shaft wrote:

MajorCougar wrote:

If you want to see an example of a group of people trying to appease, then look no further than the Kingmen in the Book of Mormon. They were trying to make a deal with the Zoramites/Lamanites. Seems to me that Captain Moroni recognized the evil and REAL threat that was and put a quick stop to it. Maybe that's what is needed today....

I'm not going to argue with you regarding the war on terror concepts. I can't convince you because that's been tried before. If you don't "like it", either vote for a differenct course, OR shut up, OR leave the country. It's YOUR choice. I'm at peace with what I'm doing and believe is right - not just because the "spirit told me so", but because I've been in more briefings and read more reports on what is going on in the world than you probably have, based on your comments.

Everybody seems to join the bandwagon with bashing Bush and Cheney. Were there mistakes made? Yes, sure. But would you rather have Iraq FINISHED right or leave it a safe-haven for terrorists/extremists to launch their jihad against us?

Whatever it takes, sometimes it is unpleasant, long, and costly. ...Just ask Captain Moroni.

I try to avoid these discussions, but your invocation of the Book of Mormon dragged me in.

Let me first say, I basically agree with your position that battles need to be fought to secure our freedom. What I do not agree is the use of Captain Moroni as justification. The battles Captain Moroni waged were on Nephite lands against immediate threats, and Captain Moroni stopped his conquests short of the Lamanite cities, and did not seek to overthrow the Lamanite goverment simply because it was opposed to Nephite culture.

While I believe that our war in Iraq is a neccessary evil, I think you do a disservice to make it a Captain Moroni issue, when he stopped well short of what we have done. A better example might be Nephi beheadeding the defenseless Laban. That violence was wrought on Laban's turf, and was justified for the sins he had committed, and to ensure that a future distant nation would not dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Maybe not an EXACT match of an example, but I believe the principles are the same. Do we want to wait for them to come over here and fight it out in our lands?? Or do we want to engage them in an area where only our military is directly involved?

As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein was the one who invaded in 90/91 into Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. We step into defend, and then push back. When Hussein felt the noose coming, he calls for a cease-fire. He did not obey the terms of the cease fire, and broke the terms for the no-fly zone in both the north and the south. Finally, he did not come clean with the inspectors. In addition, he was funding and supporting terrorist activities. All those added up to us having to go in again and finish the job that had been on hold during the '90s.

MajorCougar wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

MajorCougar wrote:

MagicMax wrote:

MajorCougar wrote:

dYrtbYkerYder wrote:

Let's see... One thing Obama has ever done??? Well, shall we start with he got an "A" in a college class or two

I'm assuming you're being a little sarcastic here.

But to say Obama would be a great president is the same as Britney Spears being a good mother... (Sorry... all fluff and no stuff).

I want someone that has a stand on issues rather than a lot of "feel-good" speak.

It's too bad that the founding fathers didn't put in the Constitution requiring a president to have some military experience... After all, that person will be my boss for the next 4 years...

Honestly, how hard is it to type www.barackobama.com and read his detailed plan on every significant issue? How hard is it to read a little bit about his life and find he taught constitutional law, served as a community organizer, was the first African American president of the Harvard Law review, served as a state senator in Illinois, and now as a US Senator where he serves on the foreign relations committee and has passed important legislation. Is that "fluff"? No, that would be laziness and willful ignorance on the part of people who don't want to understand.
The difference between Obama and Romney: Obama passed up millions to serve people; Romney passed up people to make millions.

The other difference: Obama has been consistent on his positions and principles; Romney had a new poll-tested message every week (it's amazing he could hold the same view on abortion for over 50 years and then just a couple years before running for president it changes)

The other difference: Romney is out; Obama is winning against one of the most powerful names in politics.

And one last thing: since you're in the military you should actually be thrilled at the prospect of an Obama presidency. He not only respects soldiers through lip service, but through action. He will only engage in wars that are necessary; he will go after Al-Qaida and Bin Laden; and he will make sure veterans are taken care of when they return. Most veterans and current soldiers I know are excited about the leadership Obama would bring and depressed when thinking about McCain's 100 year occupation plan for Iraq.

