OK...I'm so Confused

KeltonKrew · Sep 30, 2004

I'm confused This was passed on to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can. Im trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad... Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad... Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad... Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad... Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad... Ahh, it's so confusing! Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates? Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim. Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own. Funny how the Democrats have tried to turn things around to benefit them...Just more flip flopping!

SCO · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Just mind boggeling Kelton. It used to just baffle me to read the opinions on this board, but I figured out what was so baffling. IMHO ,We conservatives have a fundamental ideal, a prime directive if you will, that we( or I) assumed other people shared. That ideal is that intellectual honesty trumps all. The liberals operate under the principle that the ends justify the means.

KaGee · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

I'm sooooo confuuuuuussssed!

Dang it Kelton, just as i thought I had things figured out.... what's good is bad? What's bad is good?

Must be those flashing lights in your avitar! Is there a government program to help me out???

jtexas · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by KeltonKrew: I'm confused This was passed on to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can. Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton's vice-president never was the Chairman of Halliburton. And it's not just Democrats that noticed. Can you say "conflict of interest?"

mrbscott19 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by SCO: That ideal is that intellectual honesty trumps all. The liberals operate under the principle that the ends justify the means.

If that is so true, why are we in Iraq? It certainly isn't because of Intellectual honesty. It looks to me that the Admin thinks that a democracy(ends) in Iraq justifies the war(means), which is exactly what you've just branded democrats for.

POINTER94 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Clinton's vice-president never was the Chairman of Halliburton. And it's not just Democrats that noticed. Can you say "conflict of interest?"

Having a real job outside of the government was the way it was intended. Of course the liberal cradle to grave mentality make any job that creates something on a fixed budget (unlike government) a bad thing. What specifically did **** Cheney do that was illegal? Or is guilt by association the norm these days?

KaGee · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by jtexas: Can you say "conflict of interest?"

Can you say ... Show me another company that does what Haliburton does that could compete for a contract??? Conflict of Interest??? We'd have to fire the whole dang government. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea.

POINTER94 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

mrbscott19 What flavor kool-aid was that you had? 17 UN resolutions.... Bi-partisan support... genocide of his own people.... Invading his neighbors... A history of using WMD's .... Rape and amputation as punishment....

12Footer · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by KaGee: 

Originally posted by jtexas: Can you say "conflict of interest?"

Click to expand...

Can you say ... Show me another company that does what Haliburton does that could compete for a contract??? Conflict of Interest??? We'd have to fire the whole dang government. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea.

He knows that. We've had this debate with him countless times, yet he keeps upchucking the same bilge...He has been set-straight on the factual record that Cheney even resigned from Haliburton ( "the former company of VP Cheney", as the alphabet media refers to it) way back when he originally accepted the NOMINATION for VP. Cheney's reasons were to negate this line of BS before it ever got started...it did not werk .The left fails to mention this on purpose, but we are still here to set the record straight time after time after time, how ever many times they try to skew historic fact. This is not for his benifit, but just so some literary liberal doesn't see it,. take it for ammo, and writes it into any yet to be published history books, thus poluting the minds of our children... Side note; Not to derail this thread, but those of you with children should feel obligated to read the history books your kids bring home---It will scare the heck out of any parent.

12Footer · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by mrbscott19: 

Originally posted by SCO: That ideal is that intellectual honesty trumps all. The liberals operate under the principle that the ends justify the means.

Click to expand...

If that is so true, why are we in Iraq? It certainly isn't because of Intellectual honesty. It looks to me that the Admin thinks that a democracy(ends) in Iraq justifies the war(means), which is exactly what you've just branded democrats for.

This is another one.. don't even try to set them straight using facts or logic. It bounces-off of them. Let them believe what they will, vote for the traitor, and cry afterwards. I tried, and so have many others. Remember, they actually do hate Bush this much. And remember what I predicted about the debates tonight, in spite of Kerry's vast lead in debating skills...Bush will blow him out of the water with truth. All Kerry has is a playbook that fails to function like it used to.

rogerwa · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

I hope Bush will press Kerry's balls to the fire when he starts dancing.. And dance he will.

