I am just so hurt by that I'm going to go kill myself now that i know you don't love me.

 

Not true , you only hurt the ones you love.

 

Hey arrbilly ,

Can't you answer my questions? Is this how your great rant will end ? Impotent ? Come on now, I gave you an opportunity be all you can be . What gives? No real thoughts of your own?

Or is this the old joke " How do you keep a Moron in suspense?"

 

ahh so... I'm being loved to death then.

 

Kobiashi:

Excellent post…

You make many good points and gave me a reason to pause for a moment and collect my thoughts and judge myself as some of the rational people as yourself see me.

I agree with you, at times I go a bit too far with the black and white and I will not blame that on anything but being human and someone very loyal to America and freedom for all.

I sometimes find myself so irritated with what goes on it is easier to try and state my logic in black and white. I do believe most things are black and white, right or wrong and yet know there must be common ground somewhere or there will be nowhere to go, no end, no solution in sight.

I see this current war as black and white, right and wrong. It is the free world against the closed world of the terrorist. I also see it as “you’re with us or you’re against us” and do so in this fashion:

There are many different views and opinions on how this war should be conducted, who should be involved, how it should be carried out. I have no problem with that and something that is or should be open for debate. I do not agree with everything President Bush has done but realize when you have to call things on the spot you do not have the option of weighing every decision out.

I do not believe it is right for those that disagree to go out and call Bush a liar or what ever else they want to do to cause political harm to him. In doing so it causes much greater harm to America and its security.

For example you came on stated you disagreed with me on this particular thread and how I went about writing what I did. You did so respectfully and from the looks of it basically disagree with the complete way I did it. Yet, you never stated I lied, or am some kind of demon, or other one line comment. You did so respectfully and I indeed read it, thought about it and now am trying to address it and admit some fault with it.

That to me, in my opinion, this is an example of, in this situation, of the two of us “for it” rather then “against it”. In other words you may have completely disagreed with me, but yet we are of the same team.

I would also answer your question to me “If I don’t believe one of the things you say then should I not believe anything you say?”

Short answer, no, if you don’t believe one of the thing I may say, that I portray as a fact, not opinion, but for example I say “Every Republican in office is honest and looking out for our best interest” we all know that is not true, but if I made a statement like that then everything else I wrote in that post should be brought into question. I try to be as honest as I can. If I think I have something as fact then I try to post a link to where I may have got that information for others to look at and judge for themselves.

Now there are other things I sincerely believe are fact such as if we were to walk away from Iraq I truly believe for a fact that the terrorist will have won a huge battle and proved to themselves they can indeed intimidate America and then more attacks would in fact happen. That is something I believe to be fact, and it is open to debate among others, but for me I would believe it so.

That is different, in my opinion, then stating something like 80% will vote for Bush in 2004 and that is a fact. That, if I read it from someone else, would have me question their entire post.

To bring this to an end I thank you for a respectful post, and a post that gave me pause to read, think and was backed by your own personal beliefs and then the opportunity to try and answer.

 

01 XLT SPORT -

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

As I said earlier, I have often agreed with what you have said and also do so with your last post. The only thing I would disagree with is:
"I do not believe it is right for those that disagree to go out and call Bush a liar or what ever else they want to do to cause political harm to him. In doing so it causes much greater harm to America and its security. "

Actually, I think that those who call Bush a liar (or worse)...the fact that they have the ability to do so...is what makes this country as strong as it is rather than subvert it.

I live in West Los Angeles. Right up the street from me is the Federal Building. Across the street from that is the National Veteran's Cemetery. On the other side of the freeway is the Vertean's Adminstration Hospital.

Every day I drive by all of these. Every day there are protestors outside of the Fed Building. Almost everyday is the same guy who holds up two signs. The first says "Bush is a lying sack of SH*T. Impeach Bush!" Every time I see him I think to myself "What an a$$hole." However, I'd die for his right to stand out in front of the Federal Bldg. with that sign.

