PDA

View Full Version : Where are all the "rightist extremists"?



DeDolfan
04-15-2004, 01:24 PM
I'm just curious as to where they all are after all the new developemants of the past couple weeks or so!!
:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
04-16-2004, 09:26 AM
huh?

DeDolfan
04-16-2004, 10:59 AM
Just curious as to why they are not here in droves defending Bush/Rice is all. ;)

BigFinFan
04-16-2004, 11:04 AM
I defend Bush on a Daily Basis - he is the COmmander in Chief, and he is my boss!

DeDolfan
04-16-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by BigFinFan
I defend Bush on a Daily Basis - he is the COmmander in Chief, and he is my boss!


Even if he may be wrong??

BigFinFan
04-16-2004, 11:45 AM
I defend all Americans - even if they are wrong! It is my job!

DeDolfan
04-16-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by BigFinFan
I defend all Americans - even if they are wrong! It is my job!

I know what you mean but it's not what I meant tho.
Once upon a time, I was in the same boat as you but under the Johnson/Nixon watch tho. What bothers me is that this current mess you're in is likely the same kind of mess I was in.
Thank you for your service !

PhinPhan1227
04-17-2004, 12:01 AM
I don't see a lot to defend. The 9/11 commision has shown so far that pre-9/11 Bush didn't do enough...and neither did Clinton. The facts are that we didn't know how serious things were because we felt invulnerable. What's important is what was done post 9/11 but the media doesn't want to focus on that.

ohall
04-17-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan



Even if he may be wrong??

Wrong about what? Are you actually implying that we never should have gone into Iraq? If you're talking about WMD, you can blame that on the U.N. . Saddam obviously moved it into Syria or another country in that area or their staul tactic allowed Saddam to destory them.

Please don't forget if we did not go into Iraq, what took place with Libia never would have happened. Libia was light years ahead in WMD than anyone ever thought was possible.

As far as I'm concerned the invasion of Iraq destroyed Saddam and brought Libia in line. Not a bad deal, yet some ppl actually try and imply it was a bad idea to be in Iraq. I sure hope that's not what you're implying.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
04-18-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by ohall


Wrong about what? Are you actually implying that we never should have gone into Iraq? If you're talking about WMD, you can blame that on the U.N. . Saddam obviously moved it into Syria or another country in that area or their staul tactic allowed Saddam to destory them.

Please don't forget if we did not go into Iraq, what took place with Libia never would have happened. Libia was light years ahead in WMD than anyone ever thought was possible.

As far as I'm concerned the invasion of Iraq destroyed Saddam and brought Libia in line. Not a bad deal, yet some ppl actually try and imply it was a bad idea to be in Iraq. I sure hope that's not what you're implying.

Oliver...

You positive about Libya? It's all hinsight and quite easy to speculate.

baccarat
04-18-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I don't see a lot to defend. The 9/11 commision has shown so far that pre-9/11 Bush didn't do enough...and neither did Clinton. The facts are that we didn't know how serious things were because we felt invulnerable. What's important is what was done post 9/11 but the media doesn't want to focus on that.

No meaningful information on preventing future attacks have resulted from the meetings. Like FDR and Wilson, Clinton and Bush didn't properly heed the warnings before disaster struck. This whole commission is just an opportunistic venure for partisans who want to crucify one president or the other. Bob Kerry, Clarke and the people who started this whole thing are the most flamboyant ones.

ohall
04-18-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


You positive about Libya? It's all hinsight and quite easy to speculate.

I believe I understand what you're implying here, but just to clarify, do you mean if America did not invade Iraq you feel it's possible, maybe likely Libya would not have turned over it's WMD program some months ago, and directly after Iraq was handed it's azz by our military for the world to see?

Oh I agree to an extent, it would be pure speculation on your part if that's what you mean. In this case, However in this case I'd rather deal with the reality of the timing of it all.

It would be like saying if Ronald Reagan did not out spend Russia would have folded as soon as it did. Pure speculation, lazy speculation, but agreed that would still be speculation.

