In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Some will disagree, but I don't.

dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
edited February 2004 in General Discussion
Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Ten Lessons

By DENNIS PRAGER

Ten lessons from Saddam Hussein's capture:

1. America is the greatest force for good on the planet. America, with the support of Britain and some other countries, and against the rest of "world opinion," liberated Iraq from evil. If it were up to the U.N. or the EU, or the editorial boards of most major American newspapers, Saddam would still be happily making palaces for himself and torture dungeons for his people.

2. The positive effect on humanity of good vanquishing evil cannot be overstated. When evil people get away with what they have done, it has a dispiriting effect. Even those of us who believe that a just God dispenses justice after this life ache to see justice done here and now. In this regard, it is not only good that Saddam was captured; it is good that he lived in holes, and aware that his sadistic sons had been killed. It is nice to know that he has been suffering.

3. No Muslim or Arab country lifted a finger to help the Iraqi people. This is because the Muslim and Arab worlds do not divide the world between good and evil, but between Muslim and non-Muslim and Arab and non-Arab. Since Saddam was a fellow Muslim and Arab, the fact that he tortured and murdered so many was as irrelevant to the Muslim and Arab worlds as the Islamic regime's genocide in Sudan and the subjugation of women in Taliban Afghanistan.

4. Not everyone is happy about Saddam's capture. Palestinians, for example, are weeping. Saddam was their hero. Iraqis were forced to march with his posters, but Palestinians did so voluntarily. Many on the Left are also not particularly happy. Saddam's capture is a victory for American force and for George W. Bush, and the Left hates both more than it hates Saddam.

5. The Left seeks power, but is incapable of leading because leadership and wanting to be loved are mutually exclusive. Leftists, including liberal politicians, want to be loved and want America to be loved. That was President Clinton's great desire, and that is why, with all his abundant talents, he could never lead. Much of the Left's criticism of Mr. Bush revolves around this issue: "Look at how popular we were right after 9/11 and how unpopular we are now."

6. Most of the Left does not hate evil; hatred of evil is primarily found on the Right. With exceptions such as Tony Blair and Joseph Lieberman, virtually the entire Left finds evil far less disturbing than global warming, smoking, economic inequality, and drug prices. And with the exceptions of "paleoconservatives" such as Pat Buchanan, most of the Right regards the use of American power to vanquish evil as the greatest good the U.S. can engage in.

7. In the Arab world, power is venerated. For years leading up to 9/11, Islamists were respected for their increasing power and America was losing respect as it suffered blows at the hands of Islamic terror. Now America is seen as the powerful one, and is earning the respect once accorded Saddam and Osama. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

8. There are many who respect goodness above all else. But humanity as a whole has far more respect for power, and takes powerful societies more seriously than good ones. That is why China is respected despite its being a dictatorship and its brutal crushing of Tibet. China is powerful. The stronger America is, the more people will take it and its values seriously. As an unprecedented combination of power and goodness, America could reshape the world.

9. The Marxist belief that forces, not individuals, shape history is wrong. George W. Bush is living proof.

10. The reason the president is shaping history is that he has as strong a set of beliefs -- in America's moral mission and in Judeo-Christian religious values -- as those he is fighting. Those who hold bad beliefs can only be defeated by those have equally strong good beliefs.

Mr. Prager, a radio talk show host, is author of "Why the Jews?" (Touchstone, 2003).


How you doin'!wolf_evil_smile_md_wht.gif
«1

Comments

  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 39,875 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    Thank you for posting that. I agree.

    Aberdeen.gif
    81st FA BN WWII...Thanks Dad
    U!S!A! ALL THE WAY!!
  • bobskibobski Member Posts: 17,866 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    sounds good on paper but actions speak louder than words. as long as we allow things like hip hop gang bang music and violence on tv, yes...and janet j, the world will view us as double standard and two faced. its for this reason we are hated. we say one thing and do the other. we need to get our whole act together as a nation or its going to be a never ending circle of loss and war. thus the saying, 'God bless america?' no.....'amercia, bless God.' Once God is in charge, things will change, otherwise humanisism is bound to fail, regardless of the political side you choose.
    Retired Naval Aviation
    Former Member U.S. Navy Shooting Team
    Former NSSA All American
    Navy Distinguished Pistol Shot
    MO, CT, VA.
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bobski
    as long as we allow ...

    Yes, but what they must understand is, this is the cost of freedom. You can't legislate morality. Something they have yet to learn.

    How you doin'!wolf_evil_smile_md_wht.gif
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    I agree whole-heartedly![:)]

    Eric

    All American Arms Company

    Veteran Owned and Operated
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The end never justifies the means, unless you happen to be G.W. Bush, it seems.

    I repeat: Bush launched this "war" on a completely phony pretext of nonexistent WMD, and then, after being proven wrong, crawfishes his way out by claiming "Well, it had to be done because Saddam was such an evil guy." NO WMD, NO link to Al-Qaeda, NO threat to the US. And nowhere in the Constitution does the President have the authority to be a king-maker or king-breaker "just because the other guy is a meanie." Unimaginable billions spent, hundreds of brave soldiers lost, and for what? Do you SERIOUSLY think the Middle Easterners are going to bless us for this? Do you SERIOUSLY think this will cause actual, dedicated terrorists to stop and think for even a SECOND about attacking American targets? Get real. The only issues for the White House regarding this debacle were votes, reconstruction contracts, and maybe oil. The country's no safer than it was before, the Arabs don't like us any more than they did before, and the rest of the world doesn't respect us anymore than they did before, with the possible exception of a tiny handful of geopolitical ciphers like Poland and Spain.
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Bravo. I imagine the Wall Street Journal published it without co-signature by the editors, but that's okay. At one time they would have skipped it altogether. I think they are finally re-calibrating where the middle is. That's good. Because they are finally going to recognize that the looney left really is out there on the looney fringe.

    quote:Iraqis were forced to march with his posters, but Palestinians did so voluntarily.

    Which demonstrates how deluded the Arab "Palestinian" mindset has been all along. Celebrating the Butcher of Baghdad. They really are a beer short of a six-pack.

    "A meanie?" The Palestinians carry his posters and somebody in this country thinks he was just a meanie. Say that while he's torturing your wife and taking your head off.

    And the leftists don't take evil as seriously as conservatives because they consider it a "non-traditional lifestyle." Maybe that's the key to understanding their thinking -- there is no evil -- it's merely an acceptable degree of amorality.... If Saddam had moved to Frisco, maybe he would have fit right in, got a job in government, eh? [:D]

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Let's not forget #11: "Since Saddam's capture, attacks on American GIs have gone UP. So much for the theory that his capture would end the attacks."

    What Iraq has proved is that GW Bush has a lot of growing up to do. "Pre-emptive self-defense" is what the Japanes refer to as Pearl Harbor (don't think so? Pick up a history book and see why they attacked).

    "Bring it on." Yeah, as Clark said, only a man who has never seen combat would be so cavalier about war.

    "You're either with us or against us" followed by "I done f#$@ed up... give me money." Seems Georgey-boy is only tough unless he wants something... and then boy does he cave in like a two-dollar h##ker looking for her next fix.

    "3. No Muslim or Arab country lifted a finger to help the Iraqi people. This is because the Muslim and Arab worlds do not divide the world between good and evil, but between Muslim and non-Muslim and Arab and non-Arab. Since Saddam was a fellow Muslim and Arab, the fact that he tortured and murdered so many was as irrelevant to the Muslim and Arab worlds as the Islamic regime's genocide in Sudan and the subjugation of women in Taliban Afghanistan."

    How short a memory some folks have. Iran actively aided the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Iranians aren't Arab, but they are Muslim. Shoots that lollipop theory to dust now don't it?

    And I love how the Wall Street Journal, normally derided as a "liberal rag" around here, is now being held up as proof that GW Bush is the Christ come again. Oy...
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    I am so sick of this crap about WMD's not being found. How many worthless resolutions does it take to justify war? How many times did sadam have the oportunity to abide by those resolutions? What is the point of having resolutions if you have no resolve? How many more years of sanctions do you suppose it would have taken to get sadam to comply with the useless resolutions? Who do you think the muslim world blamed for the iraqi peoples plague of suffering from starvation and disease do to sanctions? Do you think that sadam was suffering like his people? How many iraqi people do you think died as a direct result of the useless UN sanctions? Sanctions against iraq were only causing the people of iraq to suffer and sadam was not going to comply with the agreement that was made after Desert Storm. The only way to resolve the situation was to oust the iraqi regime. If you would care to remember, the last resolution that was past gave sadam a deadline and promissed serious consequences if he did not comply. If we would have stuck with the UN's spineless way of dealing with the situation we would have looked as hollow and cowardly as the ones who did nothing. We did what was necessary. You go ahead and cry your liberal eyes out for the deposed sadistic dictator of iraq, but future generations of Americans are safer simply because sadam is done for and there is absolutely no chance that either of his mentally difficient sons will become ruler of iraq.

    "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    EMM -- Rarely are your remarks on this stuff so rickety. I hesitate to bother, but the general point here is that George W. didn't need all this concensus-making beforehand, and we all know it -- other elements in the world did, so we did the diplomatic thing. But the diplomatic effort was certainly optional. People don't seem to get it that we don't need a permission slip and don't feel at all bad about not getting one. Trying to embarrass us, or the President, with any of this line of thinking is a waste of time. George is unapologetic, and so are people like me.

    And no Arab country did anything about Saddam on its own, which is the whole point. Iran only jumped on a rolling bandwagon. As for George screwing up, you say that, but everyone in the administration is clear that they don't believe they screwed up at all. The fact that they attempt to get a world of wimps to part with some cash to support this effort, and they won't, might as well have been perfectly designed to embarrass THEM. It certainly doesn't reflect badly on us, that these people sit on their hands and let evil fester. The way to drain the swamp was to establish a presence in the middle of the swamp. We went. We succeeded. The man who wrote the article above is correct -- the Arabs finally take us more seriously than criminals like Saddam and Osama. In the past, under Democrat Presidents, incidents like the Cole got NO response -- NADA. Zip. It's tougher to follow a leader who hides in holes and can't stick his head up without getting it shot off. Everything else is just details.

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It sure is funny watching Republicans try and come up with reasons to support the invasion, since the reason that was originally stated, Saddam having stockpiles of Weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited. You guys better be nervous. While this business that WMDs were not found, even though that was the reason for going to war,might not matter to party loyalists, it seems everyone else is less than sympathetic to the "hey there are no wmds, but the world is a better place" defense.
    This will be the final nail in George Bushs reelection coffin.
    Say hello to Kerry in 2004.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • headzilla97headzilla97 Member Posts: 6,445
    edited November -1
    why didnt we just plant some weapons is my question?

    We're men. Its our God given right to watch sports and smut" - Al Bundy
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just wondering, when was the U.S. selected to be the U.N. police for the world?
    Oh wait, the U.N. was not with us on this.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo -- Are you the last one to figure out the emphasis on WMDs was purely a diplomatic choice from a large number of equally compelling arguments? The Democrats are the only ones trying to pretend it's a make-or-break issue. If George loses, it will be over jobs, medical care and gun right infringement, not toppling an Arab dictator. Most Americans outside of Democrat politics honestly do not care about your WMDs -- besides, the stocks they did have were undoubtedly shipped off to Syria, just as planes were flown to Iran before the first Gulf War. God. People.. get with it!

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Just wondering, when was the U.S. selected to be the U.N. police for the world?
    Oh wait, the U.N. was not with us on this.





    Which is interesting considering that now "the most popular reason" for the purpose of the conflict was to enforce UN resolutions. The UN did not want the US to go, but the US went to enforce the will of the UN. Joseph Heller must be enjoying this.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,511 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    America, the force for good, huh?
    Yes we do a lot of good.
    But was it good for the CIA to overthrow the govt of Guatemala in the '50s? Was it good when Nixon's CIA caused the murder of the democratically elected President of Chile in the '70s? Ask all the dead Vietnamese civilians about how good America is.
    Bush lied about WMDs, and suckered America into going into this war. I am sick of Johnson, and Nixon, and now Bush lying to us about the wars we need to fight.
    Marshall Plan, good. Elimination of smallpox, good. Kicking Taliban butt in Afghanistan, good. But we have a dark side.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Offeror- Read the war resolution passsed b y congress
    www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686


    and point out some of the "equally compelling arguments" that you speak of.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I guess the technical foul mentality comes from too much football and basketball, but the Democrats would love to reduce this to a technicality. We have 3 branches of government, legislative, judicial, and executive. If you go back and look at the times Congress has declared war since WWII, you won't find many. Things move too fast in the world and Congress requires a political concensus too. The Democrats have been rubbing their hands together hoping to hold Bush to something since Bush began lobbying the country to take out Saddam -- after 12 years of Saddam lifting his dress up at us over the no fly zones. Apparently, the Dems don't mind 12 years of raspberries when they can use a perfectly good victory to attack a sitting President. It's only politics, and it's what we do here, but it smells. It's no more disingenuous to say that the war was only about WMDs as to say that Democrats only hate George W. over WMDs. The WMDs are the ruse, get it? The excuse. The McGuffin. Even the Democrats knew we needed to make the case at the U.N. if we wanted them all friendly-like with Britain, and there's no denying Saddam was shamming to a degree about the maturity of his WMD programs, throwing inspectors out and so forth, and that the intelligence services believed some of the BS Saddam was selling about his stockpiles. Can you blame them for taking him seriously? The only REAL question is how much Saddam really had, that went out of the country or was buried. He didn't gas the Kurds with Glade air freshener, though he might have with Democrat sour grapes rhetoric.

