grrrrrrrrrr (personal rant)

[PonyOne]

I found out a few days ago my dad is getting sent to Iraq. It's unbelievable, that they will pull a guy who's 48 out of the National Guard Reserves (US) and send him overseas in a situation like this... i mean then it's also unbelivable when you read about some 18 year old kid who got blown up while on MP duty, and how he had only graduated and joined up 6 months prior... i thought our nation was supposed to have moved beyond Vietnam-era practices...

we don't know what particularly he will be doing. I just pray it isn't MP duty. He's less apt to get blown up in the rear echelon than on the streets of Baghdad. Even if he does end up there, I mean, it's still not likely that he will get hurt. I guess you could say it's more the principal of it all. I know I probably sound arrogant, and it probably has something to do with the fact that I hate Bush and didn't ever believe in the whole WMD thing. I don't mean this to become a political thread, but I just think it's ridiculous, and to be quite frank, I'm scared as hell about the situation.

We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have alienated the rest of the world so that we would have to go it alone while they blamed us for all hell in the world while doing nothing. If this jackass wins another election I'm moving to Vancouver.

I'm flying to Boston tomorrow night to say goodbye. My grnadmother is in hospice right now, and she'll probably kick it when she finds out.

Thanks Dubya. May you burn in hell. If hell exists.

[Inisfail]

Jesus, PonyOne, I hope he will be all right over there.. I totally agree with you, there should be an internationall force down their, both for the sake of the Iraqian people and for the sake of the american people..

I hope you'll be allright and that your dad won't come in to any trouble what so ever..

Take care dude, see you around!

[Pantallica1]

It's very disheartening to think about things like this.

It was a sad day in America when Bush took over office and started his "war" that was only stemmed from the declining US economy.

The sad part is, my buddy (who was in the Marines, honorable discharge for an injury), his shooting instructor was a sniper and told them that he once had Saddam in his sights and was ordered not to shoot. So we have to come up with this WMD theory and use a ton of propaganda to get the public to believe it. I mean after 9/11 the American public was looking for a scapegoat, something to use as revenge and it's sad that innocent people had to die.

I feel for you Pony, and the thousands of other families that have had to depart with their loved ones on account of one man's (see Bush) attempt at being remembered. I think it's just plain disgusting.

God bless Pony.

[TheWizard]

why are they sending people from the national guard to Iraq?

aren't they supposed to guard our nation?

I can't stand hearing about this war anymore, a personal vendeta against one man shouldn't be the reason to kill thousands

I'm sorry to hear about your dad, I think we all hope his and no one elses life has to be wasted for this "war"

[Dr_simon]

Hey Pony, hope your old man comes through his tour OK, I sure he will however you cant help but worry a little !

[Jimmysticks]

why does it seem to me that on every forums on the internet, regardless of the subject of the forums, people are always liberal? Aren't there any republicans out there?

1. Saddam had wmd's, he used them to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
2. If Saddam did not have wmd's, then he should not have ignored NATO when he was warned time after time after time, I can't even begin to count how many times he was given ultimatum's he ignored.
3. The statement "why are they sending people from the national guard to Iraq? aren't they supposed to guard our nation?" Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
4. If your dad is 48, and in the national reserves, my guess is that he was not forced into it! If he did not want to serve his country, then he should not have been in the National Reserves!
5. Regardless of whether or not you were for or against the war to begin with, at this point the United States CAN NOT pull out of Iraq. It would be absolutely catastrophic.
6. Plz flame me, I want to see what you have to say in response.

p.s. I hope your father makes it through okay

[b_hoves]

most of you have propable seen this but its funny any way.

WMD (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/)

[hairbndrckr]

Hey Jimmy, I'm not gonna flame ya, cause opinions are like a$$holes...everyone has one...and most stink... :)

Anyways, I must be a freaking liberal.. I don't think I am, but I must be, because I feel that Dubya is just trying to one-up his father. I find it funny that his father attacked Saddam first, then 9/11 happened, then we were hunting BinLadin, then all of the sudden we get a freaking Republican in the white house and instead of blowing away the only guy that mattered at the time, and all his clones, we immediately get into a pissing match with Saddam... He had the attack planned well before all this WMD bullsh*t, you can bet on that...He was probably sitting at home when he first started running for President going, "I'm gonna get me some of that Saddam"

My personal opinion....He used the good people of this country to finish his fathers' personal business....

Oh and BTW get a good look at where it put us.... Unemployment is up, gas is almost to the point where only the rich Republicans will be able to drive anywhere, and the deficit that Clinton worked hard to get under control is now been blown waaaaayyy out of proportion and will only get larger with his lamebrained idea to go to Mars.... While I agree with going there, they need to get someone who has the cash to back it up like Trump and Bill Gates....

[Pantallica1]

Originally posted by Jimmysticks
why does it seem to me that on every forums on the internet, regardless of the subject of the forums, people are always liberal? Aren't there any republicans out there?

