Bias... I believe the majority of the world would agree with that remark. It was demonstrated from the world antiwar protests.

Not at all. There are lots of things to disagree with the Prez about that have nothing to do with the military action in Iraq.

Does that answer your question?

Don't be so easly fooled... get some facts and the details you are lacking.

Their numbers aren't always as big as you might be led to believe.

TODAY - a bunch of high school kids walked out of school in protest just because the college kids did.

HIGH SCHOOL kids.... they would have walked out of school if given the chance for any reason at all - half of them probably couldn't tell you the first fact about what is going on.

Open your eyes man -

There will always be protestors wanting attention and self importance - it does NOT mean they reflect the mainstream nor does it indicate they would not support the effort once the war starts.

The protestors aren't going to change anything dude.... they are wasting their time..... and yours.

Hmmm.....that's interesting. I remember during the Clinton administration there were plenty of people who would consider themselves in support of the troops while the lambasted the Commander in Chief.


I'm sorry, but I don't it as being black and white. You can only support the troops if you support the president. I have buddies who were in the marines during Clinton and they didn't support the president. Likewise I have a buddy in the army right now who's doesn't agree with Bush, but will carry out his mission because that's what he signed up to do.

But to say you can only be pro-president/pro-troops or anti-president/anti-troops is completely oversimplified.

My roots are from Macedonia and not one person likes the United States there. Mark my words on that. Travel to the middle east, you'll get the same feed back. Travel to China and India... you'll get the same. I believe China and India are roughly have the world's population. Therefore... more people dislike then like. Can you argue with that? Or am I misled about China and India disliking American's and foreign policy?

I don't know if it matters to you - but I was speaking only during war time. Clinton was not President during war time.

I think it is wrong to tell an American soldier that his commander is an ass hole and has no business causing this war - bad for moral.

Maybe. You said:

"I would gather to say most of us aren't in total agreement with Bush or his policies. However, during times of war, we will back our President and our American soldiers who will die to defend freedom. "

And basically I said that I disagree, that you don't have to back the president to back the soldiers. I personally don't think all those people protesting the War are also supporting the troops. Not at all. But, I do know people who support the troops while not agreeing with the president's war policy.

It's ironic that I'm defending this position considering I do support the president and I do support the soldiers. But, that's not to say I would never not support the president. If I sincerely believed that what the president was doing is wrong, and I voiced my opinion it wouldn't all of a sudden make me not support the troops. In fact, it could be that I support the troops so much that I don't think they should be sent off to foolish conflict.

Incidentally, there are actually a lot of conservatives who consider themselves very patriotic and voted for Bush, support the troops, yet completely oppose this war. Have you heard of Pat Buchanon or the The American Conservative Magazine http://www.amconmag.com/. I'm totally disagree with them, but I'm illustrating a point.

Have you not wondered why people are protesting what America might do - yet for all these years where where the people protesting what Saddam's been doing all this time?

Answer: -
it wasn't "popular" - no TV cameras, no interviews on CNN.

If they SERIOUSLY want peace - they should have been protesting Saddam - not the U.S. and 100% of the UN that signed 1441.


I think that disproves the protesters efforts for what they are.

War time? We were engaged in several military conflicts during the Clinton administration, Somalia, Kosovo, et al, and while our boys were fighting Clinton was getting blasted for one thing after another.

If we were engaged in what you define as War time, I doubt all conservatives would rally behind Clinton.

Not a one? My cousin Kiro lives in Macedonia and he loves the U.S.

Bah... they're all just jealous of the USA! :1orglaugh

those are not what I define as "war time".

And I'll tell you what, and I'm glad it never happened, because I am a die-hard Conservative Republician - and I don't mind saying I had no use for Clinton what-so-ever.

But - If we had been at war - my definition of war - I would have supported the "President" - as the Commander and Chief of the military. You are damned right I would - and I think at THAT time, party politics needs thrown out the window, and just like now, I hope everyone would send the same message to our soldiers.

:2 cents:

I'm sure you would. The "I'm just following orders" and "I will blindly follow my leaders" attitude of some people is frightening. There is nothing wrong with taking principled opposition. While I support the war, I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me. I would like them too, but they're not and don't think anything less of them until they do something like burn the flag or spit on a soldier.

Believe it or not many traditional conservatives, who consider themselves fiercely patriotic, oppose the war. They would consider themselves true conservatives. They would not consider you a true conservative. Pat Buchanon said, "The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globablist, interventionist ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with."


Here is a sampling of traditional or some call them paleoconservatives who have serious reservations or outright oppose war in Iraq.

Pat Buchanon, Robert Novak, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts and Georgie Anne Geyer, Lew Rockwell Jr., Alan Reynolds, Joe Sobran and Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul (R-Tex), John Hostettler (R-Ind.), et al.

As much as I disagree with Pat's political positions, he's right on many things. And I admit that my views as defined today are neo-conservative. I do support intervening in Iraq. I oppose isolationism.