I also want to emphasize here, that Libya was years ahead in it's WMD programs. No one had any idea these ppl were so far ahead, no one the US or Britain we're listening to anyway. If memory serves me correctly Libya was 3-5 years away from having a nuclear bomb. Not to mention the tons of chem and bio weapons it turned over to the USA. The point I'm stumbling to make is, even though it may look like the USA got it wrong to an extent with Iraq and it's WMD, it also along with the resst of the world got it very wrong with Libya. Knowing what we know now, Libya was prob more of a danger than Iraq, and yet it no longer is the threat it once was, because of the actions taken against Saddam the madman. I'm not sure why anyone would even spend a second complaing about what has taken place.

Oliver...

DOLFANMIKE
04-19-2004, 11:44 AM
Even if he may be wrong??
:confused:

Phin19
04-19-2004, 11:03 PM
I believe I understand what you're implying here, but just to clarify, do you mean if America did not invade Iraq you feel it's possible, maybe likely Libya would not have turned over it's WMD program some months ago, and directly after Iraq was handed it's azz by our military for the world to see?

Oh I agree to an extent, it would be pure speculation on your part if that's what you mean. In this case, However in this case I'd rather deal with the reality of the timing of it all.

It would be like saying if Ronald Reagan did not out spend Russia would have folded as soon as it did. Pure speculation, lazy speculation, but agreed that would still be speculation.

I also want to emphasize here, that Libya was years ahead in it's WMD programs. No one had any idea these ppl were so far ahead, no one the US or Britain we're listening to anyway. If memory serves me correctly Libya was 3-5 years away from having a nuclear bomb. Not to mention the tons of chem and bio weapons it turned over to the USA. The point I'm stumbling to make is, even though it may look like the USA got it wrong to an extent with Iraq and it's WMD, it also along with the resst of the world got it very wrong with Libya. Knowing what we know now, Libya was prob more of a danger than Iraq, and yet it no longer is the threat it once was, because of the actions taken against Saddam the madman. I'm not sure why anyone would even spend a second complaing about what has taken place.

Oliver...
why not invade Libya instead of Iraq? :confused:
Libya has been known for supporting terrorists and developing WMD
invading Iraq didn´t have much to do with WMD. it was rather a display of power

PhinPhan1227
04-21-2004, 09:05 AM
why not invade Libya instead of Iraq? :confused:
Libya has been known for supporting terrorists and developing WMD
invading Iraq didn´t have much to do with WMD. it was rather a display of power

Libya isn't in the same circumstance as Iraq. They didn't invade a neighbor, so there was no legal justification. They aren't a good option for democritization, because they are in North Africa, not the Middle East, and lastl, they don't have the educated populace and natural resources to become a strong economy like Iraq does.

Phin19
04-21-2004, 06:55 PM
Libya isn't in the same circumstance as Iraq. They didn't invade a neighbor, so there was no legal justification. They aren't a good option for democritization, because they are in North Africa, not the Middle East, and lastl, they don't have the educated populace and natural resources to become a strong economy like Iraq does.

are you referring to the war in 1991???, cause i was talking about the current war.
what makes the middle east a better option for democratization than north Africa? . . . . . oil???
is having natural resources and a potential strong economy a fator to consider when invading a country??? . . . . . it looks like it is

themole
04-22-2004, 06:53 AM
why not invade Libya instead of Iraq? :confused:
Libya has been known for supporting terrorists and developing WMD
invading Iraq didn´t have much to do with WMD. it was rather a display of power


Iraq was the most aggressive and powerful in the middle east , kick their a$$es the rest take notice!

We've had no more attacks on our soil. Something right is being done.

PhinPhan1227
04-22-2004, 08:54 AM
are you referring to the war in 1991???, cause i was talking about the current war.
what makes the middle east a better option for democratization than north Africa? . . . . . oil???
is having natural resources and a potential strong economy a fator to consider when invading a country??? . . . . . it looks like it is


The current war IS the same war as the one fought in 1991. Just because there was an intermission doesn't change that fact. Saddam invaded a neighbor. Saddam was then defeated by the US and Britain. Saddam signed a treaty which allowed him to stay in power in return for certain concessions. Saddam failed to live up to those concessions when he failed to PROVE that he had eliminated his WMD's, and all related programs. If it's easier for you, think of it like this...Saddam committed a crime and was put on probation in 1991. He failed that probation repeatedly for 12 years, but his PO was a softy. His new PO was tougher and finally revoked the probation. And that brings us to today. As for Libya, yes it makes a difference where it's located. The majority of the terrorists, and the schools that are creating them are not in North Africa...they're in the Middle East. As such, where does it make the most sense to create a stable nucleus, north africa, or the middle east? As for oil, stability needs money. Japan had to do it the hard way by building industries from scratch. Iraq has wealth right on hand to help with the formaion of a strong and educated middle class. Libya would/will have o start from scratch since it also has no ready wealth. Again, Iraq is/was ideal.

