Post Reply
Page 45 of 50  •  Prev 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 ... 50 Next
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 10:22AM #441
dcrockett357
Posts: 353
[QUOTE=fodaoson;251240]Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.George Santayana

George Bush Told us that Iraq oil would pay for the war.  We were told that our soldiers would be greeted as liberators and that they would be home in a few weeks or a couple of months.  The conservative George Bush forgot history and ignored the Generals, and is now ignoring t he American people.  60% want out of Iraq now.
One of the major causes of the rise of National socialist (NAZI’s) in Germany was the inflation and recession caused by the reparations forced on Germany after WWI.  The liberal American President FDR won the two ocean two fronts War in less time than Bush has taken to create the bloody quagmire in Iraq. FDR stayed out of the war until we were attacked by Japan and then asked congress to Declare war on Japan.  Germany declared war on the US before we declared war on them.  FDR knew that once the dogs of war are loosed they bite where they please.  The 19 terrorist attacking the world trade center never believed the buildings would fall.  No one thought they would.  The building did fall but not because of the actions of Iraq.   Most of the liberal on BN have always be following the path of truth. We document our opinions with facts and sources, We question the government, we question our sources.   I read the Constitution a lot. I have a printed copy of it beside my desk and refer to it often.   I defended it again all enemies foreign and domestic for 23 years.  I have not called any one a name and have stuck to two arguments in this post.  1.  Bush ignored history and common sense Iraq. 2  It  is conservatives on BN that resort to truth stretchingand loose use of facts not the Liberals.  [/QUOTE]

You don't realy think that they pay attention to history or the will of the citizens do you?
Unless most generals disagree he will maintain his course.
War then and now are very different. Sorry to disagree  here.
It did not matter if they thought the buildings would fall. they were trying to send a message.
Although I am a liberal I don't think we have totaly cornered the market on truth.
Yes the republicans are spiritualy and moral challenged.That is why there are more liberals at a spiritual site.
Peace Dave
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 10:35AM #442
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=dcrockett357;251727]You don't realy think that they pay attention to history or the will of the citizens do you?
Unless most generals disagree he will maintain his course.
War then and now are very different. Sorry to disagree  here.
It did not matter if they thought the buildings would fall. they were trying to send a message.
Although I am a liberal I don't think we have totaly cornered the market on truth.
Yes the republicans are spiritualy and moral challenged.That is why there are more liberals at a spiritual site.
Peace Dave[/QUOTE]

Both Democrats and Republicans are morally and spiritually challenged. 

Good point on the General's but truth is that they, not Bush, are the ones that mismanaged the action in Iraq and then sought an excuse by crying about Rumsfield.  Does it ever enter the mind of the liberal crowd that no General will ever get to that level because he/she is afraid of anything?  The military action in Iraq was mismanaged at the start and after taking down Hussein, a political miscalculation of epic level's was done.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 10:53AM #443
claret1995
Posts: 686
Tossing everything aside

This thread was "IMPEACHABLE" as usual the answer is yes and no.

The house could impeach,like a district attorney could indict a ham sammy,the house could impeach a ham sammy but truning impeachment over to the senate for trial is a BRAND NEW BALLGAME.

I consider it this way ,the democrat house would like nothing better than ti Impeach a repub POTUS. Pelosi however does not want egg on face having impeachment tossed out by sitting judge for lack of evidence( this is a very good possibility)

Also house dem leaders KNOW that they are probably going to end up on the defense witness list and here it becomes not only egg but fried egg. With each impeachment charge that falls by the wayside another round of fried eggs is tossed. In the end all charges are in the dustbin of history and the house dems would have no explanation to wasting time and money for a NO BILL IMPEACHMENT
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 11:38AM #444
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=claret1995;251801]Tossing everything aside

This thread was "IMPEACHABLE" as usual the answer is yes and no.

The house could impeach,like a district attorney could indict a ham sammy,the house could impeach a ham sammy but truning impeachment over to the senate for trial is a BRAND NEW BALLGAME.

