McCain & Character: Getting Inside the Head of the Religious Right (moral, hell)

[freedom]

Originally Posted by june 7th

There is something ironic in the above, Freedom, given the fact that Bush is a recovering alcoholic. --Because in essence, you just provided a parrallel analogy. One which I have the feeling you didn't intend to provide.

Maybe not intended, but the point is not lost... where is all the activism to all those young lives being so senselessly snuffed out at frat parties and football games?

Who does "W" credit his success in overcoming Alchohol addiction?

godspeed,

freedom

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by freedom

Who does "W" credit his success in overcoming Alchohol addiction?

So are you suggesting that believe or faith shapes reality?
If so what is the difference between magic and religion?
Just because Dubya credits his alcohol recovery to God does this mean that God was responsible.
If I understand magic correctly a magician can't do anything without the help of a higher power (read: the being who grants the magician his magic powers).

Judging Dubya's decisions during his political career I would even suggest it was the devil instead of God who made him president of the US.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Surely you jest.

No I don't

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Surely.

Nope.. still not jesting.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

It is absolutely amazing to me what a vast number of American people have purchased from the left and Michael Moore's garbage.

Ahh the typical far right evangelical agenda. "If you don't agree with us then you are in Michael Moore's pocket". Classic.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Tell ya what, let's do a little WMD-detective work on our own, shall we?

Ooooo! A scavenger hunt. Me like.

Halabja - Happened in 1988. Yet we never fought that war did we?
Why is that Alpha? Why didn't we help the kurds then? Its weird.. I mean Kuwait was just a few years after that and we jumped on that like flies to honey. But kurds being gassed.. we dare not interfere.

I've seen the pics. I studied international relations under one of the premiere kurdish historians. I'm quite familiar with what happened to the kurds.

I'll supply you with some links other than Wikipedia. Maybe you can learn something.

POLS:* Dr. Gunter's Publications (http://www.tntech.edu/SOCIOLOGY/faculty/gunterpub.html - broken link)

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

One must be either blind, ignorant or naive to think Iraq would use these things and then just decide to get out of WMD business.

Well.. I guess I'm blind, ignorant and naive...

except we haven't found any WMD's have we? So who is blind, ignorant or naive now?

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

It's amazingly obvious that no, we didn't go in there and plant WMD evidence and you know if this conspiracy theory on this war had any shred of truth in it we WOULD have concocted evidence to support the WMD-theory.

Nice choice of words. Did we "plant" evidence? No and I never said we did. However, did the administration play off the feelings of 9/11 and embelish evidence to win support for the war. Damn right they did.

Do you even know what the Downing Street Memo is?

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

GW has made some huge mistakes, but this WMD thing is just ridiculous.

It might be ridiculous in your mind because you don't want to believe it. Its understandable. It would be admitting to the fact that a president lied. Its a tough pill to swallow. Unfortunatley the ability to swallow that pill or not in no way negates the truth. He lied. Young men have died. Countless civilians have died.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Iraq had them
Iraq used them.
Iraq either destroyed or moved them.

Really.. they used them? When after 1988 did they use them Alpha? When

Oh wait.. now they destroyed them.. I gotcha. Where is the evidence Alpha. Also why would they destroy them? You yourself stated:

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

One must be either blind, ignorant or naive to think Iraq would use these things and then just decide to get out of WMD business.

I mean wouldn't destroying them be like "getting out of the WMD business". Come on.

Tis much easier to accept the truth than to twist it. Turn off fix news.. and read up.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

I personally am not convinced the WMD issue was enough to go to war on, but the Congress did and so to war we went.

Uh huh.. on what evidence did they go on? Oh thats right.. the trumped up "imminent threat" evidence. Gotcha. Where did they get that again? Oh thats right... the Bush Administration..

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Whether we found any unused WMDs or not is irrelevant.

Oh.. but it is. and you know it.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

The country we waged war against on that premise had used them before so the reasons are valid.

Thats your reasoning! Wow.. The Soviet Union used biological weapons in Afghanistan.. did we attack the Soviet Union?

Why didn't we attack Saddam in the late 80's when he gassed the kurds?

Your reasoning.. is bogus and broken.

Maybe you reasoning is that we thought they had them? Is that it Alpha?

Well then why haven't we gone into North Korea?
Why haven't we already gone into Iran?