Phin19
04-22-2004, 03:36 PM
We've had no more attacks on our soil. Something right is being done.

So far. . . . .

themole
04-23-2004, 12:06 AM
We've had no more attacks on our soil. Something right is being done.

So far. . . . .

LOL???? Look...they hate us, if they had the means and didn't have the U.S. breathing down their backs they would have hit us again...don't ya think? Dubs bunch is holding them off!

ohall
04-23-2004, 12:14 AM
why not invade Libya instead of Iraq? :confused:
Libya has been known for supporting terrorists and developing WMD
invading Iraq didn´t have much to do with WMD. it was rather a display of power

Why would we? They folded, they turned over their WMD program and they were very close to having a nuclear bomb, not to mention chem and bio programs.

Libya is the cherry on top of the Iraqi invasion. As it turns out, or how it seems right now, Libya was more of a danger to this country for WMD than Iraq was. However if we never went into Iraq we never would have known that. Libya never would have folded if they did not feel threatened.

Oliver...

ohall
04-23-2004, 12:16 AM
LOL???? Look...they hate us, if they had the means and didn't have the U.S. breathing down their backs they would have hit us again...don't ya think? Dubs bunch is holding them off!

I see your point and agree to an extent. I think Dub is doing much more than just holding them off though. He's looking to wipe them off the face of the earth.

It's about darn time an American President did what was right even though he knew he would pay a political price from his political opposition. He's a brave man IMO.

Oliver...

themole
04-23-2004, 07:22 AM
I see your point and agree to an extent. I think Dub is doing much more than just holding them off though. He's looking to wipe them off the face of the earth.

It's about darn time an American President did what was right even though he knew he would pay a political price from his political opposition. He's a brave man IMO.

Oliver...


I agree Ollie. My reply was to Phin19s "So Far" reply. I choose "holding them off" because we never know what the crazies will do. Hunting them down and killing them does seem to open their eyes and ears to understanding doesn't it. :evil: :lol:

paul13
05-11-2004, 10:50 PM
I think you would have to be fool not to see ousting Saddam and his oppressive regime is one of best things to happen to the middle east in a long time. Even if we don’t find W M D’s I think the war is still justified . Bush & chaney for 2004


P.S GO DOLPHINS

DeDolfan
05-12-2004, 11:48 AM
I think you would have to be fool not to see ousting Saddam and his oppressive regime is one of best things to happen to the middle east in a long time. Even if we don’t find W M D’s I think the war is still justified . Bush & chaney for 2004


P.S GO DOLPHINS

I suppose you think Viet Nam was justified as well?

Phinzone
05-12-2004, 01:43 PM
I suppose you think Viet Nam was justified as well?

did he say that, or do you just like putting words in peoples mouths? Why not go a step further, and infer that he agrees with Hitler's push through Europe, or the japanese bombing of pearl harbor?

It's a two-edged sword. Nobody liked dropping the A-bombs, yet it was extremely necessary. Had they had the means, they would have used it on us.

Removing Saddam is painful, yet absolutely necessary. People Criticize bush for not for-seeing what a maniac like Bin Laden would do, yet criticize him for removing another maniac in Saddam BEFORE he did something. VERY two faced of people. Don't criticize a man for not doing enough, then criticize him for doing too much.

DeDolfan
05-12-2004, 02:27 PM
did he say that, or do you just like putting words in peoples mouths? Why not go a step further, and infer that he agrees with Hitler's push through Europe, or the japanese bombing of pearl harbor?

It's a two-edged sword. Nobody liked dropping the A-bombs, yet it was extremely necessary. Had they had the means, they would have used it on us.

Removing Saddam is painful, yet absolutely necessary. People Criticize bush for not for-seeing what a maniac like Bin Laden would do, yet criticize him for removing another maniac in Saddam BEFORE he did something. VERY two faced of people. Don't criticize a man for not doing enough, then criticize him for doing too much.


NO, that's why it was asked as a QUESTION. It does make it a difference.

