O/T Reality Check Sad and Insane May be Hung Soon

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I like the NYT and agree that it is an outstanding paper, though the Sports section sucks. However, for my money, I would take the LA Times in a second.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The problem with the NY Times sports section is we never get the west coast games, because they end too late to make the deadline. In LA, all the results are in at press time. Big advantage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Barry

If you're concerned about the late scores, don't do as I did and go to school on the East Coast of Canada, which is one hour later than EST. And Newfoundland, to be even worse--and certainly different, is an hour and one half later.

But back to newspapers themselves, how could you forgot the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1841-1902!

With such offers as free baseballs!



(The Daily Eagle is searchable on line at http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/)

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

I thought the other guy was suppose to have the hood on?

[Archive]

Posted By: AP

Peter,

I have read books on the subject; I have studied backgrounds of religions and I have read articles on it. It's not too much more complicated than that.

To really break it down:
1) They are Muslim.
2) The extremists who care to interpret the Koran literally believe they are called to Holy Jihad - war against non-Muslims --- mostly Christians.
3) They believe the more non-Muslims they kill in the name of Allah, the more rewards they get in "their heaven".
4) Since they believe the US is a mostly Christian nation, then they consider all Americans to be Christians, therefore, non-Muslim, therefore enemies in Holy Jihad.
5) Their heaven consists of eternal sexual pleasures involving young virgins among other things. I don't think it includes possessing a PSA 9 Wagner T206, though.
6) So they like killing us.
7) That's the honest to Allah truth and not very complicated...

Hussein chose not to wear the hood during his hanging. I'm very thankful for this as that one decision most likely decreased by half the number of conspriacy theories that Saddam wasn't really killed thus saving us from video documentaries on YouTube claiming that he's still alive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Andrew there is a big difference as you surely know between describing the views of a handful (admittedly perhaps a big handful but still a very small minority) of Muslim extremists and describing Muslims in general. Your prior post despite its footnote was much broader --"they" enjoy killing each other etc. etc. By the same logic you could ascribe to all Jews the views of a few militant extremists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

By the way there is some pretty good stuff in the Old Testament not just the Koran about smiting infidels -- check out parts of Ezekiel for example. Or Exodus for that matter.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Samuel Jackson quoted Ezekiel 25:17 in "Pulp Fiction" and the passage is in fact filled with violent metaphors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them"...one tough dude that Ezekiel

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yes, but no one is walking around with the Old Testament these days instructing citizens that if they don't pray 5 times a day they'll have their heads cut off.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcyclback

I don't know why folks malign France. As a country with much experience in the Middle
East (read about Algierian independance), the French recommended that the US not invade
Iraq in the way it did as they felt, in part, it would be a mistake for the US. Looking
back, it's likely that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Indepenants now
consider the advice good.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Any one have any "Freedom Fries"?


David

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, I think Syria also officially stated that it would be a mistake to invade Iraq.

[Archive]

Posted By: SoxFan

I have to say that I agree with my buddy "The Guy From Boston"
click on "Americans"..........Have a Happy and Safe New Year's
everyone....http://www.theguyfromboston.com/video_menu.asp

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

9/11 may we never forget.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

http://costofwar.com/index.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

You are failing to consider all the costs saved by virtue of preventing Saddam from waging war on us with all his WMDs.

What's that you're saying? We didn't find any? Our intelligence was wrong? Are you kidding me? No way, I don't believe it. I bet they are all underground someplace, or in Syria. Or maybe in Paris.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I guess in the circles some travel in, the French are "adored"......but, most Americans have a different
opinion of the French. And, why would the French have ever supported us against Sadaam, it would
have been contrary to their self-interests......they were profiting MILLIONS and MILLIONS with their
FOOD-for-OIL deals with this madman. And, the poor people of Iraq were suffering because of this.

