If this guy gets in

Quite honestly I don't think the war in Iraq is a mistake. For many reasons I think the biggest mistakes were made in the first gulf war. We never should have stopped, there were so many war crimes committed we had every right to clean house then. It seemed like the right thing then but history has proved that wrong.
The surrender/cease fire that was signed by Iraq had several mistakes in it and was then never really enforced by the first Bush or Clinton. We had reasons from day one to take out Sadam's regime. I never needed any connection to 9-11-01.
btw For those that always say we never found WMDs you may be right but that was not what Iraq agreed to. They agreed to not have WMD programs, we have found enough to know they had programs and never stopped research. I still don't even think we needed that, every day they locked on to jets patrolling over the agreed upon and UN approved no fly zone they risked war.

What good has come of it? I'm not sure any has. What good came from WWI or WWII while they were going on or even just after? It took decades for much good to come. I sure wish no bad would come of war but it does. No good came from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, only less bad stuff because it ended that war. I'm not so nieve as to think good comes from war. A lot of bad happens to stop a lot of worse things.
I do think people are much more free there today. I never use peace and freedom together, far too many people in history have had peace but were not free. Nearly all of them when they had the means fought to get freedom.

Have there been mistakes, sure. Do I think if it had been a perfectly run war it could be over now, nope. I think the days of fighting a war that just ends with one side surrendering are over in that part of the world. I'm not sure that has ever happened in that part of the world. You only need to look at Israel to see that, they have never lost yet they are always being hit.
I do think this war can be won but it isn't going to end with a simple peace agreement. I'm nearly of the belief this is three countries not one. I'm not sure what the government needs to look like there but I'm sure that is the key.

I sure am a Bush supporter but that doesn't mean I think he is always right. There is plenty I think he did wrong. I've never liked the idea that airports need to be a place of less freedom and harsh treatment. I don't like what Bush thinks about immigration. He has said he would consider signing an 'assault' weapons ban if one ever got to him. I'm sure I could think of more but you get the idea. There is no way I'd agree with more from Algore or Kerry. If we wanted to get into global warming then I don't agree with any of the current candidates.

One last thing, I'm glad to live in a country where we can have a civil discussion like this over the internet. There are far too many where you can not do this.

Tim
 
Problem is Charlie....there is no one here that will get a burst of super human strength to lift the burning car off my legs.
 
Quite honestly I don't think the war in Iraq is a mistake. For many reasons I think the biggest mistakes were made in the first gulf war. We never should have stopped, there were so many war crimes committed we had every right to clean house then. It seemed like the right thing then but history has proved that wrong.
The surrender/cease fire that was signed by Iraq had several mistakes in it and was then never really enforced by the first Bush or Clinton. We had reasons from day one to take out Sadam's regime. I never needed any connection to 9-11-01.
btw For those that always say we never found WMDs you may be right but that was not what Iraq agreed to. They agreed to not have WMD programs, we have found enough to know they had programs and never stopped research. I still don't even think we needed that, every day they locked on to jets patrolling over the agreed upon and UN approved no fly zone they risked war.

What good has come of it? I'm not sure any has. What good came from WWI or WWII while they were going on or even just after? It took decades for much good to come. I sure wish no bad would come of war but it does. No good came from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, only less bad stuff because it ended that war. I'm not so nieve as to think good comes from war. A lot of bad happens to stop a lot of worse things.
I do think people are much more free there today. I never use peace and freedom together, far too many people in history have had peace but were not free. Nearly all of them when they had the means fought to get freedom.

Have there been mistakes, sure. Do I think if it had been a perfectly run war it could be over now, nope. I think the days of fighting a war that just ends with one side surrendering are over in that part of the world. I'm not sure that has ever happened in that part of the world. You only need to look at Israel to see that, they have never lost yet they are always being hit.
I do think this war can be won but it isn't going to end with a simple peace agreement. I'm nearly of the belief this is three countries not one. I'm not sure what the government needs to look like there but I'm sure that is the key.