1. Saddam had wmd's, he used them to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
2. If Saddam did not have wmd's, then he should not have ignored NATO when he was warned time after time after time, I can't even begin to count how many times he was given ultimatum's he ignored.
3. The statement "why are they sending people from the national guard to Iraq? aren't they supposed to guard our nation?" Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
4. If your dad is 48, and in the national reserves, my guess is that he was not forced into it! If he did not want to serve his country, then he should not have been in the National Reserves!
5. Regardless of whether or not you were for or against the war to begin with, at this point the United States CAN NOT pull out of Iraq. It would be absolutely catastrophic.
6. Plz flame me, I want to see what you have to say in response.

p.s. I hope your father makes it through okay

1) Where? We never found them...anywhere.

2) He's Saddam, of course he's going to ignore people, it's his "fear" tactic. And who the hell are we to get involved? I'm tired of the US playing the "World Police" role.

You know what else cracks me up?

When they capture Saddam, he gets a once over by a doctor, gets his teeth checked and there are MILLIONS of AMERICANS who cannot afford this same luxury. The man we once wanted dead at all costs, we check him for lice.

3) Yeah....

4) True he's was not forced into it, but he's in the RESERVES, why send over reserve forces for a war that's already been over, just so we can be the good old police force again. Screw that.

5) That is true. Once they got in, there was no backing out. No we have to spend millions of dollars, that we don't have, trying to rebuild a country when we can't even rebuild our own.

6) Ok...

Not everyone is liberal. If anything I would call myself Democratic. Clinton was probably the best president we've had, even with the whole sex scandal.

Unemployment was at an all time low, the US economy was in the longest running economic boom in it's history, and we actually had a BUDGET SURPLUS for the first time EVER.

Now, you get the Republicans in office, who cut taxes for the rich, limit the spending for the people who actually need it, and then start wars and spend even more money to try to jumpstart the economy.

OK, I'm done..

[Leedogg]

Well, I see that PonyOne's wish that this not turn into a political thread is all but vanquished so here I go...

Yea, what pantallica and all the rest of us hippy lovin', tree huggin', gay rights supportin', minority lovin', wealth redistributin', clean air lovin', big business hatin', Bush despisin', bleeding heart liberals said.

P.S. I hope your dad is ok.

P.P.S. Jimmy, most of the people who are forum junkies are the younger crowd, and younger people tend to be more liberal.

Kerry - Edwards 2004
(Dean too :D)

[Pantallica1]

Originally posted by Leedogg
Well, I see that PonyOne's wish that this not turn into a political thread is all but vanquished so here I go...

Yea, what pantallica and all the rest of us hippy lovin', tree huggin', gay rights supportin', minority lovin', wealth redistributin', clean air lovin', big business hatin', Bush despisin', bleeding heart liberals said.

P.S. I hope your dad is ok.

P.P.S. Jimmy, most of the people who are forum junkies are the younger crowd, and younger people tend to be more liberal.

Kerry - Edwards 2004
(Dean too :D)

LOL

It's been YEARS since I've hugged a tree. I'm a changed man!!! :D

[Dr_simon]

People seem to be VERY confused with the Iraq / 911 thing. AL Quada and Sadam were NEVER in cahoots, they hated each other.

Along comes dubuyu and tries to use the fury and hatred generated by 9/11 to justify the war in Iraq and cooks up some **** and bull WMD story.

So what has the "War in Iraq" done for the "War against terror", well look in the morning papers and find out !

200 people, wives, mothers, daughters, sons fathers dead in Madrid and another 1000 injured. Do they not count as they aren't American ? What is the deal ?

So next time ANYONE want to tell me what a good job the idiot bush is doing, I would suggest looking in the paper first !

[ketsueki15]

1) i heard on the news today that al queda did the attack because spain supports america
2) i know your probably sad but your dad didnt join the reserves to think that he wouldnt get out of deployment... Im sure he himself could figure that theres a good chance he could be called back to duty...He joined it to protect the country...and for you PEOPLE who blame bush because of his deployment...might as well as blame his dad himself for signing up
theres my RANT

[TheWizard]

I was under the impression the national guard doesn't go over seas but apparently I was wrong

eithere way the are no WMD's, sadam and Al Quida are not connected, and for those who say that we had to go there because of the crimes against humanity there are dozens of other countries where there are even worse atrocities going on and Bush and no one else ever pay attention to them so obviously he doesn't care.... Oh wait those other countries don't involve OIL, ah yess the precious recource this stupid fat country cant go 15 seconds without, but thats besides the point

[aiwass]

Unless there has been a big news update these past few hours, neither Al Qaida nor ETA have been proven responsible for the act in Madrid. Also, these two organizations are both known to claim responsibility for their actions, so there is definitely reason to believe that they might not have been behind it.

About the war and drafting - I'll be damned if anybody ever sends me to war. One thing is dying for a cause of your own, but dying for your government's political agenda is simply not worth it.

[ketsueki15]

dont you live in sweden?? Isnt it mandatory to join the military at 18?? Thats if you live there....im just wondering

[PonyOne]

For those who aren't too familiar with the way the US military works....

The Army is just that: an Army. They are generally deployed overseas, and kept as a force ready to go over to wherever to help attack whoever it is that harms the US or its allies.

The National Guard is... well, before I go into it, think of the term. National Guard. National as in this country, guard as in guarding. So by virtue of this term as well as the armed force's description of the National Guard, the National Guard is supposed to defend this country on its own soil.

