Ted Haggard

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"I don't know about that. I think the vast majority of people in Iraq want democracy."


You have Geedubbya's disease.If you want to stay there until there's Democracy,then our troops will be there when you die.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
You might find this article interesting.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1022-04.htm
DTS

DTS they are only printing the parts of the story that sound good. Go look at all the other articles in which Blix complains profusely about the Iraqi's complete lack of cooperations and how they let them into sites they wanted them to see.

Common dreams is cutting a pasting. Thats just not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I followed this very closely because I did not want us to get into war and was hoping beyond hope that the UN would be allowed into all the sites they wanted on their time scale, because they clearly said thing had been moved and hidden by the Iraqis BEFORE they were allowed in. What they were hiding I have no idea now. But this article is reprehensible in what it has left out. Blix and other UN officials were constantly deceived and lied to and nothing in that article says anything about how bad this problem was.

That article is really not fair, not at all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

"I don't know about that. I think the vast majority of people in Iraq want democracy."


You have Geedubbya's disease.If you want to stay there until there's Democracy,then our troops will be there when you die.

I agree with you. We can't stay there forever. We've already been there for 4 years. I hope we get out in the next year or two.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

DTS they are only printing the parts of the story that sound good. Go look at all the other articles in which Blix complains profusely about the Iraqi's complete lack of cooperations and how they let them into sites they wanted them to see.

Common dreams is cutting a pasting. Thats just not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I followed this very closely because I did not want us to get into war and was hoping beyond hope that the UN would be allowed into all the sites they wanted on their time scale, because they clearly said thing had been moved and hidden by the Iraqis BEFORE they were allowed in. What they were hiding I have no idea now. But this article is reprehensible in what it has left out. Blix and other UN officials were constantly deceived and lied to and nothing in that article says anything about how bad this problem was.

That article is really not fair, not at all.

Pgardn,
Alas, there are no "do overs". Blix and his team had inspected 500 of 700 suspected sites (if you read the article). Saddam was in a "box" and bluffing.
Blix wanted more time to carry on the inspections. This is fact.
That there were nuclear weapons, yellow cake or centerfuges clearly has proven to not be. Remember who put those "stories" out?
So who was decieved? Who rushed to invade?
Blix's own words point to a truth that can not be denied.http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/25/news/invade.php

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
Alas, there are no "do overs". Blix and his team had inspected 500 of 700 suspected sites (if you read the article). Saddam was in a "box" and bluffing.
Blix wanted more time to carry on the inspections. This is fact.
That there were nuclear weapons, yellow cake or centerfuges clearly has proven to not be. Remember who put those "stories" out?
So who was decieved? Who rushed to invade?
Blix's own words point to a truth that can not be denied.http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/25/news/invade.php

DTS: you still only tell the facts as you see them,and Hans wants another 15 mins of fame as an expert! Do you honestly believe that there was no movement of WMD's to Syria and other areas? What was Saddam dancing for 8 months,if not to clear out the evidence. Is Sarin gas deadly enough for you? The book "DISINFORMATION" details the stockpiles that were moved,as well as other info that MSM will not print. Russia supplied info on links between Al Queda and Hussein...nobody talks about that. The entire civilised world considered Saddam a threat not only to peace,but stability in region as well. "blinkers ON" bro! PS Still waiting for comment on previous post to you

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: you still only tell the facts as you see them,and Hans wants another 15 mins of fame as an expert! Do you honestly believe that there was no movement of WMD's to Syria and other areas? What was Saddam dancing for 8 months,if not to clear out the evidence. Is Sarin gas deadly enough for you? The book "DISINFORMATION" details the stockpiles that were moved,as well as other info that MSM will not print. Russia supplied info on links between Al Queda and Hussein...nobody talks about that. The entire civilised world considered Saddam a threat not only to peace,but stability in region as well. "blinkers ON" bro! PS Still waiting for comment on previous post to you

ok Timm,
I'll start with your last request.
The way to a peaceful resolution is to arrange negotiations including, but not limited to, the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, an Iranian representative (as Iraq will become a theocracy later), and a US "moderator". The USA is unable to resolve this "war" without the assistance of other Mideast Governments.
As far as the wmd's...if they were in"fact" moved to Syria (part of the axis of evil), how come they haven't been used?
My understanding is:
1) There were no nuclear weapons.
2) Biological weapons were extended beyond their "shelf life" and no longer effective.
3) Chemical weapons. Though used by Saddam against the Kurds (despicable), might still exist. I really don't know. Is there proof that they remain? If so, where, and why haven't they been used by the "rougue state" they were shipped to for the past five years?

