Happy Birthday George W. Bush

[g8trz2003]

it is a given right that we should not have to be a part of a government we don't agree with! Just like the colonies seceded from GB, the Confederate states seceded from the Union. Tonyi is probably closer to home. I feel the Confederate States would probably end up joining the Union on a later date, and no bloodshed would have been dealt.

 

As for kiling American citizens....if the Confederate states could not secede, that would make them citizens as well. So they were American citizens being killed. If you don't believe this, then I'll take this approach. Confederate soldiers were defending themselves. No one was killed at Sumter. The Union soldiers marched into Virginia at Bull Run/Manassas, and a battle took place. It wasn't the Confederates attacking American soldiers.

 

Davis tried many times to deal with Lincoln through negotiations and not through war, but Lincoln felt that everyone should be held into a Union (whether they like it or not) by force (ala King George style).

[g8trz2003]

and slavery has nothing to do with this conversation....most Civil War experts would mark political reasons as being the reasons for the cause of the secession (and war), and the defense of property as the reason Confederate soldiers took up arms against the Union.

[RippyO]

Honestly Furman, what makes you think the South would've rejoined at a later date, no harm no foul?

[Guest Jack1]

Happy Birthday, Mr. Pesident!

 

Let's show the country who will do more to stand up for this country, the Republicans or the democrats?

I have never said this about any candidates before but "The Johns" scare the hell out of me. I am sure UBL loves them though!

[Apple]

A country divided is a vulnerable country. If Lincoln would've allowed the secession to happen, there is a likely chance that we would have been attacked from the outside. How do you know if the South would've risen up and joined these attackers or not? Lincoln made the right decision to preserve our nation.

[Lcyberlina]

On another note... Brave soldiers died in previous wars that were necessary and just.? :thumbup Their efforts will not go into history as the major blunder in foreign policy... You know like this Iraq "war" we are supposedly "winning".

443685[/snapback]

 

Refresh my memory about how Vietnam was "necessary" or "just". It seems to have slipped my mind...

 

For that matter, what was so "necessary" about WWII that demanded our intervention? We could have adopted an economic policy that didn't squeeze Japan into such dire straits they felt the need to attack Pearl.

444419[/snapback]

 

You are asking me about Vietnam??? *tsk tsk* You should know better what my opinion on that one is if you know my opinion about Iraq... :whistle

 

Re-read my first sentence, the part where it says "Necessary and Just". :mischief

[g8trz2003]

A country divided is a vulnerable country. If Lincoln would've allowed the secession to happen, there is a likely chance that we would have been attacked from the outside. How do you know if the South would've risen up and joined these attackers or not? Lincoln made the right decision to preserve our nation.

445009[/snapback]

 

I dont know of any serious outside threats that were approaching at this point in history. We had just fought Mexico in the Mexican War, but if CSA had successfully seceded, I don't see any chance of Mexico "taking advantage" of the situation. It wasn't like the South was friends with Mexico. Texas fought for the Confederacy, and such generals as Lee and Jackson fought in the Mexican War. If anything, I think Mexico would have tried to take Texas back.

 

Lincoln didn't preserve our nation. Preserving our nation would have been to make compromises, to work things out through the Constitution, Congress, etc. and convince the Southern states to stay in the Union. Preserving does not mean forcibly keeping states from starting their own government.

 

And RippO, I think economically, the South and the North needed each other, and both sides would have eventually discovered that the States would be better off together.

[Mark]

Hindsight is 20/20 on the Vietnam issue. We didn't live in the 50s and 60s, so we don't really know what the "communist scare" was like. Yes, looking back, Vietnam wasn't necessary, but we didn't have to enter WWI either, or WWII, or Korea. We didn't have to in any of those wars. We didn't have to send troops into Mogadishu. We didn't have to even fight the Revolutionary war. The same could be said for many wars that have been fought.

 

In the military, you have to make decisions that mean life or death to soldiers, and the President happens to be the commander in chief of the whole military. His decisions to use the military will cost lives, and if he thinks what he is doing is just, then so be it. He got voted in to office (yes, you could argue with Bush) and therefore is the commander in chief. You aren't, so your opinion of right or wrong when it comes to war has nothing to do with anything.