BigFinFan
05-12-2004, 03:17 PM
The current war IS the same war as the one fought in 1991.

Finally, some one gets the BIG picture!!!

:clap:

PhinPhan1227
05-12-2004, 05:49 PM
Finally, some one gets the BIG picture!!!

:clap:

GO NAVY!!! We soldiers always appreciate when you get guys us to the fight.... :evil:

paul13
05-12-2004, 10:07 PM
Firstly I said the Iraq war was justifiable not Vietnam war and 2ndly how can you not say the world isn’t better without Saddam?

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 01:50 PM
Firstly I said the Iraq war was justifiable not Vietnam war and 2ndly how can you not say the world isn’t better without Saddam?

Why do YOU think it was justifiable?

themole
05-13-2004, 03:48 PM
I want speak for Paul13, but I think it was justifiable. Saddam was a S.O.B. to the region, ran his mouth about the WMD he supposidly, and did have, harbored known terrorist and we had to start somewhere in the war on terroism. I'm all for hunting them down and KILLING THEM. I don't care where they reside or how much influence they may have, by god they murdered 3000 americans and MUST be WIPED from the face of this earth. Forget the damned party politics and think about the safety of the people of this nation for crying out loud. Liberial and conservitive attidudes are good for the country, they offer checks and balances but when it comes time for WAR and we were struck first... be a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN above all party politics.

ohall
05-13-2004, 05:05 PM
Why do YOU think it was justifiable?

Because terrorist were using Iraq as a training ground, Saddam was funding terorist for homicide bombings in Israel, and Saddam had WMD that he could have, would have sold or given to terrorist groups that would have made 9/11 look like a fireworks show.

It's a fact Saddam had WMD, the UN's delay tactic obviously allowed Saddam to move his large scaled programs out of Iraq. The current food for oil scandal in the UN makes it obvious to anyone paying attention they are a corrupt organization run by the dollar, not by morals. I have no doubt Saddam paid some of those ppl off in the UN to delay the US as long as it could so they could move the WMD programs out of Iraq.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 05:37 PM
Where are all these "facts" coming from anyway? This was the premise for Bush wanting to go to war. We believed him because we didn't have any reason no to. I was for it, yes, until some "other facts" came out. "Fact" is, yes, Saadam HAD WMDs, but none have been found. Id is POSSIBLE that he got rid of them? Reports show that he had no ties to terrorism. Do we believe that? Was it because Iraq is a Middle East country, so therefore they are ALL terrorists? i have alot of the same issues as any American has, but if someone wants to quote something as a "fact", then at least show proof. Do i think Saddam needed to go? Hell yes, but does that mean that it's the US's responsibility to do it? NO! The whole problem with all of this that the "conservatives" won't acknowledge" came from one of their own. They hafta blame Clinton for not doing this or that, or whatever, but if Daddy had kept on Saddam's asss in 91 and took him out them, would we even have this mess today? The Reps blame the Dems and the Dems blame the Reps! last I figuered, we were in this mess together. Now the Dems are saying this prisoner mess is a travesty and the Reps blow it off by saying that "it's only said by the ones against the war"! Enough of this BS already.

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 05:53 PM
I want speak for Paul13, but I think it was justifiable. Saddam was a S.O.B. to the region, ran his mouth about the WMD he supposidly, and did have, harbored known terrorist and we had to start somewhere in the war on terroism. I'm all for hunting them down and KILLING THEM. I don't care where they reside or how much influence they may have, by god they murdered 3000 americans and MUST be WIPED from the face of this earth. Forget the damned party politics and think about the safety of the people of this nation for crying out loud. Liberial and conservitive attidudes are good for the country, they offer checks and balances but when it comes time for WAR and we were struck first... be a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN above all party politics.

