...for being party to the filmed execution and interrogation of captured U.S. troops in Iraq.

Watching the Danny Pearl video was bad enough.

Drop a big one on 'em I say. :af: :af: :af:

I agree......we should nuke the entire region out and start over again with "normal" people......no loss to humanity IMHO

If their surrenders were fake---- then the our bullets response to their surrenders are fake too. Right????
Surrender--B/S---they've had twelve years to "surrender" or get rid of that pervert.
And I really want to buy some French,German, or Russian products. I never thought Japanese and Chinese products would look good. Of course it would be nice if we still made things in the USA.:rocketem:

#$%^ em all //big time

I,d like to see us pull all our money & support & our troops/ bring them back home /and take care of us
Instead of being big brother when they need us big mother when they don,t
The money we spend overseas would go a long way in the medical field, homeless , etc

Montreal fans booing the star spangled banner before the hockey game

F TF++++++++++++++++FTF

:af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af:

Oooops----Forgot about that Clamdigger----Quebec can go to hell too---and any products they make(I don't think they make much beside maple syrup)---and believe it or not we still make that here.:smash:

I don,t forget ////////

and their attitude started way before this latest @#$%

many, many years ago when I was a accountant working for one of the big8 we ha da company with 36 branches & 11 plants , Toronto, Winnipeg< vancouver, no problem==but Q&M , every single @#$%^&* time it was a project to get any thing from them //and when we did ==it was always late & wrong


I told my wife years ago I had no desire to visit Q&M or most of Europe , they take our money & tell us to #$%^ ourselves

W/W see what you,ve done





:af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af:

Originally posted by Homerun04
I agree......we should nuke the entire region out and start over again with "normal" people......no loss to humanity IMHO

Homerun04,

You sound terrible saying things like this.

You give Americans a bad name.

If you profess to any religion, you should realize that this is type of thing would probably be looked about pretty poorly by those upstairs.

If you don't, you should probably try to find something else to steer you away from moral bankruptcy.

Or, if you were joking, you shouldn't joke about things like this.


What do you think?

FC -

Actually, I am quite religious and very involved in my church. I have studied for over 16 years the varioius major faiths worldwide, including Judiams, all Christian faiths, Buddhism and Islam. I have earn a minor degree in Christianity and the Cathecism of the Chritian Faiths, and have spoken with Church leaders (to the Bishop level) on this subject and my thoughts. The clergy I have spoken to agree with my stance.

In fact, EVERY organized religion in the world -- in their sacred scriptures -- has advocated cases of violence as a way to eradicate the enemies of God. I would suggest you read the Koran, Bible and Torah for starters -- depending on your faith.

Of what religion are you? I can assure you that whatever religion you are part of has advocated violence at times. In fact, most inhabitants of the Northeast US are of Christian or Jewish faith. There are MANY instances in the Bible (for example) whereby Jesus purposefully inflicted harm against people, and did not forgive them for their sins. The common MYTH in religion is that Jesus wants you to be a passive, liberal who forgives everything and everyone. That is not what Jesus wanted -- it is in the Bible, and if you are a Christian you surely beleive the Bible is the word of God. Correct?

So, I do not see anything wrong with my position. I may have exaggerated it a bit to make a point, but the bottom line is that the US is acting in a clear, moralistic and justifiable (in the eyes of God) way by entering into this war with Iraq. In fact, not entering into this conflict to stop someone from continuing this brutality would have been anti-relgious on our part.

Are you schooled in any particular religion? If so, I would be happy to have a debate (off line) on this subject if you feel it warrants.

I am still waiting for the shock and awe... Stop with the fire works and wipe them out for good.
Its time to stop screwing around and flush out these magots once and for all. Collect your ground intel., and EMP the whole region then selectively nuke any areas you think these SOB's are. This guy is still alive...he is like a rat! Fushem out and do it! I don't like the idea of all these ground troops. Ground wars suck, air wars fought from ships and planes is all we need IMO.
Cleanse the region once and for all...After the dust settles, then sort it out. They should do the same with Bin Laden too, find the city he is in and level it..I don't care where, just do it...end of story.

Rebuilding expenses? ...thats France's problem.

What do you think about these facts:

1) France's huge contracts with iraq (arms for oil)
2) Russian arms and training to iraq...still going on as we speak.
Hmmmmmmmm. and they wanted to veto at the UN...I wonder why? Quite frankly since they have a "conflict of interest" they should not been able to vote in the first place IMO! Where are all the lawyers when you need them?

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman


Rebuilding expenses? ...thats France's problem.

Sandman,

Actually rebuilding Iraq is exactly what this war is all about.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20020730085550-68379.asp

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.22C.halli.probe.htm

Homerun04,

Baghdad is a city of 5 million people. Dropping a nuclear weapon would be tantamount to genocide on a scale rarely seen.