I sure am a Bush supporter but that doesn't mean I think he is always right. There is plenty I think he did wrong. I've never liked the idea that airports need to be a place of less freedom and harsh treatment. I don't like what Bush thinks about immigration. He has said he would consider signing an 'assault' weapons ban if one ever got to him. I'm sure I could think of more but you get the idea. There is no way I'd agree with more from Algore or Kerry. If we wanted to get into global warming then I don't agree with any of the current candidates.

One last thing, I'm glad to live in a country where we can have a civil discussion like this over the internet. There are far too many where you can not do this.

Tim
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim, I really do appreciate your point of view and I appreciate you sharing it. You have well-thought-out points of view and I agree with you on a lot of them.

I also appreciate that you never branded me or anyone else in this discussion a "LIB". It's just petty when it resorts to stuff like that. I'm far from being a "lib", but I'm also far from being an ultra-conservative as well. I think following a single party line or even a single ideal is just extremely ignorant. In fact one of my current bias' against conservatives is that they (as a group) seem to much more likely to try to degrade any opposition by resorting to spouting off "LIB!" against anyone who opposes or even questions their doctrine. Or worse try the "you don't love your country if......" or "you're not a true patriot if...." rediculousness to try to brand any naysayers as evildoers. It is never a cut-and-dried situation with anything political and to degrade it to US or THEM is about as silly as can be.

I think most people lie somewhere in the middle across the breadth of all issues. I agree with Republicans on many issues and on Democrats with others. No one party is always right. So I don't take sides and then put my blinders on when "MY" side blunders. I hold them accountable for their actions. I don't particularly care about their words.
 
Last edited:
I am either a liberal conservative...or a conservative liberal.....I believe most Americans are. The polarization of politics has gotten rediculous. Why should we, The People, have to pay lobbyists to try and have our Elected Officials vote the correct way? Why do party leaders strongarm their members to vote certain ways when they want to vote their constituants interests? I truly believe that term limits are the only way to get this changed and that is up to the States. I watch "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and see that nothing has changed in 4 generations. Look at the media, Obama was the darling and looked unstoppable....boom...someone in the media elite must have seen something threatening with him and pow.....he is looking like a dumbass now. Perception is reality anymore and I guess we are the guilty ones in the equation. It was aluded to previously that we don't have the caliber of politicians that Truman or FDR or Eisenhower were...or the founding fathers....well, who in their right mind would want to run for a major office with the scrutiny and mud mining that goes on? We have exactly what we deserve.
 
Mike,

The only problem with your "possibility" is that it's just as likely if not moreso to have a long-term nagative effect on Iraq and the mideast. Add that to the FACT that (as per the 9/11 commission) there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was directly or knowingly supporting terrorists. In fact he was an enemy of Al Queda. Iraq was far less likely to act as a breeding ground (now and then) for terrorism than many other mideast countries. For starters- all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

So the whole concept of the Iraq war providing a means to fight terrorism on foreign soil rather than the U.S. is just plain idealistic and completely without supporting evidence. Please provide opposing proof that this is just naivete'.
[/QUOTE]


Did you read the 911 commission report? Not the executive summary, but the full report. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html It was published in book form written by a very talented writer, and actually was very compelling, I thought, especially the 2nd section on the origins of Muslim terrorism and Al Qaeda.

And we can go back even further in American history. Have you ever heard of the Barbary Wars, which started when Thomas Jefferson was President? I don't think the Barbary Wars had anything to do with "Chickens coming home to roost", although I'm sure some could distort history there as well. Interestingly, most of the slaves then were the Christians pulled from towns along the coast and pulled from vessels plundered for their bounty (many US vessels among them) by Islamic pirates and privateers. We had to kick their asses twice (Why it's called the Barbary wars - plural) because the pacifists still insisted on paying tributes to the Muslims after the first Barbary war. Funny how history repeats itself...maybe we would learn if more in society studied history, and more schools taught it, rather than trying to change it. We had to go back and kick their asses again before they stopped attacking our trading vessels in the med and stopped taking our citizens as slaves.

