-- One thing that irks me --

[JMHX]

Now, I'm not one to make a lot of meaningless posts on this prestigious thread. Matter of fact, I think I've only made three or four, and one of them is on its 12th page, so don't lump me in with the crazies like Final and his "Bush!" thread, but there is one thing that really gets me.

Defending Freedom.

Some crazy woman said this on the radio as I was driving to Cincinnati to witness the Chicago Cubs lose the Cincinnati Series against the Reds. Wow, what a waste of time. And might I say that Ohio has some of the most blindly conservative radio I've ever heard. A man said "I'm a liberal here..." and got hung up on. Anyway.

"Thank you guys for fighting for us and defending our freedom." Her message to the troops.

You don't defend freedom if you start the war! I forgot about how Iraq attacked us, how Saddam Hussein ordered his armies to invade America. God! Some people just want to be on the radio to hear their own voice and sound sensitive, as if they even understand what the war is about! If you are the aggressor nation, you're not defending anything! If anything, the Iraqis are "defending anti-liberation".

Yeah. Go Cubs.

[TheShrike]

I disagree, the Iraqi Regime is defending itsself from the liberation of it's people.

But you are right on the first part-

We certainly are not defending our freedom.

[RoboTripper]

Thank God we attacked Iraq. Otherwise Saddam would inevitably possess missiles that travel SEVERAL hundred kilometers. Then Bush would be forced to surrender the U.S. to Iraq, and Saddam would take over and appoint his bestest buddy Osama Bin Laden to oversee the slave-labor camps we'd be in by now. Then we would all be wishing, "If only we had decimated their country when we had the chance!"

[Commander-K25]

At 4/7/03 12:09 AM, Crack_Smoker wrote: Thank God we attacked Iraq. Otherwise Saddam would inevitably possess missiles that travel SEVERAL hundred kilometers.

It's not the missiles, it's who he's selling weapons to in under-the-table arms deals. That's why Iraq's destruction of some of it's missiles was such a pathetic token gesture. The missiles are mostly irrelevant.

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/6/03 11:59 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You don't defend freedom if you start the war! If anything, the Iraqis are "defending anti-liberation".

The US is not defending freedom. It's defending the concept of co-existence without religious totalitarianism. If the Iraqis have freedom, they'll just vote another Saddam back into power. That's why the US will put one of its own generals in charge of the Interim government after this invasion is over.

[Jimsween]

Were just defending the country from any possible attacks that we may have in the near or not even remotely close future. I think bush must've read up on Nostradomus and is just afraid Saddam could be the man in the blue turban, I can just picture "Uncle Cheney" reading "Lil Bush" bedtime stories... (this next part is just going ot be a re enactment so feel free to not read it)

Cheney?: And then the man in the blue turban launched Nuclear missles to America and started WW3
Lil Bush: And then what happened
Cheney: The whole world went into a gian nuclear battle and it lasted 1000 years
Lil Bush: And then what happened
Cheney: There was an alliance between the countries in the poles
Lil Bush: You mean those "Damn dirty commies" daddies always talking about
Cheney: Yes exactly...
Lil bush: When I'm president Im gonna kill that bad guy before he uses the nukular missles
Cheney: *laughing* sure you will Georgey, sure you will

In conclusion... Ummm... Uhh... Freedom good?

[thenark]

At 4/7/03 12:09 AM, Crack_Smoker wrote: Thank God we attacked Iraq. Otherwise Saddam would inevitably possess missiles that travel SEVERAL hundred kilometers. Then Bush would be forced to surrender the U.S. to Iraq, and Saddam would take over and appoint his bestest buddy Osama Bin Laden to oversee the slave-labor camps we'd be in by now. Then we would all be wishing, "If only we had decimated their country when we had the chance!"

Yeah, thats right. Iraq, which has no navy and their missile technology is behind that of Nazi Germany during world war 2 could possibly threaten Iraq personally, Perhaps they could threaten Israel, but speaking of breaking UN resoultions, Israel has broken more than any other country in the world. But the US isnt attacking them...

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/7/03 12:41 AM, thenark wrote: Yeah, thats right. Iraq, which has no navy and their missile technology is behind that of Nazi Germany during world war 2. Perhaps they could threaten Israel, but speaking of breaking UN resoultions, Israel has broken more than any other country in the world. But the US isnt attacking them...

lol you're looking for fairness

[thenark]

Well should there not be fairness? shouldnt everyone have more or less the same security and opportunities that we have? or is it better that Less Than 3% of the world's population controls over 80% of the wealth?

[NJDeadzone]

i'm not saying there shouldn't be...but i'm not gonna expect it. Fairness is a gift and a privilege.

[TheShrike]

Israel...
They deserve the land they have.

But noone deserves what the Palestinians get

[AbstractVagabond]

I'm agreeing with the thought that we're not defending anything. This is a complete offensive on our part. We started the war. We're invading their land. Maybe invade is too strong a word, maybe it's the right word, but it's the only word I can think of right now. It's not to say being on the offensive is always a bad thing. All the Iraqis that welcome the troops love the offensive. I see their smiles and how can I argue that?

As I'm writing this, the Iraqi Info General or whatever he is was giving an update to Iraqi TV from outside and I swear the interpreter was trying his damndest to keep from laughing his ass off. For all who call Bush stupid, let me tell you. Bush couldn't hold a candle to this guy. A soldier was interviewed as the update was going on and he responded to that guy's remarks, "He's just across the street. I'll go over and talk to him." Priceless. :-)

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/7/03 02:53 AM, Ovalshine wrote: I'm agreeing with the thought that we're not defending anything. This is a complete offensive on our part. We started the war. We're invading their land. Maybe invade is too strong a word, maybe it's the right word, but it's the only word I can think of right now. It's not to say being on the offensive is always a bad thing. All the Iraqis that welcome the troops love the offensive. I see their smiles and how can I argue that?

not all the iraquis. i have seen video on BBC of some iraquis shouting that the americans and brits should get the hell out of Iraq.

[Commander-K25]

At 4/7/03 12:56 AM, TheShrike wrote: Israel...
They deserve the land they have.

But noone deserves what the Palestinians get

What? Explosives to use?

[JMHX]

I didn't expect this to last as long as it did. Wow, it wasn't supposed to be on the front this long. I do believe that, in several generations, Iraq might have been a minor threat to the United States, but that is no reason to go in guns blazing and take them out right now. There are handfuls of more pressing threats that we're choosing to ignore.

As the wise man once said: "Since Korea in the 50's, America has looked for fights that it can win to flex muscle and put up the front that it actually cares about what nations are doing to their people."

[TheShrike]

Nooo.... They don't deserve Arafat. Or the way Israel treats 'em

Now there's a jackass for ya.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/7/03 12:04 AM, TheShrike wrote: I disagree, the Iraqi Regime is defending itsself from the liberation of it's people.

You have a point...but I must respectfully disagree with you're sentiment here...we really aren't there to defend the freedom of Iraq, if we really were so concerned about the people of Iraq wouldn't we have gone a little faster on this whole thing? The fact is Bush is a guy who likes to just blow up people who piss him off, I'm not sure he could spell diplomacy let alone define it.

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here, Bush is a bad president, this guy took a goldmine slam dunk re-election oppurtunity in 9/11 and he fucked it up horribly with all his dirty dealings and corporate scandals. This is his last ditch attempt to con the American people to give him another four years to run the country into the ground.

And no, I'm not a democrat, I'm not republican, I'm not any party really, I don't like the idea of Joe Lieberman in the white house anymore than Bush, they both hold political views which I despise. I agree with the topic started on the issue of radio too...I'm so sick of these people who get on the air and act all sympathetic like they care about any of this, you fucking liers! All you goddamn care about is getting some extra ratings for that show of yours, and getting the recording so you can go home and listen to yourself and go "gee, I sounded so patriotic and supportive there, wonder what kind of a raise I'll get when my contract comes up" I really don't like the media in this country most of the time, I really don't, everybody has a fucking agenda.

[TheShrike]

At 4/7/03 07:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You have a point...[...]...we really aren't there to defend the freedom of Iraq, if we really were so concerned about the people of Iraq wouldn't we have gone a little faster on this whole thing?

Well, a military campaign isn't always gonna go the way you would like. Take Nazi Germany, for example. Or look at the Vietnam War.

Just because this war isn't over yet doesn't mean the motives of the american campaign are just 'fluff'. I'd like to remind you that in war, civillians die. And this war is not 3 weeks old yet.

I do believe that Bush has ulterior motives that are less than proper. I don't really care for the man. I am anti-war (and I've said this before). With every move the Iraqi leadership makes, I support this war that much more (and I've said that before, too).

