Bush warns of WWIII if Iran goes nuclear

[kg4kww]

Yea Go GB Go!!!

If this were to happen you OF's like me might just wind up back in uniform. And that will mean, beer, booze, broads, pizza, chips, nachos, tacos, hotdogs, burgers and buritios. Anotherwords, you will have to lose weight and get into shape.

Show the Libs and Russians what it means to have big B's and not be afraid to show them.

WASHINGTON - President Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.
Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran’s nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

Full Story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21356241/)

[KD6NIG]

Yep. Won't have to worry about global warming anymore since 90% of the world will be gone....

And whoever is left can deal with "Nuke Winter".

But, dangit, we did something!

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] ]If this were to happen you OF's like me might just wind up back in uniform.


Doubt if there's any point on putting on a uniform in nuclear war.

But yea, let's just nuke 'em. Get it over with. That'll solve all our problems. What the hey?

[KB9YCO]

Wow, there's some creepy rah-rah war talk from both El Presidente and kww. You don't really think that's a good idea do you? Wait, don't answer that, I don't want to know.

[kq9j]

Hasn't this retarded Chimp done enough damage yet? He wants a big-ass war, not one of these silly little ones like Iraq. He wants to be a REAL man. I would be very surprised if this idiot DOESN'T start World War III before he is done.

[kg4kww]

If this were to happen you OF's like me might just wind up back in uniform. And that will mean, beer, booze, broads, pizza, chips, nachos, tacos, hotdogs, burgers and buritios. Anotherwords, you will have to lose weight and get into shape.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ac4ut]

Humans are too rational to start and maintain the conditions to fuel a global nuclear conflict.
Just think of the people that you encounter in everyday life ,at the store,office or on the way to work............. Ok were screwed!

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,11:05)]If this were to happen you OF's like me might just wind up back in uniform. And that will mean, beer, booze, broads, pizza, chips, nachos, tacos, hotdogs, burgers and buritios. Anotherwords, you will have to lose weight and get into shape.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Um yeah, you said that already, and no offense, but it was just as nonsensical the first time. As has already been mentioned, uniforms will be pretty useless in a nuclear war, even if they're made of lead.
You really think that a war is a good thing, or even necessary at this point? Obviously, if it came down to an armed confrontation anyone would want to defend their country. But you shouldn't hope for it, war sucks, ask almost anyone that has been in one and I'm sure they will tell you that it should always be a last resort.

[spelling edits, damn fingers]

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (ac4ut @ Oct. 17 2007,10:07)]Humans are too rational to start and maintain the conditions to fuel a global nuclear conflict.
Just think of the people that you encounter in everyday life ,at the store,office or on the way to work............. Ok were screwed!
Yep!

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,09:05)]If this were to happen you OF's like me might just wind up back in uniform. And that will mean, beer, booze, broads, pizza, chips, nachos, tacos, hotdogs, burgers and buritios. Anotherwords, you will have to lose weight and get into shape.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Where are you going to get all that stuff when 90% of the world is erased off the map in a major nuke war?

I mean you honestly think everyone is going to stand by while we flip a few missiles back and forth with whoever shot them first?

Unless you've got all the stuff you're talking about in a hardened bunker ready to go, I don't think you'll be finding much in the wasteland that will be whats left of the world if WWIII is the nuke edition.

But I guess when whoever is left is wandering the ruined wasteland left after the altercation, we can all thank our leaders for the death sentence imposed upon the earth.....

[kg4kww]

Interesting point of view ac4ut

[w3scm]

I am convinced. #Anything GWB says has to be wrong and therefore I will believe the opposite. #

Opposing Iran's development of a nuclear industry is just a plain hysterical over-reaction and a totally immoral and unjustified intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign state. #And a kind and gentle state it is, too. #It has to be - Bush calls it a warlike country.

Yep, the very idea that Iran wants nuclear technology for anything other other than powering light bulbs is nuts and ther product of a prejudiced mind. #They would never make a bomb with it, and even if they did (well, they might, you know) they'd NEVER use it first. #We should bank on that.

[kg4kww]

Remember people Nostradamus or is that Nostradamnit , has predicted this centuries ago.

BTW, the History Channel has shown this show several times of late.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,10:43)]Yea Go GB Go!!!
You're just happy that there's going to be a booming business in your chosen trade. Too bad you haven't figured out that nobody will be left to pay for it, if they go ICBM.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 17 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,10:43)]Yea Go GB Go!!!
You're just happy that there's going to be a booming business in your chosen trade. Too bad you haven't figured out that nobody will be left to pay for it, if they go ICBM.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
That's the beauty. It's hard to figure that a nuclear war would actually incur debt that had to be repaid.

[ac4ut]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,09:37)]Interesting point of view ac4ut
Our technology has out grown our ability to control it.
The only difference between now and 400 years ago is that you can kill a lot more people in a shorter time and never have to look them in the eye.
The capacity of the human to hate ,mistrust and fear the un-familiar seems to have remained constant.

[K2WH]

Yep, the usual hand wringers are on here worried to death again.

K2WH

[ac4ut]

I am not worried,I just recognize the potential outcome.
Now,hand me a beer.

[ac4ut]

I am not worried,I just recognize the potential outcome.
Now,hand me a beer.

[VO1GXG]

My space shuttle is almost build , i have 3 seats left. Who wants in? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n2ize]

I think the gun barrel diplomacy of this administration is indeed making the world less stable and increasing the risks of all out war.

[al2i]

Nuclear proliferation has been booming while GWBFM is in office.

[W4MAJ]

This thread is depressing. Can't we talk about the usual fair? You know, code versus no-code, CB, 14.275, and Winlink? Did I miss anything?

[w3scm]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,11:57)]Nuclear proliferation has been booming while GWBFM is in office.
Otherwise, of course, under the Gore administration, by this time Iran would have a foreign aid program in place setting records for service to humanity all over the globe, and preparing to host the Olympics.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (kq9j @ Oct. 18 2007,08:50)]Hasn't this retarded Chimp done enough damage yet?
Interesting that most presidents have had assassination attempts on them. I don't recall hearing any about GWB.

Is it that nobody wants to waste a good bullet? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ah, no matter...459 days to go.

But who's counting? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W1GUH]

Gotta keep him alive so we can indict him for hienous crimes against humanity.

Or, how about, anybody who's lost a relative in Iraq sues him for wrongful death.

[KB9YCO]

I don't really care what anyone's viewpoint is, I just find it nauseating to want war and to champion it as a good cause unless it is a last resort. We are hardly to that point right now, and there are certainly plenty of options available to slow down Iran with more of a world consensus than simply starting a country to country war .
The other thing that people seem to forget (including President Bush) is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is NOT the commander of the military like a US president would be, the clerics of Iran make those decisions in the end; a scary point I know, but true. Therefore, taking the comments of Ahmadinejad as the soon-to-be actions of Iran as a whole is not necessarily accurate, though both are certainly scary thoughts.
All that being said, I would hope that the world at large would step into to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in a known rogue state like Iran. That would and should include our own proliferation as well as everyone else's. This whole issue is a matter of escalation and the more 'war talk' that is issued from both sides the more the problems are exacerbated.

[K4GUN]

Ummm... yeah. World War 3 has been raging for several years now. I'm not sure if we put the start date at the 1979 Iranian embassy take-over, the 1993 attack on the WTC or 9/11/01. More than likely, it was the 1979 event that history will point to as the beginning of WWIII. There have been several battles and skirmishes in this war and we are not close to being finished. Unlike Americans, our enemy takes a very long term view of this war. In fact, they probably think the war has been going on for centuries. It may have been, but the US wasn't involved until more recent times.

[w3scm]

How did Bush manage to start this war back in '79http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? Jimmy Carter was president then, for heaven's sake. Boy, that GWB is one clever SOB, no?

[kg4kww]

Good question w3scm.

Carter didn't have the B's to stand up to IRAN and that's why we have the problems with them that we have today.