The only thing these bastards understand is total destruction...so it's either our destruction or theirs. War isn’t for making friends. It’s for defeating your enemies.

Now what were you saying?
 
You are correct. Mea culpa. I don't monitor anyone.

If you choose to posit your statements as fact, and tell other people they have to prove it for you, that is your choice.
 
From March 24th of this year.

"Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:
  • In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.
  • For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.
  • According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."
  • In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."
  • In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
  • In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.
  • That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.
There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

In describing the relations between the Army of Muhammad and the Iraqi regime, the authors of the Pentagon study come to this conclusion: "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."


No, no pictures of Saddam and Osama bin Laden smoking cigars in the palace together. But to say he never knowingly funded terrorists or was an enemy of Al Qaeda? That doesn't seem correct either.
 
I promised myself, I would not write on this thread again because I don't want hard feelings. But............

What has Bush done to hurt the country ? Why was Iraq a mistake ? *******WOW*******

Where does one begin. Has anyone noticed How the whole world hates the USA (except for Britain) ? Has anyone noticed the value of a dollar has dropped to nil ? Has anyone noticed that there are 5,000 marines dead and 5 times that many maimed of injured as a result of Iraq ? And the number will continue to climb if McCain is elected. Has anyone noticed that we are borrowing money from third world countries, including China ? Under Bush we have gone from surplus to the biggest deficit in history that our kids and their kids will have to pay for. That is an undeniable FACT.

If you want to see how mismanaged and ill advised the Iraq war is, may I suggest you look for a documentary called "Iraq for Sale: War Profiteers". It recently ran on Starz cable. It tells us about how Haliburton (our VP's company) has wasted beyond belief - and not just money. We train soldiers to perform support related tasks (MOS military ocupational specialty) and then hire private companies (Haliburton, KBR) to do that work - leaving our soldiers to perform guard duty or nothing at all. We sent our soldiers to war without proper armament to protect themselves and the vehicles they ride in. Parents were sending flak jackets to their kids in a war zone !!!!!!!!! Where did the mysterious WMD go ? Can anyone say they were concerned that sadam was going to hurt anyone in the USA ? Get Osama, by all means (fair or unfair) but get him where he is in Afghanistan - he does not reside in Iraq.

Has anyone noticed that the VAST majority of Americans want this over with and Bush ignores our wishes ? I repeat - what happened to government of the people, by the people ?

My guns are not at issue here - I have the cold dead fingers mentality.

I'm leaning towards isolationism at this point. Spend this money on walls, seaport and airport security. Stop giving money and aid to people who hate us.

The Roman Empire fell and if we don't change our ways, so will we.


WE NEED TO MAKE THESE POLITICIANS DO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO OR GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE.

It really is up to we the people.

I'm sorry if anyone is offended - this is solely my opinion. I love that we can do this free from fear of reprisal.

Hey Eric - what the hell have you done.

This will be my last buck .385 on the issue.

Bill
 
Last time we visited Argentina, the people seemed very nice. I didn't really feel as though anyone hated us. Giovanni had Directv SouthAmerica at his hacienda. We would tune to CNN en englise for some news from home...My word, no wonder the world hates us I guess. Once more Argentinians see this crap spewed on CNN, they'll surely hate us too. And if you think that CNN is bad here, just wait till you get a taste of it in another country. It's amazing how many people sound like tape recorders repeating what they have "learned" from CNN or other similar "news" networks.

Truly amazing.

