Fahrenheit 9/11 : Did you see it and if you did what do you think about it ?

[jhuskey]

That's Mr. Twit to you Mr. Gung Ho dolt.Only "girlie men" say they're sorry. Ha ha. Just quoting a republican. Now you've got me doing it

That's because Arnold is cool Cool will out distance intelligent or informed any day. Not that I think Arnold isn't intelligent. He seems to be a bright guy.
How about Jessica Simpson for president. She will get the young vote, has nice boobs and obviously can be bought.

 

[TEMcDonald]

The movie is pure bunk. I will be happy when folks wake up and realize that this guy is just as guilty as he says the right is at distorting the truth. Here are a couple of sources:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/

 

[zapper]

When one utilizes the argument that the ideals of the founding fathers are outdated, Zapper, one loses the ability to hold any credibility at all in claiming that others "don't get it".

Ah, it is you who "doesn't get it". In your own words you say these words are outdated...Please all that view the following, let it be known it is not my intention to disrespect this thread or forum by posting the following quotes from our forefathers that pertain references to religion. My argument is not one of religion but I use these quotes from our forefathers soley to illustrate a point....

Originally Posted by Beastt - But that's what this discussion is about. It's about the freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the founding of this country which we are losing day by day….

Yes, some are trying to change the words to the pledge of allegiance ..i.e removing a phrase that would mention a deity. But wait...Our forefathers approved of this pledge...

Originally Posted by Beastt - I would hope that you have some idea who the men quoted below were.

I would hope that you would take to heart ALL of their words not just those of Thomas Jefferson and only when his words fit your argument...

Originally Posted by Beastt - They were among the founding fathers of America and their ideas became the ideals which defined America and which would continue to support freedoms were they not subjected to the weakness of the fearful - always clamoring for more protection from attack, though often imaginary and manufactured.

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

Samuel Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Constitutional Convention of 1787

Originally Posted by Beastt - No one is claiming that the citizens are against church, only that church is a private, personal issue and has no place in publically funded programs such as the schools.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”

You really need to do some reading about what concepts the founding fathers brought to the table in establishing the basic ideals for America.

Yes, you should....

Apparently even setting the bold parameter for the word "and" failed to reach you. I said when it "offends someone AND violates rights guaranteed them by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." Perhaps you're viewing this via a forum that doesn't support VB code?

So what you are saying is what here…What our founding fathers said, offended someone and violated rights?? How can that be? I mean, if what they said couldn’t possible be outdated…Right? um....what's the word I"m looking for here???Oh, yes...HYPOCRITE

 

[wadoflove]

What's preposterous is that I have a right to my opinion and you are somehow saying that I don't but someone with an opposing view does. What is preposterous is that someone would vote a person into office not based upon their agreement or even the slightest tidbit of knowledge of where their candidate stands on the ISSUES but based upon the mere fact that his/her candidate of choice is not Bush.

Whats preposterous is that one would actually think that protesting our countries actions during war would actually help our soldiers??? Our cause??No, it just makes us look unorganized and ripe for the picking. I have no problem with the right to protest. But, it must not be overused. These days not only are there frivilous law suites but frivilous protests. There are organizations that will plan, organize and manage your protest for you. The time to have protested would have been prior to going to war not during.

I can tell that being over in theatre during the War and seeing protests or planned protests going on in the states while I was there severely effected not only my morale but the morale of my shipmates. Imagine how that makes a ground soldier feel who is in the thick of it?

The fact of the matter is we are there, we can't change that now. For one to think that making a fool of oneself illustrated by the obscene protests that took place in New York did nothing but embolden the insurgents. If you do not subscribe to that opinion than so be it. However, in accordance with your logic I am entitled to hold that opinion not only as an American Citizen but also as someone who has been there and has seen how some of these protests have negatively impacted moral and positively reinforced our opponents.

So with all due respect, I do disagree....