Are you really in favor of burning the flesh off of tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

I do not like the fundamentalist Islamic way of life. It seems totally backwards to me, but I would never kill somebody for their religious beliefs. I guess you would.

It's too bad that the administration has the support of people such as yourself. They certainly don't have such lofty goals as racial cleansing. They're just in it for the money.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20020730085550-68379.asp

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.22C.halli.probe.htm

FC--you have any links to sites that aren't Radical Left mouthpieces?

Just for purposes of clarity---in the original, the 5th Commandment reads, "Thou shalt not commit murder", not "Thou shalt not kill".

The other real knee-slapping thing I've noticed of late is the Left taking CNN to task for so-called "biased" coverage. I guess they have a new cable news darling, Al Jezeera.

Thanks for making my point for me FC. I have often said that liberal, conspiracy theorists -- like you apparently are -- have long been the biggest threat to democracy and the US way of life. Ever wonder why the justice system in the US is such a joke -- for example. Liberals saying that inmates need their cable TV, playgrounds, education and 5-star chefs in their kitchens. Thanks liberals.

You seem to think this war is about rebuilding Iraq. Next you'll say it is about oil, but you will not know what percatage of oil the US buys from Iraq. You will not know, for example, that Iraq is only the number 6th supplier of oil to the US. You will also not know that the US buys the vast majority of our oil from Canada. Funny, I don't remember the US ever bombing Canada. Or Mexico. Or Venezuela. Or Saudi Arabia. All of whom we buy MUCH more oil from then Iraq. I wonder why that is since people like you are so sure this war is about oil?

As for the administration having support from people like me, consider yourself in the minority my friend. Every poll shows that this administration has well over 70% support for this war. And thank God the majority of Americans are quiet conservatives like me, and not a rebellious liberal like you seem to be.

I never said I would kill someone for their religious views. I would advocate this, however, if their relgious views were to kill me and my family first -- and they demonstrated the will, ability and plans to do as much. In case you have not been alive for the past 20 years, you need to understand that the fundamentalist Islamist sect has been preaching EXACTLY this for all those years. They actually beleive THEIR religion tells them to KILL Americans.

So you tell me, what is your solution to this problem? Like all Liberals, I am sure you have a lot of problems with how we are handling the situation, but have absolutely no alternative answers yourself. I remember someone once telling me, "You have no right to complain about something unless you also have an alternate plan in mind". Seems pretty smart to me.

FC,

While I really don't think we have to nuke the entire city of bagdad, I do think that a more poweful air war is needed. But that is MO and I don't know squat about what is really happening on the ground over there. And I am no war-expert. But I hate seeing ground troops in battle when we have a awesome air capabilities.

Second, this is NOT about money or OIL! I am sick when I hear the outspoken liberals pipe this trash. It is so off base that is doesn't justify a response. Perhaps you did not hear the president the week after 9/11. There is a WAR on terror and we will act in a PRE-EMPTIVE fashion to root out ANYONE that, harbors, trains, or supports terror. I think we ALL can agree that the Iraq gov't does develop weapons for terror and supports it in a number a ways directly and indirectly. This is NOT about killing every living person in country...just the leadership that supports this.

Look, I see this war as a win-win-win of both the world, the US and the Iraqis. Ridding the world of this guy will be in all our best interest

BTW, you have been brainwashed by the leftwing media, I suggest you get a daily dose of Rush limbaugh to get a more balanced perspective on the situation.

Back to fishin topics...I hate arguing about this here....I am sorry I posted this reply in the first place. I am only here to talk about bass fishing.

There was a comment I heard last night or this morning that I'll paraphrase "Saddam Hussein has slaughtered more followers of Islam than ANYONE in decades"...

'nuff said...

And no - I think "Nuke The Bastards" is wrong or nuking Baghdad is wrong but I have no problems with leveling Saddam's ability to wage war, the infrastructure of his power, and the infrastructure of his means of genocide... And the LIBERATION of the normal every day joe of Iraq.

And his troops have really shown their true colors too. Bullets in the foreheads and bellies of captured Americans does not happen in normal battle, that is a procedure used for EXECUTION in harsh voilation of the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, us Holy Warring Christian Crusaders are medevacing wounded Iraqis, giving them their first warm meal in who knows how long, and treating them in accordance of the Geneva Convention - Oh yeh, we're the bad guys...

Originally posted by Mike P
FC--you have any links to sites that aren't Radical Left mouthpieces?

If it is true. it is true. If it is proaganda. it is propaganda.

It shouldn't be dismissed based on the source.

Are you saying that you know it is not true?



I could try to find some sources from the far right. They seem to agree with me also.

You all make some good points.

I will try to reply tonight, but I've got to start working.

Originally posted by JohnR
There was a comment I heard last night or this morning that I'll paraphrase "Saddam Hussein has slaughtered more followers of Islam than ANYONE in decades"...

'nuff said...