Perhaps, you were uninformed of these "nasty & dirty" deals. And, I could understand this, if you only
read the NY TIMES; and, didn'tt seek other sources of information. This paper has been "guilty by omission"
these past 5 years in much of it's coverage of significant events. Is it because they have an "agenda" ?

West and South of the Northeast, most people in this country consider the NY TIMES a "propaganda"
tool very akin to the old USSR's PRAVDA.

Just think of all the trees that would be saved if this so-called newspaper ceased and desisted ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

You are current Peter. I failed to overlook the fact that the US was months away from having groups of 35 Iraqi adults charging up a hill and hurling missiles at our country. We narrowly averted millions of deaths on our soil. Long live Halliburton!!!!

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

That's a great analogy. Give me a break.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Now maybe we can focus on the myriad of problems we have on our own soil.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree. Like how to prevent 9/11 again. Or the Egyptian murder of an El Al ticket agent in July of 02. Or the Muslim attack at the Seattle Jewish Center. Or the Muslim attack at UNC-Chapel Hill. Or the Muslim attack....(repeat).

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I'm always astounded that you never hear people in the news or in society really stop to think about the human, not monetary, cost of wars - in particular the one we wage currently in Iraq. And it sure a sh@# still is war, ask any soldier over there.

One humble number to think about, perhaps Mrs Bush and Teddy Z could ponder it as they somehow try to make this hell that has been created some sort of phantom propoganda by news agencies...

Just excluding all others to die during the initial invasion, and combat deaths of American troops and iraqi/foreign resistance since:

The smallest number verified for civilian deaths (by body count in morgues) since the invasion is over 50,000 people.

Not the missing or unaccounted for.

Just so as to give it greater proportionality for us living in the USA, Iraq has a population of roughly 27 million people. If the same proportion of Americans were killed comparable to population, it would equal over 550,000 dead.

Over 1 million Iraqi people have fled their country.

Proportionally in the USA, that would be the same as over 11 million people scrambling over the borders to Canada or South America in fear of losing their lives.

This thing is an absolute disgrace, and the justifications for it are absurd.
And that has zero, ZERO to do with the NY Times, or lefty liberals, or any other scapegoat this government and its supporters seek to dump their morally bankrupt war on.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Daniel, you are so right. Wars really need to be fought in a proportional sense. You should really run for president. You can run on the platform of elimiating pregame prayer circles because that seems to have convinced the Islamic facists running around cutting off heads of women who dare to learn to read that their behavior is just the same as their athletic, American counterparts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I think Daniel was merely making the sound point that people underestimate the enormous human impact of the war on the Iraqi people.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Of course that's only 1.9 million fewer than Saddam killed himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Miguel Danielson

I agree with the person who said that these threads tend to be redundant and usually do not involve much new material -- people here tend to believe today what they believed yesterday (at least with regard to Iraq).

These types of threads make me wonder what each side of the debate would say in response to the following question: are there circumstances which, if they occurred, would lead you to say that your position in this debate is incorrect? If the answer to this question is no, then I don't believe you have a principled position (because a position which does not change under any circumstances is not informed by reality and is therefore not logical). If you can name circumstances which, if they occurred, you would consider your position to be ill-conceived, then you at least have a principled position.

For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years).

I am at a bit of a loss, however, as to what those who are pro-war would list as circumstances meeting the above criteria. Put another way, is there anything that could (plausibly) happen which would make supporters of the Iraq war admit that their position is wrong? I fear that the answer is no, because many things that, two or three years ago, I would have thought would qualify as such circumstances, have in fact occurred, and yet most of the pro-war people here and elsewhere seem to be unwilling to admit that their position is incorrect -- that the Iraq war was not a good idea. (Some examples of conditions that, three years ago, I might have said would "convert" pro-war supporters would be: (1) the death of over 2,000 U.S. soldiers, (2) the failure to find any WMDs after a three year period, (3) the occurence of civil war in Iraq, or (4) the death of more civilian Iraqis at the hand of the U.S. military than divilian Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime -- all of these things have happened and yet those here who support the war seem not be changing their position on the propriety of the war.