So basically what you are saying is even if the war in Iraq was a mistake people have no right to protest it because its too late? So what should the opponents of the war do in your opinion, wait until its over and all the troops are home and then say:

"Ahem, excuse me may I speak now? Oh thank you... I would just like to say that I do mildly object to the fact that several years and several thousand dead soldiers ago you started a war in a country that was no threat to the USA. Also I protest that there was abuse of innocent Iraqi citizens and many noncombattants lost their lives and the world is now a more dangerous place because of failed US foreign policy in the middle east... Oh, old news you say? Not interesting... well I guess it was a long time ago..."

I guess you would say the same thing if Bush declared himself Emperor for life and had the troops on the streets of America enforcing the new governments decrees. "Too late to protest now, gotta support the troops."

I wonder if you republicans would have the same opinion about all this if a Democrat had started this war. Please answer truthfully, if you are able to be objective.

 

[zapper]

So basically what you are saying is even if the war in Iraq was a mistake people have no right to protest it because its too late? So what should the opponents of the war do in your opinion, wait until its over and all the troops are home and then say:

No..what I am saying is the fact of the matter is we are there. Protesting does nothing but weaken our resolve and strenghthen those of our enemies. It is my opinion that if we had protested less that it would have weakened the enemies cause. Imagine the marketing scheme...You show your recruits a picture of solidarity in American for the war or you show them pictures of libs out in the streets acting like hooligans protesting...Which slide you think would help recruiting more? Answer truthfully please..

Also I protest that there was abuse of innocent Iraqi citizens and many noncombattants lost their lives and the world is now a more dangerous place because of failed US foreign policy in the middle east...

Are you telling me that you don't remember all the terrorists attacks that took place prior to Bush's presidency?...The world is no more dangerous than it was 5 years ago....

I guess you would say the same thing if Bush declared himself Emperor for life and had the troops on the streets of America enforcing the new governments decrees. "Too late to protest now, gotta support the troops."

This argument is assanine and a feelble attempt at humor.

I wonder if you republicans would have the same opinion about all this if a Democrat had started this war. Please answer truthfully, if you are able to be objective.

It's not a question of politics, its a question of the right man for the job...It doesn't matter who started it..It must be finished and Kerry isn't the one to do it by broadcasting a time table to our enemies... it's that simple jr. However, what if McCain had been elected and he started this war...or for that matter Gore...Would you still feel the same?

 

[Bikerman2004]

So basically what you are saying is even if the war in Iraq was a mistake people have no right to protest it because its too late? So what should the opponents of the war do in your opinion, wait until its over and all the troops are home and then say:

"Ahem, excuse me may I speak now? Oh thank you... I would just like to say that I do mildly object to the fact that several years and several thousand dead soldiers ago you started a war in a country that was no threat to the USA. Also I protest that there was abuse of innocent Iraqi citizens and many noncombattants lost their lives and the world is now a more dangerous place because of failed US foreign policy in the middle east... Oh, old news you say? Not interesting... well I guess it was a long time ago..."

I guess you would say the same thing if Bush declared himself Emperor for life and had the troops on the streets of America enforcing the new governments decrees. "Too late to protest now, gotta support the troops."

I wonder if you republicans would have the same opinion about all this if a Democrat had started this war. Please answer truthfully, if you are able to be objective.

Did you have this same opinion when Clinton authorized force in Bosnia? Did you have the same opinion when we bombed the Chinese embassy?

 

[jhuskey]

[Yes, some are trying to change the words to the pledge of allegiance ..i.e removing a phrase that would mention a deity. But wait...Our forefathers approved of this pledge...

Originally written in 1892 and the phrase "One Nation Under God" not added until 1954. However I believe that this country was founded on the spirit of the wording of the 1954 revision and it is the spirit of a pledge ,contract or belief that holds more credence than the actual word for word content.

 

[zapper]

[Yes, some are trying to change the words to the pledge of allegiance ..i.e removing a phrase that would mention a deity. But wait...Our forefathers approved of this pledge...

Originally written in 1892 and the phrase "One Nation Under God" not added until 1954. However I believe that this country was founded on the spirit of the wording of the 1954 revision and it is the spirit of a pledge ,contract or belief that holds more credence than the actual word for word content.

yes...should have said, "would have" approved..ooops...thanks for the correction and I concur.

 

[lokstah]

No..what I am saying is the fact of the matter is we are there. Protesting does nothing but weaken our resolve and strenghthen those of our enemies.

