Don't run the white flag up the flag pole yet.

A fundamentalist Islamic State is what Iran would like to see happen, but I don't think it will happen.

Beachman,

I am having a hard time understanding your logic. Are you saying that we attacked Iraq because of 9/11? I still say that if we want to reduce terrorism we should go after Osama Bin Laden. We KNOW that he perpetrated the deed.

You wrote "So Bush had the guts to stand up and say enough is enough and has taken the fight to the extremist before they are able to develope or obtain WMD and use them on America and make 9/11 look nothing."

Clearly, you are saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction here. And that is why we attacked them. Do you still really believe that? You are also implying a link between Saddam and 9/11. Do you believe that a link exists?

Even if you do, why not go after Osama instead. I think that I would sleep better at night if we got Osama.

Guy's we are still running around in Afganistan and Pakistan. It just doesn't get the press coverage that Iraq does.

Roadglide,

We are spending more than 10X the amount of money and we have far more than 10X the amount of troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. That said, we do have NATO support in Afghanistan.

Are you saying that we are going to catch Osama and no further troops are required in Afghanistan? If so, why doesn't Bush just come out and say that. That would make me feel much better and probably make people reconsider their vote.

We have a token force of a measly 20,000 in Afghanistan compared to 140,000 in Iraq.

Clearly this administration’s focus in not Afghanistan and finding OBL.

Listen....I know you guys are smarter than your responses. First of all ....if you think any one is more happy than Bin Ladin with the opportunity Bush has given him....you really are being snow. Bin Ladin is probaly living in some hole just like Saddam was when he was caught......and with his kidney problems he is probaly he wishing he could piss in his pants with the fear he lives in not knowing who to trust....what to eat with the 50 million dollar bounty on his ass. That is if he is still alive!

Second ......In Iraq Saddam was in control of an entire country where as in Afganistan Bin Ladin is just a terrorist operating with the blessing of the controling goverment ...the Taliban. The are gone and most of the country is under control. There you don't have all the countries that border Afganistan sending their terrrorists to continue the fighting as you do in Iraq where border countries such as Syria,Iran and others do not want to see any form of democrocy take seed in fear that it will start a movement in theirs in the future.

Still all of you who bash Bush will not address the bigger problem that the UN, France, Germany and Russia looked the other way and allowed Saddam to do pretty much what he wanted to do while they profited billions of dollars. That is the real scandal!.....that is being ignored.

And Laguy the connection between 9\11 and Saddam is pointed out. Putin has disclosed that Russian intelligence had evidence that Iraq (Saddam) had plans to attack American interests. Clinton had spoken while he was president that he thought Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction ......Kerry had spoken while Clinton was president that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clinton says that when he turned the keys of the presidency over to Bush that the most vile threat to the country were the terrorists.

9/11 accelerated the position that Iraq (Saddam)who had already used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people ( gassing ther Kurds) and nobody disputes that. That Saddam continued refusing to abide by UN resolutions by allowing inspections either al ready had WMD or was buyin time to continue to work to aquire them or build them. With CIA intelligence, British intelligence and Russian intelligence telling him Saddam is trying to aquire or buy these WMD or already has them and with reports from Putin that Russian intelligence that Iraq has plans tho attact US interests......there doesn't even have to be a connection with Bin Ladin to justify invading Iraq. The legaL justification are the term of surrrender that Saddam agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. On top of that there are the numerous resolutions by the UN that where ignored by Saddam. With the surrender of World War I Germany agreed with many provisions of the surrender that included the a limited size of an army....they could only have so many tanks, ships etc. Hitler just ignored the terms of that surrender and we all know what happened after that be3cause rest of Europe didn't have the courage to stand up to him and take the fight to him instead of letting him take the fight to them. Just think if he would have had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Same with Japan......just think if they had Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Let us learn from history .....there are times in this World where we have to draw a line in the sand and not only carry the big stick .....but use it!

Clinton gave several speeches during his presidency that Saddam has or is trying to aquire weapons of mass destruction.....Kerry agreed with himand also gave speeches top the same affect. Saddam tried to have Bush Sr asassinate and if he would have succeded do you think that would have be reason enough tho invaded Iraq. After numumerous years of resolutions by the UN that were ignored by Saddam. 9\11just accelerated the fact that we needed to get him before he got us.

By the way were was the call and the response for a comission to investigated the basement bombing of The World Trade Center when it was bombed while Clinton was president.

Wake up people.....history shows us that sometimes.....most times we the US has to take the lead to have the courage to stand up tyrants and dictators who have an evil agenda. And there is a cost that is that is not abled to measured with the loss of lives...... but history has proven that the loss of lives will be maginified far greater if we allow these tyrants and dictators to ignore and manipulate World Law to continue to become powerful of a force that will eventually have to be dealt with with much worse consequences.

Beachman,

There are many things that I do not understand about your post, but I'll just focus on one for simplicity's sake.

You wrote "9\11just accelerated the fact that we needed to get him before he got us."

It seems that there is clear evidence that Saddam was going to attack the United States, and we attacked him first. This is the information that Bush needs to make public and ASAP. It would make me forget about the torture and the WMD issue. Why don't they just release this evidence? I have read all over the internet, and so far, all of the information (including the the findings of the 9/11 commission) have found no evidence that Iraq was about to attack us.

Lastly you wrote "take the lead to have the courage to stand up tyrants and dictators who have an evil agenda."

Are you aware that world opinion puts Bush up there with Saddam and Kim Jung Il (sp) as the greatest threats to the world peace? What if other nation's in the free world have the perception that indeed the American agenda is the evil one? I hate to say it but the lack of WMD and the Abu Ghraib tortures make us look slightly hypocritical.