Hitch
 
Quote: "Well, there is where 'belief' has all the bearing on 'perception'. Anyone that believes President Bush does not genuinely love America and what it stands for is way off base, IMO. Now, does that mean every decision will be best for America in 6mos, 2 years, 10 years, etc? No. The President is a man, just like you and I. To take issue with Iraq, you really have to believe his were NOT the best of intentions and that he really was not doing what he actually thought best for America, it's safety, and it's future in the world. Now, if you can take those intentions as being genuine, then it matters not if mistakes were made between point A and point B, but where you go from point B and how you get there. If you MUST think his intentions were NOT genuine, then you can believe it's about oil, special interests, etc. and you can say 'he screwed it up'. ...point being, you have to think the man hates America to believe his intent was anything other than doing what he (and MILLIONS of others, including MOST democrats) thought best for our nation at the time. Blame game.LOL"

Here here! I am so sick and FN tired of hearing how bad Bush is. The economy held out for a helluva lot longer than I ever thought was going to after initially faltering post 9/11. In '03-'06 I remember folks spending money likes drunken sailors on SUV's and home improvements....fancy landscaping, giant ass TV's that aren't necessary and multiple hunting and fishing trips every year, SBE 2's when the SBE 1 works a helluva lot better etc. And yet....all I heard those years was "HOW BAD THE ECONOMY IS" from the media and all the Bush haters. You want to see a shitty ecomony...you got it present day. In fact, you can correlate the hard slide to the Democratic take over after the last election if you were so inclined. Folks aren't spending like drunken sailors anymore, gas is through the roof, I can hardly pay my moronic mortgage(if there was one reason for Bush to say "OOops" it's the housing crisis which has apparently led to our current sitch according to the experts).

The constant droning of Bush hatred and the requisite whining from the socialist scumbags in Europe that can barely wipe their asses without our assitance and those who travel there that perpetuate the myth that they all "hate America" now is nauseating. These, the same old country folks that idolize us, our freedoms, our ECONOMY! You want to whine about Iraq....about how it's an oil thing. Yep....oil is damn cheap now because of that war eh? Or is it the spin...."Bush and Cheney started the war to line the pockets of their buddies at Halliburton and all the big oil companies!". There's always some way to blame them for all the ills of our country and the world in general. Now I'll be the first to say that things could've been done differently(better...maybe?)but the idea that our executive branch started a war with biblical implications for money when they're both rich to begin with is just plain old assinine.

What is obvious is that lots of people seem to forget that this BS started when a bunch of evil scum terrorists flew planes into the WTC, the pentagon.......and that this hatred seems to have been nurtured during the previous administrations clear lack of traditional American international threat mitigation. It could've happened to any administration from either party. Our reaction was based on the fact that it was A) Unprecidented(Pearl Harbor was at a time of war by a sovereign country and not on the mainland and civilians were not targeted) and B) The enemy is not a clearly defined entity that exists in many forms all over the world and C) Our president moved forward based on intelligence that was supported by the vast majority of US citizens as well as politicians and military leaders both democrat and republican. So, that leaves us with our current state of affairs. A bunch of sniveling, divisive, traitors(media, self interested politicians, clearly un-informed citizens)that are throwing our country to the wolves so that they can further their own personal agendas(unions, politicians)that have nothing to do with the real truth, ie HYPOCRYSY!

BDaves....If you can't stand all the candidates then obviously you'd have to be a real conservative type because you have choices of an extreme left-wing liberal, a liberal and a moderate democrat/republican type. If you had your way then I assume we'd have a conservative republican running and YET all we hear about is how badly we need change. Don't you think that being more conservative would just "deepen" the alleged problems associated with the current administration? I hear this argument a lot and frankly I just don't think it holds water. Based on McCain's stance on the issues and his past chastizing of the Bush administration I'd say his potential presidency may be just what lots of these "change seekers" are looking for. The idea that Hilldog or Obama would move this country in a positive direction is not in the realm of reality. Sorry, but it's fantasy. There is only one real candidate and he will be the next president. Don't waste your vote on the Bizarro world of the "New Democratic Party" and vote for McCain and the New Republican Party(see "old moderate democrat"). For change of course.
 
Last edited:
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]So, that leaves us with our current state of affairs. A bunch of sniveling, divisive, traitors(media, self interested politicians, clearly un-informed citizens)that are throwing our country to the wolves so that they can further their own personal agendas(unions, politicians)that have nothing to do with the real truth, ie HYPOCRYSY!

Great points Jay. Again we see the heart of the US problem. A fat, lazy, and uneducated populace that will regurgitate anything it hears without any effort to challenge nor verify the so-called "Facts"

-D
[/font]
 
From March 24th of this year.

"Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:
  • In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.
  • For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.
  • According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."
  • In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."
  • In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
  • In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.
  • That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.
There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

In describing the relations between the Army of Muhammad and the Iraqi regime, the authors of the Pentagon study come to this conclusion: "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."


No, no pictures of Saddam and Osama bin Laden smoking cigars in the palace together. But to say he never knowingly funded terrorists or was an enemy of Al Qaeda? That doesn't seem correct either.
Click to expand...


Good info. I have not been aware of these abstracts. I will seriously consider this information when making decisions regarding my opinion of the war.

At first blush, however, the fact that this report was commissioned by the Joint Forces seems to hardly make it an objective undertaking. The second point that I noticed was that most of your "smoking gun" points are very circumstantial. Your point: "In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there." OK, so were Iraqis actually involved in the fight, or did he just say they should? Seems pretty thin. And the other "evidence" seems equally as thin. I guess it just depends what you want to believe.

I have no argument that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. And in fact I think we should have captured him when we first had the chance and had a concrete reason to do so; the first Gulf War. But I have yet to see overwhelming evidence that supports Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq the 2nd time. No WMD's, no direct links to the 9/11 hijackers, no attacks on other countries, nothing other than being a total a-hole and the chance that maybe someday he'd be an actual threat to the U.S. Maybe for a lot of people that was reason enough, but not for me. Not to the tune of $3B and rising.
 
I am either a liberal conservative...or a conservative liberal.....I believe most Americans are. The polarization of politics has gotten rediculous. Why should we, The People, have to pay lobbyists to try and have our Elected Officials vote the correct way? Why do party leaders strongarm their members to vote certain ways when they want to vote their constituants interests? I truly believe that term limits are the only way to get this changed and that is up to the States. I watch "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and see that nothing has changed in 4 generations. Look at the media, Obama was the darling and looked unstoppable....boom...someone in the media elite must have seen something threatening with him and pow.....he is looking like a dumbass now. Perception is reality anymore and I guess we are the guilty ones in the equation. It was aluded to previously that we don't have the caliber of politicians that Truman or FDR or Eisenhower were...or the founding fathers....well, who in their right mind would want to run for a major office with the scrutiny and mud mining that goes on? We have exactly what we deserve.
Click to expand...


Damn, Lee. I hate it when we agree. Or just so's I don't spoil your reputation, I guess I should say : I hate it when I agree with you. You summed up a lot of my current frustration with our gov't in just one paragraph.
 
Mike,

The only problem with your "possibility" is that it's just as likely if not moreso to have a long-term nagative effect on Iraq and the mideast. Add that to the FACT that (as per the 9/11 commission) there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was directly or knowingly supporting terrorists. In fact he was an enemy of Al Queda. Iraq was far less likely to act as a breeding ground (now and then) for terrorism than many other mideast countries. For starters- all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

So the whole concept of the Iraq war providing a means to fight terrorism on foreign soil rather than the U.S. is just plain idealistic and completely without supporting evidence. Please provide opposing proof that this is just naivete'.
Click to expand...


Did you read the 911 commission report? Not the executive summary, but the full report. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html It was published in book form written by a very talented writer, and actually was very compelling, I thought, especially the 2nd section on the origins of Muslim terrorism and Al Qaeda.