I'd like to say first that I appreciate your concern; it's obviously sincere. Given, though, that we all agree that protest is a valid American right, and that dissent is a critical democratic function, I'm not sure how you can object to or even be surprised by its use where war is concerned -- is there a more passionately argued subject?

As much as the opposition should identify that your concern for troop morale is real, you should grant that the contemporary anti-war movement, in general, is motivated by similar principles: a respect for human life, and the wish (as Michael Moore puts it in his film) that our troops' lives never be risked for improper reasons. Whether you agree with the protesters' assesment of the war or not, it's simply incorrect to dismiss the anti-war contingent as hooligans lacking principles.

 

[wadoflove]

Imagine the marketing scheme...You show your recruits a picture of solidarity in American for the war or you show them pictures of libs out in the streets acting like hooligans protesting...Which slide you think would help recruiting more? Answer truthfully please..

Or you show them a picture of a President telling them that he would not ask them to fight in an unjustified war based on intelligence that was out of date, unreliable, cooked by right wing hawks and fed to the public by a willing media worried about "access". How many times do you have to hear it: the majority of the population of countries outside the US, including those in the "Coalition of the willing (or coalition of the deluded and desperate, in my humble non Republican opinion) did not believe the intelligence on Iraq nor that the war was justified.

In answer to your question, perhaps the best method is to recruit on the basis of learning a "career" with no fighting or protests... oh thats what they do now!

 

[lokstah]

What's preposterous is that I have a right to my opinion and you are somehow saying that I don't but someone with an opposing view does.

No one is denying anyone the right to your opinion, Zap. I simply pointed out what I saw as an inconsistency between a lauding freedom and democracy, but loathing open dissent.

What is preposterous is that someone would vote a person into office not based upon their agreement or even the slightest tidbit of knowledge of where their candidate stands on the ISSUES but based upon the mere fact that his/her candidate of choice is not Bush.

You're right, it is preposterous (though you've grossly exaggerated the distance between non-Bush voters and Kerry's politics). Unfortunately, it's our current political reality. If there were three or four other candidates with the backing and the finances to unseat Bush in November, I'd glady consider their positions as well, and vote for them if I preferred them to Bush.

It's perfectly logical to succumb to the reality of the choice at hand. Do I vote for a man who represents virtually none of the principles I hold, or do I vote for a man who represents some of the principles I hold? It might be fun for you to insult Democrats and liberals on the basis of this quandry, but it's simply the way the American political landscape looks today.

 

[zapper]

Whether you agree with the protesters' assesment of the war or not, it's simply incorrect to dismiss the anti-war contingent as hooligans lacking principles.

Depends on which protest you are referring to. The ones I saw via the web and on some news shows suggest otherwise... When protestors drag an officer of the law off his motorcycle or remove their clothes or some other display of stupidity, I find it hard to identify with their message or their cause. Secondly, we do disagree when it comes to motivation and assesment of the war....

 

[lokstah]

Depends on which protest you are referring to. The ones I saw via the web and on some news shows suggest otherwise... When protestors drag an officer of the law off his motorcycle or remove their clothes or some other display of stupidity, I find it hard to identify with their message or their cause. Secondly, we do disagree when it comes to motivation and assesment of the war....

Fair enough. It would be idiotic to suggest that a (generally small) percentage of protesters at a demonstration the size of those during the RNC aren't thugs, anarchists, or nutjobs. That contingent exists as a slice of our population, and no one is defending them. It's a bit of a red herring to fixate on them in the context of this discussion.

 

[Beastt]

Yes, some are trying to change the words to the pledge of allegiance ..i.e removing a phrase that would mention a deity. But wait...Our forefathers approved of this pledge...

Here's a little history for you, Zapper. The original pledge of allegiance made no mention of God. (jhuskey beat me to this, I see. Thank you, jhusky. ) The God part was added later as the country began to slip away from the original ideals. Perhaps too much is made about its inclusion, but the pledge is supposed to be about the nation - a nation that believes in religious freedom including the freedom not to believe in God, if one is so moved.