Beachman,I hate to be rude but I'm afraid I agree
with Bluestraveler, I don't understand a lot of your
points.

we better hope other countries dont have the courage to stand up to tyrants or the US may be in danger of invasion.

Bluestraveller....you don't understand many things in my post because you are one of the sheep that listen and believe the liberal media and find heros in losers like Moore. Richard Clark saw his bullshit movie and said it was ful of shit. Where is the liberal media reporting that. You only listen to what you want to hear. I have still not heard anyone dispute that the real scandal is the oil for food program that the UN, France, Germany and Russia profited billions of dollars to look the other way so Saddam didn't have to obide with the terms of the surrender of the Gulf War.

Once again...... Putin has admitted the Russian intelligence had discovered information that Iraq was intending to attack US interestand passed that information on to Bush.....that is public knowledge now. What is so hard to understand about that?

During Clinton's presidency both Clinton and Kerry gave speeches outlining that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and did nothing but played the game with the UN, France, Germany, and Russia passing resoultions to enforce the inspections but not following through because they were profiting billions not following through.

What is it with ADD among some members of this board? It seems some inexplicably believe there can only be one scandal involving Iraq, as in "the real scandal is . . . " Is it that difficult to understand that there may be a number of scandals, and that this is not a competition as to which is the "real" scandal? Just because there was corruption in the oil for food program, or that France, Germany and Russia profitted from their relations with Iraq, does not mean the falsity of the stated reason for going to war with Iraq, WMD's, somehow is irrelevant. By the way, the media reported that people in the State Department were astounded at Putin's claim that Russian intelligence had discovered information that "Iraq intended to attack U.S. interests" (whatever that means) because no one knew what he was talking about. Hence the question of what evidence Putin had to support what many considered a wild and unsubstantiated allegation. Or are we going to believe automatically everything that comes out of Putin's mouth, just as some highly partisan Republicans would do the same for Bush?

"The Russian leader's surprise comments came just two days after a September 11 commission in Washington concluded there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, a lynchpin of Bush's case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq."
I find it very suspect Putins comments come two days after The 911 commission released it's findings. If he really had this intelligence why didn't he sign off on our going into Iraq in the first place. Remember Russia wanted the inspectors to finish there work. I'm bettin'
Putin traded his "intelligence" for some cheap grain or maybe an Iraq contract. We know he had WMD at one point, we gave them to him. The questions were does he still have them, has he used them or did we find them already? In my mind an ongoing weapons inspection was much cheaper in both money and american blood.
His threat to america was dubious at best, North Korea
by all accounts was and is head and shoulders above
Hussein threat wise. Beachman, I'm 42 and I've never seen my country under worse leadership than it is now. I feel in my heart if I just fall in step with the company line I may wake up soon and find a great deal I take for granted about America gone. Clark didn't say the movie was "ful of shit', he said he was the one who allowed the Bin Ladens and others to leave the country, that does not contradict anything in Moore's movie, he simply asks why they were allowed to go before being carefully questioned. If you recall Clark has no love for this adminstration and felt he had a duty to this country to warn them of the threat this Bush regime poses. However slanted, whatever facts are less than acurate The concerns Fahrenheit 911 raises and the questions it asks are ones every American patriot should be asking, if we don't now will regret it later.

I did show your posts to a friend of mine who is a moderate republican and his observation was
"You know, people like this are as strong an argument against Bush as Moore's Movie is." By the way, this guy is niether a Kerry fan nor an "sheep that listen and believe the liberal media and find heros in losers like Moore." but he won't be voting for Bush this Nov. He believes impeachment hearings would be far more appropriate in W's case than Clinton's. Enough with the schoolyard bravdo, Open your eyes and use your brain

"... the UN, France, Germany and Russia looked the other way and allowed Saddam to do pretty much what he wanted to do while they profited billions of dollars. That is the real scandal!.....that is being ignored."

Um, Beachman? Profitting is the American way, man. So, a couple countries made some serious bucks supporting Saddam. Big deal. Of course the US made some serious bucks supporting Saddam a few years back, but I guess that's different somehow, is it? I don't suppose I have to prepare a list of all the dictators the US supported over the years because it served a profit motive, do I? The problem goes well beyond the whole Republican/Democrate thing, it's just business.

"... history has proven that the loss of lives will be maginified far greater if we allow these tyrants and dictators to ignore and manipulate World Law to continue to become powerful of a force that will eventually have to be dealt with with much worse consequences."

Ouch! "Ignore and manipulate World Law." You realize, of course, that the United States is above "World Law." Right?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why all those Saudis (with connections to Bin Lauden) were flying home, unquestioned, on Sept 13, while American citizens were grounded.

Beachman,

I think I am hearing one of your points loud and clear. That I am just plain stupid. I have to agree with you because I still cannot understand your point. Why do you think that I think that Moore is a hero? Do you also think that I am a liberal because I am not.

I am pro business and anti union. This does not mean that I am not STUPID, or that you are not far more intelligent than I am.

I am still having a lot of trouble understanding your points, other than the principal point that I am a liberal, tree hugging RETARD SHEEP.

Are you saying that we attacked Iraq based on Russian intelligence? Is there any evidence that this evidence was/is correct? If so, where is it? Or are you saying that it does not matter whether the information was correct?

Lastly, are you saying that only the most elite intellectuals such as yourself can see the 'big picture' on this war, and people of common intelligence such as myself are just sheep being led around by the liberal media. That we just are blind to obvious realities of this situation?