Question is will the country of I drop the first bombs on IRAN?

BTW, war will make for a lot of jobs, just like it did in WWII.

Getting to bomb you, gettting to bomb all about you!!!!!

remember that song?

[w3scm]

If they become an active enough threat, Israel will bomb them.

[W4HAY]

Quote[/b] ]Even as more is revealed about Israel's September airstrike deep inside Syria, the world remains quiet. Not even a peep from the United Nations. What is the message behind the silence?

Could it be that the international community recognizes that a world with a nuclear-armed Syria is an alarmingly unstable and dangerous place? If so, Iran might want to rethink its nuclear ambitions.

*****
Even the Syrian regime has remained mostly quiet — as if it has something to hide. When it has spoken, the statements have been obfuscatory. Syrian President Bashar Assad, for instance, claimed that the Israelis merely hit an abandoned military building in their September raid.

Now, more than a month later, the Jerusalem Post reports that Syria's U.N. ambassador finally confirmed that the raid did indeed hit a nuclear facility. So where is the outrage for this brazen attack?

*****
While a nuclear-armed Syria is cause for alarm, an atomic Iran poses a greater threat. Imagine Islamic fanatics such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs bullying the region —and beyond — with nuclear blackmail.


*****
At his news conference Wednesday, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III," Iran must be prevented "from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

The warning is well taken, but it's probably too late to block Tehran's knowledge and diplomacy is unlikely to diffuse the threat. The only solution the civilized world is left with is an uncivilized response: military strike. If we're reading it right, it looks like even those who think they're more civilized than the rest are willing to let the regime get exactly what it deserves
Has Iran Heard The Silence? (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=277512993172393)

[K0RGR]

We are slowly being conditioned to accept the idea of war with Iran. The neocon blogosphere and vast right-wing conspiracy are beating the war drums louder and louder.

They are aided by Iran, who thinks they can pull off the typical job of tweaking the Giant's nose and running away unscathed. If they can goad us into an attack on them, without a full invasion, they win.

Please, before we start another war, let's try diplomacy.
Let's try to actually understand their side of things, and actually do something about it.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Oct. 18 2007,14:58)]How did Bush manage to start this war back in '79http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? Jimmy Carter was president then, for heaven's sake. Boy, that GWB is one clever SOB, no?
He's one of yours, but good question. That's way too Ed-ju... Ed-jaak... Ed-ju-ka... smart for Dubya.

[K6BBC]

If there is an irresponsible thought in Bush's head, we will know it as it will come out his mouth in less that a millisecond.

bbc

[KB9YCO]

Well, while I am not a fan of casual mention of war talk, Iran is certainly not innocent in their behavior. There may indeed be something to the president's comments that we, as the average people, may not be aware of.

KABUL (Reuters) - A shipment of hi-tech roadside bombs intercepted in Afghanistan originated in Iran, the commander of NATO-led troops said on Thursday, adding it was hard to believe Tehran's military did not know about the arms. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/ts_nm/afghan_iran_dc)

[K8ERV]

Quote[/b] (VO1GXG @ Oct. 18 2007,10:49)]My space shuttle is almost build , i have 3 seats left. Who wants in? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Do you have insurance?

Tom K8ERV Montrose Co.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (kq9j @ Oct. 18 2007,08:50)]Hasn't this retarded Chimp done enough damage yet? He wants a big-ass war, not one of these silly little ones like Iraq. He wants to be a REAL man. I would be very surprised if this idiot DOESN'T start World War III before he is done.
Before Reagan was elected, didn't the lib's say the same thing - then the walls came down.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,10:57)]Nuclear proliferation has been booming while GWBFM is in office.
Dave,

I hate to dampen your post, but nuclear proliferation begun way before the GWB Presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons


North Korea

"On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing. Faced with diplomatic pressure and the threat of American military air strikes against the reactor, North Korea agreed to dismantle its plutonium program as part of the Agreed Framework in which South Korea and the United States would provide North Korea with light water reactors and fuel oil until those reactors could be completed."


Pakistan, Iran, Libya

"In 1998, Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests at the Chagai Hills, in response to the tests conducted by India a few weeks before. A.Q. Khan, the "Father" of the Pakistani nuclear program has admitted to having provided centrifuges and centrifuge designs to North Korea, a fact acknowledged in 2005 by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in exchange of missile technology and money. He also proliferated uranium enrichment technology to Iran and Libya."


The reason it seems so bad is because of the little man from Iran with a chip on his shoulder making a lot of noise.

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,11:40)]Remember people Nostradamus or is that Nostradamnit , has predicted this centuries ago.

BTW, the History Channel has shown this show several times of late.
You should check out ALL of his predictions. He was bound to be right about something. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kc7jty]

War with Iran will give Christian soldiers additional opportunity to kill more of the enemies of God's chosen people. Go W go, for he is being used by God as a tool for good.

[KG4CGC]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,11:31)]Wow, there's some creepy rah-rah war talk from both El Presidente and kww. You don't really think that's a good idea do you? Wait, don't answer that, I don't want to know.
Well Hannity has been telling everyone how fast and easy taking Iran would be.
What dumbass here doesn't think we'd be up against Russia and China, just for starters, if we hit Iran? Go ahead and just start a draft now. The complete and utter lack of any kind of honest diplomacy on the part of this administration is no longer comical. It's just plain asinine.
Frankly, we all know by now that this administration does not work for us or the United States sovereignty.
Yeah, keep saying way to go like it's some kind of football game. Business must be slow.

[KG4CGC]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,14:43)]The other thing that people seem to forget (including President Bush) is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is NOT the commander of the military like a US president would be, the clerics of Iran make those decisions in the end; a scary point I know, but true. Therefore, taking the comments of Ahmadinejad as the soon-to-be actions of Iran as a whole is not necessarily accurate, though both are certainly scary thoughts.
True BUT, the majority of the voting public doesn't know that.
They will vote for who they are told to by the obvious characters.

[KG4CGC]

Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,01:58)]War with Iran will give Christian soldiers additional opportunity to kill more of the enemies of God's chosen people. Go W go, for he is being used by God as a tool for good.
Why do you blame and abuse God for others peoples actions?

[ac4ut]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]Good question w3scm.

Carter didn't have the B's to stand up to IRAN and that's why we have the problems with them that we have today.

Question is will the country of I drop the first bombs on IRAN?

BTW, war will make for a lot of jobs, just like it did in WWII.

Getting to bomb you, gettting to bomb all about you!!!!!

remember that song?
You have hit on the problem of the new millenium. WWII spawned some great tunes and movies. Inspirational stuff.
Since then we have been on a downward spiral. Even Vietnam didn't quite cut it as the songs had over tones of rebellion and a dislike for war.
We need new songs to promote and romanticize war.
That's whta is missing.
Maybe a good plague to fill in some of the poetric void.
Ring around the rosie etc.

[kg4kww]

Have you ordered your Bomb Shelter Yet?

Oh that's right, most of you are to young to remember or know about those days.

[KC5CSG]

I equate George Bush's remarks about WWIII with the "we'd be fighting the terrorist in our streets if we weren't fighting them in Iraq" nonsense. More fear tactics to scare votes up for the Republican party. I do admit though, being in the army myself, I'd rather see them nuke Iran than actually send us there to get shot at and eat sand. That does have a certain appeal. Maybe we can send fox news and CNN there to give us a live broadcast of all of the fireworks? Do it all on a sunday and throw in all the commericals and hype to work it all up to a superbowl sized event on tv.

Jerry

[ac4ut]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 19 2007,06:31)]Have you ordered your Bomb Shelter Yet?

Oh that's right, most of you are to young to remember or know about those days.
I remember!

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,07:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
No, NO! It was the WMDs. That didn't exist. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.

Then it was to rid them of a despot. So now we're headed for Iran. Then it will be North Korea. Then China. Then Columbia and Venuzuela... all with despots. Stop the madness.