1) Serving on the foreign relations committee doesn't really do anything for me. Sorry. If he's not willing to LISTEN to the commanders on the ground, and just make an arbitrary decision, then I fear for this country and the military.

I want somebody that's not only familiar with running something, but has at least some exposure to the military. At least McCain has that. And for those of you think Romney didn't, think again. As governor, you're the Commander-in-chief of the State National Guard. That's better than anything a Senator has in sitting in some closed door briefings...

2) No, not lazy; just more aware than most.

3) Thrilled? No. "Petrified" would be a closer word. Not only does Obama not have any real NATIONAL legistative background, not only would he raise taxes to the hilt to pay for all his programs, but "cutting & running" when we're on the brink of kicking out Al Qaeda in Iraq would mean the sacrifice, including mine, to serve there would be wasted.

The war on terror includes Iraq; it's not an "occupation" because we feel like it. This war would be over if the terrorists were not bent on destroying us and our way of life. This has actually been going on since the late '70's. Until then, however, no matter how long it takes, I will uphold the oath that I have sworn to: "defend this country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic".

Both Captain Moroni and General Mormon had to fight against their enemies their entire lives. That's why they used these words to keep them going: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children".

'War on terror', 'war on terror', 'war on terror'... good grief... I think I'm gonna throw up! Bush went on record recently and admitted that he doesn't think the 'war on terror' can be won. Gee, I wonder why??? What an idiot. The 'war on terror' is nothing than a war on ideology... good luck winning that war! There have always been terrorists and there always will be. They know no bounds, have no boundaries, no national identity, no formidable military and are spread out everywhere, not just in Iraq. Peanuts, swimming pools, lost deer and M&M's kill more people every year than a terrorist does and you're thousands times more likely to die in an auto accident than from a terrorist, yet, Bush, Cheney and even McCain have stated that the 'war on terror' could last another hundred years!

The military-industrial complex is pulling the strings in Washington and at the Pentagon MajorCougar and anyone who honestly thinks we're in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the people has rocks in their head!!! A year after the Iraq invasion began, Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden... know what he said? "I don't know where he is and quite frankly, I don't really care... he's not a PRIORITY". This was uttered two years after Bush publicly said capturing him was his top priority. These guys are experts in deceit and government-sponsored terrorism and false flag operations have been going on for a long time... it's how they rally public support for their militaristic and political agendas. bin Laden and al Qaida are the perfect 'boogey-man' for keeping the U.S. public in a constant state of fear and it's worked... just read an article recently where a study was conducted that found the biggest contributing factor in the stress in peoples' lives is the threat of a terror attack.:laugh:

Again, if there are enemies against us, then we must fight them. What do you want to do? Sit back, appease, and wait for "something to maybe not happen"?? Sounds "Chamberlain-ish".

If you want to see an example of a group of people trying to appease, then look no further than the Kingmen in the Book of Mormon. They were trying to make a deal with the Zoramites/Lamanites. Seems to me that Captain Moroni recognized the evil and REAL threat that was and put a quick stop to it. Maybe that's what is needed today....

I'm not going to argue with you regarding the war on terror concepts. I can't convince you because that's been tried before. If you don't "like it", either vote for a differenct course, OR shut up, OR leave the country. It's YOUR choice. I'm at peace with what I'm doing and believe is right - not just because the "spirit told me so", but because I've been in more briefings and read more reports on what is going on in the world than you probably have, based on your comments.

Everybody seems to join the bandwagon with bashing Bush and Cheney. Were there mistakes made? Yes, sure. But would you rather have Iraq FINISHED right or leave it a safe-haven for terrorists/extremists to launch their jihad against us?

Whatever it takes, sometimes it is unpleasant, long, and costly. ...Just ask Captain Moroni.

I think you're missing my point. If this whole war in Iraq was really legitimate and we were fighting the Iraqi military, sure, I'd be all for enduring to the end. However, that's not the case... did Iraq attack the United States? No. Who did (according to the 'Fed'... bin Laden and 19 Arab terrorists. And where were those terrorists from (at least the majority)? Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? (I think we already know the answer to that). Our Founding Fathers not only warned us about getting involved in 'entangling alliances', they also warned us about going to war without provocation. We knew Saddam had no WMD's, but intelligence was manipulated and falsified to convince an apathetic American public that they did and thus, an invasion was justified. Saddam wasn't even a threat to himself, let alone the United States!

