Now that's the best add for beer I have ever heard! Shady, you need to put that stuff on the market.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

I would but somebody keeps drinking all of it! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]

 

LOL. Install hidden camera and catch this thief. LOL
rnuts

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

I might just do that and post the results on my page..........[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

 

Xmarine, I can't argue anything in your post. The simple point you miss and the one that Bush supporters can't justify. Is why did we take out the only Arab country who had control over our enemies...... the Islamic Fundementalists? Furthermore, how can we justify the fact that we created anotrher country ripe for Islamic fundementalism, out of a secular dictatorship that was no threat to us.? When Saddam was in power Iraq was not our enemy, no matter how you twist it. Shias will take over Iraq and we will have another country run by Islamic Fundementalist, just like Iran.

9/11 was an act of fundementalist extremists. If you can't tell the difference between them and Iraq with Saddam, I can't help you.


I'm all for making hard choices, not uninformed dumb ones.


One more thing, I respect your Marine status more than you think. I come from a family loaded with Marines(dating from WW2 to the present war), the majority of them think the whole Iraq war is a waste of our resources.

 

bsb64...

I do not think that Saddam was the only Arab leader that had any control over our enemies. Never said that. Never heard a Dem say that
either.

(("Furthermore, how can we justify the fact that we created anotrher country ripe for Islamic fundementalism, out of a secular dictatorship that was no threat to us.? When Saddam was in power Iraq was not our enemy, no matter how you twist it. Shias will take over Iraq and we will have another country run by Islamic Fundementalist, just like Iran."))

Let's break it down.

"A secular dictatorship that was no threat to us." Once again, why the shell games, and why did he kick out the U.N. Weapons Inspectors?" Something's up here. If you can explain his actions, please do so. I would love for you to shed some light on this subject.

"When Saddam was in power Iraq was not our enemy, no matter how you twist it. " Remember 1990? Saddam invades Kuwait. Remember that? Saddam wants Kuwait's oil and wealth, which would have made him one of, if not the most, powerful people in the middle east. This in turn, gives him enormous influence in the world economic markets. Especially our oil markets. Not an enemy? You think he had our best interest in mind? I don't know about you, but I'm glad Big Daddy Bush had the foresight to go in there and put a stop to that. My only regret is, he didn't take him out properly the first time. Can I get an Amen?

"Shias will take over Iraq and we will have another country run by Islamic Fundementalist, just like Iran."
I disagree. I think that Iraqis will elect a governing body that will be the model for other countries in the region to follow. This will not be an easy process. Change does not come easily to a country steeped in dictatorship and violence. And, change does not come over night.
This is a painfull transition from a dictatorship to an elected government. Transitions take time. There are many factions, for many different reasons, that don't want this transition to take place. The old guard (Saddam) was...scary...but stable. I guarantee that the majority of the populace wants this stability again, but with a duly elected government.

I think that we can both agree, that the majority of the troubles have come from the clerics that want to make sure they they get their share of power in the new government. They have a fertile recruiting ground of unemployed young men that are searching for a cause.
To bad these efforts are going toward tearing down Iraq, rather than rebuilding it.

XMARINE

 

Dude, the British tried to tame Iraq 80 years ago, they failed. One thing to consider is this.......Is it possible that Saddam was in power because this country needs a thug to keep them in line? Ever notice that every Arab country rules it citizens with an iron fist? Perhaps their culture that promotes vengence over petty squabbles, requires a dictator.

<<<I do not think that Saddam was the only Arab leader that had any control over our enemies. Never said that. Never heard a Dem say that either.>>>

No, I said it. Bin Laden once called Saddam and infadel. Why because he was not a true Muslim. And because Saddam kept his foot on the through of the religious fanatics. I'm sorry, but in relation to our war on terror, Saddam was doing just what we wanted.


I'l explain his actions with the UN, he let them in in 2003 and they found nothing. Sure he postured like a tough guy. Dictators tend to do that. Their legitmacy is based on being tough. We still haven't found anything significant, in terms of WMD.


<<< I don't know about you, but I'm glad Big Daddy Bush had the foresight to go in there and put a stop to that. My only regret is, he didn't take him out properly the first time. Can I get an Amen?>>>

He also had the foresight not to try and occupy a country with 25 million people who are torn apart by 4 nationalities and 2 different religions. He kicked *** and walked away, wisely. Besdies, 9/11 has nothing to do with Kuwait's oil. It was about Islamic fundementalism......


I leave you with a quote...........

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that is currently there. ... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? ... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."

-- Dick Cheney, April 1991

 

Does anyone here work overtime? Do you like the extra money you make on overtime? Apparently, Bush thinks that only a few have the right to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week. Take a look, he is making changes to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act as you read this.

 

Maybe Mr. Bush thinks the Federal Government shouldn't be telling every single business out there what to do, and the employee/employer relationship is handled better in the workplace than in Washington DC.

 

And Walmart would be the model for other employers to follow?

I think Mr. Bush wants to do what is best for big buisness, that is why he would mess with a law that helps protect workers rights. A lot of people don't know it but, the working conditions and rights we have today were fought for, mostly by Unions. Even nonunion employees working conditions are improved by the work of unions.