[kg4kww]

Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 19 2007,11:17)]Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it.
Is that where you think they went? Perhaps you are forgetting that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies for quite a long time. Of course now that we are there Iran is more than happy to be in Iraq causing trouble against us. Either way, your conclusion is not necessarily logical if you are talking about the Iran of the years before our presence in Iraq.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,04:58)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,01:58)]War with Iran will give Christian soldiers additional opportunity to kill more of the enemies of God's chosen people. Go W go, for he is being used by God as a tool for good.
Why do you blame and abuse God for others peoples actions?
because he is a dumb @ss for letting other peoples claim they worship/serve him.

[kc7jty]

Boosh is a perfect example of why religious kooks (or those who benefit from pandering to them) should not have power in government. They KNOW from the bible that armageddon will start over the modern state of Israel. Helping it along will simply be doing the will of God.
Go W go! Praise the Lord my brothers, the upcoming world wide war can not be avoided. The bible tells us so. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 19 2007,09:17)]Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it.
Don't forget Syria

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 17 2007,13:21)]Good question w3scm.

Carter didn't have the B's to stand up to IRAN and that's why we have the problems with them that we have today.

Question is will the country of I drop the first bombs on IRAN?

BTW, war will make for a lot of jobs, just like it did in WWII.

Getting to bomb you, gettting to bomb all about you!!!!!

remember that song?
Quote[/b] ]Carter didn't have the B's to stand up to IRAN and that's why we have the problems with them that we have today.


That's what it's all about with some people. Big B's and lots and lots of testosterone. Yep, gotta beat 'em silly, make 'em do it exactly our way, or well whup 'em til they comply.

The trouble is, they won't succumb to a beating.

But...we don't have the intelligence in the White House to do diplomacy. Naw, that takes to long and it's for wusses.

Our ship of state these days is a gunboat that'll indiscriminately blast anything that gets in the way. But, it would seem that everything keeps getting in the way.

Gopod help us!

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,05:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
Quote[/b] ]After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).


Guess you've been asleep since '03. We invaded on the false claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link.

Guess you live in a cave, too.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,07:04)]No, NO! It was the WMDs. That didn't exist. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.
... Iran and North Korea are using nuclear programs for peaceful purposes...

Right!

What flavor of Kool-aid do you drink.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 19 2007,10:53)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,05:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
Quote[/b] ]After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).


Guess you've been asleep since '03. We invaded on the false claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link.

Guess you live in a cave, too.
We invaded on the believed claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link, based on national and foreign intelligence reports.


Some people have BIG blinders on...

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,13:56)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,07:04)]No, NO! It was the WMDs. That didn't exist. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.
... Iran and North Korea are using nuclear programs for peaceful purposes...

Right!

What flavor of Kool-aid do you drink.
Yez, let's go in right now. Let's get the 165,000 troops we've been using and put them in China for giving this to the North Koreans. Oh, wait, they're needed in Iraq. And after that they'll be needed in Iran. THEN we can go to China. Not the island of China, but RED China. The one with 300 million troops. The one that now has a treaty with Russia.

Time for the draft yet? Or do you want us to wait until we're speaking Mandarin?

Oh and BTW, instead of putting words in my mouth, link to where you saw me say that. I guarantee you that you can't.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 19 2007,09:23)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 19 2007,11:17)]Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it.
Is that where you think they went? Perhaps you are forgetting that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies for quite a long time. Of course now that we are there Iran is more than happy to be in Iraq causing trouble against us. Either way, your conclusion is not necessarily logical if you are talking about the Iran of the years before our presence in Iraq.
Please explain why at the beginning of the invasion, Iraq flew it's fighter jets to Iran?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,11:59)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 19 2007,10:53)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,05:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
Quote[/b] ]After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).


Guess you've been asleep since '03. We invaded on the false claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link.

Guess you live in a cave, too.
We invaded on the false believed claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link, based on national and foreign intelligence reports.


Some people have BIG blinders on...
I think there was supposed to be a quote there, or are you exactly agreeing with me?

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,10:59)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,13:56)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,07:04)]No, NO! It was the WMDs. That didn't exist. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.
... Iran and North Korea are using nuclear programs for peaceful purposes...

Right!

What flavor of Kool-aid do you drink.
Yez, let's go in right now. Let's get the 165,000 troops we've been using and put them in China for giving this to the North Koreans. Oh, wait, they're needed in Iraq. And after that they'll be needed in Iran. THEN we can go to China. Not the island of China, but RED China. The one with 300 million troops. The one that now has a treaty with Russia.

Time for the draft yet? Or do you want us to wait until we're speaking Mandarin?

Oh and BTW, instead of putting words in my mouth, link to where you saw me say that. I guarantee you that you can't.
Why do you advocate that we should go to war on other countries, like China? Bad policy, bad idea. if this is what liberals think, as well as US Rep. Rangel (D), wants to reintroduce the draft, liberals must want more wars. Careless. Another reason to vote Republican.

Don't assume that I was putting words in your mouth, I wasn't. I was responding, kind of sarcastic, to public statements about other nuclear programs, and the believability of such statements.

You didn't reply on the Kool-aid question? Make something up!

PS: Unlike North Korea and Iran, China and Russia are stable, and not likely to perform foolish acts or act irresponsible. Thought you would notice the obvious difference by now.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 19 2007,11:03)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,11:59)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 19 2007,10:53)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 18 2007,05:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
Quote[/b] ]After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).


Guess you've been asleep since '03. We invaded on the false claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link.

Guess you live in a cave, too.
We invaded on the false believed claims of WMD's and a Saddam/Osama link, based on national and foreign intelligence reports.


Some people have BIG blinders on...
I think there was supposed to be a quote there, or are you exactly agreeing with me?
I forgot the delete, thanks, it's fixed now.

Do I agree, kind of. Not about the premise, but on the action. Personally, I don't think we should have taken action because the evidence was circumstantial and unsubstantiated. Also, if we do not respect national borders of sovereign countries, then how do we expect others to respect us. Just because we are a substantial force, it doesn't give us the right to push other countries around because we don't like them. This is a conservative statement. Don't confuse it with Neo-Con's.

So I do agree with the basics of your points along this thread and the others too. But once we are there, I don't speak out, despite what I believe. Did the same thing when Clinton took us into Serbia/Kosovo thing.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,10:59)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,13:56)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 19 2007,07:04)]No, NO! It was the WMDs. That didn't exist. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.
... Iran and North Korea are using nuclear programs for peaceful purposes...

Right!

What flavor of Kool-aid do you drink.
Yez, let's go in right now. Let's get the 165,000 troops we've been using and put them in China for giving this to the North Koreans. Oh, wait, they're needed in Iraq. And after that they'll be needed in Iran. THEN we can go to China. Not the island of China, but RED China. The one with 300 million troops. The one that now has a treaty with Russia.

Time for the draft yet? Or do you want us to wait until we're speaking Mandarin?

Oh and BTW, instead of putting words in my mouth, link to where you saw me say that. I guarantee you that you can't.
Why do you advocate that we should go to war on other countries, like China? Bad policy, bad idea. if this is what liberals think, as well as US Rep. Rangel (D), wants to reintroduce the draft, liberals must want more wars. Careless. Another reason to vote Republican.

Don't assume that I was putting words in your mouth, I wasn't. I was responding, kind of sarcastic, to public statements about other nuclear programs, and the believability of such statements.

You didn't reply on the Kool-aid question? Make something up!

PS: Unlike North Korea and Iran, China and Russia are stable, and not likely to perform foolish acts or act irresponsible. Thought you would notice the obvious difference by now.
China is stable??!?? After so much as saying they're going to invade the US? After giving Nuclear and Missle technology to North Korea?? I know you're being unnecessarily selective. What kind of half-hiney'd neocon are ya? Go for the Big-B's brass ring! Bang the gong and let them know you're a-comin'! Play old tapes of <s>Marion</s> John Wayne <s>draft-dodger</s> Red State, Red Blooded, All American. Oh and tell Cheney to imitate a gopher while you're at it.

