About the war...... - Page 3

time to make my Return to the Forums,

Tanker, Welcome, and i agree with what you said 100%
I am currently Navy DEP goin in as a CTT

And i do woult like to thank Walts for coming b4 us


(why was my postcount erased?)

Again my computer would not allow me to post my original statement/reply...sorry let em try again.
(this also refers to my last "fallen" reply, which for some reason was attacked)

WMD...You find info convincing me that the precursor chemicals to Sarin and VX can be used for other purposes than warfare and I'll concede that point. Until then...study up!
Also the Resolutions that were violated by Iraq's Baath regime stated that force could be used to make sure Iraq complied with the UN. Since the US helped create and signed those documents, then I think it is more than right to enforce them in the original manner set forth by the very govt. body of the world that mandated force in the first place.

The electoral college is constitutional law...change it only by lobbying congress to ratify an amendment doing so, changing that law. Not with rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and websites containing such theories. Amendments and court precidents change constutional law...end of argument!!!

Your less than supportive comments might get you hurt one day by a veteran who risked life and limb to protect you. Some fucking respect is all that we ask for those who sacrifice so much. I would almost be inclined to make an exception to my rule about harming others for their views. Thank the stars I'm a God fearing man.

Yes George Patton is the answer. If it wasn't for his sacrifice the French, Russians, and maybe even Americans, would be speaking GERMAN RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Here is the prtion of the constitution that speaks of the electoral college. Please note that it was a tough decision on the part of the Founding Fathers to adopt this form of election,but also voted down, TWICE, the idea of letting the people decide the election of the president. Bush won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, thus negating the popular vote, which according to the document before you, is not the deciding factor in the presidential elections in the United States. The government Rests your honor. (note: there is an anotation that hekps to explain the circumstances and details of this piece of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW)
Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office
of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
Elector.
Clause 3. The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote
by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an
Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which
List they shall sign and cer

[[Page 427]]
tify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of Government of the United
States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed: and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House
shall in like manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President,
the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State
having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or
Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States
shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the
President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the
Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or
more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot
the Vice President.
Clause 4. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the
same throughout the United States.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The electoral college was one of the compromises by which the
delegates were able to agree on the document finally produced. ``This
subject,'' said James Wilson, referring to the issue of the manner in
which the President was to be selected, ``has greatly divided the House,
and will also divide people out of doors. It is in

[[Page 428]]
truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide.''\64\
Adoption of the electoral college plan came late in the Convention,
which had previously adopted on four occasions provisions for election
of the executive by the Congress and had twice defeated proposals for
election by the people directly.\65\ Itself the product of compromise,
the electoral college probably did not work as any member of the
Convention could have foreseen, because the development of political
parties and nomination of presidential candidates through them and
designation of electors by the parties soon reduced the concept of the
elector as an independent force to the vanishing point in practice if
not in theory.\66\ But the college remains despite numerous efforts to
adopt another method, a relic perhaps but still a significant one.

The last points in this are understood and make a good point as to the effectiveness of the election system, but does not change the fact that this is our system and it was adhered to in the last election. Boo Hoo some where else...you fucking lost 2 1/2 years ago...GET OVER IT!!!

Again another computer fart...sorry. I do find your friend and others on this forum to be attacking soldiers of this era. Are you saying that because one enlists today and is sent, ordered to go, to a far off land to fight against military forces of that land, that they are killing innocent people? Are my relatives who fought the Japanese in WWII murderers because they fought for the US during that war?(Our conflict with Japan was far more complicated than just Pearl Harbor... much like the Civil War was over more than just slavery) Are my friends who fought in Vietnam baby killers because they fought NVA regulars in the jungles outside of Saigon? Are my friends who served in the Navy muderers because they did what was called for by their commander in cheif(Clinton for your info)? Several of those friends were on boarding parties that helped enforce UN sanctions on Iraq while they tried to sneak in Russian oil tankers past the blockades. One of my friends lost fellow sailors when the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists. Would you call those who died in that attack evil wrong doers for serving their country? I keep hearing and seeing things like this on this forum and if you don't believe me just look at previous statements about killing innocents for oil. Soldiers do not make policy, they enforce it, sometimes against what they themselves believe. Because that is their duty as soldiers!!!

I am pissed off that I may go and die for those that would not even say thank you! I am pissed that you rattle off things in a half cocked manner like parrots of the liberal media. And I am pissed that you label soldiers as muderers, baby killers, and the like because you don't agree with a policy that wasn't made by those fighting to enforce it. It shows no respect. No common courtesy...that is all that I and everyone else who serves asks for. Some FUCKING GRATITUDE AND RESPECT!!!!