And no - I think "Nuke The Bastards" is wrong or nuking Baghdad is wrong but I have no problems with leveling Saddam's ability to wage war, the infrastructure of his power, and the infrastructure of his means of genocide... And the LIBERATION of the normal every day joe of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is a sick and crazy f-ck.

I still don't think that justifies the US's actions.

I still don't think that justifies the US's actions.

FC - I disagree, exactly because I am a Christian. Here's why the US needs to act now:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
...where there is injury, pardon;
...where there is doubt, faith;
...where there is despair, hope;
...where there is darkness, light;
...where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
...to be consoled as to console;
...to be understood as to understand;
...to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
...it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
...and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Sounds to me like St. Francis was advocating taking an ACTIVE role in securing peace whenever/wherever it is needed. The US is choosing to use our military to achieve exactly that IMO.

Homerun04,

I'm sure you could find a bible passage that advocated war, but this one doesn't seem to.

I see no mention of agression or hostility.

You really confuse me....since when has the US been "aggressive or hostile"?

How many RIDICOULOUS chances have we given Iraq to comply to the wishes of the ENTIRE world? The US is not behaving in a aggressive nor hostile manner.

Let me ask you.....do you consider a housewife who has been physically abused for years by her husband and it is DOCUMENTED -- who ends us killing her husband out of self defense -- do you consider her "aggressive and hostile" whe she kills her husband in order to defend her life?

Sorry, comparing the US to an abused housewife isn't going to fly.


The US has been aggressive and hostile since started large scale bombing against and then invaded Iraq.

As I said before, Saddam is a crazy f-ck, but this is not the right way to deal with him

I'll make an analogy. Saddam is like a murderer, awaiting trail, while the US is an assasin, acting outside the justice system, claiming it is acting for the good of all, but really serving extremely limited interests.

Sorry, comparing the US to an abused housewife isn't going to fly.

....and why not?? I guess in your opinion 9/11 didn't count as abuse against the US......or the funding of Al-Quesda by Iraq isn't abuse against the US......or what Saddam Heussein said TODAY, "It is the repsonsibility of the Iraqi's to cut off the heads of the infadels" as abuse towards the US.......or the destruction of oil fields in 1991 after the Gulf War, and now in this war unleashing the WORST ecological disaster ever known to mankind.......or the killing of Kuwaitis at random.........or the production of bilological and chemical weapons to be used against the US (by Iraq and Al-Queda) as abuse towards the US (which is UNCHALLENGED as FACT by every country in the world)......etc.....etc.....etc....

It seems to me that you REALLY do not view Saddam Heussein as a threat to the US.........is that so? How can you feel this way when Saddam himself has clearly claimed to be an avowed enemy of the US?

I am getting tired of this exchange, and the illogical thought patterns of your liberlaism that you seem to profess. Thank God your thoughts reflect the FAR minority of opinion in this country. As always, I still wonder why people with your beleifs live in the US if you are so against all that WE stand for???? Surely you are of age to chosse where you would like to live in this world. You seem happy to "suck" off all the services our country provides, but refuse to fight for it. Did someone tell you that freedom was free and there was no cost for it? If so, please tell us who made that claim?

Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Monroe, and Madison sure would love to understand why you feel the US should not be protecting itself or its sovreignty.

Originally posted by Homerun04
....and why not?? I guess in your opinion 9/11 didn't count as abuse against the US......or the funding of Al-Quesda by Iraq isn't abuse against the US....


There it goes again. The Iraq = 9/11 = Al Qaeda, alarm.


Please listen carefully. Though it received little press coverage, the CIA testified in front of congress that, to the best of its knowledge, there is and was no connection between the Iraqi regime and AL Qaeda. Not just that it couldn't find evidence of a connection, but that after conducting its investigation, it didn't believe that there was a connection.

Surprising we don't hear the important news huh?

Another side point. In the same set of testimony, the CIA indicated that war with Iraq will increase that probability of terrorism and military action against the United States.

Originally posted by FCAlive
These brave soldiers have died in a war to line the pockets of Cheney, Bush, and friends.


These brave soldiers died protecting our country and our interests.

How dare you cheapen their sacrifice!

I think the names of these soldiers and marines that gave the ultimate sacrifice should not be drawn into a discussion like this. We need to pray for their families and honor them, not drag them into this topic individually. If you would like to repost that in a different thread, fine, if not, I will do so. We are obligated to them to support them and to honor them and not draw their names into a discussion such as this.


On the topic of this discussion, I see we are not nearing any sort of common ground either. Perhaps this is a failure of discussion and diplomacy. Fortunately, no one dies as a result and we do not need to resort to "military means" of any sort. Unfortunately, in real life, they could not just agree to disagree. Real life offers many difficult decisions to be made...

JohnR,

I agree and I appologize.

FC,

You are truly contemptible.

By cheapening the sacrifice of those brave souls who VOLUNTEERED to serve us MAKES YOU LOWER THAN WHALE $HIT.