And we can go back even further in American history. Have you ever heard of the Barbary Wars, which started when Thomas Jefferson was President? I don't think the Barbary Wars had anything to do with "Chickens coming home to roost", although I'm sure some could distort history there as well. Interestingly, most of the slaves then were the Christians pulled from towns along the coast and pulled from vessels plundered for their bounty (many US vessels among them) by Islamic pirates and privateers. We had to kick their asses twice (Why it's called the Barbary wars - plural) because the pacifists still insisted on paying tributes to the Muslims after the first Barbary war. Funny how history repeats itself...maybe we would learn if more in society studied history, and more schools taught it, rather than trying to change it. We had to go back and kick their asses again before they stopped attacking our trading vessels in the med and stopped taking our citizens as slaves.

The only thing these bastards understand is total destruction...so it's either our destruction or theirs. War isn’t for making friends. It’s for defeating your enemies.

Now what were you saying?
[/QUOTE]


Hmmmm......there's lots of muslims in many other countries besides Iraq. So you're saying we should attack every country that harbors muslims in an attempt at total islamic eradication?

Wow, and here I thought Al Queda was just the bad apples? Please continue to enlighten me.
 
Quote: "Well, there is where 'belief' has all the bearing on 'perception'. Anyone that believes President Bush does not genuinely love America and what it stands for is way off base, IMO. Now, does that mean every decision will be best for America in 6mos, 2 years, 10 years, etc? No. The President is a man, just like you and I. To take issue with Iraq, you really have to believe his were NOT the best of intentions and that he really was not doing what he actually thought best for America, it's safety, and it's future in the world. Now, if you can take those intentions as being genuine, then it matters not if mistakes were made between point A and point B, but where you go from point B and how you get there. If you MUST think his intentions were NOT genuine, then you can believe it's about oil, special interests, etc. and you can say 'he screwed it up'. ...point being, you have to think the man hates America to believe his intent was anything other than doing what he (and MILLIONS of others, including MOST democrats) thought best for our nation at the time. Blame game.LOL"

Here here! I am so sick and FN tired of hearing how bad Bush is. The economy held out for a helluva lot longer than I ever thought was going to after initially faltering post 9/11. In '03-'06 I remember folks spending money likes drunken sailors on SUV's and home improvements....fancy landscaping, giant ass TV's that aren't necessary and multiple hunting and fishing trips every year, SBE 2's when the SBE 1 works a helluva lot better etc. And yet....all I heard those years was "HOW BAD THE ECONOMY IS" from the media and all the Bush haters. You want to see a shitty ecomony...you got it present day. In fact, you can correlate the hard slide to the Democratic take over after the last election if you were so inclined. Folks aren't spending like drunken sailors anymore, gas is through the roof, I can hardly pay my moronic mortgage(if there was one reason for Bush to say "OOops" it's the housing crisis which has apparently led to our current sitch according to the experts).

The constant droning of Bush hatred and the requisite whining from the socialist scumbags in Europe that can barely wipe their asses without our assitance and those who travel there that perpetuate the myth that they all "hate America" now is nauseating. These, the same old country folks that idolize us, our freedoms, our ECONOMY! You want to whine about Iraq....about how it's an oil thing. Yep....oil is damn cheap now because of that war eh? Or is it the spin...."Bush and Cheney started the war to line the pockets of their buddies at Halliburton and all the big oil companies!". There's always some way to blame them for all the ills of our country and the world in general. Now I'll be the first to say that things could've been done differently(better...maybe?)but the idea that our executive branch started a war with biblical implications for money when they're both rich to begin with is just plain old assinine.

What is obvious is that lots of people seem to forget that this BS started when a bunch of evil scum terrorists flew planes into the WTC, the pentagon.......and that this hatred seems to have been nurtured during the previous administrations clear lack of traditional American international threat mitigation. It could've happened to any administration from either party. Our reaction was based on the fact that it was A) Unprecidented(Pearl Harbor was at a time of war by a sovereign country and not on the mainland and civilians were targeted) and B) The enemy is not a clearly defined entity that exists in many forms all over the world and C) Our president moved forward based on intelligence that was supported by the vast majority of US citizens as well as politicians and military leaders both democrat and republican. So, that leaves us with our current state of affairs. A bunch of sniveling, divisive, traitors(media, self interested politicians, clearly un-informed citizens)that are throwing our country to the wolves so that they can further their own personal agendas(unions, politicians)that have nothing to do with the real truth, ie HYPOCRYSY!

