Bush on iraq...(here we go again.)

In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate the toning down of such vulgar name calling (such as liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing, demo, repub, or anything of that sort.) It seems that it's just too easy to label opposition as any of these things and that in and of itself is a justification to write off much of what someone says.
Click to expand...

Gee, that wasn’t your attitude in this thread:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218598

Specifically, this comment:

If I hear one more bumpkin say...
"I support the war on terror" I might just snap.
Click to expand...
 
As I recall president Bush referred to strategic weapons which could reach America. To my knowledge a WMD artillery muniton is incapable of doing that.
To this date we have found no strategic nuclear weapons nor any proof of a link to Iraq and 9/11.
 
Silver bullet, I was meaning 'bumpkin' to mean ignorant fool, not 'ignorant fool who disagree's politically'. (supporting a war on 'terror' isn't a political stance, per se) Notice all my examples are of partisan name calling. Partisan=being a follower=stupid.
Nobody's ever said, "oh, well he's a bumpkin so his political statement or position isn't valid", while that might have been said due to being a 'liberal'. Who are you? A card carrying member of the bumpkin anti-defamation league? :D
 
Wellll!! As a bumpkin AND a BADL member I am offended! Offended, I tell you! Where's my lawyer, where's the ACLU?:) :rolleyes:

badbob
 
Eghad...

You make a good strong point about the problems happening. Now here's what I wanna know, short of violence what can the People do in order to make the government get out of Iraq and come back home already? Or are we just going to have to wait until the next President, and let more of our men and women die for the almighty dollar? (Yeah, I'm gonna get flamed for that remark, but it's frustrating that our troops are over there because a bunch of old fat f$%ks who want more money in their pockets are making it happen at the expense of OUR money, and OUR people.)


Epyon
 
Epyon, you won't get flamed by me. Fight on, brother! Being from the South it's hard to credit Sherman with anything good, but as they say "Even a blind hog roots up an acorn every once in a while.":)

" War is at best, Barbarism....it's glory all moonshine. It is those that have niether fired a shot nor heard the groans of the wounded, who cry aloud for blood, more vengence, more desolation. War is hell." - William Tecumseh Sherman

badbob
 
Thank you for your support badbob...

Hehehe, funny thing that me being Bengali, I have a bit of a redneck attitude at times we both are fairly hick-ish in how we'd rather be left alone by the government to do things on our own, patriotic yet rebellious, like the simple things in life, love the outdoors, and really love our guns. I have had my share of meeting really cool rednecks. Some of the ones that stare at me like I'm a "terrorist" tend to be surprised when I approach them politely with respect, and the moment we talk about guns, hunting, and camping it's all good from there.


Epyon
 
Redworm said:
Can you provide any evidence to suggest that not invading Iraq would have led to battles on the streets of New York with the same people that destroyed the towers?
Click to expand...

Yes. Madrid Train Bombings and London subway bombings. Both are evidence that Al Qaeda are actively continuing their terrorism.
 
Getting out of Iraq is out of the question. Take into consideration that the jihadists have already defeated one world superpower when they ran the Russians out of Afghanistan.

What happens when we leave Iraq and let the jihadists crumple Iraq? They won we lost. That will give them the recruting tool they need. Bush and company miscaculated when they started the war in Iraq. It was done in a rush without any long range planning or thoughts given to consequences.
He and the neocons gave Osama an early christmas present by starting the war in Iraq. They had everything to gain and we had everything to lose. iraq can still be won if we adapt to this new generation of stateless warfare. We just need to learn the weak points and exploit them.


Look at the recent Israeli excursion into Southern Lebanon using third generation warfare vs fourth generation warfare. They lost Hezbollah won.
Sure the Israelis wiped out some Hezbollah strongholds but Israel came out on the short end of the stick when the smoke cleared. Hezbollah is alive and well and was able to strike Israel. Now with the peacekeepers coming un Hizbollah will be able to use them as shield to set back up.
 
WMDs = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

NOT nukes, but WMDs none the less. Iraqi inroads towards nuclear weapons? PLENTY of people thought so.

Iraq had terrorist ties, supported terrorists, trained and harbored terrorists - plenty of facts, articles etc. to support that. Nothing proven on 9/11 of course.

Clinton set the US's "regime change" policy for Iraq, not Bush. He just wouldn't pull the trigger as Richard Clarke states, same with OBL. Bush over-zealous or a BSer? So don't vote for either of them next election.

Were Bush's reasons genuine (to him)..did he really see a threat? Was it just a way to full-fill PNAC goals? Was it just to control oil? (not a bad reason either) Was to avenge the attempted assination of GB senior (also a good reason)?

Administration thought Iraq was NOT a threat before 9/11 - as stated by Rice & Powell in video-documented speeches..."Iraq was contained with no-fly zone, etc", so there was NO pre-ordained desire to invade, despite what leftists say. After 9/11? Maybe they viewed it differently?

