Wacks the political Bee's Nest

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Oh and keep the "pity me I was near gound zero stuff." My wife was in Washington DC that day and I lost friends in the Pentagon.

Enjoy yer hate dewd.

peace
mike

[skinsfanthru&thru]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I'm tired and don't feel like another long debate, but i'll just say I disagree, and some people here really need to learn how to take a joke.

Amen, enough of the same stuff being said over and over, lol.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Oh and keep the "pity me I was near gound zero stuff." My wife was in Washington DC that day and I lost friends in the Pentagon.

Enjoy yer hate dewd.

peace
mike

classy.

my condolences. i lost friends in WTC. i saw them die with my own eyes as the towers fell. hard not to know anyone here who didn't. we all breathed the death for months afterwards. and my parents lived in Crystal City right next to the Pentagon, drive on 395 in front of it everyday. right again, i have hate, but i certainly dont enjoy it. i have hate for the people who did this, the person you make jokes with so casually. at least YOU knew the difference between osama and saddam, don't you think your president should too?

[illdefined]

and for the record, the Bin Ladens are close, documented Bush supporters.

im sure osama wants him to win too because no one has caused so much global anti-americanism in decades.

[That Guy]

the bin laden family, osama is a reclusive, the bin ladens are legimate owners of various oil and construction businesses... be careful when painting with such broad strokes, its misleading in that it tends to leave facts behind.

and again, there's a big difference between a joke that's meant to be silly and one thats meant to polarize... ones funny, the other is shitty.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's amazing to me that no WMD have been found and the evidence all points to the fact that we went to war over false information yet Bush just blows it off and says oh well. He even seems bothered when he's challenged on the issue. What ever happened to accountability? We're sending our soldiers to their death and for what? Because we considered Saddam to be a 'threat'? That's fine but we should have checked, double checked and triple checked our info and actually found some hard evidence before we marched off to war and had the gov't approve billions of dollars for the effort... which our children's children will be paying for. Another thing that's always bothered me is how we can have people starving, homeless and without quality educations yet we can never 'find' enough $$ for that, but once there's a war all of a sudden billions of dollars become available, but that's a topic for another day.

So what's stopping us from invading other countries we consider to be a threat to our national interests? Oh that's right nothing, we're the US, the world bullies errrrrr world police.

Well that is incorrect of coarse, they have found sarin gas,which is a WOMD, which Sadam said he didn't have, he also continually denied weopons inspector's access to monitor whether or not he was trying to develope WOMD, as demanded by the U.N. resolution, after the first gulf war, that alone is cause enough to go in and take him out of power, end of story! The fact is, the reason he denied inspector's access is because he was up to no good, which also allowed him time to move any technology that he had out of the country, or bury it, I also ask what WOMD did Bin Laden have? None! Yet he was able to do tremendous damage, and now all I here is liberal after liberal coming out of the wood work, trying to say Bush, who had been in office 8 month's, didn't do enough to prevent it, so now he's doing what he has to do to keep us safe in the future, and all the liberal's say is, why are we going after poor old Sadam and the rest of his regime? Hypocrites! Case and point, both John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, have stated that so long as Sadam is in power America is not safe, they have both stated that Sadam has weopon's of mass destruction, I didn't here any demilib's crying about the great stain maker when he started dropping bomb's on Sadam when Monika's dress was being tested for his DNA, all of a sudden, Sadam was a threat, and soon as the dress incident cooled down, Sadam was no longer a threat, hmmmmm, I have to assume that if Kerry believes as he has stated that Sadam has, or had WOMD, that he would have done something about it, to [in his mind] keep us safe, then I also have to assume that no democrate could vote for him in good conscience, reason? 1, he would have gone after Sadam because of his belief of the danger of WOMD in Sadam's hand's, and of coarse there are none. Or they are there, or wore, and he refuses to do what's neccesary to keep American's safe, by taking Sadam out, and doing what is neccasary to prevent another 9/11 or worse, I am not worried about our children's, children's financial burden right now, I would rather make sure thier parent's are alive to make sure that they are born, how many children wont make it into this world because of 9/11? I bet right now they wouldn't mind having to work, and help pay for this war so they can live, and live in a free country at that.

America Bullies? That's the biggest crock yet! we are not the ones who surpress thier own country men, like half the countries in the world, follow the party line or be jailed, or killed, refusing to allow people to have an opinion other than what the govering authority will allow you, why don't you take a long hard look at how many of his own people Sadam killed, with yes, weopon's of mass destruction! I guess we have our nerve after being attacked on our soil, and watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us, to now take the initiative to make as sure as possible that doesn't happen again, and if it does, may God forbid! We will be sure to hear how it was all Bush's fault, that he didn't do enough!

If there is any chance that all info on WOMD is wrong, then to bad, it's nobody's fault but Sadam's, he's the one who refused the U.N. resolution, which lead to having to rely on possible speculation, Sadam bare's the responsibility all by himself! Why after 9/11 people would not rejoice at the downfall and removal of this butcher of a leader, is beyond me.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

offiss, sorry to say but you are wasting your time. I agree with you 100% and I can't understand for the life of me how these other Americans can think so different then I do. But, our Country has been all the better with up until now with MANY opinions.

peace a God bless this great Nation.
mike

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by illdefined

and for the record, the Bin Ladens are close, documented Bush supporters.

im sure osama wants him to win too because no one has caused so much global anti-americanism in decades.

~just laughs
Whatever dewd.

heh heh..he said "documented BUSH supporters"
bwhahahahaha!