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here, Bush is a bad president, this guy took a goldmine slam dunk re-election oppurtunity in 9/11 and he fucked it up horribly with all his dirty dealings and corporate scandals. This is his last ditch attempt to con the American people to give him another four years to run the country into the ground.

I like the way you put that. Really.

And no, I'm not a democrat, I'm not republican, [...] everybody has a fucking agenda.

Kevin Smith, have you ever thought of joining the Politics Crew? (or is your name Jay? Bob?)

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/7/03 08:09 PM, TheShrike wrote:

Well, a military campaign isn't always gonna go the way you would like. Take Nazi Germany, for example. Or look at the Vietnam War.

No argument on this score, you're absolutely right.

Just because this war isn't over yet doesn't mean the motives of the american campaign are just 'fluff'. I'd like to remind you that in war, civillians die. And this war is not 3 weeks old yet.

Also true, I realize they're are some good reasons for going to war, my problem is, these are not the things that motivate Bush, and my fear is once we get Saddam out of power, we'll just take a look at all the nice big whole we blew into the country and say "well guys, we're going home now, good luck putting it all back together again" we gave Afghanistan the same treatment the first time we were there, and look how that came back to bite us in the ass. My problem really is my lack of confidence in this adminastration to do anything right.

I do believe that Bush has ulterior motives that are less than proper. I don't really care for the man. I am anti-war (and I've said this before). With every move the Iraqi leadership makes, I support this war that much more (and I've said that before, too).

Well, yeah, I'm definately gonna concede that point, Iraq is run by bad people who would stop at nothing to hang onto their control, but my fear is, are we taking care of one problem, and then possibly not doing all we can to slam the door on another one...guess only time will tell on that one.

I like the way you put that. Really.

Well thank you very much. I kinda like the way I put that too :p. Seriously, thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

Kevin Smith, have you ever thought of joining the Politics Crew? (or is your name Jay? Bob?)

Well, none of the above, the Grounds gold name, as well as the AIM s/n were inspired by the work of Mr. Smith, but I also felt it fit into my views on things.

Never given it much thought but, post a link, and I will definately give it a look. This really the first time I've spent any time over here, usually I haunt the General forum and Clubs & Crews, but they've been dead today so...came over here on a lark and have really enjoyed it.

[JMHX]

I personally believe that the biggest fear of the Bush Re-Election Campaign is that this war could turn out to be a parallel to Vietnam. That's why CentCom so cleverly said "It's not our goal to capture Saddam Hussein" after weeks of not being able to so much as locate him. I don't think it'll go so long as Vietnam, though, because Bush has a whole bunch of people who actually know what's going on to pull the plug if this baby gets ugly.

[Nightshadeplus]

Well I don't know how high Bush's popularity ratings are in the US but do you think Bush committed political suicide in his decision to invade or liberate (whatever your views) Iraq? Do you think that Bush seriously divided his own people enough to cause his Texan baby back ribs to get kicked out of office coming this next election?

[JMHX]

At 4/8/03 05:49 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote: Well I don't know how high Bush's popularity ratings are in the US but do you think Bush committed political suicide in his decision to invade or liberate (whatever your views) Iraq? Do you think that Bush seriously divided his own people enough to cause his Texan baby back ribs to get kicked out of office coming this next election?

I believe that he will most likely be re-elected since he has the ability to make it seem like we're doing something more than capturing civilians and shifting rocks. However, if Saddam doesn't turn up, it's going to be a major blow to the campaign.

[TheShrike]

At 4/7/03 10:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/7/03 08:09 PM, TheShrike wrote: Kevin Smith, have you ever thought of joining the Politics Crew? (or is your name Jay? Bob?)

Well, none of the above, the Grounds gold name, as well as the AIM s/n were inspired by the work of Mr. Smith, but I also felt it fit into my views on things.

I didn't really assume you are Mr. Smith. That's silly. If I were Kevin, I certainly wouldn't advertize it on this of all sites.

Never given it much thought but, post a link, and I will definately give it a look. This really the first time I've spent any time over here, usually I haunt the General forum and Clubs & Crews, but they've been dead today so...came over here on a lark and have really enjoyed it.

Read this link:
NG BBS / Clubs & Crews / Politics Crew

Respond to this one:
NG BBS / Politics / Politics crew

Have fun with this one:
NG BBS / Politics / PC Pictures Post