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • TrinityScrimshawTrinityScrimshaw Member Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What are you anti Bush types going to do when we go into Iran, or North Korea? Bush is not finished yet. I fully support the * wooping that these hell holes have coming. You have not seen anything yet.

    Trinity +++

    "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
    What are you anti Bush types going to do when we go into Iran, or North Korea? Bush is not finished yet.

    Well he better hurry up cause he has about ten months to get it off the ground. He will not be reelected in 2004.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The REAL trouble is that if North Korea "needs going into," the Bush administration would do it while the Democrats were still wearing out their knee pads begging them to "negotiate."

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    It sure is funny watching Republicans try and come up with reasons to support the invasion, since the reason that was originally stated, Saddam having stockpiles of Weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited. You guys better be nervous. While this business that WMDs were not found, even though that was the reason for going to war,might not matter to party loyalists, it seems everyone else is less than sympathetic to the "hey there are no wmds, but the world is a better place" defense.
    This will be the final nail in George Bushs reelection coffin.
    Say hello to Kerry in 2004.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
    Kerry in 04, please Salzo. I have $50.00 that sez your wrong. Are ya game?


    JC

    Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
  • toolmaniamtoolmaniam Member Posts: 3,213
    edited November -1
    Any Liberal or Democrap will disagree with the facts.[:(!]

    A dead intruder cannot testify against you in a court of law!

    If they're still moving, put another round in them!


    P239n_Beauty.gif
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
    [Kerry in 04, please Salzo. I have $50.00 that sez your wrong. Are ya game?


    JC

    Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
    [/quote]

    It will be the easiest fifty bucks I have ever made. Im in, if we change the bet. I am pretty certain Kerry is going to get the nomination, but some other might get it.
    I will bet that a democrat will be the next president of the United States.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    I will bet that a democrat will be the next president of the United States.

    I would have considered Liberman. Now that he's out, I will not vote for any of the remaining democrats. That may put me in the minority, but so be it.

    How you doin'!wolf_evil_smile_md_wht.gif
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    No dice, Kerry or nothing. C'mon Salzo, you have stated twice on this post Kerry in 04, is he your man or what?


    JC

    Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
  • .280 freak.280 freak Member Posts: 1,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, let's see, between 1998 and 2003, quite a number of prominent Dems ALSO believed that Saddam had, or was amassing, WMDs. Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger (National Security Advisor to Clinton), Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and, oh yeah, JOHN KERRY to name a few.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in his hands is a REAL and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002

    (Capitalization of some words by me, not in original quotation; capitalized for emphasis)

    Seems like if "lying" about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is grounds for not voting for a particular candidate, you shouldn't be voting for Kerry, either.
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I will save Salzo the trouble and point out that Kerry would rush to say, "But I said IF NECESSARY!"

    As if he had zero DIRECT access to intelligence info to make his own decision and the Congress relied totally on Presidential hearsay.

    Another Democrap bogus technicality. I guess it depends what the word "is" is, eh? Yeah, that's the ticket.... [:D]

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    bobski -- I've got a Bangladeshi family living in the townhouse 3 doors down from me. There's a lot of them, and they have 5 cars in the parking lot. The one who seems to have been here longest is a computer programmer or something. I don't know what the rest of the family does. The mother wears traditional dress; the rest wear Western clothes. The little girl comes over and plays with my dog in good weather; her name is Sharla, or sounds that way. Somebody recently put on a little show of Bangladeshi fashions in town. It's a very small community, but I guess there are a group settled here.

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
    No dice, Kerry or nothing. C'mon Salzo, you have stated twice on this post Kerry in 04, is he your man or what?




    Come on it is a no brainer. Kerry is "probably, more than likely", going to get the nomination. In the event he doesnt and some other Democrat gets it(again, very unlikely)I will bet that the Democrat will be the next president of the United States.
    Kerry is not "my man", I only predict that he will be the nominee for the Democrats, and will then go on to beat George Bush. No matter who the Democrat nominee is, they will beat Bush.
    So basically the bet is, if George Bush wins, yoyu win the bet. If a Democrat wins(who will probably be Kerry), I win the bet. I am just given myself a little cover in case Kerry gets hit by a bolt of lightning before the primaries are through.
    Yes or no Pawn? Your call. Still should be a no brainer for you, regardless of who gets the nomination, because I am sure you are absolutely certain GW will win.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    A bolt of lightning? OK Salzo, I'll let you off the hook. No bet.


    JC

    Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by offeror
    I will save Salzo the trouble and point out that Kerry would rush to say, "But I said IF NECESSARY!"



