Just wondering if anyone on here agrees with the far right extremist religous vice presidential candidate for the republicans that our mission in Iraq is directed from God.
17 year old daughter is pregnant, husband supposedly was part of "extremist" 3rd party in alaska, allegations of abuse of power for influencing subordinates to fire a state trooper because his relationship with her sister kicked the bucket..this...
All I gotta say is, if she becomes VP..watch out male interns @ the white house.
For what it's worth, she was speaking to students at her former church, so she was kind of just catering to what they wanted to hear, which is not a surprise for a politician.
I still think the woman is crazy though. What would possess you to name your son "Track" ???
A few years ago, G Dubya said almost the same thing when he was vacationing at his Crawford ranch and told the press that he had a dream where god told him to "liberate iraq".
Strang thing is, it was only aired for one day and we never saw or heard of it again. Makes me wonder if the white house put a gag order on the press to cover up George's theological blunder.
You have to watch out for the neo cons. A lot of born again christian weirdos have big money and lots of influence. You dont want someone who talks to god with access to the nukes.
Our mission in Iraq was simple. To get in find the weapons of mass destruction and remove Saddam from power. These were clearly outlined before we went in. A few months later Saddam was gone and the revalations that Iraq really had no more WMDs were coming about. We finished what we were supposed to do a long time ago...
To say that her Christian God wants us there is really an insult to the people of Islam who live there. I wonder what their thoughts would be if they heard that?
Posts: 6 | Location: El Paso, TX | Registered: 23 November 2007
First, thanks Intel Sergeant for clearing up my supposed "bias".I didn't have time last night to post the article myself. The voice of reason is resonating on this post. I do have a bias though against someone who would want to inject thier religion into our government. It's dangerous that someone who could be the right hand woman of our commander in chief if McCain would happen to win thinks that way though. I am all for religous freedom but to say what she is saying and mean it is scary.
They are all corrupt, doesn't really matter what side you take. Democrats Republicans, it's all the same. Just remember the Government isn't here for YOU anymore. It is only there to maintain it's power. They will say what is needed to keep it that way.
"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"
Posts: 253 | Location: Wherever the wind takes me. | Registered: 10 December 2007
14....I agree they are all dirty in way way or another, but when was the last time you heard of a Democrat claiming he or she did somehting because god told him to?
Probably not in a long time and you hear Republicans all the time saying they had a vision or we should do somehting because god told them it the right thing to do.
My argument is we do not need anyone who has claimed god has visited them with access to large nuclear weapons.
I agree with 14 and whyme. Noone in government is perfect, and that goes for republicans and democrats. In these times though, we need to have someone close to our commander in chief who thinks rationally about the world and war for that matter. We can debate forever if it was the right thing to go into Iraq. There are valid arguments on both sides. Obviously our job is to do what our government tells us to and go where they tell us to. It shouldn't be god the one who is guiding those decisions nor should those decisions be made on behalf of god when troops are put into harm's way. By the way there is also youtube footage of this context from Ms. Palin. With that, I'm glad this post isn't being taken out of context.
Will I dont know if any of yall seen the 60 minutes with the terp that works with the FBI when they caught him and talked to him. They said that Saddam only lied about having nukes because he thought that Iran was going to invade iraq so he did it to stop them he never guessed that we would invade them, he only thought we would just bomb the sites where they were suppose to be like air raids not a full scale war. I bet before he got hung he was thinking "damn bad guess"
Some people look for a way to help Bush justify it and some people want him to be charged with war crimes. Saddam might have been a bad guy, but he knew how and what had to be done to keep those people in check. Which we cannot do because of our association with the UN and it's laws. Saddam didn't only keep Iraqis in check but many of his neighboring countries feared him as well. Since we have taken him out of power it seem that the middle east has kinda lost it's mind (even more so than they already were). So despite Saddam's tyrannical leadership and horrible human rights violations, he was actually doing us a favor.
I highly doubt it had anything to do wit Saddam having WMDs though, that was just the cover to boost the war economy and to help big businesses that many of Bush's cabinet members had their hands in. Am I mad about it, no, not really. Why? Because we the PEOPLE have let it happen over several decades.
When I travel over seas I have found myself ashamed to answer my nationality when asked where I'm from. Cuz if you think about it, what are the ONLY two things we rank number 1 in? Military and Economy (which is hitting the shitter). We have become the bullies of the world and I don't think it will be too long before someone pushes back.....and hard. I think a major war on our home soil or a civil war are the only two things that could possibly make any of this so called "Change" that both candidates claim to be offering happen.
Well that was rather long, but just wanted to put my two cents in.
"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"
Posts: 253 | Location: Wherever the wind takes me. | Registered: 10 December 2007
Come on 14! That's part of the problem with the world today is our memeory is about 2 seconds long. It's so easy to look back on something someone else did and critize it. The old saying hinsight is 20/20 and all. But at the time there were many countries that thought Iraq had WMDs, the British, Israel, and many other intelligence agencies thought they did. And besides, Saddam had violated so many of the conditions of the peace agreement after the first Gulf war that something had to be done. It's like, how many times do you have to tell a child not to do something before you actual punish them. Clinton should have done it years before, but he got caught up in other things.
As far as you being ashamed of your country, well that a sad state of affairs on your part, especially considering your country's tax payers pay you salary.
Originally posted by 14JSPC42007: Some people look for a way to help Bush justify it and some people want him to be charged with war crimes. Saddam might have been a bad guy, but he knew how and what had to be done to keep those people in check. Which we cannot do because of our association with the UN and it's laws. Saddam didn't only keep Iraqis in check but many of his neighboring countries feared him as well. Since we have taken him out of power it seem that the middle east has kinda lost it's mind (even more so than they already were). So despite Saddam's tyrannical leadership and horrible human rights violations, he was actually doing us a favor.
I highly doubt it had anything to do wit Saddam having WMDs though, that was just the cover to boost the war economy and to help big businesses that many of Bush's cabinet members had their hands in. Am I mad about it, no, not really. Why? Because we the PEOPLE have let it happen over several decades.
When I travel over seas I have found myself ashamed to answer my nationality when asked where I'm from. Cuz if you think about it, what are the ONLY two things we rank number 1 in? Military and Economy (which is hitting the shitter). We have become the bullies of the world and I don't think it will be too long before someone pushes back.....and hard. I think a major war on our home soil or a civil war are the only two things that could possibly make any of this so called "Change" that both candidates claim to be offering happen.
Well that was rather long, but just wanted to put my two cents in.
It's one thing to gripe about all that is wrong but if you are actually shameful of your country, the country that you fight for and could die for, then maybe you should find one you can be proud of. There are plenty of folks who would trade with you in a second.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Advice... Go upstairs, grab your big girl panties, and put them on....
Posts: 277 | Location: Fort Campbell, KY | Registered: 15 February 2008
ArmyStudyGuide Community 