Again there is no answer to my question about a nation's right to protect its interests abroad. There probably never will be. Why did Clinton send us to Somalia? Wasn't it so we could rid that country of the warlord starving his own? Wasn't the job boched by a president lacking the balls to properly equip his best troops for a struggle that turned into near disaster? All that happened and there really wasn't anything in America's national interest in Somalia. Where were you then when good intentions were screwed up? At least now we have good moral reasons for removing an opressive, murdering dictator and protecting national interests. As I see it its a win win situation for all involved. We right a wrong from years past, rid the world of one more evil, give freedom to an opressed people, and forge lasting business ties with a growing nation that needs jobs, money and leaders. It looks like we just helped Iraq with the same thing France helped us with in the late 18th century. Are you pissed that the guy you voted for during the 90's was such a loser and the new man is effective and strong? Are you mad that morals played a part in American foreign policy for a change? Are you pissed that we are trying to help make amends with those we have wronged in the past by giving them there freedom from a dictator we put in power? Yeah, I said it!!! It's true..we did it, but it is our right to undo the past administrations' fuck ups, nay it is our duty to do so.

Do you send relief to India? Do you share your capitalist wealth with others around the world? We can't pay everyone's way through life, but we can start to help as many as possible. You have to start somewhere and maybe this recent action is that point. Have you ever considered that? I don't send money to relieve India because I have bills that collectors don't care to collect after I pay for some Indian kid's lunch. I don't agree with this situation, but until I am able to fork out money for those in need, I will continue to pay my tithes to church as often as possible and hope for the best. That is the great thing about America...we have these luxuries.

WMD...you must not get any TV or newspapers. CNN, Fox News, and others have reported in the recent past on chemical and nuclear weapons found. Weapons grade plutonium was found in a sight that was cleared by Hans Blix before the war. Gee, where did that come from? Tests were found inconclusive, but further testing is being done to verify all of the info found. It will take time to find things hidden in the desert. Just ask any Gulf War veteran about the ability to search through the desert.

One quick question...if think4yourself is so interested in others wartime experiences then he should say that! Not push the idea of soldiers being murderers, no matter what war he brings up in conversation.

I fill with pride every time my grandfathers walk into a room, because they served in WWII. I feel the utmost respect for those around me, friends and family and aquaintances, that have, are, or will serve in the military. These are similar feelings to yours, but with one hard fact...I actually believe in the men and women of today's armed forces.
You on the other hand are trying to hand a pious, "I don't believe in killing people", bullshit spin on the way you believe. You say that past conflict was necessary, but when very similar circumstances hit the US you tuck tail and run back to what you know best...name calling and "diplomacy." You have no basis for what you say, no support for not removing Saddam Hussein, and no morals whatsoever if you feel that murder, rape, and corruption are not good enough reasons to remove such a person. Let's not forget WMD, human rights violations other than murder, and the complete disregard for the UN, the US, and other sovereign states that have tried to help the Iraqi civilians keep from starving.

...and I never said that war was moral or righteous, I have only said that for moral and righteous reasons is it sometimes necessary! Sometimes war can't be avoided no matter what you try.

Here is some irony for you...

Isn't it ironic that no one mention's the first attack in the Arab Israeli conflict was against the Israelis by the Palestinians in the late 1940's? Just after the Jews were given a homeland post holocaust. It is somehow horribly unspeakable to us for Hitler to kill 11 million Jews, but it is okay to mention the number of Palestinians killed by Israel with no mention of the facts involved in the conflict.

Isn't it ironic that Israel doesn't threaten neighboring countries nor the Palestinians with their illegal nuclear weapons?

Isn't it Ironic that N. Korea shut the Hell up after we kicked the Baatha regime in Iraq in the ass? They want to negotiate now for some reason. I guess that means that is one less country, for now, that will be warred with.

Isn't it ironic that America is blamed for UN sanctions that starved millions of Iraqis, that could have been lifted if Saddam had complied with all 17 or 18 resolutions over the past 12 years?

Isn't it ironic that the oil you speak of is actually in the area that the Kurdish people have lived in for the past 2000 years? And that that region happens to be in Iraq? and that no one wants to give the Kurds a homeland...except some interest in the US.
We haven't pushed for Kurdish independence because they are divided as to what they want.(FACT, look it up anywhere!)

Isn't it ironic that liberals keep bringing up the popular vote, when they know, and have been shown, that Constitutionally the election is always, and has always, been decided by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE? And the miscellanious other bullshit they bring up to try to support their "Magic Ballet Theory".