Originally posted by fishweewee
These brave soldiers died protecting our country and our interests.

Take your cynicism and shove it up your ass, or I will personally come up to JP and do it myself.

Shut the !@#$ up! :af:

How dare you cheapen their sacrifice!


We have a fundamental disagreement.
You think the war is about protecting the general interests of the US and its people.
I think the war is about much more limited interests.

We probably won't make much progress on this, but please don't threaten me.

That being said, the last post wasn't appropriate, and i apologize.

Originally posted by fishweewee
FC,

You are truly contemptible.

By cheapening the sacrifice of those brave souls who VOLUNTEERED to serve us MAKES YOU LOWER THAN WHALE $HIT.

I spit on you, I spit on the bitch who brought you whelping mewling and puking into this world. It's obvious the doc or the vet who delivered you didn't slap you hard enough.

GO DIE!:af:


Assuming I am correct and they did not die for a noble cause, should we pretend that they did?

You apology means nothing to me.

You can take it and stick it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder how the fishing is in Iraq????

FC_Brain_Not_Alive,

Your assumption is wrong. I will not assume, as it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Get it through your thick left-wing pansie-ass skull.

FCAlive ---
You are VERY ignorant to the ways and truths of this world. Your opinions are so illogical, that I feel you are writing this as a way to goad the good people of this board, and cannot possible beleive the dribble you are writing. Surely, no one of mature age could think and act as irresponsibly as you do.

I hope in the future that when American troops are asked to protect YOU, that they turn a blind eye and allow our enemies to have their way with you. Do us all a favor and leave this country which you so obvioulsy do not beleive in. You are a traitor for sure!

Out of respect for JohnR, I am leaving this thread now. You have not answered any of my questions I have posed to you anyway. Probably because you cannot answer them, or because you need to wait to hear back from Saddam an what you should say in response. Good bye loser!

Homerun04,

I am not ignorant. I am an idealist.
I will not stand for our government going to war without full honesty and full disclosure.

Please post the question that i refused to answer.

For one, I asked you to offer an alternate solution that the US should take in order to resoleve this conflict.....of course you refused to address this because all liberals beleive in complaining without offering any solutions.....

Originally posted by FCAlive
Homerun04,

I am not ignorant. I am an idealist.
I will not stand for our government going to war without full honesty and full disclosure.

Please post the question that i refused to answer.

NO, YOU'RE AN IDIOT WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEANED OUT OF THE GENE POOL A LONG TIME AGO!

WeeWee - I don't disagree with your argument but I do think part of your delivery should be removed... Please edit it before I need to... Still trying to keep the "family-friendly" moniker here...

Thanks,

John

Originally posted by Homerun04
For one, I asked you to offer an alternate solution that the US should take in order to resoleve this conflict.....of course you refused to address this because all liberals beleive in complaining without offering any solutions.....

I want the United States to continue working within the global community to deal with Saddam.

I think that taking premptive military action in the face of massive global disagreement is the wrong decision.

We should let international law decide such a matter even if it will be a much slower process.

Why are we in such a hurry all of a sudden?

Originally posted by JohnR
WeeWee - I don't disagree with your argument but I do think part of your delivery should be removed... Please edit it before I need to... Still trying to keep the "family-friendly" moniker here...

Thanks,

John

I deleted the post entirely.

If you are going for family friendly, why don't you say something to fishweewee

Originally posted by FCAlive
I deleted the post entirely.

If you are going for family friendly, why don't you say something to fishweewee

Read the post with a clear mind and you'll see that I was asking him.

We should let international law decide such a matter even if it will be a much slower process.

Why are we in such a hurry all of a sudden?

International law & the International Body FAILED for 12 years and International law & the International body FAILED since this started becoming a topic a year ago... Is that a hurry?

So is the US above international law?

Originally posted by FCAlive
I want the United States to continue working within the global community to deal with Saddam.


It's too late, Numbskull. We started a war, we ain't gonna finish until Saddam's head is on a skewer.

Deal with it and live with it.

You ain't going to change the world by starting arguments on a fishing web site.

Gentlemen (and I am using that word quite liberally in light of some [not all] of the posts I've seen...:(.......)

I am still unclear of our "friend's" motive here.....I keep going back and forth....but, um, if indeed it is to stir up emotions, a few of you have, well, as I said two weeks ago, been "gut-hooked"....WeeWee, I am especially suprised at you, would have thought you, of all people, would know better.......

Let me say it again....name calling and anger does not make for any intelligent conversation. In fact, it serves the opposite purpose, and makes your particular side of the arguement look foolish.

I realize at times like this it may be difficult to limit your emotons on each side, but think about this for a minute....I saw a thread about the anti-war protesters, and how once they steer away from peaceful demonstration, and engage in violent and disruptive actions, they are no longer "peace protesters".