Maybe you've heard on the news, when there's a riot, or a disaster, that the National Guard is called up. That's their job. Is to guard THIS COUNTRY ON ITS HOME TURF.

I don't blame my dad for signing up; he signed up in 1972 to get out of Idaho. He's stayed in it since, and been in both the Navy and Army, active and reserve. And I do blame Bush, because he and his buddies have messed up this country's economy so royally and have had so few guidelines in effect that the gap between the wealthy and the working class has become so wide that my dad had to stay in the Army for the extra thousand bucks a month so that my family could scrape along. He's a teacher by trade, and a good one at that, who teaches in one of the wealthiest public school districts in America. And this is how he gets paid back: by getting sent over with all the other worker drones to go and protect the intrests of those rich bastards so that they can keep the gap widening.

I can tolerate people believing that the republican party is good though I cannot understand it. Explain to me the logic of trickle down econmics, when we live in a society that values greed; when a CEO takes his money and puts it into an offshore account, or buys himself another vintage yacht or car or piece of art at $500,000 and lets it sit in his private collection untouched? How can you justify a system that charges us 20 times what the rest of the world pays for medical care, especially when in countries like Sweden, you don't pay anything? I thought we were supposed to fly the flag for the world, and be its role model. Then why are countries with one millionth our GNP better off than us?

It's because our country works like a lottery: people blow their hard-earned money and blood in the hopes that someday they'll strike it big, when in reality, for every person that does manage to scratch that ticket, five million just lose a few bucks? This noble lie that gives people a false hope to raise themselves from poverty is evil. I can personally attest to the frustration and difficulty of trying to come up from nothing to something.

I don't play the lottery, I put my money toward getting my ass out of the gutter, getting an education, making sure there's enough for tomorrow and you know what? Every damn step of the way there's this big hand that's waiting to smack you straight back in. I don't even wnat to be "rich," so much as I want to be "secure."

Anyone who thinks Bin Laden and Saddam worked together is a retard; both men have egos that weigh like the business end of a battleship, and each one wanted to be the one to eradicate America. Plus, in the eyes of Saddam, Bin Laden was a nutty religious zealot, and to Bin Laden, Saddam was a heathen who was a tool of Godless Marxism. It's like Bush and that idiot Nader collaborating to achieve common goals on the environment.

It is pointless to say I'm not left leaning, but I have a conservative sensability and realism, whereas a lot of left-leaning folks are unrealistically wishy-washy. I know that life will never be perfect for all. But the way we are now is appalling, it is perfect for the lucky few and the suckers who think that those lucky few are working for them. For the rest of us... we just watch the American Dream get further and further away, with all our allies and the state of the Earth.

The WMD's are gone, or he would have used them on us in the opening days of this war. Of course he had them at one point; that's a pretty well established fact. But even the investigative panel in charge of our intelligence on WMD's admitted that there was no real evidence of any such threat, and so did our allies. It was a scandal in the UK, but here, it was no big deal since the Survivor season finale was coming up. I am in no way a supporter of Saddam or his regime, who grossly violated human rights left and right. But I don't like going in with flase pretenses. If we wanted to liberate them we should have just said so, instead of being like "there was a secret meeting between Osama and Saddam and they have ricin SCUD's pointed at us..." and looking like complete idiots.

But they didn't really care about liberating the people so much as the precious, flammable black liquid in such abundance under Iraqi soil. I would join up and die for my nation if it was a cause i believed in and agreed with. But I don't agree on a war waged so that egomaniacs can keep their 8mpg leviathans on the road.

And not to flog a dead horse... but Halliburton was chaired by Dick Cheney, and though he had to give up his position to become VP, he still owns all his stock, and he will go right back to being big man on campus as soon as his term is over. And of course, it's just a coincidence that oil contracts are getting handed to them exclusively, when there are better qualified entities to handle the situation in the first place. It's also a coincidence that all our soldiers are getting fed by companies that are subsidiaries of Halliburton. Come on people. Get out that conservative realism, have a Coke and read between the lines.

All I can think of is the song Hail To The Thief by Radiohead...

[ketsueki15]

i disagree...I too live in a Military family and my dad is still enlisted.
The national gaurd is funded by the state but can be recalled through presidential order to support anything considered national security by the US government. The national gaurd can defend on its own soil when activated by its state government but the rules change when the federal government calls upon them meaning they can fight outside the country as part of the total force regardless of branch of service
As for the Spain thing...I just "heard" on the news that it was Al Quida but like anyone else i could have been misinformed
I support Bush but thats just my own personal opinion and if you want to flame me because of that, be my guest..

[aiwass]

Originally posted by ketsueki15
dont you live in sweden?? Isnt it mandatory to join the military at 18?? Thats if you live there....im just wondering

Look at my "location" tag under my nick. I live in Switzerland, and yes, here you do military service at 18. I am however originally from Norway, and a Norwegian citizen, so if I do military service at 18, it will be in Norway in the Norwegian military. There is a difference, however, between doing mandatory military service and being drafted to go to war - neither country would send their kids to Iraq; they have enough professional soldiers as it is.

