DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Oct 1, 2003 | 06:55 PM
#81
Pro Rider
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
[quote]
Originally posted by: thomez
"First, you didn't come up with a "new way" but danced around it. Purchasing an old way from a neighboring country doesn't count......"
I told you exactly how they were killing our boys and I challenged you to tell me where you've witnessed a first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia. Please don't insult us by claiming that "it wouldn't matter" if we could have had all these other countries helping us miltarily right now; driving around the countryside and putting a bullet in the head of every person that needed it (with plenty "back-up" to spare).
(thomez):
".....Second, you completely danced around "what they tried to pull" as well by going far from what that question was related to........."
Let me tell you what they "tried to pull".........these nations have gambled that their "resistance" to this world war would have no consequences for them in the long run as related to our relations with them.
They are wrong and their citizens will and should feel the cold shoulder that Americans must give them when they "so love" to visit this country. We will make them pay economically; as far as we can get people to quit listening to people like yourself and this nation starts bringing back the concept of CONSEQUENCES for their cowardice.
Originally posted by: thomez
"First, you didn't come up with a "new way" but danced around it. Purchasing an old way from a neighboring country doesn't count......"
I told you exactly how they were killing our boys and I challenged you to tell me where you've witnessed a first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia. Please don't insult us by claiming that "it wouldn't matter" if we could have had all these other countries helping us miltarily right now; driving around the countryside and putting a bullet in the head of every person that needed it (with plenty "back-up" to spare).
(thomez):
".....Second, you completely danced around "what they tried to pull" as well by going far from what that question was related to........."
Let me tell you what they "tried to pull".........these nations have gambled that their "resistance" to this world war would have no consequences for them in the long run as related to our relations with them.
They are wrong and their citizens will and should feel the cold shoulder that Americans must give them when they "so love" to visit this country. We will make them pay economically; as far as we can get people to quit listening to people like yourself and this nation starts bringing back the concept of CONSEQUENCES for their cowardice.
Oct 1, 2003 | 08:28 PM
#82
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,249
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Hound Dog,
I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq. They had so much less to fight with than last time and then it didn't take long at all either. I don't think any country would have been dumb enough to ally itself with Iraq in any kind of fight against the US. I certainly can't think of one. Vietnam is a TOTALLY different scenario. First, we were trying to liberate people that for the most part didn't want liberated but wanted left alone. I'll bet a higher % of the South Vietnamese wanted either left alone or to be part of the communism of the North than wanted US action. Yet we tried to fight next to them and it was a disaster. Second, the fight of the 60s and 70s is totally different than today. Technology has changed a lot since then. The attempt to fight guerilla warriors on their home turf is in itself a national tragedy. Third, the terrain of Vietnam is much more of a challenge than the sand of Iraq. The only similarity I see in the two efforts is the one you pointed out - that few thought we would have trouble in either. Everything else is different that I can think of.
As for your comments on Nigeria/Germany - the fact of the matter is that these countries do not have to spend money to ensure they can get a trade agreement with a new Iraqi government. It won't be too much of a problem in this global economy, I can't see Iraq saying "no" to anyone because they didn't spend dollars to help them reconstruct.
I agree about WWII - we did give a ton of money away for Europe that will never be paid back. Nodoby made money on that war and it seems that post-war the countries somewhat banded together to help out each other. The mighty US just did it's part as being premier, as it always has.
I do not agree about your comments that France did not oppose military action. I think in fact they were the strongest opposition to force. It is their nature - after getting your butt handed to you throughout history you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either - you'd be afraid that once again the trees lining the streets of Paris would be shading another countries soldiers as they marched into the city.
Blackballed:
You did say how they were killing our boys. However, that wasn't the point. You stated that they were coming up with "new ways" which in fact you are yet to produce. Maybe this is a good time to admit that it wasn't the best way to phrase it and move on.
Where have I witnessed a "first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia" ? Israel baby, about 3 days a week.
Your next sentence is so terribly constructed that I have absolutely no clue what you are attempting to say.
???
Next sentence.
Let me tell you what they "tried to pull".........these nations have gambled that their "resistance" to this world war would have no consequences for them in the long run as related to our relations with them.
Agreed. Tell me exactly what this country can do to all of the countries who did not support our war effort. Mind you that encompasses about 97% of the rest of the countries on this earth.
