AssemblyBoard
January 17, 2019, 11:30:45 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]
  Print  
Author Topic: IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?  (Read 60773 times)
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #210 on: May 04, 2008, 12:28:46 am »

  Dave, what is it you find wrong with "feminism"?  Is it "equal pay for equal work"? Please tell me? If not what?

"Abortion"? Does a girl who has been raped have the right to an abortion? 

Please try to read with a bit more comprehension and reaction without reflection.

I said "radical feminism", not feminism.
Equal pay for equal work:  good.  If that is all feminism was, most women and men like me would be on board.
Feminists dressing up as vaginas at the local University, holding posters of genitilia saying "this is the only Bush I'm into":  bad - radical feminism is out of touch.  This is why few "soccer moms" identify with feminism.  It only flourishes on University campuses instead of in the life of the average woman.

I said "abortion without compromise", not merely the most compassion-inspiriting circumstances of abortion as you suggest.  If abortion was allowed only in the case of rape or incest, it would never have been the issues it was today.  But you know, David, that that isn't where the vast majority of abortions are.  Several million women aren't raped each year.  Conservatives won't allow a single abortion.  Liberals won't allow any backing down to the extent of pushing partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand for any and all reason.

Is there no middle ground?  Does sex as I please with no consequences always trump a nation of restraint and self-control?

When commentators speak of "the divide", they are not talking about how many people are out voting as you suggest.  (Of course Democrats and cross-over Republicans are going to vote - they actually have an election going on).   They are talking about this moral-divide where each side takes the most extreme position and shows the other side as unintelligent.  (Evil is totalitarian goverments vs. evil is harming the ozone;  taxes should be done to redistribute wealth vs. taxes should be done in a way to stimulate the economy; abortions should be free to all for any reason vs abortions should be free to no one etc.)

You see, David, what people are looking for with this divide is someone who will look at issues and not take the "we're right and the other side is just plain foolish" as you so aptly demonstrate in your post as well as the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin, Ann Coulter and others.  Folks are tired of the "culture war" and the "red states vs. blue states" battle.  What post-baby-boomers are attracted to is someone who can say, "Hey, why don't we find a way to affirm the rights of the women as well as affirm the rights of the baby?  Isn't there a middle ground that can affirm both?"

For the last two decades, the approach is (Conservative) stand for the life of the baby no matter how difficult it is for the women or (you) stand for the needs of the woman no matter what happens to the baby.

To the post-baby-boomer, the whole paradigm of battle needs to be changed.  Obama bills himself as someone who can do that which , but, as I said, I'm not so sure.
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #211 on: May 04, 2008, 12:32:11 am »

  Which intelligence are you talking about?
When we went into Iraq, Republicans and Democrats voted to go to war based upon Intelligence information they had.  If that information proved faulty later (which I understand is what happened), it doesn't make these people liars.  It means they all made a decision based upon the information they had at the time.  Blaming it all on one person who voted who they don't happen to like is silly.
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #212 on: May 05, 2008, 10:38:45 am »

VanDave,

You said:

Quote
"The ugly truth is, just like the Dems, Christians went along for the ride! They did this because they really aren't Christians! Not in accordance to the teachings of the New Testament! Just like the rest of america they really believe that "might makes right"! When will they read and believe the teachings of Christ?

Hmmmm.  Christians believe that "might makes right".

Actually, after 47 years as a Christian I have never heard a single Christian say this.  I have never seen a credal statement, a denominational statement of faith, an organizational statement of faith, or a church statement of faith that stated this.

On what did you base this claim?  Did you perhaps conduct a survey?

Many Christians supported the invasion of Iraq.  Perhaps they had other reasons than the belief you accuse us of holding. 

I suspect your accusation is based on nothing but your own prejudices.

Thomas Maddux
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #213 on: May 05, 2008, 10:50:13 am »

VanDave,

You might want to think a little more clearly when you argue your position.  For example, the two links you offer as "evidence" to support your position.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

The first one about "Curveball" leads to a page that says, "Wikipedia has no article on this subject".  The other leads to an artilce about "What I did not find" and then goes on to talk about the Scooter Libby affair.  Do you really want national policy to be based on op ed articles when the intelligence gathering agencies of France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Israel plus your own CIA are telling you something different?