With sanctions in place and ongoing inspections, Saddam was not the threat to the rest of the world that was "sold". Hence, the change of "mission" from finding wmd's to regime change, to providing "democracy"..to refereeing a civil war.

[Downthestretch55]

timm,
Here is an article you might find to be of interest.
Please note the date. The author was a UN inspector in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

ps...sorry that it came from "common dreams"

[timmgirvan]

Don't know what the shelf life of Sarin gas is..and we can discuss it aud infinitum..so OK. Your solution(I'm glad you decided to put out) is correct, but it will be llike "herding cats" with all the baggage those groups bring to the table. Would have been nice for the rest of the world to cooperate, but they don't have the guts to follow through on most things anyway! As to the location of said WMDs....Like Syria's not that stupid....they get the most mileage from making USA look bad! Sorry,Buddy.....I'll stick with Bush. Have a good election nite and May only HALF of your dreams come true!

Hey kids,

This is SUPPOSED to be a horseracing website.

Its why I sought refuge here from the previously shut down TT forum.

Originally Posted by QUANROSS

Hey kids,

This is SUPPOSED to be a horseracing website.

Its why I sought refuge here from the previously shut down TT forum.

Then get yee to the correct forum. We talk about many things in this particular forum. Please reread the topics discussed in this section. There are people on this board with a wide variety of interests. If racing is slow, we talk politics. I suggest you go to the other forum.

DTS.
Even Hillary and Bill Clinton defended Bush's decision based on Iraq's unwillingness to be honest and allow the inspectors to do their job. Blitz always got to sites AFTER they had been cleaned out. If you think he is happy about the job he got to do in Iraq I think you will find his opinion at the time that he was inspecting was SEVERE dissappointment. There is just no doubt in my mind on this subject. I was thoroughly convinced there were WMD's because of the trickery and lying. So were a ton of democrats and UN people.

Ok, ok, I stand corrected.

Cave men walk completely upright here, got it!

Originally Posted by QUANROSS

Ok, ok, I stand corrected.

Cave men walk completely upright here, got it!

OUch. That was such a cute, witty comment.
Have a good evening... while I drag my wife across the room by her hair.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by QUANROSS

Hey kids,

This is SUPPOSED to be a horseracing website.

Its why I sought refuge here from the previously shut down TT forum.

Welcome to the Board! Most of us are refugees from somewhere. Pick a topic, and respond in your fashion. Be polite...and 'focus' before you post! You will have a much better time here, as will we.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Come on now!
Do you post things that fit your agenda?
For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace.
Your "trash talk" is getting old.
I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent.
Enough about me.
I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.

dts, just for my sake...what is it that you find makes you an independant, and not a democrat? just out of curiosity.

[brianwspencer]

i still don't get the big uproar. what's the big deal?

it's just a little crystal meth and gay sex.

that's like a regular saturday night for most of my friends.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

dts, just for my sake...what is it that you find makes you an independant, and not a democrat? just out of curiosity.

Oh boy! Yet another request to define myself! GEESH!!
I'll tell you.
I am registerered as an Independent.
There are views that I agree with (better sit down now) with the Conservative Party, like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.
There are views that I agree with that come from the Greens, like signing the Kyoto Agreement and marine mammal protection.
There are views that I also hold that come from the Democrats, like adjusting the minimum wage, health care, and others.
There are even a few views that I agree with the Republicans about, such as trade with Canada, and encouraging small business.
There are views that the Libertarians hold that I also agree with, especially regarding the rights of the individual.
I like to make up my own mind, so I don't buy a "total" platform from any political party.
I hope that answers your question.

Now, since you felt free to ask me...
What party are you registered with, and why?
Do you believe that all citizens should be allowed to make their own choices and party affiliations?
Does a "moral" or "religious" belief that you might hold, be used to coerce others to hold the same, despite Constitutional guarantees against same?