Next statement:
Sorry to disappoint, but America will not be closing its doors to the rest of the world anytime soon. You will have to deal with different cultures and ethnic groups in your lifetime, but the impression I get is that you don't enjoy doing so. I could be wrong, but that is definitely the vibe you send. Maybe personal isolation is in your best interests? Not to sound too terribly negative but you always could live like the Unibomber, in some isolated shack atop some un-named hill in some barely known part of the country and not have to deal with anyone else. No other countries to despise, no liberal talking students to aggrevatedly type to, life would be grand, wouldn't it?
Now until you start to speak with some kind of respectfullness of others opinions, I will have no reason to reply to any of your further posts. So far you have said pretty much nothing constructive yet seemed to vent plenty of anger doing so. Maybe you should sit back and take lessons from HoundDog on how to appropriately express your views without coming off the way you do. He seems to make such better points even while remaining rather civil and not making any references to myself or others. Rather incredible isn't it?
~~~~~~ Thomez
I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq. They had so much less to fight with than last time and then it didn't take long at all either. I don't think any country would have been dumb enough to ally itself with Iraq in any kind of fight against the US. I certainly can't think of one. Vietnam is a TOTALLY different scenario. First, we were trying to liberate people that for the most part didn't want liberated but wanted left alone. I'll bet a higher % of the South Vietnamese wanted either left alone or to be part of the communism of the North than wanted US action. Yet we tried to fight next to them and it was a disaster. Second, the fight of the 60s and 70s is totally different than today. Technology has changed a lot since then. The attempt to fight guerilla warriors on their home turf is in itself a national tragedy. Third, the terrain of Vietnam is much more of a challenge than the sand of Iraq. The only similarity I see in the two efforts is the one you pointed out - that few thought we would have trouble in either. Everything else is different that I can think of.
As for your comments on Nigeria/Germany - the fact of the matter is that these countries do not have to spend money to ensure they can get a trade agreement with a new Iraqi government. It won't be too much of a problem in this global economy, I can't see Iraq saying "no" to anyone because they didn't spend dollars to help them reconstruct.
I agree about WWII - we did give a ton of money away for Europe that will never be paid back. Nodoby made money on that war and it seems that post-war the countries somewhat banded together to help out each other. The mighty US just did it's part as being premier, as it always has.
I do not agree about your comments that France did not oppose military action. I think in fact they were the strongest opposition to force. It is their nature - after getting your butt handed to you throughout history you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either - you'd be afraid that once again the trees lining the streets of Paris would be shading another countries soldiers as they marched into the city.
Blackballed:
You did say how they were killing our boys. However, that wasn't the point. You stated that they were coming up with "new ways" which in fact you are yet to produce. Maybe this is a good time to admit that it wasn't the best way to phrase it and move on.
Where have I witnessed a "first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia" ? Israel baby, about 3 days a week.
Your next sentence is so terribly constructed that I have absolutely no clue what you are attempting to say.
Please don't insult us by claiming that "it wouldn't matter" if we could have had all these other countries helping us miltarily right now; driving around the countryside and putting a bullet in the head of every person that needed it (with plenty "back-up" to spare).
Next sentence.
Let me tell you what they "tried to pull".........these nations have gambled that their "resistance" to this world war would have no consequences for them in the long run as related to our relations with them.
Next statement:
They are wrong and their citizens will and should feel the cold shoulder that Americans must give them when they "so love" to visit this country. We will make them pay economically; as far as we can get people to quit listening to people like yourself and this nation starts bringing back the concept of CONSEQUENCES for their cowardice.
Now until you start to speak with some kind of respectfullness of others opinions, I will have no reason to reply to any of your further posts. So far you have said pretty much nothing constructive yet seemed to vent plenty of anger doing so. Maybe you should sit back and take lessons from HoundDog on how to appropriately express your views without coming off the way you do. He seems to make such better points even while remaining rather civil and not making any references to myself or others. Rather incredible isn't it?
~~~~~~ Thomez
Oct 1, 2003 | 08:55 PM
#83
Pro Rider
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
It was proven quite publicly that Russia was providing NVg's to the Iraqis.
The biggest problem we had in Vietnam wasn't the South Vietnamese wanting to be left alone it was the fact that our government ran the war instead of letting the military commanders run it. And I'd take your bet and take your money because the Vietnamese fought France to gain their independence and thus ended up with a split country via the Geneva Accords....the French didn't like it and the US didn't want the spread of communism....the US came to France's aid (again) and ended up holding the bag---and with the Paris Peace Accord they got a way out of it.
