State of the Union Drinking game

[drewklein1]

A couple points on the situation in Iraq.

The first dust up, you all I am sure will recall, was precipitated by an Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The response, UN supported, resulted in a severe ass kicking of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and a hammering of their chicken sh$t butts on the run back into their hole. Iraq's actions led to UN sanctions against them in the ensueing years. One of the many was 2 "no fly" zones. The regime or whoever elected to take potshots at the brave airmen who enforced this UN mandated restriction. Well these airmen weren't French or German or Russian etc. Guess who cowboyed up and did the duty? Us and the Brits. The Iraqis were shooting at us. That, in and of itself, is plenty enough reason for an ass kicking. As far as our troops being there on the ground, pretty damn benevolent. We maybe should have just pounded them into the sand from the air. Too harsh for some to stomach though. What other options were there?

Don't get me started. :twocents:

Not to get nit picky with you, but Saddam told the US that he was planning on invading Kuwait, and George HW Bush let it be known that it would be treated as a regional matter not a US concern. Also the UN only backed the invasion after it was reported that the people of Kuwait were being tortured, raped, and the Iraqi soldiers were knocking babies out of their incubators. This all turned out to be false propaganda by a PR firm on Madison Ave. which was hired by the Kuwaitis. Then to make matters even better, after the US (whom supplied the Iraqis with most of their weapons during the war against Iran) kicked the crap out of Iraq, we forgot to depose Saddam. Instead we told him he could not fly planes over the no-fly zones but feel free to use helicopters. Saddam then mowed down thousands of shiites who fought against him (after being asked to by George HW Bush) with the helicopters the US said he could use. So don't get me started. This isn't a war about WMBs (there were none), it isn't about 9/11 (The CIA report clearly states that Saddam did not fund or assist Al-Qaeda and most of the terrorists were Saudi), this is a war of legacy and oil. George W Bush's father screwed up so bad over there the first time, that it is now time for his son to clean up the mess. Also it would be nice to install a pro-west democracy over there so we can keep our access to the region's oil reserves. So get you facts straight. I don't care if you are for or against the war but don't try to correct people and then leave out the most important parts. Lastly, let's not forget that is was the US that armed Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. It was the US invasion of Iraq that caused Bin Laden to be anti-west, before then he hated Saddam as much as we do. Reading usually will inform you pretty well, watching Fox News' 30 second sound bytes really doesn't do the situation justice.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Bullshit. That's all the response needed here.

 

[drewklein1]

That's the problem with politics, most people when confronted with someone who disagrees with them but is informed, will just dismiss them or refer to their points as bullshit (eventhough everything I wrote was true)! :lame:

 

[SAVAGE PAW]

RE/MAX... people like you drive me to drink... :drinking:

You seem like a rather likeable guy and maybe someday I'll actually meet you in person. Please answer this for me:

Where in the hell were all of the dems that are presently screaming about Bush's terrorists surveillance program when the Clinton's were caught with FBI files on U.S. Citizens in the White House? Huh?

The hyprocrisy is unbelievable. As awkward and bumbling as Bush sometimes appears.... I'd want him protecting me and my family OVER ANY SINGLE DEMOCRAT ALIVE! :loser:

HERE HERE to the ZONE!!! :dance: arty: :thumb: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[TrueGriz]

Democrat or Republican

Doesn't matter. They both suck. Neither are better or worse than the other.


Both parties are driving America to the ground, either by stretching the military way to thin, spending taxpayers money right and left, and splitting America in two. Yeah, America is divided in two and neither side can agree with anything.

As for the spending part, both parties spend like crazy, always have and always will. Just a matter on where they like to spend the money.

I hate all politicians. They just do it for power, not for the good of a America.

But, I guess there could be some good. These politicians give people something to bitch about.

 

[Grizbacker1]

True,

Are you contending that Green Party, Libertarian, or the so called Independents are any better? There isn't one of them that isn't out for the power and money involved.

Re/Max,

I hope you know real estate better than your grasp on politics. You are a nice kid, but your political knowledge could fit in a thimble. :agrue:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Drew not everything you posted was true and factual. Some of it was just your opinion.

This war has nothing to do with oil, and oil wouldn't be in the top 5 reasons. That's how I look at it, but it is cool to disagree. That is where the fun in political discussions comes in.


Nice post Ponezone, it's about time. :thumb:

 

[SAVAGE PAW]

Hey Drew
Prove that Bush #1 knew before hand that Iraq was invading Kuwait.
You can't!!! What a joke you really lost credibility with that one. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Put your money where your mouth is and I want good source not a magazine or other such source like the Pinko Commie Times.

 

[grassgrunt]

Them Bush's and their cupidic enchantment!

:thumb:

 

[Hells bells]

That's the problem with politics, most people when confronted with someone who disagrees with them but is informed, will just dismiss them or refer to their points as bullshit (eventhough everything I wrote was true)! :lame:

now for your correction on the events of the first iraq war

1) IT was the UN that stopped us from getting sadam...yes the same organization that profited from oil for food program about 10 years later

2) if it were up to the us we would have captured sadam back in 1991

3) We also sold weponry to iran *they have several f-14's B747's and older type aircraft* but so did the soviets *i belive that iraq had up to mig 29s in their inventory which places their purchase well after anything we gave them*

4) i will go by your word about the PR firm

5) if all wars were just for oil why havnet we threatened canada yet? they are closer, they have much bigger oil reserves in the form of "oil dust"(dont know the exact word of it but from what i have read about it it makes the mid east look like a lake)

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I suppose the bigger question Savage is, would we still be fighting a war in Iraq and not offering any plan to withdraw troops if a Democrat were in office? Probably not.