[Beinfest4Prez]

A country divided is a vulnerable country. If Lincoln would've allowed the secession to happen, there is a likely chance that we would have been attacked from the outside. How do you know if the South would've risen up and joined these attackers or not? Lincoln made the right decision to preserve our nation.

445009[/snapback]

 

I dont know of any serious outside threats that were approaching at this point in history. We had just fought Mexico in the Mexican War, but if CSA had successfully seceded, I don't see any chance of Mexico "taking advantage" of the situation. It wasn't like the South was friends with Mexico. Texas fought for the Confederacy, and such generals as Lee and Jackson fought in the Mexican War. If anything, I think Mexico would have tried to take Texas back.

 

Lincoln didn't preserve our nation. Preserving our nation would have been to make compromises, to work things out through the Constitution, Congress, etc. and convince the Southern states to stay in the Union. Preserving does not mean forcibly keeping states from starting their own government.

 

And RippO, I think economically, the South and the North needed each other, and both sides would have eventually discovered that the States would be better off together.

445418[/snapback]

Furman, I am going to disagree with you on this. Why wouldn't England and France attack? They had large interests in the South and would've helped the South in all likelihood had their not been a blockade. Additionally, the Union would've been split permanantly because the Southerners who were in power, would've stopped the Union at all costs. And yes Abe Lincoln fought a political war, not a moral war. But you can blame losing the state's right on John Wilkes Booth and the conspirators. Why? Because Lincoln kept a hold on the radical republicans. If your going to blame anyone on losing the state's rights, then blame the Radical Republicans of the era.

 

 

 

Lets see, in your opinion from what I've read, you would've gladly took the 10% voters take alliegience with the north, and all rights are restored. Then again the South got blasted by the Radical Republicans for 12 years.

 

 

 

Lets get back on topic shall we. FDR didn't kill people. The soldiers who fought in WW2 fought because they were giving their lives to save the world. How can you say FDR went and killed people. George Bush is the first President since McKinely to aggress a country without just cause. (Spanish-American War was all about acquiring Cuba, there was and has never been found to be any evidence of a mine or torpedo blowing up the Maine) Oh yeah, the war wasn't to oust Saddam, it was to get rid of those WMDs that Rumsfeld gave them. Funny isn't it that the person who gave them these weapons is sitting right next to you George.

 

 

 

I can tell that some of the Republicans, not all of you, on this board blast LCyberlina for her leftist views. Go ahead blast me. I only blast Bush and stupid comments, you blast her for no other reason than she speaks the truth. And oh yeah Passion, RippyO, and Soriano what I just said PWN3D you.

 

 

 

Its great we have these discussions on here but when it gets stupid as to saying FDR killed people for political reasons and that the South would've returned to the Union it is ludacris.

 

 

 

We aren't winning this war in Iraq and you people are too stupid to realize that as bad as Saddam was, there are 100s of thousand more in IRAQ that are worse then him. Sure Saddam tortured (And in no way do I support Saddam, Israel Killer), but he kept a hold on the Sunni and Shiite extremists which are everywhere in Iraq. This is worse than Vietnam because at least Vietnam didn't open the world to terror.

 

 

Thank you and I will be awaiting a sensible reply.

[Ice Man]

He ruined MY BIRTHDAY. When I turned 5, I went to Chuck-Cheese's (how did Maniac know), and as I was listening to the Pizza Time Players, George W. bumbled into the audience with his shirt off. He was drunk and smelled of rum. He then got onto the stage, took the microphone from Jasper T. Jowls, and bellowed "I'm the Vice-President's son! I'm the Vice-President's son, and I love booooooooze!!!!!!"

 

He then whipped out a huge bong, cashed it, proclaimed he had a quote "killer case of the munchies" and ate my dad's pizza. When police were summoned to the scene, they found him naked and curled up in the Swiss Cheese maze with the Warblettes.

 

Needless to say, my birthday was f***ing ruined. Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

443645[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

i knew because i stalk you. and because i am secretly in love with you....

 

 

look, what im trying to say is......

 

 

*runs away* :banghead

[Hanleylicious]

some serious PWNing going on here by Mr. Beinfest...