Thus, I put it to those who support the Iraq war:

(1) Are there any concrete, plausible circumstances which, if they occurred, you would admit that the Iraq war was ill-conceived? If so, what are the circumstances? Perhaps the answer here is just that war supporters would put the "limit" of acceptable solider fatalities at something more grim -- say, 10,000. Or perhaps there is some other plausble circumstance that still may yet occur and which would make war supporters finally agree that the war was not a good idea, and I am simply missing it. I am intersted to hear from those supporting the war on this narrow question that, I hope, will help all of us better understand your position.

Regards,
Miguel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hey Ted- I read the NY Times every day and all those stories were there. They aren't missing anything- they reported all these covert deals you were talking about. Are they just a bad paper because their readership are people like me- those dreaded liberals? (you know I am just busting your chops).

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

NY Time=Pravda

Now that one really blows my mind!

History will show that this administration is the most inept and immoral one to ever serve in office. It is too bad that a newspaper that reports the truth (in that sense, equating it with Pravda is correct, because I believe that means Truth) is condemned by those who cannot understand this. I find it completely incomprehensible that the same group that abhors stem cell research because it destroys human life (read embryos, incapable of making decisions about going to war) finds it acceptable that 3,000 US soldiers have died needlessly (how many returned maimed?) and countless other innocent non-combatants (yes, there are innocents in Iraq) have died.

Besides that, $400 billion could have done a lot of good, like feeding the homeless or educating those less fortunate, something I know about in NY (maybe that is not a problem in the south or west?). What a complete and utter waste of life and resources. Maybe someday you guys with NY Times conspiracy theories will wake up and smell the coffee (but I doubt it).

Brian (aka Pravda-reading socialist liberal)

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

These political debates always piss me off and I normally try not to interject any of my own thoughts. I believe that most people who speak up, especially in the media, are pushing some sort of agenda and can’t even remotely be objective.

The whole idea that Bush didn’t find WMD so we shouldn’t be/have been there is absolute Bulls—t. If Tim McVeigh taught Americans anything is that WMD do not have to be complicated. Any county with a plane and oil products have weapons of mass destruction. One napalm (you can learn how to make napalm on the internet) drop over the densely populated areas in his region would kill many hundreds of thousands of people. Napalm is just a very simple example…my point is that chemical warfare is really pretty simple to accomplish. Saddam proved himself, almost daily, to be a nut and had to be stopped.

We had Hitler in Europe from the early 30s to the mid 40s and our government didn’t do a thing about it until it was way too late. But we shouldn’t be the Worlds Police…Oh No!!! People just cry out: “How can you compare the atrocities from Hitler to Saddam." Well that is just the point. YOU CAN’T !!! Hitler went unchecked for years and WE KNEW what he was. At least Daddy Bush let Hussein know early that there would be repercussions. GW, at least acted. There are no crystal balls with these issues.

What GW did was the right move, but history will write the story differently. As a comparison, history has us believing FDR was a great president. In reality he was the most pathetic, nutless, ill-brained excuse of a president this county ever had. Sure he was taking care of business at home – developing social programs to pull us out of a depression that we were coming out of anyway – of which we are still paying for. In the mean time, Hitler was invading countries and we did not spend one extra dollar getting ready. We were so ill equipped when FDR made his “day of infamy” speech.

Bush will be known, years from now, as a below average President. It’s hard for people to relate to things that don’t happen. Without a doubt he saved lives in the World, but it is unfortunate that American lives have been lost to accomplish that. Maybe some of you would rather have FDR back. If a President does nothing, then is it his fault. I guess to many Americans the answer is “No!”

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Well thought through Daniel. I was merely trying to give the dollars and cents of the war. I did not touch on the human cost factor as that is clearly something that the board's war advocates might not understand. Since this is not on our soil, with bombs and gunfire going off and body parts strewn in our streets next to our morning papers, many are simply unable to comprehend from the comfort of their surroundings what it is really like. How many of those who are for this war have family or children fighting in Iraq? How many of you would go if asked to fight?