[Jimmysticks]

I also find it hilarious when people say Bill Clinton was such a great president

If he hadn't kept pushing foreign issues under his bed, they would not have exploded later. That was Bill Clinton's legacy, he pushed everything under the bed and let other people worry about it when the mess came flying back out.

and whoever said that Saddam has never had wmd's is dead wrong, it is a well known and proven fact that he has tested and used them against his own people. Just visit Iraq and take a look at one of the many mass gravesites.

Just look at the points I made, all of them are correct and true, I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything.

[Jimmysticks]

and saying we went to Iraq for oil is ignorant.

[TheWizard]

Originally posted by PonyOne
For those who aren't too familiar with the way the US military works....

The Army is just that: an Army. They are generally deployed overseas, and kept as a force ready to go over to wherever to help attack whoever it is that harms the US or its allies.

The National Guard is... well, before I go into it, think of the term. National Guard. National as in this country, guard as in guarding. So by virtue of this term as well as the armed force's description of the National Guard, the National Guard is supposed to defend this country on its own soil.

Maybe you've heard on the news, when there's a riot, or a disaster, that the National Guard is called up. That's their job. Is to guard THIS COUNTRY ON ITS HOME TURF.



exactly what I said

so jimmy (The statement "why are they sending people from the national guard to Iraq? aren't they supposed to guard our nation?" Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. )
you can lick my balls

and this war does have a lot to do with oil, so again you can lick my balls

either way I hope PonyOne's dad and everyone else comes home aalright (after we clean up this huge mess we started)

[Karma In The South]

Originally posted by PonyOne
I found out a few days ago my dad is getting sent to Iraq. It's unbelievable, that they will pull a guy who's 48 out of the National Guard Reserves (US) and send him overseas in a situation like this... i mean then it's also unbelivable when you read about some 18 year old kid who got blown up while on MP duty, and how he had only graduated and joined up 6 months prior... i thought our nation was supposed to have moved beyond Vietnam-era practices...

My girlfriends mom's fiancé is in the same situation, he was in the National Reserves and last Jan or Feb he was called up(meaning he was sent to a Training Camp for a month in anticipation of war) and told he had a years service. When he was sent to Kuwait in March(I think) he wasnt told whether his years service included training, it doesnt plus they extended his stay so hell be there til May at least. The unit he belongs to, which includes like half of Michigan and Wisconsin, has only one home-based soldier.. the rest are i the Middle East. Out of thousands. Alot of them are students, who enlisted cos the military pays their college fees, cos most people cant afford college, and now like half the men at the local college are in Asia.

[Jimmysticks]

what does the war have to do with oil?

[Jimmysticks]

and also please take a look at the mission statement for the national guard on their website.
http://www.arng.army.mil/About_Us/
http://www.arng.army.mil/About_Us/protecting_our_world.asp

[Karma In The South]

1) Well the Bush family has millions invested in oil
2) The Bush adminstrations wealth is based in oil
3) Iraq has loads of oil
4) Bush eats oil in his corn flakes for breakfast

[PonyOne]

jimmysticks,

you obviously haven't read much about the Bush administration, or anyone's posts, really... no one disputes Saddam's WMD's, they were there at one time. Most infamously he launched a chemical attack on the Kurds in the north of his country; there is a very famous pic of a woman in a burqa holding a child in the doorway. cowering from the fallout; they're both dead, and the chemicals had eaten their eyes and lips away.

I know you probably hate long posts with big words, but try reading mine again... anyone who says oil had nothing to do with going to Iraq is ignorant.

Karma,

I'm sorry to hear you/her are gonig through the same crap. It's sad how quickly it all happens, and it's even sadder how no one is really sure how long deployment will be. "oh by the way boys, you're stay's been extended six months." Maybe by that time, they will be supplying the troops with flak jackets and goggles again.

[Jimmysticks]

There is proof that Saddam Heussein had wmd's and used them.
There is no proof that the war was for oil besides your speculations.

[Jimmysticks]

All of the information in my posts has been proven. If you look at many of the points you are making, you'll find you have no proof to back them up.

[b_hoves]

Originally posted by Jimmysticks

There is no proof that the war was for oil besides your speculations.

Except for the fact that the ‘Iraqi Department of Oil’ (I’m not making this up they have a government department to look after oil distribution) building was left standing while every other building in the street and surrounding streets (some of these buildings were also government departments) were turned into rubble. And the current ‘Iraqi Minister of Oil’ (again not making this up) who was put in place by the coalition (nations of the willing) says that the whole war was and still is about Oil (not in so many words because he didn’t want to be sacked)

[DreamRyche2112]

Hey, i am with jimmy in a way. I am a huge bush fan for these reasons. IMO

1) Bush Obliterated the Saddam regime, can any of you tell me that our country isn't safer now? I dont think so. SADDAM is gone!!!!!
2) I think he pulled us through 9/11 real well, Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do that, and John Kerry would probably had been tremblin in his feet. Bush pulled us through 9/11, and made our country safe from then on.
3) No more Afghanistan fights, or civil wars.

And..... Democrats are for the rich, and they are all for giving money to those people who do not work hard for it. Republicans ( TRY) to lower taxes and are for the kiddle-wroking class families and individuals. Why do you think The movie stars always vote for the democrats?

