Everybody with half a brain knows that we went into Iraq because it has the second largest oil deposit in the world. Bush has been able to "pull the wool over the eyes" of some people, but he wasn't able to last night. There's no point discussing which is the greater threat with these guys. They can't be reached with facts or reason. Only fear. That's why Bush still resonates with them. He's still peddling it wholesale. USA1 actually said that Bush won the debate on facts!? Too much!
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
That's a real old spin ont he oil issue. I think that one is dead.
We can't take what they won't give us.
How foolish to think that 1000 lives and 200 billion and counting could ever be recovered in oil assets. That is a rediculous scenario spun by the left.
Just like the Draft or forcing troops to re-enlist.
Kerry has you right where he wants you, believing his lies.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Wake up. Bush has made this country terribly unsafe. You don't create security by angering millions. You don't use war as a tool to achieve peace unless you absolutely must. We went in for oil. This is indisputable. Bush doesn't care about another attack on US soil. He invites it. It will get him reelected and further his agenda--NeoCon Police State. How can so many Americans fail to see this. It's obvious. This is the same agenda that caused him to let 9-11 happen. He wants the US to be a dictatorial empire. He wants to ravage the world and gobble up everyone elses resources. He wants us all to cower and obey. He wants Patriot Act 2 to pass. He wants to burn the Constitution--repeal the freedoms it provides. Another "New Pearl Harbor" would suit his needs nicely. Just look at what he's done using 9-11 as a springboard. The gov't can now monitor your email, your browsing habits, tap your phone line, listen in on your cell phone, incarserate you without charging you for a crime. That's just Patriot Act 1. Which, by the way was drafted in the months before 9-11. You know, the months during which foreign intelligence warnings poured in about an imminent, major attack. An attack which, argueably, could have been avoided. Why on earth would anyone feel safer with Bush? Mind boggling.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Please refer us to the information sources from whence you get your facts.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
USA1 said this in post #10 : This is really funny how we all watched the same debate but saw different outcomes at the same time.
I guess it is all perception on what you believe or want to believe to be true.
Check the MSNBC / NBC poll. 2-1/4 million people voted and 61% said Kerry won the debate. There surely must be a lot of Republicans in there. Yet you state that it's what you "want to believe to be true". This is EXACTLY what you have been doing with your "Swift Boat Lies" book obsession - making yourself believe what you really want to believe to be true.
EA - I said we have an alliance w/ Pakistan. In response, you asked "are you delusional?" Then you said "nowhere did I say there is no alliance". How are people supposed to carry on debates when no attempt is made to stick with original premises? Your stating that Musharraf does not like our policy in Iraq helps my point. Despite that difference, he is still a big ally in the efforts to dismantle Al Qaeda. That is a sign of a true alliance.
ICB - Let me get this straight: Fighting insurgents is "politically motivated". Are you suggesting that all progress should stop in Iraq just because we're in an election season? That's nuts, and you know it. There is a lot of work to be done before elections in Iraq can take place, and our military is hard at work. Discounting their efforts as "politically motivated" is absurd. By your logic, all national "successes" at this time of year could be deemed "politically motivated". I guess our nation's businesses should slow down at the risk of being viewed as political arms of Bush? Let me guess, if IBM and Chevron-Texaco decide to hire 10,000 people, you'll label it "politically motivated"?
Regarding India, I realize they are little threat. That was my point - we can't simply evaluate threats based on their status as a nuclear nation. We have to also evaluate their history, their ambitions, and their attitudes towards us. I don't trust Kim Jung-il, and I agree he is a threat. But Saddam Hussein and the radical Muslims in the middle east presented a far great threat to the US than does North Korea.
usanow said this in post #23 :
ICB - Let me get this straight: Fighting insurgents is "politically motivated". Are you suggesting that all progress should stop in Iraq just because we're in an election season? That's nuts, and you know it. There is a lot of work to be done before elections in Iraq can take place, and our military is hard at work. Discounting their efforts as "politically motivated" is absurd. By your logic, all national "successes" at this time of year could be deemed "politically motivated". I guess our nation's businesses should slow down at the risk of being viewed as political arms of Bush? Let me guess, if IBM and Chevron-Texaco decide to hire 10,000 people, you'll label it "politically motivated"?
Regarding India, I realize they are little threat. That was my point - we can't simply evaluate threats based on their status as a nuclear nation. We have to also evaluate their history, their ambitions, and their attitudes towards us. I don't trust Kim Jung-il, and I agree he is a threat. But Saddam Hussein and the radical Muslims in the middle east presented a far great threat to the US than does North Korea.
Is there even a reason to reply to your comments? You just look like you purposely take things out of context or use hyperbole to make a nonexistent point?
I'll just say, you don't fight battles after every major political meeting in the United States, I won't even bother with you on this topic anymore.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Too much!
10-01-2004 05:42 PM