Best question is 'is it worth it?' At 1st I thought so, but now I think not - not right now anyway; alot of deaths, maimed etc., alot of expense, and it may have left us in poorer shape to handle other serious threats like Iran, Syria, and NK. We will have to get more involved for sure in the mid-east. Atleast we already have the men and equipment there, and like it or not, many know Bush isn't the paper tiger Osama accused Clinton of being, which of course led to that bastard being brazen enough to hit us again and again long before 2003.

Not knowing the answer to the 1st few questions, it is the last qustion that I care about - and we will have to see. We do have to keep the presence there until the Iraqis take over their security. Lets not cave and lose again - then it WOULD be in vain.
 
Madrid Train Bombings and London subway bombings. Both are evidence that Al Qaeda are actively continuing their terrorism.
Click to expand...

Also evidence that "fighting them there" does not mean that we don't have to "fight them here".

Sorry, you just torpedoed your own argument.
 
GoSlash27 said:
Also evidence that "fighting them there" does not mean that we don't have to "fight them here".
Click to expand...

Indeed we are fighting terrorists around the world; Iraq and Afghanistan are fronts in the war and that is why Al Qaeda have been killed in both spots. That is not merely the only places that are present. Spain and England have been targeted. Last week they tried to penetrate our air defenses, but due to British intellgence and the wire intercept NSA web, we jointly prevented yet another terror attack. The theme of all this is vigilance everywhere against terror and the validity of the military battle-front doctrine being used in Iraq and Afghanistan... better to fight them there as opposed to here!
 
I guess to some people it doesn't matter that "there" is as much a home to innocent civilians as "here". But they're not American so why should we care, right?
 
Indeed we are fighting terrorists around the world; Iraq and Afghanistan are fronts in the war and that is why Al Qaeda have been killed in both spots. That is not merely the only places that are present. Spain and England have been targeted. Last week they tried to penetrate our air defenses, but due to British intellgence and the wire intercept NSA web, we jointly prevented yet another terror attack. The theme of all this is vigilance everywhere against terror and the validity of the military battle-front doctrine being used in Iraq and Afghanistan... better to fight them there as opposed to here!
Click to expand...

This argument is completely self-conflicted. We are either fighting them 'everywhere' or 'there'. Which is it?
 
"There" is included in "everywhere." Now, if someone said "only there" then yes, that would conflict with the term "everywhere"
 
Administration thought Iraq was NOT a threat before 9/11 - as stated by Rice & Powell in video-documented speeches..."Iraq was contained with no-fly zone, etc", so there was NO pre-ordained desire to invade, despite what leftists say. After 9/11? Maybe they viewed it differently?
Click to expand...

From the Republican Party Platform of 2000:

"A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction. In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, the clear purpose of which is to assist the opposition to Saddam Hussein. The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime. We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq.


I would say that the administration had designs on Iraq before the 2000 elections..........


Posted Sunday, May. 05, 2002

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html
 
Last week they tried to penetrate our air defenses, but due to British intellgence and the wire intercept NSA web, we jointly prevented yet another terror attack.
Click to expand...

Wrong-o.

The British plot was broken up by British cops, acting on information from Pakistani intelligence. They inflitrated the "cell," which they are now saying was entirely home-grown, with no indications of an operational connection to Al-Queda. The NSA had nothing to do with it, and the bust required no new laws or special government powers, or armies of occupation on foreign soil. Just good old-fashioned police work. You know, the kind of thing that solves "law enforcement problems".

Yes, the Bush Administration would love for you and everyone else to believe that these guys were busted via the NSA's suspension of the 4th Ammendment, but they know that contention wouldn't hold up, so they haven't even tried. They've just talked up the bust, and then said "this proves that there are still terrorists out there, which is why we need to be able to monitor anyone we want without a warrant." They leave the connection to be made in the listeners mind.

It's just as deceptive and dishonest as saying, once, "We've had no evidence that Saddam was involved with September the 11th," and then, every time anyone from the administration goes in front of the media, every sentence that contaqins a reference to Iraq also contains a reference to 9/11. No, they haven't said that Iraq was involved, at least not since Cheney's "Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi inteligence officers in Prague" spiel was conclusively debunked (3 years ago, and I still hear defenders of the war trot it out), but they'll say everything short of that, and let repetition do the rest. "Iraq..... 9/11...9/11...Iraq....Iraq...9/11," repeat as needed, until 60+% of Americans believe that Iraq planned or funded the 9/11 attacks, and 30+% think that the hijackers were Iraqis. And 85% of our soldiers in the field think that they are there as payback for 9/11.

Frank Lunz sent a letter to Republican lawmakers, discussing the messaging strategy for the midterms. It specifically says that Republicans are not to mention the war in Iraq without refering to 9/11. Preferrably in the same sentence. Fortunately, if recent polling data trends continue, we aren't buying that line anymore. A majority of Americans now think the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror (tm). They're right.

--Shannon
 
The British plot was broken up by British cops, acting on information from Pakistani intelligence. They inflitrated the "cell," which they are now saying was entirely home-grown,
Click to expand...

Welcome to the next generation of terrorism...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top