Um, same holds ture for both sides, guys, so perhaps some of you should look in the mirror.....:(

Carry on...........

Originally posted by fishweewee
It's too late, Numbskull. We started a war, we ain't gonna finish until Saddam's head is on a skewer.

Deal with it and live with it.

In this regard you are totally right.
We have started something that we cannot stop.

I hope the US kicks Saddam's a-ss and the war is over swiftly.

I think the consequences or our actions will not be good though.

I had written a fairly long repsonse to this latest dribble post from FCAlive, but decided to not post it as there really is no reason to dignify his ignorance any further. Surely, anyone who sees his reply will understand his inability to grasp the reality of our current global situations. The self-proclaimed "idealist" probably beleives that fairies and leprechauns are going to solve all these problems.

While I may not be as harsh as some in repudiating you, I can say that in the spirit of this board, I truly hope that this year while you are fishing, that when the Stripers are hitting on eels - you are throwing plugs....that when you finally hit into that 50+ pounder, that your line chaffs and you drop the fish at the boat(after seeing it first, of course).....that all your stripers conatain sea lice......that your new reel has unlimited rats nest problems just in time for your first cast of your new plug......and most of all, that sometime in your life you wake up to how wonderful the United States of America is and that the very freeedom that allows you to post such nonsence on this board is not shared by everyone in this world, and you should be kissing the feet of the US Governemtn and service men who hace UNFAILINGLY provided you with this freedom all your life.

FCAlive = reincarnation of Mr. Stalin.

Steve-

You missed FCIdiot's post earlier.

He put up a list of deceased U.S. soldier's names (who died in combat) and implied they died in vain.

Originally posted by FCAlive
These brave soldiers have died in a war to line the pockets of Cheney, Bush, and friends.

...list of soldiers names, rank, and hometowns follow but were edited...



Even if this mental midget is a troll, he stepped way over the line.

I don't take issue with people who want to have a discussion, but mocking the dead is beneath contempt.

I did miss it, and I take SERIOUS insult to such words or thoughts.

I have never served in any military capacity in my lifetime (and I regret it very much). Mr. FCAlive shows his radical views when saying that the service people of our country are dying in vain in this conflict.

He is ill-informed, mislead, and a sympathizer to all things for which America does NOT stand for. He beleives in turning a blind eye towards opperessive, global tyranny, he beleives the US Government is a big rouse designed to "trick" the American people, he beleives America has no obligation (nor right) to assist the less-fortunate in this world, and he beleives that Democracy is one big attempt to keep the wealthy in control ove rthe less wealthy. In short, he beleives many of the same concepts that folks like Stalin, Moussilini and Heussein beleive in. And we know how history has judged those folks.

So Mr. FCAlive should be proud to know that he has some famous company on his side.

The US has fought many wars, most good, some bad.

US servicemen have given me the rights which I treasure.

That doesn't mean that I have to support the US military without question.

I feel that I must explain my earlier post.

I was tried to bring some emotion to my side of the argument, but I see that my post was truly disgusting.

Again I apologize to those who were offended (probably everybody who read it)

Homerun04,

Do you really think that Iraq has a bigger role in global tyranny than the US?

JohnR -- let's take this question to the populace here at S-B. Can you put up a poll simply asking the following (assuming the verbiage is alright with Mr. FCAlive).

"Do you beleive the US is justified in taking military action in Iraq at this time?"

P.S. For Mr. FCAlive's sake, the word verbiage means "wording".

Originally posted by Homerun04
JohnR -- let's take this question to the populace here at S-B. Can you put up a poll simply asking the following (assuming the verbiage is alright with Mr. FCAlive).

"Do you beleive the US is justified in taking military action in Iraq at this time?"

P.S. For Mr. FCAlive's sake, the word verbiage means "wording".

Have I shown any indication that i would have trouble understanding you, or was that just an uneccesary dig?

Given that I haven't had one person agree with me in posts (a couple came close), I conceded the poll to you Homerun. It might be interesting though.

You have demonstrated an UNBELIEVABLE ability to misunderstand many things this morning.

Originally posted by FCAlive
The US has fought many wars, most good, some bad.

No, dumbass, ALL wars are bad in my book. What is a "good" war? This reflects fuzzy and inarticulate thinking. Typical of most loony left-wing types.

Originally posted by FCAlive
US servicemen have given me the rights which I treasure.

Damn right.

Originally posted by FCAlive
That doesn't mean that I have to support the US military without question.
And nobody here ever said you had to. A little bit of consideration to those who gave their lives serving this country as well as their families is in order, you #^&#^&#^&#^&head.

Originally posted by fishweewee
No, dumbass, ALL wars are bad in my book. What is a "good" war?

A good war is a war with favorable consequences.

Originally posted by FCAlive
A good war is a war with favorable consequences.

Yeah right. Wars are about breaking things and killing/hurting/maiming people. Lots of "favorable consequences" there, dillhole.