Jeff L. are you willing to risk your life for this noble cause of yours? Not sure I could actually see you putting your money where your mouth is. Could you really go 2 weeks or 6 months without buying cards for your collection while you are protecting America from our "enemy." Just curious.

For those of you who have not seen it yet, watch Baghdad ER. I am sure many of you will write it off as left wing propaganda. But the injuries sustained and death of American servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians are quite real and very sobering.

Although I have never been in favor of the invasion, I can understand being convinced by the government at the onset of the necessity of our being there. At this point, given the lies, loss of life and costs, it is hard for me to understand how educated people can still be supporting our being there.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Thanks Brian, that was eloquently stated.

Cat- I think we did one great thing- we took down Saddam's horrific regime and as of today he is dead and gone. The problem is we very quickly lost our way. We could have done good things in Iraq but the whole war effort was handled abysmally. The planning was poor and the leadership, from the president on down, was totally inept. Now we are stuck there for years, kids are dying and getting blown to bits, the whole country is in chaos, and nobody has a clue how to fix it. Going in may have not been a bad idea, killing Saddam was an heroic deed, but that's about the only good that has come from this mess. It's very sad but I think we will see the whole Middle East implode, and if they ever take Israel out, we are looking at World War III.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Does anybody really think that any government can put a stop to what has been going on in that area of the world for THOUSANDS of years? Some humility please, or, an acknowledgement that outside nations are not there for "humanitarian" purposes, but rather purely for financial gain?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Actually Greg, I think Bush has botched the war horribly. I also think, in hindsight, the war against Iraq was a mistake -- there are worthier countries that support terrorism against the US which should have been attacked, Syria and Iran the two that come to mind. I have also never voted for a Republican my entire life in a single election. That being said, I believe that Bush's head is/was in the right place and the war against terrorism needs to be taken to the terrorists instead of waging a defensive war. I, for one, believe that Bush has not been nearly aggressive enough in Iraq in order to complete what now needs to be done. Bottom line: the war may have been a mistake but now that we're in it we need to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, not sure what the point of your comment is. For what it's worth, I have publicly stated (and I don't mean at a bar or on a chat board like this, I mean publicly in the tri-state area to hundreds of thousands of people listening) that I would give significant sums of money -beyond my paid taxes- to fight terrorism. Perhaps you had to live through 9/11 instead of watching it on a TV to understand this. I don't make my living buying and selling cards. Frankly, as much as I love this hobby, it is nothing but a hobby to me. I could give it up tomorrow if I had to. And if I could use the money to ensure that my children will be free from the next Islamic fundamentalist on our soil screaming "Allah Akhbar!" before exploding himself then I would. What about you? Have you given sums of money to any peace movement?

And on that note, I'm done discussing this on this board. Frankly, as I said before, once the topics veer from baseball cards I can't fathom a single reason to discuss these important issues here. There are much more productive venues for such a discussion than the Net 54 board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Jeff: what is it exactly that you think needs to be accomplished?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I partly agree and partly disagree with Cobby. I think Bush is genuine if misguided in his beliefs and is not acting simply because of oil or to create money-making opportunities for American corporations, but at the same time think it is sheer folly, and incredibly hubristic, to believe that the US through military force or otherwise can create a Western-style democracy in Iraq or can control sectarian (or anti-US) violence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

What many in Washington DC and many who have posted on this thread fail to realize, that since the
1993 bombing in NYC (World Trade Center) we are in WW III. Most of the news "media" doesn't get it.
We are not allowed to call these BABARIANS "terrorists"....they are "insurgents" or "freedom fighters".
Iraq is a caldron of "sectarian violence" or is in the throes of "civil war"..Bull-Crap..it's a "religious war"
that they are engaged in and no one in the media really wants to acknowledge this.
It would be politically incorrect to admit this fact. And, this goes for our politicians, also.

