Top I just thought HID was getting a little excited Sorry I miss read him. Mexstan you are right about the Islamic EDITworld being off at us. I have never been a big fan of their's anyway. But we invade their country on some BS charge of WMD that we still haven't found kill thousands of their people and over EDITa thousand of our young men and it's ok. I don't get it. What the do you think EDIT just like the rest of this leadership EDITthat they'd be waiting to embrace us as we entered Bagdad. I'm no genius but I called this one before dumb EDITsent in the troops. I said "we broke it and now we have to fix it" That my friend is the problem we can't fix it but ole Georgie will keep trying.
Joe I don't have a prob with the guard. But you know and I know that if you join the guard chances are real good you'll never get called up right?? Wrong ole W put it to them. The guard is not a front line combat outfit but he turned them into one and therein lies the prob. He figured he could take on both Afgan and Iraq at the same time. Didn't quite work out that way. You ever hear " Divide and conquer" well EDIT we did it to our selves or our illustrious leadership did it for us. Some how we lost our focus.We were looking terrorists in Afgan and doing well -- next thing we're invading Iraq. No terrorists there --not even any WMD. One more thing, why aren't we in Saudi Arabia weren't 15 of 19 hijackers from there or maybe its that royal family and Bush family relationship. ON 9-11 only two planes were allowed to fly and leave this country. Guess who Yup the Saudis and-oh my God the Bin Laden family. What's up with that?? Maybe my Government could shed some light on this. This great country was founded on the principal "of the people for the people and by the people" that sure as EDIT isn't the case today. You were (edit) about Mc Govern giving you're money away well at least it would've stayed in this country. We're doing it now to the tune of 7.5 billion a yr to soEDITme that hates us and wants us out of his country. EDITI say 'grab the money and run' We could put that money towards health care or some other needy cause. Maybe help out the victims of Ivan. There are enough places to spend that money in this country and it would be good for the economy maybe even create a job or three. That's it for now. Call me if you still can't figure it out.

Jim

Edited by Admin

Jim you need to reacquaint yourself with the rules you agreed to abide by here at DTR. Specifically this section;

"You agree, through your use of the DieselTruckResource.Com forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, racially based or biased, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law."

 

There are somethings I don't understand "BS charge about WMD" well it wasn't baby powder he killed thousands of his own people with? I guess after giving the finger to the UN for 11 years he just said "awww heck we might as well destroy these WMD" He had them and everyone knows it! If nothing else when a law is made and is not enforced what good is it? He had a choice to comply with the UN for a long time he chose not to. I wonder why? Because he knew they would do nothing about it!!!

About the National Guard these guys are in the Guard to give to their country and to protect this country whether it is a riot somewhere or a war. If you didn't know there was Guard units in Vietnam. That is why I don't understand people saying GW went to the Guard for safety? These men and woman are in as much danger as anyother military unit. And if the President sends them somewhere they will go because it is their duty.

We are still looking for terrorist in Afganistan and are still doing well!!!
If you don't think there are terrorist in Iraq you are sadly mistaken.

As far as invading Saudi Arabia I haven't heard of the Royal family backing the 15 hijackers. If we go by that we would have had to invade Tim Mcvey's hometown for him blowing up the Fed building in Ok.

Do you really think if we weren't spending that 7.5 billion in Iraq they would give it back to "we the people"

 

Dezeldog,

Like Barry said we have "Concrete" evidence that Saddam had WMD, He killed his own people with them!! Where do people get off saying he did not have them!????

Please explain how these people are dead with traces of WMD if Saddam had none??

 

On your second statement:Kurt Waldheim was sec. gen of the UN and got on the US watchlist for allegedl being an SS officer in WW2 afterwards- lots of the media in the US proposed getting out of the UN because it was an organization that was pro ****- not exactly communist IMHO.

Terrorists not attacking TV or radio stations because they are their allies? Well, yes, but only in the way that terror can only work if people know what to be afraid of. Example- 9/11 itself caused a major loss of lives, a great loss of money and goods- but the main impact on the US society, emotionally and economically was and still is the fear that something like 9/11 could happen again.
If there had been no media reports on this nobody knew and nobody cared... This may sound like I'm pro censorship, I ain't! But since the knowledge about the terror in the masses is the true terror of terrorism the terrorists would be really stupid to attack and destroy the means of transport for their weapon.
After reading some stuff on this Dan Rather affair I think that it's amazing that not too many people realize that all this is maybe a crime towards the other end.. Just ask yourself "cui bono?" who profits?- clearly the republican side.
Who would vouch for any party nowadays being above using such tricks? Offering a scapegoat under a false pretense?

That's just my observation on the state of politics in the US nowadays, and therefore I think that the fear of the US going down the drains is justified.

