1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Under-fire

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Vera Hammoudeh, Oct 2, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. Vera Hammoudeh

    Vera Hammoudeh New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    The defense secretary and Bush have faced growing criticism for their handling of the Iraq war as violence there has escalated, U.S. casualties have mounted and public support for the conflict has declined.

    And i am sure they are wandering why, aren't they? I can tell them "why" if they would open there EYES up & see a past their own selfs then they would see whats happening. Look at all the US citizens thats dien for their Stupid actions.

    Fueling the debate in recent days was the release of a classified intelligence report that concluded that the Iraq war has helped fuel a new generation of extremists and increased the overall terrorist threat.

    "But hey" as if we don't have enough problems, they are still asking for more & more to die, Look at this they now have more coming at us. When will it ever END? I don't see it happen with Dumb Leaders Like these two We have.. Leaders Like Bush & Mr. Rumsfeld.

    U.S. report says Iraq war has fueled terror threat
    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A classified intelligence report concludes that the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat to the United States, U.S. officials told CNN Sunday.

    See whats happen people its getting worse by the days, when will people wake up & see what kind of A Great Leader Bush is & of Corse what a Great Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is, when will the people see, When we are blowed off the Map or When?


    Here the links to check it out


    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/01/rumsfeld.ap/index.html





    :confused: When whats it going to take, i wander?

    Vera
     
    #1 Vera Hammoudeh, Oct 2, 2006
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    43,076
    Likes Received:
    1,653
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nothing will change until at least noon on January 20, 2009. So you might as well get used to the same old, same old until then.
     
    #2 KenH, Oct 2, 2006
  3. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ain't that the truth!

    Which is why I am glad that Bush can't run again.. Thanks goodness for the founding fathers putting that clause in....

    Of couse, I have said this before, and I will say it again. ALL Politicans are corrupt, so no matter who we get in 2008, it more than likely won't make a big difference.

    Our polictical system needs a MAJOR change to ever be good again.

    Jamie
     
    #3 JamieinNH, Oct 2, 2006
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must have a strange definition of founding fathers . . .

    ;)


     
    #4 El_Guero, Oct 2, 2006
  5. Joshua Rhodes

    Joshua Rhodes <img src=/jrhodes.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether I support the war or not, I support our soldiers. Nothing is changed, helped or exhibited in a rant like this... save one thing:

    It shows the constitutional right that you have to voice your font-changing, colorful opinion. :wavey:
     
    #5 Joshua Rhodes, Oct 2, 2006
  6. Joshua Rhodes

    Joshua Rhodes <img src=/jrhodes.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same reason I was glad Clinton couldn't run again. Personnel change has to be good!
     
    #6 Joshua Rhodes, Oct 2, 2006
  7. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you're talking about the two-term limitation for the President, the founding fathers had nothing to do with that.

    The term limitations on the U.S. President came about as a result of the 22d Amendment which was ratified in 1951.

    If you'll recall, FDR was elected four times.
     
    #7 ktn4eg, Oct 2, 2006
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, just my mistake in who enacted the 2 term limit.

    :)

    Jamie
     
    #8 JamieinNH, Oct 2, 2006
  9. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sure is...


    Jamie
     
    #9 JamieinNH, Oct 2, 2006
  10. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct. I mention the founding fathers, and that was the wrong people, never the less, I am glad the 2 term limit was passed. :)


    Jamie
     
    #10 JamieinNH, Oct 2, 2006
  11. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the Republicans that fought for that amendment after FDR really considered themselves 'founding fathers.'

    But I have appreciated their work following a couple of earlier presidents, too.
     
    #11 Not_hard_to_find, Oct 2, 2006
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't that same report say that if we don't take care of them in Iraq, they will spread to other places and get worse?

    I would take issue with the idea that this war created a new generation of extremists. Perhaps it simply revealed who they were, and brought them out into the open and gave them a scenario where they can more easily justify their terrorist attacks.