I was born and raised to have blind faith in the GOP, nevertheless decided to see Michael Moore's new mockumentary yesterday.

Early in the film, they showed events pretty much chronologically leading up to 911.

At the theatre I was at, the screen went blank for about 30 seconds, and all you could hear were the two planes crashing into the towers. Was this done for effect? Or was this some recent editing on the part of the filmakers?

Originally I had heard that the movie contained footage of some people who jumped out of the towers. I didn't see it.

Is this the version everyone else saw?

Bluestraveller.....You are reading and listening to only what you want to hear and are ignoring the rest of what I have said. I did not say we invaded Iraq based only on russian intelligence.

Again...... both Clinton and Kerry have given speeches where they determined....even before Bush was president.....that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The CIA advise Bush of WMD.....British Intelligence advised Bush of WMD.....Putin told Bush Russian intelligence had unfolded plans of Iraqi plans to attack US interests. Saddam had refused for years to allow UN inspectors in Iraq.....what was he hiding if he had no WMD. Go ahead ....stick your head in the sand and ignore history and allow a dictactor to basically manipulate and buy time to allow him the aquire the means he needs to blackmail the world. It is called apeasement and Europe allow it to happen twice last century which resulted in World War I & II. Even though Korea & Vietnam were unfortunate wars.....they most likely prevent much worse conflicts in the long run. The same with the Cold War.....you have to draw a line in the sand and being to do what needs to be done to prevent things from becoming much worse later.

And Tjuncle......Richard Clark did basically say Moore's movie is full is full of shit.....again you just want listen and hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest.

Dear GCL,

...cause I am, as you know, a liberal.
No you are not and I didn't say you were before when I said one of your views sounded liberal.

I think examples of extremists saying things considered hurtful or silly by the other side can be found. Louis Farrakan can be downright brutal. And look at the way Dan Quayle was treated. Al Gore took a pass during that campaign when he mispoke.
As LAGuy pointed out, Farrakan is fringe extremist left and hardly comparable to mainstream right such as Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh. Gore was raked by the media in 2000 as liar, exaggerator, and flip-flopper. Any significant research into these claims about Gore reveal they were completely biased and unfair.

BTW--is liberal a dirty word? I dont see that as name calling.
Conservative media tends to oversimplify choices and labels, you are good or evil, right or wrong, black or white, conservative or liberal, etc...
Liberal has also been massaged into a dirty word by CM. Their tactic has been to associate overzealous taxation and spending with "liberal" along with the worst extremists elements of the left to the same. Thus, if you have a "liberal" thought, e.g. pro-choice, you must have all the liberal qualities, e.g. tax-and-spend, treasonous war-protester, etc... Protests of such are mostly dismissed as intellectual liberal babble, i.e. "there is obviously a straight forward right or wrong answer, don't try to use semantics to argue out of it"

Gator provides a prime example of the conservative viewpoint with his joke regarding conservatives vs liberals. To shoot or not to shoot? It's only obvious because he chooses an unfair and inaccurate example. If I were to change the example to a dark figure in a dark alley running away from you and a bunch of other cops, the question of whether to shoot or not to shoot becomes much more complicated.

Of course this belongs in the War or Peace? thread, but, point by point...

A. Why can't people remember what 9/11 really was... - Beachman
Those of us that read balanced news sources instead of propaganda do remember what 9/11 was, an attack from a Saudi Arabian assisted by many other Saudia Arabians from Saudi Arabia along with several others that were not Iraqi from countries that were not Iraq all operating as part of a large terrorist network with very little connections to Iraq, but significant connections to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and other countries.

B. So let us look at the history of Saddam. First all thee killing of the people in his own country. - Beachman
A horrible thing undisputed by anyone, but irrelevant to the lack of planning and rush to war with IRAQ that has sucked and continues to suck resources available to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda.

C. Second him starting the Gulf War and after losing refusing the obey the terms of surrrender. - Beachman
Since we're "remembering what 9/11 was" and discussing the appropriate response (when we should be discussing Fahrenheit 911). Saddam's crimes should be and should have been separated from 9/11 and al Qaeda, not misleadlingly implied by the Bush Administration as the same.

D. So Bush....who was told by Clinton that Saddam has WMD. The CIA (who's head was appointed by the Clinton) tells Bush there are WMD. British intelligence tells Blair who tells Bush there are weapons of mass destruction. - Beachman
Clinton told Bush the greater threat was the al Qaeda network and similar terrorist operations due to the evolution of terrorism from state-sponsored entities to independent networks. Clinton and others believed Saddam had WMDs. But the UN, which represented a true coalition with distributed costs and manpower, raised considerable questions regarding the existence of the WMDs. Most countries listened to the UN, hence the lack of a building of a true coalition for war. The Bush Administration didn't want to hear any evidence contrary to what they were looking for and couldn't let any of the momentum slip from the high emotions of the barely related al Qaeda 9/11 attack. As it turns out, the UN coalition of inspectors inside of Iraq were right.

E. Putin of Russia tells Bush Russian intelligence had discovered plans that Iraq had targets on American interest. - Beachman
I think this is questionable. To borrow from another author "The President of Russia (Vladimir Putin) has stated that he told America that Saddam Hussein "planned" to attack America, but that he had no proof that he (Saddam) was actually involved in the 9/11 attack. Many in America were unaware of this warning and it has taken Mr. Putin all this time to officially state this? Why was this information not mentioned before? Why should Putin publicly show support for Bush by announcing this years later, but at the same time confirm that he has no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and say that he does not agree with the war in Iraq? Doesn't this sound like a little political back scratching?" - http://www.profindpages.com/news/2004/06/26/MN170.htm
I'll add that the Bush Administration seemed surprised at this new revelation. You would have thought that the Bush Administration would have mentioned this before.

