Steve...
Originally Posted by sireousrex,May 3 2007, 08:53 PM
No reason eh? Didn't we already talk about the rape, genocide, torture, defiance of UN resolutions, shooting missiles at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, always playing games with the UN inspectors, and I still say there were WMDs there but he got rid of them while "diplomacy" took it's course. And don't tell me that he didn't funnel at least some money to the terrorist with his hatred of the USA. Cash don't leave a paper trail.
Oh, and we can chew each other up for eight hours tomorrow talking about this and other wonderful topics

Oh, and we can chew each other up for eight hours tomorrow talking about this and other wonderful topics

Ya know, I've always had one question about the WMD's. With the extremely high resolution satellite technology that we know about, one can only imagine what the US' true ability is to eavesdrop and "see" things with technology we aren't told about (you know, the secret stuff). So . . . if we "knew" there were WMD's, how did they get away from us?
I am surprised we are not there just pumping out that oil for our own well being. Then as it runs dry we pull out and let'em shoot each other dead. But to do this we would need to seriously upgrade our security and lockup our borders. Ok I was dreaming
Originally Posted by TheToon,May 3 2007, 09:37 PM
Ya know, I've always had one question about the WMD's. With the extremely high resolution satellite technology that we know about, one can only imagine what the US' true ability is to eavesdrop and "see" things with technology we aren't told about (you know, the secret stuff). So . . . if we "knew" there were WMD's, how did they get away from us?
1. The current situation in Irag is not a war. It's a police action. Bush announced this himself four years ago...remember mission accomplished?
2. A police action on a populous that does not want to, or not willing to stand up for themselves can not be 'won'.
3. Iraq is in social chaos. People with means have left. Wouldn't you? As a result, the population that is left are all the people who don't have the means to escape. What event has happened more locally where people who are used to having things provided for them are left stranded (think Mardi-gras).
4. I have never understood the use of the term 'liberal'. Lets think of other terms with the same root. Liberation, liberty, liberties. Why do conservatives like to name call people as 'liberals' yet like to flaunt that they are liberating people, or in the pursuit of liberty? I think calling a news organization liberal or anything else, makes about as much sense as me calling someone a "right wing religious nut job". There is no benefit to doing so, it just alienates people and their willingness to work together to solve problems.
5. As a general rule I don't subscribe to any news agency that needs to turn a profit. Think about it, how objective is their reporting going to really be? Unfortunately, in the US, to get unbiased news you need to look outside our own homegrown organizations.
6. Does anyone think that Bush is actually in charge of this administration? The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that Cheney has the true power.
2. A police action on a populous that does not want to, or not willing to stand up for themselves can not be 'won'.
3. Iraq is in social chaos. People with means have left. Wouldn't you? As a result, the population that is left are all the people who don't have the means to escape. What event has happened more locally where people who are used to having things provided for them are left stranded (think Mardi-gras).
4. I have never understood the use of the term 'liberal'. Lets think of other terms with the same root. Liberation, liberty, liberties. Why do conservatives like to name call people as 'liberals' yet like to flaunt that they are liberating people, or in the pursuit of liberty? I think calling a news organization liberal or anything else, makes about as much sense as me calling someone a "right wing religious nut job". There is no benefit to doing so, it just alienates people and their willingness to work together to solve problems.
5. As a general rule I don't subscribe to any news agency that needs to turn a profit. Think about it, how objective is their reporting going to really be? Unfortunately, in the US, to get unbiased news you need to look outside our own homegrown organizations.
6. Does anyone think that Bush is actually in charge of this administration? The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that Cheney has the true power.
I was always of the impression that the word "liberal" comes not from any of those root words you listed but how they are so "liberal" with the welfare and social programs 
I do not see how some people feel that they are qualified to speak for a population of people and state that they don't want our help getting rid of murderous, torturing groups of individuals. Have you held some secret meetings with a delegation of Iraqis which have told you this?
Care to elaborate on the Cheney comment? I see no evidence of that... That is just like saying good old Billy Clinton let Hillary run the show back then. You Democrats hated that comment...

I do not see how some people feel that they are qualified to speak for a population of people and state that they don't want our help getting rid of murderous, torturing groups of individuals. Have you held some secret meetings with a delegation of Iraqis which have told you this?
Care to elaborate on the Cheney comment? I see no evidence of that... That is just like saying good old Billy Clinton let Hillary run the show back then. You Democrats hated that comment...
I believe that the definition of liberal vs conservative applies to the interpretation of rules.
conservatives follow a specific rigid dogmatic approach to rules. so it is written so it shall be done.
liberals are far more pragmatic in rules as guidelines for behavior as opposed to gospel which must be followed regardless of circumstances.
to a conservative there is nothing worse than someone who won't follow orders.
the liberal can't imagine anything worse than blindly following orders on the basis of allegience alone.
conservatives follow a specific rigid dogmatic approach to rules. so it is written so it shall be done.
liberals are far more pragmatic in rules as guidelines for behavior as opposed to gospel which must be followed regardless of circumstances.
to a conservative there is nothing worse than someone who won't follow orders.
the liberal can't imagine anything worse than blindly following orders on the basis of allegience alone.