[b_hoves]

The whole reason that there was trouble with Afghanistan is because
The army wouldn’t pull out of the country (after defending it from an invading force). The whole of Afghanistan was very grateful (yes even Osama), but then they wanted the army out, but the army wouldn’t leave, now people like Osama are very pissed off. The same thing may happen in Iraq, I agree that they can’t pull out at this very point in time, but as soon as they can the army should get the hell outta there.

[PonyOne]

If the reublicans are for the working man then how come one of the first things to get cut is always education? No more milk or breakfast programs. Your taxes get cut by a tirvial amount, you get $233 at the end of your taxes, and meanwhile our defeciet increases 300%.

If you look at a very large number of big businesses, you can notice that the boardroom's paychecks go up, meanwhile, hours are cut, health benefiets get axed because they're too damn expensive, and it goes on and on and on.

The republican party is for themselves. If you believe that they are in it for people like you and me who work their asses off and barely come through you are not paying attention.

And jimmysticks, I rarely resort to name calling, but are you blind or just bad at reading? I said in my post that I AGREE BUSH HAD WMD'S AT ONE TIME. We're in agreement that the guy was a murderous frickin nut... so why didn't he use them on us when we started fighting?? I mean, it's not like his Army of confused idiots with AK47's that couldn't shoot straight were going to make a dent in our numbers, so wouldn't that mean that it would make sense to drop a cloud of ricin on the boys instead?

You go on about not having any proof to back it up, well, where is your proof Saddam had WMD's? Do you have a magical handheld locator that just put a big red blip over Iraq? Because not even your homeboy Bush has been able to find them. Nor have the British or anyone else. There have been a couple close calls that turned out to be pharmeceuticals Saddam hoarded and kept from his people (what a swell guy) but we've never found evidence that WMD's have been there in the past, oh , 8 years.

FACT: even the CIA admitted in a report that it perjured itself in the WMD report... and the UK gov't got in really deep crap with its people/media over its overblowing of the situation. Our "concrete evidence" was in fact hearsay that may or may not have been translated properly.

FACT: it's a pretty well established fact that Halliburton has oil interests in this situation. It's a fact that at this point every other republican in a seat of power has had campaign contributions from Halliburton owned companies or owns stock in the company directly. Have you ever actually bothered to look things up in this situation or are you just accepting what you hear other people say...?

Reminds me of a headline in the Onion... "Bush Not Liar, Bush Says."

I don't even really get why I bother honestly, you'll probably post something like "yeah well you don't have any proof. all the stuff i said is true." and then 3 minutes later you'll post another entry saying "where's your proof? all your stuff is lies. all mine is true and based on facts."

[b_hoves]

Originally posted by PonyOne
I AGREE BUSH HAD WMD'S AT ONE TIME. We're in agreement that the guy was a murderous frickin nut...

yes, yes that is true, and yes we are in agreement. :D

but on a serious note, I don’t think that the way in which Saddam was dealt with was the correct way, and also I don’t think that that the decision to attack Iraq should have been made without the support of the UN.

[Pantallica1]

Originally posted by DreamRyche2112
Hey, i am with jimmy in a way. I am a huge bush fan for these reasons. IMO

1) Bush Obliterated the Saddam regime, can any of you tell me that our country isn't safer now? I dont think so. SADDAM is gone!!!!!
2) I think he pulled us through 9/11 real well, Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do that, and John Kerry would probably had been tremblin in his feet. Bush pulled us through 9/11, and made our country safe from then on.
3) No more Afghanistan fights, or civil wars.

And..... Democrats are for the rich, and they are all for giving money to those people who do not work hard for it. Republicans ( TRY) to lower taxes and are for the kiddle-wroking class families and individuals. Why do you think The movie stars always vote for the democrats?

I know your young, so I'm not going to flame you for this.

Democrats are for the middle to lower class families in this country. They believe in trickle up economics, which means, you feed money into the lower and middle classes and this money will move up to the wealthy. This includes welfare, education, stuff to help out families that need it.

This seemed to work out very well for Clinton as Jimmysticks obviously can't read. Clinton is the ONLY PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE A BUDGET SURPLUS. Unemployment was the lowest it had ever been and it was the longest economic boom in the history of the United States.

Clinton may have shoved his foreign affairs under the bed, but I didn't see any innocent American lives being taken on stupid wars to try to bring out his struggling economy?

Now, on the other hand Republicans like the rich. It's a well known fact that they believe in trickle down economics, as PonyOne has said. They also like to cut taxes for the rich and would ultamitely like to have a flat tax rate. Meaning everyone in the US would pay the same tax rate. So while us little guys make $30,000 a year, we get to pay the same tax percentage as the millionaires.

And in fact, most celebrities/rich/CEOs are Republican.

[sme331]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PonyOne
[
I don't blame my dad for signing up; he signed up in 1972 to get out of Idaho. He's stayed in it since, and been in both the Navy and Army, active and reserve. And I do blame Bush, because he and his buddies have messed up this country's economy so royally and have had so few guidelines in effect that the gap between the wealthy and the working class has become so wide that my dad had to stay in the Army for the extra thousand bucks a month so that my family could scrape along. He's a teacher by trade, and a good one at that, who teaches in one of the wealthiest public school districts in America. And this is how he gets paid back: by getting sent over with all the other worker drones to go and protect the intrests of those rich bastards so that they can keep the gap widening.