F. The real scandal Moore and the rest of the World so be investigating and be outrage with is the oil for food program where the UN, France, Germany and Russia they profited Billions of dollars to look the other way for Saddam. - Beachman
A scandal for sure, but unrelated to the originally stated, later restated, and currently stated justifications for going to war.

G. So Bush had the guts to stand up and say enough is enough and has taken the fight to the extremist before they are able to develope or obtain WMD and use them on America and make 9/11 look nothing. - Beachman
Our soldiers are the ones with the guts. Also, it would seem to me that our success over terrorism and the 9/11 perpetrators should be measured by at least several indicators: a weakened al Qaeda (more recruits than ever), belief of other countries in our intentions (instead of belief that they've been lied to and manipulated), view of the US as a just and liberating force by Iraqis (instead of an occupying force that detained and killed way too many innocent civilians).

H. It's called short memory... - Roadglide
It's called being able to differentiate between al Qaeda and Saddam, between Afganistan and Iraq, so that we can find solutions acceptable to the specific problem.

I. First of all ....if you think any one is more happy than Bin Ladin with the opportunity Bush has given him....you really are being snow... - Beachman
Bush did exactly what bin Laden said and wanted him to do, invaded a sovereign Muslim country barely related to his al Qaeda network, forcing a significant long term military and financial committment that cannot be used to combat al Qaeda or other threats that arise. Bush did MORE than bin Laden wanted him to do, he did so without sufficient international support and resources, fracturing the trust of the US both in the Muslim world and among US allies and risking instability throughout the Middle East. Insufficient and unprepared troops and planning led to the torture scandal that has even further eroded US standing and credibility. Iraq is also now a prime breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists with fresh images of the US killing innocent civilians and torturing and humiliating fellow Iraqis. If bin Laden was concerned about his comfort, he could have and would have just retired and lived extravagantly off his wealth. Instead he went up against the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world (US), and manipulated their (our) president into his bidding.

J. Second ......In Iraq Saddam was in control of an entire country where as in Afganistan Bin Ladin is just a terrorist operating with the blessing of the controling goverment ...the Taliban. The are gone and most of the country is under control. There you don't have all the countries that border Afganistan sending their terrrorists to continue the fighting as you do in Iraq where border countries such as Syria,Iran and others do not want to see any form of democrocy take seed in fear that it will start a movement in theirs in the future. - Beachman
Iraq is prime real estate and breeding grounds for a new generation of terrorists. With Saddam out of power, Iraq provides incredible opportunities for resources and recruitment. It also easier to convince Muslims to lay down their lives in Iraq since they view the US troops as an occupying force.

K. Still all of you who bash Bush will not address the bigger problem that the UN, France, Germany and Russia looked the other way and allowed Saddam to do pretty much what he wanted to do while they profited billions of dollars. That is the real scandal. - Beachman
Still irrelevant to the justifications for war.

L. connection between 9\11 and Saddam is pointed out. Putin has disclosed that Russian intelligence had evidence that Iraq (Saddam) had plans to attack American interests. Clinton had spoken while he was president that he thought Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction ......Kerry had spoken while Clinton was president that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clinton says that when he turned the keys of the presidency over to Bush that the most vile threat to the country were the terrorists. - Beachman
Addressed in D and E, but to emphasize Putin provided no specifics and the Bush Administration never mentioned this as one of the reasons which would have surely supported their claims. Viewing all terrorists as the same is also inaccurate and dangerous. Clinton recognzied that the greatest threats of terrorism had evolved into independently operated networks as opposed to the outdated view of state sponsored terrorism focused on by the Bush Administration. Clinton told Bush that al Qaeda was the significant threat, not Saddam.

M. 9/11 accelerated the position that Iraq (Saddam)who had already used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people....just think if they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. - Beachman
The parts of this passage that make sense were not used by the Bush Administration as justifications to Congress nor the American people as reasons for going to war.

N. ...9\11just accelerated the fact that we needed to get him before he got us. - Beachman
You keep forgetting that 9/11 was perpetrated by al Qaeda and that Saddam had little interest in al Qaeda.

O. ...you don't understand many things in my post because you are one of the sheep that listen and believe the liberal media... - Beachman
I think it more likely that he had difficulty following it with all the spelling and grammer mistakes, not to mention an abundance of tangential arguments with questionable relevance. "Liberal Media" is just a weak excuse to dismiss opposing arguments entirely. The sheep to me would appear to be the people who listen exclusively to highly paid Administration officials and conservative biased journalists without considering opposition arguments because they are all part of a vast "liberal media conspiracy".

P. I have still not heard anyone dispute that the real scandal is the oil for food program that the UN, France, Germany and Russia profited billions of dollars to look the other way. - Beachman
Reminder, not justification for war.

Q. Once again...... Putin has admitted the Russian intelligence had discovered information that Iraq was intending to attack US interestand passed that information on to Bush.....that is public knowledge now. What is so hard to understand about that? - Beachman
You sound like a sheep for believing that. What was he going to attack and why didn't the Bush administration ever mention it?

R. Bluestraveller...TJuncle...you just want listen and hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest. - Beachman
Weak charges. YOU are the one complaining about the liberal media. Logically it suggests that liberal media is to be ignored because it is not to be trusted, so you blindly follow what Bush and CM will write and say to keep him in power.

S. ...Richard Clark did basically say Moore's movie is full is full of shit... - Beachman
Can you provide us with a quote of Clark saying the movie is full of shit or are you lying to make a point?