Granted, I think the whole political game playing between the parties is often counterproductive. And yes, it irritates me to see the Dems. doing what sometimes seems to be treasonous behaviour, which is nothing more than politics as usual, at such a critical time...however, that's what this country is about.

As I drive by the cemetery I see endless rows of white tombstones. I don't know if they all died in combat, maybe not, but I can't help but be proud and humbled at the service these men and women paid for this country.

Then as I drive by the VA Hospital, the are homeless vets all up and down Wilshire Blvd. and San Vicente Blvd. begging for money and food. The funding and service is so bad at the VA that this is where they often find themselves. It is such a sad picture to see this massive VA hospital, the massive Fed Building, and the VA Cemetery as a stark background to these vets who only recieve limited care. It has been this way for years, not just in W's adminstration. I'm sure the reasons are many, but it still comes down to this...W happens to be in the office at this time and things aren't changing. That means he's going to get criticized for it, and since it's under his watch at the moment, the criticism is more rightfully so than not.

Now, as far as whether one believes we are in Iraq for good reasons or bad, once the Commander in Chief sez go...and we go, I agree...we finish the job. There can be debate back and forth whether it should continue or not, and that's good, debate is healthy and often great things can be learned form it, but in the real world...logistically...once you start something you'd better finish it. You are correct; for us to pull out now would be a defeat in more ways than one.

Personally, I think we did the right thing by going in. People can say waht they want...no WMDs found, no Sadamm found, etc etc etc. I do know this though. On Sept 11 we experienced the largest terrorist attack ever seen in the history of the world. Since we took action, popular or otherwise, nothing else has happened in this country.

I could argue about the planning (or rather lack of it) about what to do after entering Baghdad, or about other poor choices made, but there are always going to be poor choices made...there are always going to be mistakes made.
Such is life.

Believe me...I have often seen things in Black and White...I did for many years and sometimes still do. It got me into more trouble than not. Hey, I'd be the first to admit that after the attacks in 2001 I was thinking (aloud) NUKE MECCA NOW!!!

Needless to say, not a good idea.

As you say..."when you have to call things on the spot you do not have the option of weighing every decision out"
that is true...but when you are writing in a forum...that a lot of people have access to...it's best to weigh out what you are writing....

However...it wouldn't be as fun then...would it?




Although I may not always agree with you, or others on this board, I respect what you all have to say.

God Bless America.

Carry on!

 

Let me try to clarify what I mean by my statement ” I do not believe it is right for those that disagree to go out and call Bush a liar or what ever else they want to do to cause political harm to him. In doing so it causes much greater harm to America and its security.”

I agree with what you stated. To note I served a bit over 10 years in the military and absolutely agree and would put my life on the line to defend anyone’s right to their freedom of speech, be it the ordinary citizen or a politician.

I believe it is fine for politicians to disagree with what ever administration is in power and to debate the issues. Some issues need not be so diverse that it reflects to the rest of the free world that we are in a “perceived” weakness and thus not project our resolve for an issue, regardless if there are those who feel we should resolve a situation in a different manner.

For example, the war on terror. The vast majority of Americans are in agreement that we must do something to curb and if possible completely insure there are no further terrorist actions, here in America or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

America can project its strength and resolve even with “honest” disagreement. However if you have someone in power, a politician, calling the President, any President a liar or what ever it is not “honest” disagreement but a sign of weakness or to put it another way a sign that there are two completely different factions within America. One that believes something must be done about terrorist and one that does not believe anything should be done.

That may not be true under the surface, but it is the “perception” and perception counts for everything. At time of war America needs to speak with one voice. I believed that with President Clinton, and any other person that was President that presided over a war.

When America is perceived to be divided it gets more service members killed because it is that, the death of service members that one faction chooses to use to move their cause forward.

Let me try an example to see if it comes across with what I am trying to explain. Let’s say you live in a neighborhood and have 10 families in that neighborhood. I am family number 11 and unlike the rest of you I like to party until 4am every day of the week. My music cranked up so loud that it rocks your walls 5 houses down.

You and the rest of the neighbors decide to get together and do something. Let’s also state that it takes at least 7 of your neighbors to agree before someone can call the police to pay me a visit.