Can't answer the kool-aid question. It was empty after you got to it.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ]Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it. kg4kww
Quote[/b] ]Is that where you think they went? Perhaps you are forgetting that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies for quite a long time. Of course now that we are there Iran is more than happy to be in Iraq causing trouble against us. Either way, your conclusion is not necessarily logical if you are talking about the Iran of the years before our presence in Iraq. KB9YCO
Quote[/b] ]Please explain why at the beginning of the invasion, Iraq flew it's fighter jets to Iran? N1LAF
Because at that point it is the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality. As soon as America got involved in the middle east, to the point of an actual invasion, it became perceived as Islam versus Christianity, i.e. a religious war. Obviously, there are a number of other factors involved, but extremist religion is a large part of the impetus for many of these actions; at least it is rationalized in that way. I certainly have no inside knowledge of any of this, but I think it's a pretty safe bet to hazard that guess. There have certainly been plenty of inferences by different leaders within Iran to draw that conclusion.
You also have to remember that these countries are not governed in the sense of what we think of as government. There are lots of open areas and different factions operating, in some cases independently, and in other cases in unison with one another and doing things that the main governing bodies may be completely unaware of. I am not one to defend Iran, they are just as messed up of religious nut as the rest of them, but to think that Iran and Iraq were close friends in the past is just inaccurate in terms of the history of both countries.
Quote[/b] ]Why do you advocate that we should go to war on other countries, like China? Bad policy, bad idea. if this is what liberals think, as well as US Rep. Rangel (D), wants to reintroduce the draft, liberals must want more wars. Careless. Another reason to vote Republican.
First of all, and yes, I must say this once again. Much of the modern Democratic party is far from liberal in the true meaning of the word.
Secondly, the whole point of Rangel's proposal was to make a point about who is fighting the war and why, not an actual craving to start a draft because he wants more war. If you go back and read what he said about that proposal you will see. As far as I'm concerned both parties are off their collective rockers and extremely out of touch with the majority of Americans, not to mention the world's current perception of America; for anyone to believe that the Republicans have been conservative in their actions, or that the Democrats have been liberal in theirs, is just a complete fallacy and ignores the true meaning of those words.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] ]President Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III

Just to see the shrub try to say the word Nuclear is worth it. Nuke-Klee-ARR.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 19 2007,11:29)]Quote[/b] ]Look dudes, IRAN is most likely got IRAQ's WMD's think about it. kg4kww
Quote[/b] ]Is that where you think they went? Perhaps you are forgetting that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies for quite a long time. Of course now that we are there Iran is more than happy to be in Iraq causing trouble against us. Either way, your conclusion is not necessarily logical if you are talking about the Iran of the years before our presence in Iraq. KB9YCO
Quote[/b] ]Please explain why at the beginning of the invasion, Iraq flew it's fighter jets to Iran? N1LAF
Because at that point it is the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality. As soon as America got involved in the middle east, to the point of an actual invasion, it became perceived as Islam versus Christianity, i.e. a religious war. Obviously, there are a number of other factors involved, but extremist religion is a large part of the impetus for many of these actions; at least it is rationalized in that way. I certainly have no inside knowledge of any of this, but I think it's a pretty safe bet to hazard that guess. There have certainly been plenty of inferences by different leaders within Iran to draw that conclusion.
You also have to remember that these countries are not governed in the sense of what we think of as government. There are lots of open areas and different factions operating, in some cases independently, and in other cases in unison with one another and doing things that the main governing bodies may be completely unaware of. I am not one to defend Iran, they are just as messed up of religious nut as the rest of them, but to think that Iran and Iraq were close friends in the past is just inaccurate in terms of the history of both countries.
Quote[/b] ]Why do you advocate that we should go to war on other countries, like China? Bad policy, bad idea. if this is what liberals think, as well as US Rep. Rangel (D), wants to reintroduce the draft, liberals must want more wars. Careless. Another reason to vote Republican.
First of all, and yes, I must say this once again. Much of the modern Democratic party is far from liberal in the true meaning of the word.
Secondly, the whole point of Rangel's proposal was to make a point about who is fighting the war and why, not an actual craving to start a draft because he wants more war. If you go back and read what he said about that proposal you will see. As far as I'm concerned both parties are off their collective rockers and extremely out of touch with the majority of Americans, not to mention the world's current perception of America; for anyone to believe that the Republicans have been conservative in their actions, or that the Democrats have been liberal in theirs, is just a complete fallacy and ignores the true meaning of those words.
Exactly! You understand what is going on over there. So I was quite surprised to see you ask &quot;Is that where you think they went? Perhaps you are forgetting that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies for quite a long time.&quot;

I know what Rep Rangel was doing, and it is dishonest.

I could care less what the world's perception of us is, if we are doing the right things right. I am not sure we are right now. More important to do what is right than what others think or perceive.

Ok, John, I see your post. Let me see if I can say this in the right way... If Iran goes nuclear, and drops one on Israel, Israel will respond even harder, then the Arabs will get into it, followed by other nations, those that support or oppose Israel. If the energy crunch gets worse, expect to see india and China get involved, since they will also have big stakes in this. I can see how this could lead to WWIII.

[NI3B]

On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.

[al2i]

People keep saying Israel will strike Iran but with what? Israel had no aircraft capable of doing this a few years ago. Have they bought something recently?

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (ni3b @ Oct. 19 2007,14:28)]On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.
I agree. Someone needs to slam a boot in that jerk's mouth. Better yet, isn't it time for him and his pal cheney to go hunting together?.............hehehehe

Jerry

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,17:22)]People keep saying Israel will strike Iran but with what? #Israel had no aircraft capable of doing this a few years ago. #Have they bought something recently?
WHAT?!?

Israel could make a clean slate of the whole area if they had to.

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 18 2007,02:05)]And that will mean, beer, booze, broads, pizza, chips, nachos, tacos, hotdogs, burgers and buritios. Anotherwords, you will have to lose weight and get into shape.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Understanding that round is a shape I still have to ask, what do any of the above have to do with getting into shape?

[n0ov]

Well, look at the bright side. If Iran goes Nuclear and World War III actually begins, the folks at the ZED won't have to worry about banning anyone here for dropping the F-Bomb

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Oct. 19 2007,15:53)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,17:22)]People keep saying Israel will strike Iran but with what? Israel had no aircraft capable of doing this a few years ago. Have they bought something recently?
WHAT?!?

Israel could make a clean slate of the whole area if they had to.
I ask again. How would Israel deliver a strike on Iran? What delivery system would they use? They had to specially modify aircraft to strike Saddam's reactor, but Iran is a lot further away. Has Israel bought or built new aircraft recently?

[al2i]

With external fuel tanks Israel can hit Iran with F-15s, but the extra fuel and distance limits the ordinance that can be used, and Iran's nuke program is not a surface reactor like Iraq's, but rather a centrifuge operation deep within hardened sites.

Edit: After Googling this a bit I suppose Iran does have some surface assets in its nuke program, but that still makes it problematic to end Iran's ambitions with light, limited bombing -- especially since so many of Iran's assets are hardened..

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,19:22)]With external fuel tanks Israel can hit Iran with F-15s, but the extra fuel and distance limits the ordinance that can be used, and Iran's nuke program is not a surface reactor like Iraq's, but rather a centrifuge operation deep within hardened sites.
From what I understand many underground sites.

[nz3m]

Israel has Jericho III Systems. Missles with 7,800km range(able to carry a nuclear warhead).

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Oct. 19 2007,17:07)]Well, look at the bright side. #If Iran goes Nuclear and World War III actually begins, the folks at the ZED won't have to worry about banning anyone here for dropping the F-Bomb
another slice of brilliant insight by one who truly has a unique gift.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,18:22)]since so many of Iran's assets are hardened..
do you find that troubling Dave?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,18:01)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,18:22)]since so many of Iran's assets are hardened..
do you find that troubling Dave?
Do you relish a nuclear Iran Bill?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Oct. 19 2007,17:50)]Israel has Jericho III Systems. Missles with 7,800km range(able to carry a nuclear warhead).
I assumed that Israel would not use nukes.