BDaves....If you can't stand all the candidates then obviously you'd have to be a real conservative type because you have choices of an extreme left-wing liberal, a liberal and a moderate democrat/republican type. If you had your way then I assume we'd have a conservative republican running and YET all we hear about is how badly we need change. Don't you think that being more conservative would just "deepen" the alleged problems associated with the current administration? I hear this argument a lot and frankly I just don't think it holds water. Based on McCain's stance on the issues and his past chastizing of the Bush administration I'd say his potential presidency may be just what lots of these "change seekers" are looking for. The idea that Hilldog or Obama would move this country in a positive direction is not in the realm of reality. Sorry, but it's fantasy. There is only one real candidate and he will be the next president. Don't waste your vote on the Bizarro world of the "New Democratic Party" and vote for McCain and the New Republican Party(see "old moderate democrat"). For change of course.
Click to expand...


Jay, maybe you're correct. I'll give McCain another look. My fear is that he won't do enough about the things that are harming this country from a domestic standpoint and we'll just get another presidency that is caught-up in nation-building (and I don't mean ours).

A focus on fixing Illegal immigration and a faltering education system plus a strong focus on alternative fuel sources would be much appreciated. Problem is that I don't hear much from any candidate on these issues that I believe are much more insidious towards the downfal of our country than terrorism.
 
Quote: "Well, there is where 'belief' has all the bearing on 'perception'. Anyone that believes President Bush does not genuinely love America and what it stands for is way off base, IMO. Now, does that mean every decision will be best for America in 6mos, 2 years, 10 years, etc? No. The President is a man, just like you and I. To take issue with Iraq, you really have to believe his were NOT the best of intentions and that he really was not doing what he actually thought best for America, it's safety, and it's future in the world. Now, if you can take those intentions as being genuine, then it matters not if mistakes were made between point A and point B, but where you go from point B and how you get there. If you MUST think his intentions were NOT genuine, then you can believe it's about oil, special interests, etc. and you can say 'he screwed it up'. ...point being, you have to think the man hates America to believe his intent was anything other than doing what he (and MILLIONS of others, including MOST democrats) thought best for our nation at the time. Blame game.LOL"

Here here! I am so sick and FN tired of hearing how bad Bush is. The economy held out for a helluva lot longer than I ever thought was going to after initially faltering post 9/11. In '03-'06 I remember folks spending money likes drunken sailors on SUV's and home improvements....fancy landscaping, giant ass TV's that aren't necessary and multiple hunting and fishing trips every year, SBE 2's when the SBE 1 works a helluva lot better etc. And yet....all I heard those years was "HOW BAD THE ECONOMY IS" from the media and all the Bush haters. You want to see a shitty ecomony...you got it present day. In fact, you can correlate the hard slide to the Democratic take over after the last election if you were so inclined. Folks aren't spending like drunken sailors anymore, gas is through the roof, I can hardly pay my moronic mortgage(if there was one reason for Bush to say "OOops" it's the housing crisis which has apparently led to our current sitch according to the experts).

The constant droning of Bush hatred and the requisite whining from the socialist scumbags in Europe that can barely wipe their asses without our assitance and those who travel there that perpetuate the myth that they all "hate America" now is nauseating. These, the same old country folks that idolize us, our freedoms, our ECONOMY! You want to whine about Iraq....about how it's an oil thing. Yep....oil is damn cheap now because of that war eh? Or is it the spin...."Bush and Cheney started the war to line the pockets of their buddies at Halliburton and all the big oil companies!". There's always some way to blame them for all the ills of our country and the world in general. Now I'll be the first to say that things could've been done differently(better...maybe?)but the idea that our executive branch started a war with biblical implications for money when they're both rich to begin with is just plain old assinine.

