American's deserve Bush's profound apology

[jon_forward]

and that test said I WAS A STONER BEAR..... jim you were right it is messed up!!!

 

[eric]

We should kiss Bill Clinton's ass cause those were prosperous times

I could introduce you if you really want to that bad !

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You're kidding me, right? What an absolute joke!

Spoken like a true republican. $280 billion surplus the day of Bush's swear in. Now, $520 billion debt. What an absolute joke. And don't give me the standard inherated debt line cause we all know Bush spends worse than a drunken sailor.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jon_forward
another delusional democrat...

You know whats coming. The democrats are coming out of the woodwork. Bush has even managed to piss off a republican or two. I would'nt be surprised if Bush can't even carry the south.

 

[Annie]

Guess what? There are so many reasons to be in favor of this war, that GW's "Meet the Press" adventure is a non-starter.

If you have a family member or friend or loved one over there, I'm not speaking to you, you already know.

To the rest, damn if I care if independent, dem or repub. WE ARE AT WAR! Get with it. If you think Kerry will do better, dammit, work for his election. I am working for GW. If you have a better idea as an inde-get with it!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by modman
I would'nt be surprised if Bush can't even carry the south.

Is a Massachusettes senator going to carry the south?

 

[modman]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Guess what? There are so many reasons to be in favor of this war, that GW's "Meet the Press" adventure is a non-starter.

If you have a family member or friend or loved one over there, I'm not speaking to you, you already know.

To the rest, damn if I care if independent, dem or repub. WE ARE AT WAR! Get with it. If you think Kerry will do better, dammit, work for his election. I am working for GW. If you have a better idea as an inde-get with it!

Why do you think he felt so compelled to talk to Tim after the last couple of weeks?

Kathianne, are you old enough, or educated enough for that matter, from simple grade school history lessons to remember what a real war was like. We are at best peace keepers/police. I don't see anyone down in a fox hole or advancing on a beach head. WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Is a Massachusettes senator going to carry the south?

Can't say. Lets just wait and see!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
Spoken like a true republican. $280 billion surplus the day of Bush's swear in. Now, $520 billion debt. What an absolute joke. And don't give me the standard inherated debt line cause we all know Bush spends worse than a drunken sailor.

And that has what to do with your wet dreams about Clinton?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

War - "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

Capitalize all you like, you're still wrong as usual.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by modman
Can't say. Lets just wait and see!

You can't say if someone else is going to carry the south, but you can say you wouldn't be suprised if Bush did not carry the south?

So basically you aren't saying anything.

 

[Annie]

So basically you aren't saying anything.

by MtnBkr

and there is nothing new under the sun, he considers himself an analytical thinking. Aren't you impressed so far?

 

[MtnBiker]

Well, I'm not sure about Modman, but you are impressive Kathianne.

 

[Annie]

Thanks, and that's a 'mutual admiration club' we have going here.

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

It is interesting to see that some people here only consider the Palestinians as the terrorists. That must come from the media bias that people choose to believe, or don’t stop to think for themselves. For example, you never hear in the news the term Israeli terrorists, only Israeli soldiers. Yet these soldiers commit similar attrocities against civilians that the Palestinian terrorists do. Last count had the Palestinian caualties at nearly 3 to 1 of the Israeli casualties. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/153314_middeath20.html There is even data showing that US media only reports ~ 5% of Palestinian children deaths to Israeli children. http://ifamericansknew.org/ No media bias? Because the Palestinians have not been given any legitimacy by our government, they are not known as Palestinian soldiers, only terrorists.

The whole issue of tactics used, can fall down to one simple explanation. The Palestinians do not have the same means of acquiring actual conventional weapons, so they innovate what they can to carry on their fight. I am not saying it is right, only asking what would you do in their situation. There is no correct side of this equation. Both sides are resorting to tactics that should be condemned by every nation. Yet no surprise, it appears the US and it's oblivious citizenry feel compelled to need a 'bad guy' in this conflict, with no small amount of spurring on by the media. So it assigns blame to the one side with which it has the least relations, or the group with the least political clout.

So if the logic is Sadaam was supporting Palestinian terrorists, the US is no better due to its support of Israeli terrorists. We lend them money, give them intelligence, share intellectual properties, as well as sell them weapons along with training in the US with those weapons. Tragically out of the eternal propaganda machine each nation employees, people are oblivious to the fact that we too support terrorism. It is almost comical that people here seem to think that only someone as evil as Sadaam could be capable of supporting terrorism. The US could never be guilty of what it is accusing the 'axis of evil' nations of doing, right? So the theory that it was ok to take out Sadaam because he was supporting Palestinian terrorists is a farce. It is meant to cloud the minds of the real problems in that region, as well as attempt to make the US backup rationale for going to war seem more plausible.

IMHO, the US should not support either side in this conflict. We should only act as a mediator in achieving a working peace plan. By supporting Israel, we are adding to the hostilities against ourselves, and creating a larger base for the terrorists to pull from for future attacks against us or our interests. So the big unanswered question is, why have we chosen a side, and how did we come to that conclusion?

 

[sportzter5]

Just thought I'd say modman is an idiot to anyone that doesnt know that yet.

 

[Annie]

Welcome sportzter5, you are going to feel right at home. LOL

 

[tim_duncan2000]

It is meant to cloud the minds of the real problems in that region, as well as attempt to make the US backup rationale for going to war seem more plausible.

You say that as if WMD and Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists were the only two reasons when that is not the case at all.

I kind of agree with you about the tactics of both sides. But I still think that what the Palestinian terrorists do is still worse. I usually hear about them blowing up buses, restaurants, and stores and they are targetting civilians. I'm not saying that the responses by Israel don't kill Palestinian civilians, it's just that Israel doesn't seem to target civilians. They seem to usually go after terrorists and civilians are sometimes killed.

 

[jon_forward]

I believe you are correct Tim...The Israeli's dont sneak a bomb into a crowded area and set it off....terrorist feed off this stuff...scare em and they will crumble...it dont work, come set at the table and talk peace....

 

[Annie]

Right. Palis have shown they have missiles. When was the last IDF suicide bomber in a Pali restaurant?