Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, dufferz, I DO have integrity, unlike some (above posters) who put words in the mouths of others. This is obviously a divisive issue. Yes, gitmo is on the periphery, but it is still a scandal. I also think it is disgusting for a man who rises to the level GWB has with no talent, PR and connections from Dad. In business, great. In government, it is disgusting. Anyone who visited New Orleans after Katrina, and laughs(!) and talks about how he used to party there is a disgrace. I have a sister in law w/8 kids who lost their homes and children- Bush was NOT looked at favorably. That's all.
Man. We need some focus here. You jumping all over the place on me.
Please go back and review your original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyhelena
Actually, I think he's the Manchurian Candidate!
______________________________________
My point exactly. And remember the comment by Bush 41- derogatorily saying Americans are "peasants with pichforks"; they clearly have contempt and an imperious attitude.
You claim a quotation as a way to demonstrate a person's character. If you knowingly use a quote that is not attributable to them that is derogatory, then this is called Libel. People of integrity do not do this, and if it is done due to unintentional means are quick to withdraw the comment and correct the error.
I asked for documentation to show that this statement was from Bush 41. Instead you send me to Gitmo and talk about Katrina (neither happened during 41's term).
So, what say you. Stand by what you said with documentation, or retract.
I'm no fan of Saddam, but the last thing we need to do is create a martyr. Saddam was executed under the auspices of an ocupation government, right before a major Muslim holiday. I would feel much better about this if he'd been tried by the ICC.
If anything, executing Saddam has given him more notoriety. If he hadn't been executed, he would've died a forgotten man.
Last edited by Hatless Wonder; 01-01-2007 at 07:51 PM..
Reason: punctuation
I thank all of you for your kind words, but I am no hero. I'm simply an American who answered the call of duty. The true heros are those who did not come home.
Again, thank you all. I hope to be in the Sierra Vista area sometime in the spring so maybe I'll be lucky and meet a few of you fine folks.
esales, welcome home brother. And Duffer, yeah I remember August 3rd, 1990 to April 12th, 1991 very, very well. I was one of those guys left wondering, why the hell didn't we keep going? No matter, I just packed up my trash and came home.
This whole thread, well, I didn't read the whole thang, can be summed up in one question. Why hang the one guy who had the place under control?
If he hadn't been executed, he would've died a forgotten man.
After being the leader who is credited for killing around 1 million of his own people... do you really think that the citizens of Iraq in 20 years would look at the morning paper and say to each other:
Sadam somebody or the other died. Do you remember that guy? Wasn't he that Olympic Athlete... no, Dang. I forgot.
Or how about this:
Do you know who Benedict Arnold is? While he was a traitor to our country, he was not the leader, nor did he order the cold blooded execution of American's. He was not captured nor executed, but lived in England for 20 years after the war. He was not forgotten by US history, but vilified with a name associated with his crime. Adolf H. was not executed, but somehow we manage to remember him for the crimes he committed.
I am sorry, but the idea that leaving him in prison would make him a forgotten man is just another lame argument of the anti-death penilty crowd.
If the American occupation force had tried and executed him, the timing would be a legitimate beef. The timing chosen by the Iraq courts is their business and they will have to deal with the aftermath if there is any.
esales, welcome home brother. And Duffer, yeah I remember August 3rd, 1990 to April 12th, 1991 very, very well. I was one of those guys left wondering, why the hell didn't we keep going? No matter, I just packed up my trash and came home.
This whole thread, well, I didn't read the whole thang, can be summed up in one question. Why hang the one guy who had the place under control?
We came home because the battle was to get the Iraq army out of Kuwait. We did it, we won, we stopped. My point is that the democrats of that day did everything they could do to remove the victory from Bush Sr. for that war. To give him the credit would mean a loss for the democrat machine, and the democrats could not allow that.
When we went back into Iraq to finish what the democrats said we should have finished, they criticized GW for finishing the job, once again, they could not allow the victory over the Sadam Government be credited to GW.
In other words, you can't win no matter what you do.
As for leaving him in charge when he had everything in control, is like saying that an abusive husband and father who hits his wife, beats his kids and threatens them with death if they misbehave in public is the model of a good father because the family appears in public to be happy and well cared for. It does not make sense for me.
We came home because the battle was to get the Iraq army out of Kuwait. We did it, we won, we stopped. My point is that the democrats of that day did everything they could do to remove the victory from Bush Sr. for that war. To give him the credit would mean a loss for the democrat machine, and the democrats could not allow that.
When we went back into Iraq to finish what the democrats said we should have finished, they criticized GW for finishing the job, once again, they could not allow the victory over the Sadam Government be credited to GW.
In other words, you can't win no matter what you do.
As for leaving him in charge when he had everything in control, is like saying that an abusive husband and father who hits his wife, beats his kids and threatens them with death if they misbehave in public is the model of a good father because the family appears in public to be happy and well cared for. It does not make sense for me.
I don't disagree, completely. We stopped in 1991 because the mission was simply to remove the jerk from Kuwait. And you're right about the politics, you can't win, period. The rest of it doesn't make sense to me either, but I have a hard time justifying the deaths of 3,000 brothers and sisters for something that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Not only that, but I don't buy the whole story of this being some do-gooder op to free the Iraqi people. It has revenge and profit written all over it.
I don't disagree, completely. We stopped in 1991 because the mission was simply to remove the jerk from Kuwait. And you're right about the politics, you can't win, period. The rest of it doesn't make sense to me either, but I have a hard time justifying the deaths of 3,000 brothers and sisters for something that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Not only that, but I don't buy the whole story of this being some do-gooder op to free the Iraqi people. It has revenge and profit written all over it.
Then you would find yourself in opposition to the 1/2 million we lost in WWII and the 1/4 million or so we lost in WWI. We were not invaded in either, nor was challenged by Germany.
If there was ANY concrete proof that W went to Iraq for Daddies sake, or for profit, I would be with you 100%. With all of the talk and chatter about this, the lack of any proof leaves me at this point comfortable with believing that this was not the case.
Sounded like you serviced in Desert Storm. Is this correct?
Then you would find yourself in opposition to the 1/2 million we lost in WWII and the 1/4 million or so we lost in WWI. We were not invaded in either, nor was challenged by Germany.
If there was ANY concrete proof that W went to Iraq for Daddies sake, or for profit, I would be with you 100%. With all of the talk and chatter about this, the lack of any proof leaves me at this point comfortable with believing that this was not the case.
Sounded like you serviced in Desert Storm. Is this correct?
I don't really need concrete proof, aside from the fact that Saddam was getting ready to start selling his oil in Euros instead of the dollar. And truthfully, I got no problem in a war for resources. But then again, I tend to care more about my own country than I do about a third world sandpit. I would have much preferred a president telling me that we would be economically wrecked if we didn't do something about it. I care not for Iraqi freedom or democracy for the peaceful mideast.
Oh, and yep, I ate some of that sand the first go round.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