And, until this fact is realized, no one will be able to resolve it. But my friend....WWIII is here....there
is no doubt about it

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Ted -- sectarian violence means violence of one religious sect against another. That's what it is and that is what the press calls it. And who the hell has been calling Al Qaeda freedom fighters rather than terrorists?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- It's a fair point that we may be in the early throes of a 21st century WWIII. As far as religious vs. sectarian, that is just a semantic difference. Both share one thing in common- complete intolerance for anyone else's way of life, religion, or philosophy...sort of like Net54 in a way

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Zell is right, WWIII is upon us and the NY Times = Pravda. Any other absurd exaggerations, I mean words of wisdom, for us?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Jeff,

Maybe you should ask your President, if he is able to answer, why he supports a country whose citizens were involved with 9/11. Isn't that where we should be hunting down terrorists since we know for a fact that those involved were from Saudi Arabia? I do not need to live in NYC to feel the pain of that event and understand the severity of the problem and the threat. However I do not see how the war in Iraq has anything to do with 9/11.

I do sell cards for a living, not sure what you were implying other than possibly it not being nearly as important as what you do for the community as a defense attorney. Also not sure I follow your question as to what I have contributed towards peace movements. You say you COULD give sums of money but never said that you had. Wondering what the relevance is of your asking if I had.

If we are going to tell other country's governments how to behave we should lead by example. We are in no position to be telling anyone what to do or how to do it as long as ours conducts itself as it has.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Andrew- I am not sure how old you are and how old you were between 1967 and 1972 but if I changed a few names in your post to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung and a few group names to Viet Cong and NLF I would have sworn I had just read a defense of the Viet Nam war.
We can agree to disagree but unless you honestly believe that sending your own children to Iraq or the children of family and friends is worth it, I can only remember the words to "Fortunate Son" by Credence Clearwater Revival and shake my head in sadness at the spilling of the blood of our children for what? You say that there will be a civil war unless we continue the killing and lose more young men and women to the madness? There IS a civil war going on now and even old GW has finally had to admit it. No one has profited from this war but Halliburton and its ilk. We can not make Iraq over in our image and have it become a shining example of freedom and democracy. The best we can do is leave and let them determine their own course and destiny.
BTW-Edward R. Murrow once said you should never confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

That was a terrifically written and thoughtful post. I hope it receives some of the honest responses it deserves.
For myself, finding a way to peace and understanding amongst various peoples on this earth has been harmed by this war.
But perhaps, in the way you have described of what could change one's opinion regarding the necessity of this war.........

By ripping off the scab of human intolerance and lack of respect for difference, and exposing it to the world as a cause needing extraordinarily urgent attention and rules of conduct ALL on this earth must adhere to, good could come of tragedy. Will it happen, I sadly doubt it.
But if it does, I will say maybe there was a purpose - be it unintended, unplanned, or previously unimaginable, for this war.
Would Bush deserve credit for it. No. But he would in retrospect have been necessary, and I could at least say that those who had died had been part of a road to a better future. Otherwise, they were truly taken too soon, unjustly, from people who loved and needed them, for no good reason at all.

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat its mistakes.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Miguel,
I agree with some of what you said. However, I disagree with the following:

"For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years)."

The first criteria of any "just war" theory is that it is a war of self-defense and one does not act as the initial agressor taking the first action. It also must be a last resort. Neither of these are the case when we took the first strike and acted as aggressors. Pre-emptive strike is unjust by any reputable Judaeo-Christian theological standard. That George Bush can call himself a Christian and argue for pre-emptive strikes is mind-boggling.