He actually told FBI interrogators right before he was hung that he tried to make everyone believe he had WMD's because he was worried about Iran attacking/invading if they knew his country was no threat. I'm all for fighting the good fight and doing whatever it takes to defeat an enemy... as long as it is a just war for a just cause, however... Iraq is and was most certainly not... it is a war based on false information and deceit, with the ulterior motive being to secure oil and natural resources in the middle east, along with the enrichment and empowerment of the military-industrial complex of this country. Sorry... that is how I see it... 9/11 was carried out in order for the implementation of a plan to begin a mission of American imperialism, starting with the middle east.

So... being a military man... what say you about the undersea fiber optic telecommunication cables being cut over in the middle east that cut off internet and phone communications to nations like Iran? Only the U.S. Navy has the capability to do that and how interesting that Iran will be opening up its own oil bourse on Feb. 27... didn't Saddam also announce that he would no longer be accepting dollars for his country's oil, only euros, back in 2003 before we invaded? I think we just sent Iran a final warning... mess with us financially and you'll pay the price. Nice... here we are 'allegedly' fighting for freedom in Iraq, while sabotaging telecommunication lines in the middle east because one of their countries won't play nice politically or financially with us. Talk about hypocrisy!!!

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said airwolf. And I see that you too watch 60 minutes . I thought it was really interesting in that story that Sadham perceived Iran as a much greater threat than the US. It really was a fascinating story, that once again confirmed the ludicrousy of this war.

I will disagree and say that the administration didn't so much manipulate evidence as just make it up. The administration flat out lied to the public about why we went to war. Why they did this, I have no idea, but people in the intelligence community keep coming out and saying that there was no evidence behind pretty much all of the things the Bush administration was saying at the time.

I assume since you've brought up the "military industrial complex" you've probably seen Why We Fight? If not you should really check it out. It's a great documentary, and frightening.

Also, I recommend the Fog of War if you have not seen that.

So when Bill and Hillary said the exact same things that Bush did it was just misinformation on their part. But Bush lied. About what oh everything but I can't say exactly what but everything but Clinton was just given bad info. Oh and all the dems on the Senate inteligence committee that heard the EXACT same briefings as Bush and still voted to give Bush the power to declare war just misheard it. You guys need to get away from NPR, AirAmerica, and 60 min. They foster nothing but confusion, hatred, and misinformation.

Wolfie you need a hobby or at least a punching bag to release some of your rage. If you want to point a finger for 9/11, just point it at Bill Clinton and his great cabinet. His taking bribes led to Jamie Gorelick's wall which made it impossible for the CIA to inform the FBI about several of the hijackers so they got to move around in the US without the FBI knowing about them. And all because Clinton wanted to make sure he didn't get investigated by the FBI for the Chinese bribes! There is your conspiracy! Learn the facts then open the mouth. And if you want to say it was Bush's regime that did it by planting explosives then you are really out of touch. Do you really believe that he could have organized all the logistics required to pull that off in nine months? And why in the world would he have gone after Iraq if he wanted oil? You said it yourself. Saudi Arabia had more ties. And guess what, they also have about 2/3 of all the oil in the region. BTW, where is all that oil that we were supposed to be stealing from Iraq? You guys make your claims based only on suppositions and theory with no facts to back any of it up. The real problem in the world is that there are too many people in power that think they know what's best for the rest of us. They want to manage us down to the temperature we keep our house at. It's for the good of the people and the world after all! To me, it sounds an awful lot like a second plan that was presented a long, long time ago.

Hengst wrote:

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said airwolf. And I see that you too watch 60 minutes :-). I thought it was really interesting in that story that Sadham perceived Iran as a much greater threat than the US. It really was a fascinating story, that once again confirmed the ludicrousy of this war.

I will disagree and say that the administration didn't so much manipulate evidence as just make it up. The administration flat out lied to the public about why we went to war. Why they did this, I have no idea, but people in the intelligence community keep coming out and saying that there was no evidence behind pretty much all of the things the Bush administration was saying at the time.

I assume since you've brought up the "military industrial complex" you've probably seen Why We Fight? If not you should really check it out. It's a great documentary, and frightening.