Thomas Maddux

Logged
Vandyyke
Guest
« Reply #214 on: May 06, 2008, 05:14:55 am »

Tom,

This was the article I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

I don't know why it did that?

(Quote from first article)
Criticism, investigation, and damage control
In 2003, inspectors led by David Kay conducted additional investigation of Curveball's credibility. They found among other things that he placed last in his university class when he had claimed to place first, and that he had been jailed for embezzlement before fleeing to Germany. The former point is relevant because Curveball claimed to have been hired out of university to head Iraq's bioweapons program. That he had placed last in his class would cast considerable doubt on this claim.

In response to public criticism, U.S. president Bush initiated an investigative commission who released their report on March 31, 2005. Bush's investigative commission came to many conclusions including:

Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a "congenital liar", and US officials investigating his claims were surprised that he had a hangover and that he "might be an alcoholic".[13]
While there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative of one of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) top aides,[14][6] the investigative commission stated that it was "unable to uncover any evidence that the INC or any other organization was directing Curveball."[15]
The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible, but it was theorised that this wall was temporary. "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements."[16] Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing.[17]


Quote from second article

"What I Didn't Find in Africa", published in the New York Times four months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Wilson's op-ed documented his 2002 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation into whether Iraq had purchased or attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. He concluded that the George W. Bush administration twisted intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."[6]


quote from Tom,

 Do you really want national policy to be based on op ed articles when the intelligence gathering agencies of France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Israel plus your own CIA are telling you something different?

Oh Tom Please share with us what they said!
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 05:21:23 am by Vandyyke » Logged
Vandyyke
Guest
« Reply #215 on: May 06, 2008, 05:25:29 am »

Quote from Tom
 On what did you base this claim?  Did you perhaps conduct a survey?

   I have read a number of times that 80% of evangelicals supportted the invasion. Plus the fact that I am surrounded by evangelicals where I work, Over half the teachers at Beatty are from Biola.

Why?  I am sure they will tell you things like "freedom isn't free" I just received an Email from my teammember titled "Why we are fighting"  It is a slide show of 911 (Both reasons have nothing to do with why we invaded.) They were NOT a threat, intelligence proved that, and Iraq, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911!

   I will try to find a link.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 05:33:38 am by Vandyyke » Logged
Vandyyke
Guest
« Reply #216 on: May 06, 2008, 05:28:42 am »

When we went into Iraq, Republicans and Democrats voted to go to war based upon Intelligence information they had.  If that information proved faulty later (which I understand is what happened), it doesn't make these people liars.  It means they all made a decision based upon the information they had at the time.  Blaming it all on one person who voted who they don't happen to like is silly.


  Again, What intelligence are you talking about?

                         Saying that "information proved faulty" (for the second time) but not specifically stating the evidence is silly!
Logged
Vandyyke
Guest
« Reply #217 on: May 06, 2008, 05:55:56 am »

Dave, I can agree with most of what you said about a people looking for a middleground, sure we are "sick of extremes" yet, when you talk about "radical feminists" aren't you just pointing to "extremes"? Honestly how are these women representing the feminist agenda? How do they pose a threat to anyone?

   During the 1980's people like Jerry Fallwell, Rush Limbaugh...etc started a campaign to demonize democrats. During the Clinton administration millions of tax dollars were spent on "investigating White Water, "The Murder of Vince Foster"  These investigations, of which Ken Star admitted he went too far, revealed nothing. But as you know Clinton was done in by Adultry! Newt Gingrich. who led the charge and now openly admits he was committing adultry at the time. Why? Why all this attack?  What was Clinton doing politically at the time? NAFTA! WORKFARE! So don't try to put an equal amount of blame on Democrats! Republicans got us here! Now eat your crow!!!!
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #218 on: May 06, 2008, 08:30:06 pm »

  Again, What intelligence are you talking about?