Sadaam Hussein was absolutely contained and of no threat to the United States whatsoever. Even if he had WMDs (which Bush knew he did not), he had no way to get them to US soil, or even Israeli soil. There was no Iraqi military build-up. There was no weapons build up. There was no reason to think he had any immanent plan for attacking the US. They were hardly surviving since the first Gulf War. Bush I probably left him in power because he knew the destablization that would ensue if Sadaam were removed. The consequence has been much worse for most Iraqis. What if we just left him there and relatively powerless until he died a natural death? I guess we will never know. But I am pretty sure there would not have been an Iraqi attack on American soil. And Iraq would not be anything like the breeding ground for terrorists that it is today.
JimB


Edited for spelling.

[Archive]

Posted By: AP

Where do some of guys get your information?

Let's review:
1) 1979 - Muslim extremists take Americans Hostage. Carter cancels Iranian visas and orders a poorly planned rescue attempt.
2) 1982 - US Embassy in Beirut bombed by Muslims extremists. Reagan sends Marines to Beirut.
3) 1983 - US Marine barricks in Beirut bombed by Muslim extremists. Reagan wants to continue but Democrats cried and demanded our troops out. Regan caved in an election year. On the way out he ordered the bombing of Somalia - Dems bitched about that too.
4) 1985 - Italian Cruise ship is seized and a 69 year old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists. Reagan ordered a mission to capture the hijackers - conceived by Ollie North - they capture the hijackers and we turn them over to Itlay who lets them go.
5) 1986 - West Berlin discoteque frequented by American servicemen is bombed by Muslim extremists. Ten days later Regan bombs Libya even though our "ally" France disallows the use of airspace. Kaddafi's daughter killed.
6) 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim Extremists. Bush says he will continue Reagan's policy of retaliation but does not.
7) 1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait.
8) 1991 - Bush goes to war with Iraq the way liberals like - with permission from UN and all of the US "allies". Democrats demanded that our troops stop at Baghdad. Then after 9/11, they bitched that Bush didn't "finish the job".
9) 1993 - World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim Fanatics. Clinton did nothing.
10) 1993 - 18 American troops killed in Somalia. One American corpse was dragged through the street as Somalians cheered. Clinton ordered our troops home.
11) 1995 - five Americans killed and thirty wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
12) 1996 - US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
13) 1996 - Saddam attacked the Kurds in Erbil. Hussein has WMD's which he used on the Kurds and others. IT'S A FACT! Clinton bombed Iraq - hundreds of miles from Saddam's troops.
14) 1997 - Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs and threatened to shoot one of our planes down. Clinton did nothing.
15) 1998 - Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the UN said no.
16) 1998 - US embassies were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
17) 1998 - Lewinsky appeared before grand jury. Clinton bombs Afghanistan and Sudan.
18) 1998 - Clinton being readied for impeachment. Clinton orders major strikes against Iraq.
19) 1999 - Clinton attacks the Serbians who were fighting Muslim extremists.
20) 2000 - The US Cole is bombed. Clinton did nothing.
21) Bush comes into office telling Condoleeza he's tired of swatting flies and wants to get rid of Al Qaeda.
22) September 11 - World Trade Center and Pentagon hit.
23) John Q. Soldier joins the army.
24) Bin Laden is linked to Hussein.
25) Bush wins wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, captures Saddam, immobolizes bin Laden (and possibly kills him), destroyed Al Qaeda's base and begins the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.
26) Johnny trains to be prepared to go to war if he is called.
27) Johnny knows that he could die. Joins anyway.
28) Johnny dies fighting for country.
29) Now - Democrats are outraged that in the months before 9/11, Bush did not do everything they opposed doing after 9/11, as well as questioning Bush's faith because "real Christians don't order pre-emptive strikes" (apparently they skipped the Old Testament and went straight to the New Testament).

What a world we live in!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Very well presented.....you beat me to what I was going to say so I'll condense it in my next post.

Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

tbob,

About the vietnam thing... the international communist conspiracy to rule the world had to contained

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Question: you guys that justify and rationalize the war in Iraq--do you also believe Vietnam was justified in any way, shape or form?

I have heard some Ronnie Reagan Republicans do so, and it makes my blood boil.
Brian