The next night you have 10 in agreement and the police pay me a visit. Soon after that one of your neighbors finds that I have broke one of their windows in retribution. The next night you all get together and the one with the broken window is ready to cut and run. Doesn’t want to chance another broken window, but however is not public about it where I hear about it. Next night same thing, police pay me a visit and I break another window. Now you have one of the neighbors publicly complaining that you are doing the wrong thing by calling the police.

I hear this and think “This is causing some problems among your neighbors”. Next night same thing, police visit me, and now I break 4 of the neighbors windows and now you have 3 opt out of the program and you left with 7. You lose one more neighbor and you can no longer call the police because you need at least 7 to agree.

My point is I see weakness when I act out, you do an action to me and I know what to do to cause a divide between you and your neighbors, I see you as weak because 3 of your neighbors are saying to the public you don’t know what you’re doing, you lied about the situation etc.

Now, you could have disagreement with how to handle it, and maybe one window a night would get broken out, but if you all are “perceived” to be standing together it makes it harder for me to think that I can cause a divide between you and your neighbors with my actions.

Children do it, or at least try it all the time with parents, they try to divide and conquer and it is natural. If the parents stand together, strong and with resolve the child soon learns they can not divide and conquer.

That is what I am trying to say, in this mini-novel, about ” In doing so it causes much greater harm to America and its security.” not the citizen on the street with their sign, but someone in power with the power to possibly cause change in a policy. If those in power are perceived to be together, though may disagree, but agree something must be done then it is less likely you have thousands of citizens coming out with signs. When you have strong leadership it projects unity rather then factions. With factions it is insecure and can break into many factions all biding for their own views of what course the country should take and when that feud is going on it could leave the door wide open for those wishing to do harm to America.

I do believe every person has a right to their view, however in time of conflict I believe America has only one voice, or should only have one voice and that is who ever the President is at the time. Otherwise the child that successfully divides and conquers his/her parents becomes spoiled and gets their way…

 

I absolutely agree with you on the issue about the vets. You are correct who ever is in office, which at this time is President Bush then it is on his watch and for him to find a solution, or at least begin a path to a solution.

There should never be one vet who is homeless or hungry EVER!!!! The federal budget should have as a priority funding defense spending first, then vets programs second and every thing after that IF there is any money left.

We have the money to pay for it we simple take it out of other social programs such as welfare etc. That is open for debate, but if someone on welfare has to go without being able to put braces on their child’s teeth then so be it, the kid does not need them to begin with, it is not a necessity but rather a cosmetic thing that NO tax payer should have to fund.

If I had the power every vet would be guaranteed a yearly income of no less then $40,000 along with free medical. That would come out of across the board cuts in ALL social programs.

Anyway I’ll end it here but do know I agree about the vet’s situation which has been an absolute shame for over 20 years and longer…

 

Just a point on this, as it is something I've always agreed/believed in. All political parties have good people, good ideas/plans, positive things to bring to the table, etc. They all have the exact opposite also. Our goal should be a combination of the 'good'.

The problem that is being seen by many, is that with election races starting the left is showing their colors as being more interested in getting back in power then for the good of the country. An example as you stated:
Which is valid points. I believe in the war, but I also believe Bush could have gone about it better. Many on the left feel the same way. Could they (left) have *helped* Bush go about it better and make more correct choices. YES.

But that never happened. Now they (left)are acting like a bunch of cry-babies, screaming out liar, idiot, pull-out, etc. which is doing more harm to the 'war on terrosism' then it is good. Same with the news, there is plenty of good things happening in Iraq, but why is it the supposed to be unbiased news is only highlightning the bad?

So it's not just Bush who has made bad choices. Had the left placed their disagreements with Bush's choices like you had stated your disagreements with 01 XLT Sport maybe a compromise or gray area between the black and white could have been reached.

Everyone going after their own power does not help our country. Neither does the media who has the power to slant a story or be biased and only post half of the story.

 

01 you rock!!!