What is obvious is that lots of people seem to forget that this BS started when a bunch of evil scum terrorists flew planes into the WTC, the pentagon.......and that this hatred seems to have been nurtured during the previous administrations clear lack of traditional American international threat mitigation. It could've happened to any administration from either party. Our reaction was based on the fact that it was A) Unprecidented(Pearl Harbor was at a time of war by a sovereign country and not on the mainland and civilians were targeted) and B) The enemy is not a clearly defined entity that exists in many forms all over the world and C) Our president moved forward based on intelligence that was supported by the vast majority of US citizens as well as politicians and military leaders both democrat and republican. So, that leaves us with our current state of affairs. A bunch of sniveling, divisive, traitors(media, self interested politicians, clearly un-informed citizens)that are throwing our country to the wolves so that they can further their own personal agendas(unions, politicians)that have nothing to do with the real truth, ie HYPOCRYSY!

BDaves....If you can't stand all the candidates then obviously you'd have to be a real conservative type because you have choices of an extreme left-wing liberal, a liberal and a moderate democrat/republican type. If you had your way then I assume we'd have a conservative republican running and YET all we hear about is how badly we need change. Don't you think that being more conservative would just "deepen" the alleged problems associated with the current administration? I hear this argument a lot and frankly I just don't think it holds water. Based on McCain's stance on the issues and his past chastizing of the Bush administration I'd say his potential presidency may be just what lots of these "change seekers" are looking for. The idea that Hilldog or Obama would move this country in a positive direction is not in the realm of reality. Sorry, but it's fantasy. There is only one real candidate and he will be the next president. Don't waste your vote on the Bizarro world of the "New Democratic Party" and vote for McCain and the New Republican Party(see "old moderate democrat"). For change of course.
Click to expand...


Jay, maybe you're correct. I'll give McCain another look. My fear is that he won't do enough about the things that are harming this country from a domestic standpoint and we'll just get another presidency that is caught-up in nation-building (and I don't mean ours).

A focus on fixing Illegal immigration and a faltering education system plus a strong focus on alternative fuel sources would be much appreciated. Problem is that I don't hear much from any candidate on these issues that I believe are much more insidious towards the downfal of our country than terrorism.
Click to expand...


I don't think you will find any of the three who really want to do anything about illegal immigration. I sure wish there was. I think the best efforts on that are happening inside the states. Maybe McCain's running mate choice will tell us more about what he has learned the past year.

McCain does at least have a somewhat realistic look at alternate fuels. I heard him recently say he is for stopping the subsidies for corn ethanol. Other then those in the corn business most agree it is not a good direction to keep going. We need to cut our loses and try something else. I believe he is for working on hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear power...about the same as Hillery but I think she is shying away from nuclear and likes subsidies a little more. Obama, there is really not a coin flips difference between he and Hillery on this. At least for what you can tell from his short time in the senate.

I don't see anyone with a clear vision on energy. Seems like they all hope if they throw enough darts one will stick and be a good idea.

Tim
 
So you're saying we should attack every country that harbors muslims in an attempt at total islamic eradication?
Click to expand...


What would be the purpose of asking something so ridiculous, other than to continue to dodge answering my substantive questions?

Hitch
 
Thanks Dave,
They'll get my fishing pole when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

I agree than JM is probably an honorable man (as honorable as a politician can be anyway) I'm just ascared he's committed to the failed policies of the Bush admin. You know if Reagan hadn't dismantled the Dept of Energy that Jimmy C started we might be in a lot better shape today vis a vis the oil economy. Gold standard/silver standard heck. We've been on the oil standard since the early 70's. I remember waiting in line for hours to buy 5 gallons of gas in those days.

Hope doth spring eternal and I pray 2012 ain't gonna be the end.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem,

Harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top