PonyOne,

Sorry your dad had to go, but, If he signed up in 1972 , he has been in the military for 32 years. He could have retired at 20 years and not been involved. Apparently your dad is either one fine American Patriot or in debt up to his A$$ and just cant afford to retire. Either way it was his choice. We live in a country that has a 100% volunteer fighting force. Not one person in Iraq has been drafted by the US. Each man and woman signed up on their own. Most of them were looking for a free education or a guaranteed paycheck. I did 8 years in the US Navy and I was at risk every day to go to war or police action if the President called on me. That is what we do in our country to get the Freedom that each of us enjoys. EX. this forum.... no censorship and the ability to say what we want even if it is disrespectful to the most powerful man in the world.

I may not agree with everything Bush does, but he is the Commander and chief and I will support him until he is no longer in office. I thought Clinton was a whoremonger and an embarrassement to our country. Not to mention he lied under oath to the nation about misconduct in the oval office instead of being a man and owning up to wrongdoings. If that is Democratic behavior, then I'll be a Republican.

Dude, I pray your dad comes home and doesnt incur any harm and my thoughts and prayers will be with him. But dont blame America or Bush for the CHOICE he made to stay even after he could have retired 12 years ago.

Just my opinion.... So let the flaming begin.
Tim

[Azrael]

Forget that fruitless search for missing weapons of mass destruction or the way our leaders inadvertently cemented in place a connection between Islamist terrorists and Iraqi resistance groups that, twelve months ago, existed only in the most perfervid fantasies of the neocons. These are but the fallout from something far larger -- the loosing of a principle of brute force on the world by a country intent on global domination. It's clear enough now that the "successful" war in Iraq, followed by a Pentagon-run bout of "nation-building," turned out to be a road to nowhere anyone should want to go. But with its doctrine of "preventive war," the Bush administration has loosed another principle on the world as well -- of international chaos. Jonathan Schell in a remarkable look into the depths of our anniversary moment in The Nation (and posted on ZNet) calls this the "globalization of proliferation."



It's strange. In the years before the second Gulf War, much was written by various pundits on the "failed states" of what used to be called the Third World; those dangerous places where no government could get a toehold, and life, it seemed, was on an endless spiral downward into the maelstrom of all-against-all. Now, just a year after our most recent Iraq war, the Bush administration has somehow involved itself in potentially unending "nation-building" occupations of three countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Haiti -- all of which are in a state of literal or incipient collapse, sectarianism, rampant violence, warlordism, and/or terrorism; but worse, as Schell describes below, it seems to be presiding over what threatens to become a failed globe. How the ante's been upped!



At the level of proliferation, every day brings new and dispiriting rumors or news. Just last week, according to Julian Borger of the British Guardian (3/3/04):



"Pakistan… offered to share military assistance, including 'nuclear power' with Nigeria, in defiance of President George Bush's new counter-proliferation initiative. The offer was announced by the Nigerian defence ministry in a statement saying that General Muhammad Aziz Khan, chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff, had made the offer to the Nigerian defence minister, Rabiu Kwankwaso, during a visit to the west African state's capital, Abuja. 'Speaking at the opening of the discussions, the Pakistani chairman of joint chiefs of staff ... said that his country is working out the dynamics of how they can assist Nigeria's armed forces to strengthen its military capability and to acquire nuclear power,' the Nigerian press release said. Neither the Pakistani nor the Nigerian governments clarified what Gen Khan had in mind."



Meanwhile in one homeland of nuclear proliferation, the courageous Pakistani antinuclear activist and physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, writing at the openDemocracy website (Pakistan: Inside the Nuclear Closet) suggests that the "father" of Pakistan's atomic bomb, the corrupt metallurgist Abdul Qadeer Khan (who, with part of his ill-gotten gains, bought a hotel in Timbuktu and named it after his wife), operated an "empire of patronage" that went to the very highest levels of his society. His bomb-making system was, in essence, a global open secret, condoned (or at least ignored) by American presidents and the distribution system that sprang from it by CIA director George Tenet among others. It is a system that -- as the Nigerian announcement evidently indicates -- has hardly been shut down today.



Meanwhile, in the homeland of homelands, Mother Jones' impressive Washington correspondent Michael Scherer has written a chilling report on our own accelerated bioweapons research program ("defensive" only, of course; no proliferation here, folks) that's bound to be the pride and glory of some future Anthrax murderer. His piece, "The Next Worst Thing" (Mother Jones, March-April 2004), begins:



"It has been called a modern-day Manhattan Project-a spending spree so vast and rapid that it might change the face of biological science. In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. government is funding a massive new biodefense research effort, redirecting up to $10 billion toward projects related to biological weapons such as anthrax. The Pentagon's budget for chemical and biological defense has doubled; high-security nuclear-weapons labs have begun conducting genetic research on dangerous pathogens; universities are receiving government funding to build high-tech labs equipped to handle deadly infectious organisms; and Fort Detrick, Maryland, once the home of America's secret bioweapons program, is about to break ground on two new high-tech biodefense centers… With poor oversight, government-funded scientists could actually be paving the way for the next generation of killer germs-and given the explosion of research, there is no way to keep track of what is being done."