Gregorio, "the screen went blank for about 30 seconds." No, that's how Moore wanted it. That's one of the reasons I think this is a brilliant film (even if you discount the message -- give credit where credit's due). He didn't show the buildings because he didn't have to. I'll bet that as you sat there in the dark, you saw the plane hitting and saw the buildings tumbling down. Those images are etched deeply into our subconcious now. Moore didn't need to show them.

d'Artagnan, Ooooh, yer gooooood!

Beachman, please tell my why all the Saudis were allowed to leave without questioning because no one in the liberal media seems to know (and the conservative media aren't even reporting the fact).

It was effective that's for sure. I was just wandering that somehow there was a screw-up in the projection room or theatre management decided the content was too grisly...Thanks

d'Artagnan, Thank you. You are articulate as well as patient, much more so than I. I leave it to your capapble hands the task of countering the ignorant and arrogant ramblings of the sheep of the right wing media. I worry about my country but I simply don't have the patience anymore to address the arguments of idiots, America needs level heads like yours.

dArt,

Great post. But it does not address the Beachman's central point. That he has read the news and come up with the true reality, and the rest of us have only been manipulated by the media. He somehow has more clarity than us.

This is heart of a much larger issue - ARROGANCE. Not just about Beachman, but many of the things that have the Bush administration has done.

I find it arrogant, that we told the world that we were looking for WMD and after having found none, we change the reason to Saddam was a bad guy.

I find it arrogant to torture Iraqi's and expect people to believe that this was just a small outlying pocket of extremists.

I find it arrogant for Bush to tell the EU that they should accept Turkey, when the US is not part of the EU.

Lastly, I find it arrogant that Beachman finds that I am a sheep being led by the liberal media because I disagree with him.

Yes, we are the largest economic and military power in the world, and yes we were attacked on 9/11, but NONE of this justifies this ARROGANCE. There is no way I am going to vote for Bush because I am not arrogant, and I don't want our country to be either.

I agree with BT totally. Bush's arrogance has always been a problem--and it doesnt serve him well. Take his idea to push through a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why did he have to do that? The right wing extremists that would agree with that are ALREADY IN HIS CAMP. It is a stupid position to take because it is going to alienate most gays, and anyone supporting gays. Hell, it probably caused Hemp to move out of the US, but I digress. Basically, Bush is too arrogant to see this was a stupid political move.

Dart, I dont agree with some of your post but dont think I could change your mind, nor am I really inclined too. I do think there are extremists in both parties, and it would be nice to say the bad ones arent on your side, but you really cant point to the stupid quotes by your opposition and then put up disclaimers for the dumb quotes attributed to folks on your side of the fence.

Beachman, good job. It is a shame most can't take the time to comprehend you points. This is the problem indeed. I need to add a few comments from one who has truly been there, and done that. Forgive my lack of syntax, I am only going to make brief points, in tiny bites, as to spoon feed those of you who can not chew heavy portions.
President Bush didn't bring up the Defense of Marriage act, it was forced due to those that wanted more than a civil union. A gay marriage is different, why is it so hard to reflect that in the terminology alone?
Arrogant is a greater definition of Senator Kerry. You can not make a decision such as going to war, and then change your mind a bit down the road. The big picture is clear, one of thwarting Islamic threats for what, the seventh time in history? The Saudis are getting the idea, have you noted the changes recently? Of course not, it wasn't on CNN. The fable of allowing the Royal Family members to leave unfettered is simply not true. A new urban legend. Any idea of the family's closeness to Osama? The Royal Family's fondness of him? Must not be a clue. It wasn't reported by Dan Rather. Rush to war? Fourteen resolutions in twelve years. Sadam is pretty arrogant, no? Do you agree with Kerry, who "voted to threaten to use force, not actually use it"? The U.N. did, apparently. We do not. This is no time for pussies. The Bush administration never said Saddam was tight with Osama. The didn't even like each other, as Saddam is not a good Muslim. Saddam does have many ties with terrorism, however, including sending funds to Palestinian suicide bombers. (BTW-would you say Israel's offensive on Palestinian leaders was effective or not? How long since that started has there NOT been another nail bomb in Tel Aviv? 110 days? It wasn't reported by Al Frankin) Ever see a photo of the fuselage used to train hijackers? It wasn't on Oprah. WMD'S? You mean besides the chemical ingredients stored? Besides the ready means to mix them? Besides the toxin levels in the Tigress? Besides the warheads found? Besides the Nuclear acceleration equipment? Would a rocket propelled grenade fired at an airliner leaving La Guardia qualify? Oh, you guys want shiny warheads with the names of US cities written on them with magic marker. Did you see the TONS of nuclear material coming out of Iraq? Does THAT qualify? Haven't heard about that? Keep listening. BTW, the Intel has NOT been held for the election, we didn't need any of those raqheads getting in the way as it was removed. Osama is dead. No one in the State Dept. wants to put their ass on the line coming out and saying it, and we don't have a body, but, Why does a guy who exists for terror not "prove" he is alive? How encouraging it would be to these diapered cretins to see a photo, Cant this guy afford a digital camera? They ran out of old video a year and half ago. The audio is silly. Dead since two Decembers ago. One more thing, N.A.T.O. is very much involved in Afganny, many thousand troops. I can get you a ride to Bahgrum AFB, if you like. You will need to grow some balls and get a clue in basic first. Semper Fi.

(Message edited by rimnoj on July 07, 2004)

Rimjob,
there is something called a carriage return key. I forms paragraphs and makes reading easier. I swear I want to read all you wrote but I cant get through it all.