Mole, let Paul speak for himself as i'm sure you are able to for yourself. Personally, politics will not let us do what is necessary. I feel the same about the war part in that if it were up to me, politics aside, we hafta throw out the "rules". The Geneva Convention should not even apply since that was drawn up during conventional warfare times. You know, army against army, country against country, etc. Whether you or anyone else around want to believe it or not, but we are fighting Viet Nam part deaux. Who is the enemy right now? We are not fighting a "country". Granted, there was the NVA back then but "Charlie" was the biggest problem back then. Just like now, the insurgents are the problem. Who are they? Just ordinary civilians, "unorganized" forces, no uniforms for identification, just "street clothes". These ppl shoot your asss off and then run and hide among the everyday ppl to camoflauge themselves. They run into houses, hospitals, etc. because they know that WE won't follow there for the sake of the innocent. Same in Nam, same tactic. Unfortunately, what really needs doing is to follow them in. When our guys get fired upon, they fire back. OK, when they have those bastards on the run, keep on them. When they go into a bldg to hide, blow it all away. Pretty simple, but also very cruel. However, it wouldn't take but very few of these occurances before the general population will not allow these "troops" to hide among them. But we cannot do that, just like in Nam, because it is against the "rules of engagement". IMO, we are in it too deep to simply just pull out now, lest all our fallen will have done so in vain. The time to have done that was back in Dec. after Saddam was captured. Thenwas the time to pull out and let Iraq handle their own affairs as they appear to want to.

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 06:01 PM
Because terrorist were using Iraq as a training ground, Saddam was funding terorist for homicide bombings in Israel, and Saddam had WMD that he could have, would have sold or given to terrorist groups that would have made 9/11 look like a fireworks show.

It's a fact Saddam had WMD, the UN's delay tactic obviously allowed Saddam to move his large scaled programs out of Iraq. The current food for oil scandal in the UN makes it obvious to anyone paying attention they are a corrupt organization run by the dollar, not by morals. I have no doubt Saddam paid some of those ppl off in the UN to delay the US as long as it could so they could move the WMD programs out of Iraq.

Oliver...


Oliver, the key here is that Sadaam HAD WMDs. The whole world knew he had them but there is no proof that he had them in time of question. I understand the corruption you speak of and I will not deny it as there are alot of shady things that do happen. BUT, with all the technology available, all the satelite imaging, infrared devices, don't you think that it would be even remotely possible that if anything was moved anywhere that it could be documented? i mean com'on now, we have satelite cameras and what not taking pics millions of mile away, IR devices that hunt down fugitives from heloes etc., don't you think we would have tapes of Sadaam moving his schidt away?

ohall
05-13-2004, 06:26 PM
Where are all these "facts" coming from anyway? This was the premise for Bush wanting to go to war. We believed him because we didn't have any reason no to. I was for it, yes, until some "other facts" came out. "Fact" is, yes, Saadam HAD WMDs, but none have been found. Id is POSSIBLE that he got rid of them? Reports show that he had no ties to terrorism. Do we believe that? Was it because Iraq is a Middle East country, so therefore they are ALL terrorists? i have alot of the same issues as any American has, but if someone wants to quote something as a "fact", then at least show proof. Do i think Saddam needed to go? Hell yes, but does that mean that it's the US's responsibility to do it? NO! The whole problem with all of this that the "conservatives" won't acknowledge" came from one of their own. They hafta blame Clinton for not doing this or that, or whatever, but if Daddy had kept on Saddam's asss in 91 and took him out them, would we even have this mess today? The Reps blame the Dems and the Dems blame the Reps! last I figuered, we were in this mess together. Now the Dems are saying this prisoner mess is a travesty and the Reps blow it off by saying that "it's only said by the ones against the war"! Enough of this BS already.

The entire world agreed before the US went into Iraq that they had WMD. Many ppl try and spin how things were, but that is how things REALLY were. The fight the UN and soft nations were trying to make was there was no need to invade because they were happy with continuing with the no fly zones and etc.. We now know their real reasons for wanting to keep things as they were. If things continued as it were this would have continued to stuff certain ppl's pockets within the UN with dirty cash. But everyone from Clinton to Bush agreed Saddam had WMD, pre-Iraq invasion.

No WMD have been found, because the UN delayed to give Saddam time to move them out of Iraq. That is becoming very clear now with the UN food for oil scandal.

Reports have shown Saddam had ties to Al qaeda. Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in NW Iraq. Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after being a part of the WTC bombings. Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum. An al Qaeda operative now held by the US confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator. In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities.

Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi is the madman right now causing most of the trouble in Iraq, and he is an Al qaeda terrorist, and he has been in Iraq for years, years before the US went into Iraq.