And even though I disagree with the traditional conservatives, who am I (or you) to say they don't support our troops because they have a different position than the president they probably voted for? I haven't walked in their shoes.

baa

Hypothetically, if a president rounded up all the Jews, mentally retarded, gypsies, political dissidents, etc. and sent them all to concentration camps to meet their deaths would you support him?

Of course, this is totally extreme, but it's not unforseeable for a president to do something in wartime that is absolutely reprehensible (can anyone say Patriot Act?).

Haaa - you're funny.

If I had said NO - if it were Clinton, I would not support him - you would have been all over my shit -

If I say I would - you post stupid shit like that.

Funny game - I see you are committed to your believes.

It's obvious where you are coming from here - and you can play that game alone.


:1orglaugh

So tell me where I'm coming from.

Hypothetically, that is a stupid fucking question asked by a one Hypothetically stupid Mother Fucker.


Hypothetically.

:321GFY dumb ass

little man... I just did

I imagine if the Roman empire had enough nuclear power to destroy the world 10x over things would be different. The USA is never going to be brought to their knees. The world would be destroyed before that happens. No winners.

Are you disagreeing w/ me or trying to make a point? Explain.

He finally admits it!

You are seriously one ignorant piece of shit. You can't even have reasonable discussion. No, everyone that disagrees with your position is a traitor and an idiot. Only you're right. IMHO...You're a disgrace. I depise you even more than those stinky, liberal radicals who burn our flags. IMHO....You're no American....and you're a complete embarassment to conservatives.


:thefinger :thefinger

No - not with you....

Read back - the foolish remark you said when I said I'd support Clinton under certain conditions - and you know if I would have said I wouldn't - you have been equally as asinine in your response.

So no - if you want to call that a discussion, you may - it seems more like a school yard bully who just wants to fight without any reason what so ever. I'm not your enemy you fool - you are your own worst enemy.

And I'm too old to play school boy games with you.

and THAT is what makes Liberal Democrats proud to be associated with you huh?


:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Are you saying the Roman Empire was beaten by an opponent into obscurity?

Or did it decay from the inside? The Roman Empire simply faded into obscurity, slowly.

Much the way this country is.

I am not disagreeing with you when it comes to another nation or nations beating us out of existence as a nation, but history has never failed to repeat itself.

The USA will not last forever.

The USA accounts for a large portion of the world's economy, 25% I last heard. In the modern world of international trade I cannot see a nation with such power going anywhere. The world will not last forever, human history will not last forever.

1) You confuse patriotism with blind nationalism.

2) Liberal democrats? What are saying? Do you read my posts? Most of my posts are pro-Bush, pro-War, pro-America, but I have a problem with the fact that you tolerate no one's oppinions but your own.

I tend to agree...
I don't think the USA will be on top forever, but I don't think it will be another single country that takes power, but I think the power will one day really be with a true league of nations, or a united nations, but not the one we have now.

There will be another major war before that happens I think.


:2 cents:

You ask something as asinine as:
if a president rounded up all the Jews, mentally retarded, gypsies, political dissidents, etc. and sent them all to concentration camps to meet their deaths would you support him?


And you question my tolerance of other people's opinion?

Exactly what opinion were you expressing there?


You also said:
You are seriously one ignorant piece of shit. You can't even have reasonable discussion.

THAT is how you engage someone with your opinion that you want respected?

You said:
If we were engaged in what you define as War time, I doubt all conservatives would rally behind Clinton.

when I said I would, under certain conditions... YOU respected my opinion by saying:
I'm sure you would. The "I'm just following orders" and "I will blindly follow my leaders" attitude of some people is frightening.

So if I would have no, because I don't like Clinton, you would have said... what?


What I'm saying is - you have no room at all to say anything to anyone about their lack of tolerance if their opinion doesn't agree with yours - of even if it does, you would rather slander and insult someone.

And as I also said.... I'm done playing your silly game.

OK?

:1orglaugh

And that wouldn't result in nuclear winter? Russia had a plan to build a huge ship with the hull designed as a huge hydrogen bomb. The water that would evaporate during the explosion would form a radiation cloud that would eventually kill all living things throughtout the world. The design was planned during the cold war to prevent any nation from invading them. Russia fell in econmic ruin before it was built. My point is that nations of power will fight to their dying breath, even if that means destroying the world.
I can see people dying in the news from a unknowned cause, more people die. It grows rapidly. A new virus is found, its like AIDS but airborn. It takes 7 years to show syptoms. They find that 4 out of 10 people have it. They estimate that the number will grow to 10 out of 10 in short time. They cant find a cure. I can see this happening before the United States falls. I can see aliens destroying the world before the USA falls. I can see a big space rock destroying the world before it happens.

You completely missed my point. My point is that a patriot is not someone who blindly follows his leaders. It is our right, responsibility and duty to question an action if it is immoral. In WWII, Germans probably believed they were patriotic, blindly following Hitler, just following orders. Nope, they weren't patriotic. They were blindly nationalistic.

Quote:

You also said: You are seriously one ignorant piece of shit. You can't even have reasonable discussion. THAT is how you engage someone with your opinion that you want respected?