The biggest reason we are at such a disadvantage when fighting these guerilla fighters is that we have to obey international law and they don't....we're hamstrung because we aren't allowed to fight fire with fire.....even the playing fields and they still wouldn't stand a chance.....it has nothing to do with who, where, when or how, given even terms we win.
The biggest problem we had in Vietnam wasn't the South Vietnamese wanting to be left alone it was the fact that our government ran the war instead of letting the military commanders run it. And I'd take your bet and take your money because the Vietnamese fought France to gain their independence and thus ended up with a split country via the Geneva Accords....the French didn't like it and the US didn't want the spread of communism....the US came to France's aid (again) and ended up holding the bag---and with the Paris Peace Accord they got a way out of it.
The biggest reason we are at such a disadvantage when fighting these guerilla fighters is that we have to obey international law and they don't....we're hamstrung because we aren't allowed to fight fire with fire.....even the playing fields and they still wouldn't stand a chance.....it has nothing to do with who, where, when or how, given even terms we win.
Oct 1, 2003 | 10:03 PM
#84
Pro Rider
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
I just want to give my 2cents re: the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Where are they?? Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell). Did we go to liberate the people?? What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? Did we go for the oil?? I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect. Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US?? Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country?? What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat.
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil??
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Where are they?? Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell). Did we go to liberate the people?? What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? Did we go for the oil?? I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect. Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US?? Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country?? What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat.
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil??
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
Oct 1, 2003 | 10:32 PM
#85
Pro Rider
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Originally posted by: Jerrydlish
I just want to give my 2cents re: the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Partially, even the Clinton administration admitted Iraq had WMD
Where are they?? Probably Syria, given the amount of time wasted arguing in the UN it's hard to tell where all they could be
Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell)It's well known that Saddam was providing monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers, do you not consider his gassing his own people as terrorism?.
Did we go to liberate the people?? Yes
What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? One step at a time
Did we go for the oil?? Not only for the US's use but for the world's, if bleeding heart liberals would allow domestic oil research this wouldn't even be a question
I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect Maybe, just maybe, they are the best qualified and most knowledgeable to get the job done and done right.
Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US??Yes, not only the US but the entire free world
Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country??You mean those missiles they weren't supposed to have that were aimed (and fired) at Israel and Kuwait? It only takes some schmuck with a briefcase nowadays to deliver a nuke
What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat. They are being dealt with, notice the sabre rattling from them as calmed since Saddam has been dismantled?
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil?? 30some odd countries were in the coalition, France, Germany and Russia aren't the only countries in the world.
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
I just want to give my 2cents re: the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Partially, even the Clinton administration admitted Iraq had WMD
Where are they?? Probably Syria, given the amount of time wasted arguing in the UN it's hard to tell where all they could be
Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell)It's well known that Saddam was providing monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers, do you not consider his gassing his own people as terrorism?.
Did we go to liberate the people?? Yes
What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? One step at a time
Did we go for the oil?? Not only for the US's use but for the world's, if bleeding heart liberals would allow domestic oil research this wouldn't even be a question
I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect Maybe, just maybe, they are the best qualified and most knowledgeable to get the job done and done right.
Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US??Yes, not only the US but the entire free world
Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country??You mean those missiles they weren't supposed to have that were aimed (and fired) at Israel and Kuwait? It only takes some schmuck with a briefcase nowadays to deliver a nuke
What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat. They are being dealt with, notice the sabre rattling from them as calmed since Saddam has been dismantled?
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil?? 30some odd countries were in the coalition, France, Germany and Russia aren't the only countries in the world.
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
Oct 2, 2003 | 12:00 AM
#86
Pro Rider
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Originally posted by: RookWV
Hopefully that will make you feel better [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
Originally posted by: Jerrydlish
I just want to give my 2cents re: the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Partially, even the Clinton administration admitted Iraq had WMD [/b]
I do not doubt they had wmd's.....however to justify this war this must be absolutely proven. And they had the intellegence to give locations of wmd's labs/factories that they presented at the UN, did they not have the same intelegence to track them?
Where are they?? Probably Syria, given the amount of time wasted arguing in the UN it's hard to tell where all they could be [/b]
I guess it's just theory and speculation as to were they are/went.
Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell)
It's well known that Saddam was providing monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers, do you not consider his gassing his own people as terrorism?.
It has not been proven, nor is the White House ready to declare they have any evidence linking Saddam to al Qieda.
What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? One step at a time
Were never going to touch Cuba or N. Korea. They have nothing we want..not only that, but they are a legitimate threat to us, thats why we won't go after them.
Did we go for the oil?? Not only for the US's use but for the world's, if bleeding heart liberelas would allow domestic oil research this wouldn't even be a question I don't think we should be the ones to have control over another countries natural resource(s).
I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect Maybe, just maybe they are the best qualified and most knowledgeable to get the job done and done right.
Like I said, awfully suspicious.
Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US??Yes, not only the US but the entire free world
How?? What could Iraq as a country do to the US? Or even other free Nations outside of their region?
Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country??You mean those missiles they weren't supposed to have that were aimed (and fired) at Israel and Kuwait? It only takes some schmuck with a briefcase nowadays to deliver a nuke
Any 1/2 civilized country has missles that can target and hit a neighboring country....So I disagree that they were a direct threat to the US or the entire "free world" Just maybe a couple free nations in their region.
What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat. They are being dealt with, notice the sabre rattling from them as calmed since Saddam has been dismantled?
Since then, they are making claims that they are a nuclear power, and keep lobbing "test missles" into the sea of japan.
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil?? 30some odd countries were in the coalition, France, Germany and Russia aren't the only countries in the world.
I should've worded better.....some of our allies is what I should've said......they aren't the only countries in the world, but they are some major players.
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
I just want to give my 2cents re: the war.
What was the reason for going to war?? WMDs?? Partially, even the Clinton administration admitted Iraq had WMD [/b]
I do not doubt they had wmd's.....however to justify this war this must be absolutely proven. And they had the intellegence to give locations of wmd's labs/factories that they presented at the UN, did they not have the same intelegence to track them?
Where are they?? Probably Syria, given the amount of time wasted arguing in the UN it's hard to tell where all they could be [/b]
I guess it's just theory and speculation as to were they are/went.
Terrorism?? There has been ZERO proof the Iraqi government has any ties with Al Qieda/bin laden (forgive the mispell)
It's well known that Saddam was providing monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers, do you not consider his gassing his own people as terrorism?.
It has not been proven, nor is the White House ready to declare they have any evidence linking Saddam to al Qieda.
What about the people of N.Korea, Cuba etc...? One step at a time
Were never going to touch Cuba or N. Korea. They have nothing we want..not only that, but they are a legitimate threat to us, thats why we won't go after them.
Did we go for the oil?? Not only for the US's use but for the world's, if bleeding heart liberelas would allow domestic oil research this wouldn't even be a question I don't think we should be the ones to have control over another countries natural resource(s).
I dunno, but Haliburton recieving that nice contract is suspect Maybe, just maybe they are the best qualified and most knowledgeable to get the job done and done right.
Like I said, awfully suspicious.
Did we go cuz they are/were a threat to the US??Yes, not only the US but the entire free world
How?? What could Iraq as a country do to the US? Or even other free Nations outside of their region?
Really?? Could any weapon in their arsenal even hit an Eastern European country??You mean those missiles they weren't supposed to have that were aimed (and fired) at Israel and Kuwait? It only takes some schmuck with a briefcase nowadays to deliver a nuke
Any 1/2 civilized country has missles that can target and hit a neighboring country....So I disagree that they were a direct threat to the US or the entire "free world" Just maybe a couple free nations in their region.
What about Korea, they scare me a lot more, and one could argue they are a much bigger threat. They are being dealt with, notice the sabre rattling from them as calmed since Saddam has been dismantled?
Since then, they are making claims that they are a nuclear power, and keep lobbing "test missles" into the sea of japan.
Now, what were the reasons for our "Allies" not supporting this war?? Did they feel it was an unjust war?? Did they feel they needed stronger evidence to support this war?? Were they afraid of the US gaining control of the oil?? 30some odd countries were in the coalition, France, Germany and Russia aren't the only countries in the world.
I should've worded better.....some of our allies is what I should've said......they aren't the only countries in the world, but they are some major players.
These are the question I have in regards to this war, and the lack of answers to these questions are why I was against the war.
Oct 2, 2003 | 07:54 AM
#87
Pro Rider
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Originally posted by: thomez
Hound Dog,I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq..........