[Mark]

We aren't winning this war in Iraq and you people are too stupid to realize that as bad as Saddam was, there are 100s of thousand more in IRAQ that are worse then him. Sure Saddam tortured (And in no way do I support Saddam, Israel Killer), but he kept a hold on the Sunni and Shiite extremists which are everywhere in Iraq. This is worse than Vietnam because at least Vietnam didn't open the world to terror.445463[/snapback]

 

I agree on the fact that there are many more people in Iraq that are probably worse. But, what is the chance of them becoming leader of Iraq? It might be high, might not. Saddam was already leader and had been for a long time. Those people 10X worse are in the Iraqi Community, but they may never become leader, and the chance of a better leader than Saddam is VERY high.

 

And the world has always been open to terror. Just look at 9/11 and that happened before the war. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong, but that is what I got out of it.

[Beinfest4Prez]

We aren't winning this war in Iraq and you people are too stupid to realize that as bad as Saddam was, there are 100s of thousand more in IRAQ that are worse then him. Sure Saddam tortured (And in no way do I support Saddam, Israel Killer), but he kept a hold on the Sunni and Shiite extremists which are everywhere in Iraq. This is worse than Vietnam because at least Vietnam didn't open the world to terror.445463[/snapback]

 

I agree on the fact that there are many more people in Iraq that are probably worse. But, what is the chance of them becoming leader of Iraq? It might be high, might not. Saddam was already leader and had been for a long time. Those people 10X worse are in the Iraqi Community, but they may never become leader, and the chance of a better leader than Saddam is VERY high.

 

And the world has always been open to terror. Just look at 9/11 and that happened before the war. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong, but that is what I got out of it.

445491[/snapback]

 

Its not that they need to be leaders. They were just kept on a leash before. Does that help? :thumbup

 

 

 

And yes the world was open to terror and 9/11 is part fault both the Clinto and Bush administrations. Clinton for the security let down and Bush for just plain ignoring it.

[Mark]

Its not that they need to be leaders. They were just kept on a leash before. Does that help? :thumbup

 

And yes the world was open to terror and 9/11 is part fault both the Clinto and Bush administrations. Clinton for the security let down and Bush for just plain ignoring it.

445497[/snapback]

 

Agreed. They may have been on a tighter leash, BUT if the new govt in Iraq is successful, then not only the people of Iraq will be in a better position, AND those extremists will once again be on a tight leash. What I'm saying is it's worth a shot.

[g8trz2003]

Furman, I am going to disagree with you on this. Why wouldn't England and France attack? They had large interests in the South and would've helped the South in all likelihood had their not been a blockade. Additionally, the Union would've been split permanantly because the Southerners who were in power, would've stopped the Union at all costs. And yes Abe Lincoln fought a political war, not a moral war. But you can blame losing the state's right on John Wilkes Booth and the conspirators. Why? Because Lincoln kept a hold on the radical republicans. If your going to blame anyone on losing the state's rights, then blame the Radical Republicans of the era.

 

 

Lets see, in your opinion from what I've read, you would've gladly took the 10% voters take alliegience with the north, and all rights are restored. Then again the South got blasted by the Radical Republicans for 12 years.

445463[/snapback]

 

The blockade is NOT what kept France and GB out of the war...in fact, if they were to come into the war it would have been to fight the blockade. Yes Europe had economic interest in the South....but not enough to fight a 3rd intercontinental war in 100 years? The North was in danger of foreign powers if the South seceded? How? What was England going to do? Take back its colonies? The only thing GB wanted was for the South to continue trade with them (w/high tarriffs and eventually a pre-emptive blockade, trade was tough).

 

Lincoln lost all credibility in the states' rights department when he attacked a state for seceding.

[Beinfest4Prez]

Furman, I am going to disagree with you on this. Why wouldn't England and France attack? They had large interests in the South and would've helped the South in all likelihood had their not been a blockade. Additionally, the Union would've been split permanantly because the Southerners who were in power, would've stopped the Union at all costs. And yes Abe Lincoln fought a political war, not a moral war. But you can blame losing the state's right on John Wilkes Booth and the conspirators. Why? Because Lincoln kept a hold on the radical republicans. If your going to blame anyone on losing the state's rights, then blame the Radical Republicans of the era.