[nz3m]

Well, they don't &quot;have&quot; to put nukes on them. They can carry 1000lb bombs too.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,19:17)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,18:01)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,18:22)]since so many of Iran's assets are hardened..
do you find that troubling Dave?
Do you relish a nuclear Iran Bill?
I relish an impotent Israel. Iran's desire for serious deterrent stems from it's history of foreign manipulation not only of it's own country but of the entire region.

[KG4CGC]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,07:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
That wasn't diplomacy. That was just making demands.

You know how a lobbyist can woo a congressman?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,21:27)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,19:17)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,18:01)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,18:22)]since so many of Iran's assets are hardened..
do you find that troubling Dave?
Do you relish a nuclear Iran Bill?
I relish an impotent Israel. Iran's desire for serious deterrent stems from it's history of foreign manipulation not only of it's own country but of the entire region.
I thought so. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Oct. 19 2007,18:20)]Well, they don't &quot;have&quot; to put nukes on them. They can carry 1000lb bombs too.
It occurs to me that if they have actually tested the new J3s and if they are really that accurate, there would be a dual deterrent effect from using them. I doubt that would happen though, and it still seems to me that Israel is effectively unable to physically destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure with their current forces.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,23:07)]and it still seems to me that Israel is effectively unable to physically destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure with their current forces.
no problem, they have a big, dumb, sympathetic uncle at their beckon call.

[kg4kww]

Quote[/b] ]n1laf--Don't forget Syria

You are 100% correct

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 20 2007,19:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,23:07)]and it still seems to me that Israel is effectively unable to physically destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure with their current forces.
no problem, they have a big, dumb, sympathetic uncle at their beckon call.
I think you are right about that. President Hillary will probably be inclined to use power when she has it.

[k9kxq]

Why don't we just leave these people alone, we need to declare victory, a job well done by our troops, they have accomplished the mission, Saddam is dead, there are no WMD, bring all our hero's home and give them a big party, then lets clean house and make America strong, get rid of the politicians that BIG Corps have a choke hold on with bribes from lobbyist...

kxq

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Oct. 20 2007,21:30)]Why don't we just leave these people alone, we need to declare victory, a job well done by our troops, they have accomplished the mission, Saddam is dead, there are no WMD, bring all our hero's home and give them a big party, then lets clean house and make America strong, get rid of the politicians that BIG Corps have a choke hold on with bribes from lobbyist...

kxq
one can only dream.....

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 20 2007,21:04)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 20 2007,19:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 19 2007,23:07)]and it still seems to me that Israel is effectively unable to physically destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure with their current forces.
no problem, they have a big, dumb, sympathetic uncle at their beckon call.
I think you are right about that. #President Hillary will probably be inclined to use power when she has it.
the amazing thing is the majority of pro Hillary supporters want an end to the Iraq fiasco, and don't want to get into the same mess or worse in Iran.
We are so screwed up it boggles the mind.

Maybe if it came out Hilly uses Enzyte reluctant American males would flock to support her? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W2ILP]

The Congress must warn Bush that if he invades Iran for less reason that he invaded Iraq he will certainly get himself impeached...even if Iran has WMDs aimed at Israel.

w2ilp (Impeach Lying President) (Inhibit Lobbying Israelis)

[W2ILP]

The Congress must warn Bush that if he invades Iran for less reason that he invaded Iraq he will certainly get himself impeached...even if Iran has WMDs aimed at Israel.

w2ilp (Impeach Lying President) (Inhibit Lobbying Israelis)

[W2ILP]

The Congress must warn Bush that if he invades Iran for less reason that he invaded Iraq he will certainly get himself impeached...even if Iran has WMDs aimed at Israel.

w2ilp (Impeach Lying President) #(Israelis Lobbying Puppet)

[kg6amw]

The Democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and have focused mainly on running away.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Oct. 21 2007,16:29)]The Democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and have focused mainly on running away.
There ya go! Bravo! More insight into the bizarro world of the uber right wing neoKon.

Amazingly consistent there, station.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Oct. 21 2007,13:29)]The Democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and have focused mainly on running away.
Ever occur to you that maybe running away is the way to win? Or at least, not lose?

This is not a conventional war, so to think you can fight it with conventional means is just silly. You're fighting people who are aligned with no country. How do you think this is going to play out? I'll tell you, it's going to play out like every other time in human history where troops have tried to occupy and subdue a population. Eventually, the army gets slaughtered, loses, quits or a combination thereof.

Obviously, you have to kill the people carrying the guns and trying to hijack airliners. But you're not going to be very effective at it when they're shacked up as invited guests into the homes of civilians. Oh sure, you can bomb the civilians, and that kills a few terrorists, a few civilians and nets a dozen more new terrorists. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So the Democrats haven't offered a solution that you like. But then, it's pretty obvious that the Republicans are not so clever in this endeavor either. Even if Democrats could shoot fireballs out of their eyes that instantly neutralizes terrorists, but leaves civilians unharmed, the Republicans wouldn't accept the help.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 19 2007,04:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Oct. 19 2007,03:04)]Oh and to those of you that say diplomacy doesn't work, tell that to Congress and those who lobby them.
Depends on the audience.

After a decade or so of diplomacy, we ended up invading Iraq - basically for non-compliance (UN Resolutions).

And most times diplomacy ends up being bargaining for international blackmail, extortion, etc, and never really about 'diplomacy'.
Non compliance with UN resolutions is a load of bull. Testimony of the weapons inspectors stated clearly that Iraq was not the threat that Bush and Condi that made it out to be. They had no WMD's, no army to speak of. They were noy in a position to attack anyone. And if violation of UN resolutions is an excuse to attack then Bush should have gone after &quot;our only friend in the middle east&quot; who has racked up far more UN resolution violations than Iraq.

Face it. There is a lot of oil in that part of the world. Bush is trying to secure as much of it as possible. Anyone who thinks that oil has nothing do do with whats going on is nuts.

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Oct. 21 2007,15:29)]The Democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and have focused mainly on running away.
Another cut and run attitude from the right, our troops have done the job they were sent to do, it's time to bring them home and let the Iraq Government take care of their problems, we gave them freedom now they must work on it, if they indeed want democracy,or what ever or how is up to the Iraqi Government not the President of the United States...

BTW we won the Iraq War, remember President Bush announced &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; or do you have brain damage...


kxq

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Oct. 19 2007,16:23)]Quote[/b] (ni3b @ Oct. 19 2007,14:28)]On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.
I agree. Someone needs to slam a boot in that jerk's mouth. Better yet, isn't it time for him and his pal cheney to go hunting together?.............hehehehe

Jerry
It's amazing how some here are STILL spewing the liberal propaganda concerning &quot;Mission Accomplished.&quot;

For the um-teeth hundred time &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; had to with the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission ONLY. It had NOTHING to do with the overall mission in Iraq.

While some here are still advocating for the President's &quot;Impeachment&quot;, I would like to impeach Ted Kennedy, Hillary Klintun, J(ane) F(onda) Kerry, Nancy &quot;Sharp As A Beach-ball&quot; Pelosi, and other Democratic members of both Houses of Congress for their participation in &quot;The Big Lie&quot;.

If we are going to &quot;clean house&quot; on Capitol Hill, let's do it right THE FIRST TIME and nail EVERYONE responsible.

But let's not stop there. We need to petition The UN for sanctions against France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and the UN Security Counsel for &quot;lying&quot; and saying they believed &quot;Bootlicker&quot; had WMDs as well.

