Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

::thumbsup:

Honey!!!! Iam right with you,all the way!!!My youngest son lost his life in Mosal, in the Messhall bombing and he was a FT.Lewis Soldier,and my nephew who is now badly disabled form his last tour of duty,is going back to Iraq for his 4th tour of duty(ARMY).Iam with you all the way SOLDIER!!!!

Because those who did vote him in 2 times,were blind and stupid,and alotof them who did,have left him,for the other side .I thank the good lord, that i never did vote this fool into office,from the very beginning.

I know they love him in Albania and Poland as well.

You're welcome to him. Anyone who remembers a time before Bush can tell you that this isn't the same America. We are now riddled with fears and suspicions. The world hates us. Here's an apology to the world from the American people:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com

Apparantly most of you here see things I don't when it comes to Bush and this visceral distain of him. You who don't like Bush... ok fine. You voted for him and now regret it... ok fine. You didn't vote for him because you never liked him or his policies... ok fine. Whatever your reason(s) is/are, makes no difference to me. For comparative purposes of recent history only, would someone please draw me a picture of what Bush has done that Clinton didn't do? Clinton didn't have his cronies/ connections? Of course he did. There was no corruption or anything illegal done by any Clinton administration/staffers? Of course there was. I honestly don't see any significant difference between the two and would appreciate being enlightened.

To save a little time-

You can save the "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" point. A little research will indicate Clinton and his secretary of state Madeline Albright made the same assertion during his tenure.

The economy? I don't know nor care about your economic situation- mine has actually improved during the Bush administration (not to imply it was that bad during the Clinton administration either).

Illegal immigration? I believe illegals were coming across the border during the Clinton years also. Nothing was done then about it then and firmly believe nothing now will be done about it now (at the federal level).

"The world hates us now"- I didn't realize there was a global popularity contest going on. I say "Fine, hate the US all you want... your country can be one less one to bale out when a natural distaster strikes or if armed conflict arises there". Don't buy/consume our crop exports or accept any kind of aid from us. Hate America that much... don't come here.

I honestly can't think of one US presidential administration within my lifetime (starting with Kennedy) that hasn't done virtually the all the same things this current administration has done. The only exception I notice is a higher level of rabid hatered, a lot of idle speculation, and impatience. Those Americans who feel the need to be critical of US elected officials (regardless of the party); First- I believe they should be thankful they live in a country where they can still voice their opposition (for the time being). Two- It's very easy to be an political armchair quarterback in an online forum and vent personal feelings/beliefs. Bush, Clinton, et al. have been called just about everything imaginable. Don't like the way the your city, county, state, or country is being run and you believe you can do a better job than those currently elected? Then run for political office and try to enact your policies. Personally, I see nothing positive about Americans bashing their own elected leaders other than the self-centered, self-gratifying, and self-indulgent feeling one gets voicing an opinon (which in the long-run doesn't amount to squat ...and includes my opinion(s) as well).

With due respect

Thank you very much for your good and detailed information.I think it is better to make it much shorter.These days people do not read long articles!

Who will be the next president according to you?

Very Very Very Well Put!!!

I agree with you 100%

That's why we must elect Ron Paul 2008!!!

HOPE FOR AMERICA!!! RON PAUL!!!!!

Presidential address to the nation.

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

continued...

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

continued...

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


William Jefferson Clinton Wednesday, December 16, 1998

I would disagree on only one aspect of this post...

The dissolution of a representative republic into a socialist oligarchy...I don't see our dissolution going in a leftward direction...what I see is new-age fascism, which is right wing...the corporations become the government...

In a socialist brand of government, at least we would have socialized medicine. The current power structure will fight this tooth and nail, because they are the pharmaceutical interests, aka big corporate interests...aka the danger Adam Smith warned us about 300 years ago...

Other than that...this post is spot-on...