I'll have more questions later, but these are enough for now.
Thanks for asking.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Oh boy! Yet another request to define myself! GEESH!!
I'll tell you.
I am registerered as an Independent.
There are views that I agree with (better sit down now) with the Conservative Party, like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.
There are views that I agree with that come from the Greens, like signing the Kyoto Agreement and marine mammal protection.
There are views that I also hold that come from the Democrats, like adjusting the minimum wage, health care, and others.
There are even a few views that I agree with the Republicans about, such as trade with Canada, and encouraging small business.
There are views that the Libertarians hold that I also agree with, especially regarding the rights of the individual.
I like to make up my own mind, so I don't buy a "total" platform from any political party.
I hope that answers your question.

Now, since you felt free to ask me...
What party are you registered with, and why?
Do you believe that all citizens should be allowed to make their own choices and party affiliations?
Does a "moral" or "religious" belief that you might hold, be used to coerce others to hold the same, despite Constitutional guarantees against same?

I'll have more questions later, but these are enough for now.
Thanks for asking.

i was asking since i never have seen you disagree with a dem, altho you disagree with much that the republicans do...thanks for answering.
i am registered with no party, as you don't have to register (thankfully) in arkansas. why? i don't agree completely with any one party,and think all have something to offer, altho most seem in my view to have more bad going for them than good.
as for making a choice and a party affiliation....of course everyone should be free to do so, altho i wish there was a viable third party to compete with the either/or that we suffer with now.
i got hammered by somer in the past for saying i hold more with the 'legal' than the 'moral' POV as one persons moral view is not the same as another. i even said i felt compelled to start a party known as the 'constitutionalist' party...coach was kind enough to offer to join. i'm very much an 'everyone needs to mind their own business' type--my views on 'gay' marriage would bring down repents wrath in a new york minute. of course my views on gun rights would invite an immediate response from scuds.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i was asking since i never have seen you disagree with a dem, altho you disagree with much that the republicans do...thanks for answering.
i am registered with no party, as you don't have to register (thankfully) in arkansas. why? i don't agree completely with any one party,and think all have something to offer, altho most seem in my view to have more bad going for them than good.
as for making a choice and a party affiliation....of course everyone should be free to do so, altho i wish there was a viable third party to compete with the either/or that we suffer with now.
i got hammered by somer in the past for saying i hold more with the 'legal' than the 'moral' POV as one persons moral view is not the same as another. i even said i felt compelled to start a party known as the 'constitutionalist' party...coach was kind enough to offer to join. i'm very much an 'everyone needs to mind their own business' type--my views on 'gay' marriage would bring down repents wrath in a new york minute. of course my views on gun rights would invite an immediate response from scuds.

Deb, I agree with you. I wish there were a viable 3rd party that could actually compete...

I voted Republican because I swing more to the conservative side, and I realize that the line between republicans and democrats is getting to be a gray area, but really, what other choices do I have? I want to vote, but it seems that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's frustrating...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i was asking since i never have seen you disagree with a dem, altho you disagree with much that the republicans do...thanks for answering.
i am registered with no party, as you don't have to register (thankfully) in arkansas. why? i don't agree completely with any one party,and think all have something to offer, altho most seem in my view to have more bad going for them than good.
as for making a choice and a party affiliation....of course everyone should be free to do so, altho i wish there was a viable third party to compete with the either/or that we suffer with now.
i got hammered by somer in the past for saying i hold more with the 'legal' than the 'moral' POV as one persons moral view is not the same as another. i even said i felt compelled to start a party known as the 'constitutionalist' party...coach was kind enough to offer to join. i'm very much an 'everyone needs to mind their own business' type--my views on 'gay' marriage would bring down repents wrath in a new york minute. of course my views on gun rights would invite an immediate response from scuds.

Thanks for your answer.
I also don't agree with any one party.
Your view on "gay marriage" might be the same as mine. Government should have no say on the one choses to love, and should not provide tax advantages for such.
I'm also pretty clear on the words in the 2nd Amendment. As a hunter and gun collector, there is no good reason for the government to involve itself in my interests, unless there is proof that criminal activity has taken place with my firearms, which there hasn't.
"Moral" views are for the individual to determine for him/her self. No government has the authority to impose them on its citizens.
It is my belief that it is the citizen's responsiblity to speak against the policies of any government that does so.
Peace.

[timmgirvan]

IF you don't stand for SOME morality...then it will just become chaos