Any job worth doing, is worth doing well. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Oct. 21 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Oct. 19 2007,16:23)]Quote[/b] (ni3b @ Oct. 19 2007,14:28)]On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.
I agree. Someone needs to slam a boot in that jerk's mouth. Better yet, isn't it time for him and his pal cheney to go hunting together?.............hehehehe

Jerry
It's amazing how some here are STILL spewing the liberal propaganda concerning &quot;Mission Accomplished.&quot;

For the um-teeth hundred time &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; had to with the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission ONLY. It had NOTHING to do with the overall mission in Iraq.

While some here are still advocating for the President's &quot;Impeachment&quot;, I would like to impeach Ted Kennedy, Hillary Klintun, J(ane) F(onda) Kerry, Nancy &quot;Sharp As A Beach-ball&quot; Pelosi, and other Democratic members of both Houses of Congress for their participation in &quot;The Big Lie&quot;.

If we are going to &quot;clean house&quot; on Capitol Hill, let's do it right THE FIRST TIME and nail EVERYONE responsible.

But let's not stop there. We need to petition The UN for sanctions against France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and the UN Security Counsel for &quot;lying&quot; and saying they believed &quot;Bootlicker&quot; had WMDs as well.

Any job worth doing, is worth doing well. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Dood, you had better go back and listen to President Bush's speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, more brain damage the right is full of it...

kxq

[kg6amw]

And yet the Democrats offer nothing except criticism for the President and assistance for the enemy. Resolutions to block budget allocations, resolutions to end the war and resolutions to rile allies, resolutions to slow intelligence gathering, resolutions to block equipment purchases. They openly seek to embarrass our generals, block nominations and give away military secrets. The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian lines even though this is not the official policy of the Bush administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government in Baghdad. That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers to stabilize a unitary Iraq. Two weeks ago, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she made a special trip to reach out to Syria's strongman, Bashar Assad and to undemine our war effort. The Democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and have focused mainly on running away.

[kc7jty]

another 3 years and the dollar will fall another 30% in value, we can handle it.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Oct. 21 2007,18:08)]Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Oct. 19 2007,16:23)]Quote[/b] (ni3b @ Oct. 19 2007,14:28)]On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.
I agree. Someone needs to slam a boot in that jerk's mouth. Better yet, isn't it time for him and his pal cheney to go hunting together?.............hehehehe

Jerry
It's amazing how some here are STILL spewing the liberal propaganda concerning &quot;Mission Accomplished.&quot;

For the um-teeth hundred time &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; had to with the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission ONLY. It had NOTHING to do with the overall mission in Iraq.

While some here are still advocating for the President's &quot;Impeachment&quot;, I would like to impeach Ted Kennedy, Hillary Klintun, J(ane) F(onda) Kerry, Nancy &quot;Sharp As A Beach-ball&quot; Pelosi, and other Democratic members of both Houses of Congress for their participation in &quot;The Big Lie&quot;.

If we are going to &quot;clean house&quot; on Capitol Hill, let's do it right THE FIRST TIME and nail EVERYONE responsible.

But let's not stop there. We need to petition The UN for sanctions against France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and the UN Security Counsel for &quot;lying&quot; and saying they believed &quot;Bootlicker&quot; had WMDs as well.

Any job worth doing, is worth doing well. #:;) : .
Anyone that thinks that the White House operatives did not approve a large &quot;Mission Accomplished Banner&quot; over his shoulder giving a speech is incredibly naive. # Or in KLB’s case just a downright refusal to reason. #Just like he refuses to believe in the Downing Street memos even though Blair, Bush, Straw, #etc will not discount them because he can't admit he was wrong.

They took time to film the AWOL draft Dodger heroically landing in his Flight suit. #They took the time to suspend leave for the sailors and turn the ship around to set the scene so the coast wouldn’t be seen, #but didn’t consider the ramifications of a 100 foot banner behind his head? #This is just another gross act of incompetent judgement like Cheney saying they would welcome us with open arms

Quote[/b] ]Thank you. Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card (ph), officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

[W1GUH]

I may have forgotten the &quot;Add Reply&quot; button before, or something else happened. I thought I said this, but maybe not.

I said something about...

OK, we've got this situation with Iran and nuclear weapons. It doesn't seem a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

But...and this is, well...But

I sure as heck wish I was confident in our Ship of State's ability to deal with this situation.

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 19 2007,04:58)]War with Iran will give Christian soldiers additional opportunity to kill more of the enemies of God's chosen people. Go W go, for he is being used by God as a tool for good.
This omnipotent god needs a guy like bush to do his work for him? Lame.

-gary

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] ]It's amazing how some here are STILL spewing the liberal propaganda concerning &quot;Mission Accomplished.&quot;

For the um-teeth hundred time &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; had to with the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission ONLY. It had NOTHING to do with the overall mission in Iraq.
I don't know where you got this, but it has been established with excellent authority that the sign was put up for the purpose of being a background for bush's speech. #In fact, the words &quot;mission accomplished&quot; were edited out of bush's speech at the last minute by none other than Dick Cheney. #It nothing to do with the Abraham Lincoln's mission which was only to sail out of sight of shore and take on the plane bush was flying in. #The whole show was staged, and the sign was a part of it.

The attempted subtley was to show that bush was a trained fighter pilot. #It, unfortunately, also reminded people of his missing Air National Guard service records.

-gary

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (W4MAJ @ Oct. 18 2007,12:57)]This thread is depressing. Can't we talk about the usual fair? You know, code versus no-code, CB, 14.275, and Winlink? Did I miss anything?
Thats in talk and opinions.

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 22 2007,19:19)]Quote[/b] (W4MAJ @ Oct. 18 2007,12:57)]This thread is depressing. Can't we talk about the usual fair? You know, code versus no-code, CB, 14.275, and Winlink? Did I miss anything?
Thats in talk and opinions.
Good point.

[kg4kww]

Don't forget that Reid and Pelosi want to surrender to the Islamic Terrorists and that thanks to Bush we have had no more attacks on American soil.

[NI3B]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Oct. 21 2007,18:08)]Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Oct. 19 2007,16:23)]Quote[/b] (ni3b @ Oct. 19 2007,14:28)]On the day Bush stole the election from Gore I said, &quot;Well, it's only a matter of time until we attack Iraq&quot;.

On the day we attacked Iraq I said, &quot;Things aren't going to go well&quot;.

On the day Bush said &quot;Mission accomplished&quot; I said, &quot;I don't think so&quot;.

When I first heard that the majority of Americans wanted a full pullout of Iraq I said, &quot;If this happens it will only be months until WWIII.&quot; I believe I actually posted this on this forum.

Bush not only weakened a great country he has strained world relations to the point where a miracle is needed.

I've also said that now would be great time for the 2nd coming.

Way to go Bush!

Actually, I believe that Bush's comments were a result of Putin's comments about Iran earlier this week. Just tough talk. Either way, it would be nice if Bush would just shut up and sit down. Just the way I feel.
I agree. Someone needs to slam a boot in that jerk's mouth. Better yet, isn't it time for him and his pal cheney to go hunting together?.............hehehehe

Jerry
It's amazing how some here are STILL spewing the liberal propaganda concerning &quot;Mission Accomplished.&quot;

For the um-teeth hundred time &quot;Mission Accomplished&quot; had to with the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission ONLY. It had NOTHING to do with the overall mission in Iraq.

While some here are still advocating for the President's &quot;Impeachment&quot;, I would like to impeach Ted Kennedy, Hillary Klintun, J(ane) F(onda) Kerry, Nancy &quot;Sharp As A Beach-ball&quot; Pelosi, and other Democratic members of both Houses of Congress for their participation in &quot;The Big Lie&quot;.

If we are going to &quot;clean house&quot; on Capitol Hill, let's do it right THE FIRST TIME and nail EVERYONE responsible.

But let's not stop there. We need to petition The UN for sanctions against France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and the UN Security Counsel for &quot;lying&quot; and saying they believed &quot;Bootlicker&quot; had WMDs as well.

Any job worth doing, is worth doing well. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Sorry, I know exactly what Bush said and what I said. I'm not spewing anything. I'll leave that to the politicians.

