• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

President Bush Issues 48 Hr. Ultimatum....Please Pray For Our Soldiers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • P. S.

    No one is forced to be in the service in this country, be BROKE or away from their families. Last time I checked, military service was still optional in the US. Does anyone know any different? Is it mandatory now?

    If you don't join the service in the first place, then there is little likelihood that you will end up living in what has been referred to as an "armpit city".

    And regarding that, most military base cities may not be the garden spot of the area, but many, many of the local citizens knock themselves out trying to make things better for soldiers and their families. Many local service organizations and church groups in said cities do the same.

    My mother was a staunch supporter of several military family "projects" through her women's clubs and organizations. It was their pleasure to help and assist. A little appreciation for their efforts was always a gracious gesture in response .......though not necessary and not expected.

    And yes, I know what I am talking about, as my hometown was the home of three military outposts... Turner Air Force Base, a US Naval Air Station and a Marine Corp Supply Center. In addition, Ft. Benning was only about 80 miles away.

    BTW, our taxes go to support a number of things, determined by our government..... that includes the military. Perhaps some of that money should be appropriated for a more rigorous screening procedure to weed out malcontents .... before our Armed Forces wastes time and money on them.

    Each individual makes the choice to join the service. Carping and bitching about it after the fact is a waste of time.

    Finally, perhaps those who have had such a terrible time (oh, woe is us!) could work to ensure those who are in the service now have an easier time of it. Visited or contributed to a USO lately?
    [i]\"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be wo

    Comment


    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
      Portia,
      So NPR was wrong when they did their piece on the lack of understanding people had if they believed Bush was fighting this war for oil?

      And I guess Bush is commiting political suicide for saying that the oil would belong to the Iraqui people, but really thinking the US will keep it for themselves? This, in 2003 for the 2004 elections? OK.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
      I didn't say one way or the other whether it is a war for oil. What I said is that anyone who is familiar with and understands the economics of oil and gas production knows that there are plenty of hydrocarbons in Iraq, either already behind pipe or in proved or probable reserves, to justify a huge expenditure of capital to improve and redevelop the exploration and production (E&P) infrastructure. It's purely economics, not politics.

      Regardless of who owns those hydrocarbons, the fact is the Iraqi people are not equipped to develop and exploit those resources. They simply do not have the modern technology or knowledge to do so. (Current production relies upon outdated and inefficient technology acquired prior to the sanctions.) They will require the substantial assistance of outsiders to develop that oil and gas; otherwise, it remains in the ground and does nothing for anybody.

      So, it will happen exactly as it has happened everywhere else in the world, including every other Arab country, every South American country, and every African country with hydrocarbon reserves. The big energy companies from the U.S., Great Britain, France, Italy, and Canada -- who are highly sophisticated and the most capable of efficiently developing and exploiting those resources -- will be invited, by the Iraqi government, to come in and bid on E&P concessions and licenses. The hydrocarbons will still belong to the Iraqi people, but the concessions will be awarded to the outsiders. The resources will be efficiently developed, and everybody will get a cut. The same will happen with electric power generation and the rest of the infrastructure that will need to be redeveloped.

      Like I said, it is economics, not politics.

      [This message was edited by Portia on Mar. 20, 2003 at 11:08 AM.]
      "I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but why is it that a woman will forgive homicidal behavior in a horse, yet be highly critical of a man for leaving the toilet seat up?" Dave Barry

      Comment


      • I hope someone can help me look at this from a non-American is best POV. Several people have come up to me and called me (Yes, me... I have no control over GW or the government's actions!) a hypocrite. Why can we have the weapons and not Iraq?
        Dressager
        California, here we come!!!
        You don't throw a whole life away just because its a little banged up - Tom Smith

        Comment


        • Portia, so "It's the economy, stupid" still applies?

          And yes, I agree entirely. Economics has always played a huge role in war. Starting with "Taxation without Representation."

          Lauriep - well put. Polls are truly the most useless or deceptive thing out there, and most pollsters and people that use polls fully understand that. Anyone who has ever worked with focus groups knows how easily you can shift an answer base by how you word a question.

          Just yesterday AOL had one of their endless mindless polls on the welcome screen with the following pat little choices:

          War in Iraq
          1. swift total victory for the US
          2. Saddam evades capture
          3. prolonged conflict.

          I was looking for this option on the poll:

          4. Swift decisive victory in eliminating key members of the Ba'ath party leadership and Saddam Hussein followed by YEARS of bloody, expensive conflict while US forces play Somolia Part Deux and the US economy pretty much single handedly, without UN sanction or funding, tries to prop up some semblance of a democratic government composed of a fair representation of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish forces who really don't want to share power and are pretty lukewarm about US troops in their country.

          But no pollster worth their salt would give a person that option.

          "Speak yer mind. But ride a fast horse"
          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

          Comment


          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
            2. Saddam evades capture <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
            SoDamn Insane and Osama must be sharing the same bunker. Hard to believe they can't be found . I think Tom Clancy writes press releases for the US Government.

            Spotted Owl.
            It's what's for dinner.

            Comment


            • I live in a pro-Bush area.

              The following is a recent editoprial from our local newspaper..I beg forgiveness for printing the whole thing, but Ithe last several times I tried to write links to stuff, they didnt seem to work:, according to others posting:

              "U.S. hasn't been told truth:Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. push years-old agenda"

              March 18, 2003

              President Bush has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to get out of town or face war. But the reasons battle is now at hand have nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001, even though President Bush, in pressing his case for an attack, mentioned the terrorists' attacks several times during his March 6 news conference. It's not about ties to al-Qaida because, no matter how much the Bush wants it so, no hard or even soft evidence exists to suggest an Iraq alliance with Osama bin Laden's group. And, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, either.

              These have been convenient excuses for advocating the ouster of Saddam by military action. But, what is being advanced now is a policy formulated at least five years ago, before Sept. 11, 2001, before al-Qaida became a household name, before inspections resumed, before Mr. Bush was elected. And the keys to understanding the effort to get Saddam lie in oil, Israel and, if not global domination, at least global egotism that only the United States knows what's best for the world.

              Let's start with some familiar justifications for war:

              -- "We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."

              -- "We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades U.N. inspections."

              -- "It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."

              -- "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

              -- "We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing U.N. resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interest in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the U.N. Security Council."

              These excerpts come, not from the current debate over war against Iraq, but from a letter sent to President Clinton on Jan. 26, 1998, by the Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org). Among the signers, and their current job titles:

              -- Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs.

              -- Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state.

              -- John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

              -- Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs.

              -- Zalmay Khalilzad, White House special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis.

              -- Richard Perle, chairman, Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.

              -- Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense, international security affairs.

              -- Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.

              -- Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.

              -- Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. trade representative.

              There may yet surface a legitimate reason for military action against Iraq, but, thus far, the ones being cited by the Bush administration are meant to whip up emotions and not appeal to logic.

              The American public is being asked to support a devastating war against Iraq and America's sons and daughters have been placed in harm's way, not because Iraq has links to Sept. 11, 2001, or ties to al-Qaida, or weapons of mass destruction. Instead, a clique of conservatives decided more than five years ago that the toppling of Saddam should be the aim, above all, of American foreign policy and as a first step toward making their beliefs and their way of life the only relevance in the world.

              As the Project for the New American Century's statement of principles, dated June 3, 1997, points out, "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles."

              In short, they alone must rule the world.

              Oh, among the signers of the 1997 statement of principles are two other familiar names: Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush.

              -- Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@insidevc.com.»


              Yah, Im still sad.
              one oak, lots of canyons

              http://horsesportnews.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Perspective on Finding UBL

                I'm not disagreeing with you here, YNH. The unsuccessful search for these guys has been frustrating.

                Hope this doesn't sound too awful, but the Elizabeth Smart case actually made me realize what a difficult task this is. Here was a little girl whose face was broadcast 24/7 amongst a population of people who WANTED to find her, and it took 9 months to locate her.

                Now think about UBL in a rugged mountain region amongst a population who DOESN'T want to give him up. I don't know, but I guess I got a little perspective on the whole thing.

                Hey YNH - on the care package front, last night emailed an Army chaplain friend who is on the ground over there right now. Hopefully a group from my church can coordinate sending care packages through him, although for the immediate time being he's fairly busy.

                I'm going to use your care package suggestion list as a starting point for items for volunteers to purchase!

                Comment


                • All of you patriots concerned with the disingenousity of some of our enlisted personel and their lack of verocity regarding their military oath...these people would NOT be the FIRST to profess to "loathe the military".....Scarey huh?

                  Betsy
                  www.threewindsfarmny.com

                  Lead, follow, or get out of the way...
                  The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.

                  Comment


                  • Hey where did those SCUDs come from?

                    Saddam swore up one side and down the other that there were no SCUDs in Iraq. They must have whipped up quick last night So much for the efficacy of the inspections.

                    LBH to answer your question about taking Saddam out by assination; since the 70's there has been an excutive order renewed by every president prohibiting the US from being involved in any way in political assinations. Last fall Bush declined to renew that excutive order and there has been a last one plot the the CIA has been involved in. I am trying to remember the details, forgive me, I am drawing a blank right now.