KeltonKrew · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Here's Kerry's Song.. (in the key of G) Come on everybody and sing with me (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I can't tell the truth, and that you will see, (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I like to raise taxes - that I don't pay, I marry rich women and I hope that they will stay, (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I flip flopped in my vote for the war, I'm nothing but a political ***** (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I look to see which way the wind's blowin' The lies I tell, each day they keep growin' (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I'm really nervous about the debate, I have no clue what they want me to say, (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop I got my medals in vietnam, it was nothing more than a scam (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop Southern finnesse, I wish I could learn, man I wish, Monica was still an intern! (chorus) Flip Flop, Flip Flop (sorry guys....been a long day and my mind is warpred - now you know why I never made it to Nasville)

mrbscott19 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

so instead of attacking the messenger, can anyone actually tell me how I'm wrong in what I said? And Pointer, to address your concerns There is a certain middle eastern country that has violated more than 17 UN resolutions and we give them our full, unconditional support. you know of who I speak. Bi-Partisan support to use force if force was necessary. Force wasn't necessary, we weren't in imminent danger, there were no WMD's. GW declared war, not congress, which is a bi-partisan group. It's been proven that Iran gas killed the Kurds, not Iraq. We told him we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait. We gave him the go-ahead. He even went as far as to ask our permission before he did it. He has a history of using WMD's.....so do we. Hiroshima ring a bell? What about Nagasaki? Or even Agent Orange back in 'Nam Those things happen routinely in Saudi Arabia, yet we do nothing. Darfur is worse than both, yet we do nothing. Face it....There is nothing that is unique about Iraq when compared with other middle eastern countries yet they were singled out. And all in the name of Liberation, that is, once we found out the crap about WMD's and Al-Qaeda connections was bull. Don't any of you ever wonder why we didn't use that excuse in the first place, instead of after the other 2 excuses were proven false?

mrbscott19 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by 12Footer: 

Originally posted by mrbscott19: 

Originally posted by SCO: That ideal is that intellectual honesty trumps all. The liberals operate under the principle that the ends justify the means.

Click to expand...

If that is so true, why are we in Iraq? It certainly isn't because of Intellectual honesty. It looks to me that the Admin thinks that a democracy(ends) in Iraq justifies the war(means), which is exactly what you've just branded democrats for.

Click to expand...

This is another one.. don't even try to set them straight using facts or logic. It bounces-off of them. Let them believe what they will, vote for the traitor, and cry afterwards. I tried, and so have many others. Remember, they actually do hate Bush this much. And remember what I predicted about the debates tonight, in spite of Kerry's vast lead in debating skills...Bush will blow him out of the water with truth. All Kerry has is a playbook that fails to function like it used to.

What facts or logic are you talking about? There wasn't a single fact in what SCO posted. It was all opinion. I'll battle facts with anyone any day of the week on here. So come on 12footer, show me some cold, hard facts that would shut me up. All I ever hear from you is how much I'm a terrorist because I think this country really screwed up in the war with Iraq, not cold hard facts that you talk about.

KeltonKrew · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

He has a history of using WMD's.....so do we. Hiroshima ring a bell? What about Nagasaki?

First, at that point in time, the ramifications of Nuclear weapons was not known. In addition, if you recall, WE WERE ATTACKED by Japan. Dec. 7, 1941 ring a bell. After battles in the pacific, especially Iwo Jima, it was concluded that to attack the main island of Japan (which had to be done to END the war), w/out these weapons we would have lost many many thousand AMERICAN lives. That was the right decision. Also, the death camps in Manilla....What Japan did to AMERICANS - some were troops, others were civilians.....looked like the NAZI death camps. These were very very evil people. We had to stop them (once again, we were drug into that war). The issue here is to PROTECT AMERICANS. Wherever that threat may be. That's why we need a president that has the B*** to say what he means, mean what he says! He's not playing anyone's trump card...He's out to protect America! I want my kids and grandkids and their offspring to live in a county that is free. If steps aren't taken now, this will not be a possibility. America, land of the free, home of the BRAVE!

12Footer · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Originally posted by mrbscott19: so instead of attacking the messenger, can anyone actually tell me how I'm wrong in what I said?

I'll try, but I'm telling you before hand, that it will not do any good. And that is why I posted what I did. You just proove me right every time too. And I'm not attacking the messenger,just the message. I gave up on the messenger about a week ago, Scott. But I still respect you and your right to an opinion,regardless of who you are fighting for.

If that is so true, why are we in Iraq? It certainly isn't because of Intellectual honesty.

SHORT ANBSWER:We are in Iraq to remove a threat to us, and a threat to the Iraqi people, and to do so, while leaving a self-governing democray behind...AND NOT UNTIL THEN. Of course, you knew that, and it's why responding to you gets more troll-like by the post,Scott. It's the same old sad playbook stuf that people like me fail to understand how it is believced in the first place. What should scare anti-war types and anti-American types alike are that there are other global threats, and I personally believe this war on Islamic terror far from over.

It looks to me that the Admin thinks that a democracy(ends) in Iraq justifies the war(means), which is exactly what you've just branded democrats for.

The purpose of war is to kill people and break things. American colition forces are killing people before they self-detonate near innocent people, and break thier UN-provided RPG stashes whenever they find them...."Oil for food" my arse!!!! The "Insurgients" as your alphabet and Al Jazeeeeeera journalists likes to call the terrorists, kill innocent children by the school-load, and break thier parents' hearts!! I allready know the playbook reply, Scott, which is the reason my original reply was worded accordingly.

