Let's impeach the president.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

And if we are taking a poll...
I support this President and I support the war. I think them crazy bastards are harder to figure out when it comes down to killing each other so our tacktics may needs some tweaking but I would rather kill them poor bastards over there then fight them over here.

peace

I'm not out to change your mind but I found your post pretty funny.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not out to change your mind but I found your post pretty funny.

See, you're already doing well in the polls. You should run.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not out to change your mind but I found your post pretty funny.

lol
Yea to some it may sound like an oxymoron but history shows that peace comes with overwhelming force.

I pray for "peace". I wished and prayed for peace in your life which is what my salutation infered.

As a Marine I have seen history prove to me as an American that peace comes from overwhelming force that handles that poor bastard trying to take away your peace.

My peace, as yours, is a direct result of America stomping the chit out of people that jack with our peace and freedom.
Joke about it, complain about it but it's a fact.

peace

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

And if we are taking a poll...
I support this President and I support the war. I think them crazy bastards are harder to figure out when it comes down to killing each other so our tacktics may needs some tweaking but I would rather kill them poor bastards over there then fight them over here.

peace

You think Iraq is going to attack us over here. How? Do they have a Navy? Maybe Saddam put all the WMD's on ships and the ships are currently hanging out at the South Pole just waiting to get us when we stop fighting Iraqis "over there." Seems to me they should attack us here when our troops are in Iraq.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

You think Iraq is going to attack us over here. How? Do they have a Navy? Maybe Saddam put all the WMD's on ships and the ships are currently hanging out at the South Pole just waiting to get us when we stop fighting Iraqis "over there." Seems to me they should attack us here when our troops are in Iraq.

Actually his WMD's were only capable of going as far as the Mediterranian when launched from H4 in western Iraq. I know that this supports your argument. He never had the capability of launching a missile to hit a country further than Israel without it hitting the Water. Not all of the troops are in Iraq. Only about 1/4 if that. You have to remember that we have Guard and Reserve in 4 branches as well. Not to mention the fact that if they were to invade, they would never make it through the Ghetto's or the South alive. There are to many Americans that bear arms.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

IMHO, Clinton may have been reckless in failing to take steps against OBL, but the flip-side of the coin is that Bush was reckless in taking too many ill-conceived steps in the war on terrorism.

I actually strongly oppose withdrawing from Iraq, but I was also firmly against going into the country in the first instance. Even if Saddam had WMDs, and I thought he did, I didn't think the war was our best move when there were already a lot of "bad guys" in Afghanistan. In that regard, I think Bush tried to do too many things at once in a half-assed way to the detriment of our troops and our effort against global terrorism.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Awesome post 70Chip and nice analysis! But, you should have added that Al Gore would keep talking and talking and talking until his interrogators would be forced to shove a soaked rag down his throat. As for Bush, he'd talk, but nothing he would say would make any sense.

With all due respect to Gore and Bush fans, I'm sorry but I cannot believe that our political system pooped out those two guys as the best possible candidates for the most important job in the world.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Awesome post 70Chip and nice analysis! But, you should have added that Al Gore would keep talking and talking and talking until his interrogators would be forced to shove a soaked rag down his throat. As for Bush, he'd talk, but nothing he would say would make any sense.

With all due respect to Gore and Bush fans, I'm sorry but I cannot believe that our political system pooped out those two guys as the best possible candidates for the most important job in the world.

That's hilarious. Gore would drone on and on. ".. and that was the same year that I was the inspiration for the Ryan O'Neill character in 'Love Story'." Or, "I don't know if you can say I invented Velveeta Cheese, but I certainly played an integral role."

Bush would be trying to pretend he knew something. Making things up. Just like in "Our Man in Havana" by Graham Greene.

I'm going to have you punch up my posts from now on, Sherrif. That's great stuff.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

With all due respect to Gore and Bush fans, I'm sorry but I cannot believe that our political system pooped out those two guys as the best possible candidates for the most important job in the world.

Very sad indeed

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Crazyhorse,
Acccording to the U.S. Supreme Court (which, by the way, consists of people a lot smarter than either of us and who just might know a lot about the law), military tribunals that try unlawful enemy combatants are perfectly legal and not barred by ANY treaty signed by the U.S. Those military tribunals, which you call kangaroo courts, are "competent tribunals" under the GCs who CAN legally determine whether someone is an enemy combatant and can be denied POW status. Moreover, FDR used such military tribunals to try and execute Nazis who ended up on our shores to conduct sabotage operations. So, the use of tribunals is nothing new. Finally, when researching this stuff, please refer to U.S. case-law (including that which interprets international law).

PS - I'm still wondering where you found out that Rumsfeld personally tortured a detainee.

[jsarno]

It always astounds me how strong are the two sides of this debate are in their convictions.

1- I would hate to see where this country would be and where our taxes would be if Kerry won the election. No matter how you look at it, we as a country still chose the lesser of two evils.

2- I would still LOVE for some Democrat to step up and tell me their full blown plans to correct things. Anyone can say "I can fix it", but the proof is in the pudding...can you actually fix it? For as much as we would like to complain about Bush and his policies etc, I don't think a single democrat could have done it better. I would actually have wagered we would have had a massive terrorist attack had a Republican / Bush not been in office.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

No matter how you look at it, we as a country still chose the lesser of two evils.

Every time I hear that I snicker inside and then realize what constitutes evil is a matter of prospective.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Crazyhorse,
Acccording to the U.S. Supreme Court (which, by the way, consists of people a lot smarter than either of us and who just might know a lot about the law), military tribunals that try unlawful enemy combatants are perfectly legal and not barred by ANY treaty signed by the U.S. Those military tribunals, which you call kangaroo courts, are "competent tribunals" under the GCs who CAN legally determine whether someone is an enemy combatant and can be denied POW status. Moreover, FDR used such military tribunals to try and execute Nazis who ended up on our shores to conduct sabotage operations. So, the use of tribunals is nothing new. Finally, when researching this stuff, please refer to U.S. case-law (including that which interprets international law).

PS - I'm still wondering where you found out that Rumsfeld personally tortured a detainee.

I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.

I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).

You're correct. I tend to think of any action against the White House to be anti-Bush.