Bush was FORCED to come out for a constitutional amendment prohibiting Gay marriage? Hotwash. Arrogance pure and simple. He has enough problem without creating new ones by alienating center thinking people.

Since you have evidence of WMD, please call 60 minutes. Or inbox me and I can put you in touch with a reporter from USA Today. This is gonna be big.

If your evidence proves Bush was right, I will feel guilty about voting for Kerry--but I will still do it cause I would like to continue listening to Howard Stern and making porn without being molested by right wing extremists.

Sorry for the ruff read, Gcl, typing is no me gusta. Although noted as edited, I could not correct my mess.
60 minutes? Is THAT a news source? Time will show me true, and it really won't be long at all.
Oh, and though some may be culturally challenged and not get my name, I must admit to enjoying a good rimmer!

(Message edited by rimnoj on July 07, 2004)

Rimnoj wrote:
"This is no time for pussies."
"It wasn't on Oprah."
"we didn't need any of those raqheads"
"diapered cretins"
"You will need to grow some balls and get a clue in basic first."
"Time will show me true"
"though some may be culturally challenged"

I am not going to comment on the content of your message but on the tone. I see it in BeachBum's post and it is coming through in spades on RimnOJ's post. A certain condescending attitude. That of course is related very strongly to their cousin ARROGANCE.

What other subject other than the war in Iraq gives someone the right to condescend to the people that disagree with you?

Of course, Rimnoj's post brings a new element into the mix. Pure and simple hate. Towelhead and diapered cretins? Wow! Sounds like we should just kill them all those lowlifes that don't agree with us. Right? Ooops. That's what Saddam did and look at all the trouble he is in.

d'Artagnan, great post. I have been reading all the posts but have not seen the movie as I tried to watch it twice and both time it was sold out. But not to agree or disagree with anyone's comments but d'Artagnan made it much easier to understand his arguments versus some of the others that I had really hard time understanding. I don't think anyone is changing any others mind but I like reading d'Artagnan post.

Peace \/

JKarp

Interesting Bt, how you pass judgment on me so easily, and from so far above. You mock my name(OJ was innocent, though)and label me. How arrogant, how condescending. As you well know, sometimes when we believe we are right, and have many reasons to do so, we can appear arrogant while not feeling as such. I can do better.

Your new word for the day is perspective. (humor attempted). In my PC moments, I understand why some Iraqis want to us to leave. I know why a young girl spits on us as she cries. I can understand why a young boy stares so intently. It is my opinion that they are not well informed. Arrogant, I know.
That is my reason for referring to some news persons. It is what they don't tell you that can shape us more than what they do. Did you catch the story in the New York Times on why Russia, France, Germany and the U.N. were ultimately opposed to the war after banging their pots and their pans? Does the oil for food rip off or sanction violations figure?
The prison scandal? Torture? Are you kidding me? There were people prosecuted, for abuse, and convicted by the Army BEFORE the story broke! It is embarrassing, and should not have happened. I think I saw someone wearing panties on his head and jerking off in a movie once. How in the world does that compare to hands being cut off, being forced to watch your wife and daughters raped - before being beaten to death, or being forced into raw sewage after having much of your skin removed? I'll get some nice lotion while you chose how to spend the evening.

My choosing slurs was unfortunate. I refer to only those who will grenade a man building a school. Only to those planting bombs on a road to a hospital. There is a new movement afoot in Iraq, one of fellow Iraqis themselves stopping the cretins doing this. Believe me(or don't) these guys will not be kind. It is not about hate or killing lowlifes, just a perspective.
Michael Moore has a truly odd perspective. I don't mind that he is the only one I know of getting even more rich off this war. His presentation of a movie in his documentary look alike fashion is kinda brilliant. The press's presentation of his movie as some kind of block buster is one of an odd perspective. Forget documentary, it is just a movie. 26 mill in a week? Didn't another movie, Spiderman two, do twice that in one day? What is the big deal about? One guy wrote that even if only half is true, it makes some kind of point. Shit, if only half of Spiderman is true...

The remainder of your complaints are truths, from my perspective.

There are some thing I admire about you and Taliban. Pussies they are not. Balls they got, brains they don't. From my perspective, any man that will run at an 18,000 pound armored vehicle with a hundred year old musket fits that stereotype. And you are no coward either. You are not afraid to let the facts on hand or historical reference get in the way of what you know to be true. That takes some guts.

I do think Bush was forced into the gay marriage constitutional amendment thing, by his god-fearing, fairy-tale-believing, bible-thumping christian right-wing.

>>>I do think Bush was forced into the gay marriage constitutional amendment thing, by his god-fearing, fairy-tale-believing, bible-thumping christian right-wing.<<<

It is called his base. For me, that says it all.

Rimonj; I salute you!!

"Saddam does have many ties with terrorism, however, including sending funds to Palestinian suicide bombers. (BTW-would you say Israel's offensive on Palestinian leaders was effective or not? How long since that started has there NOT been another nail bomb in Tel Aviv? 110 days?"

This is a very accurate statment that has not been reported by the media. With Saddam out of the picture the flow of money from Iraq to these killers has stopped.

As said in the past, do you really think Kadafi would have given up his WMD programs if we had not gone into Iraq?

These are just two examples of the positives that have come out of the war.

no nail bombs in Israel is a positive?

Larry; Are you trying to say that suicide bombers in Israel, is a good thing?

that depends on who you ask

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

I found this site very interesting , It shows clinton and bush either dont give a shit which is probably the truth ,Or they are retarded . Its very hard for a good man to become president we shouldnt fight over which party is better we should demand answers.


