons of mass destruction as kind of a smoke screen for the real reasons he wants to go to war. I'm not sure what those reasons are, it's really more of a feeling I get, plus lookign at how swiftly he moved his focus from Al-Quida to Iraq. He seemed to make that jump out of no where."
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude Last edited by John Galt : 06-22-2005 at 11:21 AM. |
06-22-2005, 11:21 AM | #358 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
More grist for the mill. Including more information on the University of Maryland pollsters the Bush Apologists hate. From the Christian Science Monitor, 3/14/2003.
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2005, 11:27 AM | #359 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
John - Excellent post. Thanks for doing that research.
I find this sequence in particular very disturbing: Quote:
|
|
06-22-2005, 11:43 AM | #360 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Is it more or less of a leap than Bush invaded Iraq to trade American Blood for Oil to line Halliburton's pockets in order to pay big dividends to Cheney which somehow gets Bush re-elected? C'mon, I'm working with reasonable suspicion--AT LEAST. |
|
06-22-2005, 11:44 AM | #361 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Ouch! Totally beaten by your own posts.
|
06-22-2005, 11:50 AM | #362 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
the side effect of the sanctions did NOT work. They did not punish Saddam and only succeeded in punishing the people of Iraq. The inspections, in hindsight, seemed to be working but the sanctions were not.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-22-2005, 11:55 AM | #363 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I can't help myself, because this is so easy to debunk. You'll note from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq: Quote:
And then there's Bush's letter to Congress before the invasion: Quote:
|
|||
06-22-2005, 12:10 PM | #364 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:15 PM | #365 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Perhaps you have misunderstood? |
|
06-22-2005, 12:18 PM | #366 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
John: Do you have copies of the original posts? How did two posts from different days end up on the same page? And how do we know Arles even typed these? Maybe it was you posing as Arles so you could set him up later.
No, I think its safe to assume that Arles was always right and his critics always wrong. |
06-22-2005, 12:25 PM | #367 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Why is this one of the anti-Bush/pro-Saddam/pro-Al-Qaeda crowd "Posts of the Decade"? Last edited by Dutch : 06-22-2005 at 12:25 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:26 PM | #368 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
You might want to try something like a /sarcasm marker. Last time I tried parody in this thread, Arles kind of missed it.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-22-2005, 12:28 PM | #369 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Huh? I never said "Posts of the Decade" but thanks for referring to me as "pro-saddam" and "pro-al-qaeda." I thought it was interesting for the statement that "the status quo [policy against Saddam] got us Al Qaeda" - unless I'm missing something.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-22-2005, 12:31 PM | #370 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
The only documentation I can provide would be the September 11th report and the statements made by several of the commisioners in the aftermath of its release. According to those sources there had been a dialogue of some sort between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government(Saddam Hussein). Those contacts didn't constitute a meaningful relationship, but the contacts themselves aren't being denied as far as I know. Then certainly once we had gone into Afghanistan, there was the bit about Al Zarqawi(sp?) being given refuge in Iraq, and treated in an Iraqi hospital for wounds he received in Afghanistan. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:33 PM | #371 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I think it should be pointed out that Arles thought the war would be short and sweet going into it. The Bush Administration never said any such thing. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:36 PM | #372 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
Both arguments are equally fanciful, since very little evidence exists to support either assertion. In fact, most evidence that does exist is contrarian: Osama - Saddam link? Saddam was a survivalist, not an idealogue, who would never host AQ because he (1) was scared to death of religious fundamentalism (2) was already under the watchful eye of the US air surveilance AQ is self-financing, they don't need what little money Saddam would be able to muster as Iraq's economy continued to decline. WMD's are a different matter. It is not clear whether Saddam still had WMD's by the late 1990s. But if Saddam did have WMD's, why would he give them to AQ? That would only seem to invite certain retaliation. Remember, Saddam's primary focus was on surviving; he wouldn't do anything that would invite his certain demise. If that were the case, he would have loaded the scuds bound for Jerusalem in the 1990 war with chemical warheads... Blood for Oil? As for the blood for oil stuff... the links are just as tenuous, since we don't get our oil from the middle east. It had very little to do with oil at all, since Russia (production) and China (consumption) are the primary levers on the world oil market these days. As for Haliburton, a no-bid contract was awarded, but to think that thoughts of a possible contract had a bearing on the initial decision to go to war--well, that is patently ridiculous. Remember, the administration did little planning for the aftermath of the war: I don't see how they could have really thoroughly considered how much post-war infrastructure rebuilding they would need to do, so I doubt they had much of an idea beforehand about how much they would need Haliburton. In fact, Haliburton is actually losing money with its Iraq operations--so it even seems possible that the administration either did not know how much it needed to spend, or actually tried to get Haliburton to low-ball so as not to arouse suspicion of impropriety (I don't know which, if any, is the case). I think that the commentary on this board from both the pro- and anti- war crowd slips into analysis based on faulty logic and fanciful assertions with alarming frequency. In my posts on foreign policy topics, I try my best to come up with conclusions based on good-old logical hypothesis testing. Not sure if I do a good enough job sometimes (though this is a fake sports sim message board afterall), but that is where I am coming from... Last edited by Klinglerware : 06-22-2005 at 12:40 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:37 PM | #373 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Actually I believe Zogby is pretty much the standard for accuracy in polling nowadays. |
