Why do the Liberals have a problem with the U.S., as a CONQUERER?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I've heard this a lot here, complaints that freepers (scum?) are taking over. Why is that? It sounds like you'd rather they went away and leave ATS to you and those that only agree with you? I don't hear the same "wish they'd go away" from freepers. Not all that disagree with you are freepers, either. Many are just plain independent thinkers.

Be fair here... the most anti-republican voice on ATS is a MOD, and you know who I am referring to.

Now it may be frustrating to you that the republicans have gained and held power in the US. This is because the dem's have no message, no plan, and a crummy candidate, not because they are scum; they're not.

Anyway, there's room in the sandbox for all to play. Play nice. Me, I'm gonna have a glass of chocolate milk and listen to Phil Hendrie.

I can't help but consider anyone who continues to support this administration after all we've seen, and anyone who defends them, scum.

As for the mod thing...so? 3 or 4 of the most anti-liberal, anti-democrat voices are mods. Supermods even? That's not my problem.

Even if the dems didn't have a message, it would be better than the one the Bush admin is sending to the country and the world. Some must like that message, obviously. I don't.

Continuing the sandbox metaphor....I have no problem with dems and repubs, liberals and conservatives playing in the same sandbox. It's when they get into fights, spraying sand everywhere that I have to draw the line. I used to come to the sandbox to have fun and learn new things. Now it seems the sole purpose of the sandbox is to throw sand in other people's eyes.

Ok enough of that. This country is more polarized that it's been for a long time. I guess the mess that's dragged down the board is a reflection of that. Maybe it will go away with time, maybe not. (sigh) I suppose there's still a few things that are of interest to me here.

the top three writers in this thread. I'm a lib, I'm a vet. You don't go starting wars for no reason at all. So far we have conquered nothing but more trouble. The situation in Iraq is exactly what most libs knew would happen if we went over there. $200,000,000,000, 775 dead, 6,000 wounded and climbing in all three categories. All on some fake premises that the Bushies thought up. In a couple of years we will have "set up" Iraq with a democracy just long enough to get our troops out, and then a civil war will ensue.

The difference between libs and cons is that libs always see the big pic and the cons always are wearing their blinders looking straight ahead and never see anything coming at them from the side.

Dems anti-war. No, just anti-stupid.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
The difference between libs and cons is that libs always see the big pic and the cons always are wearing their blinders looking straight ahead and never see anything coming at them from the side.

Dems anti-war. No, just anti-stupid.

Rock on. Yet if you listen to neocon radio, you'd think it's short-sighted to protect the environment or push for alternatives to fossil fuel.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
775 dead, 6,000 wounded and climbing in all three categories.

775 dead over more than one year. in vietnam, a liberal ran war, it was 500-700+ a week. do the math 775 or 58,000

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by KrazyIvan]

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
"The difference between libs and cons is that libs always see the big pic and the cons always are wearing their blinders looking straight ahead and never see anything coming at them from the side."

Indeed-okay. Let's "look at the Big Picture." Saddam killed his way into politics, literally, by first assisting in the assassination of Prince Faud I, and installing Abdul Kaseem as President. After an assassination attempt against Kaseem. (An incident for which Saddam took a bullet in the leg.) He bounced around the MidEast, until he settled with the Ba'ath Party Headquarters, in Egypt, where he studied Anti-Zionism under Nasser. After bringing the Ba'ath Party back into "respectibility" in Iraq. (It was, for a time, outlawed.) He ran as Vice-President, then killed That president to get the Oval Office of his dreams. Saddam has stayed in power by literally killing his competition. He was a Mob-Boss-turned-Dictator who suddenly found himself with a REAL Army, REAL Oil Money, and a REAL Threat from his neighbors who knew the danger.

Why people have a problem with the U.S. moving in, and stomping that bug, is perplexing.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
775 dead over more than one year. in vietnam, a liberal ran war, it was 500-700+ a week. do the math 775 or 58,000

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by KrazyIvan]

I need a history lesson. Why was Vietnam a liberal ran war?

Everyone has a take on solutions, but no-one wants to address the problem.