When I think of armed conflicts, I think about those instances where the prosecution of which have "just" causes. Like when a bad guy named Saddam Hussein invades another country and somebody has to fight a war to kick him out. Or like when the very same bad guy has a toy chest of evil weapons that might some day end up being used on us. Whether that day would have come with or without a war - I ain't gonna sit here with my thumb up my rear and find out.

In the final analysis, better them (a few wacky Iraqis) than us.

End of story.

Stop harping on "good war". You know exactly what I meant.


I agree with your statement that,

"In the final analysis, better them (a few thousand wacky Iraqis) than us."


I just don't think that is what this boils down to.

Stop harping about the oil issue.

This war is less about oil than the establishment of stability in a region that could conceivably suck the entire world into war.

Okay, I've been quite long enough, and while this may not make me a favorite here, I can't hold my tongue any longer:


"These brave soldiers have died in a war to line the pockets of Cheney, Bush, and friends."

Yep, that was harsh. And if it was meant to say that these brave fellows died believing that's what they were doing, it is definately out of order. I have every reason to believe that our guys in the military are there fighting and dying because they believe they are protecting America and their citizen for all that we have and cherish. And I give thanks to them everyday for doing so.

I think the point was, and what some people have missed, is not the question of what the guys in the trenches believe they are fighting for. Not what the guys in the "War Room" believe they are fighting for, not what Commander Franks believes he is fighting for. And I admire them for fighting this war in that belief. I admire their bravery and couragousness, and their sacrifice.

I think Mr. Alive's question, howver, is what the true motives for this war are, at the top (And by at the TOP, I don't just mean Mr. Bush and his cohorts, but many, many others). And at times, I have to ask that same question myself. And, no, as a lot of you know, I AM NOT a left wing, hemp sandal wearing, pity the world, pacifist that some of you have accused Mr. Alive as being.

I recently read an article that was quite powerful and moving, and I am searching to find it to post it in it's entirity here, titled "10 Reasons the US Should Not Invade Iraq". The article made a realistic and thought out argument against every reason people think we should do it, and I have to tell you, I agreed with every point.

So, while I support our boys over there, because at least THEY are fighting for something they believe in (whether that belief has been the result of misrepresentation or not), I can't in honesty say that I can blindly support the motives of the guys that made the top level decison to do this, as, yep, there is a whole lot more to this than protecting US against attack, "liberating Iraq", halting terrorism and WMDs, and all the other arguements in favor of it. And those other motives are NOT good.........

I'll see if I can't find the article on line and post it....

STEVE,

Thanks for clearing up the confusion, I didn't realize that there was any.

Of course I didn't mean that the soldiers believed that's what they were doing. I agree that that our guys in the military are there fighting and dying because they believe they are protecting America. I also give thanks.


I meant that the reasons that we are being given for this war are far from the real reasons why it is being fought.

From Reuters; Is that mainstream enough for you?


War Could Be Big Business for Halliburton
Sun March 23, 2003 12:04 PM ET
By Carolyn Koo
NEW YORK (Reuters) - When it comes to making money from a war in Iraq, few can match the firepower of the company once headed by Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

Houston-based Halliburton Co. HAL.N can build roads and bridges and camps for American forces. It can transport personnel and provide other logistics. It can fight any fires Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might set. And after the war, assuming a U.S. victory, it can help restore Iraq's infrastructure and oil production.

While questions remain over how much the work will boost the company's stock price, Halliburton's KBR engineering and construction division "is basically the 'corps of engineers' to the U.S. military," said Jim Wicklund, an analyst at Banc of America Securities. "It is expected that the occupying army's infrastructure could in large part be supplied by KBR."

At the same time, the company's oilfield services business, which is second only to Schlumberger Ltd. SLB.N , is likely to supply most of the heavy equipment to fight fires that Iraqi forces could set to oil wells and oil fields, as they did in Kuwait during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

And should the U.S. emerge victorious, Halliburton -- which develops oil fields and drills for oil all over the world -- has the connections and businesses to play a major role in rebuilding Iraq and ramping the nation's oil production capacity back up to pre-1991 Persian Gulf War levels.

"They have the businesses. They have the government relationship already well-established, and, as we all know, Cheney was the CEO, so it makes logical sense," said Denis Walsh, an equity analyst who covers the energy sector for State Street Research and Management.

NO COMMENT ON CONTRACTS

A Halliburton spokeswoman declined to speculate on "what may or may not happen with regards to Iraq."

She referred all queries to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which both said that contracts for fighting fires and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure have yet to be awarded. Neither agency would disclose whether Halliburton had submitted any bids.

Other companies that could bid for firefighting contracts include Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. WEL.A , Canada's Safety Boss Inc., RPC Inc.'s RES.N Cudd Pressure Control and Superior Energy Services Inc.'s SPN.N Wild Well Control Inc.