                         Saying that "information proved faulty" (for the second time) but not specifically stating the evidence is silly!
Whatever intelligence or information these folks read at the time that caused them to vote for the war.  I doubt if the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the war voted by tossing a coin.  There was something that cause them to believe at that time that war was necessary.  I surely don't think Bush said, "hey, let's go to war" and everyone said "OK, sounds good."  There was some compelling reason that these folks agreed with him at the time and voted in this way.
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #219 on: May 06, 2008, 08:44:49 pm »

Dave, I can agree with most of what you said about a people looking for a middleground, sure we are "sick of extremes" yet, when you talk about "radical feminists" aren't you just pointing to "extremes"? Honestly how are these women representing the feminist agenda? How do they pose a threat to anyone?
The feminist organizations tend to focus in more on the more radical issues popular on campuses.  If they spent more energy on equal-pay-for-equal-work (which is less of an issues today with strict HR rules) and fighting the exploitation of women through pornography and forced prostitution instead of abortion without exception and showing the Vagina Monologues on campus they would be more in touch with the values of mainstream women.  The point is that because these womenís organizations have emphasized the values of extreme leftism most women donít associated themselves with these groups.  They don't pose a threat.  They are just seen as too radical and irrelevant by most women.

   During the 1980's people like Jerry Fallwell, Rush Limbaugh...etc started a campaign to demonize democrats. During the Clinton administration millions of tax dollars were spent on "investigating White Water, "The Murder of Vince Foster"  These investigations, of which Ken Star admitted he went too far, revealed nothing. But as you know Clinton was done in by Adultry! Newt Gingrich. who led the charge and now openly admits he was committing adultry at the time. Why? Why all this attack?  What was Clinton doing politically at the time? NAFTA! WORKFARE! So don't try to put an equal amount of blame on Democrats! Republicans got us here! Now eat your crow!!!!
You bet.  I mentioned Rush Limbaugh below.  Your exclamation point seem to indicate that you see your statement as a great trump but I made the same point so crow has already been eaten.  Nevertheless, while I had participated in the past in Clinton jokes and bashing, I no longer do this.  Having now been on the other side and witnessed the extreme frustration and anger of Democrats when Gore was not able to use the courts to cherry-pick votes and turn the election around to his liking, I realize how hurtful the politics of anger has become.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 08:59:14 pm by Dave Sable » Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #220 on: December 01, 2008, 11:29:46 am »

Folks,

After all the "Bush lied and people died" hoopla, now some facts are being released.  It seems that in 2003 the US forces captured 550 metric tons of yellowcake, a form of enriched uranium, in a storage site only 12 miles from Bagdad.  Yellowcake is one stage of the process by which natural uranium is enriched for one of two purposes: a. fuel for nuclear reactors. b. nuclear bombs.

The US and Iraq kept this information secret until it was safe to transport the stuff out of the country.  Even then they had to fly out  about 3500 barrels of the stuff in USAF transport aircraft to an island in the Indian Ocean where we have an air base. They were afraid to ship it by land through areas where there are lots of militants.

From the island, Diego Garcia, the stuff was put on a ship and sent to Canada.  In Canada it will be refined into fuel for nuclear reactors.

Now, if Saddam Hussein was not trying to develop nuclear bombs, what was he doing with this stuff?  Iraq has no reactors that need nuclear fuel.

Here are two links about this event.  BTW, did you notice all the apologies in the liberal media lately about how wrong they were about Saddam's WMD program?

I haven't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm

Tom Maddux
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #221 on: December 01, 2008, 06:54:30 pm »

Thanks, Tom.  I always thought the "Bush lied people died" mantra epitomized the disingenuous nature of soundbite politics.  There had to be a reason so many Doves in congress agreed to vote to go to war.  They had to know something that it was not later politically expedient to admit.  Bush was not perfect by any stretch, but I think history will vindicate some of his doctrines.
Logged
vernecarty
Guest


Email
« Reply #222 on: December 03, 2008, 11:04:30 pm »

In 1981 the Israeli airforce put an end to Iraq's nuclear ambitions by bombing a key nuclear reactor at Al Tuwaitha. Another much less capable reactor there was destroyed during Desert Storm in 1991.
The uraniumm the government announced as being removed this year was part of a decades-old stock-pile that had previously been indentified by UN inspectors and really has nothing at all to do with the case made for the most recent invasion of Iraq.
It is truly sad to see how these pathetic attempts to mislead and mis-inform the American public continue in a futile effort to try and salvage some sort of legacy for this sad president.
Even if the weak arguments about WMDs were entirely true, it in no way in my view lessens the unbelieveable criminality of the way Cheny and others conspired to leak Ms. Plame's indentity to the public.
In my humble opinion, a careful review of the facts will lead one to conclude that the media has absolutely nothing to apolgise for in this unfortunate saga.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 04:27:38 am by vernecarty » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!