To those who served,
- Thread starter r.w.landau
- Start date
- Status
Gentlemen,
Please, keep this post as an honor to our vets! if you keep this up, the thread will surely be disposed of. It is boats that we agree on here. It is upsetting that our politics divide us so much. But that is not what this is about. r.w.landau
Please, keep this post as an honor to our vets! if you keep this up, the thread will surely be disposed of. It is boats that we agree on here. It is upsetting that our politics divide us so much. But that is not what this is about. r.w.landau
The tipping point that made
Bush got elected for both terms are: Supported by 1. Religion conservatives and, 2. Big corporations. Why they chose him among other republican? Both parties have their owen agenda and Bush is a good choice for them simply because he doesn't have much IQ thus it's easier for them to manipulate him to suit their need. Every decision he made(or made for him) prove just that(including "invade" Iraq.)
Bush got elected for both terms are: Supported by 1. Religion conservatives and, 2. Big corporations. Why they chose him among other republican? Both parties have their owen agenda and Bush is a good choice for them simply because he doesn't have much IQ thus it's easier for them to manipulate him to suit their need. Every decision he made(or made for him) prove just that(including "invade" Iraq.)
to rw
your thanks are welcomed and appreciated. To Col. Sam and Rick Webb, keep 'em flying, from a TAC and PACAF crew chief, 1970 thru 1978 (31 TFW Homestead and Linebacker II, 388TFW Korat RTAFB and 363TRW Shaw). Steve
your thanks are welcomed and appreciated. To Col. Sam and Rick Webb, keep 'em flying, from a TAC and PACAF crew chief, 1970 thru 1978 (31 TFW Homestead and Linebacker II, 388TFW Korat RTAFB and 363TRW Shaw). Steve
Doesn't anyone go sailing anymore?
You guys all spend too much time on your computers and too little time sailing. I would like to suggest that every post (including the first one) belongs somewhere else and not on our favorite sailing site. At a time when our country is divided along political ideology to an extent not rivaled in the last 100+ years, (try the early 1860's) any post that has a political overtone (or agenda) is likely to ignite a flame war. Why only thank the men who fought for the country? My mom was a WWII WAC and spent 3 years in the South Pacific. Her stories of spending nights on the beach avoiding bombs made for great bedtime stories as a kid. Its 4:30 am in Seattle, how long do you think it will take Phil to nuke this thread? So now that we have covered politics, who wants to start the threads on religion and sex? Russell "Dissent does not equal disloyalty" Edward R. Murrow
You guys all spend too much time on your computers and too little time sailing. I would like to suggest that every post (including the first one) belongs somewhere else and not on our favorite sailing site. At a time when our country is divided along political ideology to an extent not rivaled in the last 100+ years, (try the early 1860's) any post that has a political overtone (or agenda) is likely to ignite a flame war. Why only thank the men who fought for the country? My mom was a WWII WAC and spent 3 years in the South Pacific. Her stories of spending nights on the beach avoiding bombs made for great bedtime stories as a kid. Its 4:30 am in Seattle, how long do you think it will take Phil to nuke this thread? So now that we have covered politics, who wants to start the threads on religion and sex? Russell "Dissent does not equal disloyalty" Edward R. Murrow
"Alan, we won." *o
LMFAO. Fred if you really think that, then I pity your blind arrogance. People don't think you won, I think they realize its no use wasting the oxygen. Funny observation that the Left Wing Liberals on here that come out enforce are the same as you would expect. NY and Washingstan State. PS. As much as you'd like to try and deride America as become an anarchist democracy you are very wrong. It is still solidly what would be called is a representative democracy from which I beleive "republic" (derived from REpresentive PUBLIC???) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States
LMFAO. Fred if you really think that, then I pity your blind arrogance. People don't think you won, I think they realize its no use wasting the oxygen. Funny observation that the Left Wing Liberals on here that come out enforce are the same as you would expect. NY and Washingstan State. PS. As much as you'd like to try and deride America as become an anarchist democracy you are very wrong. It is still solidly what would be called is a representative democracy from which I beleive "republic" (derived from REpresentive PUBLIC???) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States
Good Idea Russell
I do not think anyone was excluding the ladies. My wife was over there before we went into Iraq and for all of the initial fighting. I took her out for dinner for Veterans Day any of y'all buy a vet a beer this weekend? Think I will treat myself and go sailing this afternoon
I do not think anyone was excluding the ladies. My wife was over there before we went into Iraq and for all of the initial fighting. I took her out for dinner for Veterans Day any of y'all buy a vet a beer this weekend? Think I will treat myself and go sailing this afternoon
Liberals, you've got to love them!
Here guys, try to learn something before making even bigger fools of yourselves. Liberal, "Well, we know that we said those things back then (when it was politically expedient to take that position) but surely you did not think that we really 'meant them'. Now, we are going to tell you what we really 'meant' when we said those things". (because now it is politically expadient to act as if we never said them) THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction." The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill. But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again. OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today. But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles. "What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
Here guys, try to learn something before making even bigger fools of yourselves. Liberal, "Well, we know that we said those things back then (when it was politically expedient to take that position) but surely you did not think that we really 'meant them'. Now, we are going to tell you what we really 'meant' when we said those things". (because now it is politically expadient to act as if we never said them) THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction." The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill. But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again. OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today. But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles. "What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
Would everybody please go read r.w's
original post? Then, if you agree with his SALUTE TO ALL VETERANS for their service and sacrifice, please post a message indicating your agreement. WITHOUT POLITICAL VIEWS, PLEASE! I hate to see friendships made in this forum destroyed because of this thread. We share a love for sailing, obviously not political views. Cheers, Bob s/v X SAIL R 8
original post? Then, if you agree with his SALUTE TO ALL VETERANS for their service and sacrifice, please post a message indicating your agreement. WITHOUT POLITICAL VIEWS, PLEASE! I hate to see friendships made in this forum destroyed because of this thread. We share a love for sailing, obviously not political views. Cheers, Bob s/v X SAIL R 8
- Status