Reports earlier this month said that Halliburton won a contract to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields but that has not been confirmed by either the company or the DOD.

"It is our information that a contract framework has already been signed," said Wicklund, who rates Halliburton a "buy" and does not own any of its shares.

This wouldn't be the first time Halliburton has played an important role in a U.S. war. Years before Cheney's stint at the helm, a predecessor company built the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station and several warships during World War II. It also helped build the Phan Rang Air Base in Vietnam in 1965.

More recently, after the Persian Gulf War, Halliburton helped put out oil well fires and repaired damaged buildings in Kuwait. It also provided food, laundry, transportation and other services to U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary during the Balkans conflict in the 1990s.

Estimates of how much Halliburton and other companies could reap from the infrastructure and restoration work vary, but analyst Michael Urban of Deutsche Bank said it could be as much as a total of $3 billion.

DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB

How much Halliburton would get is difficult to gauge, though any contracts it wins would certainly generate revenue, cash flow and earnings.

The potential contracts come at a time when Halliburton is contending with its liability for asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, though the company made progress last December with a $4 billion settlement deal.

"The stock price would reflect that they have had investor concern over the ultimate (asbestos) liability," said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital who rates Halliburton a "buy" and does not own any of its shares.

The contracts also may not do much for the company's stock price, since the firefighting business is not a recurring one and the profit margins of the construction business are not typically high.

"While both would be positives to Halliburton, they aren't in our opinion overriding reasons to buy the stock," Wicklund said.

"I would think if you got any jump in the stock, it would be short-lived and somewhat muted by history. It's like winning a $3 lottery ticket. It beats not winning, but you can't quit your day job."

Halliburton shares were up 54 cents or about 2.6 percent to $20.36 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. The stock is up 11.7 percent this year through Tuesday's close, outperforming Schlumberger, which is down 6.2 percent, as well as the Philadelphia Stock Exchange Oil Service Index .OSX , which is down less than 1 percent, both in same period.

Icing on the cake.



JULY 30:

According to papers filed with the IRS on July 15, nearly $14 million magically poured into the Bush/Cheney Florida recount effort - four times the amount raised by the Gore/Lieberman camp.

The money flowed in so fast, and in such enormous chunks, that Bush campaign officials - unaccustomed to Bush's perennial good fortune - were dumbfounded. "I think we were a little bit stunned by the amount we received," Benjamin Ginsberg, a Bush attorney for the recount, told USA Today.

According to IRS documents, the Bush campaign took in $13.8 million, most in large contributions. Listed among those large contributors were Bush and Cheney's two most reliable genies - Enron and Halliburton.

While the Gore/Lieberman campaign filed its IRS disclosures of their Florida recount expenditures months ago, the Bush's recount fund filed the required forms at the very last moment allowed by law. July 15 was the final day of an IRS amnesty program for groups that hadn't already complied with the law.

"They obviously begrudgingly disclosed, and did it way after the fact," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "It's better than nothing, but it would have been better to have disclosed it when the money was coming in."

The filings show that as soon as a recount was announced, Bush forces moved quickly. Money was no object. They dispatched over 100 lawyers to Florida and Texas, booking hundreds of plane tickets, rental cars and hotel rooms.

Among the expenditures listed was a payment of $13,000 to Enron Corp. and $2,400 to Halliburton Co. for the use of their corporate jets and other unspecified services.

"Eighteen months after the election, we find that the (Bush) administration literally flew into office on the Enron corporate jet," said Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. "The administration's close ties with unscrupulous corporations like Enron and Halliburton prevent it from showing real leadership on corporate reform."

Former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay and his wife also donated $5,000 apiece, according to the filings.

Wow,
Thanks FC you've cleared up all the confusion, America thanks you, now post something about fishing, or are you just fishing for an arguement? If so you can give Montey Pythons skit a run for its money. You've made your point now move on to something that we can all use, like a good close to shore fishing report.
Hold on a second, I've got a call .................................................. .......... It's Michael Moore on the line, he said you should come home now.

Unfortunately I have no fish to report. It will be couple of weeks yet. In the meantime this seems slightly important.

No one ever said that there weren't other potential, lesser "motives" for this war as you and Mr. Alive state.....all I am saying is that those other "motives" that Mr. Alive points to are DEFINATELY subordinate to the true motives of protecting the citizenry of the US, and freeing the world of a great threat. It is funny how the liberals says this is about oil. What personal oil interest did Clinton have when he and his administartion bombed Iraq in 1998 for the same reasons we are doing it now? Seems to me if Iraq REALLY wanted the world to hate the US they would have complied with all the UN resolutions, and not given the US any reason to try to remove their regime.

For me, the foundamental flaw in your agrument seems to be that, in your opinion, the US would have invaded Iraq even if Heussein had adhered to ALL the UN resolutions and destroyed all his illegal weapons. Again, as I have said before, the US buys a relative small amount of oil from Iraq. Go to http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml to see for yourself. If this war was about oil solely, we'd be bombing downtown Montreal right now.