John Adams:“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

]B]Samuel Adams[/B]“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

Benjamin Franklin:“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Constitutional Convention of 1787

One might take this to mean that you believe God should be a mandated portion of every American's beliefs.
Politicians are not without their personal religious beliefs. That they would tend to use such references in political speeches is not to be unexpected. But on the very basis that government in American is founded with inclusion of the idea of freedom of religion, such references are clearly designed to collect the support of the majority as the majority of Americans believe in Christianity and some are actually Christians. People often fail to see violations of ideals when those violations are in their favor.

No one is claiming that the citizens are against church, only that church is a private, personal issue and has no place in publically funded programs such as the schools.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

If you would have followed your back-tracking of the thread a bit further, Zapper, you would have noted that the exact wording from the Constitution was posted and upon reviewing that, I withdrew my comments concerning the use of schools for purposes of religiously based extra-curricular activities. But I do feel that one needs to weigh the idea of equal representation against that of the freedom of religion and make attempts not to utilize public funds, (i.e. tax monies), to support religious issues which do not represent all equally.
You have selectively chosen quotations which show how quickly and sometimes easily those foundations can be forgotten even by the men who helped to form them. I think we all understand the concept of freedom of religion and that of equal representation. Obviously the use of public funds, obtained through taxation, should not over-ride the minority's freedom of religion. You can post all the quotes you like but they don't override the basic founding principles even when they are in violation of those principles. It's the principles that matter, Zapper. Not the opinions of the individuals who as a collective group, formed those principles. You seem to miss that.

So what you are saying is what here…What our founding fathers said, offended someone and violated rights?? How can that be? I mean, if what they said couldn’t possible be outdated…Right? um....what's the word I"m looking for here???Oh, yes...HYPOCRITE

For one who wears the country's uniform yet supports the abolition of the rights and freedoms of the people, you sure like to throw the word "hypocrite" around a lot. What I'm saying again, is that we're talking about principles. I often choose a quote from one of the founding fathers to illustrate a principle included in the ideals which ultimately formed America. You have chosen quotes which represent ideals not included in the ideals under which America was formed. All of the ideas presented were collected, discussed sorted through and then some were selected, solidified and included, for the most part, within the Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights. When statements made by any of the founding fathers show themselves as contrary to the adopted ideals, then it can be shown that the quotation represents only the ideas of the individual and not the collective ideals included within the forming of America.

What's preposterous is that I have a right to my opinion and you are somehow saying that I don't but someone with an opposing view does. What is preposterous is that someone would vote a person into office not based upon their agreement or even the slightest tidbit of knowledge of where their candidate stands on the ISSUES but based upon the mere fact that his/her candidate of choice is not Bush.

You certainly are entitled to your own opinion as an American citizen. I believe the proper line is, "I disagree with what you say. But I will defend to the death, your right to say it." But understand that being an American citizen doesn't automatically mean you carry American ideals. Many of those opinions you have posted here are starkly opposed to American ideals.
As much as you have a right to your opinion, when you post it on a forum, it becomes the right of other posters to oppose that opinion and even to attempt to expose the flaws in the thoughts which resulted in that opinion.
If you had only two choices, Adolf ******, (assuming of course he were alive and an American citizen), or someone else whom you knew little about, would you vote for ******?

Whats preposterous is that one would actually think that protesting our countries actions during war would actually help our soldiers??? Our cause?? No, it just makes us look unorganized and ripe for the picking. I have no problem with the right to protest. But, it must not be overused. These days not only are there frivilous law suites but frivilous protests. There are organizations that will plan, organize and manage your protest for you. The time to have protested would have been prior to going to war not during.

There are also regulations to restrict protests. Some governing bodies require permits, most have designated areas, often far from the event being protested, such as a political speech or rally.
There were many protests before the war, Zapper. Bush made it abundantly clear that he didn't care what the American people thought. This war has never been for the benefit of the American people. It's about big business and bigger profits. What actions do you recommend when a president decides to support those who agree with him and readily admits that he turns his back on those who don't, not even allowing television broadcasts of those protesting the war to be viewed in the Whitehouse in his presence? Is this your idea of a president attempting to represent the people?

