Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By: Burnam H.C.R. No. 154


? ? ?HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The elemental source for initiating congressional
? ? ?impeachment proceedings is found in The Constitution, Jefferson's
? ? ?Manual, and Rules of the United States House of Representatives;
? ? ?Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice
? ? ?authorizes federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint
? ? ?resolution of a state or territorial legislature as a matter of
? ? ?privilege; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Precedent for employing this authority is
? ? ?well-established and documented in Hinds' Precedents of the House
? ? ?of Representatives of the United States; one such entry relates to a
? ? ?1903 joint resolution passed by the Florida state legislature
? ? ?requesting that the U.S. Congress impeach U.S. District Judge
? ? ?Charles Swayne that resulted in a senate trial; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Invoking this authority, the people of the state of
? ? ?Texas charge that President George W. Bush has violated the United
? ? ?States Constitution and other federal law and abused the power of
? ? ?his office to the extreme detriment of the country and the interests
? ? ?of its citizens, actions that constitute high crimes and
? ? ?misdemeanors; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush conspired with others to defraud the
? ? ?United States of America by intentionally misleading the congress
? ? ?and the nation regarding an Iraqi threat to the American people to
? ? ?justify a war in direct defiance of the United Nations Security
? ? ?Council and in violation of Section 371, Title 18, United States
? ? ?Code; in so doing, President Bush and members of his
? ? ?administration:? 1) overstated the offensive capabilities of Iraq,
? ? ?including that country's supposed possession of weapons of mass
? ? ?destruction, and manipulated and distorted intelligence relating
? ? ?to Iraq's weapons program during a plenary session of the United
? ? ?Nations and in direct contradiction to evidence gathered by
? ? ?international weapons inspectors; 2) manipulated public opinion by
? ? ?repeatedly and erroneously linking Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi
? ? ?government with the terrorist organization responsible for the
? ? ?attacks of September 11, 2001, al Qaeda; and 3) manipulated public
? ? ?opinion by stating in the State of the Union Address that Saddam
? ? ?Hussein had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa,"
? ? ?despite confirmation from the Central Intelligence Agency and
? ? ?officials from foreign governments that the documents supporting
? ? ?these claims were forged; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq in
? ? ?2003 was an unnecessarily reckless endeavor; while Saddam Hussein
? ? ?was a despotic leader who had used chemical weapons against Iran, as
? ? ?well as the Kurdish and Shia people, and required prudent and
? ? ?efficacious attention by the United States and the international
? ? ?community in order to maintain peace and stability in the Middle
? ? ?East, the invasion of Iraq, in fact, necessitated the removal of
? ? ?United Nations weapons inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq and
? ? ?uninhibited from performing their job of monitoring Iraq's weapons
? ? ?of mass destruction capabilities; in fact, during the 11 years
? ? ?before the invasion, the United States enforced a no-fly zone over
? ? ?60 percent of Iraq's airspace, significantly restricting the
? ? ?country's military movement and activity throughout its territory;
? ? ?and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Indeed, Iraq posed no threat to the territory or
? ? ?people of the United States, yet the 2003 invasion of Iraq has
? ? ?resulted in the deaths of more than 3,200 American soldiers and a
? ? ?reported 59,000 Iraqi civilians, over 23,000 wounded American
? ? ?soldiers, and severely diminished American military readiness; the
? ? ?fiscal cost of the war will reach $500 billion by the end of 2007;
? ? ?and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In addition, to meet the needed manpower to execute
? ? ?the invasion, President Bush has federalized and deployed members
? ? ?of the Texas National Guard overseas, thereby subverting the power
? ? ?granted to congress under Section 8, Article 1, United States
? ? ?Constitution, to call "forth the militia to execute the laws of the
? ? ?Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"; regrettably,
? ? ?the illegal deployment of the Texas National Guard deprives the
? ? ?state of its primary mechanism for defense and emergency response,
? ? ?needlessly jeopardizing the safety of Texans; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Under the guise of the war on terror, the Bush
? ? ?Administration has held American citizens and citizens of other
? ? ?sovereign nations without charge or trial; despite these secretive
? ? ?detentions, the United States has been embarrassed by revelations
? ? ?of torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and evidence
? ? ?suggests that President Bush has authorized the use of similar acts
? ? ?of torture in the interrogation of detainees in American facilities
? ? ?around the world; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, These detentions are clear violations of
? ? ?international and federal law; as a signatory to the Geneva
? ? ?Conventions, the United States is bound to provisions of Article
13
? ? ?requiring that "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely
? ? ?treated . . ." and Article 17 stating that "no physical or mental
? ? ?torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on
? ? ?prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind
? ? ?whatever"; and

? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Furthermore, the War Crimes Act of 1996 provides
? ? ?that a person who acts in breach of the Geneva Conventions has
? ? ?committed a war crime and is subject to punishment under federal
? ? ?law; similarly, Article VI of the United States Constitution
? ? ?provides that ". . . all treaties made, or which shall be made,
? ? ?under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
? ? ?of the land . . . ."; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's defiance of the Geneva
? ? ?Conventions has potentially threatened the lives and well-being of
? ? ?American soldiers captured as prisoners of war in future conflicts;
? ? ?likewise, the Bush Administration's defiance of international law
? ? ?has tarnished the United States' reputation as a country founded on
? ? ?principles of human rights and diminished America's integrity and
? ? ?influence in the international community; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In an effort to further manipulate public opinion
? ? ?relating to the justification for the Iraq war, the Bush
? ? ?Administration leaked classified information, knowingly revealing
? ? ?the identities of covert U.S. intelligence agents and exposing them
? ? ?to potential harm and retribution; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's breaches of law are not
? ? ?limited to international affairs, having similarly violated the
? ? ?public trust by suppressing scientific information and altering
? ? ?government documents relating to the causes and effects of global
? ? ?warming with the intention of deceiving the American public; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush's illegal actions have also
? ? ?undermined the balance of power between the branches of government;
? ? ?in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, President Bush has
? ? ?publicly admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to
? ? ?contravene provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
? ? ?of 1978, specifically authorizing the agency to spy on American
? ? ?citizens without securing a search warrant; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush has also subverted congressional
? ? ?authority with regard to domestic policy by filing hundreds of
? ? ?signing statements that declare the administration's official
? ? ?legal interpretation of legislation passed by congress; in more
? ? ?than 750 instances, the president has asserted an authority to
? ? ?ignore numerous sections of the bills he has signed into law,
? ? ?including legislation relating to military rules and regulations,
? ? ?affirmative-action provisions, requirements that congress be told
? ? ?about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections
? ? ?for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political
? ? ?interference in federally funded research; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Moreover, President Bush has overtly undermined the
? ? ?authority of congress; the Bush Administration has undermined
? ? ?specific provisions of the Clean Air Act by changing Environmental
? ? ?Protection Agency rules to allow older power plants, refineries,
? ? ?and factories to upgrade their facilities without installing newer,
? ? ?more advanced pollution control technologies, thereby increasing
? ? ?the amount of pollution and threatening the health of all
? ? ?Americans; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In order to secure passage of the Medicare
? ? ?Prescription Drug, Modernization, and Improvement Act of 2003, the
? ? ?Bush Administration knowingly misled congress regarding the cost of
? ? ?the bill by providing a $400 billion cost estimate to lawmakers
? ? ?while government documents revealed the true cost was calculated by
? ? ?administration officials to exceed $500 billion; be it
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That the 80th Legislature of the State of Texas
? ? ?submit the charges contained herein to the United States House of
? ? ?Representatives under the authority of Section 603 of The
? ? ?Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the United States
? ? ?House of Representatives; and, be it further
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That the charges contained herein constitute proof
? ? ?that the president of the United States has wilfully violated his
? ? ?oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
? ? ?the United States; and, be it further
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the charges
? ? ?contained herein, should be removed from office and disqualified to
? ? ?hold any other office in the United States.

---

This is not a resolution that has passed, but the fact that it is even being discussed in what is arguably the "most" pro-Bush state is remarkable.
It is certain to fail without "much" discussion though.


There are currently 10 other States With Similar Resolutions on the table.

Here (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HC00154I.htm) is the link.

Too much shit to read.

Same old shit.

Maybe we should focus our scrutiny on Mr. Ahmadinejad rather than Mr. Bush.

Texas is decidedly pro-Bush, but Utah is by far the most pro-Bush state in the nation.


No disrespect, but this isnt a terribly surprising statement for a Bush supporter to make.


Funny...I dont think youve ever responded this way (like a New York Times writer, ironically) to criticism of a Democrat.  Nevertheless, it is possible for Americans to pay attention to more than one issue.  Do you sincerely believe that we should abandon oversight because of some tension with another country? 

With that said, I dont support impeachment; its ultimately a waste of time.  I do support vigorous oversight, including thorough congressional hearings.

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Funny...I dont think youve ever responded this way (like a New York Times writer, ironically) to criticism of a Democrat.? Nevertheless, it is possible for Americans to pay attention to more than one issue.? Do you sincerely believe that we should abandon oversight because of some tension with another country??






"Some tension" with another country?....yeah I think that Iran wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth would definitely fall under the category of "some tension."  I wish i lived in the democrat/liberal fantasy world where 911 is forgotten and we really dont understand the times we live in.....instead of being worried about global warming people need to wake up and see that at the rate we are going we could only be so lucky to last long enough to see the world destroyed by global warming....

You are simply ignorant of neo-con genius aren't you? We will deal with Iran by invading Indonesia.



What is exactly the big deal with Iran's nuclear program? NK has it, Pakistan has it, India has it, China has it. Israel has it.

We have no intention to do business in the ME peacefully. We determined to dominate the oil fields after WWII. Setting up the nation of Israel was to ensure we have a proxy in that region.

Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten us, except their "nuclear program". Which, it is only this Administration's opinion that they will eventually be developed into weapon grade. Another lesson learned from the lies and deceits of Iraqi invasion, I don't believe a word from this Administration. To me, their creditability is zero. Meanwhile, it is all tough talk by one fanatic. To invade a country because someone talks tough makes no sense to me. Otherwise, Chavez and Kim should be our subsequent targets. NK has real nuclear weapons, and what do we do? Nothing.

Will the Iranians develop nuclear grade weaponries? Maybe. Are they going to be a threat to us? Maybe. Many countries are potential threat to us. Should we go and wipe them all out? You should answer that.

China is more of a threat, militarily and financially. Should we wage war with them because we have a perceived notion that they may be competing with us as a super power? You decide.

So is India, so is Pakistan. And the list goes on.

You tell me when we should stop.

We should stop after we have invaded every country, killed their leaders and converted them to Christianity.... : ok:

Straight out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, why am I not surprised? Cheap slogans you learned from Fox news doesn't cut it anymore with the American public.

Link to Ann Coulter quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/524982/posts

The best part was how you took me seriously with that quote...you are way too easy to aggravate.....look if you want to sit around and defend Iran while at the same time rip your own leaders in this country...thats cool...i mean it doesnt make much sense....but its cool.....

Nice back pedal, and still no answer.

Back pedal? I already gave you my answer...invade, kill, convert....try to stay with me here.....i have a question for you..do you feel like a better person by defending Iran?  A country whose leader wants to wipe Jews off the face of the planet?  Does that feel good to defend them because they havent done anything to US yet...?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 



I think youre confusing Israel with America.  As a nation thats supportive of Israel, we have some tension. 


Wish no more, you live in the Republican fantasy world in which Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is an imminent threat to America.  The fantasy world in which stubbornly refusing to engage in diplomacy is positive.  And the fantasy world in which we fight the terrorists over there so they dont come over here. 

 

You're right...I do love my fantasy world....I would just like to check out the liberal one..just for a day...and see if my penis actually DOES shrink as a result of it.....

i think he feels better defending freedom, justice, fraternity and peace. yes.
he feels better not being a sheep loooooving his country no matter what even when they do wrong things after wrong things.
i think he feels better yeah.

It's a war, it takes as long as it takes. American troops have been in Germany since the 40s.