Bottom line...it doesn't take much to realize what mess the Bush administration has caused in this world. Some of us are just tired of it. I'd rather not hear from Bush for the rest of his term.

Best,
Brian

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 23 2007,11:40)]Don't forget that Reid and Pelosi want to surrender to the Islamic Terrorists and that thanks to Bush we have had no more attacks on American soil.
This is so ignorant, do you really believe this and you are an undertaker? do your living customers know what you really think? if they read this you will definitely lose business....

kxq

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Oct. 23 2007,21:41)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 23 2007,11:40)]Don't forget that Reid and Pelosi want to surrender to the Islamic Terrorists and that thanks to Bush we have had no more attacks on American soil.
This is so ignorant, do you really believe this and you are an undertaker? do your living customers know what you really think? if they read this you will definitely lose business....

kxq
Thanks to Bush there have been no more attacks? Good one!!! Okay, lets one up that. That attack happened on Bush's watch. Was he man enough to take responsibility? Heck no, he blamed it all on Clinton. This jerk had an entire year to identify the weaknesses that allowed this attack to happen and correct them. What did he do? He spent most of it chasing critters on his ranch in Texas. Then he has the nerve to blame it on Clinton.

Look people, when you take over as head of any agency you assume the responsibilities right then and there and it's up to you to find problems and fix problems from that point on. The same applies to the President of the United States.

Jerry

[kg4kww]

Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.


it happend on Bush's watch because your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office and didn't have the B's to go after Usma when given the chance. He knew if something happened it would make the Republicans look bad. It's called dirty politics.

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,09:32)]...your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office...
You jealous or something?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n8yx @ Oct. 23 2007,13:37)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,09:32)]...your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office...
You jealous or something?
Sounds like it to me. But, OTOH, he'd probably rather have Hillary.

[KI4PJW]

Iran, in modern times has not been on any expeditional wars.
However, they did fight Iraq. This they did for some years due to the support of the neo-con/neo-dem New World Order Military/Oil/Industrial Complex that has hijacked our Republic and is fast driving us over the cliff into Fascist oblivion.

http://www.oilempire.us/saddam.html

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,09:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.


it happend on Bush's watch because your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office and didn't have the B's to go after Usma when given the chance. He knew if something happened it would make the Republicans look bad. It's called dirty politics.
Dude, you obviously have a problems understanding what is written. Go back, read my post. Try it a few times without a beer in your hand if it helps.

He had an entire year in office where he failed to identify the problem and do something about it. When you take over as President and swear in, all responsibility of the former President is passed on to the current President. All this happened almost a year into Bush's 1st term. It happened on his watch.

I'm sitting here trying to fiure out a way to make it even simpler than what is stated above. Nope, my own 13 year old son gets it and even he says it's written simple enough for the average moron understand.

Sounds to me like your type are the people that don't want to hear or understand the simple logic of who's responsible.

Jerry

[W4BCR]

Just make Iran glow and be done with it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.


it happend on Bush's watch because your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office and didn't have the B's to go after Usma when given the chance. He knew if something happened it would make the Republicans look bad. It's called dirty politics.
Not only are you wrong but you are stupid as well, I suspect you blame Jimmy Carter for the 299 Marines who were killed in Bierut 1983, this happened well in to Reagan's watch...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/REAGANSCASKETS.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Beirutbarr.jpg

kxq

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Oct. 24 2007,21:56)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.


it happend on Bush's watch because your buddy Clinton was to busy getting off with Monica in the Oval Office and didn't have the B's to go after Usma when given the chance. He knew if something happened it would make the Republicans look bad. It's called dirty politics.
Not only are you wrong but you are stupid as well, I suspect you blame Jimmy Carter for the 299 Marines who were killed in Bierut 1983, this happened well in to Reagan's watch...



kxq
You are embarrassing yourself by making accusations and calling others stupid, especially when there are valid points being made.
--------------------------------------------
1. Carter had nothing to do with the Beirut incident.
2. We have been targeted by middle-eastern terrorist for a long time. Let me point out some in history...

a. Shah of Iran deposed, American Hostages taken in Tehran.
b. In 1982, bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, the Marines are sent in
c. US Marine barracks bombed in Beirut, 1983
d. Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro was seized, American shot and thrown overboard. 1985
e. West Berlin discotheque, frequennt by US Servicemen, bombed, 1986
f. 1988, Pan Am flight 103 bombed.
g. 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait, and 1991 US and allied forces repel Iraq from Kuwait.
h. 1993, World Trade towers garage bombed. Links with Al qaida involvement starts here.
i. 1993, 18 American troops killed in Somolia
j. 1995, car bomb killed 5 Americans, 30 wounded
k. 1996, US Air Force housing in Saudi Arabia bombed.
l. Aug 7, 1990, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed. Clinton responded by bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan, same day of his grand jury appearance. Many accused Clinton's timing to take the attention off of him and his embarrassing actions.
m. 2000, USS Cole bombed.
n. 2001, US attacked, World Trade Center towers fall.


Quote[/b] ]Another cut and run attitude from the right, our troops have done the job they were sent to do, it's time to bring them home and let the Iraq Government take care of their problems, we gave them freedom now they must work on it, if they indeed want democracy,or what ever or how is up to the Iraqi Government not the President of the United States...

If the Iraqi government is not strong enough or yet capable of governing and we left, the Iranians will walk in. After all, Iran is supplying the bombs, weapons, etc. If we left too soon, and the Iranians take over, then all we did will go to waste.

I believe there is more at stake here, more than oil, more than Iraq. Being in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, we basically have Syria and Iran surrounded.

Clinton received some criticism because he had a couple of opportunities to have 'obtained' OBL, but didn't take advantage of it.

Carter happened to be in office when the Shah of Iran was deposed. Carter did the right thing by attempting a rescue operation, it was unfortunate that it failed, and rather badly.

Its too bad some here either do not learn from history, or have a short attention span.

Here is a link that lists the attacks, liberals should not go to this link because they will fail to separate the facts from the obvious bias that it contains. The lst here should suffice.
A Brief History of How 9/11 Happened (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200404/ai_n9357203)

[W1GUH]

And if Saddam was still there, Iran wouldn't be able to &quot;walk&quot; into Iran.

You mentioned the Shah of Iran. It's good to remember that the west has been using that region as it's doormat since early in the last century, running roughshod over whole cultures and peoples. Is it any wonder that they're really p*ssed off? P*ssed off to hate the fact that we're occupying what used to be Iraq, and dictating how they're going to live. I'd say they have a very good case of &quot;being sick and tired of it and they're not going to take it anymore.&quot;

The FM's grave mistake was to believe that big cojones would keep 'em under our thumb, and that was just plain wrong.

And now, as predicted by many learned people, we're gonna have to deal with Iran. Meanwhile, our gold is being depleted, or, even, has been depleted to the point where this just may be &quot;our&quot; Afghanistan.

[AB8RU]

heres a lengthy site



Nuke war paper (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html)

[kg6amw]

Perhaps a little more explanation is needed for our liberal brethren to understand. The US allowed the EU to take the lead on negotiations with Iran throughout 2005/2006. Democrats, who had griped about Bush's unilateralism on Iraq, called this out-sourcing. Bush went to the UN twice and got two rounds of sanctions. This year, our allies told us that they could not support tightening sanctions, so Bush instead tightened them on Iranian military financial connections. We could go to war, or we could allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Bush has continued to use the only other option, which is continued sanctions and diplomatic pressure designed to return Iran to the bargaining table as a serious participant. He managed to succeed with North Korea using the same tactics and without resorting to war which the Democrats don't recognize. If the Democratic policy on Iran involves surrendering, then let them say so.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 26 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Ryan, I hate to drizzle on your post, but kg4kww has a point, and he isn't the only one.

First of all, Bush was in office 7 months, not a whole year as one puts it.
Second, the point of contention can be understood by reading this article (Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)), from hardly a conservative publication. Taking action/no action is a judgment call, and I think too easy to blame anyone. Read and judge for yourself.