Isn't it ironic that every one of your facts was true, but has no bearing on what actually happened in Iraq over the past month and a half? Or the election that your candidate never could have won?

Well, enough irony for one day...You have a good day now; in your ivory tower of psuedo-morals and quasi-righteousness.

You don't have to agree with a soldier's politics to say thank you for doing something you can't, won't, or don't want to do.
Just remember that the next time you see a veteran of any war...recent or past!

Mr. Decius:

I'm glad your from CANADA. It gives me comfort to know that you would never serve in my country's armed forces. We don't need allies like you either...that is the unfortunate part. I don't wish this, but maybe you'll change your tune if 3000+ of your fellow countrymen die, live on TV, one Tuesday morning. Then maybe you'll know what true terrorism is. Besides the IRA hasn't done anything noteworthy for some time now, so we can't blame them now can we?

Slainte,

Tanker

One last thing...then I'm out for the day...

Wars are fought, all of them, for individual reasons that were predetermined at that time in history. BUT...

Every war fought by the Americans is about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of ... etc. Every time a man from this country dies for a policy, for a removal or exchange of power, or any other reason, imperialistic to you or not, that man has died to protect your freedom and my freedom. Not every conflict is over liberty of a people, or freeing folks from opression. But every war, indirectly, helps keep you free. This is a basic principle of freedom. Its not something you fight for and then forget 100 years or more later...it is something that is contantly a struggle for all mankind. So labeling this war for oil, or that war for imperialism, or that war for nationalism is entirely unfounded in the basic truth about freedom...it is always a struggle to free and stay free!

And the nationalism of colonists, loyal to each other, is what brought about this nation and your freedom.

WMD...You find info convincing me that the precursor chemicals to Sarin and VX can be used for other purposes than warfare and I'll concede that point. Until then...study up!

You are replying to only a small part of my argument, which by no means defeats it. Like I said, I'm no chemist, but precursor chemicals to many chemical weapons do have industrial applications. If that is not the case with Sarin and VX, so be it. If making these precursor chemicals was against UN sanctions against Iraq, the UN would be all over this discovery.

The main point is that Iraq isn't the biggest threat to the US as far as a direct attack OR supplying weapons to terrorists is concerned, because there are other powers with far better weaponry. WMD is wide-spread, and its potential supply to terrorists won't nearly be contained by defeating Iraq. This war is pointless. Bush has made a bigger deal out of this WMD issue than it actually is, and STILL he has fallen short of convincing the world that Iraq actually posesses what Bush claims it does.

Your less than supportive comments might get you hurt one day by a veteran who risked life and limb to protect you. Some fucking respect is all that we ask for those who sacrifice so much. I would almost be inclined to make an exception to my rule about harming others for their views. Thank the stars I'm a God fearing man.

Attacking me physically and getting rid of me has nothing to do with whether or not you are right in this argument, or right in your attack on me. Picking up physically where your mind falls short is also what the US is doing in Iraq. A half baked argument for starting a war backed with lots of physical force. If your statement was supposed to threaten me to discontinue my argument, then you are a complete moron. Yeah, thank the stars you are a God fearing man. *trembles*

Think, THEN act. It's all I ask, of you, and of other US soldiers.

I do find your friend and others on this forum to be attacking soldiers of this era. Are you saying that because one enlists today and is sent, ordered to go, to a far off land to fight against military forces of that land, that they are killing innocent people?

You are responsible for your actions. If you are going to kill people, you should think twice about why. If you are fighting in a BS war, and you had plenty of opportunity to realize that it was indeed BS, then you ARE a murderer in my book. If you fight because the government *makes you*, you need to take a closer look at what "makes you" actually means. They will not kill you for not going. The consequences of standing up for what you believe will fall well short of death, ... and besides, YOU are the one telling ME about intestinal fortitude. You wanna do what's right? Do it. Doing the right thing doesn't necessarily equal being a soldier and fighting in this war. If the war IS indeed BS, then your choice is murder people, or suffer the consequence. I would personally take those consequences.

Are my relatives who fought the Japanese in WWII murderers because they fought for the US during that war?(Our conflict with Japan was far more complicated than just Pearl Harbor... much like the Civil War was over more than just slavery) Are my friends who fought in Vietnam baby killers because they fought NVA regulars in the jungles outside of Saigon? Are my friends who served in the Navy muderers because they did what was called for by their commander in cheif(Clinton for your info)?

I have no problem with people who fought in wars prior to this one, and I'm not speaking against them. I never said anything about fighting in WW2 being bad. Just because fighting for the US in WW2 was a good thing doesn't mean fighting for the US in THIS war is a good thing. Similarly, just because I'm against fighting for the US in THIS war, doesn't mean I'm against all wars waged by the US before this one. I have no problem with veterans of other wars, and FYI my grandfather fought in WW2.