Show me Clinton's troop withdrawl plan Re/Max. Oh I guess you can't since he NEVER had one. :loser:

Huh? Is that a sincere slam on Clinton (for not having a troop withdrawl plan for a war he didn't have, or for not starting a war that he didn't know how to justify or finish?), or is this a really profound bit of sarcasm?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I suppose the bigger question Savage is, would we still be fighting a war in Iraq and not offering any plan to withdraw troops if a Democrat were in office? Probably not.

I think an even bigger question is would Sheehan be doing what she is doing if her son was killed in Afganstan? I bet she would. That war according to the democrats is the "good" war. I think whats really bothering her is the fact that someone she hates (a conservative) ordered her son to his death. If it was slick Willey I don't think she would be saying a word. Because she would have agreed with him before hand.

Well, it would be really hard for her to rally any support if she had no message other than "my son is dead." That "For what noble cause did my son die" thing not only had merit, but it gave the anti-war movement another face. You may hate her, and she annoys me personally, but I have a feeling that if she didn't have that compelling question left unanswered (as the war in Afghanistan WAS a just war in the minds of nearly everyone), then you wouldn't even know her name today.

And if my son died in a war and I later discovered that the Presidents assertions that led us to war were all ... well ... not based on factual reality, I might be a little upset as well.

 

[BWahlberg]

I think one can understand why she is upset though.

Her son was killed in a war that we were mislead into. Now many people believe we should've still gone there, but she never did. So a war she disagrees with starts, and then her son is killed in it. She has the right to be upset and stage protests, her method, well thats another topic...

 

[Grizbacker1]

BAC,

You make some valid points. She most certainly is entitled to her own opinion. I think may people really feel a lot of what she is doing now is at the whim of radical groups like Code Pink. That her son's death is the vehicle to get her in front of the camera, where she often has a totally different agenda.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the interviews done with her immediate family members? They don't agree with what she is doing, nor her methods. She is pretty much an outcast from her own family.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Drew in case you don't remember we the United States of America were attacked on 9-11 we lost 3000 people. You say we had peace, prosperity and individual freedom, and I will give you that, but things changed on 9-11.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We just as well say we are in Iraq because the sky is blue.

It amazes me how many people will still reference 9-11 when talking about the war in Iraq. Sure, Bush does it, but we all know he's easily confused, especially when Karl's handwriting on the cue cards gets smudged. I expect better from internet bulletin board posters, though.

We are in Iraq until North Korea shuts down their nuclear program? Ummm ... why?

This thread has some of the strangest leaps of foreign policy logic I have ever read ... and that's impressive, because I have read some strange stuff.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

BAC,

You make some valid points. She most certainly is entitled to her own opinion. I think may people really feel a lot of what she is doing now is at the whim of radical groups like Code Pink. That her son's death is the vehicle to get her in front of the camera, where she often has a totally different agenda.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the interviews done with her immediate family members? They don't agree with what she is doing, nor her methods. She is pretty much an outcast from her own family.

You mean her ex-husband's family? I've read interviews from them. They don't like each other ... and didn't before this chapter in her life. That happens a lot with divorced people. I haven't seen anything about anyone else.

Of course, it begs the question ... who cares? If she believes she's right, and people follow her lead, then more power to her. Her question to Bush is still a piercing one that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction (even though many talking heads try to answer for him, none seem to make a great case), so even if she might be a little loony (she undoubtedly is), she just might be the most focused and rationale perspective of anyone on this issue.

 

[Grizbacker1]

BAC,

You make some valid points. She most certainly is entitled to her own opinion. I think may people really feel a lot of what she is doing now is at the whim of radical groups like Code Pink. That her son's death is the vehicle to get her in front of the camera, where she often has a totally different agenda.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the interviews done with her immediate family members? They don't agree with what she is doing, nor her methods. She is pretty much an outcast from her own family.

You mean her ex-husband's family? I've read interviews from them. They don't like each other ... and didn't before this chapter in her life. That happens a lot with divorced people.

I expected a little more from you, must be tired huh? weak :wink:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

BAC,

You make some valid points. She most certainly is entitled to her own opinion. I think may people really feel a lot of what she is doing now is at the whim of radical groups like Code Pink. That her son's death is the vehicle to get her in front of the camera, where she often has a totally different agenda.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the interviews done with her immediate family members? They don't agree with what she is doing, nor her methods. She is pretty much an outcast from her own family.

You mean her ex-husband's family? I've read interviews from them. They don't like each other ... and didn't before this chapter in her life. That happens a lot with divorced people.

I expected a little more from you, must be tired huh? weak :wink:

Is it her ex-husband's family that you are talking about? Or do you not know for sure? I assumed you would clarify that for me.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I assume you were talking about this old story ... about her right-wing in-laws:

On 11 August 2005 Matt Drudge made public an email he claims to have received from Sheehan's sister-in-law (and Casey's paternal aunt), Cherie Quartarolo, in which she was quoted as saying:

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Quartarolo signs the email "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."[218], but does not mention the individual names of these relatives.

During a series of interviews published on several websites, Sheehan responded to Quartarolo's statement:

"My in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. . . ."
"We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death."[219]
Sheehan clarified that:

" . . . my immediate family, Casey's dad and my three children and my sister, we're all on the same page. And I really think that some of my husband's siblings are with us too." [220]

 

[SAVAGE PAW]

Sheehan is running for the senate. She is has already talked about running against Barbara Boxer in the primary. Sounds like a sicko to me shes now trying to use her sons death for a personal gain.