I consider it this way ,the democrat house would like nothing better than ti Impeach a repub POTUS. Pelosi however does not want egg on face having impeachment tossed out by sitting judge for lack of evidence( this is a very good possibility)

Also house dem leaders KNOW that they are probably going to end up on the defense witness list and here it becomes not only egg but fried egg. With each impeachment charge that falls by the wayside another round of fried eggs is tossed. In the end all charges are in the dustbin of history and the house dems would have no explanation to wasting time and money for a NO BILL IMPEACHMENT[/QUOTE]

Good point.  When Clinton was impeached and he should have been impeached, he should never been on trial in the Senate.  A censure from an impeachment was enough since he did LIE under oath and LIED to a national audience on August 7, 1998, and does have his Arkansas law license REVOKED.  However, removing a duly elected President, barring evidence of treason or high crimes like murder, is a great danger to a Constitutional republic like we have in America.  The obsession with Clinton that got out of control led to him failing to act as Commander-in-Chief against terrorism and the Congress being so blind to the threat on the horizon that every last one of them should have been voted out of office in 2002.  The Clinton Presidency and the mess that both him and the Congress got into set the stage for America to be distracted from the threats that were rising against it.  We have witnessed it all over with Bush and the Bush-haters in America.  It is IMPERATIVE that this election allow for a candidate to be put into office that will demonstrate bonafide statesmanship and that Congress do the same.  Pelosi and her fascination with being the first "woman Speaker," has allowed her to blow the chance of a lifetime to become a true leader and statesman in political affairs.  So, come this time next January, let us hope that the 44th President and 111th Congress can get their act together and manage the federal government in a much better way than we, as a nation, have suffered through both Bush and the Congress.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 11:58AM #445
rabello
Posts: 20,955
Ok, what's the definition of "success in Iraq?"

Purple thumbs and a peaceful cemetery where parents can visit their dead children and thank them for dying in the cause of "freedom"?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:14PM #446
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=rabello;251965]Ok, what's the definition of "success in Iraq?"

Purple thumbs and a peaceful cemetery where parents can visit their dead children and thank them for dying in the cause of "freedom"?[/QUOTE]

Success in Iraq is a stable society that functions on it own.  It amazes me that liberals will never scream for troops to be out of Germany and Japan, 60 plus years after WWII, or S Korea, 50 plus years after that conflict, but will scream about Iraq.  Success in both of those examples have left American troops there so as to build up those societies and let them stand on their own.  The fact that success has not been instantly done is a big part of this conflicting debate about Iraq as well as many federal politcians whooping up the liberal crowd in America about it.  Now that a plan is in place and working, why would anyone shortchange it?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:25PM #447
rabello
Posts: 20,955
Working?  Lets ask those Iraqi parents rather than Bush

btw, Post WWII Germany and Japan are inappropriate templates for Iraq.  For one thing, we had a real war and a real surrender by the governments of those countries.   In Iraq, we invaded them and there has been no surrender, and the people fighting are not soldiers but insurgents.   

Apples and oranges.  But it does help Bush's aim, as he wants to be remembered as the next Winston Churchill, and as THE man who ended the scourge of terrorism for all time, for the entire world. 

Illusions of granduer are like that.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:27PM #448
exsem
Posts: 423
[QUOTE=rabello;251965]Ok, what's the definition of "success in Iraq?"[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase a famous poem,

"In Iraqi fields the winds do blow
Amid the crosses row on row.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:32PM #449
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=exsem;252034]To paraphrase a famous poem,

"In Iraqi fields the winds do blow
Amid the crosses row on row.[/QUOTE]


I don't think anywhere in Iraq there will be "crosses,  row upon row."
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:54PM #450
dcrockett357
Posts: 353
[QUOTE=JosephBaileyOne;252050]I don't think anywhere in Iraq there will be "crosses,  row upon row."[/QUOTE]

Well you are correct about the first three words of that sentence
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 45 of 50  •  Prev 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 ... 50 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook