Agree with Charles Rangel's idea about reviving the draft

Twho....

Wine, *&&*% the cheeze, WINE.....!

And W starting a WAR for nothing more than oil.........

Here's 1983 and guess who sold Sadam his weapons, chemical, nuclear and mass destruction...?

Look familiar...?

 

Re: Twho....

That was before George Bush I sold him weapons.
Iraq is a serious problem however. I'm not going to bash them for this.
I predict, however, that within 10 years there will be serious unrest in saudi, the emirates - how will we react?

 

Biggles has said most that needs to be said but

here is a little more.

Biggles of course continued to point out the HYPOCRISY of the militarists in this country who have never met a war they didn't like, never minded interfering in the internal affairs of other countries like the CIA did, never has any hesitation about threatening other nations without UN or NATO sanctions to stand behind the threats, etc. The rightist wingnuts didn't have the balls to enter the millitary themselves, did they? The rightist wingnuts want to build up the military and complain about government overspending, but they never say how such a buildup will be paid for, do they?

"...but Saddam and his ilk are probing for weaknesses and they believe they've found it in the attitudes of those who are hesitant to do what is necessary to ensure stability."

ROTFLMAO!!! ROTFLMAO!! The only INSTABILITY I see in the world right now is Sapling. HE is the one who is classifying nations arbitrarily as evil or members of the "Axis of Evil". Sapling is the one who has resanctioned assassinations by the CIA, etc. Sapling is the one sabre-rattling at this point, including the STUPID approach (said so by SOUTH Korea I might add) to try to threaten North Korea. The bottom line is the "leader" that resembles Hitler right now is Sapling, not Saddam Hussein. Funny, how NATO is AGAINST almost 100% any action against Iraq and any country who has sympathy (other than Britain or Israel) are NOT supporting any military action. I believe even Australia, Mexico, etc. who are not members of NATO and who have been supporters of the US in past military operations are saying the threatened attack against Iraq is WRONG.

Oh, and you mentioned "hiding behind uniforms". I guess I would have a lot of company because MOST Americans (in poll after poll) have said they do NOT agree that the US should unilaterally attack Iraq. Oh, and at the back of the "hiding behind uniforms" will be the LOUD-MOUTHED conservatives who talk a great military operation, but have never had the GUTS or BALLS to be remotely close to the front line, much less even serve in the military. BTW, when was the last time Sapling went to Afghanistan -- ooohhh, that's right, he hasn't even been over there, has he?

 

Re: Biggles has said most that needs to be said but

You f---ing Gen-X, pasty-legged, pansy ass liberals have no clue. You feel it's OK to defend terrorist leaders like Hussein whose hands are red with the blood of 3000 innocent civilians, while at the same time, vilifying the leader of the USA because he has the wisdom and vision to know what's best for this country and the world. I am a Vietnam Veteran who was willing to do whatever my country asked while loudmouthed, overeducated cowards like yourself hide behind trees and stick your head out occasionally to scream about the injustice of it all. I know it's trite but dammit, love it or leave it. Or, in more contemporary verbiage, if you don't like this country then why the hell don't you just get the fuck out.

 

"but have never had the GUTS or BALLS to be remotely close to the front line, much less even serve in the military"

what does it matter to you? you said serving isnt an accomplishment anyway.
what difference does it make if a president served? FDR didnt, wilson didnt as far as i know. i dont know about LBJ or Nixon.

clinton didnt serve, yet he ordered military action, was he gutless and ball-less?

 

You said balls..and ball-less! Klinton needs his ass kicked along with some other peple!

 

There is absolutely no reason to go around bombing innocent civilians in Iraq. Iraq's neighbors don't want it and they'd be the ones affected by any nuclear weapons anyway. This is Bush's attempt to divert attention from his piss poor domestic agenda. Instead of focusing on the oil in Venezuala he wants the oil in Iraq. Ensuring continued south american oil would be a hell of a lot easier than spending lives on middle eastern oil. But then Bush isn't big on logic.

 

Jerry....

Since our 2 -bit moderator is probably trying to twist the morals of some Chinese restaraunt waitress....
I welcome you to the last bastion of truth and knowledge on the internet...

You will encounter a few of these...(right-necks by name)
Just scrape your shoes, hold your nose and print the TRUTH.....!

 

Saban fan IGNORANTLY wrote:
>>You f---ing Gen-X, pasty-legged, pansy ass liberals have no clue. You feel it's OK to defend terrorist leaders like Hussein whose hands are red with the blood of 3000 innocent civilians,

Listen, you peabrained, retarded freak, where was your compassion for INNOCENT civilians when the Shah of Iran was putting people to death, Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Markos of the Phillipines, etc. Funny, how the rightist wingnuts only try to scam people into believing they care about human lives of foreigners when it is their best interest to claim that. Why don't you get off your HYPOCRITICAL high horse before you fall off?

>>leader of the USA because he has the wisdom and vision to know what's best for this country and the world.

Best for the country, then why don't the American people support unilateral action against Iraq? The polls say they don't. The bottom line is Sapling is using potential American lives to try to prop up a FAILED presidency. He is a piece of trash that doesn't have the brains to execute sensible foreign policy just like the dimwit can't even add up revenues and try to balance them against expenditures in fiscal policy.

>>I am a Vietnam Veteran who was willing to do whatever my country asked while loudmouthed, overeducated cowards like yourself hide behind trees and

Listen, JERK, just because you were a DUMBASS to try to fight a ridiculous war, don't blame the people who would not have been over there to begin with. Once again, lay the blame where it belongs at the feet of the so-called "conservatives' who didn't have the balls to enlist themselves.

>>I know it's trite but dammit, love it or leave it. Or, in more contemporary verbiage, if you don't like this country then why the hell don't you just get the fuck out.

No, MORONIC IDIOTIC, there is another way which is the American way which is probably why you didn't think of it. Come election day, throw out that piece of scum Sapling and elect someone who knows what the hell they are doing. As far as YOUR opinion goes, shove it up your ass, you pathetic TROLL!

 

>>what does it matter to you? you said serving isnt an accomplishment anyway.

Military service is not an accomplishment, but a choice as to how to spend part of one's life.

>>what difference does it make if a president served? FDR didnt, wilson didnt as far as i know. i dont know about LBJ or Nixon.
clinton didnt serve, yet he ordered military action, was he gutless and ball-less?

The matter is in DEGREES of military action and also what caused the military action to be used. Iraq has done NOTHING remotely close to deserve a military invasion. That is why the UN has stated their opposition as has the vast majority of NATO. As far as FDR goes, you might not know this Mr. History, but the US was directly attacked at Pearl Harbor which brought the US into WW2.