Remember, Mr. Alive claimed that the US was a far greater threat to world peace then Iraq. Of course, I can see this if he means the US will engage in more wars then Iraq will -- probably true as the US beleives (sometimes, not always -- which is unfortunate IMO) it is our duty to help the oppressed throughout the world. Seems to me that the liberal thinking on this matter favors that each country act as isolationists, and "minds our own business". If that is the case, go tell the millions of Jews that Hitler killed to take care of him themselves; go tell the millions of Kurds, Kuwaitis, and Shiate Muslims that Heussein has killed to take care of him themselves; go tell the millions of people in France, Russia and Poland to all speak German because we libertaed them all from Hitler. And the list goes on and on.

The US is not perfect, but it is far better then any other country or governmental structure in this world. It has "good intnetions" at it's core, unlike regimes and dictatorships who care little for their people and only themselves. Remember, our rulers need to do the right thing, or else the get kicked out after 4 years. When was the last time Saddam was kicked out becuase his people said so?

Moralistically, for me, the liberal way of thinking is not steeped in much religious or moralistic attitudes. The liberals have short memories -- aren't they usually quite vocal with environmental issues?? (Greenpeace, etc.). If so, how could they EVER favor the regime of Saddam Heussein staying in power with what he has done for the environment? At least George W. has to go before Congress to try to get the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge Drillijng Act passed......and that isd why the US is so great......the Congress said "NO".

So please, don't give me "personal" motives for this war......

Where did you fish last year?
What do you fish for and how?
Did you make it to the show, or were you tied up with protests against the US this weekend?

BTW - I read the Reuters report a few days ago as well......it doesn't say that this war is about oil or contracts for Halliburton.....al it said is that they share to gain in the rebuilding process......what do you expect from our government? To not have a plan before going into something like this?

Please -- to say this war is about making #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney wealthy is a joke....he already is wealthy.....and besides, Clinton invaded Iraq in 1998 (a democrat), and he couldn't even spell Cheney......

Originally posted by Homerun04
Clinton invaded Iraq in 1998 (a democrat), and he couldn't even spell Cheney......


LOL.....:D

See my other thread.......

We need an "ignore" feature on this site.

ah-ha..unsubscribe...

STEVE,

I will assume that the Bush administration is not stupid and understands the truths in the article that you posted.

Why then, are they so in favor of the war?

FCAlive, I agree that these things are disturbing and that these should be bigger stories on a domestic political level. Election reform is a separate issue and needs to be addressed. And if we can spend a year and 40 million dollars to investigate Bill Clinton's sex life, I'd be very interested in VP Cheney's involvement in Enron... clearly a bigger issue than groping some chubby intern.

There will always be a conflict of interest when someone who is supposed to serve the public, gets millions from a few big corps for their campaign.

We aren't debating the Enron scandal and big corps are in bed with politics on both sides of the fence.

It pisses me off and that's a big part of my beef with our gov't, but...

You're really losing me with suggesting that Bush and Cheney started a war for personal finances. It takes more than a few people to start a war and the senate and congress who approved the action, along with the 40-some odd countries who support the war I doubt have stock in these companies.

This is pretty far out there and you are the one who wants intelligent debate. Do you really believe that a few guys got together for a beer and decided to start a war with Iraq to make some cash?

clearly a bigger issue than groping some chubby intern.
LOL........:D

Really made me laugh the way you phrased that......his decision to "grope a chubby intern" only called into question his decision making capabilities....I'll leave it to you to decide wether his fault in his decision making was the groping part or the chubby intern part.......;)

Originally posted by Homerun04
LOL........:D

Really made me laugh the way you phrased that......his decision to "grope a chubby intern" only called into question his decision making capabilities....I'll leave it to you to decide wether his fault in his decision making was the groping part or the chubby intern part.......;)

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

Clinton being wrong doesn't (in the slightest) make Bush right.

FC-

Why don't you go grope a chubby male intern?

Originally posted by Homerun04
LOL........:D

I'll leave it to you to decide wether his fault in his decision making was the groping part or the chubby intern part.......;)

Come on FC, EVEN YOU had to chuckle at that one.........

Fishweewee,

If the television news told you to swallow a foot long crap you'ld gobble it down smiling. You've swallowed everything else they're feeding you.



Great, you've taken your shots, I took a shot. I am posting here in order to change people's minds about the war and trading insults is a waste of everybody's time. Can we stick to the issues please.

FC,

I can only spit as hard as you suck.

-WW

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

Since when did I say this was a Republican versus Democrat issue, you paranoid pinhead!

This is simply an issue of intelligent people refuting the dribble of an ultra-left wing liberal pinhead.....YOU!

OK - this is unraveling to useless drivel... If ya want to go for round three, please do so sans goo gobling sewer mouths please :laughs: