Page 30 of 43 FirstFirst ... 20252627282930313233343540 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 845
  1. #581  
    Dear NoONOBEEZ
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #582  
    Dear NONOBEEZ, iI agree with you 110% you hit the nail on the head> Take care, jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  3. #583  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Hobbes,

    I can't argue with you (not that we are arguing), your ideas and thoughts are not radical or even irational, they are probably more mainstream that anything else.

    I just think that are present government is not honest and open and those in power have a different agenda that what they should have.

    I think our govenrment should concentrate more on the issues at home and solve our problems here, and HELP the rest of the world solve it's problems collectively.
    You see... that is a valid argument. I agree with some of your points and I disagree to varying degrees with others....but they are all valid points.

    The only thing that usually gets me is the "Bush Lied"...."Why and cite"....."I just know he did because I hate him so much, he must be liar!" argument. Or the conspiracy theories that have been brought up in this thread (like from Barye) that Bush planned on attacking Saddam ever since he tried to whack his daddy to get revenge and increase his weekly allowance if he made his dad proud by finishing what his started and never had the guts to finish.

    Or taking the knowledge we have now and judge those who made decisions without that knowledge at the time they had act or not act. This tactic is usually used to prove a point in history to mold it to fit a specific point or political point of view.
  4. #584  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree. No one ever said that Saddam was behind 9/11, but he put himself in a position to be a threat AFTER 9/11 in a post 9/11 world. You do not point your finger inside your jacket pocket at a cop in a dark alley at night in NYC saying you have a gun and you are going to shoot, and then complain that they shot you because you did not have a weapon.
    Not quite accurate. A more apt comparison would be two people walking down a dark street towards each other each with their hand in their jasckets as if they had a gun and were prepared to pull it out should the other threaten them.
  5. #585  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You see... that is a valid argument. I agree with some of your points and I disagree to varying degrees with others....but they are all valid points.

    The only thing that usually gets me is the "Bush Lied"...."Why and cite"....."I just know he did because I hate him so much, he must be liar!" argument. Or the conspiracy theories that have been brought up in this thread (like from Barye) that Bush planned on attacking Saddam ever since he tried to whack his daddy to get revenge and increase his weekly allowance if he made his dad proud by finishing what his started and never had the guts to finish.
    I believe the reference of "Bush lied!" relates to the 'selling' of the Iraq invasion. The switching of reasons, the shaping of intel, etc.
  6. #586  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    How do North Korea and Iran Differ?

    in 2002 North Korea told U.S. officials it has developed a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. North Korea reactivated it's nuclear reactor in 2003. Where was Clinton?
    North Korea already has the bomb, Iran doesn't... yet. Big difference. Like it or not, North Korea gets to play with the big boys now, and that game has very different rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Why does North Korea see the US as a threat now when in 1994 it signed an agreement?
    They've always seen us as a threat. The periods that they appeared to be playing nice nice were the periods they were probably doing the most harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Had Clinton bombed North Korea, where would we be now?
    Well, we'd probably have one less nuclear power to deal with. Does that sound like a bad thing?
  7. #587  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    How do North Korea and Iran Differ?

    in 2002 North Korea told U.S. officials it has developed a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. North Korea reactivated it's nuclear reactor in 2003. Where was Clinton?

    Why does North Korea see the US as a threat now when in 1994 it signed an agreement?

    Had Clinton bombed North Korea, where would we be now?

    We are fighting a losing battle... the more e fight, the more we lose.
    Already answered this one several times over, here is one that also includes Syria, Pak, and Lybia into the mix:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=47
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/17/2006 at 04:30 PM.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #588  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    Amen...my friend. Lets see Bush's daughters sign up to fight. Lets just hope he doesn't push his luck with Iran or N. Korea, as someone who has brothers in the Middle East as we speak I pray everyday nothing happens to them. By God if something did happen.... This war was about Dad's failure to secure Saddam. As I stated before, no one died when Clinton lied but they (republicans, confederates as I put it) did there best to get him impeached...ha,ha didn't happen. I'll continue to bash Bush and his administration and his supporters....worst president ever!!! Ever!!!

    The sadest part of all of this is a few people actually believe in this clown...I know they're not perfect but my God get a clue...and a life.
    Amen, don't worry about taking the fight to them, they will be here soon enough.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #589  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    I'm not making excuse for that clown in washington. I know what MY president did wrong. Do you know what YOUR president did? He admitted mistakes and you defend his mistakes. Ignorance...God it spreads worse than the Bird Flu around here doesn't it.....
    Hmm, what country are you from? Here in the US of A we all have one president.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #590  
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovedessert
    Hobbes, I still say Bush obsifacted not getting Osama by going into Iraq. He did nto have to go in just then, Saddam was no threat to us. In addition, as the troops, the vast majority of them think Saddam had something to so with 09/11. I winder why and how thye came to that conculsion? take care, Jay
    PS I also would like 2 things to go back to Clinton's era and most important go back to the days before 9/11. I lost lots of firends in that awful attack.
    Why did Clinton fail to get Bin Laden??? We can ask the question all day, or we can stand up to the terror regimes and start reducing the threat. Our choice.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #591  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    North Korea already has the bomb, Iran doesn't... yet. Big difference. Like it or not, North Korea gets to play with the big boys now, and that game has very different rules.



    They've always seen us as a threat. The periods that they appeared to be playing nice nice were the periods they were probably doing the most harm.