I blame Clinton for looking out for how he was going to be remembered in the Middle East rather than taking care of America's best interests while it was being attacked 3 or 4 times a year by Al qaeda. The 1st WTC bombings, the Black Hawk down incident, the Cole bombing all come to mind real quick of incidents that were all clear signs and legitimate reasons to go to war with Al qaeda with military units. Rather than trying to remove terrorism he decided to treat it like a police matter. It was a poor choice, but an understandable one seeing as how things only really changed after 9/11. Let’s not forget when Bush #41’s assassination attempt was uncovered Clinton’s 1st reaction was to invade Iraq. However when he went to the UN for support and they did not give it, he decided he would simply bomb them while they sat safe in their bomb shelters for 18 days.

Yes I agree we are in this together, but I don't see it as a mess. I read daily of all the positive things that happen in Iraq, but the ELITE liberal media chooses not to cover those things. It doesn't sell to their base, so obviously they won't do it. There are some serious issues to over come in Iraq, but it is not as dark and gloomy as the ELITE liberal media makes it out to be. There has never been a war where mistakes weren't made, and where battles weren't lost. The ELITE liberal media wants for selfish political reasons to make it seem like the opposite is true.

Look at the NY Times, after Berg was beheaded, they don't put it on the front page of their news paper, where all of the previous week they sure loved posting all the jail scandal pictures. Know why that is? Answer, because it caters to their liberal base. The abuse in the jails in Iraq serves to prove things are out of control, and Berg's beheading they know will only prove the point, and remind the short minded we didn't start this war, and this is a war we have to win, because of we don't the terrorist nuts may behead all of us.

Tell me, how does it feel to have a politician like Ted Kennedy who compared the soldiers involved in the jail scandal to Saddam? Here’s his quote when speaking in front of the Senate.

“SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, who would prefer that Saddam‘s torture chambers still be open? Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam‘s torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.”

Sorry for the length of this post.

Oliver...

themole
05-13-2004, 06:50 PM
Mole, let Paul speak for himself as i'm sure you are able to for yourself. Personally, politics will not let us do what is necessary. I feel the same about the war part in that if it were up to me, politics aside, we hafta throw out the "rules". The Geneva Convention should not even apply since that was drawn up during conventional warfare times. You know, army against army, country against country, etc. Whether you or anyone else around want to believe it or not, but we are fighting Viet Nam part deaux. Who is the enemy right now? We are not fighting a "country". Granted, there was the NVA back then but "Charlie" was the biggest problem back then. Just like now, the insurgents are the problem. Who are they? Just ordinary civilians, "unorganized" forces, no uniforms for identification, just "street clothes". These ppl shoot your asss off and then run and hide among the everyday ppl to camoflauge themselves. They run into houses, hospitals, etc. because they know that WE won't follow there for the sake of the innocent. Same in Nam, same tactic. Unfortunately, what really needs doing is to follow them in. When our guys get fired upon, they fire back. OK, when they have those bastards on the run, keep on them. When they go into a bldg to hide, blow it all away. Pretty simple, but also very cruel. However, it wouldn't take but very few of these occurances before the general population will not allow these "troops" to hide among them. But we cannot do that, just like in Nam, because it is against the "rules of engagement". IMO, we are in it too deep to simply just pull out now, lest all our fallen will have done so in vain. The time to have done that was back in Dec. after Saddam was captured. Thenwas the time to pull out and let Iraq handle their own affairs as they appear to want to.


De...I cannot argue with any of that! I am an American Constitutionalist who chose to register Republican because the platform of the Ragan Republicans suited me more than the Democrats. ALOT more! I am a the extreme right winger, infact "Bircher" that you have called out. I submit that if you were to take the Constitution that our forefathers penned and compared it to the ammended and hammered down version that the U.S. Supreme Court has defiled, you would be VERY alarmed. I have done that and came to the conclusion a long time ago that the American People have been DUPED! Our present two party system should be viewed as a two headed snake, one head prefers caviar the other head prefers cornbread, but when all is said and done both have been eaten and nourished the body of something alien to the origanal U.S. Constitution. May I suggest (www.jbs.org). In the grand scheme of things, I don't have very much time left here on this celestial orb. But I will tell you that if the youth of America doesn't wake up and gain some knowledge of the original Constitution, the day will be fast approaching that they might wish they had the same allotment of time as you and I. Real lovers of liberty should not be beholden to any political party. Get from them what you can and then move on.