Lazy Senior wrote:

Bill wrote:




And what if they had worded thus "Would you be willing to pay $666 so
that we can begin breaking up the radical muslim gang of thugs that
just killed 4000 innocent Americans and threaten to kill more?"


-BM


Dont try to re-write history, the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11

Then you explain to me why the US went into Iraq? To steal the oil from
them? Cuz Saddam threatened to kill Dubya's daddy? To build that
pipeline across the country to the Caspian Sea? (no, wait, that was
Afghanistan). Just to fill the pockets of Dubya and his cronies with cash?

Think like an mature adult. Iraq has nothing directly to do with Bali I
and II, Madrid bombings, London bombings, pushing Irving Klinghoffer off
of a cruise ship in his wheelchair, Beirut hostage taking, chopping off
Daniel Perl's head...on and on for the past 30 years. But what they DID
have was WMDs and a propensity to use them against their own internal
enemies and a sympathy with the nutcases waging war against the West.
Its pretty clear that Saddam's Iraq had the MOST resources at the
disposal of factions like the 9/11 murderers and was a good place to
start.

You cannot separate 9/11 from today's Iraq. The little mini-incidents
that the radical muslims have perpetrated against the West pale in
comparison to the 4000 lives lost right here on US soil. To not do
something about it would be folly. If 9/11 had not occurred, we
wouldn't be there. In that sense Iraq has much to do with 9/11.

I respect the people who must make these bold decisions and the
foot-soldiers obliged to carry out the task. I'm neither a politician
or a military strategist - and subsequently I'm not a Monday Morning
Quarterback calling the game that isn't finished yet. I'm glad this
type of whining "it costs every taxpayer $xxx" didn't happen in 1944.
Back then "Blame America First" wasn't very fashionable.

-Bill

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:29:44 GMT, Lazy Senior
wrote:

toxcrusadr wrote:


I wonder what the vote would have been if it had not been in Congress
but by a vote of the people, worded thus, "Should the government charge
you $666 for each man, woman and child in your household, to attack a
country that has never attacked the United States, with whom we are not
currently at war? BTW this is in addition to the current war in
Afganistan."

It would have been 299 million against.

Tox


Add to that: In addition to the $$ cost, your son, grandson, husband,
brother may die.......

Lazy Senior



Yep...could happen. Hey, I though you were leaving this group?

I agree with you there...


On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:40:20 -0500, "Mark Oppat"
wrote:

I sure cherish that freedom, sir! And, I hope it spreads across the globe.
We dont always use it like we should, though.

Mark Oppat


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:01:40 -0500, "Mark Oppat"
wrote:

beerbarrel wrote...
"I think we killed more than 20000 of those *******s....hopefully we
will get even more."


wow, this swerved way off...from UPS service to taxes to the
war....totally
off topic, sorry, just went down this path I have to say my last...

*******s?


You have your stance and I have mine......That's the magic in freedom
of opinion ehh?

Bill wrote:
But what they DID
have was WMDs

-Bill

Bill
You been watching WAY too much Fox News Network.

Iraq HAD WMD's? Where you been the last year??

Lazy Senior

Bill wrote:

Then you explain to me why the US went into Iraq? To steal the oil from
them? Cuz Saddam threatened to kill Dubya's daddy? To build that
pipeline across the country to the Caspian Sea? (no, wait, that was
Afghanistan). Just to fill the pockets of Dubya and his cronies with cash?

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm still waiting for the explanation
as to why the US went into Iraq.

Best argument that I have heard is that we needed a place in the mideast
to put some pressure on Saudi Arabia.

But for the most part, I haven't heard any reasonable explanation for why
we went into Iraq, and I'm still waiting.

Quarterback calling the game that isn't finished yet. I'm glad this
type of whining "it costs every taxpayer $xxx" didn't happen in 1944.
Back then "Blame America First" wasn't very fashionable.

Yes, but back then we had a more limited set of enemies, and we knew
who they were. (Well, for the most part. It was hard to tell about
Stalin.)
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Beerbarrel wrote:


Yep...could happen. Hey, I though you were leaving this group?

Havin too much fun. Someone needs to show you the error of your ways.
Maybe I will get you to start thinking.....

Lazy Senior

from the facts below im sure Alzheimer's has set in.just because you read it doesnt make it true.6 lies of commission and two
of omission and in only two paragraphs?someone is getting lazy.
mit



|
|
| Bush started out with billions of dollars surplus from Mr. Clinton.
| This should surprise no one, Bush's Father had us in the hole too. It
| took a Democrat 8 years to get things balanced and the present Prez
| ****ed it all away.
|
| He squandered it all, giving tax cuts to the rich and oil companies and
| so on AND getting us into a war that we didnt need to start. Now we are
| 8 trillion in the hole with no end in sight.
|
|
| Lazy Senior

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:14:04 GMT, Lazy Senior
wrote:

Beerbarrel wrote:


Yep...could happen. Hey, I though you were leaving this group?

Havin too much fun. Someone needs to show you the error of your ways.
Maybe I will get you to start thinking.....

Lazy Senior



haha...you are too old and lazy to help anyone!

old men,women and children dont care how much it costs when they are dead.
how bout you?
mit
"toxcrusadr" wrote in message ups.com...
| Back to the math, my calculations show that a $9 trillion total
| national debt with 300 million people is $30,000 for every man, woman
| and child - from babies in the cradle to old people, taxpaying or not.
| Family of 4, that's $120,000 owed to the nation's creditors.
|
| If the war costs $200 billion (pulled that out of my butt, but it's way
| more than the initial $87B), that's $666 for every man, woman and
| child. Nice round number huh. :-)
|
| I wonder what the vote would have been if it had not been in Congress
| but by a vote of the people, worded thus, "Should the government charge
| you $666 for each man, woman and child in your household, to attack a
| country that has never attacked the United States, with whom we are not
| currently at war? BTW this is in addition to the current war in
| Afganistan."
|
| It would have been 299 million against.
|
| Tox
|

Lazy Senior wrote:

Bill wrote:
But what they DID

have was WMDs
-Bill


Bill
You been watching WAY too much Fox News Network.

Iraq HAD WMD's? Where you been the last year??

Lazy Senior

Where is your memory? What do you think he gassed his Kurdish citizens
with? Does that not count as a WMD or do you have a stricter
definition? Why were UN inspectors there so many years? What about the
program to DISMANTLE such manufacturing facilites after he invaded
Kuwait. Why did he throw out the inspectors?

Convenient for your side of the argument that you omit the implications
of 4000 murdered on US soil and the need to mitigate such occurences in
the future. Your 'side' is very short on alternative solutions but very
long on criticism.

Bad recent intelligence? You betcha. No denying that. Sold a bill of
false goods by the President to start a war without any discernable
reason? Lets use the same standard of proof and stop playing partisan
roles.

WMDs or not the underlying issues remain and thats the radical doctrine
of killing anything/anybody Western. We've got plenty of proof there.
Do you need proof that the Saddam regime was sympathetic to this cause
and was a major point of instability in the region?

We ain't gonna win this one with simple hugs and trying to be good
neighbors...and we damn sure won't win it with internal bickering.
Bring us a good candidate to deal with this 'quagmire' in 2008.

Good night,
Bill