Roadglide I really dont give 2 shits about Israel and Palestine ,I do know neither can be trusted, and we pay alot of money to Israel.

See I think the Bible Is a worthless piece of garbage ,so that pretty much kills their argument that they have some divine right to that land for me. I know its bigger than that but It makes me nuts that I finance Israel, so I just sit back and laugh at the whole situation.


But to answer your question I think everyone has the right to live, Israeli or palestinian.

(Message edited by larrydavid on July 07, 2004)

Rimnoj
I have not commented on anything in this thread yet, but you cannot be serious in your statement that Moore is the ONLY one getting rich off of this war. Have you never heard of Haliburton ?? Dick Cheny made sure his good friends at HIS former company got the vast majority of the construction and supply contracts with NO competitive bidding allowed. Haliburton has already been exposed as massively overcharging for everything they are supplying to our soldiers and the people of Iraq. They stand to make profits in the amount of BILLIONS-- sort of makes Michael Moore's profits look pretty paltry. One more example of Corporate America screwing the people and taxpayers, with the assistance of GWB of course--- Corporate America's best friend.

Michael Moore himself posted on the Brazzil Website...

Go to (scroll down and read):

http://www.brazzil.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10785

Halliburton? Lame. Who would you have chosen for the job? Can you name any other resource? Think hard for the largest, and incidently only, "big Corporatin" doing this type of work in the region. I'll bet it is the tip of your tounge.

Exposed overcharging!? Where did you get that nugget? Howard Dean? Halliburton themselves brought to light excessive gasoline charges, which resulted from Iraqi middle man gouging. Most of the "excess" was found to be reasonable, however. How much would YOU charge to drive a tanker of gasoline in to the war zone? Would you even pump your own gas over there today to fill your Renault? Do you have the faintest concept of what it take to get GC's to work in Iraq? Of course you don't.

Instead of Halliburton what about dividing the work among smaller regional companies, including some in Iraq, that would show some good will. You don't believe that the ultra rich middle east doesn't know how to build in the desert do you? We'll never know though because there was no bidding for the contracts Halliburton got.

You know, if I wasn't so tired and frustrated and angry about the state these Neocons have brought our country too I would be entertained by these cryptic, arrogant, holier than thou posts that some juvenile delinquents puke up on this thread. There has not been one decision made by the Bush administration that can reasonable be defended and it's affecting my security, cash flow and future. I think anyone is well within there rights to question where W's "vision" has gotten us.

Hey, I certainly don't expect everyone to agree but when The Vice President tells a senior senator to go fuck himself and then defends it later you can see the caliber of leadership we're dealing with.

"You're either with us or against Us" and if you challenge anything we will call into question your integrity, motives, facts and sanity. Never mind that the 911 commission can't find any credible evidence linking Al-Queada and Hussain, there's a connection because I say there is. Their big straggly seems to be monopolize the media and keep lying with a straight face. If that works in November we will be much closer to real fascism than I think anyone really wants to admit


I can only guess that all the mean spirited trolls that are still schilling for this crap are hoping to get there own arm band and a nice new pair of Jack boots when the time comes. Now you guys watch, this post or another like it will be offhandedly dismissed and you'll be able to read the smirk There will be no acknowledging of the concerns stated, any facts brought to play will be dubious at best and the intelligence, integrity and/or motives of the poster will be questioned. Once again I blame the extreme right wing for setting this tone
and I pray that we get it all taken care soon enough to steer us away from where we're currently pointing our country, the world and our futures. Moore's
Film may be imperfect but we need more efforts like it or else the country we know will cease to exist. Remember Rome was a Republic for it's first four hundred years and then it wasn't.

Rimnoj,

I did not mean to call you arrogant. The tone of your message is arrogant. Although it is true that most arrogant rantings are written by arrogant people, it is not correct to assume that you are arrogant. Again, I don't know you.

But after reading your last post, which has, amazingly enough, a more arrogant and condescending tone than your previous posts. I am having a harder time picturing yourself as a humble intellectual.

Have you seen Bush's popularity and job approval ratings? Close to 60% of America see Bush as doing a bad job. Do you view 60% of America with the same disdain and loathing as you do the people on this board?

Yeah Rimnoj how bout the military? and the subs that haliburton uses

Speaking of history repeating itself, I suppose everyone here is much too young to remember the Teapot Dome Scandal back in the twenties. It was, ironically enough, about a Republican government giving oil contracts to friends (as opposed to allow open bidding).



You get a pretty good idea where the buck stopped at this one.

The problem with dividing the work is the ol' left hand not knowing what the right is doing. There truly are not many folks interested in the job. A couple foreign companies were dismissed without consideration. France's oil conglomerate was not appropriate. The Russians?, The Chinese? The U.S. thrives as it's businesses do. I do not believe "reaching out" would better our relationships down the road. If you think we are not respected now, try giving in to the weasels.

As far a Iraqis, they do not produce anything. All the products are Pakistani, French, Russian German or US in origin. The ENTIRE rich, middle east(Israel excepted) is unable to produce anything. No kidding. These people's governments are only good at writing checks.

How is the economy? Look at the problems we have been thru. Terrorism, internet bubble bursting, corporate scandals etc. The resilience of America's business' is amazing, again. The state of the Union is excellent. Check the employment numbers again. Take note our ADVANTAGE in the over seas job market. Please don't mention the National debt until first looking at the percentage of debt compared the GNP.

I agree completely with the Rome scenario. Look how the world power has shifted in our (at least mine) lifetimes. I do disagree with the actual problems that can sink us. Most likely 180 degrees!