Bush '04

 

Hey '01 ,
As a fellow Veteran I appreciate your support but I would never take hand-outs . I have been destitute before but managed to pull me and my family out of it. Just plain hard work and will power. We qualified for aid but none was taken. It's a Social trap for weak-willed and lazy people for the most part.

All I ask for as a Veteran is nothing but what everyone gets for free. That is , manners , in the form of a simple Thank You.

 

I hear you and understand where you’re coming from. There was a point when I was in with my family we qualified for food stamps, never took them and never wanted them.

However my point is not for it being a hand out but rather something that had been earned for service to country. Would I ever accept something like that, guaranteed income? I don’t know but it would be nice knowing it would be money taking away from those that have done absolutely nothing for this country but drag it into the ground with their lazy work ethics and lack of no responsibilities…

I don’t speak for all on welfare because there are people who are in need of assistance and that is fine by me. However the majority of them on welfare does NOT need it nor deserve it.

Maybe instead of an income option, it could be a guaranteed grant for further education in what ever field to give those vet’s with little skill the edge. In return they would take that training and be even more productive in society and that would be the return.

 

This is a very thought provoking topic. I was against going into Iraq but supported going into Afganistan. I honestly think Bushs administration lied to us for support for going into a country that had nothing to do with the attacks in New York and Washington.

I wrote all of my representitives and our president urging them not to start what I think is a complete folly in Iraq. I bought advertisements and put a sign in my yard urging my fellow Americans to not start this war in Iraq. I wrote my local newspaper on at least three occaisions.

That being said, now that we are there we have to stay until Hussein is found and a new government is fully functioning in Iraq. We must give our troops all of the supplies and man power they need so they can do their job with as much efficiency and success as possible. To pull out would be a blow to our credibility far worse than the decision to go in was.

Because Bush put our country in what I consider a winless position(we lose regardless of the Iraq outcome) I will never support him as a candidate or as a person.
And because I consider my views as valid as any other American I will never tolerate anyone calling me a traitor or terrorist sympathiser, I have friends and loved ones in harms way and will personally defend my views against any attack from anyone anywhere.

At least two Democratic Challengers to Bush have publicly stated that we have to stay in Iraq until the job is done, those who say Democrats put themselves and personal goals ahead of the security of our country are flat wrong and guilty of partisan sniping below the belt.

 

Nick D,

I respect your beliefs and thoughts, but one question: what are your sources that President Bush lied? No one was denying that Iraq had wmd. IMO, President Bush exhausted every avenue to get support before going it alone (almost). I believe Iraq has and still has wmd. Think how easy it would be to hide wmd in an area the size of California. I could hide my 9mm simi-auto on my 5 acre plot and I know that no one would ever find it. So would it take a nuke rammed up your butt for you to believe? I personally would rather our country deal with the potential threat rather then deal with the aftermath. What do you think?

Arbilly,

The two sources you referenced is the ONLY place I heard that had any kind of story that about President Bush in the terms they mentioned. NYT did not, Wash times did not and I know the DrudgeReport would have been one of the first to post any kind of news worthy info about president Bush. I don't think your sources are at all reliable - just opinions, which, the left has a lot of them to go around.

Just my .02

runnert

 

Nick D. - I know we've all been through this topic many times and it's become a dead horse that just keeps getting kicked, but on some strange level we come back to it. Anyway, you made a few comments that I cannot resist commenting on.

1. I do believe that on some levels and information the public was lied to, not everything, but some. But thank you for stating the 'Bush Adminstration'. Everyone is quick to blame Bush for lies, and only him. But in reality the president is given information from various groups, if they are mislead or fab lies into the story and the president goes on that info, he is always the one blamed.

2. If someone commits a crime and you let them hide from the police in your house, then you are aiding a criminal. When he gets caught, you get introuble also. How should Iraq be different from this?

We didn't ask to be attacked by terrorists. And Bush certainly cannot be blamed for everything that has happened in the Middle East for all the past years.

Really. I haven't been paying enough to attention to left to see what they are saying. But if true it supports what I stated: