I want answers

[stonebreakerwasgod]

On Clinton's watch, a number of terror incidents occured, including the first WTC attack. We did something, I call it not enough. Bush was President for a short time, and he gets the bulk of criticism for not doing enough to protect America.

The admin went to the UN, Congress approved the measure, and we attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then congresspeople who voted for the war, voted against funding
(Kerry- I voted for the war, before I voted against it. Who also said not to vote for him if he didn't think Iraq was a grave threat) People said that Bush was going it alone, and being a 'cowboy', and that the US should done this with international help (disregarding the fact that there was a coaltion involved, and that parties who weren't helping were financially involved at the time).

Then N. Korea becomes a problem, and the same people who said we should work with our international (lets call them) friends, said we should act unilaterally in this case. Even though the multi-lateral talks were necessary because only China has real muscle to deal with N. Korea economically, and everyone knows this.

The same people who voted for the war, now want to END it, and pull our troops out while progress is finally being made on the ground. Once again, let's support the troops while cutting their funds off (hmmmm, i'm still confused how that works!).

It saddens me that we play party politics with national security. No matter what Bush does, he is wrong. Clinton said that Saddam had WMD's, as did Kerry. But to the left and the media, only Bush lied, or was terribly misinformed.

What I want to know is, what exactly are the leaders of the democratic party going to do if they win the presidency? Leave Iraq for the Iranians to take over? How is N. Korea and Iran going to be dealt with when they act up and continue on the path of constructing nuclear weapons? I don't hear answers, I hear only criticism or talks of withdrawal. If someone knows these answers, please let me know. We all know the UN will do nothing, and most countries don't have the gumption to stand up and become involved unless they are directly effected. So what will happen?

 

[notredomer23]

What I want to know is, what exactly are the leaders of the democratic party going to do if they win the presidency? Leave Iraq for the Iranians to take over? How is N. Korea and Iran going to be dealt with when they act up and continue on the path of constructing nuclear weapons? I don't hear answers, I hear only criticism or talks of withdrawal. If someone knows these answers, please let me know. We all know the UN will do nothing, and most countries don't have the gumption to stand up and become involved unless they are directly effected. So what will happen?

answers to your questions:1. The dems will probably ruin our country. If the troops are out of Iraq, they will also take the 37000 troops from the dmz on the North Korean border.
2. I do not think the Iranians are that stupid, but if they are, i think they would try( paratroopers and missles maybe?) go after Israel not iraq
3. With the UN and everything bush does the media says is wrong, it would be hard to do anything. My guess is if we get a strong president that doesnt mind critism will maybe bomb where the so called "uranium enrichment program" is going on. With North Korea I dont know how we would deal with.

I dont know if these were the best answers, i mean coming from a 17 year, but i took my shot at it.

 

[cuss444]

One thing you have to realize with all "career politicians" is that they are going to vote with there consitutiants, whether it is right or wrong. That is how they stay in office. Most, not all Amercian people, have this dilusion that American can just win the war, go home and be done with the everything. The longer this war drags on the less likely it is going to be accepted by the American public. This is understandible, as no one likes bad news and no one wants to send they children into danger. Of course this is not true of the WWI or WWII generation where people believed in the President and the country. Now a days, a person will sue you if there chicken sandwich is cold, rather then talk to you.

Dems have said that they will not debate during the next election. Nor will they come up with any plans, until they are elected. There is a vast difference between the two political parties, both good and bad depending on where you stand. Dems try to excell in Civil rights, and domestic issues at hand. Reps believe in a strong def, and are less enthralled with domestic issues outside of government. This country needs to find a balance that can promote both military and domestic strength.

"The military is at war....America is at the Mall"

 

[ShivaIrish]

One thing you have to realize with all "career politicians" is that they are going to vote with there consitutiants, whether it is right or wrong. That is how they stay in office. Most, not all Amercian people, have this dilusion that American can just win the war, go home and be done with the everything. The longer this war drags on the less likely it is going to be accepted by the American public. This is understandible, as no one likes bad news and no one wants to send they children into danger. Of course this is not true of the WWI or WWII generation where people believed in the President and the country. Now a days, a person will sue you if there chicken sandwich is cold, rather then talk to you.

Some good points here, I think. It is hard not to become jaded with all the "career politicking." I mean, aren't the presidential candidates already campaining/raising money already? Don't they have other jobs that are dealing with some pretty pressing issues right now?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

That's why most of us vote for the lesser of 2 evils when it comes to elected office. News reports put this upcoming election as the most expensive of all time w/ Romney, Clinton, Guiliani, OBama & Edwards raising record number funds. As most predicted, McCain/Feingold campaign finance didn't work too well...always a loophole. The Dems look to be coming down to a 2 horse race w/ Clinton & Obama while the Reps are still lookng for someone to win the hearts & minds of its majority. This has lead to a groundswell of support for former TN senator, Fred Thompson.

If they win the White House as the press is hoping, the Dems will try to pull out of the war unilaterally, IMO. Then if the Iraq gov't starts to fall, they'll simply blame Bush. They'll have the media helping them too.

That's what's disappointing...the reporters are wanting to become celebrities by injecting their points of view into reporting. Look at the idiot from Australia who reports for CNN from Iraq. He was mocking senator Mccain the whole time he was in Bagdhad. Look at Brian Ross at ABC. He has been, up till now, a solid reporter who reported "just the facts". Now, thru "unnamed Pentagon sources", he's revealing our strategy w/ Iraq. Sorry, you don't have to be for the war or be a propaganda machine for the gov't, but please draw the line when it comes to your home country. If the U.S. loses our sovereignty, he won't have the freedom of the press that he relies on. FDR didn't stand for this in WWII. When the Chicago Tribune reported info. that was detrimental to our efforts, he all but shut down the newspaper. And you didn't hear a bunch of whiny, limp-wristed liberals crying about "freedom of the press!". Just show a little respect for the country that you call home. But don't offend the Muslims or the liberal left or you'll be branded as mean-spirited.

 

[cuss444]

Dodger - excellent post, couldn't agree more !!!!

 

[leprechaun4life]

Since it looks like another debate is starting, I figure I'd just post my current thoughts:
View attachment 314

Just to lighten things up.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I didn't think I was debating. I was simply asking for opinions. I think it was a very fair question to ask. Bush and Gates put another 12,000 guards on alert today, and Harry Reid came out blasting the Prez. I'm tired of the get Bush attacks all the time. I want answers on what their plan is. The dems told us they would have a plan if elected to congress, and all we got was: DEFUNDING THE TROOPS, TELLING THE ENEMY WHEN WE WERE LEAVING, AND WITHDRAWAL? There has got to be more, wouldn't you think?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I didn't think I was debating. I was simply asking for opinions. I think it was a very fair question to ask. Bush and Gates put another 12,000 guards on alert today, and Harry Reid came out blasting the Prez. I'm tired of the get Bush attacks all the time. I want answers on what their plan is. The dems told us they would have a plan if elected to congress, and all we got was: DEFUNDING THE TROOPS, TELLING THE ENEMY WHEN WE WERE LEAVING, AND WITHDRAWAL? There has got to be more, wouldn't you think?

Yeah, Reid & the Dems are going to try to pass a law that requires we stick our bare American ass in the air w/ a white flag sticking out of it. Then when the terrorists see our surrender they'll really stick it to us; where it hurts. We'll become the 21st century version of France...a bunch of fat wussies.

 

[Freeman Ara]

What will the Dems do about the war in Iraq if they win the Presidency? Nothing...you think Clinton/Obama are going to withdraw troops once in office? No, they can't they know that the only way to salvage this situation is to keep troops there and fund it. They don't say this because, wait for it...wait for it...there it is...its an election cycle!! The war has been spun in such a negative light by the left and the media that most average americans don't understand exactly what kind of progress is being made over there. All they see is the news articles about protests and soldiers being killed so everyone hates the war. Want to know why the Dems haven't comeout with this great plan to withdraw from Iraq? They don't have one. Not one that keeps that region from becoming a total blood bath and us putting troops back there with in 2 years. The Dems lost the last presidential election against possibly the weakest incumbent in recent history, and they still found a way to fuck it up. This is the biggest issue that they can hang their hat on, if they can talk the talk without having to walk the walk until after they get control of the white house, they get elected, get to run basically the same strategies in Iraq and get to take credit for it in a few years when we finally do withdraw having completed the mission.Don't you love politics?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

answers to your questions:1. The dems will probably ruin our country. If the troops are out of Iraq, they will also take the 37000 troops from the dmz on the North Korean border.

What the hell are you talking about?

There have been 4 Dem Presidents since the end of the Korean War...none has ever tried to pull out the troops from Korea.

That's quite possibly the dumbest statement ever about the Korean situation I have ever heard...