I can tell that being over in theatre during the War and seeing protests or planned protests going on in the states while I was there severely effected not only my morale but the morale of my shipmates. Imagine how that makes a ground soldier feel who is in the thick of it?

If I have to weigh the moral of one soldier against the wrongful death of another, I'll oppose the wrongful death even if it continues to lower moral.
Perhaps the protests make them feel that they are invading another country half way around the world which posed no threat to us and helps them to see that they are killing the people of that country because they did what any person would do; attempted to protect and defend their country from invasion.

The fact of the matter is we are there, we can't change that now. For one to think that making a fool of oneself illustrated by the obscene protests that took place in New York did nothing but embolden the insurgents. If you do not subscribe to that opinion than so be it. However, in accordance with your logic I am entitled to hold that opinion not only as an American Citizen but also as someone who has been there and has seen how some of these protests have negatively impacted moral and positively reinforced our opponents.

American citizens don't always hold to American values as you have shown many times. But yes, as an American, you do still have the right to your opinion and I defend that right no matter how much I may object to the opinion.
Many tried to gain the attention of those like Bush who plunged us headlong into this war on failed intelligence and false pretenses. They didn't listen so, as you state, we are now there. What better time than now to begin the process of correcting those wrongs, of withdrawing from the fight and to begin the process of repair, not only of the damage in Iraq which might be subject to repair but that of our reputation as seen by the world? That damage may well last beyond the crumbled buildings and wailing sobs of the people of Iraq.

No..what I am saying is the fact of the matter is we are there. Protesting does nothing but weaken our resolve and strenghthen those of our enemies. It is my opinion that if we had protested less that it would have weakened the enemies cause. Imagine the marketing scheme...You show your recruits a picture of solidarity in American for the war or you show them pictures of libs out in the streets acting like hooligans protesting...Which slide you think would help recruiting more? Answer truthfully please..

The cause of protecting their country from invasion? If the U.S. were invaded by a coallition of countries strong enough to do so, would the absence of protests in the other countries weaken our resolve to protect and defend our people, our ideals and our soil?

Are you telling me that you don't remember all the terrorists attacks that took place prior to Bush's presidency?...The world is no more dangerous than it was 5 years ago....

Thank you for this, Zapper. To some extent, we agree. The looming presence of increased danger in the world is a Bush fairytale. One that he uses to scare the American people into support of his actions to defeat the firey dragon of terrorism before it strikes down the shining beacon of freedom and democracy, as he likes to put it. The truth is that terrorism has always existed and will always exist, despite this so-called, "war on terror". The other side to that truth is that terrorist strike for a cause and that people turn to terrorism when they have no chance of winning an outright war. Since we declared war on a soveriegn nation and are thrusting our will, (Bush's will), upon them, the degree of danger due to terrorism grows with each day the war continues. We were no more or less safe from terrorism before the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon than we were before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But now we have given the terrorists even more cause to strike. If the purpose was to reduce terrorism, then we have defeated our own purpose. But the fear of terrorism or any other threat should never lead us to forfeit our rights and freedoms.

I guess you would say the same thing if Bush declared himself Emperor for life and had the troops on the streets of America enforcing the new governments decrees. "Too late to protest now, gotta support the troops."

This argument is assanine and a feelble attempt at humor.

I find it to be a very good argument. Bush has declared us to be too free for our own good and has sought to reduce our freedoms and you defend his actions. To what extent would he have to take his assault on American freedoms before you would take note and begin to object? And would there still be enough freedoms shared among the American people to be used as a tool to defeat him? Likely not.

It's not a question of politics, its a question of the right man for the job...It doesn't matter who started it..It must be finished and Kerry isn't the one to do it by broadcasting a time table to our enemies... it's that simple jr. However, what if McCain had been elected and he started this war...or for that matter Gore...Would you still feel the same?

Bush isn't talking about finishing it. He's talking about escalating it, of taking the war to and against still more countries. If you want the war to be over, the answer has to be pretty much anyone but Bush.

 

[Weisse Luft]

And its about time we did more than placate the Iranians. Their "experiment" in the late 1970's with fundamental Islam has fallen flat on its face. The youth of Iran are screaming for liberty, liberty to experience a more Western country just like their parents had under the Shah. Reform here would be much easier than North Korea.