Soldiers do not make policy, they enforce it, sometimes against what they themselves believe. Because that is their duty as soldiers!!!

Bull! Fight when you believe it's right, don't fight when it's wrong. It doesn't have to be a take it or leave it deal. I'd kill myself if I had to go into a war against what I believe and shoot people. They enforce it, sometimes against what they themselves believe!? Are you kidding me!? It's not a soldier's duty to kill innocent people because of policy. No one can force them to fight in a war they don't believe in. They DO have a choice.

Again there is no answer to my question about a nation's right to protect its interests abroad. There probably never will be.

What question was that? I'd be glad to answer it for you.

Are you mad that morals played a part in American foreign policy for a change? Are you pissed that we are trying to help make amends with those we have wronged in the past by giving them there freedom from a dictator we put in power?

I don't think morals played a part in American foreign policy in this case, and that is the problem. What makes you think that any change has taken place? No one wages war claiming to be the aggressor. Everyone always has a "moral" smoke screen. It's called propaganda. If Iraq didn't have oil, we would not be fighting this war.

One quick question...if think4yourself is so interested in others wartime experiences then he should say that! Not push the idea of soldiers being murderers, no matter what war he brings up in conversation.

In my second reply to you, I wrote this paragraph:

"What are you talking about? I think I was clear in my first reply that wars for a good cause are good, but that I believe this one is NOT for a good cause (it's for oil). Fighting for your country is good, SOME of the time, not all of the time. It depends what your leader's motives are. Do you disagree?"

In other words, I am not against wars in general, I am not against soldiers, I don't hate your father, grandfather, or your friends for being soldiers. I do not think soldiers are murderers in general, and I don't know why you don't get this. You ARE a murderer if you killed people in a BS war for oil, when evidence to this effect was right there for you to see. You ARE a murderer if the glory of being a soldier was more important to you than human life.

You may say what you want about me to my "cyber" face or behind my back. I'm giving up for this reason or that... but I frankly do not care one bit. I grow tired of Canadians and liberal Americans on this forum being critical of people and events they themselves have no interest in influencing or acting upon. The "evidence" on both sides is shaky, because the group of us here on the net were not on the front, were not in Washington, France, New York, or elsewhere when decisions were made. And we were not in I raq during the shit storm of Saddam Hussein's regime. Everyone here that fought or is fighting or serving this country in the Armed Forces...Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!! I too one day will fight and serve my country as you have done and are doing. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...
I hope to run into my brothers in arms one day...keep up the good work.

I will drop in from time to time, but will not interupt your precious bitch sessions about a government you don't live with or under. I'll certainly add my two cents... but only on rare moments of true conservative rage... Signing off!

Tanker...over and out!


"Are we going to stand here like the French, or are we going to do something?!?" - Marge Simpson

Okay....tanker (hmmm oil tanker!)
O.I.L. The first official name for the war in Iraq, stands for Operation Iraqi Liberation.
I agree with Decius and the others who said you were off track. You were not focusing on what the others said of the troops, NONE of them bad mouthed the troops, from any of our wars!
My family has been fought in every war since the Civil War, and everyone of them get the respect they deserve, but BUSH gets no respect for he gives none. He obviously thinks of the Americans as idiots, and be proud that his idiocy is rubbing off on you tank.

I thought I'd drop by and see how the bitch fest was going. Still at it I see. Well, that was very well said decius(bart quote) at least you're beginning to get the hang of the trash talking thing. As for our friend wesdawgy or whatever... Bush has begun to prove himself to be exactly what his father was, a decent foreign policy guy with no home front skills. I do agree that his home front ideas are beginning to go astray from their original intentions and the foreign policy is going downhill seeing as we are still pussy footing around with the Iraqis. But You are dead wrong about the troops. The few that I was debating on this forum, until called out by myself and others, gave no credit to the troops from the past or present. That is a fact. In fact one guy even tried to sneakily say that American troops were baby killers or some shit like that. And Mr. Decius won't make any defense of himself as a Canadian, which tells me how much guts he has when it comes to defending his pathetic country...so maybe your right about Bush being an idiot and me being an idiot for supporting "his" war effort, but at least my idiot is in office and not the idiot who can't count Floridian ballots.

Thank you goes out to your family, Mr. wesdawgy, for defending America throughout history. I appreciate their sacrifice for this country and its people.