This statement in and of itself shows your age and your ignorance. It always seems that the most liberal among us have absolutely no concept of what war is all about........that is because they RARELY see a need to fight one. What's more sickening, is that they have even less of a feel for what our boys are charged with doing each and every day they get their orders and the sacrifices they and their families have made to make this WORLD a better place.
I have to put Thomez's statement up again because it is so damming:
".....Hound Dog,I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq.........."
For all of you out there who have actually BEEN in the military (which I have not); what would you say to the face of someone who put your mission in these type of terms?
This is the liberal agenda, folks! Try to convince the rest of us that we are now having TROUBLE in Iraq......while playing down the fact THAT WAR IS A DIRTY BUSINESS WHERE PEOPLE GET KILLED AND MAIMED. We have experienced overwhelming victory in Iraq that every person in our armed forces should find comfort in and be proud of as they suffer through not only the loss of loved ones at war.......but the ones WE KNEW WOULD BE LOST in any attempt to rebuild and keep the peace.
What junior doesn't want his liberal friends to teach our kids......... is that WE WENT TO IRAQ ON MORAL GROUNDS AND OUR BROTHERS/SISTERS ARE HEROS ALL OVER THIS WORLD FOR DOING THE DIRTY WORK THAT FEW HAD THE ***** TO DO...........GIVING THESE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM AND A CHANCE FOR A BETTER LIFE.
".....They had so much less to fight with than last time and then it didn't take long at all either.........."
Again, you can see how these libs try to "play down" what our guys had to do and what it actually took to do it!......all with absolutely NO FEELING as to what each and every one of them felt went it was time to strap that helmet on and move out on their missions.
"...... Vietnam is a TOTALLY different scenario. First, we were trying to liberate people that for the most part didn't want liberated but wanted left alone. I'll bet a higher % of the South Vietnamese wanted either left alone or to be part of the communism of the North than wanted US action........"
Pure and unadulterated ignorance.
Sure, the S. Vietnamese wanted to be "left alone"..............they didn't really care for N. Vietnam and the whole Chinese empire raping and pillaging their countryside.
".....Yet we tried to fight next to them and it was a disaster........"
Vietnam was a disaster because libs like yourself didn't let the people fighting this war....conventionally bomb about a million Chinese back into the stone age. These people had the same lesson to learn as the Japanese couldn't figure out until Hiroshima..........there are CONSEQUENCES for following communism (which liberals hate to hear; with their ideals so closely tied to this philosophy) that those men and women who died there should have been allowed to let loose at full force with assuredly devastating results for the populace of our enemy.
".....I agree about WWII - we did give a ton of money away for Europe that will never be paid back. Nodoby made money on that war and it seems that post-war the countries somewhat banded together to help out each other. The mighty US just did it's part as being premier, as it always has......."
And thank almighty God that it was the "mighty U.S." (libs never like to talk of our country with anything resembling respect) who took that lead and continues to do so today........I shudder to think what this world would be like otherwise.
"......I do not agree about your comments that France did not oppose military action. I think in fact they were the strongest opposition to force. It is their nature - after getting your butt handed to you throughout history you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either - you'd be afraid that once again the trees lining the streets of Paris would be shading another countries soldiers as they marched into the city....."
I don't care WHAT the French's history is with us or anybody else........we gave them a chance to start making up for all of that and they blew it.........and DON'T tell a fellow AMERICAN how "you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either ...."
A true American doesn't think like some damn French liberal.
"...Blackballed:You did say how they were killing our boys. However, that wasn't the point. You stated that they were coming up with "new ways" which in fact you are yet to produce....."
Maybe this is a good time to admit that your point is weak and that this guy isn't going to keep explaining himself over an issue that is cut and dry.
".....Where have I witnessed a "first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia" ? Israel baby, about 3 days a week......."
And I bet my bottom dollar that you and your lib friends are just HORRIFIED that the Israeli government is countering all the money Sadaam and all these other radical Muslims have poured into Lebanon for suicide bomb suits that fit little children.
You took the bait, my friend........and someday the people of this country will wake up as to just where your liberal alliances lay and who you people will defend BEFORE your own country.
"....Your next sentence is so terribly constructed that I have absolutely no clue what you are attempting to say.
???