Without North Korea and Iran, state sponsored terrorism would not exist.


Now on freedoms...We weathered the Alien and Sedition act, the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus, the illegal jailing of protestors in 1918 and the Japanese/Italian/German-American interments of WWII.

 

[Beastt]

And its about time we did more than placate the Iranians. Their "experiment" in the late 1970's with fundamental Islam has fallen flat on its face. The youth of Iran are screaming for liberty, liberty to experience a more Western country just like their parents had under the Shah. Reform here would be much easier than North Korea.

Iran is not our business. Iran is Iran's business. We, (the U.S.) are but one nation among many. We have no more right to force situations in other countries than other contries have to force outcomes of internal struggles here.

Now on freedoms...We weathered the Alien and Sedition act, the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus, the illegal jailing of protestors in 1918 and the Japanese/Italian/German-American interments of WWII.

Are you saying that these were appropriate actions or are you suggesting that because such offenses have occurred in the past, that it's okay for Bush to be following suit?

 

[Bikerman2004]

If you had only two choices, Adolf ******, (assuming of course he were alive and an American citizen), or someone else whom you knew little about, would you vote for ******?

Can we quit comparing Bush with ******? It only polarizes the argument further. And is only done for attempted shock value.

 

[davidmc]

Really, middle-low income 18-24 year olds? Your stats...where did you get them or did you get them from abroad? I'm curious where you got those stats and I'm also curious if you can produce exact numbers...I'll bet you can't, which makes this statement worthless like most of your drivel. It is a damn shame that soldiers have to die. It is also a damn shame that people like you that protest so much, embolden the insurgents who are inflicting the deaths...They are counting on people like you and Beastt..So, thanks a alot. The troops really appreciate your efforts. They also appreciate being insulted by you and beastt who portray todays soldier as being uneducated, poor and lacking the brain power to think for themselves. Yes, people like you that shout "I support the troops" yet talk about them like they are cattle really make me sick. Yeah you wore a uniform alright....Smoked weed did you? Did you quite before or after you donned that uniform...or is that the reason you a made an exit?

It's spelled "quit", not "quite" not that it has anything to do w/ this thread; just you grasping at straws because; again, you don't have a leg to stand on. What I'm pointing out is that this underplanned war just passed the 1000 casualty mark & those people have to be replaced. New recruits are generally straight out of highschool or college hence the 18-24 figure. Inactive reserves are being called up. When, or if, these runout, what is bush going to do ? Reenstate the draft ? Not if he wants to keep his theocracy in power. Army enlistments are down, go figure. Incidentally how many insurgents are reading this bicycle thread. Please give me a figure. Got to hand it to you, though;you hav'nt lost you're penchant for dishing out the vitriol.

 

[Beastt]

Can we quit comparing Bush with ******? It only polarizes the argument further. And is only done for attempted shock value.

The actions and dictates of the two men were so similar that it makes the comparison unavoidable. ****** invaded other countries which posed no threat to Germany to annihilate what he saw as a stain on the human race. Bush has invaded Iraq, which posed no threat to the U.S. on the supposed premise of wiping out terror, though he has failed to demonstrate that Iraq and terrorism are connected.

Both are blatant acts against freedom and against humanity. Both have resulted in thousands of deaths. Hitlers agenda lead into World War. So far, Bush's has not.

 

[Bikerman2004]

The actions and dictates of the two men were so similar that it makes the comparison unavoidable. ****** invaded other countries which posed no threat to Germany to annihilate what he saw as a stain on the human race. Bush has invaded Iraq, which posed no threat to the U.S. on the supposed premise of wiping out terror, though he has failed to demonstrate that Iraq and terrorism are connected.

Both are blatant acts against freedom and against humanity. Both have resulted in thousands of deaths. Hitlers agenda lead into World War. So far, Bush's has not.

It doesn't further your argument. In fact in comes across as wacky.
There have been many other blatant acts that you could make comparisions to.
The ****** comparision is so extreme it is unbelievable. I would venture to say that you really don't believe it. It is just your ideology talking.