Preventive biowar, anyone?



And speaking of all the evil parties and rogue states considering dispatching enriched uranium far and wide in our increasingly lawless world, just the other day Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad of the New York Times reported this charming little bit of information in a piece tucked away inside the paper ("U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms," 3/7/04):



"As the United States presses Iran and other countries to shut down their nuclear weapons development programs, government auditors have disclosed that the United States is making little effort to recover large quantities of weapons-grade uranium - enough to make roughly 1,000 nuclear bombs - that the government dispersed to 43 countries over the last several decades."



Among the countries that received our enriched uranium and have not yet returned it are Pakistan, Iran, and Israel.



And this is just to nibble at the surface of a world that, over two years after the September 11th assaults and a year after the planet's only hyperpower launched a "preventive war" against Iraq, seems hell-bent on hell itself and whose already modest structures and treaties meant to limit proliferating weaponry of all sorts and violence of every variety have increasingly been dismantled or sidelined by our own government.
Taken from zmag.org (i just love that site - some of you should add it to your favourites - especially those die hard bush fans)

[Karma In The South]

Originally posted by DreamRyche2112
Hey, i am with jimmy in a way. I am a huge bush fan for these reasons. IMO

1) Bush Obliterated the Saddam regime, can any of you tell me that our country isn't safer now? I dont think so. SADDAM is gone!!!!!
2) I think he pulled us through 9/11 real well, Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do that, and John Kerry would probably had been tremblin in his feet. Bush pulled us through 9/11, and made our country safe from then on.
3) No more Afghanistan fights, or civil wars.

And..... Democrats are for the rich, and they are all for giving money to those people who do not work hard for it. Republicans ( TRY) to lower taxes and are for the kiddle-wroking class families and individuals. Why do you think The movie stars always vote for the democrats?

Well, what has he done for you? Sure, hes "fought terrorism"... but what has he done domestically. Do I hear a big old 'neddy no-no-nothing'?

I realise youre young, if not much younger than me, but your view is quite naive. Listen to the people here, they know what theyre talking about. Republicans are for noone but themselves... I'm not exaggerating when I say most of Bush's administration is made of Corporate millionaires... what do they know about running a country? Some of them managed to bankrupt multi-billion dollar corporations.

[Jimmysticks]

I would love a flat tax rate. Wouldn't it be great if instead of volumes upon volumes of tax code was reduced to one sentence? "Everyone pays __% of their income." That would get rid of the special tax breaks to the wealthy that you so hate. I would actually prefer a repeal of income tax, I hate Franklin Delano Roosevelt for amending the constitution for them.

I like the republican party because of their goal to reduce the government. I actually wish the Bush was more conservative, I don't like the laws he has passed backing liberal projects like medicare, letting illegal aliens have rights, and so on.

I would like to see the Departments of commerce, education, agriculture, and programs like welfare, medicare and several others removed. Let the state governments take care of this, let the national government take care of what it was originally supposed to i.e. foreign affairs, regulating trade, declaring war and so on.

If you have problems with a budget deficit, I do not reccomend voting for a democrat. Democrats are more likely to increase government spending, and John Kerry's universal health-care system would make the deficit soar. The budget deficit is not all Bush's fault, 9/11 crashed the economy, so naturally the budget deficit would increase. Plus fewer jobs is not Bush's fault. NAFTA (which I agree with) was signed by your beloved Clinton.

I'm glad to see some people are actually agreeing with me, but I thought it was funny seeing some people say "I know your young, so I'm not going to flame you for this." Like younger people are excused for being conservative because they are not mature enought to understand liberal beliefs.

and ponyone, Bush has increased spending in education by a huge amount, the republican party is for the people because wants more power to state governments that can change policies based on its own problems instead the national government making solutions for everyone. It is true that Haliburton got the contract to help rebuild the oil industry in Iraq after the war; this does not mean the war was for oil. Hell, thousands of companies got contracts from the United States government to rebuild Europe, this does not mean the point of World War II was to build houses in Germany.

And please admit that you were wrong about the purpose of the national guard instead of completely ignoring the proof I posted.

[ketsueki15]

Originally posted by Karma In The South
Listen to the people here, they know what theyre talking about.


HAHAHAH...i disagree...some people here dont have a clue what they are talking about especially when it comes to military and past wars..(i know ive said some stupid tihngs before)
such as my conflict with someone a while ago about the Korean war. Some people on this forum dont have a grasp of the way the military works and its little things...Maybe it could be because 1)they dont live in a military family or 2) there not in the military (which is understandable) but what PISSES me off the most is when peolpe trying to say bad stuff about our military when they wouldnt have the leaset of a clue about the military (not saying anyone has)
Thats just my opinion...I agree with what most of Jimmy has said..Probably because i am a republican
Hadnt it been for Bill Clinton putting all of the foreign issues under his bed...maybe war and all might have not happened..That too is my opinion

[Incidents Happen]

Go on, blame the president of over three years ago for a war not started until the current president's time.