Just my 2c

AlpineRAM

 

Well I'm sure Peter Jennings is thrilled with Dan Rather right now. WMD are irrelivant IMHO. Hussein kept breaking the cease fire agrreement and should have been stopped sooner. Clinton kept letting it go which gave him strength. When I was there, the "soldiers" were waving us on to keep going north after him. Bush Sr. bowed to the UN and didn't go in after getting the people to revolt. They remember this and are covering their tales by siding with the new "bully", just in case we pull out again. This "bully" has kept his power over the years, even while at odds with Saddam, who is no longer a threat. His force isn't getting stronger because people believe in him, it's because he has gotten through the cracks and put the hurt on them one-by-one. Besides, all you see is what the media feels will bring the ratings and serve their purpose. Example- Dan Rather flying into Iraq, gets some shots with his vest on that had blood from a nose bleed, leaves 20 minutes later, while his producer stays behind the rest of the day getting shots of battle damage, like Rather was there the whole time.

GWB didn't stick it to the Gaurd. Clinton did when he deactivated the heavy divisions, moved the equipment to the reserves, and reallocated the light divisions in the reserves to armor. He changed the mission of the reserves from being a "backing" force to the "primary" force. I also attribute some of our problems over there to some lack of training. Training budgets were cut to nothing under Clinton's last few years. Vehicles were sitting with no money for fuel, pilots losing flight pay because aircraft was grounded, etc, etc. Guess what, Clinton also signed NAFTA.

Stan, don't fall into all the hipe. Not everybody believes the sky is falling and listens to all the political reports as "gospel". You just see the noisy, minority in the press. How many times have any of you asked yourself when watching the news "Gee, couldn't they find somebody better to interview than that?"

 

I agree in a general sense about the media/terror thing, but there are certain media organizations--Reuters comes immediately to mind--that bend over backwards to avoid even using the word terrorist. They're so reluctant to report the facts as they exist that many people have taken to calling them Al-Reuters. Now on the Dan Rather thing, well, I guess it's possible, but I really don't think they're that clever. Looking at what's going on right now with the situation, CBS got burned with fake documents, which would normally mean that they could and would expose their source because they're under no obligation to protect a source that lies to them and so badly damages their credibility. Despite that, they haven't exposed the source, which seems to point to the source being someone connected to either the Democratic National Committee or the Kerry campaign itself. Personally, I think it was a guy named James Carville.

 

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I am falling for all the hype. I do read a lot from both the majority and the minority media and form my opinion from that and other things. Yes, many, many times I have wondered why the media could not have found someone better to interview, but then remember that if they did find someone who knew the whole story and also told the truth that either it would not be a newsworthy story or it would go against the medias preconceived ideas and agenda. I have not trusted the media for many years and lately as they sink lower and lower in self inflicted muck I am totally disgusted with them. The media no longer just report the news. They try to make the news and in doing so totally distort many things. This of course is to the advantage of the enemies of America who take these distorted stories as gospel. Jennings, Rather and others are enemies of the American people and should be treated as the traitors they are.
Better quit before I get mad.

 

Let's see, they have front line equipment (most units and those that don't are getting it finally) like F-16s and F-15s. As with all military, we train like we fight and fight like we train. With active units. If the guard - part of the Reserve of the US Forces - isn't a front line unit, what's there reason for existance? If they can't jump in at any point, then it's a collosal waste of money. The guard and reserve is as much a front line fighting unit as any active duty unit. Period. No one stuck it to them... are you one of the people who thinks the guard is there just to pay for kid's college?


First, check your facts. They didn't leave until several days after 9/11. Yes, they were given special dispensation to fly around and gather their family members and then depart back to Saudi, but again, it wasn't until several days after 9/11, though it was still during the general flight ban.

Personally, I'm glad I live in a country that would allow people to leave before the pig headed people here (I'm generalizing now, not specifically referring to anyone) start rounding up and shooting Arabs simply because they ARE arabic. Or share a name with a lunatic.

I think you've been watching too much Michael Moore....

 

There was a larger point here that no one seems to get and is proven every day. With all the pro and con about Bush and Kerry there is a big point that is completely missed.

Look back through the posts that are political on this board. What is the theme, always. It is weather Bush is good or bad. The point that I was trying to make is that there is never a discussion on what Kerry can do better... NOT EVEN FROM HIM. What will he do for the country? What has he done notable? How about his Senate career, what did he do that makes him a good president? You may not like Bush or the Bush family but he successfully led the State of Texas and was elected as President.

The point that I am trying to make is that the feeling of the Democrats is "anyone but Bush" Watch what you pray for, you might just get it. Can you honestly say that there could be no one worse than Bush? Of course not, that is rediculous. I think everyone that would vote against Bush needs to search in their own mind, what is this person that I want to vote into the highest political position in the world. Is HE qualified, can he lead this country to a better place or am I just relying on the Demorcatic party to come through for me.

The emphisis is always on Bush, did he do wrong or did he do right. How about Kerry??? How about thinking about Kerry for a while and make an honost decision on the real question, Is he good for the country? Does he have the principals that are necessary to lead the greatest country in the world? Or is he another Carter that will usher in 22% interest and not have the leadership to retain the respect of America.

I don't see where anyone is coming up with an honost opinion that Kerry has the leadership to bring this troubled country to a better place. Getting rid of Bush is not going to cure that problem and might just add many more problems.

