57 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Presidential poll
Del in KS wrote:
SOCO,

I don't have time to explain where you are wrong in everything you mention. Expect you would just come up with more lib talking points anyway. Suffice to say we disagree. Wait until 'Bama gets elected and you will see just how bad the economy can get with Jimmy Carter the 2nd in the WH and a Dem congress running things. Might want to learn how to hunt with rocks.

Again, the good thing is we have the next four and possibly eight years to actually see if this is true or not. Just like you give every excuse to Bush and are saying you are better off from seven years ago it will be the opposite with Obama. If you are better off and the economy is better under Obama you will make excuses and say it's because of Bush and the eight years before.

Funny how you guys do that if it's Clinton before Bush you will say everything negative had to do with Clinton and his while in office and Bush has no fault. Now if Obama gets in and has a good four to eight years you will say it had nothing to do with him but rather the eight years before he was in office under Bush. Ha, hilarious.

If I am hunting with Rocks four years from now I will come on here (if i still have a computer) and eat crow. If in four years you own more guns then you do today will you come here and admit you were wrong?

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Presidential poll
SoCoKHntr wrote:

If I am hunting with Rocks four years from now I will come on here (if i still have a computer) and eat crow. If in four years you own more guns then you do today will you come here and admit you were wrong?

You may not be hunting with rocks in four years. You've brought us full circle back to the liberal's ties to animal rightists. When you're reduced to rocks in three years, they'll outlaw that as barbaric and cruel.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Presidential poll
Del in KS wrote:
BTW SOCO,

Just like the libs I see on TV you did not answer my questions. You just came back with more lib talking points. We were attacked many times under Clinton and only once so far under Bush.

As I said before going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do and I would have supported any Pres. right or left who undertook that and castigated anyone who didn't. We should have stayed there with a full force and started Special Forces operations to rid that area Pakistan included and made moves to get Saudi Arabia to crack down and eliminate terrorists. The majority of terrorists as were on the planes on 9/11 are from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, not Iraq. How many 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi? That's right zero!

Instead Bushco starts his wonderful adventure in Iraq splits and bleeds our forces in Afghanistan and gets us bogged down in a war of attrition in Iraq. Where we are only fighting a small portiom of Al Qaeda.

The main Combatants in Iraq are Nationalists one one side Sunnis mainly former Bathists and on the other side Shia Muslims. These people just want us the hell out of their country.

Let's speculate for a moment that Bushco had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq and we all fully supported this action. Even with that being said that admin made the most moronic, idiotic, retarded, decision making. Disbanding the Iraqi Army sending Bush loyalists with no experience, some kids just out of college, but loyal republicans to head important posts and jobs to rebuild infrastructure over there. Privatizing the War and using Mercenaries who had no care what happened to civilians and created a wild west atmosphere and built hatred and resentment against US forces. Hell, even the soldiers hate the private contractors for doing the same job and making fives times as much.

Let me ask you, if you woke up one day and a foreign army had invaded the US and a foreign gov. was telling you how to live from the barrel of a gun would you being the hunter, free spirit, country man, lay down and go with the program? Or would you take up your rifles and start sniping the occupying force and fighting for your life?

Well how in the hell can you blame them. We opened up a hornets nest over there ethnic cleansing, hundreds being executed a day for two or more years, sectarian violence on a scale you and me can't comprehend. Again, they didn't do anything to us. If we were going to attack another country besides Afghanistan because of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks if should have been Saudi Arabia as the majority of attackers were from there.

As far as attacks on our soil the majority of al qaeda attacks in the nineties were on US interests overseas. Should Clinton have done more? Yes, I would have to agree now in hindsight. But 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and after they had been given intell after he was in office that terrorists planed on using US Aircraft in a major terrorist attack and he and Condi decided to ignore that info.

Bush wanted Iraq because he wanted to prove himself to daddy, because of Neo con influence, because of oil interests, and he would have been going there regardless of 9/11 happening or not and anyone who is honest can see that.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Presidential poll

Dang...if only Congress had consulted you before voting to authorize military force. I'll make sure to forward your contact info to the DoD and the State Department as well, since you are apparently the expert on such matters.

At the risk of being on a "high horse", let me address some of this:

You say regime change in Afghanistan was OK and we were right to go in there. I assume this is because of human rights abuses and the fact that intelligence said Osama was in Afghanistan. But yet you don't support Iraq, even though the human rights situation was far worse and AQ is a larger presence there. You think that reducing forces in Afghanistan was bad because the country is backsliding, and yet you think reducing forces in Iraq will make it more secure. Furthermore, you say we needed to believe intelligence in Afghanistan, but disbelieve it in Iraq. If only the CIA had called you beforehand.

As for your recommendation that we start Special Forces operations, SF were the first ones to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and their performance there has been (and continues to be) critical to the effort. I guess all your intelligence expertise missed that one.

As for your simplistic assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 because the hijackers weren't Iraqi, that's like saying we never should've declared war on Germany in WWII because all the pilots at Pearl Harbor were Japanese.

As for invaders forcing you to live under their rule, you're forgetting that as we've been able to achieve security and gain Iraqi trust, the citizenry is turning on the radicals. Gen Petraeus has deployed more troops forward into communties, and the communities see opportunity to get rid of the punks that are causing all the problems.

As far as the tired old garbage about attacking Iraq for oil, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard. Do you honestly believe anyone thought attacking Iraq would increase their oil production? Modern war isn't like running into someone's house and grabbing a stereo.

And oh, by the way, the 9/11 plan was motivated, conceived, plan, and initiated during the Clinton adminisration. And don't forget that Sudan gave Clinton a shot at Osama and he blew it.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Presidential poll
expatriate wrote:
Dang...if only Congress had consulted you before voting to authorize military force. I'll make sure to forward your contact info to the DoD and the State Department as well, since you are apparently the expert on such matters.

At the risk of being on a "high horse", let me address some of this:

You say regime change in Afghanistan was OK and we were right to go in there. I assume this is because of human rights abuses and the fact that intelligence said Osama was in Afghanistan. But yet you don't support Iraq, even though the human rights situation was far worse and AQ is a larger presence there. You think that reducing forces in Afghanistan was bad because the country is backsliding, and yet you think reducing forces in Iraq will make it more secure. Furthermore, you say we needed to believe intelligence in Afghanistan, but disbelieve it in Iraq. If only the CIA had called you beforehand.

As for your recommendation that we start Special Forces operations, SF were the first ones to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and their performance there has been (and continues to be) critical to the effort. I guess all your intelligence expertise missed that one.

As for your simplistic assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 because the hijackers weren't Iraqi, that's like saying we never should've declared war on Germany in WWII because all the pilots at Pearl Harbor were Japanese.

As for invaders forcing you to live under their rule, you're forgetting that as we've been able to achieve security and gain Iraqi trust, the citizenry is turning on the radicals. Gen Petraeus has deployed more troops forward into communties, and the communities see opportunity to get rid of the punks that are causing all the problems.

As far as the tired old garbage about attacking Iraq for oil, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard. Do you honestly believe anyone thought attacking Iraq would increase their oil production? Modern war isn't like running into someone's house and grabbing a stereo.

And oh, by the way, the 9/11 plan was motivated, conceived, plan, and initiated during the Clinton adminisration. And don't forget that Sudan gave Clinton a shot at Osama and he blew it.

Attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do because the headquarters for Al Qaeda was in AFGHANISTAN and the TALIBAN openly supported AL QAEDA!!! This isn't disputed by anyone, but you apparently. Had nothing to do with humans rights abuses or intelligence saying he was in Afghanistan. Again, he WAS in AFGHANISTAN nobody disputes this. Remember TORA BORA?

As to your comment that AQ was larger in Iraq you are either totally ignorant on the subject or being dishonest. Refer to the AQ was based out of Afghanistan comment above. The intelligence wasn't a stretch in Afghan didn't need to be. Where Bush and company wanted the intell stretched, fudged, manipulated, was when it came to Iraq. Again yellow cake, aluminum tubes, meetings in Europe between AQ and Iraqi's was BS!!!

One more time and this bears repeating NO ONE IN THERE RIGHT MIND DISPUTES THAT AL QAEDA WAS HEADQUARTERED IN AFGHANISTAN AND FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE TALIBAN!!!

I am aware that SPEC OPS was of the first on the ground there. My comment was in reference to continuing to use them in BLACK OPs if necessary to take out Terrorist cells in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and other places in the world.

Your comment about WWII makes no sense at all since Germany and Japan were allies and attacked our allies. So, again piss poor example to use.

Do you realize in the last six years how many Iraqi's have been killed in collateral damage by us and in sectarian violence on each other??? Just ending a year ago there were literally a hundred or more people being killed every day over by sectarian violence. There is more peace now because a great deal of them, non combatants, have been killed or left the country. There are whole neighborhoods that have been ethnically cleansed.

Do you really feel like the ones left are going to thank us for this. Would you if a country killed most of your friends and family?

You are honestly going to say that if not for the oil and only for altruistic reasons Bush would have invaded Iraq??? If so I have some lovely beach front property I would like to sell you.

And you said this "And oh, by the way, the 9/11 plan was motivated, conceived, plan, and initiated during the Clinton adminisration. And don't forget that Sudan gave Clinton a shot at Osama and he blew it"

Yes, I am aware of Clinton's opportunity that was missed and he should be faulted for it. But realize 9/11 was conceived and planned from their headquarters, again guess where?, in AFGHANISTAN.

I'm not saying Clinton has no fault as their is plenty to throw around when it comes to AQ and BIN LADEN, but ultimately it's BUSH's responsibility wholly and fully along with his admin for the mess and atrocity that is Iraq!

Offline
Location: Kingston, MI
Joined: 01/16/2007
Posts: 648
Presidential poll

All,

Obviously, an intelligent debate with SoCo is an exercise in futility. He has been brainwashed by left wing rhetoric and refuses to listen to logic. I will not move forward and will ignore future comments, since I find him offensive and blind to the truth.

Expatriate has made the ultimate sacrifice in losing his son. His son is a true American hero and should be treated as such. SoCo's responses to this were completely unacceptable.