Oh... one more thing. Are any of you bleeding hearts going to stop driving your cars,SUV's, and flying in airplanes, etc. to help save gas and change this country from an oil and money grubbing capitalist pig farm to a whatever...? Or is that too much of a sacrifice to make for your American, free market, socialist, environment friendly, utopian state of bliss you want to build the moment a democrat reigns in Washington? Just a question for the masses, and not a rhetorical question. This one needs an answer!

In response to the first post, I don't say this war was /ever/ about revenge. The situation is so completely different that no one can possibly assume it's all about baby Bush taking Daddy's shoes.

In most interviews I've reading involving Bush, Sr., he has said that he has not supported the war, but he does support his son.

Another thing, about the post which said something along the lines of the presidential election being rigged. Not only is there /no/ proof to that, does it really matter now that that was /3 and a half years ago/?

I think what we should be considering at this time is what is America going to do /now/. We've accused Syria of threatening actions against the US. We've made accusations against Burma, Iran and Afghanistan. North Korea is acting like a neglected child who keeps screaming louder and louder but isn't getting the attention it wants. Could it snap out to get more attention?

And what happens if this war spreads if Bush is re-elected? What happens if we decide to attack the rest of the Middle East and/or drop out allegiance with Israel?

Tanker...I like this, if ignorance is bliss your in 'hog heaven'!

I love the fact that every Bush supporter makes the war an issue of allegience to America...continuosly. You see, some vets don't believe in this war, or Bush's campaign period, are they un-patriotic? Furthermore, does anyone notice the backpeddaling that Bush, and his supporters are doing now that they are faced with no apparent evidence?

Why would they name their mission "O.I.L"? Explain that one.
It seems to me that we can argue till were blue in the face, as long as we respect what we are both arguing for, because face it...WE COULD BOTH BE WRONG...we do not know for sure, who the hell are we to say positively? We can however argue for what we believe, as Americans, Iraqi's, Canadians, or whatever. On that note, I think the war was wrong from the reasons that were presented, why would we set up a United Nations anyway, if we were just going to decide for ourselves?
This is the typical imerialistic nature of the United States Foriegn Policy. We have always acted on our own, with our own interests at mind, the Phillipines, Cuba, Panama/Columbia, South America has been the playing field for that in the past, but now we have decided to leave them be, and try our hand at the middle east. If you know your U.S. History, you will know what I am talking about, if you claim to know anything at all about the anatomy of American foriegn policy, you will understand.
Maybe the people that didn't post their oppinion or appreciation for our Veterans were not thinking of that at first because they were arguing about the validity of THIS war, not whether the previous wars were right? Ever think about it that way?

"JetPlane: Have you done research into the vote scandal? There is proof. In essence, as one democrat said in Florida "They did everything in their power to prevent the vote count from being re-counted". I'm not going to get into the details yet again but I suggest you look up information on the web in regards to this to get some more information.

The fact that it was three years ago makes absolutely no difference. It was scandal, and democracy was hi-jacked. True patriots should be furious that such a think can be allowed in a free America."

Free America? America has a pretty good idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was not behind the murder of JFK, yet you don't see anyone running to overthrow the government for lying.

The fact is, through decades of corruption whilst in office, it's not a new thing that a president will lie to the American people or rig an election to try to win.

Through the American eye, the fact that it /was/ 3 years ago, is very important, just as it was almost 40 years ago when JFK was shot. We live in a society where people shrug things off quickly enough that it becomes just a fleeting memory.

Michael Moore being booed off the stage at the Academy Awards is a pretty good indication of how America's view of the 2000 election has changed. It's considered particularly unpopular to think our president lied about anything, and as tremulous as Bush has made our country feel, we don't like attacks on our confidence.

The problem is, I gave up believing America was free a long time ago. If we're anything, we're a "semi-free", or a "sorta-free".

To me, at this moment, I could care less about the rigging of the election because it's not an event anyone at this time can alter. It's in the past. I have to worry about Bush being re-elected right now, and/or who will be elected to campaign against him.

Keeping Bush out of the White House for a second term, and his conservative ideals out of the Supreme Court are my only thoughts right now.

Wow, someone has certainly struck a nerve!
As a baby-killer (Nam) I recently buried a brother-in-arms (another Vet) He died from disease after suffering long. I would drive him to the vetrans hospital and watch his passing as release from a terrible ordeal.
His death resulted from his contact with chemical agents the United States were using but to the greatest extent his treatment where impeded by that same government.
Nam wasn't about freedom, it was about money.
I was 17 when I joined the Marines, so understand when I say I hope and pray that others do not act so foolishly. Why would anyone be willing to die to support lies and deceit is an absurd gesture at best. Tanker don't be so ignorant!