 

 

Lets see, in your opinion from what I've read, you would've gladly took the 10% voters take alliegience with the north, and all rights are restored. Then again the South got blasted by the Radical Republicans for 12 years.

445463[/snapback]

 

The blockade is NOT what kept France and GB out of the war...in fact, if they were to come into the war it would have been to fight the blockade. Yes Europe had economic interest in the South....but not enough to fight a 3rd intercontinental war in 100 years? The North was in danger of foreign powers if the South seceded? How? What was England going to do? Take back its colonies? The only thing GB wanted was for the South to continue trade with them (w/high tarriffs and eventually a pre-emptive blockade, trade was tough).

 

Lincoln lost all credibility in the states' rights department when he attacked a state for seceding.

445505[/snapback]

The state has no right to secede Furman. Go watch your John Calhoun documentaries will ya?

[Mark]

Lets get back on topic shall we. FDR didn't kill people. The soldiers who fought in WW2 fought because they were giving their lives to save the world. How can you say FDR went and killed people.445463[/snapback]

 

Those soldiers went to Europe and the Pacific and fought because they were in the Army and they were ordered over there. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are over there because they are in the Army and they were ordered over there. There is no difference from the Presidents in that standpoint. I hear a whole lot of people on here saying that Bush killed those soldiers. If that's the case than any wartime president is responsible for the same thing.

[Beinfest4Prez]

Lets get back on topic shall we. FDR didn't kill people. The soldiers who fought in WW2 fought because they were giving their lives to save the world. How can you say FDR went and killed people.445463[/snapback]

 

Those soldiers went to Europe and the Pacific and fought because they were in the Army and they were ordered over there. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are over there because they are in the Army and they were ordered over there. There is no difference from the Presidents in that standpoint. I hear a whole lot of people on here saying that Bush killed those soldiers. If that's the case than any wartime president is responsible for the same thing.

445521[/snapback]

I respect that point but if you look at the time eras and what many veterans say then you'll get what I mean. The war was fought not for oil, not for power, but for world security. Oh yeah, in response to an earlier post in the thread, WW2 was necessary because we were aggresed again like in WW1 and Germany would've ended up coming to attack us anyway.

[Mark]

I respect that point but if you look at the time eras and what many veterans say then you'll get what I mean. The war was fought not for oil, not for power, but for world security. Oh yeah, in response to an earlier post in the thread, WW2 was necessary because we were aggresed again like in WW1 and Germany would've ended up coming to attack us anyway.

445525[/snapback]

 

Good points. And I know what you mean with the veterans thing. The only thing I don't like is when people get on this board and act like George Bush held a gun to the soldiers heads and pulled the trigger. He just did his job as commander in chief, whether you think the war was just or not. That's what our army is for, to follow the presidents orders in times he thinks the country isn't as safe as it should be.

 

WWII wasn't TOO necessary, but I'm glad we entered it. Yes, Germany probably would have tried to attack eventually, but we could have waited. Iraq could have attacked to in the future, and we could have waited. Who knows.

 

We went into Afghanistan to go after Al Quaida after 9/11. We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor, which is very comparable to the events of 9/11.

[Lcyberlina]

On another note... Brave soldiers died in previous wars that were necessary and just.? :thumbup Their efforts will not go into history as the major blunder in foreign policy... You know like this Iraq "war" we are supposedly "winning".

443685[/snapback]

 

Refresh my memory about how Vietnam was "necessary" or "just". It seems to have slipped my mind...

 

For that matter, what was so "necessary" about WWII that demanded our intervention? We could have adopted an economic policy that didn't squeeze Japan into such dire straits they felt the need to attack Pearl.

444419[/snapback]

 

You are asking me about Vietnam??? *tsk tsk* You should know better what my opinion on that one is if you know my opinion about Iraq... :whistle

 

Re-read my first sentence, the part where it says "Necessary and Just". :mischief

445072[/snapback]

 

 

OK, fine. So how was WWII different than Iraq then in terms of necessary or just? We didn't need to economically strangle Japan and force them into aggression. The only way Germany got into the war was as a result of treaty obligation with Japan.

 

We COULD have just sat back and let all these fools just wear themselves out.

445533[/snapback]

 

I hope you're kidding guy! :thumbdown

 

Do not dare compare WWII with this dirty war Bush got us in.

[Mark]

I hope you're kidding guy! :thumbdown

 

Do not dare compare WWII with this dirty war Bush got us in.

445541[/snapback]

 

He's not comparing the situations. Much worse stuff happened in WWII, BUT, what he is saying is that it was never necessary for us to enter WWII.

[Lcyberlina]

I hope you're kidding guy!? :thumbdown

 

Do not dare compare WWII with this dirty war Bush got us in.

445541[/snapback]

 

Not kidding - I want you to justify our involvment in WWII.

 

Go ahead give it a try. The more you think about it (presuming you're capable of non-kneejerk thought), the closer the parallels you so casually dismiss will become.

 

The podium is yours. Make your case.

445551[/snapback]

 

I believe I have not used personal attacks on you. I demand you do the same. Stick to the issues.

 

WWII in my humble "non-kneejerk" opinion (whatever that means), was justified. Germany made several attempts at aggression on the United States. We were practically dragged into it, regardless of the isolationist policy we had back then. We stepped in to save other countries from the Nazis and helped end the most cruel acts against humanity. In helping them we helped ourselves; it would have been a matter of time before the effects of a Nazi Europe would have striken the economy and well being of Americans.

 

Iraq DID NOTHING to us, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Yes, we rid them of Saddam, but at what price Mr. Tonyi? We've killed them by the thousands trying to "liberate" them, not counting our worse episode of inhumanity in Abu Ghraib.

 

Now you try to tell me, what the hell is so "JUST AND NECESSARY" about this war, since we now know there were no WMDs, no ties to Al-Qaeda and Saddam. Now I give you the podium... Try spreading the lies of Bush again.

[Lcyberlina]

I believe I have not used personal attacks on you. I demand you do the same. Stick to the issues.

 

 

Nor I on you.

 

WWII in my humble "non-kneejerk" opinion (whatever that means), was justified. Germany made several attempts at aggression on the United States.

 

 

And those would be precisely what?

 

We were practically dragged into it, regardless of the isolationist policy we had back then. We stepped in to save other countries from the Nazis and helped end the most cruel acts against humanity.

 

And those cruel acts would have been precisely what?

 

 

In helping them we helped ourselves; it would have been a matter of time before the effects of a Nazi Europe would have striken the economy and well being of Americans.

 

Pure speculation - even moreso than the Saddam WMD arguments.

 

Iraq DID NOTHING to us, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

 

The guys being shot at daily over the no-fly zones would argue otherwise...

 

Yes, we rid them of Saddam, but at what price Mr. Tonyi? We've killed them by the thousands trying to "liberate" them, not counting our worse episode of inhumanity in Abu Ghraib.

 

I don't suppose you've ever considered Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki eh? Liberation by "the cleansing fire" right?

 

If we were being so philanthropic in WWII - how come FDR never bombed the rail lines into Auschwitz to slow down the killing machine?

 

Now you try to tell me, what the hell is so "JUST AND NECESSARY" about this war, since we now know there were no WMDs, no ties to Al-Qaeda and Saddam. Now I give you the podium...

445567[/snapback]

The 9/11 comission admits there were ties - read the reports. They didn't find evidence of "collaboration". There was plenty of evidence of ties though....at least as substantial as any Michael Moore aludes to :lol

 

At least one Sarin round was discovered and parts of many other things, so obviously there was something there. You can argue about quantity, condition, and other things, but to deny that anything at all existed is quite absurd.

445647[/snapback]

 

I am not wasting my time or energy with you. Believe what you want to believe. I really don't care what your opinion is, since you have little regard for mine.

[g8trz2003]

The state has no right to secede Furman. Go watch your John Calhoun documentaries will ya?

445512[/snapback]

 

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry for that tangent...back on topic we go (even though it isn't even on topic either, considering its a bday thread lol).

 

It's all good, Beinfest.

[g8trz2003]

i think it's safe to say that tonyi pwned that argument.