Also, I recommend the Fog of War if you have not seen that.

Actually, I am not a regular viewer of 60 minutes... I think I read about Saddam's revelation on MSNBC's or CNN's website. I was just trying to be nice when I said 'manipulated' intelligence... it was flat out falsified, as you said. No, haven't seen 'Why We Fight', but it sounds like a documentary I'd be intrigued with. Wars are big business! It's sad, but true. Radio host Alex Jones has certainly done enough homework and investigation, not to mention infiltrating to be a wealth of knowledge about the realities we face, so I feel like I've got a pretty good idea about what's going on and why. I haven't seen the Fog of War either. If you want to see an informative documentary that exposes the realities of government-sponsored terrorism, I highly recommend 'Terrorstorm'... it covers everything, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to 9/11. It sounds like you're one of those rare informed people... nice to see someone else on the board who is educated about the realities and truth of it all.

imuakahuku wrote:

So when Bill and Hillary said the exact same things that Bush did it was just misinformation on their part. But Bush lied. About what oh everything but I can't say exactly what but everything but Clinton was just given bad info. Oh and all the dems on the Senate inteligence committee that heard the EXACT same briefings as Bush and still voted to give Bush the power to declare war just misheard it. You guys need to get away from NPR, AirAmerica, and 60 min. They foster nothing but confusion, hatred, and misinformation.

Wolfie you need a hobby or at least a punching bag to release some of your rage. If you want to point a finger for 9/11, just point it at Bill Clinton and his great cabinet. His taking bribes led to Jamie Gorelick's wall which made it impossible for the CIA to inform the FBI about several of the hijackers so they got to move around in the US without the FBI knowing about them. And all because Clinton wanted to make sure he didn't get investigated by the FBI for the Chinese bribes! There is your conspiracy! Learn the facts then open the mouth. And if you want to say it was Bush's regime that did it by planting explosives then you are really out of touch. Do you really believe that he could have organized all the logistics required to pull that off in nine months? And why in the world would he have gone after Iraq if he wanted oil? You said it yourself. Saudi Arabia had more ties. And guess what, they also have about 2/3 of all the oil in the region. BTW, where is all that oil that we were supposed to be stealing from Iraq? You guys make your claims based only on suppositions and theory with no facts to back any of it up. The real problem in the world is that there are too many people in power that think they know what's best for the rest of us. They want to manage us down to the temperature we keep our house at. It's for the good of the people and the world after all! To me, it sounds an awful lot like a second plan that was presented a long, long time ago.

You guys need to get away from NPR, AirAmerica, and 60 min. They foster nothing but confusion, hatred, and misinformation.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never listen to NPR, Air America or even watch 60 Minutes.

Learn the facts then open the mouth. And if you want to say it was Bush's regime that did it by planting explosives then you are really out of touch. Do you really believe that he could have organized all the logistics required to pull that off in nine months? And why in the world would he have gone after Iraq if he wanted oil?

I have learned the facts my friend... been reading about and researching this stuff for a few years now, so you can save your hollow and ill-advised insults. I've never come out and accused Bush or his regime of carrying out 9/11, although, the evidence and proof of foreknowledge is overwhelming and so the deliberate ignorance of the warnings makes the Bush administration complicit in the attacks. I've maintained that whoever the perpetrators were had to have motive, the means, the knowledge and the sophistication to be able to execute the powerfully unconventional demolition of three buildings all on the same day. Who matches all of the criteria? The U.S. military-industrial complex. However, it could also be a much more powerful group that has a lot of wealth and power behind it. A real, independent investigation needs to happen, but we'll probably never see one.

As for why Bush went after Iraq... easy... it was a country that would provide the least resistance to a U.S. invasion over in the region and provided an opportunity to begin setting up permanent bases for a planned transformation of the middle east under U.S. control. Isn't it interesting how not one penny of Iraqi oil has gone towards paying for the 'war', now over $600 billion. You want an eye-opener kahuku... do some research on the Taliban coming to Washington in 2001 to discuss with our government the allowance of a natural gas pipeline through their region to the Caspain Sea... you'll see why Afghasnistan was invaded. Things are not as they seem my friend... open your eyes.