What facts or logic are you talking about? There wasn't a single fact in what SCO posted. It was all opinion. I'll battle facts with anyone any day of the week on here. So come on 12footer, show me some cold, hard facts that would shut me up. All I ever hear from you is how much I'm a terrorist because I think this country really screwed up in the war with Iraq, not cold hard facts that you talk about.

Before you can "battle facts with anyone", you must first know what the facts are. Not what you merely wish they were. Why would I want to shut you up, man? You validate me like the Joker validates Batman! I have NEVER refered to you as a terrorist, nor would I! What is it that you would call such a stand? Be honest. What may have you confused is, that I think your oposition to the official US stand is more in line with the ememy's stand. Not that you are a terrorist, just that you hope they win....Well, maybee you are,I don't know. But I have NEVER called you one, nor would I. The cold hard facts are the sandman gassed his own people, the Kurds, who opposed his regime to begin with----but you know this allready. The cold hard facts are the resolutions drawn-up by the "oil-for-food union" (UN for short) were drawn-up to get him to comply with WMD inspections and removal, to which the sandman merely rattled one more sabre. The sandman did not want a peaceful solution. He drew his line in his sand. He single-handedly set his country's course, and left no other options. He did the same exact thing in 1990 too, with Bush #41... But you know this allready. The cold hard facts are terroist training camps were funded and sponsored by him and his two sons. The proof was in the finding of them,and the interigation of some "people". These credibale reports were prooven after our troops cleared said camps. But you know this allready. I'm done,because I know you were just trolling me, scott. And will now predict your reply . You will just re-open the old playbook. And I've been bombarded with that rag for so long, I got it memorised.

SCO · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

MR Scott, ok, I don't like to cite facts, just say what I think to be true and which is mainstream knowledge so there's no need to cite these facts unless pressed. The reason we are in Iraq has a lot to do with Saddams prediciment while he was rattling his swords. The diplomatic string had been exhausted. We had all rights to go get him so we did. The overall plan is to create peace in this hotbed of danger which is spilling out to our world, which threatens to engulph western civilization in terrorism and war. Sure the others are dangerous...one bite at a time. Reminds me of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" deciding who would take which bandito in what order. YEEE HAWWWWW. (Just tweeking your redneck prejudice)

mrbscott19 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

The power of the A-bomb was well known when it was dropped on Japan, otherwise we wouldn't have used it. And yes, we dropped the bomb because they attacked us. So can you tell me why we bombed the hell outta Iraq? They didn't attack us, had no weapons to attack us with, and had no working ties with the people who did. That would be like attacking Chile because we were hit by Japan.

