U.S. *will* strike Iran...

In which case I'll doubt it's a picture of you --at any rate most vets I've known don't require it necessary for a citizen of the country they served to also have served in order to practice their free speech.

So whether you've served in the Navy and I haven't isn't particularly germaine to the conversation.

I am a veteran, and I am against going into Iran. I took a vow to defend this country, not give it blessing to pre-emptively start wars namby-pamby across the globe. That's not defense that's offense.

The international community is responding to it. I remember when patience was considered a virtue, especially when we talk about lots of loss of life. We don't need to ride out ahead of everyone else on our horse waving the flag around screaming "Let's Roll" like modern day Vikings.

I'd like to try and hold onto what little international respect we still have left.

One can say, "Who cares what other countries think? Let's Roll!", and that is EXACTLY the problem.

We keep fucking around, and we will cause another world war. Is that how you want the history books to read in 50 years? I don't.

Not to mention, invading countries that have not taken up arms against another country is wrong.

And he's at 33% approval now --so what's your point?

I vote we nuke ourselves. After all, 86% of Americans polled think we should discontinue having a country.

If it's on teh intraweb it must be true.

P2

So that's nice - call me a liar, and then impeach any evidence I might bring. Oh snap! That's right, i forgot you are that righteous patriotic person.

I guess I'm a traitor to my country because I support Bush - according to Kendralogic 101.

Briana Dawson

The day before the vote CNN poll's showed only 36% of the vote going to Bush. So what's your point?

Briana Dawson

Yes. Now you understand.

I offered a bet, not a political discourse (although i would hardly call this a discourse).

Either take me up on the bet or STFU.

Briana Dawson

That more dentists recommend trident chewing gum than people support Bush.

Sorry. Genie's out of the bottle now.

When you introduce a bet with a foaming mouthed WWF mentality, and act like occupying sovereign nations is just another day's work, you have politicized it yourself, and invite response.

Besides, it's pretty obvious this thread isn't really about the bet.

I'm a real stickler for details, real pet peeve of mine and a total pain in the ass, I know can you show me where you're citing that? I went here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm

and I see a CNN poll from 10/29-31 that shows it Bush 49% Kerry 47%.

this page: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-polls-burn-pundits_x.htm

shows that the CNN poll taken the week before had it Bush 49% Kerry 49%.


Maybe I'm missing it, can you please show me where you're finding a CNN poll the day before the vote that showed only 36% of the vote going to Bush?

It was always about the bet. I can't help it if you and other libs allow Bush to be such a polarizing topic in your lives.

Briana Dawson

How about Operation Leave-It-For-The-Next-Guy?

I'm sorry to nag, but again, could you show me where you discovered that "The day before the vote CNN poll's showed only 36% of the vote going to Bush" ??

You see, I'm worried that if I take the bet and you lose, you'll change the amount we bet for.

Better a polarizing topic than an idiot-boy king.

I was curious about that so I looked and found it here: http://poll.gallup.com/

Oh, right, that's his current approval rating. I think we're talking about two different things, Phillip.

The claim was that "The day before the vote CNN poll's showed only 36% of the vote going to Bush." (emphasis mine), a claim made after the OP stated "All you lib's thought you would be getting rid of Bush in '04 and can't stand it that the majority of the country voted against you".


I can't find anything supporting that claim, and suspect it's a made up statistic. I could be wrong though and just not see it.

I'm betting the US invades but DOES NOT occupy past a certain point.

What point?



I'm betting the US occupies that western portion, right where this map reveals 'oil fields'.



In A World Gone Mad

-Ghoti

Ahh, thanks for clarifying that for me Taco

The OP was kind of jumping around, took me a minute too.

seems someone made something up about authority and interests.

gee, where have I heard that before?



Our country is under attack from "enemies domestic," and some of us are paying attention and some of us go goose stepping into history because "we were just following orders," or we like killing muslims, or we are too stupid to think for ourselves

fucking sociopaths

I'm not, but that's a basic character difference. I understand the rational behind it, I just don't agree with it. My way point of view is idealistic, your way is pesimistic. No right and wrong there. If we did it my way reason might still prevail. If you did it your way might could still be right. But that's a question of practicality, not right and wrong.


You could just as easily have said if it were illegal the president wouldn't be behind it. Or if it were illegal the soldiers would have refused to do it.

Our system is not perfect. It is not foolproof and not morally unimpeachable. It's not impossible to do things that are wrong because the theory says someone would have done something.

Illegal is also a bit strange. The security councel of the UN of which we are a permanent and arguably most powerful and active member, makes the legality. So I would prefer the words right and wrong, even though they are also loaded words, rather than legal or illegal. At least with right and wrong a person has a chance to decide for themselves rather than referencing a higher power.


Well there is always power generation ... but no I don't really believe that. They are developing nuclear weapons not power stations. However, it's a very rational thing to do when all the superpowers already have them.

This is sort of the same principal as trying to prevent your kids from getting high even though you have done it yourself. You may not have the moral high ground, but it doesn't mean you should let them go ahead and get stoned.

There are differences of course. A kid on pot might steal from you but probably won't attack you, no motivation. likewise you're not likely to carpet bomb their room looking for paraphenalia.


Then I claim not to be a patriot, but a humanitarian. I enjoy my country. I do not love it unconditionally.