You can question my use of grammar (we all aren't as 'educated' as the liberal "elite") but you know darn well what I said and it tears your argument to pieces. The fact is.......if this country and Britain had received more military help from the world community.........we would be looking at a lot more guerillas with a bullet in their heads and a lot more progress already shown towards the gargantuan task of rebuilding Iraq. Play 'dumb' again..........it don't work with me.
".....Next sentence.
Agreed. Tell me exactly what this country can do to all of the countries who did not support our war effort. Mind you that encompasses about 97% of the rest of the countries on this earth......."
I will tell you what this country can do.......we can start countering the namby-pamby attitude that you libs bring forward with your representation (tell me, who are your "liberal" heros?) and start putting some people in office who the rest of the world will FEAR by their no-nonsense approach to world affairs. These countries acted like they did as a direct result of 8 years of Clinton's non-existant world policy and a near 50/50 split in the 2000 elections. When the rest of the world believes were all just a bunch of bed-wetting liberals?..........our power in matters such as this is decreased TEN-FOLD.
"..... Next statement:
Sorry to disappoint, but America will not be closing its doors to the rest of the world anytime soon. You will have to deal with different cultures and ethnic groups in your lifetime, but the impression I get is that you don't enjoy doing so. I could be wrong, but that is definitely the vibe you send. Maybe personal isolation is in your best interests? Not to sound too terribly negative but you always could live like the Unibomber, in some isolated shack atop some un-named hill in some barely known part of the country and not have to deal with anyone else. No other countries to despise, no liberal talking students to aggrevatedly type to, life would be grand, wouldn't it? Now until you start to speak with some kind of respectfullness of others opinions, I will have no reason to reply to any of your further posts. So far you have said pretty much nothing constructive yet seemed to vent plenty of anger doing so. Maybe you should sit back and take lessons from HoundDog on how to appropriately express your views without coming off the way you do. He seems to make such better points even while remaining rather civil and not making any references to myself or others. Rather incredible isn't it? ~~~~~~ Thomez
Hound Dog,I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq..........
This statement in and of itself shows your age and your ignorance. It always seems that the most liberal among us have absolutely no concept of what war is all about........that is because they RARELY see a need to fight one. What's more sickening, is that they have even less of a feel for what our boys are charged with doing each and every day they get their orders and the sacrifices they and their families have made to make this WORLD a better place.
I have to put Thomez's statement up again because it is so damming:
".....Hound Dog,I still truly doubt that anyone in their right mind thought we would have trouble in Iraq.........."
For all of you out there who have actually BEEN in the military (which I have not); what would you say to the face of someone who put your mission in these type of terms?
This is the liberal agenda, folks! Try to convince the rest of us that we are now having TROUBLE in Iraq......while playing down the fact THAT WAR IS A DIRTY BUSINESS WHERE PEOPLE GET KILLED AND MAIMED. We have experienced overwhelming victory in Iraq that every person in our armed forces should find comfort in and be proud of as they suffer through not only the loss of loved ones at war.......but the ones WE KNEW WOULD BE LOST in any attempt to rebuild and keep the peace.
What junior doesn't want his liberal friends to teach our kids......... is that WE WENT TO IRAQ ON MORAL GROUNDS AND OUR BROTHERS/SISTERS ARE HEROS ALL OVER THIS WORLD FOR DOING THE DIRTY WORK THAT FEW HAD THE ***** TO DO...........GIVING THESE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM AND A CHANCE FOR A BETTER LIFE.
".....They had so much less to fight with than last time and then it didn't take long at all either.........."
Again, you can see how these libs try to "play down" what our guys had to do and what it actually took to do it!......all with absolutely NO FEELING as to what each and every one of them felt went it was time to strap that helmet on and move out on their missions.
"...... Vietnam is a TOTALLY different scenario. First, we were trying to liberate people that for the most part didn't want liberated but wanted left alone. I'll bet a higher % of the South Vietnamese wanted either left alone or to be part of the communism of the North than wanted US action........"
Pure and unadulterated ignorance.
Sure, the S. Vietnamese wanted to be "left alone"..............they didn't really care for N. Vietnam and the whole Chinese empire raping and pillaging their countryside.
".....Yet we tried to fight next to them and it was a disaster........"
Vietnam was a disaster because libs like yourself didn't let the people fighting this war....conventionally bomb about a million Chinese back into the stone age. These people had the same lesson to learn as the Japanese couldn't figure out until Hiroshima..........there are CONSEQUENCES for following communism (which liberals hate to hear; with their ideals so closely tied to this philosophy) that those men and women who died there should have been allowed to let loose at full force with assuredly devastating results for the populace of our enemy.
".....I agree about WWII - we did give a ton of money away for Europe that will never be paid back. Nodoby made money on that war and it seems that post-war the countries somewhat banded together to help out each other. The mighty US just did it's part as being premier, as it always has......."
And thank almighty God that it was the "mighty U.S." (libs never like to talk of our country with anything resembling respect) who took that lead and continues to do so today........I shudder to think what this world would be like otherwise.
"......I do not agree about your comments that France did not oppose military action. I think in fact they were the strongest opposition to force. It is their nature - after getting your butt handed to you throughout history you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either - you'd be afraid that once again the trees lining the streets of Paris would be shading another countries soldiers as they marched into the city....."
I don't care WHAT the French's history is with us or anybody else........we gave them a chance to start making up for all of that and they blew it.........and DON'T tell a fellow AMERICAN how "you wouldn't want anyone to start fighting again either ...."
A true American doesn't think like some damn French liberal.
"...Blackballed:You did say how they were killing our boys. However, that wasn't the point. You stated that they were coming up with "new ways" which in fact you are yet to produce....."
Maybe this is a good time to admit that your point is weak and that this guy isn't going to keep explaining himself over an issue that is cut and dry.
".....Where have I witnessed a "first-rate 21st century army being effectively penetrated by a bunch of third-world misfits without even a standing militia" ? Israel baby, about 3 days a week......."
And I bet my bottom dollar that you and your lib friends are just HORRIFIED that the Israeli government is countering all the money Sadaam and all these other radical Muslims have poured into Lebanon for suicide bomb suits that fit little children.
You took the bait, my friend........and someday the people of this country will wake up as to just where your liberal alliances lay and who you people will defend BEFORE your own country.
"....Your next sentence is so terribly constructed that I have absolutely no clue what you are attempting to say.
Please don't insult us by claiming that "it wouldn't matter" if we could have had all these other countries helping us miltarily right now; driving around the countryside and putting a bullet in the head of every person that needed it (with plenty "back-up" to spare).
You can question my use of grammar (we all aren't as 'educated' as the liberal "elite") but you know darn well what I said and it tears your argument to pieces. The fact is.......if this country and Britain had received more military help from the world community.........we would be looking at a lot more guerillas with a bullet in their heads and a lot more progress already shown towards the gargantuan task of rebuilding Iraq. Play 'dumb' again..........it don't work with me.
".....Next sentence.
Let me tell you what they "tried to pull".........these nations have gambled that their "resistance" to this world war would have no consequences for them in the long run as related to our relations with them.
I will tell you what this country can do.......we can start countering the namby-pamby attitude that you libs bring forward with your representation (tell me, who are your "liberal" heros?) and start putting some people in office who the rest of the world will FEAR by their no-nonsense approach to world affairs. These countries acted like they did as a direct result of 8 years of Clinton's non-existant world policy and a near 50/50 split in the 2000 elections. When the rest of the world believes were all just a bunch of bed-wetting liberals?..........our power in matters such as this is decreased TEN-FOLD.
"..... Next statement:
They are wrong and their citizens will and should feel the cold shoulder that Americans must give them when they "so love" to visit this country. We will make them pay economically; as far as we can get people to quit listening to people like yourself and this nation starts bringing back the concept of CONSEQUENCES for their cowardice.
The problem here is that you have never run into anyone who shoves your liberal anti-American ideals right back down your throat and you've come to find that they don't taste very well......do they?
Believe me, I have no problem "coming off the way I do"........and I wish others would do the same when they finally discover what liberalism has done to this country and our kids who are totally awash in it each and every day they go to public school.
Switch on AM talk radio, people............. and find out what people like Thomez are 'up to'..... each and every day. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]
Oct 13, 2003 | 09:00 PM
#88
Trailblazer
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
What a surprise a democrat against ATV's when will people realize that they love smiling at you so you vote for them and then they stab you in the back. If you like riding VOTE REPUBLICAN, if you like being stripped of your freedoms vote liberal tree hugging piece of sh*t democrat. NJ is feeling the wrath of a worthless democrat right now as we speak.
Oct 20, 2003 | 05:17 PM
#89
Pro Rider
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
They might call us older (conservative) guys cynical, but we've just been around long enough to have deciphered what is really going on
Sad isnt it.
