[quote="Pfc.Green":016d0][quote="Low spark":016d0]
Honestly I don't think you would. Green you are so wrapped up in justifing what Bush does that you can't see anything but what he wants you to see.
If politics were a religion, he'd be your god....

But really I think that if we a allowed a Hitler-like person to rise to power in this country, by the time we decide not to support him it would be to late. And you wonder why I fear the Homeland Security Dept.l..... In the wrong hands........[/quote:016d0]

Honestly...no. This might shock you but I was a staunch Democrat (heres the crowd gasp lowdly) up untill the latter years of the Clinton administration, grant it I was young but I knew what was going on. I saw the deterioration of the Democratic party as time went on they became more and more and more left wing and I found myself agreeing more and more with the Republican party. The fact is I do not support war to remove Saddam just because Bush came to power and said "Saddam bad" I have believed in the removel of Saddam for as long as I can remember. I am a very independant person and no one is going to tell me what to believe, not even the president of the United States.[/quote:016d0]

More and more left wing??? Clinton was one of the most middle of the road presidents in recent history....Republicans Hated him because he kept stealling the ideas and made them look like the were futher to the right than they were.

[quote="Low spark":2cef1]More and more left wing??? Clinton was one of the most middle of the road presidents in recent history....Republicans Hated him because he kept stealling the ideas and made them look like the were futher to the right than they were.[/quote:2cef1]

I was'nt focusing directly on Clinton, the party as a whole was moving quickly left, and after Clinton left office it fell really fast down into a liberal cess pool (in my opinion).

ok Clinton was teh suck of a president "hey yall, let me fiddle with this interns privates, ill be right back!!"

I should clarify, it was during Clintons second term that I switched partys. His way of dealing with Iraq, his Bosnia mission, and most of all his lack of action after the U.S.S. Cole incident and his god damn affair said to me this man may be good with the economy but hes a moraless ass-hole. and Being open minded I decided to listen to people on the Right, and found I fit in better there.

You know, all these assholes that like to mock Bush and other heads of state, I wonder if they could do any better? I think, NOT!

[quote="Pfc.Green":cb09a]I should clarify, it was during Clintons second term that I switched partys. His way of dealing with Iraq, his Bosnia mission, and most of all his lack of action after the U.S.S. Cole incident and his god damn affair said to me this man may be good with the economy but hes a moraless ass-hole. and Being open minded I decided to listen to people on the Right, and found I fit in better there.[/quote:cb09a]

That I can except. Saying the demorcate are in a liberal cess pool was a little much.... By the current Adminstrations standards the middle of the road is a liberal cess pool.... As far as morals go I don't think they were any worse than any other presidents..... On bosnia. I have some muslim friends that are in Bosnia, they escaped when the serbs were just starting the ethnic cleansing..... They are back in Bosnia now, and they say that the people of Bosnia are thankful for what the US did to stop the serbs and protect their people. On Iraq,... What was he supposed to do.... They weren't a problem anymore.until after9/11(when bush relized that he couldn't win the war on terror and needed a scapegoat. . Now what about the Al queda was clintion supposed to invade Afaghanstian.,... the sudan...
If he did would he have had the suppport of the american people? I think not....

IF you want to blame someone on Iraq blame Reagan, he helped arm Suddam. did nothing when Saddam gassed the kurds. hmmm I wonder who worked in Reagan's Adimitstaion, That ok. though thats before Saddam invaded Kuwaitt and messed up OUR oil supply....

I dont see why clinto should'nt have gone after al queda in afghanastan seeing as there was a direct link to them. We had many awful terrorist attack some were attacks on mititary targets, his seeming lazyness and non-caring about these incidents is what pissed me off.

And on Bosnia I supported that action, I should have said that this is an after the fact thing that makes me glad I became a Republican, during and after the Afghan campaign Dems were complaining about civilian casualties, where were the Republicans whining about civ. casualties during the Bosnian campaign? thats right there were'nt any. The arguement of the who arming of the enemy is getting old, you cant say that giving Saddam some money and some other stuff made him invade Kuwait or gas the Kurds...so on. There was trade between England and the U.S. between the the revolution and the war of 1812 and we ended up fighting them, we gave oil to the Japanese (though we stopped that) which no doubt later on was used to help invade other countries. And to people who think this war is to divert attention from the war on terror, its not, its part of it...and the war on terror is not one which will be won quickly no it will be ongoing...it could be many years before we could claim a sort of victory, a Dem. could be in office and have the war on terror still going on, say we get into a tiff with N.Korea will people you would have to say "hes diverting attention" if you follow that line of logic.

that guy is so damn funny! i dont think iv ever read something hes posted that i dint laugh at. His hatemail section is great too.