POINTER94 · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

Sure thats easy. Simply stating that they didn't have weapons is cute but where are the facts. You haven't given the teams as long to look for a warehouse in a country the size of california as you gave hillary to find the rose law firm billing records that were under her bed. The lame excuse for a governing body, the UN forced us to postpone our invasion while they buried all kinds of incriminating evidence in peoples gardens and exported them to Iran and Syria. Agent orange. Why do you hate this country so much? Agent orange was designed and used as a defoliant. It's side effects were unknown and when they were discovered they stopped using it. WMD, where do you get this? As for whatever you are getting at with the Japan analogy, we had just spent 5 years making the WORLD (remember how long it took France to surrender, and have they paid us back in full or did we forgive their debt?) safe and the loss of life that would have occured to american troops taking the japaneese mainland would have exceeded any estimate of lives lost in the a-bomb drops in Japan by 5 to 10 times. In addition the japanese were negotiating with the communists to surrender to them and thus giving Russia an upper hand in the world aleignment postwar and therefor we would "lose the peace" that Kerry keeps karping about in Iraq. We were on the side of rightousness during WWII, not only did we not start it, not only did we follow the geneva convention for prisoneers, not only did Germany and Japan slaughter people in numbers never before seen in history, and you are bummed we used the A-bomb. And how did we treat Japan after the war? How about Germany, or Italy? Stop with the empire building crap. It just doesn't wash. Bomb the hell our of Iraq, do you have any idea what we could have done if we wanted to. The attacks were surgical and designed for minimal loss of life. We could have made the entire country into a parking lot inside of month but your description of bombed the hell out of is not only inaccurate but intensionally deceptive. They attacked our planes in opposition to the UN resolution, they violated the no fly zone in violation of the UN resolution, they kicked out inspectors in violation of UN sanctions, they bribed UN officials to bypass UN sanctions, they maintained torture chambers in violation of world law, they committed genocide against his own people in violation of gods law, (your contention that Iran did this is WRONG see Facts 1), he killed those who opposed him as represented by the mass graves in violation of world law, he invaded his neighbors in violation of world law, a multitude of dual use facilities were found in violation of UN sanctions, and yes a connection to UBL (See fact 2). You see no connection here but you saw a connection between the forged cBS documents and Karl Rove. Please. ___________________________________________ Facts: 1) "Unfortunately, governmental cowardice and opportunism have stymied past attempts to indict Saddam, as Human Rights Watch learned during its intensive efforts to bring him to justice in the 1990s. At the top of any indictment should be Saddam's 1988 genocidal Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, described by Jeffrey Goldberg in this week's New Yorker. Named after a Koranic verse justifying pillage of the property of infidels, the Anfal campaign unfolded as the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was winding down. Iraqi Kurds had taken advantage of Saddam's preoccupation with Iran to seize control of parts of mountainous northern Iraq. But as soon as Iraqi troops could be withdrawn from the Iranian front, Saddam shifted them to the north. Several thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed, forcing residents to live in appalling camps. In at least 40 cases, Iraqi forces under Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, used chemical weapons to kill and chase Kurds from their villages. Then, during the Anfal campaign from February to September 1988, Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared "prohibited zones." Some 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed. Only seven are known to have escaped. The full scope of the Anfal horror became known only after Saddam's defeat in the Gulf War. The Iraqi military's withdrawal from the region in October 1991 after the imposition of a no-fly zone made it feasible for the first time in years for outsiders to reach the area. Human Rights Watch investigators took advantage of this opening to enter northern Iraq and document Saddam's crimes. Some 350 witnesses and survivors were interviewed. Mass graves were exhumed. And Kurdish rebels were convinced to hand over some 18 tons of documents that they had seized during the brief post-war uprising from Iraqi police stations. These documents were airlifted to Washington, where Human Rights Watch researchers poured through this treasure trove of information about the inner workings of a ruthless regime. With this extraordinarily detailed evidence of genocide, Human Rights Watch launched a campaign to bring Saddam to justice. At the time the U.N. Security Council was creating special tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, but there was no consensus for similar action on Iraq. France and Russia, each with extensive business interests in Iraq, threatened to wield their veto. China, worried about analogies to its treatment of Tibetans, was disinclined to support an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq. With no International Criminal Court then in the works, and the Pinochet option of exercising universal jurisdiction in national courts not yet widely recognized, the prospect of criminal prosecution was remote. Human Rights Watch thus turned to the only available remedy -- a civil suit before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, commonly known as the World Court. The relevant U.N. treaty -- the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- assigned the World Court the task of adjudicating disputes under the treaty. We hoped for a declaratory judgment that the Iraqi government had committed genocide, damages for the survivors, and an order that the perpetrators be prosecuted. The problem was that only governments can bring suit before the World Court. Washington was a logical first choice, and ultimately the Clinton administration endorsed the case. But restrictions in the U.S. ratification of the Genocide Convention stood in the way of a successful suit. Human Rights Watch staff then circled the globe trying to convince another government to bring the suit. None would. At best, a couple of governments said they would join a coalition to bring the case, but only on the condition that at least one European government joined as well. Several European governments gave the matter serious consideration, but in the end none would take the plunge. There were many reasons for this reluctance, some stated openly, others only hinted at. Governments feared the loss of business opportunities when Iraq emerged from U.N. sanctions. They feared a loss of influence in the Middle East for suing an Arab state. They feared terrorist retaliation by Iraqi agents. And they feared the expense of bringing the lawsuit (although offers were made to raise the funds). This frustrating experience highlighted the importance of an International Criminal Court -- that is, a global tribunal that does not depend on the political courage of individual governments or the vagaries of consensus among the veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council. But the ICC will apply only to crimes that are committed after the treaty takes effect in several weeks. Many governments are ratifying the ICC treaty as an insurance policy against future Saddams. But the court cannot act retroactively on a crime such as the Anfal genocide." It is your contention that Iran attacked people who were distracting and therefore assisting them in their war against Saddam? Does this really track with you? 2) Per Ralph but please actually read it: http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

jtexas · Sep 30, 2004

Re: OK...I'm so Confused

pointer, on the Cheney conflict of interest question: You are right, his connection with Halliburton creates the potential for cronyism. We have a patriotic duty to look closely at this relationship. Besides, it doesn't help the administration to ignore the tough questions - better to audit and clear him for sure. On the other hand, would you want your house built by the low bidder? Cheney should know Halliburton's capabilities better than anyone else. thanks for the reality check.

OK...I'm so Confused

Lieutenant

Lieutenant

Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Chief Petty Officer

Vice Admiral

Admiral

Vice Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Lieutenant

Chief Petty Officer

Chief Petty Officer

Lieutenant

Fleet Admiral

Lieutenant

Chief Petty Officer

Vice Admiral

Fleet Admiral