    As much as we have seen it, I still find it hard to imagine that the US is being blamed for this terrorism. Perhaps that, more than anythign else, shows the biases at work in political commentary.
     
    #12 Pastor Larry, Oct 3, 2006
  13. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it said that because of our invasion and botched occupation of Iraq, that has already happened.

    Why would you take issue with that? We attacked "preemptively" an Arab country which had just begun to cooperate begrudgingly and, instead of keeping public order, security, clean water, electricity, etc., let it slip into violent chaos which has no end in sight. Don't you think that makes us the Big Bad for many countries in the area?

    Iraq before the invasion had kept out terrorists and kept a lid, a tight strangling violent lid, on extremist Moslems and insurrectionists - we took that lid off and let the pot boil over.
     
    #13 Daisy, Oct 3, 2006
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that is what the report said, but I don't recall exactly.

    I take issue with the second because of the assertion that this "created" a new generation of extremists. I don't think it created them. I think they already existed with hate for the West and American in particular (e.g., the Cole, the embassies, WTC1, etc). They used to be other places than Iraq, hiding, and waiting for their time to strike. Now, they are in Iraq striking.

    Why not view it as gathering all the terrorists in one place rather than them being spread all over the globe?
     
    #14 Pastor Larry, Oct 3, 2006
  15. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who do you not defend? America, President Bush, Christians, and me of course . . . anyone else to go on the short list?

    FYI, Iraq was a terrorist training ground . . . :BangHead:

    They even had a course on how to hijack airliners . . . oh, that's right - that was probably just more of saddam's disinformation to make us attack him. Well, it worked.
     
    #15 El_Guero, Oct 3, 2006
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry

    Some really good points in this!

    Wayne


     
    #16 El_Guero, Oct 3, 2006
  17. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, that's what your personnel committe chairman told me when he interviewed me...

    :laugh: :applause: :thumbsup:
     
    #17 rbell, Oct 3, 2006
  18. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly there were terrorists before and there would have been many without Iraq, but I do believe that this fumbled war is used to create more.

    Because this is used as a pretty explicit example of the evil of the Western world in all the madrassas world round.

    We gave them this ammunition.
     
    #18 Daisy, Oct 3, 2006
  19. Vera Hammoudeh

    Vera Hammoudeh New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Finely someone said the truth!!! Why Mr. G W Bush wanted in Office.


    My proposed amendment comes to mind because from time to time Woodward would quote someone on why Bush ran for president in the first place and what determines his executive style: his father. He wanted to best his father but also even the score for him. This score was a twofold thing. George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush -- not necessarily the neocons around him -- so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it.


    This descent into the fog of Freudian politics is, I know, just the sort of thing Washington eschews. Such musings lack position papers or paper trails -- paper of any kind, actually -- and rely instead on elastic language sometimes known as psychobabble. Yet those of us who are both fathers and sons know the truth of these matters. There is no more complicated relationship on the face of the earth. It is fraught with competition, a kind of canine sniffing that is suffused with both an edgy rivalry and an immense love that does not quit even with the grave. If I say that
    George W. Bush was out to both vanquish and redeem his father, many a man will know what I mean.

    But I don't have to say it. Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush's close friend and his former national security adviser, says it for me. This is what Woodward writes about Scowcroft: "In his younger years, Scowcroft thought, George W. couldn't decide whether he was going to rebel against his father or try to beat him at his own game. Now, he had tried at the game, and it was a disaster."

    Go Read the whole story, even G W Bush Parents are worried about how Jr. Has handle things.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200931.html

    :type:
    Vera
     
    #19 Vera Hammoudeh, Oct 4, 2006
  20. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've missed something in this thread. What proposed amendment? What kind of discriminatory amendment would preclude a candidate based on a parent serving as president?

    You may opine as to the basis for President Bush's actions. That may or may not have validity -- certainly other opinions exist. Why in the world would a constitutional amendment result?

    Also quite interesting how word choices, usage, spelling, emphasis, etc. change from one post to another.
     
    #20 Not_hard_to_find, Oct 5, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...