|
06-22-2005, 12:41 PM | #374 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
No, but it was directed more at Arles. |
|
06-22-2005, 01:00 PM | #375 | ||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Did you actually read the Joint Resolution or just post the bits above out of context. Quote:
The resolution pretty well makes it clear that the government felt that Saddam was supporting International terrorism, and that he was harboring terrorists. They reference the congressional resolutions authorizing force against nations that harbor terrorists as well as those that participated in the attacks of September 11th. It doesn't make the case that Saddam played any role in September 11th. |
||
06-22-2005, 01:07 PM | #376 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Oh? Quote:
Quote:
Edit: How could I forget? Last edited by flere-imsaho : 06-22-2005 at 01:10 PM. |
|||
06-22-2005, 01:09 PM | #377 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Well, that's an interesting reading of the document.... As I said before, the Bush Apologists are going to believe what they want to believe, despite the evidence. |
|
06-22-2005, 01:15 PM | #378 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
I was just looking up old quotes (to post something similar to what flere already posted), and found this:
Quote:
Kind of a kick in the face to the revisionists who say that everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, isn't it? Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 06-22-2005 at 01:16 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 01:23 PM | #379 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
....Glen is right, actually, they did find that one guy who killed the wheel chaired American on that ship in the MEd. so they were harboring international terrorists. I believe that was Islamic Jihad but I could be way wrong there. Anyways, splitting hairs....they said "international terrorism" and a few sentences later bush would say international terrorism includes Al Qaeda so that means A = C...but I digress, the IRA is not affiliated with Al Qaeda yet we consider them International Terrorists so it really doesn't hold water. Like Clinton ( ) by choosing their words and being as cloudy and murky as possible they leave it up to you to decide. Luckily for them, most Americans thought that Bush and co. We're talking about Saddam and 9/11...most that that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked (i mean what is a relationship anyways? - everyone has a relationship [so thats again a cloudy word])....I think if the Right would simply admit the fault and move on, most American's would be cool with it (I know I would as I still am glad we knocked Saddam out) but I think that theyre afraid that by admitting to the obvious (at least to most American's) that that will be immediately followed by a call to bring the troops home. I know Im against that so to me its simply quibbling and trying to deny the obvious (obvious in that poll #'s support it along with the quotes documented)
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-22-2005, 01:28 PM | #380 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
That Meet the Press is hilarious, everyone should read it. Here is another excerpt:
Quote:
For the record, oil production today in Iraq is under 2 million barrels a day, 20% lower than it was before the war, and the war in Iraq currently has cost us $180 billion. I think it is clear that the people out there that are saying that none of these things could have been foreseen, that everyone thought the same as the administration, are completely revising history. |
|
06-22-2005, 01:56 PM | #381 | ||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I don't think I am completely a Bush Apologist, as there are plenty of things the President has done, that I completely disagree with. As for the Maryland Pollsters(PIPA). I think they are pretty biased in their interpretation of poll results.... Quote:
He asserts that it is the administration connecting these dots..which I find odd since they really weren't doing so overtly, as many Bush haters have said. The numbers this group has come up with in the past seem to be as phony to me as the Poll during the California Recall election that showed Cruz Bustamante ahead of Ahnold by some 20 points. Polls aren't inherently unbiased unless those conducting them take pains to do so. The PIPA group doesn't really seem all that interested in remaining non-partisan, therefore I question the validity of some of their work. |
||
06-22-2005, 02:04 PM | #382 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I stand corrected in that members of the Administration did, as you illustrated, say that the war would be relatively short. The president routinely said the matter would take years and cost thousands of lives. This makes me really regret*not* previously stating that the war was in fact over in a short period of time. It is simply the security of Iraq that our troops are now working on. In other words...The shooting war is over(mission accomplished) we are now in a police action. It is just that in this case police work/security is being done by the millitary. Last edited by Glengoyne : 06-23-2005 at 01:11 AM. Reason: I actually re-read one of my posts...I forgot something |
|
06-22-2005, 02:12 PM | #383 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Fair enough, however I would be willing to bet that the admin. would never state that it is a "police situation" as it would leave the door open for opponents to start the "bring our troops home" talk...eventhough what you said is accurate.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-22-2005, 02:12 PM | #384 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
It is stated in plain english that Saddam was Harboring terrorists. It was stated that Congress was authorizing the use of force on Iraq because, among other reasons...they had authorized the use of force on nations that were harboring terrorists. It is easier to read what the document explicitly states, than to read into it what you are trying to. Just because September 11th is mentioned in the Resolution, doesn't mean that Iraq is being linked to September 11th. Rather the authorization to use force on Iraq partly relies on the previous resolution authorizing force against nations that would harbor terrorists or actually aided in the September 11th attacks. |
|
06-22-2005, 02:15 PM | #385 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I think you are correct with that assertion. Rather than call it police work or law enforcement, the admin is lumping it in with the "war on Terror". I'm not exactly happy with that characterization, although it is more true today that it was two years ago when they first started making the claim. |
|
06-22-2005, 03:02 PM | #386 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
we agree
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-22-2005, 04:56 PM | #387 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
A) the military effort to remove Saddam (I stated it should take a few months and a couple hundred casualties). B) the total US and world effort to help take Iraq from a dictatorship to a self-sufficient democratic form of government (which I stated would be a tough road). But, hey, why bring context into such a fun game of cherry picking statements Last edited by Arles : 06-22-2005 at 04:58 PM. |
||
06-22-2005, 05:12 PM | #388 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
dola, to help with the context, the original post I responded to dealt with the apparant "quagmire" that the battle for Baghdad could turn into:
Quote:
The second comment was in response to the act of building a new Iraq nation and removing the regime. So, with the proper context provided, I stand by both statements that the effort to remove Saddam from power was not going to be akin to "vietnam" (as one of the original posters alluded to). But, that the effort to take a leaderless Iraq that dealt with tyranny for decades and turn it into a self-sufficient and representative government was going to be a tough road. Last edited by Arles : 06-22-2005 at 05:15 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 05:56 PM | #389 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
I think those Navy boys did a great job, no matter what the Dem's tell us. |
|
06-22-2005, 06:42 PM | #390 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Ive never disagreed with that sentiment...All of our military have done a great job of Warring...not such a great job of policing but I think its a task they were not trained properly for. Not their fault and I wish them God speed. EDIT: Just remember its Bush that cut a lot of stuff for the VA, Veterans and Bases.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-22-2005 at 06:43 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 07:47 PM | #391 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
The mission those Navy Boys accomplished had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. The banner was for their part in toppling Saddam Hussein and they did a marvelous job without *. The hard-line Democrats use that sign against the military for political gain. They should be ashamed of themselves. Last edited by Dutch : 06-22-2005 at 07:49 PM. |
|
06-22-2005, 08:41 PM | #392 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2005, 08:44 PM | #393 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2005, 09:10 PM | #394 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Garbage, and the admin. started reacting to the reaction in due course, flipping it this way and that. AT first defending it, then saying it was someone without permission, then distancing and now trying to forget it happened...so how do you come up with your point of you that the Right SPECIFICALLY put that up (or the navy put that up, ["Mission Accomplished"], in a specific reference to the NAVY ONLY, leaving all other branches out. c'mon....thats ridiculous...I guess it's too bad for the Army, air Force, Marines, Coast gaurd, etc. They apparently did not accomplish the mission, according to Dutch [tongue in cheek].
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-22-2005, 10:57 PM | #395 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
As a member of the Air Force, I was glad to see it. Morale Boost. The speech he gave underneath that sign specifically stated that toppling Saddam wasn't the end. That there was much hard and dangerous work still to be done and with many challenges. That's not spin. In any event, everybody blames hard-line Democrats for spinning it unethically. The problem these days with the Dem's is they are so busy defending those hard-liners instead of distancing themselves from them. |
|
06-22-2005, 10:57 PM | #396 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
"Gitmo is a Russian Gulag" would win--no? |
|
06-22-2005, 11:03 PM | #397 | ||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
|
*looks around*
I'm sorry. I must be in the wrong place. *slowly backs out*
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-22-2005, 11:21 PM | #398 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
oh that's what it means now? funny, before it somehow meant "we got saddam" but obviously that has changed. just because they never explicitly said what the banner was for, it's pretty obvious what it was meant to portray and it certainly wasn't "the shooting war is over" |
|
06-22-2005, 11:24 PM | #399 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
Quote:
I wouldn't call them hard-line democrats as much as I would say idiots with a mic. Its not like normal republicans haven't tried to distance themselves from their "hard-liners". I just think there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who have become too full of themselves, and I have no problem putting them in their place. Unfortunately, its the outspoken idiots who become the public sees and then become the face of the party (and then for some reason are actually promoted by the party to power (see DeLay and Dean). Lets face it, both parties have been given huge opportunities to step up on various issues and they completely blow it by putting these blowhards in front of the mic. Look at the dems, they have decent support on the war, but the leadership has no idea what to do. They just want to say whatever will get people talking, even if they're not talking about the right things. They need to understand that there can be soundbites that don't have to take an extreme psycho postion, and the populace will still hear it. McCain and company closer to the middle seem to understand that... its a shame the rest of the jackasses are the ones not listening. |
|
06-23-2005, 01:20 AM | #400 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that no one spelled out exactly what that banner meant, but it is pretty reasonable to believe it was applicable to the situation at hand. He was celebrating on a ship that was returning from a successful campaign to overthrow a foreign capital. For the sailors in that battle group, the war was over. I have pretty well always maintained that the war in Iraq ended with the capitulation of the Iraqi government. From that moment on our soldiers weren't fighting a war, they were essentially enforcing the rule of law...or trying to do so. I sometimes get flack for referring to "post war" Iraq, but in reality that is what it is. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|