| Author | Message | ||
     Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 275 Registered: 4-2006 |
tjohn- Good post. I would amend my post to say a certain segment of American society is soft not all. I have met kids currently serving in the millitary and they have really impressed me in their committment, attitude, and love of country. As for your characterization of the arab armies as 3rd or 4th rate, they fought better and harder than the Iraqis in both Gulf wars and at the time had much better equipment comparatively. In October, 1973,in what is called the Yom Kippur War, they launched their assault at the same time and threw their maximum might at Israeli defenses at the Bar Lev line in the Sinai and into the Golan towards Northern Israel. Only the courage of Israeli soldiers, and their willingness to die holding them, especially in the North, prevented them from great success and getting into Israel proper. Jordan stayed out of this war and Syria did not attempt to attack through Jordanian territory. The Syrians were repulsed and Arik Sharon, later to be PM, essentially won this war by crossing the Suez into Egypt and trapping the Egyptian 3rd army in Sinai. What I think both countries would be looking for is to delay Iranian nuclear development plus regime change in Iran. Young Iranians are not interested in the mullahs and want western style political and social freedoms. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3491 Registered: 3-2004  |
Young Iranians are not interested in the mullahs and want western style... ...Not what you said before, about all Iranians being fanatics. Which is the truth, factvsfiction? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 284 Registered: 4-2006 |
The truth is as I have noted THE LEADERSHIP places no value on human life and democratic values in Iran. I think you ate too much shad at that Lambertville event Tulip since you did not read all my posts on this issue. Iran has no real democracy and the majority of Iranians did not vote for Ahmadinejad. I did not say nuke Iran, I said take out the nuke sites. Big difference. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3492 Registered: 3-2004 |
FF: Tell me something. Do you think "taking out the nuke sites" would be surgical? Do you think there might be some ....literal...radioactive fall out? If you think there would not be any radioactive fallout, how is that possible that there would not be? If you think that perhaps there might be some radioactive fallout from these "surgical" nuclear strikes, are you calling the cases of childhood leukemia thereafter for generations, "collateral damage?" ps, I didn't attend the shad festival this year, and I don't really like shad. It's a bit oily and fishy. Thanks for thinking of me, though. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3493 Registered: 3-2004 |
FF: Do you think you could answer my question? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 287 Registered: 4-2006 |
Millions vs maybe a hundred. Do you believe Hitler should have been killed Tulip, or millions die as a result of not doing so? BTW- try smoked salmon. much better. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3494 Registered: 3-2004 |
A hundred children are expendable? Did you ever know anyone with leukemia or cancer, FF? Also, what in the world will make this "mini-mushroom surgical nuclear strike" stop at 100? Do you know about radiation and cancer? It's a link that's been known since the Manhattan Project. Your point that one hundred children are expendable sounds like Saddam Hussein type logic. Just a few deaths. We'll be winning the war in the long run. Horrors!! Talk about Hitler!!! I think you're on the right track. He wanted a few six million deaths, to spare his country. Isn't that what you are advocating? Know what I mean? FF: Interesting that you and Rummy have the same debate tactic, rather, nontactic. When you are caught with someone pointing out your own inconsistencies, you change the subject with something flashy, like accusing me of not thinking Hitler should have been killed. What a joke. I think you are actually slk in disguise. Maybe straw, maybe someone from a couple years ago, called NAILZ. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 290 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tulip- If the Iranians located these sites in residential areas they have the moral culpability not us. I don't believe many are however. Hitler killing six million Jews is a different subject and you analogy is obnoxious. The Jews did not threaten his regime or power. But it does show me where you are coming from. It is simplistic and ethically wrong to believe millions should die to avoid the loss or wounding of a few hundred people. According to your flawed logic we should accept a dirty bomb in Manhattan for the sake of avoiding millitary and some civilian deaths in Iran. I think you should spend your time saving the whales and not putting this country and its people in risk of death. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3495 Registered: 3-2004 |
It was your pathetic analogy. Can you read your own writing? You introduced Hitler, pumpkin, not me. THE LOSS OF ONE LIFE IS TOO MANY. I am putting this country in danger? You should be ashamed of yourself making an accusation like that. Go join your right wing-nut buddies on the golf course, or get out and enjoy the great weather we have been having, rather than making pathetic attempts with your rightwing mol buddies to drum up hatred toward an entire nation, while you admit some citizens of that nation do not deserve your conspiratorial plans for their death and destruction. YOU are a potential murderer. Thank God you are not a leader in this society. You have been advocating slaughter on the internet. You should be arrested. And as for your knowing where I'm coming from, I don't think that's possible. You can't. If you think I support Hitler, you are a fool. Sorry, but you can't read. Bye. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5587 Registered: 8-2003 |
tjohn -- the last person who thought the US had gone soft was Osama Bin Laden, and his example was Somalia. I believe he said as much. He was right at the time, but at this very moment one could say his judgement was in error. However, there's a long way to go and he's counting on our resolve ebbing. He may turn out to be right. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1268 Registered: 9-2004 |
The Presidents of Iran & the US, both have messianic visions. Both adhere to religions that say the true believers will go to heavan, then everyone else will die a horrible death. Both think they can bring on these events. Bush says he talks to GOD. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1276 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - Im sure he thinks are resolve has already ebbed. After all we arent looking for him anymore are we? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 293 Registered: 4-2006 |
Foj- may I suggest you call Mel Gibson and see if that is true that Bush talks to God? tulip- I don't play golf and it sounds like you live with a lot of cats. Scary. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1279 Registered: 10-2004 |
fvf - after reviewing your exchange with tulip - I have tulip ahead by a mile. You did not debate in good faith and she out pointed you on all the technical issues. You need to step your game up if you want to compete in the bigs. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 295 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Besides auditioning for the job of Iranian U.N. Ambassador, where's your substance? Your posts sound like a poli sci student at SHU, without life experience and certainly without having lived in the region. Not to be too honest. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1280 Registered: 10-2004 |
So you have to have lived in the Iran or Israel to have an informed opinion?  Is the ambassador job open actually? With all of our jobs being shipped to India and China that is one that might be in jeopardy as well. I appreciate the shout out for SHU - but only as a friendly neighbor. Substance? That was what tulip gave you, but you ignored her arguments in favor of mild insults. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4300 Registered: 12-2001  |
When people attack Israel, a response is guaranteed, but the attacks keep coming. I think this talk about the U.S. inviting attack by appearing soft is rather overdone. I don't think that terrorists really think in terms of probable consequences. As far as Bin Laden is concerned, I suspect he couldn't be more pleased with the results of his attacks. I suppose that Afghanistan has been an inconvenience, but I'll bet he couldn't have asked for a better result than our current state of affairs in Iraq and with Iran. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 987 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, Where is the debate you speak of? And any discussion involving points you better count me in! Do you really want to talk points with me? Out of 435 Reps, how many are Repub and how many are Dems? Out of 100 Senators how many are Dems and how many are Repubs? Out of 1 President how many are Dems and how many are Repubs? Do you really want to play that game? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1282 Registered: 10-2004 |
bring it on - You are one of the few remaining supporters of the administration | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1729 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, I love your selective memory. Here are bin Laden's exact words in March of 1997: "If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return." | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 989 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, How do you know I am a supporter? Can't I talk numbers without being labeled. The simple fact that you a staunch lib and me a staunch con should be able to agree on are numbers. There is no bias in mathematics. You don't know how I feel about this admin. I simply like to refute the nutjobs on this board who like to make wild claims. Sure, Bush's poll numbers are down as are the Repubs. This unto itself means nothing. If you Dems can't turn it into more seats then will you agree that they mean nothing? For 6 years this board has seen its share of crazy threads and grand prognostications, yet the Repubs have continued to not only win, but increase the margin each election cycle. This is a fact and has nothing to do with my support for the admin. I do think the Dems will pick up some seats this year but not enough to take over the House or Senate. As for my support of this admin, I am not a middle of the road type of person. And although I don't agree with all their moves, where else can I turn. We have a two party system. I seriously doubt anything Clinton did led you to vote for a Republican candidate. If you want to call it Kool-Aid then that is fine. I will probably say that I have voted for more Dems for President than you have for Repubs. There is enough Kool-Aid for both sides. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1284 Registered: 10-2004 |
Southerner, I agree the poll numbers will be meaningless no matter what the outcome in November, except as an indication of where the public may vote. If your personal admission of independent thinking is true, then please point out to me your thoughts on a) War in Iraq b) War plans in Iran c) FEMA reaction to Katrina d) tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% while benefits to the many are reduced significantly e) Leaking to the press / Valerie Plame issue f) Paying the press to release government propaganda as news g) NSA wiretapping of Americans without a search warrant h) Privatization of Social security at a cost of 2 trillion to the taxpayer i) Medicare drug plan j) growing beaurocracy k) Policy of secrecy / administration stonewalling on all inquiries sent up by congress and the press l) abscense of oversight on Iraq spending m) No bid contracts to Haliburton n) Privatization / outsourcing of support personnel in Iraq to Haliburton o) House ethics committee changes rendering ethics investigations toothless I could go on. Please pick your sides and let me know where you actually disagree with your elected officials. Personally, in the above issues I disagree with the administrations position on all of them. Thats not dem kool-aid or leftist thinking either, its pure and simple right and wrong. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3236 Registered: 5-2001  |
Hoops, after reading today's NYT op/ed page, I humbly offer for your list: p) Presidential signing of more than 750 bills for which "presidential signing statements" were issued indicating that the president actually intended to ignore them. check it out | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1274 Registered: 9-2004 |
The "LIST" seems to be growing. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 993 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, Nice try my friend, but I'm not biting. Your list is a little slanted but I give you credit for trying. I realize you and many others on both sides enjoy rehashing ad naseum why you have come to your conclusions on issues. I don't fall into that school. I respect your positions and all your research and time spent on those positions, even though I disagree. I have done the same and don't feel compelled to explain ad naseum why I have reached those conclusions. Your inquisitiveness into my positions is commendable. Let's just say with 93.2% accuracy that I stand in the opposite corner from you. That's not Repub kool-aid or neocon thinking either, its pure simple right and wrong. And remember, I am voting for my incumbent Democratic Congressman from my district so I am in essence on your team in throwing out those darn Repubs. Of course, you probably wouldn't recognize his philosophy, but I'm sure you'll count his seat in your column. And you still haven't answered my question about numbers. (You don't have to respond to this request. I just wanted to do like so many other posters and demand answers from strangers. Of course, I'm amazed at how many posters have spells cast upon others). | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1287 Registered: 10-2004 |
Southerner - If the dems can manage to take the house back, there will be impeachent proceedings against Bush. If not Bush will get off scot free with all of his shenanigans, but the downside is that while he is free and clear we the American people are saddled with all his debt and his dirt. I think you doth protest too much. 93.2% difference is fine but in no way can you describe yourself as 'middle of the road'. Thanks for voting democratic by the way. It will go a long way towards removing President Bust from office. I thought I did answer your question tho. The numbers are meaningless without a dem majority, I agree on that. notehead - Its like a bad nightmare that only gets worse. At least 'Freedom is on the March'. what ever that means. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3024 Registered: 5-2004  |
"How do you know I am a supporter? " You have explicitily expressed support for the policies of this administration many times on these boards. To imply that you might not be supportive is dishonest. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 310 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- a mind is a terrible thing to waste. 'nuff said. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 311 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- stop eating that corned beef sandwich and attend to your reval thread. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 180 Registered: 1-2006 |
 | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 995 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, I by no means am middle of the road. Don't you think it's interesting that you probably vote Democrat for everything yet somehow you say I drink the Kool-Aid when I support a Democratic Congressman. Who's voting party lines and who isn't. And if you think a small Democratic majority will be enough to impeach Bush you are moving towards Fojland. There will be very few Southern Dems who make that vote. So even if the Repubs lose the House, I still have my southern boys causing you fits. That may be even more fun than using the majority angle. Rastro, when have I ever been dishonest. I think it's pretty clear where I fall on the political spectrum. I've never tried to hide it. When your right, why hide? You Dems however will be the ones pulling the lever for all those incumbent Dems who voted for the war. Talk about hypocrisy. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1294 Registered: 10-2004 |
Revisionist history. The Dems did not vote for war, they voted for authorization to use force. Its not the same thing. Bush made it plain to them that he was going to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before he ever would go to war and that the authorization was something he needed to make Saddam toe the line. However Bush had no intention of using diplomacy, he called home the inspectors, trumped up evidence against Iraq vis a vis WMDs and sent the troops in. That is what happened. However I totally agree with you that they never should have voted for that resolution anyway. Feingold is the only dem with any balls as far as Im concerned and I would love to see him run for president. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4305 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Bush made it plain to them that he was going to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before he ever would go to war and that the authorization was something he needed to make Saddam toe the line." I don't believe that for a minute. Anybody who voted to authorize the use of force in effect voted to declare war on Iraq. Only a fool then or now would believe that Bush ever had any intention of doing anything but invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was simply waiting for an excuse to happen and Bin Laden gave us the excuse. Some may have voted their conscience. A whole lot more voted what they thought would get them re-elected. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1295 Registered: 10-2004 |
tjohn - it is revisionist history. The intelligence that congress was given was cherry picked about WMD's and Iraqs ties to terrorism and al Qaeda specifically. Here is cnns account Senate Approves War Resolution Here are some comments from the article - Gephart - Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations. "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure. The first paragraph itself says it all - In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. We expected Bush to use the UN not force. There were no WMDs, and therefore the whole resolution is based on a lie. Bush manipulated the dems and the 21 senators all democratic, plus Lincoln Chaffee, that refused to sign are the only ones that were right. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3025 Registered: 5-2004 |
FvF, what does that even mean? "stop eating that corned beef sandwich and attend to your reval thread." You're really going over the edge. Maybe you should stick to the nj.com boards. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 331 Registered: 4-2006 |
I am close. But not that close. Never have posted on NJ.com prefer the really intellectual threads such as these, where I can post with knowlegible people such as you. Read your raising the kids thread post. I reference everything eventually. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 332 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- BTW how do you see the Iran situation playing out, as you asked me? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 998 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, I hope Feingold runs for President as well. I'd like to kick his backside like we did Gore and Kerry also. It would pretty much dash his hopes and relegate him to the back row like Kerry has become. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4306 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hoops, Here is how Bush manipulated Congress. He beat the war drums and had most Americans in a bit of a war frenzy. Most members of Congress then struggled deeply with their consciences and voted based upon what was likely to keep them in office. How, after all the misbehavior of our government over the years anybody would trust the President is quite beyond me. Senator Byrd, whether because of conviction or just politics, quite correctly called b.s. on the war resolution but few listened. I am convinced that Schumer and Clinton supported the resolution because it would have been politically risky to do otherwise in the state that saw the worst attacks on 9/11. So you can talk about revisionism all you want, but unless you were speaking against the war, as was I, prior to our invasion, your talk rings hollow. For my part, I believed the talk of WoMDs, but did not believe that war was justified at that time on that basis. I would have expected similar good judgement from the Senate. Let's see, what was the risk, 1. Intent to build nukes or, more correctly, intent to restart a nuclear program. 2. Missiles with slightly more than the authorized range. 3. Suspected chemical weapons that any self-respecting terrorist with a B.A. in chemistry can cook up in a home lab. Puhleeze - if you were against the war before we crossed the Rubicon, don't turn against it now. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1000 Registered: 2-2004 |
tjohn, I agree with you and respect your differing opinion on the war. I just don't understand how Repubs are called hypocrites. We voted for the war, went to war, and still support the war. The Dems on the other hand voted for war, went to war, and now want to campaign against the war. The hypocrites will be those Dems who pull the lever for those incumbent Dems who voted for the war. No matter how much Hoops and others will try to reason this behavior on their part, you called it like it is. This is the problem with the modern day Democratic party. No one really knows what they stand for. If they can so easily abandon their vote authorizing the war, what will they abandon next? As much as you guys dislike Repubs and posters like me, we don't change our mind with every polling number (if so, we would have impeached Bush ourselves and handed over the CEO of Diebold long ago). |