2. I do not think the Iranians are that stupid, but if they are, i think they would try( paratroopers and missles maybe?) go after Israel not iraq

If Iran could fight Israel and win, they would have done it long ago. But Iraq is their true threat and they know it. The Iraqis HATE the Iranians.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Look at the idiot from Australia who reports for CNN from Iraq. He was mocking senator Mccain the whole time he was in Bagdhad.

Actually, he was right on target. McCain was an idiot for saying you could walk down the street and be safe (as an American).

Michael Ware could not have been more right for taking McCain to task.

Watch this video, it's telling:
http://dabble.com/node/9895397

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

And then...McCain corrects himself...by saying he never said what he said.

http://dabble.com/node/9834398

 

[notredomer23]

What the hell are you talking about?

.

like i said im only 17 so i dont pay as much atention as i should to politics , but i have heard a little talk about people wanting to take the troops off that boarder. its only what i heard i think on some like o'reily factor or something. It was funny watching him and heraldo scream at each other the other day

 

[Yago]

The MSM is nothing more than the campaign mis-information wing of the Progressive Democrat Party. If you can understand that axiom, then everything else should fall into place.

The actual agenda of the Democrat/Socialists cannot be advanced on any political front, its agenda and ideas would be soundly defeated at the ballot box by the majority of Americans. Hence, Democrat/Communists rely heavily on Liberal over extending courts to legislate for them. They’re actually political cowards, who have nothing in the arena of original ideas but rely on the media to carry their water for character assignation of opponents. The Socialsits/Communists prescription for acquiring power.

If your waiting for accountability or taking the Democrat/Progressive/Communists to task by the MSM, a prenuptial agreement between both prevents that occurrence.

The answers you seek are as simple as they are complex; keep in mind the Clinton’s, both Bill and Hillary are the last of a *60’s* crowd. They are the last hope this.. *60’s*.. crowd has toward advancing..their malignant agenda.. upon America. Casually note the ages of said politicians, news personalities, editors ..etc, involved; all circa the 60’s.

Look beyond the present day political posturing; the devil is in the details, and the details are in the fine print of their agenda. Which way is their lean, that's their vision of America.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Judging from the rhetoric coming out now about the war, and given the fact that they don't even want to call it a global war on terror, it is hard to disagree with your thoughts.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Actually, he was right on target. McCain was an idiot for saying you could walk down the street and be safe (as an American).

Michael Ware could not have been more right for taking McCain to task.

Watch this video, it's telling:
http://dabble.com/node/9895397

He's still an idiot w/ zero class or decorum. He is a reporter for CNN, not an editorialist. If he wants to editorialize, let him get his own radio/tv show or write an op-ed piece. Do act like a drunk college kid mocking our nation's leaders is sophmoric, at best. Then he goes on Bill Maher's show to do the same w/ his leftist buddies...now that's fair & balanced reporting...gimme a break! Isn't CNN the network that cut a deal w/ Saddam in that they could report the goings on in Iraq as long as they agreed not to report any atrocities?

 

[notredomer23]

hey guys im back

 

[The Fly]

hey guys im back

 

[celtic745]

The thing about politcal arguements is that no one ever wins.

 

[notredomer23]

The thing about politcal arguements is that no one ever wins.

or because its over the internet. BTW im notredomer if u didnt notice already

 

[Yago]

That’s a pretty accurate statement.. “The thing about politcal arguements is that no one ever wins.”

At our present level of discussion, and in forums, it’s best left at being light hearted where everyone walks away a winner and friends in the end. Frankly, I’m quite surprised to find it on a football forum.

 

[marv81s]

its not a football forum.

The Leprechaun Lounge is a free for all where all topics can be discussed.

You want to talk ND football strictly, go to the football forum. Its free game here

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I can't understand why people expect to talk about only football in a lounge described as open??

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

He's still an idiot w/ zero class or decorum. He is a reporter for CNN, not an editorialist. If he wants to editorialize, let him get his own radio/tv show or write an op-ed piece. Do act like a drunk college kid mocking our nation's leaders is sophmoric, at best. Then he goes on Bill Maher's show to do the same w/ his leftist buddies...now that's fair & balanced reporting...gimme a break! Isn't CNN the network that cut a deal w/ Saddam in that they could report the goings on in Iraq as long as they agreed not to report any atrocities?

When a reporter sees a man lie...just blatantly LIE...he has every right to scoff. They are not robots...they are people with an opinion. And he was CLEAR in his. He did not try to hide it.

And frankly...he was dead on. McCain tried to pull a fast one over on the American public and he got called out. THEN he got caught in his own words!!!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The MSM is nothing more than the campaign mis-information wing of the Progressive Democrat Party. If you can understand that axiom, then everything else should fall into place.