    Well, we'd probably have one less nuclear power to deal with. Does that sound like a bad thing?
    North Korea can stockpile all the nukes they want, what harm is that to us? The USSR had tons on nuclear weapons, one was never fired as an act of war. The Cold Was was more a threat than North Korea is now.

    North Korea will not strike the US, other that is does not have the technology, it would be suiside. The US would obliterate them.

    Iraq on the other hand could strike someday, but any retaliation or preemtive strike would be very strategic so as to not harm their natural resources. to obliterate Iran would be foolish.

    Pakstan has nukes, so does India, China, France, South Africa, Russia, ??? go ahead and add North Korea... I don't think it matters much.

    We should have worked with them via diplomatic channels that were set up when Clinton was in office when we had the chance though...
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  12. #592  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why did Clinton fail to get Bin Laden??? We can ask the question all day, or we can stand up to the terror regimes and start reducing the threat. Our choice.
    Ah, the last refuge of a weak debate; "...Clinton did/did not ....".


  13. #593  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    North Korea can stockpile all the nukes they want, what harm is that to us? The USSR had tons on nuclear weapons, one was never fired as an act of war. The Cold Was was more a threat than North Korea is now.

    North Korea will not strike the US, other that is does not have the technology, it would be suiside. The US would obliterate them.

    Iraq on the other hand could strike someday, but any retaliation or preemtive strike would be very strategic so as to not harm their natural resources. to obliterate Iran would be foolish.

    Pakstan has nukes, so does India, China, France, South Africa, Russia, ??? go ahead and add North Korea... I don't think it matters much.

    We should have worked with them via diplomatic channels that were set up when Clinton was in office when we had the chance though...
    BIG REASON....is NK does have the capability to strike any major city on the West coast....from LA to Seattle with rocket with a nuk warhead. They have, unlike the others you mention, already threatened to use them if anyone as much as enables a sanction against them. They have claimed a sanction would be considered an act of war and would not hesitate for a first strike to include all options available to them. I think you may need some more info on NK, their policies, capabilities, and current threats. Search the forums on discussions on this and google.

    The whole time they were signed under Clinton's agreement, they were taking our money, our energy sources, our food, our aid and building nuke capabilities right under the admin's noses.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/17/2006 at 04:56 PM.
  14. #594  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ah, the last refuge of a weak debate; "...Clinton did/did not ....".


    But isn't that a lot of the anti-Bush arguments .....did/did not....
  15. #595  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    North Korea can stockpile all the nukes they want, what harm is that to us? The USSR had tons on nuclear weapons, one was never fired as an act of war. The Cold Was was more a threat than North Korea is now.

    North Korea will not strike the US, other that is does not have the technology, it would be suiside. The US would obliterate them...
    Does the stance taken by North Korean leadership bother you at all? I'm significantly less comfortable with North Korea than others - IMO they would be more likely to attack South Korea, using their Nukes to attempt keep the US from getting involved. I wouldn't put it past North Korea leadership using the Nukes given the right circumstances....
  16. #596  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    BIG REASON....it NK does have the capability to strike any major city on the West coast....from LA to Seattle with rocket with a nuk warhead. They have, unlike the others you mention, already threatened to use them if anyone as much as enables a sanction against them. They have claimed a sanction would be considered an act of war and would not hesitate for a first strike to include all options available to them. I think you may need some more info on NK, their policies, capabilities, and current threats. Search the forums on discussions on this and google.

    The whole time they were signed under Clinton's agreement, they were taking our money, our energy sources, our food, our aid and building nuke capabilities right under the admin's noses.
    for them to strike is suiside... it's not happening. I don't see the threat. The real threat are the ones we know nothing about.

    How many other nations do you know of that are working under our noses on getting a Nuke? We don't know now do we. What can and should we do?

    Peace out!!!
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  17. #597  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    North Korea can stockpile all the nukes they want, what harm is that to us? The USSR had tons on nuclear weapons, one was never fired as an act of war. The Cold Was was more a threat than North Korea is now.
    Indeed, the Soviet Union was more of a threat because they had plans to expand Communism throughout the world. But that doesn't mean they are no threat. They are a threat to Japan, South Korea and, as an arm of China, they are a threat to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Iraq on the other hand could strike someday, but any retaliation or preemtive strike would be very strategic so as to not harm their natural resources. to obliterate Iran would be foolish.
    I don't think we want to obliterate anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Pakstan has nukes, so does India, China, France, South Africa, Russia, ??? go ahead and add North Korea... I don't think it matters much.
    I'm not sure you understand the idea of non-proliferation. Remember the Soviet Union? Where are those nukes now?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    We should have worked with them via diplomatic channels that were set up when Clinton was in office when we had the chance though...
    This is a bit naive. You're assuming that just because North Korea appeared to want to negotiate that they were being genuine.
  18. #598  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But isn't that a lot of the anti-Bush arguments .....did/did not....

    Yes, since it would be related to Bush. I don't argue for Clinton policy based on saying Bush senior did or did not.
  19. #599  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Does the stance taken by North Korean leadership bother you at all? I'm significantly less comfortable with North Korea than others - IMO they would be more likely to attack South Korea, using their Nukes to attempt keep the US from getting involved. I wouldn't put it past North Korea leadership using the Nukes given the right circumstances....

    I see Chavez of Venezuela a bigger threat if he stops selling us oil. In 5-10 years he can be selling it all to China...
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  20. #600  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    I see Chavez of Venezuela a bigger threat if he stops selling us oil. In 5-10 years he can be selling it all to China...
    Too many threats out there these days to keep track of them all. The drive for independence from foreign oil should heat up dramatically in the not too distant future......

Posting Permissions