His cave living azz is gonna rally the vote.
hahahaha

peace

[That Guy]

all the water trucks in iraq could not be used because they had been flushed with jet fuel, a common soviet trick to fool american chemical sensors...
but I do kinda think the whole iraq thing wasn't cause of WMD, at least not entirely...

And if you ask people in russia right now, many man of them would tell you they hate democracy and would rather have the old dictatorship, with the secret police and all... changing minds takes time; the most important thing is getting all sides to have an open mind... its hard, cause everyone wants to think they're always right... its easier that way. Anyways, the internet is really a horrible forum for debate, flaming and trolling is too common, and people tend to be much bigger assholes.

Next time we have political jokes, can we please try to avoid pointless sniping? Yelling louder doesn't make you right or change anyone's mind.

thanks.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

heh heh..he said "documented BUSH supporters"
bwhahahahaha!

His cave living azz is gonna rally the vote.
hahahaha

just pointing out the irony in your Bin Laden picture holding a Kerry sign when Bush is the one who's ONE degree away from him.

offiss, you're just getting partisan when you talk about past administrations and how 'liberals' blame Bush for 911. no one HERE said that. dems vs repubs is an even more useless debate than this one.

its foolish to think that this war was about national security. or 9/11. its been proven no Iraqi had anything to do with that. and the miniscule WMD you refer too was in no shape or form an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the U.S. like Bush had you believe in the State of the Union. if security is the case then we'd be in north korea, who is waving a confirmed nuke in our face with the delivery capability than Saddam never came close to having. and please, do not think for ONE SECOND this war is about civil rights. if that were close to true, we'd be in a ton of other countries. no, this war was obviously about OTHER things, if you don't see that it's because you haven't looked beyond what Bush has told you. even when his information has been proven to be false.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

offiss, sorry to say but you are wasting your time. I agree with you 100% and I can't understand for the life of me how these other Americans can think so different then I do. But, our Country has been all the better with up until now with MANY opinions.

peace a God bless this great Nation.
mike

Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

[Daseal]

Wasn't the serin gas in tiny dosses within a University used for University purposes? Or was that the tiny bit of serin gas found on a farm that they used for something on the farm. Either way it was far from enough to do any sort of real damage.

watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us

Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?

Clinton may have said he thought Saddam could be a threat, but he sure as hell didn't reach out and attack him on falacies did he? I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.

[That Guy]

bergman (is that his name?) ran off with them but seriously, i do believe he said that, but i do blame clinton for treating the military poorly and he passivity when american targets were attacked... not that that has anything to do with iraq.

[That Guy]

Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?

probably, but since they don't vote... </cynicism>

[SmootSmack]

I was trying to avoid chiming in on this political debate, but I might as well now. So allow me to take a minute of your time with a lengthy diatribe. Then hopefully we can get back to discussing the Redskins

The one thing that always strikes me about protests against the U.S. that occur in the U.S. is that, in a backhanded way, they are the greatest compliment to the country. It was a bit hard under Saddam to gather en masse in Baghdad and protest against the government there. Well, you could, but it would be your last protest for sure. So, if we have these frustrations in our gut over "war," "injustice," "inequality," "children," "famine," "poverty," and "weapons of mass destruction" etc., we can only direct them at democratic governments b/c we would be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed if we direct them only at the totalitarian ones. Strangely then, we begin to direct them only at the democratic ones, as if they are the problem. Some blame the U.S. and Britain for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the demise of the United Nations, and the impoverished condition of the people of Iraq. It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't believe history can show a war between two democratic nations. Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes.

Regarding the United Nations, its recent actions have been the highlight of its history, not its demise. The idea of the UN, after all, was that it be relevant. But for the entire decade of the '90s it was a joke, completely turning a blind eye to the flouting of its resolutions. Somehow the presumptions have been turned upside down here. Let's remember that 1. Iraq invaded another country and then 2. the UN issued resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm as a condition for the cessation of military conflict because of what it had done. That's the starting point. The world doesn't have to "prove" Iraq has WMD; that's been decided already. Rather, Iraq is the one that had to prove that it no longer does. So what was wrong with seeking to enforce that? With respect to the people of Iraq, whether or not foreign revenues flow in is irrelevant if there is a domestic power structure that monopolizes those revenues. That is not the world community's fault; that's the fault of Iraq's leadership under Saddam. The question of whether the world community is to blame depends on how it responds to this situation. All the guilt-cleansing painful anguish about whether this should be the decade of dialogue and understanding is nonsense if, when it comes down to it, the world does not stand up for true human rights when the going gets tough. It is tempting to take the position of "let the inspectors continue to do their work" because it evokes a feeling that we are "doing something," but does so without really doing anything difficult. There had already been a decade of hide and seek with the inspectors. Enough.

In 1987, it became fashionable to talk about the "decline of America." In fact, there was a book that came out that year that said that the U.S. downfall would be caused by "imperial overstretch." The book was way wrong at the time as only two years later the Wall came down, the USSR vanished, and was ushered in a decade of democracy and free markets, the ultimate tribute to U.S. power and U.S. ideals. But that era ended in September 2001. Instead, it is now that the U.S. finds itself in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Korea, in Indonesia, all over the board. The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed. So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves. Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department.

But that brings me to the unavoidable conclusion which is that, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well cozy up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it be simpler certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is. But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot currently on trial in a docket in the Hague.

In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and when it was decided by a court that the new guy was going to take over, the assistant to the old guy, who lost, went on TV to ask that everyone support him. Not a drop of blood was shed. In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song. The next day, I walked through the night of the downtown past armed soldiers, many of whom wished me a good evening and none of whom told me -- or forced me -- to go home. Only in America. As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it.