If the question was why didn't Bush do something within the first seven months, maybe because there was no opportunity at the time.

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 26 2007,11:04)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 26 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Ryan, I hate to drizzle on your post, but kg4kww has a point, and he isn't the only one.

First of all, Bush was in office 7 months, not a whole year as one puts it.
Second, the point of contention can be understood by reading this article (Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)), from hardly a conservative publication. #Taking action/no action is a judgment call, and I think too easy to blame anyone. #Read and judge for yourself.

If the question was why didn't Bush do something within the first seven months, maybe because there was no opportunity at the time.
You can do a lot in seven months if you're not kicking back what what is called &quot;the western white house&quot; and enjoying the good life. Telling reporters you can do your job from there. Talk about getting egg on your face!!!

It only takes a few moments to put our air force on alert to where they wouldn't have been caught with their pants down when all of this happened.

Only takes a few months to warn airports and implement some sort of policy to stop the morons from getting on the plane. How long does it take to get more air marshalls into the planes instead of pushing paper in an office?

Come on people, it could have been stopped if Bush would have done his job, seen the problem and jumped through his butt to stop it. Yes, it is Bush's job to jump through his butt to protect us and our interests. Strolling around his ranch most of the time in his first seven months isn't my definition of jumping through your butt.

Who in the world vacations that much before being on the job anyway? LOL!!!

And you wonder why I call Bush a moron. He worked hard to earn that title.

Jerry

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 26 2007,11:04)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 26 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Ryan, I hate to drizzle on your post, but kg4kww has a point, and he isn't the only one.

First of all, Bush was in office 7 months, not a whole year as one puts it.
Second, the point of contention can be understood by reading this article (Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)), from hardly a conservative publication. #Taking action/no action is a judgment call, and I think too easy to blame anyone. #Read and judge for yourself.

If the question was why didn't Bush do something within the first seven months, maybe because there was no opportunity at the time.
You can do a lot in seven months if you're not kicking back what what is called &quot;the western white house&quot; and enjoying the good life. Telling reporters you can do your job from there. Talk about getting egg on your face!!!

It only takes a few moments to put our air force on alert to where they wouldn't have been caught with their pants down when all of this happened.

Only takes a few months to warn airports and implement some sort of policy to stop the morons from getting on the plane. How long does it take to get more air marshalls into the planes instead of pushing paper in an office?

Come on people, it could have been stopped if Bush would have done his job, seen the problem and jumped through his butt to stop it. Yes, it is Bush's job to jump through his butt to protect us and our interests. Strolling around his ranch most of the time in his first seven months isn't my definition of jumping through your butt.

Who in the world vacations that much before being on the job anyway? LOL!!!

And you wonder why I call Bush a moron. He worked hard to earn that title.

Jerry

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 26 2007,11:04)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 26 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Ryan, I hate to drizzle on your post, but kg4kww has a point, and he isn't the only one.

First of all, Bush was in office 7 months, not a whole year as one puts it.
Second, the point of contention can be understood by reading this article (Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)), from hardly a conservative publication. #Taking action/no action is a judgment call, and I think too easy to blame anyone. #Read and judge for yourself.

If the question was why didn't Bush do something within the first seven months, maybe because there was no opportunity at the time.
You can do a lot in seven months if you're not kicking back in what is called &quot;the western white house&quot; and enjoying the good life. Telling reporters you can do your job from there. Talk about getting egg on your face!!!

It only takes a few moments to put our air force on alert to where they wouldn't have been caught with their pants down when all of this happened.

Only takes a few months to warn airports and implement some sort of policy to stop the morons from getting on the plane. How long does it take to get more air marshalls into the planes instead of pushing paper in an office?

Come on people, it could have been stopped if Bush would have done his job, seen the problem and jumped through his butt to stop it. Yes, it is Bush's job to jump through his butt to protect us and our interests. Strolling around his ranch most of the time in his first seven months isn't my definition of jumping through your butt.

Who in the world vacations that much before being on the job anyway? LOL!!!

And you wonder why I call Bush a moron. He worked hard to earn that title.

Maybe my definition of leader is different from most others. I know, being an NCO, I'm a leader of any team I'm put in charge of. If I take over leadership of three soldiers I do that knowing that from that point on I assume all responsibility of anything that happens to them soldiers. If they're not trained to the METL a week later I have no good excuse and can't just sit there crying their last leader is at fault. I had better have the problem identified in my leader book and I have better had the requests for training into the training office. If I have a soldier in that team getting evicted for failure to pay his rent, oh well, I'm responsible. Why? Because I'm his leader. I'm the one that has to stand on the red carpet in front of the Sergeant Major explaining why I didn't get this taken care of. I just can't go in there and say &quot;it was SGT. John Doe's fault&quot;. I hold my Commander in Chief to the same standard. It happened on his watch, I expect him to man up and admit it. Just like I do on a daily basis when my team screws up. Believe me, I screw up often but I've never been acused of trying to cover it up. I always tell the truth and accept full responsibility. Why? It's simple, the worse they can do is replace me with someone more qualified and make my job easier or they can realize I hardly screw up more than once in the same area and realize I'm learning. Admitting when you're wrong is the first thing you have to be willing to do if you expect to become a good leader.

Jerry

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Oct. 26 2007,06:04)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 26 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Oct. 24 2007,11:32)]Now KC5CSG lets tell the truth, don't want to hear it?
To damn bad.
He did and you didn't understand what he said.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Ryan, I hate to drizzle on your post, but kg4kww has a point, and he isn't the only one.

First of all, Bush was in office 7 months, not a whole year as one puts it.
Second, the point of contention can be understood by reading this article (Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)), from hardly a conservative publication. Taking action/no action is a judgment call, and I think too easy to blame anyone. Read and judge for yourself.

If the question was why didn't Bush do something within the first seven months, maybe because there was no opportunity at the time.
Good points there Paul. Some people don't come from generations and generations of true blooded Americans. They come from places where leaders are actually expected to show progress and are held responsible for their actions/inactions.

If these people will grow in the American way more, they or their descendants will grow apathetic as many Americans are now towards demanding responsible leadership.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Oct. 26 2007,11:16)]It only takes a few moments to put our air force on alert to where they wouldn't have been caught with their pants down when all of this happened.

Only takes a few months to warn airports and implement some sort of policy to stop the morons from getting on the plane. How long does it take to get more air marshalls into the planes instead of pushing paper in an office?

Come on people, it could have been stopped if Bush would have done his job, seen the problem and jumped through his butt to stop it. Yes, it is Bush's job to jump through his butt to protect us and our interests. Strolling around his ranch most of the time in his first seven months isn't my definition of jumping through your butt.
You are embarrassing yourself by showing poor analytical skills here, and an obvious bias. By your standards, you have to ask Clinton, who had the previous 8 years why he didn't act. The answer is not so simple. I think the thinking may have been if we ignore it, it will go away, like we are asked to do on 14.275 (right?).

The second reality is that intelligence gets tens of thousands of these 'imminent warnings' that almost all never occur. To cycle everyone 10,000 times a month of false calls will result in 'never believe it'.

You are also making an assumption that the administration knew this attack was definitely going to occur. Wisdom will tell you that no American President will intentionally allow a credible warning go unheeded.

We should stop blaming Presidents for these attacks, near attacks, rumors of attacks, and start blaming the right people who are responsible for the attacks, the terrorist themselves and their willing accomplices.

Jerry (N9XR), thanks for the kind remarks. I am second generation on my dad's side.

[KI4PJW]

I heard that Homergene Gilbert Jonesenhammgullicutty in Moose Butt Maine is possibly, maybe, going to buy a Shotgun.
As a South Carolinian, I, and my friends absolutely cannot allow this to happen as, there may be Civil War II. Therefore using sound logic as demonstrated by the Fed we will be departing next Tuesday to conduct a pre-emptive Strike