The 911 commission's report final has been delayed till AFTER the election. Why? Not because it will sink Bush, I can assure you. The "leaks" of mis-information were typical, jumped at and quickly dropped by those who Polly Anna first, and may never look for truth later.

Humble intellectual? I have had two successful prior careers(a moderately wealthy braggart bastard), but never finished college, and what I do now would be viewed by most here as pretty stupid. I am arrogant because I believe I am informed. Dick Cheney and John Edwards were both informed as they grew up in modest beginnings. Both are quite wealthy now and both are quite powerful. We won't agree on the path they took, but informed is good.

Taliban were brave, stupid, ill- equipped and uninformed. Afghanistan's Al Qaeda were brave, smarter, better equipped, but uninformed. Iraq's troops working against us were cowards, maybe the smartest, kind of equipped, but very uninformed. The learning curve for all these guys was, well, harsh.
I believe 30-35 percent of us do not ever use current information when coming to an opinion. All sides of the isle. It is a shame.

Ld, Are you saying the military is getting rich? The sub contractors? In the immortal words of Jose Wales, "dead ain't much of a living, boy" . These guys earn those big, fat government checks.

Halliburton? Lame. Who would you have chosen for the job? Can you name any other resource?


Thats what I was answering in my post ,Im not big on privatization, let the army feed the army,and let contractors bid on contracts, and maybe a case of coke cans wont cost us $50

Agreed. The French fed our Army! LOL. Halliburton coordinates the private contractors.
I believe Coke cans have been banned from many locations due to some GPS thing hidden in some. I paid around 200 for a single GPS, the bastards!

Rimnoj
Did Haliburton deliver the gasoline to the troops in WWII, Korea , or Vietnam ????
Was only one contractor chosen to rebuild Europe after WWII ?

Happens only now because President Cheney is in power and is able to help his old cronies get filthy rich at the expense of the taxpayer and likely at the expense of the safety of our troops.

BTW -- Haliburton did not disclose it's massive overcharging until called out by the GAO. They had nowhere to hide. Might as well admit it. Who is going to come down on them -- BUSH ???

Please tell us Rimnoj because as I understand your posts you are the ONLY one who knows anything , and anyone who disagrees with you is a pussy, ignorant, or ill informed.
It must be boring to be the only one who is right about everything.

BTW -- What DOES it take to get CGs to work in Iraq. Please tell us omniscient one.

Either the Bush-Cheney buddies are getting rich off of the Halliburton contracts or this is the price we pay for them playing politics and not having a draft. The only other reason would be that this outsourcing actually saves the american taxpayer. Could be? But some of the military in Iraq (especially National Guard and Reserves) have to be a little pissed, after leaving a 4 or 5 k a month job and going to iraq for 2 or 3 k, while halliburton employees do some of the same jobs they do and make 6 or 7 k for it.

BT, I disagree on Beachman's central point. I would identify it as the following quote:

So Bush had the guts to stand up and say enough is enough and has taken the fight to the extremist before they are able to develope or obtain WMD and use them on America and make 9/11 look nothing. - By Beachman on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:03 pm

Most of the rest of his points are intended to support the claim above. The point you have identified as Beachman's central point was a weakly supported rebuttal to why people might disagree with his central point. Bluestraveller....you don't understand many things in my post because you are one of the sheep that listen and believe the liberal media and find heros in losers like Moore - By Beachman on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:41 am

Tjuncle, and Kuhn mor; Here is a small example of some contracts being awarded to local construction outfits.

Seabee OICC Awards Five Key Contracts in Iraq
Story Number: NNS040701-05
Release Date: 7/1/2004 10:38:00 AM


By Lt. Cmdr. William H. Klepac, Commander, 1st Naval Construction Division Public Affairs

FALLUJAH, Iraq (NNS) -- The First Marine Expeditionary Force Engineer Group (I MEG) Officer In Charge of Construction (OICC) awarded four road-paving and improvement contracts June 15, and a bridge repair contract two days later.

The contracts, with a combined total value of $518,420, were awarded in the Al Anbar province of Iraq.

The first road contract, valued at more than $150,000, included grading, drainage improvements and asphalt paving for a two-and-a-half-kilometer section of Al Niamiya Road south of Fallujah, and paving of a half-kilometer section of Albari Mosque Road in the Al Husay area southwest of Fallujah. The second road contract, valued at almost $120,000, included grading and paving a two-kilometer section of Al Boalwan Road and a half-kilometer section of Al Borashid Road on the outskirts of Fallujah.

“These projects may seem small, but they are important because they provide good roads to be used by farmers and villagers on the outskirts of the city,” said Ahmed Naiman Turki, road and bridge department manager for Fallujah.

The third road contract, valued at about $115,000, included grading and paving two kilometers of Al Secher Road, connecting North Fallujah with Highway 1. The fourth road contract included grading and paving a two-kilometer section of Al Zaghareet Road northwest of Fallujah.

The bridge repair contract involves replacing several pontoons, structural steel beams and bridge decking for the Al Ameriyah floating-pontoon bridge. The bridge is a key area crossing and was damaged by saboteurs in April.

“Repairing the damaged pontoon bridge is a very important project for the people of Ameriyah and the other villages south of Fallujah, because it is the only point to cross the Euphrates within 10 kilometers of Al Ameriyah,” commented Engineer Khayri Muhi Abdullah, the Al Anbar director for roads and bridges.

All five of these contracts are part of a continuous and growing effort by I MEG and OICC to help the Iraqi people in and around Fallujah improve their infrastructure, and become self-sufficient as they work toward a prosperous future.

For related news, visit the Commander, 1st Naval Construction Division Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/1ncd.