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Do you think if the USA had found some stockpile of unused WMDs in Iraq that the general population would feel any different about this war today?

Considering that the president sold this war on the premise that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the United States with the faux weapons of mass destruction.. then yes.

Would they still believe their strategy for the war was wrong..

Yes.. that will always be wrong. Ask any military person. You don't go in light. If you go in.. you go in with everything you've got. Their reason for going in was wrong and their strategy was wrong. To epic failures.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

And you're right, 4000 dead Americans is no laughing matter and nothing to joke about or take lightly. I'm sure when those soldiers signed up for military duty they realized the same. It takes a special person to enlist in the armed services and agree to follow the commands of their superiors and I honor and commend both the dead and the living.

It takes an extra special person to enlist in the armed services and know you have to salute the ass clown of a president we currently have.

I'll leave you with some easy reading. I truly hope you read up on it.

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam was a horrible person. There is no doubt about that. However, the countless live lost to remove one person from power is too much.

We made a grave mistake going into that country with the strategy we invoked. We tried to fix a beehive with a chainsaw and it blew up in our face.

I thought the way you currently do. I really did. Looking back I see how wrong I was.

I finish with the following:

Why did we help Kuwait in the first Gulf War? Was it because we are a great country that likes to help people?

You already know the answer. That answer (its a three letter word that starts with "O" and ends with "L") is the same reason we are in Iraq. Make no mistake. This president sold us a war on a false premise.

Problem is you can never sell a war about oil (unless of course we are defending someone). They needed something else. WMD's and their "imminent" threat provided that vehicle.

The quicker you accept the truth.. the quicker we can move onto the real question:

Was it right to invade Iraq over Oil?

My answer. Yes it was..

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

Was it right to invade Iraq over Oil?

My answer. Yes it was..

Not if you pretend to be the defender of the free world.
Especially the police has to uphold the law themselves, otherwise they're no different than the Brazilian Death squads ( who actually have corrupt police officers among their ranks).

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

I would watch the video.. but it isn't there anymore.

The concern in the Clinton years was NOT the actual WMDs. The concern was with Saddams ability to produce WMDs and whether he had produced WMDs. It was about weapons inspectors. It was about intelligence.

GWB laid an egg when he produced trumped up evidence of actual WMDs in an effort to go to war. As a result GWB has the blood of about 4,000 U.S. servicemen about probably 500,000 Iraqi civilians on his hands.

I find it interesting that that video has been taken down twice that I'm aware of. Just like Obama's ex-church took down the magazine article which heralded the lifetime accomplishments of muslim leader Farrakhan.. I've actually saved a copy of both the video and the article on my computer.

This however is in a written format. It doesn't have ALL of the people speaking from the video or all of their comments but it's a good start.

Pay special attention to the very first quote by President Clinton in 1998...

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, February 4, 1998

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

[Tesaje]

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, February 4, 1998

And we did just that. Peaceably with a few minor forays to convince him not to. That's why the inspectors found nothing but old rusting stuff when we conquered the place.

Saddam was a nasty piece of work, no doubt of that. But his bluster was aimed at trying to make Iran believe he had more than he did. He miscalculated how determined the Bushies were to make an excuse to attack.

I do not believe we have any right to attack another country over oil. That is tantamount to theft. It is the basis for many a war throughout history, but it is not right. It just makes you a hoodlum writ large.

The defense of Kuwait over oil supplies was not the same thing as the Iraqi war. The country was attacked, not able to thwart the attack on its own, and with the oil, was important to our ability to buy what we need from them, thus we had a strategic interest in them staying free. We at no time intended to conquer a country and steal their resources. They stayed in real control of their country. Entirely different.

[World Citizen]

We DIDN'T attack a country over oil.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by bigthirsty Not if you pretend to be the defender of the free world.
Especially the police has to uphold the law themselves, otherwise they're no different than the Brazilian Death squads ( who actually have corrupt police officers among their ranks).

In my view it was a two for one. Protect oil.. gain sphere of influence other than Israel in that region.

Unfortunately their strategy for the war was grossly moronic.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

We DIDN'T attack a country over oil.

So why did we help Kuwait?

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

So why did we help Kuwait?

Sorry. The two are not similar situations.

It's truly unfortunate that there are so many who don't appreciate the freedom and the success that our country has known.

I'm through with this conversation.