Expatriate and his family have been there and seen it, lived it and sacrificed for it. I believe he is closer to the truth than anyone on the site and consider him an expert on the topic. Obviously, SoCo has NEVER set foot in the country, region or been in the Persian Gulf to claim himself an expert. My son is there right now, and agrees with the current initiative.

We are not Democrats, because we believe in truth, freedom and the American way of life. We believe that an individual should take responsibility for his or her own actions. We believe we can do things without the government doing it for us. The Democrats ultimately believe we should change to a socialist government. Republicans believe in less government.

When I was young my parents told me to be a Democrat, because the Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor. As a young adult I realized Democrats are for more laws, more taxes, fewer freedoms, government control and the creation of a welfare state. Republicans are for fewer laws, lower taxes and more freedom to be an American. Therefore, Ronald Reagan convinced me to no longer be associated with the Democratic party. I will never go back to the dark side.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Presidential poll
Whelland wrote:
All,

Obviously, an intelligent debate with SoCo is an exercise in futility. He has been brainwashed by left wing rhetoric and refuses to listen to logic. I will not move forward and will ignore future comments, since I find him offensive and blind to the truth.

.

No sir, I am a person who uses my intelligence to look at and asses the situation and form my own perspective. You sound like one who lets Rush, Coulter, and Nugent, do your thinking and deciding for you. The very same 'brainwashing' you accuse me of you display. You would never attempt to look at a situation in non biased manner using logic if it strayed from the talking points Rush has given you.

You bring up soldiers as being there having more authority or a better understanding. Do you realize there are many, many, many, vets who have been there from enlisted to high ranking officers who oppose this war greatly. Along with 70% percent of the US.

I find you offensive also and will be happy to avoid and ingnore your comments as well.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Presidential poll

SoCoKHntr sounds like a teenager who listens to the radio too much. Most of his/her comments are straight from the moveon.org website. He/she obviously has no military experience and probably is not even a hunter, but rather a PETA member in disguise.

Ex, I would no longer engage in debate with this person who believes that your son and all the other American Heroes, who have laid down their lives for the very freedoms that Obama will take away from us, got what they deserved for hurting poor innocent civilians who just happened to be outside shooting RPG's at pigeons that just happened to be alighted on some American Humvee.

Whelland , I could not agree with you more. This person is offensive and insensitive and Anti- American as well. I will take your advise and ignore everything this person post, as it means nothing other than to inflame members of this forum.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Presidential poll
JTapia wrote:
SoCoKHntr sounds like a teenager who listens to the radio too much. Most of his/her comments are straight from the moveon.org website. He/she obviously has no military experience and probably is not even a hunter, but rather a PETA member in disguise.

Ex, I would no longer engage in debate with this person who believes that your son and all the other American Heroes, who have laid down their lives for the very freedoms that Obama will take away from us, got what they deserved for hurting poor innocent civilians who just happened to be outside shooting RPG's at pigeons that just happened to be alighted on some American Humvee.

Whelland , I could not agree with you more. This person is offensive and insensitive and Anti- American as well. I will take your advise and ignore everything this person post, as it means nothing other than to inflame members of this forum.

I am a hunter, gun owner, and veteran. You think just because a person would be all those things they would have to agree with your propaganda?

Please don't be a liar. I never once said anyone got what they deserved! I told that man I wish his son was still with him and hadn't lost his life in a needless war.

If you can't distinguish between between an American voicing their opinion and have to sink to using juvenile smears (he/she member of peta) you have no tact or honor and aren't worth debating.

You fellows don't really want honest debate. You want total agreement and lockstep thinking with the politics of fear and hate.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Presidential poll

I agree that this fellow is hopeless.

Just a couple thoughts before I'm done.

Every Democratic president since Andrew Johnson in 1865-69 has used military force against a sovereign nation without being attacked first. Johnson was a little iffy, because America was broken after the Civil War. But I should point out, though, that the states that attacked the US in that conflict chose a Democrat as their president.

Don't try to tell me Jimmy Carter didn't do it, because he sent forces into combat in Iran. Just because he got them killed before they made contact with the enemy doesn't mean it doesn't count.

If you study history, the Mexican American War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Balkans all began under Democratic leadership.

On the other hand, since the War of 1812 the only Republicans to initiate military action against a sovereign nation without a precipitating attack against the US were Reagan and the Bushes.

So IMO the Democrats have absolutely no credibility when they act horrified that a president would take military action. They practically invented the concept, and are renowned for it.

As for the Germany analogy, I stand by it. If I use the Left's arguments, our war against Germany was unjust and illegal because Germany never attacked us. Furthermore, Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault because it happened on his watch. He obviously ignored intel warning of the attack, to include Billy Mitchell predicting the day of the week, time of day (within minutes), type of attack , forces to be used, and even the direction of the attack -- all in 1925. So Roosevelt ignored intel for almost nine years before the attack. But I suppose that was because he wanted war with Japan in order to get cheap watches and smaller radios. As for Germany, I suppose he initiated that war in order to pay of the rich industrialists. It really isnt' a stretch to make the comparison, other than to point out that FDR had a whole lot more warning than Bush did.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like