                    And dressager, sorry you are getting the blame for this in Hong Kong. I would ask people there how comfortable they are with North Korea having nuclear warheads. There is a lot of rhetoric about the US but we are a democracy, Bush is not a dictator. We can have these weapons (as China can and does) because we haven't used them aggressively like Saddam has. That and because they are right.
                    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                    Comment


                    • Do you honestly think that anyone here thinks that Saddam hasn't been lying. Of course he is lying.

                      I do not smirk. But if I did, this would be a good opportunity. - Worf
                      The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde

                      Comment


                      • A point I posted on another BB thread regarding inspectors in any country.

                        Iran is about the size of California - now how successful has that state been in finding illegal aliens? or illegal marijuana fields?? Keeping in mind this is a state that's probably completely mapped on a GIS system - has many roads and landmarks.

                        Now let's go to Iraq or Afghanistan - seen photos of these countires?? Their terrain? You could turn yourself around two times and need Dorothy's Wizard of Oz shoes to get you home.
                        Summit Sporthorses Ltd. Inc.
                        "Breeding Competition Partners & Lifelong Friends"

                        Comment


                        • Been around five years? Not hardly. It was first presented by Wolfowitz in a Defense Planning Guidance document in 1992. The draft was leaked, Bush 41 had a cow and ordered Cheney to reword it.

                          For those interested in picayune political details, here is a link to the Infamous Original Draft:

                          excerpts from draft document

                          "Speak yer mind. But ride a fast horse"
                          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                          Comment


                          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nhwr:
                            _LBH to answer your question about taking Saddam out by assination; since the 70's there has been an excutive order renewed by every president prohibiting the US from being involved in any way in political assinations. Last fall Bush declined to renew that excutive order and there has been a last one plot the the CIA has been involved in. I am trying to remember the details, forgive me, I am drawing a blank right now..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Yes, I know there is a law (it was quoted several pages back) ...again, my question is "Why is that any different then going in with 300,00 troops and 3,000 pound bombs and trying to kill him?" It is the same end, isn't it? Is doing it loundly with big guns and lots of people any different? Just curious.

                            Elippses Users Clique........
                            Co-Founder Occularly Challenged Equine Support Group
                            Ellipses users clique ...
                            TGFPT,HYOOTGP

                            Comment


                            • For all the COTH moms...
                              &gt;Have you noticed anything fishy about the inspection teams who have arrived in Iraq? They're all men! How in the name of the United Nations does anyone expect men to find Saddam's stash? We all know that men have a blind spot
                              when it comes to finding things. For crying' out loud!
                              &gt;Men can't find the dirty clothes hamper. Men can't find the jar of jelly until it falls out of the cupboard and splatters on the floor....
                              and these are the people we have sent into Iraq to search for hidden weapons of mass destruction? I keep wondering why groups of mothers weren't sent in.
                              &gt;Mothers can sniff out secrets quicker than a drug dog can find a gram of dope. Mothers can find gin bottles that dads have stashed in the
                              attic beneath the rafters. They can sniff out a diary two rooms and one floor away. They can tell when the lid of a cookie jar has been disturbed and notice when a quarter-inch slice has been shaved off a chocolate cake. A mother can smell alcohol on your breath before you get your key in the front door and can smell cigarette smoke from a block away. By examining laundry, a mother knows more about their kids than Sherlock Holmes. And if a mother wants an answer to a question, she can read an offender's
                              eyes quicker than a homicide detective. So... considering the value a mother could bring to an inspection team, why are we sending a bunch of old men who will rely on electronic equipment to scout out hidden threats?
                              My mother would walk in with a wooden soup spoon in one hand, grab Saddam by the ear,give it a good twist and snap, "Young man, do you have any weapons of mass destruction?" And God help him if he tried to lie to her. She'd march him down the street to some secret bunker and shove his nose into a nuclear bomb and say, "Uh, huh, and what do you call this, mister?" Whap! Thump! Whap! Whap! Whap! And she'd lay some stripes across his bare bottom
                              with that soup spoon, then march him home in front of the whole of Baghdad.
                              He'd not only come clean and apologize for lying about it, he'd cut every lawn in Baghdad for free for the whole damn summer.
                              Inspectors, my ass...You want the job done? Call my mother.

                              Credit goes to Bluefoot. Thanks!

                              Comment


                              • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lilblackhorse:
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nhwr:
                                _LBH to answer your question about taking Saddam out by assination; since the 70's there has been an excutive order renewed by every president prohibiting the US from being involved in any way in political assinations. Last fall Bush declined to renew that excutive order and there has been a last one plot the the CIA has been involved in. I am trying to remember the details, forgive me, I am drawing a blank right now..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                Yes, I know there is a law (it was quoted several pages back) ...again, my question is "Why is that any different then going in with 300,00 troops and 3,000 pound bombs and trying to kill him?" It is the same end, isn't it? Is doing it loundly with big guns and lots of people any different? Just curious.