Oct 20, 2003 | 08:57 PM
#90
Pro Rider
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
DEAN: PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE ANTI-ATV
Originally posted by: AlaskaYFM
ThePunisher... GET A CLUE!!! I agree with ShadyRascal (and the rest of you), Bush is doing a great job as president. If you want to forfeit more of your freedoms, and lessen the weight of the people's voice then go right ahead and vote AGAINST Bush. Do that and you are screwing yourself and everyone else.
You are a self-proclaimed "staunch republican", well then use that thing between your ears and do the math. Don't even get me started on Iraq... don't even get me started on terrorism. Let's keep things on the domestic agenda, shall we?! Any democrat that gets elected is going to harken back to the Clinton-era and try to broaden the damage that this man and his administration wrought upon this country. Think that the Wilderness Act and Roadless Initiative are bad??? Or how about the National Firearms Act??? You haven't seen nothin' if Leiberman or (God help us) Hillary Clinton get in office. Dean may be worse, but they are all very bad news for us freedom loving folk.
The sad reality of it all is that most people live in large city and suburban areas and don't realize how life should be. They drive their minivans and think that outdoors is a city park. They think that the police are there to protect them and that if they had to lift a finger to defend themselves they might just pee their pants. Frankly, the bulk of Americans have forgot what true freedom is. Our founding father's would be spinning in their graves if they could see the laws that are on the books right now. A lot of legislature is unconsititutional and would be shown as such if someone had the time, energy, and money to challenge laws all the way up to the Supreme Court.
So, yeah, I think keeping Bush in office is a good idea. If anything, everyone must agree that he is definitely the lesser of two evils.
ThePunisher... GET A CLUE!!! I agree with ShadyRascal (and the rest of you), Bush is doing a great job as president. If you want to forfeit more of your freedoms, and lessen the weight of the people's voice then go right ahead and vote AGAINST Bush. Do that and you are screwing yourself and everyone else.
You are a self-proclaimed "staunch republican", well then use that thing between your ears and do the math. Don't even get me started on Iraq... don't even get me started on terrorism. Let's keep things on the domestic agenda, shall we?! Any democrat that gets elected is going to harken back to the Clinton-era and try to broaden the damage that this man and his administration wrought upon this country. Think that the Wilderness Act and Roadless Initiative are bad??? Or how about the National Firearms Act??? You haven't seen nothin' if Leiberman or (God help us) Hillary Clinton get in office. Dean may be worse, but they are all very bad news for us freedom loving folk.
The sad reality of it all is that most people live in large city and suburban areas and don't realize how life should be. They drive their minivans and think that outdoors is a city park. They think that the police are there to protect them and that if they had to lift a finger to defend themselves they might just pee their pants. Frankly, the bulk of Americans have forgot what true freedom is. Our founding father's would be spinning in their graves if they could see the laws that are on the books right now. A lot of legislature is unconsititutional and would be shown as such if someone had the time, energy, and money to challenge laws all the way up to the Supreme Court.
So, yeah, I think keeping Bush in office is a good idea. If anything, everyone must agree that he is definitely the lesser of two evils.
You hit on a great issue with the majority of people living in the cities or suburbs and the inherant problems that exist there plus now constant expansion is only making this worse. Since I live in NJ where there is only about 3ft X 3ft left that is still considered rural (ok a little more than that lol) and this is why so many of the problems are worse here than anyware else in the country.
Want to see what happens when govt gets to big and is no longer by the people or for the people and becomes nothing more than a self filfilling machine just move on into NJ for a while and see for yourself. You will be literally spinning as are our countrys founders.
Be thankfull for what you have and use our problems here to show others what can and will happen if the average joe doesnt get involved and stand up for his rights. Not sure what I mean then think of this happening elseware: most all large parcels of undeveloped land are govt owned, the remaining private owned lands are both under pressure for development and under tight reuglation on use by the state (read that as no ATV's) fines for unregistered (you can get your atv registered but are still subject to the fines but not confiscation or impound) vehicle use on non hiway dirt roads and trails rise to 1,000.00 on state land and also many local towns and many other little fees that are added that will total allmost the same effectivly doubling the 1,000.00. Theres more but I think this is enough to get the idea across.
So everyone write to your state and fed reps and tell them what you think, pass along any info on non atv friendly politicians to every club or person you know, and just get involved somehow before its too late.