The actual agenda of the Democrat/Socialists cannot be advanced on any political front, its agenda and ideas would be soundly defeated at the ballot box by the majority of Americans. Hence, Democrat/Communists rely heavily on Liberal over extending courts to legislate for them. They’re actually political cowards, who have nothing in the arena of original ideas but rely on the media to carry their water for character assignation of opponents. The Socialsits/Communists prescription for acquiring power.

If your waiting for accountability or taking the Democrat/Progressive/Communists to task by the MSM, a prenuptial agreement between both prevents that occurrence.

The answers you seek are as simple as they are complex; keep in mind the Clinton’s, both Bill and Hillary are the last of a *60’s* crowd. They are the last hope this.. *60’s*.. crowd has toward advancing..their malignant agenda.. upon America. Casually note the ages of said politicians, news personalities, editors ..etc, involved; all circa the 60’s.

hahahahaha...

you are funny...

 

[The Fly]

When a reporter sees a man lie...just blatantly LIE...he has every right to scoff. They are not robots...they are people with an opinion. And he was CLEAR in his. He did not try to hide it.

And frankly...he was dead on. McCain tried to pull a fast one over on the American public and he got called out. THEN he got caught in his own words!!!

They are people with opinions but they shouldn't let their opinions be known. If he catches someone in a lie, then report the lie, but don't be a condescending opinionated jackoff

Reporters should report the facts - not the facts as they seem them, not the facts only convenient to their opinions. All of the facts without assumptions of facts not in evidence. Ask hard questions, make every politician squirm. Sadly they don't. They have an agenda and they promote it.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I thought Yago was very accurate in his post.

 

[gingtoad]

A few things... 1. I hate that our government has two separate parties at which they only promote their side for the most part. Why is this type of system necessary? Why can we not get rid of these parties and just work on issues together. Who can come up with the best solution and put it into place, regardless of what party you belong to. 2. Al Gore is trying to make the world healthier whether global warming is an issue or not. If it is an issue, then we are going to help stop it, if its not an issue then at least we're still making the earth better. Why argue with a man who is just trying to do what is morally right? 3. Why are we going to be paying $3+ per gallon in gas when our president is a Texas oil man himself?
Don't get me wrong, higher gas prices makes me consider alternatives to driving everyday which it turn helps the environment. But are we not the greatest nation? Do we not care to uphold ourselves to that standard? There are issues that we can get answers to, but we need to stop bickering amongst ourselves and work together. Why does it take an act like 9/11 to get the American people to come together? There were black, white, Asian, and Hispanic, etc. people all praying TOGETHER when it happened. When was the last time you saw that? We have very serious issues going on right now that need taken care of and its time we come together as one voice and stay the course. Pick an answer and stick to it. We chose to go to war in Iraq, now stay the course. It may not be the best way now, but it was our answer at the time and lets see it through till the end.
In all honesty, I'm sick of the way our government behaves. Its like all the kids in school who didn't play sports and never understood good sportsmanship. Hey, sometimes your idea isn't the best, that doesn't mean you have to belittle someone else's idea just because your mad that your idea didn't get picked.
And just so everyone understands, I am in the US Navy and see things from a different light. Just try and stand outside the circle and look in. You might be surprised at what you actually find.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

When a reporter sees a man lie...just blatantly LIE...he has every right to scoff. They are not robots...they are people with an opinion. And he was CLEAR in his. He did not try to hide it.

And frankly...he was dead on. McCain tried to pull a fast one over on the American public and he got called out. THEN he got caught in his own words!!!

No, leave that to the SUnday morning talk shows. Believe me, someone like McCain who loves the cameras is not going to get over on the press...he proved that. Ware is a reporter not an editorialist or opinionatd commentator. You act like every other politician who allegedly lies gets away w/ it...Ware's no hero. Reporters are similar to referees/umpires in sports. When the public is talking about them as much as the subjects, than it's not a good thing. If Ware wants to transition to a Bill Maher-like show or some other opinion forum, he is free to do so, but if he's supposed to be reporter...just give the facts as they happen w/o his personal commentary. He just fuels the flames of CNN being anti-American, regardless of whether they are or not. He did get a bad rap by Matt Drudge, but he still editorializes way too much to be considered a seemingly unbiased reporter. When he went off on that 'Neverland' rant, he showed his true colors. Whether he was right or wrong, it's not his domain. Leave that to Meet the Press, Face the Nation & This Week.