                                _Elippses Users Clique........
                                Co-Founder Occularly Challenged Equine Support Group_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                LBH- for my opinion, please see my post on the last page.
                                www.sandbarequinetransport.com

                                Proud member of the ILMD[FN]HP and Bull Snap Haters Cliques

                                Comment


                                • Thanks, DMK. Exactly as I had suspected.

                                  Case made.

                                  Laurie
                                  Laurie

                                  Comment


                                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ynh:
                                    For all the COTH moms...
                                    My mother would walk in with a wooden soup spoon in one hand, grab Saddam by the ear,give it a good twist and snap, "Young man, do you have any weapons of mass destruction?" And God help him if he tried to lie to her. She'd march him down the street to some secret bunker and shove his nose into a nuclear bomb and say, "Uh, huh, and what do you call this, mister?" Whap! Thump! Whap! Whap! Whap! And she'd lay some stripes across his bare bottom
                                    with that soup spoon, then march him home in front of the whole of Baghdad.
                                    He'd not only come clean and apologize for lying about it, he'd cut every lawn in Baghdad for free for the whole damn summer.
                                    Inspectors, my ass...You want the job done? Call my mother.

                                    Credit goes to Bluefoot. Thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                    There's a Mom in my office that would have done that and worse since 9/11. Her feeling is don't you dare put my kid in danger or you will have to deal with me.

                                    I'd send her over there in a NY minute!

                                    God Bless Moms, the ultimate protectors of the world!!
                                    www.sandbarequinetransport.com

                                    Proud member of the ILMD[FN]HP and Bull Snap Haters Cliques

                                    Comment


                                    • LBH,

                                      It wasn't a law, it was an executive order. But let's say Saddam was assinated. Then what? One of his sons steps in or complete chaos reigns. The difference between this and a military operation is that there will be some mechanism for maintaining order within Iraq and that we will have some ability to influence (not determine completely) how the next government is established and to try to keep corruption to a minimum.

                                      Yes, this is a huge commitment and yes some Americans may profit it from it. But how else can the resources of Iraq be turned over to the Iraqi people?
                                      See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                                      Comment


                                      • Uh-huh, and now liberals will claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by a right-wing conspiracy as the first step towards validating war in the Middle East.



                                        ********
                                        Proud to be an American!

                                        Proud supporter of our Armed Forces all over the world!

                                        Comment


                                        • I find it contradictory that the so-called Liberals cannot see the values of displacing a Facist Dictator type who puts all the oil money into arms and bombs while his people starve and live in the 18th century.

                                          Surely, even you liberals want to liberate the oil and spread the wealth evenly throughout the society so that all of Iraq is equally rich and the instead of just one man.

                                          I am confused I thought that the re-distribution
                                          of wealth was a cornerstone in the Liberal philosophy. Is that not why you all oppose the elimination of the Death Tax?

                                          I would think a good Liberal would be delighted to participate in redistribution of the wealth of Iraq from the few to the many Iraqi.

                                          So, if we agree that Saddam is not an honest man and has lied to the UN there would be no reason for this bleeding heart humanitarian pathos. As humanitarians you would want a better life for the repressed and abused masses of the Iraqi society. Wave that Liberal Banner high and defend the rights of the people of Iraq to control their own wealth.

                                          I also, find it hard to reconcile that some of the richest most influential people in our society, the entertainers and actors and actresses would be so anti-American when it is our very freedom that made it possible for them to be so rich and powerful. It is apparent than none of them would have accomplished such wealth because of their intellectual ability or original concepts.

                                          Don't you find it strange that people who really don't live in our real world are so out-spoken against what we believe is the right thing to do? I can understand that it makes bigger sales of a song and dance to be OPPOSED that is a tradition. I think it is very odd that people who make millions in a day, or even a single performance want to pull down the very government that makes what they do possible.

                                          As to the people in the service, I am sorry if there are some who enlistd because they thought they would be entitled to a free education at our expense and then they could evaporate when it was time to pay back for that education. And have a great life free and clear of their responsibilities to the people who paid for their education. I do agree that our military are largely under-paid and under appreciated and I hope that will change, I believe one of the first things that GW did was to increase their pay.

                                          And, I thank God! every night that Al Gore didn't get to be President during this time of emergency. I'd hate to think what would have if we ran the war based on polls. I am realatively certain that Al Gore is equally happy since his only mission seems to have been to be President but he really had no particular dedication to any issues or he would have campaigned for them in 2004.

                                          Battle Scarred Veteran
                                          http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X