    What does that have to do with why we went to war? YOu said OFFEROR, that we went to war for a variety of "equally compelling arguments" and not because of weapons of WMD. According to the resolution(you know, the law of the land thing, not some "technicality") we went to war because of alleged stockpiles of WMDs, and to enforce the UN resolutions. I asked you to point out in the resolution what these "equally compelling arguments" were that you mentioned, and you equate the resolution(again, the law of the land thing) as a "technicality".

    Of course Kerry is going to say what he said. That is why congress passes "war resolutions"that give the authority to the president to go to war, as opposed to declaring war, because it is politically much better for them. If things go well politically "I SIGNED THE WAR RESOLUTION, WHAT A GREAT MAN I AM", if the war is a bust "I SIGNED THE RESOLUTION GIVING THE AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT TO GO TO WAR, BUT ONLY IF IT WAS FOR A GOOD REASON-AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD REASON, SO I DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR."
    Personally, I think war resolutions are the worst constitutional violations. It removes responsibilty from congress, and the founders intended that Congress would be the branch to DECLARE war, because congress is the branch that is most accountable to the people. War resolutions, as opposed to war declarations, gives a congressman a convenient out from the accountability they are supposed to have with respect to war. Kerrys BUT I SAID IF NECESSARY is a perfect example of why war resolutions are ridiculous. He votes for it, but doesnt have to take the heat for his vote.
    Whether or not Kerry said "BUT I SAID IF NECESSARY" doesnt mean squat to me, because Kerry is not the issue. What is at issue, is that George Bush went to war, under the authority of congress(unconstitutionally) because of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION(SEE THE RESOLUTION!!), and that now, many Republicans, try to invent some other reasons because the WMDs are nonexistent(Offeror being a perfect example with his "equally compelling arguments" and "technicality" positions).

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
    A bolt of lightning? OK Salzo, I'll let you off the hook. No bet.





    Ahhhh just like I thought. Behind those pompoms, even you believe that Bush is going down.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • NOSLEEPNOSLEEP Member Posts: 4,526
    edited November -1
    Anyone that thinks Bush will be defeated in the next election,
    has there hat screwed on away to tight.
    Makes me LOL. ROTFLMAO

    Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not,
    and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is.
  • TrinityScrimshawTrinityScrimshaw Member Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This country is fed up with the likes of John Kerry. He is too far left, and his continual use of his military record is going to blow up in his face. This bum is made from the same mold has Jane Fonda. He facilitated the abuse of his fellow service members who were being held captive by a communist North Vietnam. Bill Clinton may not have inhaled, but John Kerry overdosed in it. It is going to take a mighty big lie and a lot of spin for a Democrat to beat Bush in 2004. There best hope is to try and bring in Hillary as a running mate. If that happens, they just might get the entire moderate & leftist vote.[:(!]

    Trinity +++

    "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
    This country is fed up with the likes of John Kerry. He is too far left, ....

    According to several polls, Kerry beats Bush head to head.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • dcon12dcon12 Member Posts: 32,003 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wake up. We went in and did it. Its over, can't change it. All for the better. Pick another subject. Just my opinion. Don.

    "Right is Right, even is everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it"
  • FrOgFrOg Member Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    "Bring it on." Yeah, as Clark said, only a man who has never seen combat would be so cavalier about war.


    Monkey, didn't Clark lead a preemptive attack on Yugoslavia to remove Milosevic?? What danger did Milosevic pose?

    Frog

    divemed1sm.jpg

    GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
  • NOSLEEPNOSLEEP Member Posts: 4,526
    edited November -1
    Dont put your money on poll's. When push comes to shove and the
    voting is over, that may well tell a different tale.
    I am an outsider looking in, And if it was not for Bush and his
    policy on Iraq and terrorism, you would all be singing a sorry song
    of woes.Some of you dont even deserve the freedom you have. You
    make a sad case for your country's future. Go hide in your basement
    and let men deal with evil.

    Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not,
    and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is.
  • madmarc0madmarc0 Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just a thought.

    Do you REALLY want such a close buddy of Ted Kennedy's in ANY office?

    I know how I'm voting, and it's not for Kerry.

    I measured it and cut it twice, and it's still too short!
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NOSLEEP
    Some of you dont even deserve the freedom you have. You
    make a sad case for your country's future. Go hide in your basement
    and let men deal with evil.



    ....said the man who bows to the queen. I got news for ya-We have been doing quite alright since breaking from the crown, and listening to the opinions of people who need royalty to keep them in line is the last thing we need. No offense.[:o)]

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
Sign In or Register to comment.