To those who dare tell others especially their own countrymen that it is wrong, that it is un-patriotic or un-american to criticize your leaders, here is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt that is most often ignored, read it and try to think about it :
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." Perhaps more of you should know your political history a lot better.
While I have your attention, may I offer this interesting quote from every one's favourite talk-show host, Johnny Carson, who never went for saying much that is memorable, but this is unique:
Democracy is buying a big house you can't afford with money you don't have to impress people you wish were dead.
And, unlike communism, democracy does not mean having just one ineffective political party; it means having two ineffective political parties.
Democracy is welcoming people from other lands, and giving them something to hold onto---usually a mop or a leaf blower.
It means that with proper timing and scrupulous bookkeeping, anyone can die owing the government a huge amount of money....
Democracy means free television, not good television, but free.
And finally, democracy is the eagle on the back of a dollar bill, with 13 arrows in one claw, 13 leaves on a branch, 13 tail feathers, and 13 stars over its head---this signifies that when the white man came to this country, it was bad luck for the Indians, bad luck for the trees, bad luck for the wildlife, and lights out for the American eagle."
A lot of metaphors in that piece; well to figure out what he meant.
Reading all these posts, I must admit that I'm astounded at the volume of coherent, well worded opinions and a general sense of agreement among so many. It is positively "uplifting" to read from mature adults who can express themselves with reasoned well informed opinions and not the usual primitive sanctimonious canned responses from political puppets who are desperate to "tow the line" of the totally corrupt and truly vile regime that presently governs you, just waiting to have your name turned in by some deluded patriot to this regime...perhaps after all this turmoil is settled and your troops are back in your own country with everyone licking their wounds over this latest blood-letting, try taking a page from other countries to try and prevent this from ever happening again; ban outright this Republican party that has so damaged your country; (remember Vietnam...same party that escalated that war...and brought you defeat by a third world but dedicated people's army). Disband it, ban it and go after it's officials; clean house for once, go after the multinationals and all the corporations that aided and abetted this war and made huge profits doing it. Close down and try their directors, chairmen and board members; follow their money trails. Try them and execute them. Don't let your grand kids endure another war for profits...maybe then the rest of the world will believe and trust you again. Tat world still outnumbers you, why keep making more enemies...

Fascism, as to my understanding of the word could actually go either left or right. Centralized autocratic regime (which I believe is well entrenched already in both major political parties via bipartisan legislation) with extremely nationalistic policies (passed and enacted into law by both parties)... based on state controlled capitalism, etc.. Social security, all social welfare programs (food stamps/debit cards), entitlement programs (subsidized housing and farming), and potentially- socialized medicine tend to be perceived as left wing agendas; However, I don't see the right wing doing anything to slow or stop the process either (by providing viable alternatives); Therefore, equally complicit. With the full impact of the baby-boomers retiring and growing, no population base to support them (I believe it's 2 people working for every person receiving social security now), collapse is inevitable under the current system. Corporations (I.E. Private enterprise) in my opinion have always done things better than the government. I would challenge anyone to prove/show to the contrary.

I too would (and do) fight tooth and nail against any form of socialism. Not because I'm any particular fan or ardent supporter of large international corporations as a whole, but merely because it simply doesn't work- more so in a non-homogenous and the vastly diverse culture found in the US (the rugged individulalism , free to be the best you can be, "git er done", mentality). Large corporations or a bloated, wasteful, inefficient, bureacracy (the US government) pick your poision. I would defer to the Norwegians, French, and Canadians about their socialized medical care, the costs, economic situations (co-payments), and quality of healthcare as proof it doesn't work.

Awesome response with a very well thought out solution Mr. Solitare. I believe that if RON PAUL were elected President of the U.S. that he would do exactly as you have stated here. He wants corporations OUT of Government, and the US OUT of IRAQ.

He is a Libertarian but running on the Republican ticket, endorsed by many Democrats. Very well respected in Congress too. He never bows down on any issue. Sometimes, he is the only congressman to vote against a bill that is not Constitutional.

Hope For America
RON PAUL 2008