From what you said it seems you'd rather see all the troop massacred because they don't have any bullets than stay for another couple of years and complete the operation.

please lets not get to the Hitler point.
this *war* is not legit.

altho, i do have to disagree with the americans just " wanting to bring the boys home"
im sorry you don't go around the world, make a mess, and wanna leave after failing.

the USA have to stay and slowly transfer the security mission to a legit international force led by the UN and other regional countries.

there is only ONE thing to do : the USA must change their behavior. worldwide.

I agree,  thats my point. If the US left Iraq today the insurgents would take power and continue to be funded by neighboring Iran. If the US sets a dead line, the insurgents can make plans to overthrow the current gov. after the US leaves.

Face it, US troops are there for good.

Agree with you Robman. Except that I think there will be a time when US troops leave. This may happen when the Iraq Army gets to a point where they can take our role over. Or if Hillary or Obama get in in 08 & pull out the troops. If that happens, I sure hope the Iraqi Govt is ready. We'll have a bigger problem if they are not.

Is your hatred of Bush so deep that an unstable middle east would satisfy you? If the conflict spills over to Saudi Arabia & Iran, how would you deal with that? That is a real probability if troops left now.

Bush has made mistakes in Iraq, no doubt about it. 

In my argument I am more concerned about the implications for the US and its people, not Bush's reputation.

A war about what?




This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board-and trust me, you guys say a lot of stupid fucking things.

So Mr Big Dick macho man.... The Iraq fiasco has taught you nothing obviously, as you regurgitate the same arrogant hubris all over this thread, with little or no real thought. Answer me this :has Iran threatened us in anyway? Are they currently threatening us?

Apparently you didnt read what I wrote.

I dont want them to fight without proper funds.  I said I want them to come home.  Do you understand now?

The only way they would fight without funding is if the president forced them to.  Thats a fact.


An unstable Middle East?  I cant imagine. 


Ah, the Bush supporters new refrain.  Bush supporters have defended these mistakes for years, but now they say this magical sentence and theyre suddenly fair-minded, sensible realists.

Out of curiosity, what mistakes do you believe Bush made?

the economic and political stability of Iraq, if nothing else.



No, it would be those withholding the funds that are forcing them to have none. Those troops volunteered, they are there to complete their mission. Until that is finished they will stay in Iraq.

Do you only have sarcasm to back yourself up?

I don't buy into the whole theory of nailing Bush to the wall at the expense of the country. That is what is really happening in politics right now.

The middle East is no playground as we all know, but a regional military conflict between nations would make things much worse than they are now. Guess what happens to our economy when gas goes up $100 a barrel? You and I will feel that one financially. I don't have an electric car yet.

 The Bush administration has made many mistakes. Very few would argue with that. But we can't leave Iraq right now. This would be an exponentially larger mistake.

 I have not heard any plan from the Democrats to deal with the aftermath of pulling our troops out now. They criticize Bush ( and rightly so ) for not having a good plan for Iraq after Saddam was ousted from power, but the Dems are looking like they do not have any plan or course of action for when/if they succeed in  the troop pullout plan.

Explain.


Like what?  Id really like to know what you think those mistakes were.


If thousands of dead soldiers is worth keeping gas prices down to you, so be it. 


Thats one of the unfortunate results of the presidents disastrous war, isnt it?  There is no good solution.  The least we can do is end a bumbling policy with no end in sight, stop wasting lives, and stop wasting money.  All Democrats agree in continuing political efforts, but you place your trust in the administration who, as you keep saying, has made many mistakes.  The administration that has been right about virtually nothing pertaining to this war.  The administration that assured you that American troops would stand down as the Iraqis stood up. 

Code words for "stick around and try and fix what we fucked up, while putting our kids in the middle of a civil war."

Wrong.  The president is the only one that can force troops to fight without funding.  If Congress denies funding (and they havent, but should), its obviously to force the president to bring the troops home.  If he doesnt, hes the one responsible.

Taking my comments out of context and putting your own spin on them with your replies does not prove your point.

Considering you never back up your comments, Im not surprised by this reply.  Ill try again:


Explain.


Like what?  Id really like to know what you think those mistakes were.

Every economy in the world would suffer if oil prices were to to sky-rocket. ?If oil price stability were the true motivation for continuing to wage war in Iraq, would't the rest of the world be supporting the US?

That is, other than the countries that don't believe people should die (or kill) for better oil prices.


 ? ?

Youre taking GnRFLs words out of context.  He cant explain how, but hes sure that you are.

you can call it arrogant...but i LOVE this country...I love America whether we are right or wrong...irrational? sure is..but at least im honest about it...I defend America over any country whether we are right or wrong....Iraq could tear themselves to pieces(as they are currently doing) and i wouldnt give a shit...I value one american soldiers life over the lives of every person in Iraq....so I guess that does make me a "Mr. Big Dick macho man" oh well...ill have to live with that tag.......

We need more Americans like you man.  SLC, Booker and Co. would rather see Iraq and the ME in ruins so they can place blame on the Republican party for the next 100 years to silence anyone who disagrees with their agenda.  The Democrats want to lose this war and are doing everything they can to make sure that happens.  The vast majority of people in the military are people who joined or re-enlisted after the Iraq war began.  This whole bullshit about saving the Troops by bringing them home is bogus, they volunteered to go over.  The Democrats voted for this war, are responsible for the thousands dead and wounded and now want to re-write history.  The fact that many of you openly support a party that calls themselves morons and easily fooled (what else can you call someone who doesn't research their position and later claims to be misled) baffles me.  At least Wat_ever has the guts to admit he hates America and the West.  The rest of you should take off your sheep's clothing and come forward.

Please remind me-what is our agenda?


Too late, you guys already lost it.


I couldn't think of anything more fitting.

In the manner that you want the entire population to blindly follow? Real power of the population comes from being able to stand and say hell no we are wrong and need to fix these problems that we ahve made.


You fail to see that it is not thier personal ambition to see the entire ME in ruins. However what is tring to be shown is that the US is in a bad place and needs strong leadership to stand up and be heard. Steer the country back on a course that the population can be proud of. Though most lefties wont openly admit it, though they realise that to even try and repair any of the damage that has been done in the last 6yrs (4 in iraq) They will need to stay the course and are going to be in Iraq for teh foreseeable future, in a diminishing role over teh next 5-10 yrs.




Dems do love this country as well and are not tring to loose this war, for it has already been lost. .... however the war was actually won by the US in short order, now you are stuck in a civil war that must be quelled, order restored, and hope returned.

 
Oh this I really need to see a stat on. and when you get em the precentages I want you to take the totals of (Air force + Air National Guard) + ( USMC + USMC Res.) + ( Army + National Guard) + ( Navy + Naval Reserve) and give em the total of the US Military Size of both pre and post start of Iraq War and a total of pre 9/11 vs post 9/11. Please also include attrition rates of these time frames and the retention rates of them as well.

Do all that for me and cite refrences too ?;)

So if im right and well im pretty sure I am right you will find that absed on all the numbers and maintain the prespective about retention and atrition rates of the military as you had pointed out you will see that you are wrong.

And well if thats the case wouldnt the bottom statement which I will quote for you as well, infer that you yourself are infact a moron? The fact that you would then be baffled by yourself.... truely baffles me.





Let me remind you that the wonderful "playboy" above sucks down a fat "westren" cheque from his "Westren" employer. I dont see him turning that down too quickly..... you cant congrat a person who hates something yet profits from the same thing that he hates..... ?


So where should I send your enlistment papers then? or are you not going to go serve your country and protect it right or wrong?

These threads have a funny way of drifting to the subject of Iraq. Was that intended?

Thats awfully stupid.

they havent, but should

 :hihi: in other words you'd like to pull out now and throw the middle east into a greater state of turmoil,




exactly, the US has to finish what it started.

Whats funny is that you trust an administration thats been wrong on everything and seemingly believe that the region is not already in a state of turmoil.   

for some im sure it is, for me its not

lets get it back on Bush then... here's a funny little story

Bush wanted to use a local church for a photo op. Bush's advance
person said to the pastor, "We will make a $10,000 contribution to
your church if, during your introduction of Bush, you say he is a
saint." The pastor agreed to do so and accepted the $10,000
contribution. When the pastor introduced Bush before a nationally
televised audience, the pastor said: "George Bush is a petty,
self-absorbed hypocrite and nitwit. He stole he 2000 election. He has
polarized the country. He has politicized science. He lied about his
military record. He invaded a country for oil and had the gall to
land on an aircraft carrier and pose before a banner stating 'Mission
Accomplished.' He continues to blur the line between church and state.
Cronyism and corruption are rampant in his administration. He is the
worst example of a Christian I've ever personally known. But, compared
to Dick Cheney, George Bush is a saint.

if that is awfully stupid..what do you call defending countries like Iran?  I know you think you are all high and mighty because when America is wrong YOU tell us about it...do you honestly think people in Iran care that you are "exposing the lies of President Bush?"  Our enemies would love to put a bullet in your head just as much as they would love to put one in mine....The only difference is that you seem to have this need to be loved by everyone..You seem to really care about what our enemies and other countries think of you..I on the other hand absolutely love the fact that they hate me and would love to kill me....and while I am laying around hanging out with friends, going to work, burning up oil in my car and destroying the ozone , there is not a damn thing they can do about it...because we got a crazy motherfucker in office.....

I couldn't think of anything more fitting.




you're right...because it is HUGE...seriously it is hard to find pants sometimes.....

So, is Iran threatening us right now?

Yes or no.

While I mean no ill towards those in the Navy and Air Force, they have no active role in the Iraq War.  The war is being fought by Marines and Soldiers.  I don't know for certain enlistment lengths of the Air Force and Navy, but I would assume that they have the same length of enlistment as the Army and Marines.  Enlistment contracts come in 2, 3, 4 and 6 year lengths.  With 4 and 6 being the most often chosen as it affords the most incentives, job training and often 2 and 3 year enlistments are not available,  The 6 year enlistement is the standard enlistment for anyone in the guard or reserve.  Being as the war started in 2003 and a year earlier for Afghanistan, the majority of people in the military would have chose to join or stay in sometime after the Iraq War began.  A very small portion of the military today would have signed up prior to 9/11 and their committments will be over in a few months at the latest.  I have no reason to provide you with attrition rates as doing so would prove my argument; people currently in the military want to serve, those who don't get out or didn't sign up in the first place.  Quit being a moron and do some basic reasoning.





Why so quick to assume I haven't already enlisted?  Just because the minds off this forum can't fathom that one would volunteer to serve one's nation and make sacrifices to protect it doesn't mean everyone has the same outlook.

if that was directed at me, may i ask what did i do to deserve that?
So i work for L'oreal and i dislike capitalism. What should i do, quit a live in the forest? I have my opinions, people are not rational, i try to be coherent, but you should know people are not/

Anyway, again i see this " XXXX hates the west, hates america ". Isnt there something between hate and blind love? I question the usa. and i question France and europe. Doesnt make me a hatter.

Reading  JohnSDMF - and some others that have tagged me as a hater - , i believe they speak the language of hate and fear. They talk about ennemies, and hierachical value of life, about civilization clash and emptyness of care.

This is so typical. There is black and white. A great method of mind manipulation. What the Bush's administration have used many times. You're either with us or against us. This leaves no choice. And cristalize all the hate and love. It's all in the words.

Seeing a palestinian fighter as a freedom fighter, can make you an american hater.
Trying to understand Iran, can make you a hater of the west.

wake up/

Notice the word 'greater'

if the US pulls out Iran will invade Iraq. Do i trust the current administration? Not completely. But the people elected those officials, and the troops in Iraq are volunteers.

we're making enemies faster than we're making friends.. how long do you think this lifestyle of ours will last once the majority of the world's sick of our colonial mentality? i say "colonial mentality" because we call iraqis that fight back "insurgents" when in the late 1700's we did the same shit.. "some other fucking country from across the globe is sending soldiers down here and tellin' us how to run shit and tryin' to run our government? fuck that shit, we'll dump some tea into the river and cause a revolution"

Did you enlist then? if you have then i shake your hand and wish you godspeed.


and what attrition and retention rates prove is that the war would have either the effect that you describe, or that I do. The fact is that both pre and post 9/11 the retention rate year over year is 66%.

So lets do some number crunching. Lets make the US Army 100,000 persons strong in january '01, and we will give 5 year plans for re-enlistment so 20k a year are up for re-enlistment. goal is maintaining 100k

so in '02 66% of 20k reup 13,200 take that over 5yrs = 66k leaving 34k for new recruits (majority hold for pre 9/11) its not until almost another 5 years pass does the numbers flip.

the marines hold a very similar view point some 82% retention...... 82%!!!!!!!

so the you have it, like you said those that want to serve do and those that dont leave, the point of this is simply to state that the military has been maintaining the levels they are at for a long time. because they serve and vol'ed to join does not mean that the goverment should matin the right to keep sending them to the slaughter. There comes a time when the weight of the blood spilt far out paces the resolve to keep pushing it, though one thing i ahve to say is that bush has the resolve, and does see that the war needs to continue, or all is for not. However what you somehow fail to see is that if all these ppl (soilders) all quit the US would be screwed because the new recruits... would get toasted rather quickly. Career soilders see this and know that the security of the country falls onto their hands and shoulders, without them things will get bad fast. The only ones that bitch are the ones that really didnt know what they were getting into.

the Navy and AF does have a major role in the war, and too not see that shows how near sighted that you are about this entire situation. To follow what you say then we would have to eliminate the CAS (except for army/marine helo's and fighter of the marines (which there is not enough of to provide proper coverage)) all transportation of supplies and theatre support operations. Without the other 2 elements which are vital the War would not happen... and every boot on the ground would be cut off surrounded with no hope of support.

wat-ever you were merely being used as you were portrayed a hater, and that it was a good thing to be that way. My reasoning was to illustrate that though may be a hater you reap the rewards that came from the things that you hate.

you may recall many of my posts on some rather off topics and the stances that are very against the grain. Somewhat in the spirit of the Pale' freedom fighter... which i dont think of as a freedom fighter.... i do think of as a terrorist.... however the Isrealis are more to blame for the state of the way things turned then what the pale's are for tring to get what they want. However both sides fail to see that all these attacks when real progress starts to be made are counter productive, and have turned into the mantra that Isreal must be destroyed and no co-existance is possible.

its against UN policy to go to different countries, destroy people's houses, clear out neighborhoods and put up settlementsfor your people.. which is what the israelis are doing.. but nobody looks at the fact that it's illegal cuz who gives a fuck about those terrorist muslim people? they burn american flags in their spare time, so lets just kick em out of their homes forcefully, destroy their lives and families, and move in.. no one's gonna miss em. they'll just get really pissed off and start to fight back for their homes, at which point we'll just call them terrorist attacks and get public sympathy on our side. WE WIN  BOTH WAYS!!! god bless the free world  :peace:



i fucking hate this planet and the people inhabiting it

then go swallow a bullet.  one less polluter and consumer.

that's cute.. did you come up with that allll by yourself?  :hihi:

You are such a drama queen.

The situation in Israel and the history leading up to what is going on now is not as eloquently simple as you claim it to be.

I blame both sides for that one.

Regarding the free world:  You should not take for granted the freedom of speech you have  to be able to speak your mind. 

Iran has been named a member of the axis of evil, one of which has already been invaded by us. It has two American armies on each side, and massive NATO air power to its north. If I was the leader of that country, I would see it as a duty to protect my people from George Bush, who has already demonstrated he is a reckless unpredictable shit for brains moron, by acquiring nukes, the one thing that will prevent a US invasion by this fucking moron. We reap what we sow.

Did Bush force Iran to take over our embassy in 1979 and hold American citizens hostage for 444 days?

And there is no excuse for stating they want to wipe another country off the map. And denying the holocaust even happened?

I'm not defending Bush, but get your facts straight.

Get yours straight.

I don't see Iran projecting their military around the world, invading countries for no valid reasons across the other side of the globe, and then belligerently barking orders for nearby countries to obey or face the consequences of pissing them off more. I see Bush doing this for the last four years. Given what Iran can do on purpose vs. what Bush can do with another bumbling misstep like his last one, yes, I would say Bush represents a greater danger to world peace than Iran both in the probability of initiating some disaster and the scope such a disaster can become.