[quote="Pfc.Green":40278]I, during and after the Afghan campaign Dems were complaining about civilian casualties, where were the Republicans whining about civ. casualties during the Bosnian campaign? thats right there were'nt any. The arguement of the who arming of the enemy is getting old, you cant say that giving Saddam some money and some other stuff made him invade Kuwait or gas the Kurds...so on. .[/quote:40278]

You are right. we should not worry civilains, It's there fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Careful your are making Republican sound like heartless warmongers.
I did not say the us giving money to Saddam made him gas anyone or invade kuwait. I said when he gassed the Kurds we looked the other way, we needed him as an ally against Iran. When he invaded Kuwait then he threatend our oil supply, that when he became evil in our governments eyes.
Saddam is an evil man. But this country has a history of supporting people just like him when it thinks it will help the "cause of the day " Look at Pakistan, a country with weapons of mass destuction, that was just last year threating to use them, Oh but wait we need them for our war on terror.
Why aren't we building forces up to invade North Korea, they are a bigger threat the Saddam. Why aren't we in Africa stablizing the region so that democracy can have a chance. Why are we giving Prefered Trade status to China, with it's dismall record on human rights. What about Russia and the use of chemicals on their citizens.

I was not saying we should not worry about civilians, I was using that an example of how the Democrats are often Hypocrites. Clinton had bi-partisen support when he took his limited action (if you could call it that) against Iraq, and now the Democrats (though they voted yes) are not very much behind Bush's actions. Most goverments choose to help those leaders who they believe to be of "benefit" to them at on point or another, this is not new. Now about, say Africa, I dont think we should get involved in much of that, yes we should send food aid and the like, but not much more. Now your probably going to say, well then why should we be involved in anything like Iraq...etc and I can see your point, I feel we have truly good reasons for our actions (or those to come) you probably believe differntly and that I respect. I dont think we should have any trade with China for the express reason of there awful human right desicions and action (i.e. Tibet is the worst of there actions) the trade with China really opened up during the Clinton years, even giving them military secrets, so why dont you ask him.

P.S. I dont take any of this personally and you should'nt either Low (I know you dont), I actually enjoy our debates since your one of few people who can keep their heads during them.

[quote="Pfc.Green":46f97]I was not saying we should not worry about civilians, I was using that an example of how the Democrats are often Hypocrites. Clinton had bi-partisen support when he took his limited action (if you could call it that) against Iraq, and now the Democrats (though they voted yes) are not very much behind Bush's actions. Most goverments choose to help those leaders who they believe to be of "benefit" to them at on point or another, this is not new. Now about, say Africa, I dont think we should get involved in much of that, yes we should send food aid and the like, but not much more. Now your probably going to say, well then why should we be involved in anything like Iraq...etc and I can see your point, I feel we have truly good reasons for our actions (or those to come) you probably believe differntly and that I respect. I dont think we should have any trade with China for the express reason of there awful human right desicions and action (i.e. Tibet is the worst of there actions) the trade with China really opened up during the Clinton years, even giving them military secrets, so why dont you ask him.

P.S. I dont take any of this personally and you should'nt either Low (I know you dont), I actually enjoy our debates since your one of few people who can keep their heads during them.[/quote:46f97]

I don't take any thing in these forum personally. I enjoy playing the devil's advocate. I like to make people think. To often we but everything in black and white and forget about the gray areas.
I enjoy reading the differing opinions people post, no matter how off base some of them seem. I'm a strong believer in the freedom of speech, so I find these debates alot of fun.
BTW. When you get in the Navy, I hope you do well and never have to go fight in a war. But in any case you be safe... oh and remember the comment you made about the President not telling you what to think, tell that to your commander. I'm sure that he/she will get a good laugh out of it.

ENJOY.

I think the only reason Regan supported Iraq at the time was because the bigger threat was Iran, and still is today.

That's the same reason why we let the Iraqis go free in the Gulf War.. otherwise we would have slaughtered them all easily, but that would have left Iraq and its rich oil fields for Iran's taking, making them an even bigger threat.

Personally, I cannot say which party I am a part of. I am too young and have not seen enough outside of my white middle class neighborhood to say. Growing up with a hard working Republican father and a mother who is as Democratic as can be and, as a teacher, has seen many things in her life, certainly makes the choice harder. But it's all for the better, since I am educated in both fields..

The economy goes in cycles. Sometimes people make good decisions in regards and sometimes they don't.. that's just how it is.