How about we blame Ronald Raegen for GIVING IRAQ WMDS in the first place?

Your opinions, and mine, don't really matter; the election will be effectively rigged when on October 27th, 2004, Bin Laden is released from his U.S holding center and officially "captured". Mass manipulation, folks.

~Incidents

[Jimmysticks]

Originally posted by Incidents Happen
Go on, blame the president of over three years ago for a war not started until the current president's time.

How about we blame Ronald Raegen for GIVING IRAQ WMDS in the first place?

Your opinions, and mine, don't really matter; the election will be effectively rigged when on October 27th, 2004, Bin Laden is released from his U.S holding center and officially "captured". Mass manipulation, folks.

~Incidents

I love conspiracies :D

[Incidents Happen]

die

[Dr_simon]

Welcome back Incidents, long time no post !

[ketsueki15]

your exactly right incidents, i am blaming President Clinton for the lead up to this war...If he hadnt been so lousy with the foreign issues then maybe could have been avoided
Bill Clinton lacked integrity, for the most part the military didnt respect him, he didnt serve in any form of military, in the end of his presidency he led the downward spiral of the economy and the next president to serve was left with his crap, he lacked credibility, he had the chance to kill osama but screwed up, and probably worst of the worst, He lied under oath infront of the supreme court...IMHO
Heres a few key things repblican presidents have done
!)When the Libyans became the #1 sponsor of international terrorism, Reagan bombed Gaddafi into stunned quiescence.
2)Reagan ended the Cold War.
3)when Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. Bush tossed the Iraqis out.
4)When Muslim terrorists attacked America on 9/11, George W. Bush invaded and destroyed their stronghold, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
now can you give me one equivalent action by a Democrat president?
Lobbing a cruise missile onto an empty tent, and boycotting the Moscow Olympics doesn't really stack up to what the republican presidents have done.
These are all proven facts.

[Jimmysticks]

Originally posted by ketsueki15
your exactly right incidents, i am blaming President Clinton for the lead up to this war...If he hadnt been so lousy with the foreign issues then maybe could have been avoided
Bill Clinton lacked integrity, for the most part the military didnt respect him, he didnt serve in any form of military, in the end of his presidency he led the downward spiral of the economy and the next president to serve was left with his crap, he lacked credibility, he had the chance to kill osama but screwed up, and probably worst of the worst, He lied under oath infront of the supreme court...IMHO
Heres a few key things repblican presidents have done
!)When the Libyans became the #1 sponsor of international terrorism, Reagan bombed Gaddafi into stunned quiescence.
2)Reagan ended the Cold War.
3)when Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. Bush tossed the Iraqis out.
4)When Muslim terrorists attacked America on 9/11, George W. Bush invaded and destroyed their stronghold, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
now can you give me one equivalent action by a Democrat president?
Lobbing a cruise missile onto an empty tent, and boycotting the Moscow Olympics doesn't really stack up to what the republican presidents have done.
These are all proven facts.

Finally! my kind of guy! Reagan was the man. Some of his quotes still crack me up, like these two

"A hard days work never killed anyone, but why take that chance?"
"A tree is a tree, how many do you need to look at?"

[Incidents Happen]

Originally posted by ketsueki15
your exactly right incidents, i am blaming President Clinton for the lead up to this war...If he hadnt been so lousy with the foreign issues then maybe could have been avoided
Bill Clinton lacked integrity, for the most part the military didnt respect him, he didnt serve in any form of military, in the end of his presidency he led the downward spiral of the economy and the next president to serve was left with his crap, he lacked credibility, he had the chance to kill osama but screwed up, and probably worst of the worst, He lied under oath infront of the supreme court...IMHO
Heres a few key things repblican presidents have done
!)When the Libyans became the #1 sponsor of international terrorism, Reagan bombed Gaddafi into stunned quiescence.
2)Reagan ended the Cold War.
3)when Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. Bush tossed the Iraqis out.
4)When Muslim terrorists attacked America on 9/11, George W. Bush invaded and destroyed their stronghold, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
now can you give me one equivalent action by a Democrat president?
Lobbing a cruise missile onto an empty tent, and boycotting the Moscow Olympics doesn't really stack up to what the republican presidents have done.
These are all proven facts.

Reading some previous messages- there is no credibility in "Al Gore would have done _______" and "John Kerry would be shaking in his boots........" . There is no fact in that, poo-poo pants.

I suppose Pearl Harbor being attacked and "FDR whooping ass on the japs and nazi's" doesn't count? After all, it wasn't like it was a world war or anything...............

I'd love to see how long you'd be a republican when you find your pretty little bum bum on the streets. I'd love to see you say "I detest welfare! Who needs it!? Same goes for head-start, my kids don't need it! Oh wait, i'm unemployed, I need welfare to get back on my feet, I need headstart so my kids can get a decent meal in the morning".

niced up yer post -eggman

[Azrael]

.. seeing all the immaturity, stupidity and naivity in this thread virtually makes me puke.

[ketsueki15]

since your so sick...can we have your dragon??