Can anyone list a few things positive and great enough to make Kerry a President? He does not even say these things, he just goes on and on about how bad Bush is. What are his qualifacations?

What most conservatives are getting thourally discouraged about is that the entire campaign is based on getting rid of Bush, not in furthering the country.

 

Bill you are right again. In a previous post (https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...threadid=50362) I sort of asked the same thing. I still don't know where Kerry stands. Shifting sands come to mind.
GWB to my mind was the right president for the right time. I challenge any political party to come up with a name of anyone, anywhere who could have done a better job given the evidence etc that was available at the times the decisions needed to be made.
Don't start flaming me with stuff that happened after the decisions were made and acted on. Show me anybody that would have made better decisions. Then tell us what decisions could have been different and what the outcome would have been.
If anyone (other then John Kerry) says that Kerry would have done a better job then take a look at Kerry's new idea of his idea of a softer military approach to the enemy. The latest picture is of a soldier holding his rifle over his head in the traditional gesture of surrender.

 

Dezeldog and other WMD doubters.
Mr. Delfer has found some although not a lot of chemical warheads. I believe the last count was 23. Yes they were old warheads from the pre gulf war era but chemical weapons non the less. Saddam was ordered to destroy ALL chemical weapons and to show proof of it.
That alone should be enough for all of us.
But there is another little piece of truth out there that for some reason the media wont talk about.
It was either during the prewar or early days of the war that large convoys of trucks were seen rolling across the border into Syria. It was also reported just recently that during those convoys the Iraqi border gaurds were relieved of their posts and replaced by Saddam's Intelligence officers. As soon as the convoys were done the border gaurds were back in place and the intelligence officers were gone.
Does anyone think that Saddam was sending milk to the poor children of Syria???
As far as the people of Iraq not welcoming us with open arms..... They did! There were people cheering in the streets.
Now we have Syrians and Iranians coming into Iraq as well as other Al Queda fighters and are feeding lies and fear into the Iraqi people to keep us from succeeding in helping this counrty become stable.
Take the money and run would be the absolute worst thing we could do and from what I've seen of Kerry that is exactly what this Worthless Dem would do.
Iraq would fall apart completely, the terrorists would win, their presence would be all the more powerful in Iraq as well as the rest of the world and they would then be able to turn more of their hatred towards our shores.
I would much rather kill those scumbags over there than have to deal with them here!

 

What actually constitutes a WMD?

 

Noun 1. W.M.D. - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)
weapon of mass destruction, WMD

bioarm, biological weapon, bioweapon - any weapon usable in biological warfare; "they feared use of the smallpox virus as a bioweapon"

chemical weapon - chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants

nuclear weapon - a weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction

weapon, weapon system, arm - any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"
armed forces, armed services, military, military machine, war machine - the military forces of a nation; "their military is the largest in the region"; "the military machine is the same one we faced in 1991 but now it is weaker"

high explosive - a powerful chemical explosive that produces gas at a very high rate

 

What the definition of "WMD" is
The White House helpfully explains what the president meant when he claimed weapons of mass destruction had already been found.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper

June 11, 2003 |

When President George W. Bush says "cow," does he really mean "milk"? Does he use the terms "light bulb factory" and "light bulb" interchangeably? According to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, when the president declared two weeks ago Friday that "weapons of mass destruction" had indeed been found in Iraq, he was merely using a term -- as he has on myriad occasions -- that he wields as a synonym for weapons of mass destruction programs as well.

This was a most remarkable Fleischerian pronouncement, if for no other reason than it's been clear that the president, since making the May 30 declaration on Polish television that WMD had been found, has been quite exact in not repeating the claim in his subsequent statements about WMD. Last week he told cheering soldiers in Qatar, with painstaking precision, that coalition forces had found "two mobile biological weapons facilities which are capable of producing biological agents," a distinctly ambiguous proclamation. On Monday, Bush stated with single-minded clarity that "Iraq had a weapons program; intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program," and he is "absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program."

Fleischer's explanation comes at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad for the president, who urgently and credibly sold the war in Iraq as a necessary task in the face of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and possibly even nuclear weapons -- ones it was imperative the U.S. not allow to be used or given to terrorists.

 

Dezeldog

I am sorry that your sons cannot find work in their area ,but maybe its time to move we have plenty of work in the nw come on out. The millions that you hear about on the media without healthcare coverage are less than half of what they say it is. What they do to inflate their numbers to get it to where they want it to be is ,they figure in anybody in a given year that was without healthcare for even a day in between jobs,those who don't need to buy health care cause they can just pay the bill,etc don't belive the lies of the left and their friends in the media ,this country is growing fast and the labor depatment figures show about 30k in new jobs nationwide per day,per day. All the economic barometers that the democrats like to us are up from four years ago.More minority's are buying homes, lower interest rates,lower unemployment,more minority's are in the middle claas as a percentage of the population than ever before and they didn't get there because of higher taxes,they got a tax cut and they got it from George Bush,not Hanoi John Kerry.Keep your head up dezeldog things are gettin better all the time. Vote republican you won't be sorry you did. I hope this peped you up some it did me.God Guts and Guns Keeps America Free.