When Blair came to power here in the UK, the Labour party started to implement long term plans as opposed to re-election plans. Plans that address the problems at source rather than trying to cure the problem once it surfaces. This is not an easy task as the voters like to see change and they like to see the effect immediately. This is why after 4 years in power the Labour party start to use the same tactics as the Tories, by throwing in some short term solutions, they can only get the long term solutions in place if they are still in power.

The Tories (Conservatives) have a history of short term solutions, they also promote a class society and are very intolerant of differences. They care little for their neighbours and do not like to share power or wealth.

You trip up on a paving slab and crack your head open:

Labour solution:
Level out the paving slabs and bring quality control in to place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Tory solution:
Put a sign up saying "Mind your step"

These are generalisations, I am aware of that, as not all Tories are heartless powermongers, and not all Labour members are mindful do gooders.

But, IMO, Right and Left are no different here to what they are throuhout the world.

And until people start looking at the Big Picture thats how they'll remain.

Originally posted by Toelint
Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
"The difference between libs and cons is that libs always see the big pic and the cons always are wearing their blinders looking straight ahead and never see anything coming at them from the side."

Indeed-okay. Let's "look at the Big Picture." Saddam killed his way into politics, literally, by first assisting in the assassination of Prince Faud I, and installing Abdul Kaseem as President. After an assassination attempt against Kaseem. (An incident for which Saddam took a bullet in the leg.) He bounced around the MidEast, until he settled with the Ba'ath Party Headquarters, in Egypt, where he studied Anti-Zionism under Nasser. After bringing the Ba'ath Party back into "respectibility" in Iraq. (It was, for a time, outlawed.) He ran as Vice-President, then killed That president to get the Oval Office of his dreams. Saddam has stayed in power by literally killing his competition. He was a Mob-Boss-turned-Dictator who suddenly found himself with a REAL Army, REAL Oil Money, and a REAL Threat from his neighbors who knew the danger.

Why people have a problem with the U.S. moving in, and stomping that bug, is perplexing.

I'm well aware of Saddam's history. However, there are numerous despots like this across the globe. Problem? Only when Bush and his gang of neo cons decide to INVADE a country that is no real national security threat to us. On top of that(some of) the American public was duped into believing that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. We diverted our attention, money, and forces, from the hunt for Bin Laden. Our "victory" in Afganistan now consists of war lords running the countyside instilling so much fear that they now look for the Taliban for protection. These war lords have also produced more poppy this year in the making of history than any time in Afganistan history.

We went to Iraq with the Bushies thinking this was going to be easy and everything would be fine by now. What has actually been accomplished? Well, Bin Laden is now smiling for he "accomplished his mission" by hurting us militarily, and economically. Also, he now has plenty of Americans to take pot shots at.

THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE.

Now we are inflaming the whole Muslim world. Please don't tell me you actually "feel safer" now. Just remember. 'THE NATION THAT FEARS BECOMES FEARED"
If you need help figuring out what that means I will be happy to translate for you.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
I'm well aware of Saddam's history. However, there are numerous despots like this across the globe. Problem? Our "victory" in Afganistan now consists of war lords running the countyside instilling so much fear that they now look for the Taliban for protection. These war lords have also produced more poppy this year in the making of history than any time in Afganistan history.
THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE.

The poppy situation in Afghanistan is not of our making:

From this link:

poppy

The long-term solution, say international experts, will take more than an increase in the number of armed raids out of Kabul. "It's the rebuilding of the country that we are talking about here," says Harry Shapiro of DrugScope, a British think tank that follows the international drug trade. "I don't know if there is enough overseas aid to do that." In many regions, opium forms the heart of the economy. Without adequate roads, irrigation or alternate financing, farmers have no choice but to grow poppy. "Even the people who grow it, they understand that there is lots of bad from what they grow," explains Arya, who worked closely with the Nangarhar farmers. "At the same time they are saying, 'What should we eat? What should our children eat?' "

It is not of our making, nor is it soley the problem of the US. Heroin is a scourge upon the entire world. Where is the world community when it comes to contributing money, people, time, and resources to help rebuild Afghanistan?

That is THE BIG PICTURE, easily overlooked when you just focus on the evils committed by the US. We need more players and less observers to help solve problems like this in the world.

Whether this war is right or wrong, you and the MEDIA are playing us as bad guys. Our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and family...are being killed over there. While most of you and the MEDIA are giving the enemy HOPE!!!! HISTORY WILL DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG!!!! If you think we are WRONG, VOTE BUSH OUT OF OFFICE. But do not give the enemy comfort that they are right to kill our PEOPLE!! They are doing a job, and it is up to us to support them. Win or lose!!! By complaining in the MEDIA which is broadcast all over the world in this day and age, We are becoming a liability. We give the forces against our troops HOPE. And with that hope, more and more of our People die. The Anti-War crowd wants to bring our troops home in one piece (Hopefully this is true). Then let them do their JOB.

At one time I supportrd this war, full blown. Today i have many questions. But I will be DAMNED i'd I go on TV and say the men and women who think they are fighting for us,(ME) are wrong!!!!! THEY ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES....RIGHT OR WRONG All we do is a diservice to them.

Personally, I think all EXTREME Liberals should be shot! But I know that won't happen. But I'll be DAMNED if I say anything that gives comfort to the current enemy! If WE (AMERICA) are wrong, then I feel all those involved should be brought to JUSTICE! But while there is fighting going on...back the men and women who are SAVING your ASS!!!!!!!

Originally posted by heelstone
I know Flinx. Its highly annoying. Especially on a conspiracy board where conservatism flies in the face of what conspiracy is about (paradigm changing revelations). However, I do intend to sludge through it on ATS for the foreseeable future.

I don't agree. I am a conservative, but not even close to a neo-con, and I am here for reasons other than politics.

Hell, I've learned quite a bit, after digging a bit. So don't disparage conservatives, only stark republicans.

I hate them too.

Originally posted by CSRules

Personally, I think all EXTREME Liberals should be shot! But I know that won't happen. But I'll be DAMNED if I say anything that gives comfort to the current enemy! If WE (AMERICA) are wrong, then I feel all those involved should be brought to JUSTICE! But while there is fighting going on...back the men and women who are SAVING your ASS!!!!!!!

Are you even serious? I hope you aren't a conservative, cause you really make the rest of us look bad all by yourself.

First, how can you possibly say that people should not exercise the rights the people in the military, which was me too at one time, fight and are there to defend? It's asinine.

Second, I'd say 99% of people who speak out ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SOLDIERS. Did you miss the Bush talk that runs rampant around here?

Third, do you even know who the enemy is? You harp about the media, yet buy their bull# like it's on sale. Good god man, get a grip and chill out with the "shoot the liberal" idiocy.

well from what I understand the conservative republicans manage to find a way around military service... so that only leaves the liberal democrates to go fight to save those republican cavier eating arses..... So of course the people who do most the fighting and dieing are very concerned with the reasons and where fores about any confrontation since they, thier sons and thier daughters will end up being the sacraficial lambs of the republican agenda if they don't speak out.

I know it won't make sense to you all but it sure makes sense to me.

Originally posted by RANT


Bash Kerry's service to this country all you want.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by RANT]

hey at least shrubs military budies arent comming out and saying dont vote for him. how good can a guy be if is war buddies are saying dont vote for this schmuck!

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by KrazyIvan]

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
775 dead over more than one year. in vietnam, a liberal ran war, it was 500-700+ a week. do the math 775 or 58,000

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by KrazyIvan]

I need a history lesson. Why was Vietnam a liberal ran war?

LBJ was in ther dickin' around. you dont gradually add toops to a conflict, you go in there and bomb them mercilessly in the opening days. Even John Glenn said that. john glenn would be the only liberal id vote for if he ran.

one of the few joys of being indepentdent is that i can sit on the fence and make fun of everyone. bush has some serious problems, besides the poor grammer, incorrect speech *my personal favorite is his love and respect for the bondage (yes bondage) between a mother and her child* as a past member of the speech impediment annoymous fan club, i understand many of the stammering, "uh's" "huh's" and general time buyers. ill even allow for the fact that many speech impediments are mentally based. i can just personally say i dont care for Dubya.

Kerry on the other hand has been attacked so many ways from sunday i allmost wish he hadnt run. no man no matter how bad deserves that kind of smear campiagn. he may have his problems, many of my die hard republican freinds will yell at me for hours about how bush is better than kerry. to be honest i really dont care what kerry is about. ive hooked up with the ABB party on that reguard i would vote for a trained monkey doing circus tricks over bush. who honestly likes politicians? go to google some times and type in "political jokes" see how many hits you get. then type in "porn" the bottom line is whether you support where this country has gone in the last 3 1/2 years or you dont. the only main strength kerry has is that he is not bush.

as for being in a fox hole, well honestly i wouldnt want either of them in the fox hole with me, id be better off by myself, at least then i could die in peace with the knowledge i didnt have to share my last living moments with a politician. id prefer a young attractive woman with a sex addiction. and about 4 hourse before the enemy came for me.

This is an AMAZING response...thanks to ALL of you! Keep 'em pouring in!

BTW: Isn't it odd, that in the same week the 9/11 panel says "There doesn't seem to be a connection between Iraq and 9/11", more hapless souls get kidnapped in the MidEast...and his captuers demand the Saudis release all of their Al-Queda buddies?

GO FIGURE!!

[edit on 3-7-2004 by Toelint]

"I'm well aware of Saddam's history. However, there are numerous despots like this across the globe. Problem? Only when Bush and his gang of neo cons decide to INVADE a country that is no real national security threat to us. On top of that(some of) the American public was duped into believing that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. We diverted our attention, money, and forces, from the hunt for Bin Laden. Our "victory" in Afganistan now consists of war lords running the countyside instilling so much fear that they now look for the Taliban for protection. These war lords have also produced more poppy this year in the making of history than any time in Afganistan history.

We went to Iraq with the Bushies thinking this was going to be easy and everything would be fine by now. What has actually been accomplished? Well, Bin Laden is now smiling for he "accomplished his mission" by hurting us militarily, and economically. Also, he now has plenty of Americans to take pot shots at."~madmanacrosswater



Okay, MY turn...

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war, first, with Germany. Why?

Because they (in the Administration's eyes) posed a REAL threat to America. Why?

Because the maniacal genius running the German military had found a mountain of methods to get around and under League Of Nations sanctions and resolutions, to build the scariest military machine in all of Europe. Why was that OUR problem?

Because, even in the early days of the war, the U.S. and Germany were engaged in cracking the atom. Yes, I believe this. Did Germany come close? Yes...frighteningly close!

Did we use the excuse that Hitler was killing a thousand people PER DAY, as a pretext to enter the war? Yes. Did we really care? Probably not.

Should we have gone public, back in 1941, that Hitler was developing a nuke program? In my opinion, sure.

Would we catch flak from the public for not producing the evidence? Of course.

Now, considering ALL of this...were we wrong to stop Hitler? If we weren't wrong then, how are we wrong now?

[edit on 4-7-2004 by Toelint]

[edit on 4-7-2004 by Toelint]

[edit on 10-7-2004 by Toelint]

CsRules,


You are totally right! Had it not be for our military which is made up of our precious sons, daughters, parents, ect... Not to mention our intelligence agencies ect, we'd have alot more attacks happening in the U.S


If you guys think that 9-11 was the only attack to happen on American soil, your wrong... The only reason why they haven't been able to strike is because they are finding it harder and harder with all the security measures we've taken to secure this country.

And the beauty about this whole so called "mess" in Iraq is the fact that the terrorists are rearing their ugly heads and we're weeding them out...
So thanks be to our wonderful "volunteered" men and women who signed up for the job. Unlike Micheal Moore who says they are disenfranchised poor people who are forced to sign up. Hello! They signed up, and god bless them for doing that...

YOu guys obviously don't know how well you got it, and your lucky they signed up for service because if they didn't then those ahole terrorists would be wiping your ass with your freedom and laughing about the whole way through.