No, I don't. I was having a normal discussion until you stated:

Quote:

Hypothetically, that is a stupid fucking question asked by a one Hypothetically stupid Mother Fucker. Hypothetically. :321GFY dumb ass

How do you expect me to react?????

Quote:

You said: If we were engaged in what you define as War time, I doubt all conservatives would rally behind Clinton. when I said I would, under certain conditions... YOU respected my opinion by saying: I'm sure you would. The "I'm just following orders" and "I will blindly follow my leaders" attitude of some people is frightening. So if I would have no, because I don't like Clinton, you would have said... what?

First of all, you did not say "under certain conditions". Do I have to remind you what you said?

"But - If we had been at war - my definition of war - I would have supported the "President" - as the Commander and Chief of the military. You are damned right I would - and I think at THAT time, party politics needs thrown out the window"

If you said "no" then you would have just confirmed your abject hypocrisy and I would have pointed it out, that you'll support the president if he's a republican but if he's a democrat, well then all bets are off.

Quote:

What I'm saying is - you have no room at all to say anything to anyone about their lack of tolerance if their opinion doesn't agree with yours - of even if it does, you would rather slander and insult someone.

No, that would be you.

Quote:

And as I also said.... I'm done playing your silly game. OK? :1orglaugh

That's quite alright. The game is over, and guess what: YOU LOST!

:1orglaugh :moon :1orglaugh

:eek7

It should be less than 10 years before China's GDP is the equivalent of the United States, and remember only a small proportion of China has economic zones. With that kind of economic clout China can only become a bigger player on the world stage.

China can become equal or stronger then the USA. That still wouldnt result in the fall of the USA.

Sorry I didn't respond to:

if a president rounded up all the Jews, mentally retarded, gypsies, political dissidents, etc. and sent them all to concentration camps to meet their deaths would you support him?

the way you would have liked -
you obviously underestimated how I was going to react.

As far as "winning" .... - if it makes you happy then it's ok.


no one "wins". you didn't change my mind or sway me in anyway, I didn't change your mind or sway you. If you are taking about who insulted who the most - if that makes you feel like a winner - that's ok too.


:thumbsup

bush is soooo going down..

....in history as the dude that did not take any shit from that arabian camelcocksucker saddam hussein.
:1orglaugh

Ask Kiro what he thinks about the CIA taking down their blackhawk helicopters to pick up the NLA when they were cornered in Archinevo back a year ago.

drudgereport.com...top story...looks like we are close

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I have a very specific answer to why people protest around the world. America's foreign policy and aid to Israel are the two direct reasons why people dislike America.

You are wrong about Saddam. Saddam isn't exactly as bad as you may think. Never the less, I wouldn't want to be ruled by him either. But you might hear Bush tell you that he has slaughtered his "son." You must understand the fact that he never killed his son, he killed his son-in-law which has no blood relation to him. You might also want to seek out why he killed him, I'm sure you'd be surprised. You can't continuously be misled by the media like CNN. You have to read both sides of the story. Always read stuff from more then 2 different sources & sides, then formulate your opinion.

You also probably believe the Government when they tell you that Saddam has gassed his own people. First off, he never gassed his own people. It was the Kurds that were gassed (who oppose him) and it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. Draw your own conclusions from that. No evidence exists that it was Saddam's regime who performed the horrific act, but Bush will draw certain conclusions in order to sway public opinion as he see's fit. Why do you think every piece of evidence that Bush supposedly presents, the Russians, Chinese, French, and German's don't take it seriously? Here's an article from the New York times if you don't trust my word about the gassing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...b6c3c76ea6ffe5

Back to the Russian's, German's, Chinese, and French. You want to know why they don't take one word seriously? It's simple. The Government of the USA and Britain manipulate intelligence information. Fortunately, some people in the intelligence agency are actually human and have decided to speak out against their own Governments manipulation of intelligence in order to justify war in Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=376732

ISN"T AS BAD AS "I" THINK ?

those two statements right there lost you all serious creditability you might have ever had with any reasonable thinking human.

like "who" is gassed is the difference between it being right or wrong?

I can only assume you have no idea the murders, torture and horrors that man has caused.... and that's seriously sad.

You obviously didn't read my post. lol

of course I did - that's where those two quotes came from :1orglaugh

I wonder what Canada will do... What do you all think?

Canada had a great idea for the UN. It was more precise for requirements and deadlines for Iraq to meet. I don't know what became of it.

There is no need for this thread.

By the time he's done with his term, the mere fact he's George Bush will be humiliation enough to last a lifetime.

If you're alive in 40 years and still have your sight, do me a favor: Pick up a modern history book, turn to the section on George W. Bush, and repeat to yourself "Gutterboy told me so"

:thumbsup

I guess it's safe to assume you think the US will go to war and things will turn out for the worse - which would make Bush look the way you suggest - in fact, you come across as though you would delight in it. - I'm not sure if that's sick or just sad.

I for one, do not believe that will be the case - but like you did say, ONLY history will tell....

:winkwink:

Bush will look the way I suggest in the eyes of history whichever way this little conflagration goes. We're obviously not going to lose to the Republican Guard.

Just thinking long term :)