help

[Nathan]

... in response to Help, posted by Dingo on Apr 17, 2003


  The lady was posting a sincere request, and I doubt she was looking for an idiotic tirade. There are plenty of
political forums to use if that is your interest, but you will find that your kind of post will not get a very good response here. Your post sounds like a booze induced rant.

[Dingo]

... in response to Re: Help, posted by Nathan on Apr 18, 2003

I'll rant if I wanna Damit ( In drunken voice with slured speach )
Plenty of other "political post made on this board" Just
because you don't like what I have to say.
I served in the US Army..where's my mouse ?
Now pass me another Serbesa.....damnit...(HiC-uP)

[Nathan]

... in response to Re: Re: Help, posted by Dingo on Apr 18, 2003


  I don't think it's the booze or the politics as such, but it is a pretty weird response to the Lady's post that had nothing to do with politics. However, if you wanted to get flamed like crazy, you came to the right place.
Not many Clinton Democrats post here I think...I'm only guessing that they prefer trashy big haired women.
But if you keep up your good sense of humor, you will likely survive even here.

[Humabdos]

... in response to Help, posted by Dingo on Apr 17, 2003

Anti War crap where someone gives a rats ass!

Hum

[lswote]

... in response to Take your ..., posted by Humabdos on Apr 18, 2003

I give a rats ass.  I support the troops now that they are in Iraq but think Bush was wrong for sending them and did it for self-serving reasons, not because it was in our country's best interest.

[Peter Lee]

... in response to Leaving it here will be fine, posted by lswote on Apr 18, 2003

We came for oil

Oil is power

Power to buy technology

Power to buy support in exchange for oil

Power in the wrong hands is dangerous for us and unpredictable.  

I don't want any more surprises like 9-11 again and the power of oil in the wrong hands is a future nightmare of surprises.  .

We should never excuse that we came to control the oil, without the oil Iraq would be a bunch of camel jockies playing in the sand.

Self-serving reasons yes, was to take the oil power away from irresponsible dictators.   I also know that as long as Bush is in the White House I will never have to sell my Bronco with the 9 mpg.

I hope we keep control of the oil and get bases in Iraq for as long as we want.   I figure it would take about 10 years for Iraq to become a democracy.  

I hope we get our own Arab TV station to air our propaganda so at least they see both sides

I hope McDonalds and K- Mart rule Iraq as soon as possible

May every Iraqi drink Pepsi and a diet Coke?

There is only one Power America  and his messenger is Pres. Bush Peace be unto him

[Dave H]

... in response to Leaving it here will be fine, posted by lswote on Apr 18, 2003

[This message has been edited by Dave H]

Hi lswote,

I am more than a little confused as to what people who don't support the war or Bush sending troops to Iraq...now support the troops doing in Iraq? Whenever I hear it, it sounds like double-speak and an attempt to avoid being labeled anti-American by those who do support the war effort. The troops are there fighting a war, so does that mean you now support the reasons that Bush sent them there for? Please explain, as I have heard this often on TV (especially by actors and entertainers) and can't comprehend.

Dave H.

[lswote]

... in response to Confused?, posted by Dave H on Apr 19, 2003

What it means is I am opposed to the war but I wish the best for the well-being of the troops and hope for their safe return.  It means I am not adopting the attitude of many Americans in the Vietnam war who opposed the war and called the troops just doing their duty "baby killers".  It means that now that the troops are committed to combat I hope they use every means at their disposal to be effective and achieve their goals.  But I do not believe we should have gone to war and I think President Bush started this war as a diversion from improprieties in his administration and his lacking credentials to be president.

[Peter Lee]

... in response to Let me explain then, posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

All this could be true or not, just more subjective rhetoric, anyway no way for us peons to ever know.  But the end result of one less dictator and more freedom for a people along with the power of one man controlling all that oil for who knows what.  Not to mention other dictators laying low and not making any trouble.   Keeping dis guy in power would have resulted in more than 100 deaths in the future for sure.  This police action to arrest criminals was called a war so the job could be done with less restrictions.  

I will never hear in detail from you an explanation with examples of why we should not have arrested these criminals and using the name war to get the job done.  
I will never hear from you your vague descriptions of improprieties you claim the Bush administration is guilty of. Will you give us a President who you believe never had any improprieties in there administration?  We all know that we have a corporate money machine that elects our presidents so very few had the credentials that really represented the people.  So tell us who under the corrupt system of past elections had more credentials to be president.

If you bother to answer I get a feeling it will have no facts just opinions and you know it is like assxxxxx everyone has one.
.  

[Dave H]

... in response to Let me explain then, posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

...if we had waited and attempted to keep negotiating with a liar and madman as some people wanted, we could have surrendered to Saddam's Republican Guard on American soil. Which of Bush's lack of credentials are you refering to? His Masters of Business Administration from Harvard University or his Governorship of Texas? LOL

I am happy that you are "not adopting the attitude of many Americans in the Vietnam war who opposed the war and called the troops just doing their duty "baby killers"." I think that was more like a "few" Americans calling troops "baby killers", mostly in very liberal areas like San Francisco or near universities. It seems like it happened mostly to guys in military uniforms checking out anti-war protest rallies.

Dave H.

[lswote]

... in response to Probably..., posted by Dave H on Apr 20, 2003

Boy I don't know where you lived but where I lived, anti-troop sentiment was big-time on the television.

As far as my problem with Bush's credentials, I will let what Ron Reagan Jr. said comparing his father with Bush Jr. speak for me.

"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" ... "My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought." ... "

[Dave H]

... in response to Re: Probably..., posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

Hi Iswote,

I lived in Michigan and Miami during the Vietnam War and traveled throughout the Midwest and East Coast. I saw antiwar demonstrations on television too...and a few small demonstrations in person, where the TV cameras were pointed.  

Ron Reagan Jr....You can't do better than that??? ROFLMAOCUMMFLSAPIMGDP!!! As a former 'First Boy,' I am sure that Ron is jealous that he couldn't make his father proud, like George W. has! Ronnie Jr. is angry that he had to spend so many years hiding in the Governor's mansion and White House closets to protect his father's manly image. I am not exactly sure what Ron Reagan Jr. accomplished...but I'm told he was a very good dancer. It must have been tough living with a very conservative, 'straight' father. I think that Reagan was a good President, but as for qualifications...I hope my union president never gets elected to public office! I don't even back their political candidates! Public life as an actor or playing the President on TV doesn't count for much, unless you ask Martin Sheen. George W. doesn't have the acting experience, but the world now knows he means business...unlike Bill Clingon who could easily be bought with women, drugs, and money. If Clingon had surrounded himself with smart people who had some morals, and if he had any himself, we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are at present. As for George W., he wasn't my first choice, as I feel he is too nice a guy and a bit liberal for my tastes. ;o)))

Dave H.

[Humabdos]

... in response to Re: Probably..., posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

Let's not forget that! rotflmao!
HUM

[lswote]

... in response to Let me explain then, posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

I am an ex-Marine.  Siemper fi!

[Ray]

... in response to By the way, posted by lswote on Apr 20, 2003

That should be “Semper Fi” (not “Siemper Fi”), short for the Latin “Semper Fidelis" (Always Faithful).

Any Marine should know that! And I’m only a sailor... :-)

Ray